Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: tuton25 on November 20, 2014, 11:15:16 AM
-
I would like to see a perked ordnance system where anything over 1,000lbs on a fighter is perked. To go along with this I would like to see hanger damage reduced to 1,000lbs. I think this would allow more people to fly a greater variety of aircraft. This would allow aircraft in the British and Japanese lineup to be used in the attack role, something you rarely see. The hangars should then be impervious to gunfire, to keep 110s and such from strafing down a field. The bombsights would also need to be made less accurate as well, to keep single sets of bombs wiping out a field.
-
Seems like that would add more problems then it would fix imo.
-
Agreed
-
Sounds like you and a few friends should be resetting maps instead.
-
Sounds like you and a few friends should be resetting maps instead.
Sounds like he wants to do just that, but with spitfires.
-
Sounds like he wants to do just that, but with spitfires.
Rather Mossies and P-40s....
-
Rather Mossies and P-40s....
Just because YOU like flying other plane types doesn't mean anyone else does. Forcing someone into a ride they do want to use is going to do nothing but forcing players away from the game. At least with ENY you can switch side if you really NEED to ride that special ride.
-
Instead of perking ords on fighters, institute a 1,000 lb limit (including rockets) on fighters. Let bombers do more of the bombing.
-
This would be rather problematic if implemented.
-
Just because YOU like flying other plane types doesn't mean anyone else does. Forcing someone into a ride they do want to use is going to do nothing but forcing players away from the game. At least with ENY you can switch side if you really NEED to ride that special ride.
I don't understand why people think this will limit your opportunity to fly the late war rides, because it isn't supposed to. Want to take down a hanger with a Pony D? Go right ahead, grab a pair of 500lbers and knock it down. Want to be extra sure you hit it, take the 1,000lbers, but those will cost you.
The point isn't to limit your choices to fit what I want to do. I just want to do the same thing you can...
-
Though I believe it would be far too difficult and not worth the time, there should be far greater value in destroying something when it takes more of a challenge to do so. Meaning: using a P51D w/ a pair of 1000 lb bombs to destory an OBJ should get LESS of a reward than a Mossi using a pair of 500 lbs bombs. Etc
-
The ammo bunkers and radar should be put out of fighter, gun down range anyway. Even the 88s should take a 500 pounder.
-
What about making a few specific targets way more friendly to armor piercing bombs and far less friendly to regular he bombs?
-
Instead of perking ords on fighters, institute a 1,000 lb limit (including rockets) on fighters. Let bombers do more of the bombing.
No, since it was very common for fighters to take more than 1,000 pounds of ordnance for attack missions. Instead of limiting what a player can take, give the player more ordnance options than what we currently have. For example, give the option for the B-25H to take HVAR rockets.
ack-ack
-
No, since it was very common for fighters to take more than 1,000 pounds of ordnance for attack missions. Instead of limiting what a player can take, give the player more ordnance options than what we currently have. For example, give the option for the B-25H to take HVAR rockets.
ack-ack
I know a version of the A20 could carry the earlier war rocket pods seen on the P51B and D25, 2 rocket pods under each wing meaning 12 rockets :)
-
No, since it was very common for fighters to take more than 1,000 pounds of ordnance for attack missions. Instead of limiting what a player can take, give the player more ordnance options than what we currently have. For example, give the option for the B-25H to take HVAR rockets.
ack-ack
Yesssssss :aok
-
I would like to see a perked ordnance system where anything over 1,000lbs on a fighter is perked. To go along with this I would like to see hanger damage reduced to 1,000lbs. I think this would allow more people to fly a greater variety of aircraft. This would allow aircraft in the British and Japanese lineup to be used in the attack role, something you rarely see. The hangars should then be impervious to gunfire, to keep 110s and such from strafing down a field. The bombsights would also need to be made less accurate as well, to keep single sets of bombs wiping out a field.
If it would only take 1000lbs to drop a hanger you would probably see the amount of ords that planes could carry go down. Just like if goons were to carry more than 10 troops, it would take more than 10 troops to capture a base.
-
I would like to see a perked ordnance system where anything over 1,000lbs on a fighter is perked. To go along with this I would like to see hanger damage reduced to 1,000lbs. I think this would allow more people to fly a greater variety of aircraft. This would allow aircraft in the British and Japanese lineup to be used in the attack role, something you rarely see. The hangars should then be impervious to gunfire, to keep 110s and such from strafing down a field. The bombsights would also need to be made less accurate as well, to keep single sets of bombs wiping out a field.
cool, I'll take 2 500 lbs bombs and kill a hangar in my ponyd. but you still wont make me fly any other aircraft.
semp
-
cool, I'll take 2 500 lbs bombs and kill a hangar in my ponyd. but you still wont make me fly any other aircraft.
semp
:rolleyes:
-
cool, I'll take 2 500 lbs bombs and kill a hangar in my ponyd. but you still wont make me fly any other aircraft.
semp
That's the point. It would be nice to widen the aircraft available for a specific role, giving us more variety....
-
Then you would have to ask HiTech to nerf late war rides down equal to early and midwar rides in performance. Or get rid of them so midwar rides become the performance monsters.
This is the same kind of wishful thinking that boys can be manipulated to be girls to make life fair for girls.
After the bombs are dropped the player is stuck in a dog ride. Even the little sqweeker boys who play this game know that.
-
Then you would have to ask HiTech to nerf late war rides down equal to early and midwar rides in performance. Or get rid of them so midwar rides become the performance monsters.
This is the same kind of wishful thinking that boys can be manipulated to be girls to make life fair for girls.
