Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: DREDIOCK on June 22, 2014, 12:04:33 PM
-
Just a suggestion.
Perhaps at small air fields replace the hangars with groups of wingtip to wingtip parked aircraft. Should take the same amount of ord to destroy them all. but you can tell how damaged a "hangar" is on a particular pad by how many aircraft are destroyed. Should make for an interesting and more authentic visual effect as often aircraft werent kept in hangars.
-
I posted a similar idea a few years back to maybe give some more options for strafing, so I give a +1. I would love to see a low level Mosquito mission strafing up and down a runway and effectively shutting it down instead of having to drop hangars.
-
The debate on ideas like this, have been since you can take off in any plane from any base, it's hard to decide what plane(s) should be on the base. I think it should be the top 5 planes flown from the last tour. So it would cycle tour to tour, or at least have a chance to.
+1
-
And how about making it so the fewer AC left, the higher the ENY of the available planes is. Just a thought...
-
And how about making it so the fewer AC left, the higher the ENY of the available planes is. Just a thought...
That would work to counteract what little effect ENY has as the side with numbers would find it easier to accomplish than the side without numbers.
-
+2 :D
(http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y262/claudewick/Bf%20109%20F4%20%20JG5/DSCF7409.jpg)
(http://www.echobasetoys.com/Dragon_Pics/Dragon_Warbirds_Pics/Me-109/50333.jpg)
-
+2 :D
(http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y262/claudewick/Bf%20109%20F4%20%20JG5/DSCF7409.jpg)
(http://www.echobasetoys.com/Dragon_Pics/Dragon_Warbirds_Pics/Me-109/50333.jpg)
Cool
-
who are the Germans keeping the fuel next to the fighter in the revetment? just asking...
oh and +1
-
who are the Germans keeping the fuel next to the fighter in the revetment? just asking...
oh and +1
That's not fuel. It's kegs. :cheers:
-
That's not fuel. It's kegs. :cheers:
Then it should be, "who are the Germans not keeping enough keg's next to the fighter in the revetment?".
:D
-
Then it should be, "who are the Germans not keeping enough keg's next to the fighter in the revetment?".
:D
That's the daily ration for the pilot. Come on, he's got to stay sober enough to scramble in an emergency.
-
HOW WOULD THE DAMAGE BE COUNTED? AS IT IS,THE PERSON WHO PUTS THE LAST ROUND OR ORDS INTO A HANGAR TO FINISH IT OFF GETS THE DESTROYED HANGER MESSAGE. IF YOU HAD ..SAY 4 PLANES FOR A HANGAR, WOULD YOU GET 25% CREDIT HANGAR DESTROYED FOR EACH A/C DESTROYED? OR WOULD ONLY THE PERSON WHO GETS THE LAST OF THE 4 A/C DESTOYED GET THE MESSAGE. THIS IS NOT A SCORE QUESTION, ITS A BASE ATTACK QUESTION,AS I AM GUESSING EACH AIRCRAFT DESTROYED WOULD GIVE YOU THE WRECKAGE OF A BURNING SMOKING A/C.THATS MORE SMOKE AND FIRE DISBURSED ON THE FIELD AND TO A PILOT MAY LOOK LIKE A PARTICULAR HANGAR IS DOWN WHEN IN FACT IT IS 3/4 DOWN. I SEEM TO REMEMBER ALOT OF CONFUSION AND HOT TEMPERS WHEN WE HAD THE OLD STYLE TOWNS THAT EVERY BUILDING HAD TO BE DOWN TO TAKE IT...AND THERE WAS NO WHITE FLAG TO LET YOU KNOW WHEN IT WAS READY.......THERE WOULD ALWAYS BE SOME TINY LITTLE BUILDING STILL UP THAT YOU HAD TO SEARCH FOR...DO WE WANT THAT AGAIN? WITH AIRFIELDS? ADDITIONALLY,IF A HANGAR IS 50% OR 75% DOWN WILL IT LIMIT ANYTHING PERTAINING TO THE AIRCRAFT, FOR INSTANCE,WHEN FUEL IS DOWN,YOU ARE LIMITED TO 75% FUEL AND NO DROP TANK. IF A HANGAR IS 75% DOWN WHAT COULD YOU LIMIT? AVAILABILITY BASED ON ENY? FOR INSTANCE 75% DOWN...NO 5 ENY PLANES.....THAT WOULD BE A WAY TO LINIT AN OPONENT WITH PLAYER ENY HAVING AN EFFECT ON THE WHOLE MAP...JUST THAT BASE HANGAR..ONE AT A TIME
