Author Topic: Idea discussed at the con.  (Read 10519 times)

Offline viper215

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1076
      • http://www.bops.us
Idea discussed at the con.
« Reply #45 on: July 07, 2006, 12:41:59 PM »
I dont like it that much keep it the way it is. My .02
- Viper215 - Birds of Prey - Falcon Wing -
               - www.bops.us -

Offline Bronk

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9044
Idea discussed at the con.
« Reply #46 on: July 07, 2006, 12:44:19 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Kermit de frog
I believe Auto-Level is automatically engaged for you once you go into the bombsite.   Make it so that you can't drop bombs unless you are in the bombsite.

Crap, I don't mean to hijack this thread.



Ju 88 exception?


Bronk
See Rule #4

Offline Cooley

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 891
Idea discussed at the con.
« Reply #47 on: July 07, 2006, 12:46:55 PM »
I dont like the Idea at all

but i do like the idea about Bombers having to be in bombsight
to drop

cept A-20's, Ju88s and TBM's etc
Cooleyof 367th

Offline detch01

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1788
Idea discussed at the con.
« Reply #48 on: July 07, 2006, 12:48:05 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by MOSQ

On the smoke idea:

Having a hangar pop up at a capped field but giving it two minutes of smoke time to launch planes/GVs would be a problem.


Agreed, but only for the time it takes for the change in game play to become the norm. I think fields should be tougher to take - we'll get better & longer fights out of it, and it will reward those who take the time to plan and coordinate a good field capture mission.  



Cheers,
asw
asw
Latrine Attendant, 1st class
semper in excretio, solum profundum variat

Offline Kermit de frog

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3695
      • LGM Films
Idea discussed at the con.
« Reply #49 on: July 07, 2006, 12:49:42 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Cooley
I dont like the Idea at all

but i do like the idea about Bombers having to be in bombsight
to drop

cept A-20's, Ju88s and TBM's etc




Exactly Cooley!

Bronk, yes, you are right too.
Time's fun when you're having flies.

Offline APDrone

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3384
Idea discussed at the con.
« Reply #50 on: July 07, 2006, 12:52:12 PM »
My initial response was... "Hmm... er.. Naaaahh"

After reading some responses and mulling over the cause/effect of this enhancement, I think I'm swinging towards the 'yeah' side.

Here's my $.02:

I understand the attempt to dissuade those who intentionally dive their craft while releasing ord into a target then cratering to tower and reupping within seconds to deliver more ord.  This behaviour should be discouraged.

As is the case with low flying bombers used to drop ord before the blast takes out their own craft.  This, too, should be discouraged. ( Though my favorite pasttime is attacking said craft with the 190-A8 boom-stick platform O' doom. )

And so is the case with those who conduct level bombing and bail out of their craft after having dropped ord., for the sole purpose, supposedly, of gathering up the next load of ord and returning to the target area as quickly as possible. Again, this, too, should be discouraged.

Unfortunately, the level bomber who has every intention to return to base intact may become mauled shortly after delivering their ordnance and lose the credit that they had earned.  Being, primarily, one of these types, it hits a bit close to home, however, if my bombers are destroyed within 2 minutes of my ord detonation, then I have failed in taking the necessary precautions either by target selection or volume/effectiveness of escort fighters.

If I take my bombers into a heavily contested area without proper escort and a herd of 190s/110s pixellates my buttocks after I drop, well.. I deserve it.  It's a risk that will have to be considered when planning missions.  Not unlike trying to sneak a base that is the current staging base for the front line. D'oh!

Seems to me that this change would enhance the need for good teamwork and seriously elevate the importance of good fighter escorts, as well as the defensive CAP forces for different bases.

ALSO.. this allows roving 262 defenders to destroy troop-porking LA7s soon enough to prevent 3 people from thwarting the efforts of 50.  

Sorry.. couldn't resist that last one.

