Cool, just had a Bear kill a S3 Viking with guns

[mikmykWS]

ORIGINAL: NakedWeasel

Im happy to contribute. Thank you!

Great. Thanks

[Casinn]

ORIGINAL: mikmyk

ORIGINAL: Casinn

ORIGINAL: SeaQueen




I'm sure it's always the "Why would anyone think of testing that?!?!?" stuff that annoys you the most.

On the flip side, some of the people testing really odd things have found some of the better bugs I think!

Actually people that take digs at us for no reason is the most annoying, We try our best to be pretty responsive on just about everything.

Mike

Actually that was meant to be a compliment to the people that are taking the time testing odd things, certainly not a dig at you devs.

[mikmykWS]

ORIGINAL: Casinn

ORIGINAL: mikmyk

ORIGINAL: Casinn




On the flip side, some of the people testing really odd things have found some of the better bugs I think!

Actually people that take digs at us for no reason is the most annoying, We try our best to be pretty responsive on just about everything.

Mike

Actually that was meant to be a compliment to the people that are taking the time testing odd things, certainly not a dig at you devs.

The folks that help and matter know well how we feel about them and their contributions and no passive aggressive trolling on our web forum is going to change that. Nice try[:)] I would suggest focusing on stuff that really matters to people.

Thanks!

Mike

[mikmykWS]

Dysta
To be fair, even a tiny scratch of any aircraft in CMANO will becomes a fatal crash, we really need damage points implemented.

NakedWeasel
The only reason I'd want planes with a critical damage level, is to make combat rescue missions to be made possible and more realistic. Of course, we also need personnel (that are deployable from, and to- aircraft). I know that it's really beyond the scope of the title, but I think that aircrew and maintainers should be a reloadable "munition" or resource like fuel, stored in barracks and bunkers. These resources are necessary for the operation of aircraft, (and ships?) And are lost from the players inventory permanently once their numbers in the bunkers and barracks are depleted, or those facilities are destroyed. If the editing software is as robust as it seems to be, it should be fairly easy to implement.

Added to our feature polls. Please vote.

tm.asp?m=3437496

Mike

[SeaQueen]

I agree. NOBODY is going to take any of those planes up any time soon, certainly not within the context of a scenario.

The relevant quantity isn't the "damage points" that any target (including aircraft) can sustain but rather the probability of a mission/firepower/mobility kill of a given platform versus a given weapon. Since for an aircraft any of those kills would result in the aircraft having to return to base and spend a very long time being repair at best, and at worst exploding into a fireball, within the context of a scenario, it's not really important at all.

ORIGINAL: mikmyk

Creating an aircraft damage model is on the list but the current impact of not having isn't huge by any stretch. Aircraft damaged like the one's above are mission killed (more or less) and if they make it back to base are rarely back in the fight before the duration of any current scenario expires. As far as long term design goals it is something we should add though.

Mike

[Dysta]

Will the future update add the evasive maneuver when under aerial gun's attack? I know RoE have evasion from missile threat, but bomber's gun should also make chasing pilots have to get away from too.

[ComDev]

We'll add more air-to-air combat logics in v1.10 and v1.11 [8D]