Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: LePaul on November 05, 2001, 11:14:00 AM
-
I'm amused to see M16s and Flak Panzers drive THRU the 4000 pound bomb crater I just dropped. Wouldn't that be a good-sized swimming pool? At any rate, that would be a heck of a drop, wouldn't you agree? Put a 4k bomb in a Vehicle Spawn point and whenever they up, down they gooooo....
I'd just like to see craters cause damage. Its a bit silly to see aircraft and GVs rolling THROUGH what should be, impressive ditches and suffering sever landing gear/prop/engine damage.
Apparently we had crater damage as a fluke a while back, I remeber seeing guys trying to get airborne before approaching a cratered spot on the runway, or folks veering off onto the grass to up. Shutting down a runway is just as much strategy as blasting hangars.
Anyways, that's my thought....yours?
-
Runway cratering was a VERY temporary setback in ww2, as it should be in AH, the only thing is, someone forgot to tell the players they HAVE to use a runway to takeoff..
SKurj +)
-
As a temporary setback it would be great. I am all for it but the only time I have ever seen it done right is over in the game Fighter Ace 2. The length of crater effects is ~5 minutes and they have a speed set of ~8-12mph for being able to safely travel through them. However in AH you would need to do the same to taxiways as well since they have been used as takeoff areas in urgent times of scramble for me.
That was about the only good thing they had in the game. Plus in "events" or player run scenarios you could make the areas off the runway non-taxiable (I know its not a word). That made the bombing of runways a viable stratgeic option as well as a viable tactical one.
-
We also used film as a bomb damage assesment tool between frames to decide strategic closure for scoring between frames. Bomb craters within the area of the target could count in this:depending on the rules of the scenario in question. It was used in Ploesti, for example.
-
Yup am up for that one asked that back then and I still want it (along with 190F8's bombs ,ain't I persistant?).
-
I'd like to see it too.
-
ditto!
-
It was that way in WB, I'm confused as to why it does not exist here.
There's a small bump when you hit a crater, but at 50MPH the the plane at the very least should flip over.
-SW
-
Agreed....bring back crater damage!!
Tumor
-
I agree. As regards the use of off-runway areas, I would suggest that planes should bog down in the non-prepared areas if they're over a certain weight. Bombers, for instance, should always bog down (we used to have this in WB as well, where you could not get up to flying speed off the runway, though you could taxi very slowly). A light fighter like a Spit or an unladdened swallow could get airborn from the grass, but not a fully loaded Jug.
I think all ground textures should have a "stiction" rating set by the terrain designer. This would effect how sticky the ground, i.e. how hard it is to move across it. Not only would it effect airplanes ground handling, but also vehicles and ditching results. For instance, gray texture could be set with a high stiction value, to represent very rocky and broken terrain. Planes could not taxi on it above a speed of 5 miles per hour, and would break up if you tried to ditch on it. Likewise, only fully tracked vehicles could roll on it, and then only slowly.
-
I say bring back the crater damage. I've started training on runway bombing already, and I hope I'm not doing it for nothing.
The other night I upped a B17 with 12x500's, was about to drop on ammo, fuel and dar, but I changed my mind. I thought I could practice a bit on runwaybombing. I know 500's could be a bit much to damage runway, no?
Anyway, I set salvo to 12 (everything I had) and changed delay to 0.7, lined up on the runway and.. That was actually fun, hearing the bombs drop with 0.7 seconds in between them. I'm sure 1 second would work even better, cover a wider strip. Anyway, the runway looked like something I wouldn't try to take-off at, now that's for sure. Then I got slightly pissed, because this pretty work didn't affect the planes taking off, although I saw 4 maybe 5 planes explode and no kill message came up. Could it be that crater damage is implented again? If not, what'r you waiting for??
-XroverX
-
Glad to see others agree
I mean, watch war footage from all over the place...modern air forces use bombs like the Durundal (sp?)...nasty bomb, parachutes down then rockets deep into the runway...THEN explodes, making one helluva hole.
Runways, like towns and anything else at a base, are a strategic assett. If the runway looks like the moon, nothing's going to make it outta there. Down time should be similar to that of the city (how fast can you refill a hole and smooth it out?).
I can already hear folks like Laz whining we buffs are ruining his fun...but as it is now, driving thru craters is just silly.
-
i agree bring it back
-
Somehow I knew lazs would get mentioned...
BTW, I like the idea of cratering, but think it should be implemented along with some bomb dispersion.
-
Originally posted by LePaul:
Durundal (sp?)
Durandal ;)
-
Always been for porking runways. Big Yes!!!
