Bombers and stuff... -1 reply

Please wait...

ShowroomDummy

I'm too cool to Post

50 XP

6th October 2003

0 Uploads

4 Posts

0 Threads

#1 16 years ago

1) The bombers in the FHmod, especially heavy/big bombers should have more bombs. I think compared to real WWII bombers the number of bombs is too low. 2) If shot is in leg, for example with a rifle, the player should loose the ability to run and could only crawl after the shot instead of simply dying. Same thing if shot in the arm-->aiming should be harder.. Don't Know if it is possible to implement these in to the game... 3) More Finnish versus Russian maps




Witch Hunter General

Dread thinks I'm a special person

50 XP

19th May 2003

0 Uploads

350 Posts

0 Threads

#2 16 years ago

Heavy bombers like the B-17 shouldn't be in FH at all. These are strategic bombers for area bombardment.




hatchetman

The Internet ends at GF

50 XP

11th September 2003

0 Uploads

127 Posts

0 Threads

#3 16 years ago
Witch Hunter GeneralHeavy bombers like the B-17 shouldn't be in FH at all. These are strategic bombers for area bombardment.

That would be foolish, if the B-17s were in WWII, then they should be in this mod. What's a realism mod without realistic planes? And you can use them for area bombardment if you want anyway (Yeah the wont damage buildings, but they will still kill infantry or vehicles among the buildings-which is realistic as well).

As for #2 from showroomdummy, I don't think forcing soldiers to hobble or crawl around is possible without the SDK.




mr_Fish

>

50 XP

27th September 2003

0 Uploads

106 Posts

0 Threads

#4 16 years ago

Well, you can call carpet bombing of a spawn point as a strategic bombing :P so it's ok that b17s are in FH




Witch Hunter General

Dread thinks I'm a special person

50 XP

19th May 2003

0 Uploads

350 Posts

0 Threads

#5 16 years ago

hatchetmanThat would be foolish, if the B-17s were in WWII, then they should be in this mod. What's a realism mod without realistic planes? And you can use them for area bombardment if you want anyway (Yeah the wont damage buildings, but they will still kill infantry or vehicles among the buildings-which is realistic as well).

As for #2 from showroomdummy, I don't think forcing soldiers to hobble or crawl around is possible without the SDK.

dear oh dear. You didn't read my post did you? FH = tactical combat B-17 = strategic bomber strategic bomer = intended to destroy a countrys ability to wage a war(strategic warfare). This basically means industry and(if you're "Bomber" Harris) civillians. The closest thing they generally get to the frontline is hammering down upon bottlenecks in the logistic network behind the front. And "area-bombardment" in strategic terms(and mine) is a bit more than dropping bombs on a few guys and trucks inside a really small area, we are talking about an area of several square miles now.

A B-17 coming in as low as 30 feet and dropping a shitload of bombs at a single guy is not realistic. Chances are that this never occured either. Because the B-17 was real doesn't mean FH needs it. Realism is more than having "real" stuff in the game...it have to be used in a realistic way aswell, and therefore: NO B-17! The only exception would be something similar to BoB.

there are plenty of light and medium bombers that gamewise can perform the same shit as the B-17 as it stands right now, and it would be far more realistic to have those ingame. they did this on Bocage with the B-25, and that's how ot should be....




Witch Hunter General

Dread thinks I'm a special person

50 XP

19th May 2003

0 Uploads

350 Posts

0 Threads

#6 16 years ago
mr_FishWell, you can call carpet bombing of a spawn point as a strategic bombing :P so it's ok that b17s are in FH

no, you can't. that's tactical bombing.....




MkH^

FH tester

50 XP

25th September 2003

0 Uploads

2,286 Posts

0 Threads

#7 16 years ago

Speaking of bombers, B25 isn't much of a bomber in FH, more like a fighter. You can easily take out ground vehicles, fighters, infantry, whatever with it's machineguns.. They should really make it maneuver like a heavy bomber it was. It's really funny to see one dive and take out a single soldier with its machineguns.




simo_03

The Internet ends at GF

50 XP

27th September 2003

0 Uploads

110 Posts

0 Threads

#8 16 years ago

but it wasnt a heavy bomber it was a medium bomber.




[UGB]Brewster

GF makes me horny

50 XP

26th September 2003

0 Uploads

99 Posts

0 Threads

#9 16 years ago

Yeah, B17 shouldn't be doing stuff it did not, and cannot do :D




hatchetman

The Internet ends at GF

50 XP

11th September 2003

0 Uploads

127 Posts

0 Threads

#10 16 years ago
Witch Hunter Generaldear oh dear. You didn't read my post did you? FH = tactical combat B-17 = strategic bomber strategic bomer = intended to destroy a countrys ability to wage a war(strategic warfare). This basically means industry and(if you're "Bomber" Harris) civillians. The closest thing they generally get to the frontline is hammering down upon bottlenecks in the logistic network behind the front. And "area-bombardment" in strategic terms(and mine) is a bit more than dropping bombs on a few guys and trucks inside a really small area, we are talking about an area of several square miles now.

I see your point, but if say, a bombardier position were available in the B-17 and the pilot couldn't drop them, it would encourage the pilot to fly high and let the bombardier look down at the targets, which could be, say, an enemy base. Haven't you seen the anonymous industrial buildings in some maps in the main bases? Or what about when the Axis base is in the middle of a city? These are great "realistic" strategic bombing targets.

But hey, just a suggestion, so nobody get their trousers in a bundle.