Porking. Needs to be changed.

[FLS]

Rule #4

[icepac]

If I attacked a field and only destroyed the ammo bunkers, I would be ashamed.

[Changeup]

The OP didn't make an argument for improved game play. He just expressed a preference and asked a question. I answered the question and you had your usual fit.

Thank you for making my point which, I illustrated in the post you quoted, absolutely escaped you.  The obviousness of the OPs suggestion didn't warrant an argument at all.  In fact, the simplicity of the idea along with his pictorial should have made it clear.  From some of the other posters in this thread, it's pretty clear they got it.

Ever just wanna get away? 

[Changeup]

If I attacked a field and only destroyed the ammo bunkers, I would be ashamed.

You can...with machine guns...cool eh?

[FLS]

Thank you for making my point which, I illustrated in the post you quoted, absolutely escaped you.  The obviousness of the OPs suggestion didn't warrant an argument at all.  In fact, the simplicity of the idea along with his pictorial should have made it clear.  From some of the other posters in this thread, it's pretty clear they got it.

Ever just wanna get away?

You can't explain how the game play would be improved either.

[guncrasher]

You can...with machine guns...cool eh?

changeup we arent fighting ww2. we are playing a game.  during ww2, not many pilots became aces in a matter of minutes.  heck the highest german ace had what 300 400 kills?  when I played full time, I shot down more than that in a month.  heck we have guys here with 10's of thousands of kills.  think a few guys had a couple hundred thousand kills.

in ah in a normal month, there's as many airplanes shot down as there were made during ww2.




semp

[RedAgony]

As to the gameplay, yes I think making ord bunkers harder targets would add to the gameplay by making it more diverse.  As it stands now, you just take a cannon fighter in attack mode and there is no reason to take bombs.

Right now there is no niche for multi-role aircraft other than bombing GVs.  Making targets harder means you'd have to bring bombs just to get the job done.  If people whine because they can't shut down a field/town/port with ONLY cannons what kind of game is this?

Bring back the tactical decision making,  make it a real question of what loadout to bring to a fight.  Make bombing accuracy relative to altitude, right now I don't see much risk/reward driving gameplay, it's LA-7 pork or Ki-67 30K pinpoint bombing.  Doin this may make a comeback for dive-bombers.

Guess I'll stop my rant here, maybe I'll join the masses and ram D-9s into airfields

[Changeup]

You can't explain how the game play would be improved either.

As I've said twice now, its obvious to me and other posters how and why it would add to gameplay.  Stop being obtuse because you were called out for shouting out a simpleton answer.  Now, if you're going to badger people into giving you the obvious answers because you are incapable of seeing them yourself, we should try to badger you into giving reasons as to why it detracts from gameplay but you don't see us doing that.  Why?  Because watching you be Capt Obvious-answer is much more fun.

[The Fugitive]

As to the gameplay, yes I think making ord bunkers harder targets would add to the gameplay by making it more diverse.  As it stands now, you just take a cannon fighter in attack mode and there is no reason to take bombs.

Right now there is no niche for multi-role aircraft other than bombing GVs.  Making targets harder means you'd have to bring bombs just to get the job done.  If people whine because they can't shut down a field/town/port with ONLY cannons what kind of game is this?

Bring back the tactical decision making,  make it a real question of what loadout to bring to a fight.  Make bombing accuracy relative to altitude, right now I don't see much risk/reward driving gameplay, it's LA-7 pork or Ki-67 30K pinpoint bombing.  Doin this may make a comeback for dive-bombers.

Guess I'll stop my rant here, maybe I'll join the masses and ram D-9s into airfields

As many people say there are many ways to play this game. You, it seems, would like to see the game played like me. More tactical, more planning, more strategy, more .... call it class/honor. B17's were not meant to be used as dive bombers, fighters were not meant to gun down half a field, dropping HQ and killing all strategic command by a single player wasn't something that should happen. All these things players CAN do, but I wish they wouldn't do it.