-
BTW I think its the ultimate in bias that a lil bush or a sheep can kill a tank but a 500lb bomb crater don't kill a aircraft.
:D
-
I would like to see this feature implemented as well. The only problem I can see is the spawn point bombing that would occur. Suddenly, it would just require 4 bombs to disable a small field (both ends of the runway, and one each in front of the hangers that spawn)
So if you hardened those points, so they could not be cratered, it would work. I think the trees, and killer sheep would deter non taxiway/runway takeoffs.
And for those of you who think hitting a sheep on takeoff would not do much: While in the Army, our unit was deploying to Japan for a training excerise out of Honolulu. On takeoff, our chartered 747-200 struck a single goose dead on the nose cone. Not only could we clearly hear it throughout the plane, but when we landed in Guam for repairs, the whole tip of the plane was caved in so that a 6 foot man would have no trouble standing upright in the dent.
So while our ground vehicles would have no problem makeing short work of the livestock. They should pose a grave threat to planes.
-
What happened to the goose?
-
Yes please bring back the craters .. as long as you can drive thru them at very slow speeds
DW6
-
Yes, bring it back. Rolling over a crater at high speed should collapse the gear and destroy the engine, or flip the plane over. Also, they should put in off-runway realism. A plane that is heavy wouldn't be able to go very fast over grass, because the wheels would sink in slightly, and if you land on the grass in a heavy plane, the gear should also come off. Some terrain, like the beach and the rocky area, should be impassible, because planes would break up or flip and tracked vehicles would get stuck...
-
Seems like craters ought to do *something*.
-
They do Popeye, let the CO know when you missed with your bomb. ;)
-
RE my recent post:
PLEASE can i have mausers that fire geese :D
-
I don't have any hope...it's been asked for a zillion times.
I would LOVE to have these kind of effects, as long as Norden is adjusted accordingly.
Current craters are, in fact, one of the consequences of lack of bomb blast effect. There is only a slight difference in blast radius, wether you drop a 250er, or a 1Ker.
Please, bring some skill to buff missions! Make them fun!
Cheers,
Pepe
-
Pepe, read the interview with HiTech at http://www.wargamer.com (http://www.wargamer.com) .
It sounds like such things as bomb dispersion and other adjustments to the bomber element of AH are coming in the near future.
In regards to realistic off-runway effects on moving planes and vehicles, I agree (as detailed in my post above). I will point out however that most airfields in WWII were infact grass strips (al beit prepared to eliminate holes and bumps). The USAAF 56 Fighter Group did not have a paved runway until they moved to Germany in 1945, and they flew heavy P-47s. I think the idea of linking taxiing stiction (i.e. how hard is it to move wheeled and tracked objects over a type of ground) to the texture map would solve this. Light yellow-green textures could indicate smooth, firm grass area suitable for taxiing, while dark green could indicate tall grass with plenty of gopher holes :).
-
I gotta admit when i first started playing AH when i flew a b17 to a enemy base, the first thing i did was straf the runway, it only made sense to me. Then i was flamed when i asked if it done damage.. hehe
this sounds cool and all but wouldnt it make bombing hangers pointless?
Maybe giving the RW a "breaking point" so if you dropped the right amount of bombs on it it would become unuseable for a short period of time.
Then you could just take off in the grass, easily done but can become a head-ache for some AC (buffs and such).
-
Major problem with that is that there are people who would switch sides to drop bombs on runways of an attacking base. There would have to be a way to differentiate the enemy craters and the friendly ones.
...then again, if there was a difference made between friendly and enemy craters and you wanted to make a gv battle easy to win, just disperse 24 100lbers in the battle area. Your guys ride with no problem while the other guys fall into holes... wonder who would get the kill for that?
-
Does it strike anybody else as ironic that, in a game about air combat, we're trying to find new ways to keep people from flying? :confused:
I understand crater damage would be more realistic and stuff, but so would not being able to fly because of bad weather, putting targets several hours' flight from the bases, and a lot of more stuff that doesn't add to the fun of the game.
-
As the site says, the game is a strat game. Take out fuels, hangars and the list goes on. A flat, smooth runway is a huge asset for any team. If its cratered like the moon, nothing can get in our out.
We're not "trying to ruin your fun"...this isn't a Quake game where you magically re-up in the middle of the battle are charged up. You pick your plane, fuel load, climb accordingly, etc etc.
I'm also in favor of good sized mushroom clouds where bombs impact (especially the 4k!)
