Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: Lucifer on May 28, 2014, 01:30:42 PM
-
... to be killed by a machine gun : improve realism plz ! :aok
-
Realistic magical imperviousness to kinetic energy weapons?
-
Realistic magical imperviousness to kinetic energy weapons?
I think his point is that MG fire would be too scattered/not concentrated enough to damage the tower structure to bring it down. There is a lot of space between those cross beams, etc. I see his point. Coding the difference between gun projectile damage and bomb damage is another.
I almost think the tower itself should be untouchable, only the base should be able to be damaged by MG fire.
-
The shack right next to the tower is the one. Either its a bunker or .50 cals kill it everytime. The tower itself, likely only to bombs. Rockets would cause some scraping, maybe sever some iron.
-
I almost think the tower itself should be untouchable, only the base should be able to be damaged by MG fire.
To be honest it never occured to me to strafe the tower itself. I always shoot the little shack under the tower to destroy the radar.
-
To be honest it never occured to me to strafe the tower itself. I always shoot the little shack under the tower to destroy the radar.
That's what everybody does because shooting the tower doesn't work. Either the thread starter doesn't know that or he's asking for magic shacks.
-
That's what everybody does because shooting the tower doesn't work. Either the thread starter doesn't know that or he's asking for magic shacks.
No, I dont think "everybody" does it. While in a tank I hit the tower on a consistent basis with HE from a ways out (just aim for the edge).
While in an aircraft I aim at the base as well, but when coming in at a steep enough angle a player can see the hit sprites on the tower itself. The tower itself can register damage, I'm just in the camp that it is "too easy".
-
In WWII using machine guns on a radar tower (or even its basis) was totally ineffective. Even bombs had real troubles destroying it :
To improve realism, only bombs and rockets should be able to damage/destroy it...
Same for Ords bunkers : bullets destroying a supposed bunker should be completely impossible and kill any realism here... ;)
That's what everybody does because shooting the tower doesn't work. Either the thread starter doesn't know that or he's asking for magic shacks.
-
Same for Ords bunkers : bullets destroying a supposed bunker should be completely impossible and kill any realism here... ;)
Incorrect. 1940 .50 caliber API ammunition was (is) very effective at destroying concrete bunkers.
-
It seems to me that you don't necessarily have to completely destroy the radar set itself. Smash the screen, they can't read it. Kill the operators, nobody is there to read it. Smash up tubes, it stops working. Cut wires, the signal stops transmitting, topple the tower, it stops working.
-
In WWII using machine guns on a radar tower (or even its basis) was totally ineffective. Even bombs had real troubles destroying it :
To improve realism, only bombs and rockets should be able to damage/destroy it...
Same for Ords bunkers : bullets destroying a supposed bunker should be completely impossible and kill any realism here... ;)
The nazis had trouble destroying RAF radar antennas with dive bombers. In AH we're smarter than nazis, we don't try to destroy the antenna, we aim for the little radio shack. But all this is kind of irrelevant because, the radar on fields is just symbolic, it's just a game mechanic, kind of like V bases and hangars are. In reality radar stations were not built on aerodromes.
-
Incorrect. 1940 .50 caliber API ammunition was (is) very effective at destroying concrete bunkers.
:rofl
Could they? Mehbee, but quite doubtful. I'm not an engineer of any sort, but I'd put my money on the bunker being able to shrug off .50 cal fire. Furthermore, I'd be willing to bet that a P51D or even an 8 gun P47x could not bust through a typical thick reinforced concrete bunker in a pass, or two, or three, or four. We're not talking cinder blocks, we're talking major concrete, with steel reinforcement, and probably even a coat of Thompson's Water Seal or two for good looks.
So in a sense, yeah, you'd be better off peein' in the wind and trying to stay dry than trying to bust through a reinforced concrete bunker with a .50 cal.
-
:rofl
Could they? Mehbee, but quite doubtful. I'm not an engineer of any sort, but I'd put my money on the bunker being able to shrug off .50 cal fire. Furthermore, I'd be willing to bet that a P51D or even an 8 gun P47x could not bust through a typical thick reinforced concrete bunker in a pass, or two, or three, or four. We're not talking cinder blocks, we're talking major concrete, with steel reinforcement, and probably even a coat of Thompson's Water Seal or two for good looks.
So in a sense, yeah, you'd be better off peein' in the wind and trying to stay dry than trying to bust through a reinforced concrete bunker with a .50 cal.