Like golf there is a certain honor in playing the game. Could you drop a stroke off your score here or there? Sure, who would know. The same goes for here. There are short cuts you can use instead of practicing to get better and doing it the "right" way. But the "right" way isn't something that is important to that many any more.

So we look to HTC to tweak the game to curb that kind of behavior. I hope the HQ issue gets fixed and with the new versions field/town layout for a while it will be tougher for many to gun down all the bunkers and such until the find them all. I think it would be a better game if the tools were used more as they were meant to be used, I think it is one of the things that is pushing away customers. Take away the substance of the game.... all those little things people just rush past these days and all your going to end up with it children dropping targets only to tick people off, and and endless joust or chase game. How long until most players are bored with that?   

[FLS]

As I've said twice now, its obvious to me and other posters how and why it would add to gameplay.  Stop being obtuse because you were called out for shouting out a simpleton answer.  Now, if you're going to badger people into giving you the obvious answers because you are incapable of seeing them yourself, we should try to badger you into giving reasons as to why it detracts from gameplay but you don't see us doing that.  Why?  Because watching you be Capt Obvious-answer is much more fun.

Who are you kidding?

[earl1937]

So, just browsing the forums and seeing a complaint come up that I find very valid.

I've spent quite some time in the army, and whenever we needed heavy ordinance (read: most explosives) we had to make an appointment with the local ammo depot. which looked like this:

(Image removed from quote.)

being able to use an LA-7 or worse any plane with only .50cals able to destroy these is a bit silly.  Can't we just make it so ammo bunkers require bombs?  Makes too much sense, I know but I'm just asking.  Or, is there a reason why one person in a single fighter can cripple a base?

I agree, most of the "ammo" dumps I have seen pictures of, during WW2, were shaped like the type of buildings which are singled out as fighter hangars in our game. I to, think it should take at least a 500 pound bomb to destroy a ammo building. Shooting them down with 50 cals, or cannon fire ought to be instant death for the attacker!

[FLS]

I agree, most of the "ammo" dumps I have seen pictures of, during WW2, were shaped like the type of buildings which are singled out as fighter hangars in our game. I to, think it should take at least a 500 pound bomb to destroy a ammo building. Shooting them down with 50 cals, or cannon fire ought to be instant death for the attacker!

How long should it take to rebuild and restock them? 

[Changeup]

Who are you kidding?

Is that your final answer? Lmao.

[ebfd11]

well just look at pictures of ammo dumps during ww2.  I can guarantee you they were out in the open.



semp

Well this is one time I hve to disagree with you Semp...

[FLS]

As to the gameplay, yes I think making ord bunkers harder targets would add to the gameplay by making it more diverse.  As it stands now, you just take a cannon fighter in attack mode and there is no reason to take bombs.

Right now there is no niche for multi-role aircraft other than bombing GVs.  Making targets harder means you'd have to bring bombs just to get the job done.  If people whine because they can't shut down a field/town/port with ONLY cannons what kind of game is this?

Bring back the tactical decision making,  make it a real question of what loadout to bring to a fight.  Make bombing accuracy relative to altitude, right now I don't see much risk/reward driving gameplay, it's LA-7 pork or Ki-67 30K pinpoint bombing.  Doin this may make a comeback for dive-bombers.

Guess I'll stop my rant here, maybe I'll join the masses and ram D-9s into airfields

Removing the option of strafing ords would be less diversity than the choice of strafing or bombing. The purpose of the wish seems to be to force some people to play differently than they choose to play.  Some players would be happier if other players were less happy. Sound like a winner?

Nobody wants to talk about realistic rebuild times for more authentic realism?   

One of the strengths of the game is that different people can play together with different goals, different playing styles, different abilities, etc and everybody can still have a good time. Or they can complain if that suits them better. The good old days weren't better because the ords were harder to put down. Play the way you want to play and don't worry about the choices other players make.