-
Originally posted by LePaul:
As the site says, the game is a strat game. Take out fuels, hangars and the list goes on. A flat, smooth runway is a huge asset for any team. If its cratered like the moon, nothing can get in our out.
We're not "trying to ruin your fun"...this isn't a Quake game where you magically re-up in the middle of the battle are charged up. You pick your plane, fuel load, climb accordingly, etc etc.
Thanks for the primer, Mister Ace. This explains why I couldn't find the Quad, and why the player models all looked so, well, funny.
Oh, and.. "it's."
Seriously, though, what you're saying is, "I think it's just too darn hard to shut down an airfield. It should be easier to shut down fields." 'splain to me precisely whose enjoyment would be increased by this, and why it wouldn't be increased even *more* by making them fly 500 miles to target before they get to crater these runways, and forcing them to scrub every other mission because the weather's too bad?
I'm not trying to spoil your fun here, just crankin' up the verisimilitude, dude!
Runy ^Skull^
-
Hmm, figured it wouldnt be long before someone got pissy and turn an intelligent conversation into a flame-fest
But this is the BBS after all. <Puts on flame retardant suit>
As stated earlier, we aren't looking for an easier way to close a field. We're seeking realism in the effects of the bomb blast. I'll pass on your little jabs and just stick to the topic.
You don't find it unrealistic or just plain silly that vehicles can drive through a 1,000 pound bomb crater and full speed and not even the fuzzy dice on the mirror sway? Or, if a runway was bombed, that heavy Lancasters or anything for that matter sail through the crater as if it was fog?
Don't want runways damaged? Then defend the base. You've got AWACS-like radar and numerous aircraft that can whup a buff easily.
-
lol
We thought it was bad with the trees at the end of the runways killing people me262s, crater damage could get ugly because in a lot of the AC you cannot see the RW there for you wouldnt always know if it was damaged..
Ouch :D
(what am i thinking, if this could possibly kill a 262 lets get this idea in the works already! :p)
-
Originally posted by LePaul:
You don't find it unrealistic or just plain silly that vehicles can drive through a 1,000 pound bomb crater and full speed and not even the fuzzy dice on the mirror sway? Or, if a runway was bombed, that heavy Lancasters or anything for that matter sail through the crater as if it was fog?
Don't want runways damaged? Then defend the base. You've got AWACS-like radar and numerous aircraft that can whup a buff easily.
No more unrealistic or silly than being able to place that crater anywhere you want it from 40K. There's a lot more changes that should happen before crater effects become anything more than another silly aspect of the bombers in AH.
But I do agree that bomb craters are needed, just not with the current or anything close to the current bomb modeling.
Troll
-
Originally posted by LePaul:
Hmm, figured it wouldnt be long before someone got pissy and turn an intelligent conversation into a flame-fest
But this is the BBS after all. <Puts on flame retardant suit>
As stated earlier, we aren't looking for an easier way to close a field. We're seeking realism in the effects of the bomb blast. I'll pass on your little jabs and just stick to the topic.
You don't find it unrealistic or just plain silly that vehicles can drive through a 1,000 pound bomb crater and full speed and not even the fuzzy dice on the mirror sway? Or, if a runway was bombed, that heavy Lancasters or anything for that matter sail through the crater as if it was fog?
Don't want runways damaged? Then defend the base. You've got AWACS-like radar and numerous aircraft that can whup a buff easily.
Dude, take that suit off -- we couldn't toast a marshmallow with these "flames." I thought I was well within the spirit of your "this isn't Quake" comment (I paraphrase.) I thought you were condescending and pedantic, but maybe I have misread you. If so, please accept my apology.
Anyway, I agree that it is not terribly realistic to have planes and vehicles rolling through bomb craters. My point is that it is also unrealistic to have bombers flying twenty-five miles and dumping their bomb loads, when the real trip was much longer. In both cases, though, one must ask -- would the game be more enjoyable if these aspects were made more realistic? For me, the answer is no.
I accept that you're more interested in making bomb damage realistic, but not everybody will see it that way. See that lone milkrunner, flying down the east side of the map? He's no longer a nuisance -- he's now able to effectively close a field. You can say "defend it" all you want, but the more seriously you have to take these guys, the more you have to disperse, and the more you become vulnerable to the guy in the Mossie skimming along at treetop level. There were only two single-plane raids of any consequence in the war, and I don't see HiTech modelling Fat Man and Little Boy anytime soon.
So, in summary -- I don't think your idea is stupid or anything. I just think that the secondary effects would make the game less enjoyable to me. And in that, I think my wishes count no less than yours.