So how thick are the AHII bunkers?
-
So how thick are the AHII bunkers?
one pixel thick. but the hardness of it is coaded into the game.
semp
-
The bunkers are just representative. But if bunkers weren't proof against machinegun fire, they're useless. Anybody could have just brought up an HMG and taken it out. As it was, WWII saw the rise of assault guns carrying cannon just to support the infantry.
-
I shoot the bottom of the tower all the time not the shack works fine for me.
-
I agree, ord bunkers are ridiculously easy to destroy, a steel reinforced concrete defensive structure would take .50's all day long, I have seen .50's bounce off compacted mud walls, a specifically engineered 3 foot thick concrete pillbox would end up being gently re-textured but thats about it.
Cumulative damage in a lot of cases in game is simply ridiculous, when a 5 second burst of .303's into the open metal crew compartment of a wirble does no crew damage, but it's easy to gun down hardened defensive structures, supposedly designed to protect ordnance, and 8" gun turrets on battleships :headscratch:
-
Cumulative damage in a lot of cases in game is simply ridiculous, when a 5 second burst of .303's into the open metal crew compartment of a wirble does no crew damage,
It dont?
-
Could they? Mehbee, but quite doubtful. I'm not an engineer of any sort, but I'd put my money on the bunker being able to shrug off .50 cal fire.
Your money would be lost then. The problem is not with the hardness of the ammo bunkers in AH, or even shore batteries. The problem is in how you are picturing the scenario. After you drop 2500 lbs of hardware on a shore battery (for instance) there would not be a lot of concrete left to push through. In the case of ammo bunkers they have much, much less hardness. .50 cal API was designed to punch through much harder stuff.
At some point you guys will possibly start to consider that hitech did put some thought into his game.
-
The bunkers are just representative. But if bunkers weren't proof against machinegun fire, they're useless. Anybody could have just brought up an HMG and taken it out. As it was, WWII saw the rise of assault guns carrying cannon just to support the infantry.
Ammo bunkers were never designed to withstand a direct attack. Instead, they are intended to prevent unintended detonations from airfield accidents, and fires. The igloo itself is usually a concrete arch of limited thickness with an earth mound above it and a concrete fascia of similar thickness (8-12"). Like I said, easily killed by a .50 cal.
Just do a search for "ammunition igloo construction" for thousands of examples.
EIDT: Scroll to the end of the page
http://cargocollective.com/kaitlynstancy/Kingsbury-Ordnance-Plant-KOP
-
Your money would be lost then. The problem is not with the hardness of the ammo bunkers in AH, or even shore batteries. The problem is in how you are picturing the scenario. After you drop 2500 lbs of hardware on a shore battery (for instance) there would not be a lot of concrete left to push through. In the case of ammo bunkers they have much, much less hardness. .50 cal API was designed to punch through much harder stuff.
At some point you guys will possibly start to consider that hitech did put some thought into his game.
:bhead
Forget AH. I'm not talking about AH, I'm referring to the real deal. In AH, ammo bunkers are far too easy to destroy via any weapon. In the real world though, even a direct hit on 4 ft (or thicker) reinforced concrete with X weight of bomb isn't a for sure thing. A near miss would scratch the surface, maybe.
If you think it is worth while for a .50 cal (or 6) to sit and hammer away at a reinforced concrete bunker, and that it is truly an effective way to breach/destroy the bunker in question... then reality escapes you.
btw... HTC put the typical OBJ at the same hardness for a reason: game play. Nothing more. It allows for the most platforms to be able to get the job done, it certainly isn't representative of "real world" fuel tanks, barracks, radar towers, town buildings, ammo bunkers, or the multitude of strategic buildings within the factories.
oh, and on your "API" kick, go check and see just how much more effective AP is vs FMJ really is, especially vs the different mediums.
-
Why oh why did they not just get a few Jugs to hammer away for a few passes at the Atlantic Wall? :old:
-
Remember this game is not a simulation, so HTC has place predictable hardness to each structure. What is unpredictable for most is the ability to land precise strikes on structures.
The biggest difference that I have noted from the original Aces High and AH II, was the noticeable reduction in the reliability of 50 cal. machine guns when attacking field anti aircraft. If you weren't around to have such a comparison, please take it from me the 50 cal. was nearly as effective as the cannons are now.