-
HOW WOULD THE DAMAGE BE COUNTED? AS IT IS,THE PERSON WHO PUTS THE LAST ROUND OR ORDS INTO A HANGAR TO FINISH IT OFF GETS THE DESTROYED HANGER MESSAGE. IF YOU HAD ..SAY 4 PLANES FOR A HANGAR, WOULD YOU GET 25% CREDIT HANGAR DESTROYED FOR EACH A/C DESTROYED? OR WOULD ONLY THE PERSON WHO GETS THE LAST OF THE 4 A/C DESTOYED GET THE MESSAGE. THIS IS NOT A SCORE QUESTION, ITS A BASE ATTACK QUESTION,AS I AM GUESSING EACH AIRCRAFT DESTROYED WOULD GIVE YOU THE WRECKAGE OF A BURNING SMOKING A/C.THATS MORE SMOKE AND FIRE DISBURSED ON THE FIELD AND TO A PILOT MAY LOOK LIKE A PARTICULAR HANGAR IS DOWN WHEN IN FACT IT IS 3/4 DOWN. I SEEM TO REMEMBER ALOT OF CONFUSION AND HOT TEMPERS WHEN WE HAD THE OLD STYLE TOWNS THAT EVERY BUILDING HAD TO BE DOWN TO TAKE IT...AND THERE WAS NO WHITE FLAG TO LET YOU KNOW WHEN IT WAS READY.......THERE WOULD ALWAYS BE SOME TINY LITTLE BUILDING STILL UP THAT YOU HAD TO SEARCH FOR...DO WE WANT THAT AGAIN? WITH AIRFIELDS? ADDITIONALLY,IF A HANGAR IS 50% OR 75% DOWN WILL IT LIMIT ANYTHING PERTAINING TO THE AIRCRAFT, FOR INSTANCE,WHEN FUEL IS DOWN,YOU ARE LIMITED TO 75% FUEL AND NO DROP TANK. IF A HANGAR IS 75% DOWN WHAT COULD YOU LIMIT? AVAILABILITY BASED ON ENY? FOR INSTANCE 75% DOWN...NO 5 ENY PLANES.....THAT WOULD BE A WAY TO LINIT AN OPONENT WITH PLAYER ENY HAVING AN EFFECT ON THE WHOLE MAP...JUST THAT BASE HANGAR..ONE AT A TIME
I think your caps lock is on...
In other news...
Your idea for the hangar w/ eny limits has been mentioned before. 4 hangars, 1 down, 0-5 eny planes can't be used. 2 down 0-15 can't be used, 3 down 0-25, all 4 only 40 ENY planes.
As for damage to object topic, I think it would be how it is now. I do 98% damage, you come in and get the last 2%, you get credit.. which while I think that is wrong (damage should = % of points awarded ), that's just how it is now, perhaps it will change with the New Terrain Engine.
-
+100
I agree this would be a fun addition. Although, hangars could still be used in unison with or maybe on certain types of Airfields and not others.
I hope to see one or two little changes like this with the new terrain. That would be a good time to get all the whines in and over with and begin another phase of AHaddiction for myself.
:salute
-
Very cool Dolby :aok
Actually cooler than "very cool" now that I think on it a bit.
-
Why not both hangers and parked aircraft, to shut down an airfield you would need to do both, destroy hangers that repair aircraft and destroy the parked aircraft. That way HTC would only have to ad the parked destroyable aircraft. They could be added to each of the airfields. Perhaps in a later version or upgrade they could tie the destroyable aircraft revetments to certain types of aircraft. Once the aircraft revetment is down the type of aircraft associated with that revetment would be unavailable until that revetment is restored. A small airfield could have three hangers to repair fighter aircraft with 6 aircraft revetments associated with each hanger and each aircraft revetment associated with 6 different fighters. When a base is captured, the only aircraft available would be those flown in and parked in an open aircraft revetment. Down times for Hangers would be 15 minutes with aircraft revetments are down until resupplied.