-
Originally posted by Runny ^Skull^:
Dude, take that suit off -- we couldn't toast a marshmallow with these "flames." I thought I was well within the spirit of your "this isn't Quake" comment (I paraphrase.) I thought you were condescending and pedantic, but maybe I have misread you. If so, please accept my apology.
Anyway, I agree that it is not terribly realistic to have planes and vehicles rolling through bomb craters. My point is that it is also unrealistic to have bombers flying twenty-five miles and dumping their bomb loads, when the real trip was much longer. In both cases, though, one must ask -- would the game be more enjoyable if these aspects were made more realistic? For me, the answer is no.
I accept that you're more interested in making bomb damage realistic, but not everybody will see it that way. See that lone milkrunner, flying down the east side of the map? He's no longer a nuisance -- he's now able to effectively close a field. You can say "defend it" all you want, but the more seriously you have to take these guys, the more you have to disperse, and the more you become vulnerable to the guy in the Mossie skimming along at treetop level. There were only two single-plane raids of any consequence in the war, and I don't see HiTech modelling Fat Man and Little Boy anytime soon.
So, in summary -- I don't think your idea is stupid or anything. I just think that the secondary effects would make the game less enjoyable to me. And in that, I think my wishes count no less than yours.
LOL, just jesting....don't get me wrong, text is hard to make emotions out of...
But please, the buffs ARE flying more than 25 miles to get to target...at least this buff driver is. Im climbing for quite some time (no, not 40k...I generally fly at 15k to 20k). So, please don't sway into the "buffs are bad" campaign that folks like Laz spit out. :D
-
Originally posted by LePaul:
LOL, just jesting....don't get me wrong, text is hard to make emotions out of...
But please, the buffs ARE flying more than 25 miles to get to target...at least this buff driver is. Im climbing for quite some time (no, not 40k...I generally fly at 15k to 20k). So, please don't sway into the "buffs are bad" campaign that folks like Laz spit out. :D
No, buffs are good... targets. :)
Seriously, they do provide motivation to get my fight on. I have concerns about making them too powerful, though. My personal preference would have a single buff able to do serious, but non-fatal, damage to a single field. That way the lone milkrunner isn't totally ignorable, but doesn't present an emegency. I think allowing a single plane to shut down all the runways on a field would go a little too far the other way. That's all.
I think the proper balance will be struck when everybody thinks their favorite class of ride is discriminated against.
-
I would like to see the Crater model reintroduced, with craters lasting for approx 3 minutes. 5 minutes would be a bit long for gameplay.
Jarbo
-
Originally posted by Greg 'wmutt' Cook:
And for those of you who think hitting a sheep on takeoff would not do much: While in the Army, our unit was deploying to Japan for a training excerise out of Honolulu. On takeoff, our chartered 747-200 struck a single goose dead on the nose cone. Not only could we clearly hear it throughout the plane, but when we landed in Guam for repairs, the whole tip of the plane was caved in so that a 6 foot man would have no trouble standing upright in the dent.
So while our ground vehicles would have no problem makeing short work of the livestock. They should pose a grave threat to planes.
Got any pictures of this supposed 6 foot dent? When did it happen and what airline was it? You see, I build that section of the 747 (designated the 41 section)for Boeing and I find it VERY hard to swallow. Assuming the nose tip was made of aluminum (the current model -400 nose tip is made of composite I believe), a 6 foot dent would mean that the nose had to be pushed all the way back to the forward pressure bulkhead because that is about what the diameter of the bulkhead is. People would have had a radar dish and god knows what else pushed back through their skulls and out their butts. Not only would such damage be catastrophic, but the resulting change in aerodynamics would have had the pilot's sphincter puckering back into his throat. Any sane pilot, not to mention any one that did not want to be severely busted by the FAA, would have IMMEDIATELY turned around for an emergency landing from the same takeoff point. Sorry man, but I think you're full of bologne. ;)
(http://www.applink.net/thunder/sig/DHBG.jpg)
-
everything about bombing is silly. Why pick on one feature?
lazs
-
Somewhat off topic...I found this on Google about the Daisy Cutter Bomb...love to see the Lanc carry the 20k equivalent it had in WW2...
http://hometown.aol.com/old16inf/cas.html (http://hometown.aol.com/old16inf/cas.html)
Amazing pics....
-
Hey LePAul that link doesn't send me anywhere :)
Awulf
-
My error
Try this
http://hometown.aol.com/old16inf/CAS.html (http://hometown.aol.com/old16inf/CAS.html)
-
Yeah GrandSlam bomb would be great. Lancs were specially modified thou, have to be a perk lanc.