If those planes are refueling, they will have only 5HP each and no damage, you will be able to kill them quickly. However, if they are not, they are ready to fly so they count like planes in air and that is a good thing.
23 Jun 2016, 19:35
Suggestion for plane defensive skills while on the ground
This is a suggestion I have:
If an opponent has 10 fighters sitting on an airfield and I hit them with Tac Bombers and/or Fighters, shouldn't they lose planes? How can the grounded planes shoot down my planes, that are "bombing" them from the air?
I don't know if it's possible within the game set up, but the defensive capabilities of air planes on the ground, should be significantly less than they are in air.
People talk about adding "realism" or "historical" elements to this game. Shouldn't I be able to "Pearl Harbor" someones airfield and seriously damage, if not WIPE OUT the opponents air power, at that particular air base?
Just a thought from someone who's been playing 3-4 months. 
Someone once asked, 'What is the difference between me and Saddam Hussein?' The answer is, 'I have a conscience and he doesn't.'- Norman Schwarzkopf
- Boomer Sooner :!: :!: -
- Boomer Sooner :!: :!: -
Post a Reply
Please log in to post a reply.
23 Replies
23 Jun 2016, 19:39
yes there ready to fly, however they are still on the ground..Paramunac wrote:
If those planes are refueling, they will have only 5HP each and no damage, you will be able to kill them quickly. However, if they are not, they are ready to fly so they count like planes in air and that is a good thing.
If Socialists understood Economics, they wouldn't be socialists
-Friedrich von Haye
23 Jun 2016, 19:40
Well if you want realism then how do you know that there aren't people working on those planes who could man the guns and still return some fire at your squad. Just because the planes are on the ground doesn't mean they can't fight, less optimal sure but you can still die from a bullet fired from a plane on the ground just as easy as a bullet in the air.
"It is even better to act quickly and err than to hesitate until the time of action is past." - Karl Von Clausewitz
23 Jun 2016, 19:45
they are very less effective, and how do you propose moving the interceptors? there guns or wings, wont move 90degress in the air..CaponeIU wrote:
Well if you want realism then how do you know that there aren't people working on those planes who could man the guns and still return some fire at your squad. Just because the planes are on the ground doesn't mean they can't fight, less optimal sure but you can still die from a bullet fired from a plane on the ground just as easy as a bullet in the air.
If Socialists understood Economics, they wouldn't be socialists
-Friedrich von Haye
23 Jun 2016, 19:48
True, to point, but how are you going to rotate the guns in the necessary direction(s) to bring the .50 cals to bear on incoming enemies? For a plane to be truly effective, it needs to be in the air. Sitting on the ground, they're nothing more than cannon fodder in most instances.CaponeIU wrote:
Well if you want realism then how do you know that there aren't people working on those planes who could man the guns and still return some fire at your squad. Just because the planes are on the ground doesn't mean they can't fight, less optimal sure but you can still die from a bullet fired from a plane on the ground just as easy as a bullet in the air.
Someone once asked, 'What is the difference between me and Saddam Hussein?' The answer is, 'I have a conscience and he doesn't.'- Norman Schwarzkopf
- Boomer Sooner :!: :!: -
- Boomer Sooner :!: :!: -
23 Jun 2016, 19:50
When attacking an airfield, you only have one run. It is hard enough to hit them anyway, 10 squadrons will just swamp it and get in each others way. Hell, look at the Luftwaffe bombing British airfields in WWII. Didn't do much.
23 Jun 2016, 19:53
You people try to bring realism where it is not needed. Plane on the ground should fight like it fights in the air. You started talking about irrelevant things. If what you mentioned was relevant, in that case it would have to apply to every units everywhere. For example, I have a tank unit in a city and someone attacks it. Maybe he it should be inefective because its crew is drinking tea at barracks or something like that. That is what you propose to happen to planes.
Leave irrelevant things out of this. This is a strategy game, it should be not bothered with individual units placement, crew readiness and other stuff you mention.
23 Jun 2016, 19:55
I was assuming that you were coming in a head on direction that way I wouldn't have to move the plane, wings or even the guns for that matter. I didn't say your planes were being piloted by the smartest airmen in the forceoceanhawk wrote:
they are very less effective, and how do you propose moving the interceptors? there guns or wings, wont move 90degress in the air..CaponeIU wrote:
Well if you want realism then how do you know that there aren't people working on those planes who could man the guns and still return some fire at your squad. Just because the planes are on the ground doesn't mean they can't fight, less optimal sure but you can still die from a bullet fired from a plane on the ground just as easy as a bullet in the air.
"It is even better to act quickly and err than to hesitate until the time of action is past." - Karl Von Clausewitz
23 Jun 2016, 19:55
That I would disagree with. If the Luftwaffe had kept coming at the RAF airfields instead of switching to bombing cities, the RAF at one time, was very near the breaking point.Quasi-duck wrote:
When attacking an airfield, you only have one run. It is hard enough to hit them anyway, 10 squadrons will just swamp it and get in each others way. Hell, look at the Luftwaffe bombing British airfields in WWII. Didn't do much.
Someone once asked, 'What is the difference between me and Saddam Hussein?' The answer is, 'I have a conscience and he doesn't.'- Norman Schwarzkopf
- Boomer Sooner :!: :!: -
- Boomer Sooner :!: :!: -
23 Jun 2016, 19:57
Well, didn't do much was an understatement. Although, that was because the RAF was losing pilots, not planes. The actual attacks were not the best, generally the airfields were fixed in less than a day with the planes being scrambled before the attack came.Lostwingman wrote:
That I would disagree with. If the Luftwaffe had kept coming at the RAF airfields instead of switching to bombing cities, the RAF at one time, was very near the breaking point.