You could do the same thing with Bomber Hangers and bomber revetments.
This idea could even be expanded out to allow control of the number and type of aircraft available at an airfield. This would add a new element to the strategy of the game. After all, there were no airfields in WWII that contained every type and model of aircraft both fighter and bomber in any theater of war that I know of.
-
1) would make it harder to shut a field down, especially for bombers, unless you put the revetments all right next to each other, in which case there's little point.
2) seems like there's little point if you still have to destroy the hangers as well.
3) limiting number of aircraft at a field isn't good. "Sorry, you've got to fly an extra 35 miles to the fight, because in real life, they're were only a certain number of aircraft at a field. Don't worry, we'll still let you shoot down aircraft from your own, and allied countries though :aok".
-
1) would make it harder to shut a field down, especially for bombers, unless you put the revetments all right next to each other, in which case there's little point.
2) seems like there's little point if you still have to destroy the hangers as well.
3) limiting number of aircraft at a field isn't good. "Sorry, you've got to fly an extra 35 miles to the fight, because in real life, they're were only a certain number of aircraft at a field. Don't worry, we'll still let you shoot down aircraft from your own, and allied countries though :aok".
Not really. It could still work the way it does now. Replace a hangar with parked AC in the same location. The only real difference would be you could see visibly what percentage was down. That one last bomb it takes to drop on a hangar location could still be all it takes to destroy the remaining plane/s by way of cuncussion
This idea is as much for aesthetics and to add a some visible realism as anything.
-
At the very least add aircraft on the ramps vehicls on the roads, supply trucks moving between storage and hangers, make the airfields active and maybe each object worth .01 to .04 of a perk and 2-5 damage points.
-
Not really. It could still work the way it does now. Replace a hangar with parked AC in the same location. The only real difference would be you could see visibly what percentage was down. That one last bomb it takes to drop on a hangar location could still be all it takes to destroy the remaining plane/s by way of cuncussion
This idea is as much for aesthetics and to add a some visible realism as anything.
So say they're are 4 planes per hanger. What's the hardness for each plane? Are they all tied together (best if they aren't strafe-ably soft)
If they're 1/4th the hardness of the hanger, all this will do is make near misses by small bombs less effective.
-
+1 I suggested similar in the BnZs jabo-bail thread.
-
So say they're are 4 planes per hanger. What's the hardness for each plane? Are they all tied together (best if they aren't strafe-ably soft)
If they're 1/4th the hardness of the hanger, all this will do is make near misses by small bombs less effective.
Think concussion. And wouldnt be any less effective then near misses are now.
Course if small bombs are a factor one could always use larger bombs.
To be honest though on a personal level. I dont really feel bad if bombers find it more difficult to completely shut down a field. There are usually no shortage of targets for bombers to hit map wide. And no shortage of bombers looking to shut down fields. And Its hard enough as it is to find a reasonably balanced fight to get involved in now. And often as soon as you do. Some group of schmucks feels they absolutely HAVE to shut it down even though there has been no indication of a capture intent on either side.
If your not looking to destroy the town too. Dont shut down the field. There is no point to it. And in such cases not only are you being annoying to the enemy. But to your own side as well.
Dont get me wrong. I enjoy a good struggle to capture or defend from a capture as much as anyone. And to that I say. have at it. But not every fight is a capture attempt.
If field capture is the goal when shutting down a field. Then those few planes that are missed by small bombs can be easily offset by the fighters in the area (which there never seems to be a shortage of) simply finishing the job by strafing.
And if your goal is to prevent a field from capturing your base. Thenyou would be more effective bombing the VH, Ammo bunkers and barracks then you are by shutting down any of the aircraft
-
Think about it. Say a 500lb bomb lands 20yds off to the side of the pad. While sufficient to destroy the the fighters nearest it, the others survive due to the diminished damage at the greater distance (I assume my observations are correct; bombs do have diminishing damage further towards the edge of the blast radius?).
This will only further decrease usage of bombers like the Ki-67, the Ju-88, the G4M, the Boston. Decreasing diversity also decreases fun.
Also, it would kill immersion for me to see tank rounds impacting a fighter, and see nothing happen. If you want fighters, make them weak and plentiful.
Unless overall hardness is decreased,