I could be wrong, but as I recalled, the discussion about the seemingly "nerfed" 50 cal. ground attack had to do with damage radius. Also, I believe that there is a formula used to "average" the types of rounds loaded / fired, that included tracer rounds, incendiary rounds and armor piercing rounds. "There are several different types of ammunition used in the M2HB and AN aircraft guns. From World War II through the Vietnam War, the big Browning was used with standard ball, armor-piercing (AP), armor-piercing incendiary (API), and armor-piercing incendiary tracer (APIT) rounds. All .50 ammunition designated "armor-piercing" was required to completely perforate 0.875 inches (22.2 mm) of hardened steel armor plate at a distance of 100 yards (91 m) and 0.75 inches (19 mm) at 547 yards (500 m). The API and APIT rounds left a flash, report, and smoke on contact, useful in detecting strikes on enemy targets; they were primarily intended to incapacitate thin-skinned and lightly armored vehicles and aircraft, while igniting their fuel tanks. "
Above information taken from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M2_Browning_machine_gun (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M2_Browning_machine_gun)
The result, as most have concluded here, is that in our "game" certain number of direct or proximal hits damages structures in measures of lbs. In actual combat, the random nature of exploding targets is much more dependent on what actually caused the ignition, like fuel from a nearby vehicle or ammo through a pierced door. Take a look at the WW2 P38, P51 and P47 strafing film (~6 mins.) below.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CT4P9Lbl0E0 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CT4P9Lbl0E0)
-
I think his point is that MG fire would be too scattered/not concentrated enough to damage the tower structure to bring it down. There is a lot of space between those cross beams, etc. I see his point. Coding the difference between gun projectile damage and bomb damage is another.
I almost think the tower itself should be untouchable, only the base should be able to be damaged by MG fire.
no the only thing you have to do is shoot the base of the antenna and it goes down
-
I think his point is that MG fire would be too scattered/not concentrated enough to damage the tower structure to bring it down. There is a lot of space between those cross beams, etc. I see his point. Coding the difference between gun projectile damage and bomb damage is another.
I almost think the tower itself should be untouchable, only the base should be able to be damaged by MG fire.
Wouldn't the 50 cal be able to go through the steel rods that criss-cross up and down the radar tower? I don't know what rounds are modeled in game, or the full extent of their capabilities. But I know the 50 cal can at least punch through a 1/2 inch of steel. To me it would seem if you could 'cut' the tower in half that it wouldn't be functional. I think the only round that shouldn't do much damage is the 303, due to it mainly being an anti-personal (infantry) round. Unless I'm mistaken on something here, not a historian on the matter but this topic did get my attention.
:airplane:
-
Strangely enough I was unable to destroy a radar with two passes of a single TU2S and its two 20mm's.
I know they have a slow ROF but one pass I aimed at the bottom and the second I aimed at the tower itself. Nothing.
Next time I'll shoot film. Honestly Ive found the twin 20mms of the TU next to useless.
-
Strangely enough I was unable to destroy a radar with two passes of a single TU2S and its two 20mm's.
I know they have a slow ROF but one pass I aimed at the bottom and the second I aimed at the tower itself. Nothing.
Next time I'll shoot film. Honestly Ive found the twin 20mms of the TU next to useless.
Between the lighter damage compared to the Hispano (3.47 lbs vs 4.0), and the 30% slower rate of fire, it simply takes longer time on target to get the job done compared to a Spitfire. :aok
I strafed down a radar tower today in LW before the map switched over in one pass using the 6/50's of the F6F.
-
Wouldn't the 50 cal be able to go through the steel rods that criss-cross up and down the radar tower? I don't know what rounds are modeled in game, or the full extent of their capabilities. But I know the 50 cal can at least punch through a 1/2 inch of steel. To me it would seem if you could 'cut' the tower in half that it wouldn't be functional. I think the only round that shouldn't do much damage is the 303, due to it mainly being an anti-personal (infantry) round. Unless I'm mistaken on something here, not a historian on the matter but this topic did get my attention.
:airplane:
.50 AP rounds would probably penetrate the steel of the towers, but it would be highly unlikely that they would penetrate in sufficient concentration to cause a structural failure, beating in mind they were rivetted and bolted together, the steel already has plenty of holes in it's structure, a few 1/2 inch holes would be no more damaging than a handful of rivets missing. :old:
-
Well, that depends on your view I suppose. The towers we have in AH resemble the Chain Home (CH) system which would have been steel transmitter towers and wood receiver towers. Whether one or the other their operation is nothing like WWII, but making assumptions about their construction is a little much.