:aok
AKDrone

Scenario "Masters of the Air" X.O. 100th Bombardment Group


Offline Speed55

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1263
Idea discussed at the con.
« Reply #51 on: July 07, 2006, 12:57:36 PM »
you dive in with a heavy fighter and drop on the last hanger, which proceeds to smoke. You extend and see your squaddie below you being chased by a con, and he asks for help..  You reply on vox, " err sorry there buddy pal, i just dropped the last fh, your going to have to wait another minute and fifteen seconds."

I like the increased ack, and ack accuracy idea better, as well as the level bombers being enforced with a pitch limiter or something.
« Last Edit: July 07, 2006, 01:00:41 PM by Speed55 »
"The lord loves a hangin', that's why he gave us necks." - Ren & Stimpy

Ingame- Ozone

Offline Vudak

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4819
Idea discussed at the con.
« Reply #52 on: July 07, 2006, 01:05:12 PM »
I'm with Ack Ack, Cooley & Bronk on this one.
Vudak
352nd Fighter Group

Offline eilif

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1012
Idea discussed at the con.
« Reply #53 on: July 07, 2006, 01:05:43 PM »
Seems just a little too gamey for me, how about it affects your perk points depending on how long you live after. Im no perk potato but it seems a little less radical/gamey to just set it so you lose a certain amount if you die to fast, and gain points if you live past the 2 minutes.

Offline Bronk

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9044
Idea discussed at the con.
« Reply #54 on: July 07, 2006, 01:05:56 PM »
I would to add.
Shrink time to 30 seconds. If the plane has to have significant performance altering damage for this not to apply.
 IE flap shot off apply. Tail shot off doesn't apply.
If attacking AC bails/augers within that time no ords for 10 min regardless of base.
 Give em a real reason to try and survive  an attack.
Think of it as your commanding officer thinks you have misused resources.

Bronk
See Rule #4

Offline Captain Virgil Hilts

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6128
Idea discussed at the con.
« Reply #55 on: July 07, 2006, 01:14:56 PM »
If it will apply to the porking fighters that zoom in on a field and take out troops and ordnance on suicide missions, then yes, do it. It shouldn't just apply to buildings, but to everything, radar, troops, ordnance, and fuel, as well as hangars and such.
"I haven't seen Berlin yet, from the ground or the air, and I plan on doing both, BEFORE the war is over."

SaVaGe


Offline StarOfAfrica2

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5162
      • http://www.vf-17.org
Idea discussed at the con.
« Reply #56 on: July 07, 2006, 01:23:35 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
If it will apply to the porking fighters that zoom in on a field and take out troops and ordnance on suicide missions, then yes, do it. It shouldn't just apply to buildings, but to everything, radar, troops, ordnance, and fuel, as well as hangars and such.


I agree, just dont know if this is possible.

Offline Souless

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 291
Idea discussed at the con.
« Reply #57 on: July 07, 2006, 01:28:37 PM »
I dont like the idea.It would bring a "gamey aspect" to something I want as much realism as possible.
I do believe the hardening of barracks and ammo bunkers should be considered so that simple single passes from fighters cannot destroy them.

Offline ROC

  • Aces High CM Staff (Retired)
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7700
Idea discussed at the con.
« Reply #58 on: July 07, 2006, 01:30:12 PM »
Of course, another option is to simply raise the hardness.

We're setting hangers to 8,000 pounds in Operation Downfall.  No casual porkage here, if you want that hanger down, you better mean it :)
ROC
Nothing clever here.  Please, move along.

Offline Kev367th

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5290
Idea discussed at the con.
« Reply #59 on: July 07, 2006, 01:54:44 PM »
OK, sorry HT the more I think about the idea he more I dislike it. As has been said, how long a person lives should have no effect on how much damage his drop does.

How about -
Each field has an ammo bunker and barracks in close proximity -

So
a) Add extra manned ack to each field in their vicinity.
b) Give the manned acks proximity fuses like the cruiser/cv 5".
c) Make the structures resuppable - each load reduces downtime by 3 mins.

Sorry ROC - 8k for a FH is ridiculous, even the current 3.5k is pushing it.
AMD Phenom II X6 1100T
Asus M3N-HT mobo
2 x 2Gb Corsair 1066 DDR2 memory