After the bombs are dropped the player is stuck in a dog ride. Even the little sqweeker boys who play this game know that.
Why would he need to nerf the late war rides???
Just limit the amount of ords they can carry
-
To the OP:
NO!
Find something that adds to the game not takes away.
-
What about making a few specific targets way more friendly to armor piercing bombs and far less friendly to regular he bombs?
I like this Idea. Perhaps, making 1 or more of the hangers require AP bombs to destroy it. I also like this idea for the CV and CA, we could still have reg bombs kill all the guns on the CV and CA except the 8inchers (armored turret like that are not going to be hurt by reg bombs).
-
That's the point. It would be nice to widen the aircraft available for a specific role, giving us more variety....
Then....
Why would he need to nerf the late war rides???
Just limit the amount of ords they can carry
-----------------------------------------------------
Giving WHO more variety?? You are asking HiTech to pick winners and loosers which as Zoney pointed out is asking HiTech to take away from the game.
The aircraft are available but, very few players want to use them because they don't want to choose to be less competitive.
Your arguments sound socially just and wonderful. But, social justice always requires a power to force people to not act in their own best interests. It requires a power to take away from people to force equality.
Giving who more variety? The players have already decided, and fly their decisions, which you want HiTech to force them to go against.
In the end, you don't like how other customers are leveraging a part of the game. So you are asking HiTech to take something away from them to force them to stop playing the game that way.
Not as socially just and wonderful sounding as your original arguments.
-
Do away with 1000# bombs on fighters, do away with formation bomber sets of three then lower pounds of fighter ords to kill a hanger to two 500 pounders and six rockets. Set ammo and 88s to 500#s each.
-
The heavy fighters pay a price for their range and payload. Take that advantage away and some people would still fly them but they would no longer be needed for anything.
-
That's the point. It would be nice to widen the aircraft available for a specific role, giving us more variety....
people arent going to use different aircraft just because it now takes less ords to kill a hangar. they are just gonna keep flying the same and now make it easier to destroy hangars.
semp
-
I would like to see ordinance perked.... Or more precisely aircraft perked when heavy ordinance is taken.
However I would like the currency of perks more free flowing throughout the game.
E.g if #perks are risked due to a load out then # perks are earned when that load out causes its full potential of damage.
one rule of thumb would be to make the total bomb load perk age proportional to the total load weight divided by the number of engines.
-
OP is one of your objectives to protect GVs?
-
I like the idea of perking ord. Not a fan of other stuff.
Like this idea: (with a much simpler rule of thumb):
I would like to see ordinance perked.... Or more precisely aircraft perked when heavy ordinance is taken.
However I would like the currency of perks more free flowing throughout the game.
E.g if #perks are risked due to a load out then # perks are earned when that load out causes its full potential of damage.
one rule of thumb would be to make the total bomb load perk age proportional to the total load weight divided by the number of engines.
-
OP is one of your objectives to protect GVs?
I never thought of that, but no, that's not my intent.
I just want to do what everyone else is doing, but not take away from that.
-
I thought perked ordinance was a future objective all along. I think Pyro mentioned something about that a few years ago. HTC's change framework is on glacial movement time, not, "Are we there yet" or even Greenwich. If you have patience and don't blink for a few years, you will see the artwork for rides get old and have distinct generations.
If ordinance gets an adjustment that can impact the average time it will take to capture a field. Expect the field to be adjusted to keep that time the same. Then you will have perked ordinance which was the glacial objective all along.
-
I thought perked ordinance was a future objective all along. I think Pyro mentioned something about that a few years ago.
The last time it was mentioned was y 8 years ago, when the F4U-1A was introduced and the rest of the line was brought to AH2 graphic standards except for the F4U-C. The 'upcoming' perked ords system was the reason for that, as the -C would then just had been a perked sub selection of the -D.
A perked ords system never arrived, and the F4U-C was later updated as well.
-
HTC is staffed with humans and HiTech's crystal ball seems to be very tiny.
-
I hate the perked ords idea....I am totally for adjusting evy for plane with the capabilities of getting "said arms," if need be lift the eny cap of 40 and adjust every plane/gvs eny value respectively. I think this would so much simpler (...think :banana:).
-
I hate the perked ords idea....I am totally for adjusting evy for plane with the capabilities of getting "said arms," if need be lift the eny cap of 40 and adjust every plane/gvs eny value respectively. I think this would so much simpler (...think :banana:).
Giving ord an ENY value to be deducted from the aircrafts ENY value is an interesting idea. I think the problem is that it may just deny access to ordinance for some rides at certain times. ENY does this anyway so maybe it's an acceptable solution from that perspective. To me I would rather a risk and cost motivation than denying access.
-
Btw the idea is the perk ords are not spent at weapon drop time, but rather if you fail to land the plane.
HiTech
-
Btw the idea is the perk ords are not spent at weapon drop time, but rather if you fail to land the plane.
HiTech
Please consider making perks non-refundable on landing, both for ords and perk planes/vehicles in general.
Keeping your perks for a safe landing promotes timidity, which is not very good for a combat game.
-
Please consider making perks non-refundable on landing, both for ords and perk planes/vehicles in general.
Keeping your perks for a safe landing promotes timidity, which is not very good for a combat game.
It's great how aggressive some players are but it's just a style of playing that other people don't choose. That other choice is a response to a challenge that creates a new challenge.
-
Btw the idea is the perk ords are not spent at weapon drop time, but rather if you fail to land the plane.
HiTech
Does that mean perked ord will be tied to ENY with the same active sliding scale cost as perked rides?