-
lol you should visit Normandy in France : GIs tried Bazooka on some of the German bunkers here, and believe me if a zook didnt hurt a bunker, a .50 wont get more luck ! :D
Remember this game is not a simulation, so HTC has place predictable hardness to each structure. What is unpredictable for most is the ability to land precise strikes on structures.
The biggest difference that I have noted from the original Aces High and AH II, was the noticeable reduction in the reliability of 50 cal. machine guns when attacking field anti aircraft. If you weren't around to have such a comparison, please take it from me the 50 cal. was nearly as effective as the cannons are now.
I could be wrong, but as I recalled, the discussion about the seemingly "nerfed" 50 cal. ground attack had to do with damage radius. Also, I believe that there is a formula used to "average" the types of rounds loaded / fired, that included tracer rounds, incendiary rounds and armor piercing rounds. "There are several different types of ammunition used in the M2HB and AN aircraft guns. From World War II through the Vietnam War, the big Browning was used with standard ball, armor-piercing (AP), armor-piercing incendiary (API), and armor-piercing incendiary tracer (APIT) rounds. All .50 ammunition designated "armor-piercing" was required to completely perforate 0.875 inches (22.2 mm) of hardened steel armor plate at a distance of 100 yards (91 m) and 0.75 inches (19 mm) at 547 yards (500 m). The API and APIT rounds left a flash, report, and smoke on contact, useful in detecting strikes on enemy targets; they were primarily intended to incapacitate thin-skinned and lightly armored vehicles and aircraft, while igniting their fuel tanks. "
Above information taken from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M2_Browning_machine_gun (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M2_Browning_machine_gun)
The result, as most have concluded here, is that in our "game" certain number of direct or proximal hits damages structures in measures of lbs. In actual combat, the random nature of exploding targets is much more dependent on what actually caused the ignition, like fuel from a nearby vehicle or ammo through a pierced door. Take a look at the WW2 P38, P51 and P47 strafing film (~6 mins.) below.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CT4P9Lbl0E0 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CT4P9Lbl0E0)
-
lol you should visit Normandy in France : GIs tried Bazooka on some of the German bunkers here, and believe me if a zook didnt hurt a bunker, a .50 wont get more luck ! :D
You said "some" bunkers. Just like with radar towers, AH cartoon engineers may have skimped in order to get so many built. ;)
Did you view the film? There were a number of attempts on strafing targets with little success of landing hits, and then there were the occasional hints of strikes and even explosions. Anyway, HTC has done a remarkable job at providing a strategic platform to gather around and fly or tank in.
However, until something more engaging comes along, I wouldn't wish to remove any part of the game play, including the things I don't think fit historically, like:
- Destroying entire villages to gain access to a military base
- Unlimited lives and planes
- Three sided war
- All planes are available to all sides
- Killing one troop stops the capture attempt coordinated by many
-
I REPEAT all ya gotta do is shoot the base of the antenna, and it will go down
-
In WWII, Ordinance was rarely stored in hardened bunkers; especially true in newly established forward bases as the lines changed (after D-Day in the ETO for example). In DESERT STORM, our bombs were stored in open top revetments.
-
In WWII, Ordinance was rarely stored in hardened bunkers; especially true in newly established forward bases as the lines changed (after D-Day in the ETO for example). In DESERT STORM, our bombs were stored in open top revetments.
Isn't there a word, like brisance or bricage or something for the shattering force of explosives that are contained (as in a bunker or bomb casing) till they have decomposed or whatever enough to reach a high pressure that gets released all at once when the container breaks open? I'm assuming this is why you wouldn't want to store bombs in a vault, correct?
-
Correct; an explosive's brisance is its measured ability to build enough pressure to burst it's container. Modern day USAF storage areas store 1.1 (class A) explosives in igloos. The design of their construction has thick concrete walls with thick layers of dirt at the bottom which ensure most of the pressure (in case of a mass detonation) is directed upward
-
BTW, look up the Medina explosion - interesting. I have a pic of the actual detonation somewhere; I'll dig it up.
http://wikimapia.org/1687938/1963-explosion-involving-123-000-lbs-of-HE-components-of-obsolete-nuclear-weapons-being-disassembled
https://mysapl.wordpress.com/tag/medina-base-explosion/
Many reports were the detonation was a nuclear yield, but that was not true. The detonation, which still today has not been explained (how it happened), was over 100,000 lbs of tritonol (spl?)
I'll find that pic - it is pretty telling.