Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: Tumor on January 11, 2016, 04:06:03 PM
-
For CV's that weren't ridiculously vulnerable to every drooling TU-2 driver in the friggin game.
Really. And level bombing... no, really.
I'm sorry to be so direct, but, it's dumb.
-
I am sincerely hoping puffy is on the slate for revisal in AH3 as well.
Wiley.
-
I am sincerely hoping puffy is on the slate for revisal in AH3 as well.
Wiley.
Which way? More deadly or less? I see lots of people complaining about CV puffy killing them left and right, yet I've done tests with a set of bombers at 10K attacking the CV. Out of ten trials the CV auto puffy destroyed a single drone before I dropped. In other words, the auto puffy has a vanishingly small probability of protecting the CV from being sunk.
-
More lethal against bombers less lethal against fighters at ridiculous range.
Wiley.
-
More lethal against bombers less lethal against fighters at ridiculous range.
Wiley.
+1 :aok
-
CV acks should be modeled as they were in real life but then the whines would be much louder than they are now about CV acks.
-
Which way? More deadly or less? I see lots of people complaining about CV puffy killing them left and right, yet I've done tests with a set of bombers at 10K attacking the CV. Out of ten trials the CV auto puffy destroyed a single drone before I dropped. In other words, the auto puffy has a vanishingly small probability of protecting the CV from being sunk.
(http://i343.photobucket.com/albums/o460/caldera_08/AH%20motivationals/puffy.jpg~original) (http://s343.photobucket.com/user/caldera_08/media/AH%20motivationals/puffy.jpg.html)
Puffy only works on fighters, especially if they are making violent maneuvers to avoid it.
-
Bombers only work on CVs when they aren't making violent maneuvers to avoid it.
There were some wicked good Admirals out there once upon a time.
-
You should see the sheets of fire that comes off the new battleship when all the ack fires at the drones. It's got 4 5inch manable positions.
-
CV acks should be modeled as they were in real life but then the whines would be much louder than they are now about CV acks.
CV's should also not be allowed 5' off shore either. :)
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/hiQZV6c-MYA/hqdefault.jpg)
(http://i.ytimg.com/vi/TyBP3jjm2qo/hqdefault.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/gBvtgZy.jpg)
(http://ahoy.tk-jk.net/Images8/Okinawa/TaskForceOkinawa.jpg)
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-uNIaC5NmQgc/TtLDGOZn-fI/AAAAAAAACUA/-Edzr4lWTgE/s400/BATTLE+OF+SANTA+CRUZ.jpg)
(http://mediacenter.smugmug.com/010-HISTORICPHOTOS/World/2013-12-17-Pacific-WWII/i-3KBvs7R/0/L/pacific011-L.jpg)
-
Id like to see AP bombs and torps be the only way to sink CV, CA, and coming BB. GP bombs should just knock out some guns
-
CV acks should be modeled as they were in real life but then the whines would be much louder than they are now about CV acks.
Realistic might be excessive. It wouldn't bother me in the slightest if it became something for bombers to fear instead of just being ambiance as they fly in.
Wiley.
-
More lethal against bombers less lethal against fighters at ridiculous range.
Wiley.
THIS!!! Would make a LOT of sense. I'm sorry, but a P-51 (all of them take hits, but good grief) should not sustain critical damage from Puffy at extremely high alt, ever. But it does, near every single time.
Level bombing boats just wasn't a successful tactic in WWII. Really, dive bombers were DEVELOPED because of this. Suicide tards aside (I know this was unsuccessfully addressed years ago), I sincerely hope this is addressed in III... or at least an announcement that it's an easy peasy thing to do, and will remain so as a way to make the people feel good at accomplishing something.
-
More lethal against bombers less lethal against fighters at ridiculous range.
Wiley.
+1 :aok
+2
-
Level bombing boats just wasn't a successful tactic in WWII.
I would.suggest the crews of HMS Repulse and HMS Prince of Wales would disagree!
-
I would.suggest the crews of HMS Repulse and HMS Prince of Wales would disagree!
That was level bombing with torpedoes!
- oldman
-
Maybe if C.V damage is modeled realistically.
1. Heavily damaged C.V's ought to have their speeds reduced and given a slight list.
2. If a C.V. is lit, flight operation ough to be briefly suspended.
3. The C.V's tower ough to be visable on radar.
4. C.V's ought not magically repair itself at sea when an extensive over haul in dry dock would be required.
5. 5" guns should implement the proper sight, not the little circle in the horizon that is currently employed.
-
Maybe if C.V damage is modeled realistically.
1. Heavily damaged C.V's ought to have their speeds reduced and given a slight list.
2. If a C.V. is lit, flight operation ough to be briefly suspended.
3. The C.V's tower ough to be visable on radar.
4. C.V's ought not magically repair itself at sea when an extensive over haul in dry dock would be required.
5. 5" guns should implement the proper sight, not the little circle in the horizon that is currently employed.
Having a CV stuck in a hard right turn for five minutes would be cool if it took a torpedo or bomb aft. We should have "fire bombs" that could light the deck, and do more damage to towns. If you light the deck then you lose the ability to take off for five minutes or so. I think we should keep the ability for a CV to heal over time, It's vital to gameplay. 5" needs a proper sight, absolutely. We also need to figure out a way to stop guys from cheating by putting clear plastic over their screens and drawing on it for range, ect.
-
Realistic might be excessive. It wouldn't bother me in the slightest if it became something for bombers to fear instead of just being ambiance as they fly in.
Wiley.
+1 bombers rarely take hits unless it's manned 5".... But it seems like I always die in a fighter... Losing a wing or some other crap.