Ill check later © (Just becouse not sure if its a "bug" or "feature"... those things are damnned close around here... included in 2DO list included in 2DO list Fixed. We ordered commandos to drop its Kevlar suits, now you can kill it easly! by now it needs 250kg equivalent impact power to get each segment down. sooner (as franz- promised me) it will be lowered to rockets equivalent impact power, meanning sooner we can straffe bridges with rockets and/or small bombs... I appologise for any inconvenient about this.
I would disagree about lowering the damage needed to destroy a bridge. Bridges were not easy tgts to hit, let alone take down. Most were a skeleton of steel with a concrete roadway. Steel skeletons can take a beating. Ever see a big firework on pavement? I have , they call them IED's. Basically the more potent ones are 155 howitzer shells rigged to explode on command. Most of the energy escapes upward, with minor damage to the roadway. True that rockets will do damage. But the goal here is to take down. Reducing the damage needed to destroy bridges only caters to the groups that dont want to take the time to fly buffs.
right, and they left nice little pot holes in the bridge, or didn't damage the bridge at all, unless it was one of those cheap suspension bridges that could only support a supply truck (couldn't handle tanks in other words). the stuff that blew up were the trucks on the bridge, not the bridge itself.
I agree using dive bombers to hit a bridge section does work, as long as its a bomb of significant size. But a rocket or equivilant powered bomb? Just seems too easy to me.
i set: *bridge section to 2*250kg and immune to 100kg (only two central sections are important currently as franz said) *fuel, radar, warez: immune to 30mm and below 13*37mm; 5*57mm,rs82,pb1; 4*75mm,rs132,he-rp,m8; 2*hvar; 2*50kg,100lbs; 1*wfrgr21; 1*100kg,250lbs; *hut, mast: immune to 30mm and below 6*37mm; 2*57mm,rs82,pb1; 2*75mm,rs132,he-rp,m8; 1*hvar; 1*50kg,100lbs; 1*wfrgr21; 1*100kg,250lbs;
We have 57mm cannon? Imho fuel could be destroyed more easily only by small guns. Tanks are still quite vulnerable by small bombs at big radius of explosion. Maybe there could be good feature .postanks(give actual position of my tank group) and .movetanks xxx(change direction of my troops). DM is interesting and is better, but still quite hard to bring down(I was rtbing with helly(f6f) with 20x20 hits from ack(I strafed med field three times) and only Gover and oil). Acks are still quite deadly, esspeciallity 40 and 88mm acks, on the other side they doesnt firing above 3,5km. I cant take off from CV with buff and wingmen, i started from sea under CV. I wasnt here for a long time so excuse me, if i wrote something which was dicused on another place.
57mm only at server side. front-end cannot shoot with molins yet. fuel is supposedly burried. .postanks is good idea. imho when player types .tanks he should receive "you already have a columns at <pos> heading to f#" denial
Franz- is wrong, all sections down is needed to close... I personally did the test... but i could be wrong also, as usual... when you blow parts of bridge you get messages as Code: -HOST-: You destroyed strategical target. and Code: -HOST-: You destroyed Nile Bridge -in F33 for example- *BUT* only if you get down all 4 sections you get this message: Code: -HOST-: Nile Bridge (C1) closed BTW1: Nice point skycpt... Ill think on it! But maybe is the time to reinforce some other games in this game, for example, the Jabo Game... I starting to feel that our job in reinforce Bombers Game is about to be done, since I can see lot of ppl flying buffers at Unfriendly Skies, and more and more ppl is getting used with TH Buffers support settings. Maybe is time to offer some support for jabos... BTW2: Thanks hugo and -exec-, your: ""you already have a columns at <pos> heading to f#"" is on 2DO list now!
not yet, imho. "fields-hard-to-take" appeared despite i objected against that. may be reup time could be calculated in addition to "already programmed enemy rps delay".
may i take a look at all system messages? i'd like to correct them according to english grammar, if you please. because typos like "columns" from forum are going directly to the host messages. correct phrase is "you have a column at <pos> going to F##. ETA is ## minutes". p.s.first command .tanks that launches column must report ETA too, btw.