23 Jun 2016, 19:59
I'm not saying it's needed. It's just something I'd like to see added. Also, the human element is less of a consideration with planes on the ground, than ground forces.Paramunac wrote:
You people try to bring realism where it is not needed. Plane on the ground should fight like it fights in the air. You started talking about irrelevant things. If what you mentioned was relevant, in that case it would have to apply to every units everywhere. For example, I have a tank unit in a city and someone attacks it. Maybe he it should be inefective because its crew is drinking tea at barracks or something like that. That is what you propose to happen to planes.Leave irrelevant things out of this. This is a strategy game, it should be not bothered with individual units placement, crew readiness and other stuff you mention.
Planes have thinner skin and are faster to explode when hit with shrapnel, so yes, they would "die" quicker. Armor, in that city, with the commander drinking coffee, is more like to survive an aerial attack(just by design of the machine), than a plane in the same situation.
Someone once asked, 'What is the difference between me and Saddam Hussein?' The answer is, 'I have a conscience and he doesn't.'- Norman Schwarzkopf
- Boomer Sooner :!: :!: -
- Boomer Sooner :!: :!: -
23 Jun 2016, 20:01
Agreed with them losing pilots. Oh well, the Luftwaffe/Germany had their chance and missed out on it.Quasi-duck wrote:
Well, didn't do much was an understatement. Although, that was because the RAF was losing pilots, not planes. The actual attacks were not the best, generally the airfields were fixed in less than a day with the planes being scrambled before the attack came.Lostwingman wrote:
That I would disagree with. If the Luftwaffe had kept coming at the RAF airfields instead of switching to bombing cities, the RAF at one time, was very near the breaking point.
Someone once asked, 'What is the difference between me and Saddam Hussein?' The answer is, 'I have a conscience and he doesn't.'- Norman Schwarzkopf
- Boomer Sooner :!: :!: -
- Boomer Sooner :!: :!: -
23 Jun 2016, 20:01
Yea but we have Chuck Norris on our side so your planes are doomed anyway!
"It is even better to act quickly and err than to hesitate until the time of action is past." - Karl Von Clausewitz
23 Jun 2016, 20:16
That is a bit off. The Soviets had a bomb, as did the Germans, that could take out an armoured column at the length of, or lay mines around the length of, 200 meters. They could carry multiple bombs of this type. Tanks also have thinner armour on top and can be immobilized by HE shells damaging the tracks.Lostwingman wrote:
Armor, in that city, with the commander drinking coffee, is more like to survive an aerial attack(just by design of the machine), than a plane in the same situation
They are doubly screwed if it is, say, any Japanese tank of the war, or a cruiser tank, or a light tank.
23 Jun 2016, 20:26
Agree with you on all counts. The question is this, if you have to choose between sitting in a tank or an aircraft while you are being bombed, which do you chooseQuasi-duck wrote:
That is a bit off. The Soviets had a bomb, as did the Germans, that could take out an armoured column at the length of, or lay mines around the length of, 200 meters. They could carry multiple bombs of this type. Tanks also have thinner armour on top and can be immobilized by HE shells damaging the tracks.Lostwingman wrote:
Armor, in that city, with the commander drinking coffee, is more like to survive an aerial attack(just by design of the machine), than a plane in the same situationThey are doubly screwed if it is, say, any Japanese tank of the war, or a cruiser tank, or a light tank.
and I'm talking dumb bombs, not the guided stuff of today).Me, I choose the tank.
Someone once asked, 'What is the difference between me and Saddam Hussein?' The answer is, 'I have a conscience and he doesn't.'- Norman Schwarzkopf
- Boomer Sooner :!: :!: -
- Boomer Sooner :!: :!: -
23 Jun 2016, 20:38
Both of those are poor options, both are HVT's when bombing. Lying on the ground is a much better option.Lostwingman wrote:
Agree with you on all counts. The question is this, if you have to choose between sitting in a tank or an aircraft while you are being bombed, which do you chooseMe, I choose the tank.
23 Jun 2016, 20:40
I would recommend reading Roald Dahl's experiences of both being strafed and making strafe runs on airfields in WWII. They are based on his own experiences. The book is called "Going Solo" and is a damn good read.
4 Jul 2016, 00:11
The interceptors dont have turrets. They have fixed guns in the nose and/or wings depending on the plane. And even bombers on the ground is "sitting ducks". I agree that planes on the air field should give very little resistence, fueled or not fueled. Someone gave an example with tanks. Yes but tanks are on the ground. If a tank is in the air.. something is wrong. The ground is the tanks right element. The air is a planes right element. A tank needs to be on the ground to be effective. And a plane needs to be in the air to be effective.ATownGtr wrote:
Well if you want realism then how do you know that there aren't people working on those planes who could man the guns and still return some fire at your squad. Just because the planes are on the ground doesn't mean they can't fight, less optimal sure but you can still die from a bullet fired from a plane on the ground just as easy as a bullet in the air.
4 Jul 2016, 00:35
The Bf-110 is in-game, which has a MG in the back. In fact, the Bf-110 captured airfields in Norway with this MG.Chamsin wrote:
The interceptors dont have turrets.
4 Jul 2016, 12:16
Quite true, @Quasi-duck. I believed something along those lines was also done in Crete.
The past is a foreign country.
Post a Reply
Please log in to post a reply.
