reparing GVs or AC

[oakranger]

Why can GVs get repaired when damage, but AC cannot get repaired when you land and parked on the rearmed pad?  I wish that AC can get repaired when you land or do away with the repaired of GVs.

[Lusche]

Why can GVs get repaired when damage, but AC cannot get repaired when you land and parked on the rearmed pad?  I wish that AC can get repaired when you land or do away with the repaired of GVs.

GVs can't be repaired on rearm pad either, so why should aircraft be? 

[Tilt]

I would prefer no re arm pads and have them replaced with both vehicle supplies and aircarft supplies. The provision of these would be linked to their respective hangers. (no vh = no gv supplies.....no FH = no ac supplies) in Both cases the gv/ac has to be stationary and in range to use them.

This would leave barracks as simply barracks removing their supply link. It would also open up the destruction of barracks as a prerequisite to capture. (After all if you want to capture something is it not more sensible to supress local enemy infantry than destroy all local civilian housing?)

[StokesAk]

I would prefer no re arm pads and have them replaced with both vehicle supplies and aircarft supplies. The provision of these would be linked to their respective hangers. (no vh = no gv supplies.....no FH = no ac supplies) in Both cases the gv/ac has to be stationary and in range to use them.

This would leave barracks as simply barracks removing their supply link. It would also open up the destruction of barracks as a prerequisite to capture. (After all if you want to capture something is it not more sensible to supress local enemy infantry than destroy all local civilian housing?)

Wow, +1000

[oakranger]

I would prefer no re arm pads and have them replaced with both vehicle supplies and aircarft supplies. The provision of these would be linked to their respective hangers. (no vh = no gv supplies.....no FH = no ac supplies) in Both cases the gv/ac has to be stationary and in range to use them.

This would leave barracks as simply barracks removing their supply link. It would also open up the destruction of barracks as a prerequisite to capture. (After all if you want to capture something is it not more sensible to supress local enemy infantry than destroy all local civilian housing?)

I can go for that.

[gyrene81]

I would prefer no re arm pads and have them replaced with both vehicle supplies and aircarft supplies. The provision of these would be linked to their respective hangers. (no vh = no gv supplies.....no FH = no ac supplies) in Both cases the gv/ac has to be stationary and in range to use them.

This would leave barracks as simply barracks removing their supply link. It would also open up the destruction of barracks as a prerequisite to capture. (After all if you want to capture something is it not more sensible to supress local enemy infantry than destroy all local civilian housing?)

Sounds like an idea that could work. 

[branch37]

         This would also add some realism to FSO as well IMO.  For example in FSO a base has been completely leveled by enemy bomber formations, and at T+60 here comes the wave of fighters to re-arm and refuel.   

[Nemisis]

Well if you want to sit on the runway for about an hour or so while they replace your prop, order you a new radiator, and fix your damaged Mg then fine by me.



+1  And I realize it wouldn't take that long in the game as it dosen't for GV's.

[oakranger]

Well if you want to sit on the runway for about an hour or so while they replace your prop, order you a new radiator, and fix your damaged Mg then fine by me.

Yet it takes a sec to replace a turret, tracks, engine blowout on a GV.  This is one of the issue i have about this topic.  How come GVs can get repair but AC can not. 

[vonKrimm]

I would prefer no re arm pads and have them replaced with both vehicle supplies and aircarft supplies. The provision of these would be linked to their respective hangers. (no vh = no gv supplies.....no FH = no ac supplies) in Both cases the gv/ac has to be stationary and in range to use them.

This would leave barracks as simply barracks removing their supply link. It would also open up the destruction of barracks as a prerequisite to capture. (After all if you want to capture something is it not more sensible to supress local enemy infantry than destroy all local civilian housing?)

Because an airfield would be a tactical objective while the town is a operational/strategic objective.  the Town represents the waterways, railroads, and road networks; along with other esoteric infrastructure.  The 11 bang-bangs that are quartered in the Quonset huts are not going to sit around on a airfield with little cover to defend it; they are going to deploy to the "town" where cover and hardend structures provided an advantage over an attacker's force.

Armchair General von Krimm

[dunnrite]

Possibly a repair pad INSIDE your Aircraft's/GV's respective hanger? 

[usvi]

Well if you want to sit on the runway for about an hour or so while they replace your prop, order you a new radiator, and fix your damaged Mg then fine by me.



+1  And I realize it wouldn't take that long in the game as it dosen't for GV's.

[Nemisis]

Yet it takes a sec to replace a turret, tracks, engine blowout on a GV.  This is one of the issue i have about this topic.  How come GVs can get repair but AC can not. 

Messed up cartoon world we play (live?) in, aint it? I think it should take longer to repair, the more extensive the damage. If you get tracked, it should take like 60 secs to repair one track, if you get the hydraulics in your turret shot up then it should take like 5 mins to repair. At least in real life, and the times are still shortened. I don't know if my idea would work or not.