PDA

View Full Version : Duds!



Yellonet
06-25-2004, 03:17 PM
Sure hope this is implemented on the torpedoes. A fair share of the torpedo hits just said clonk!

Would be nice to have only the tip of the bombs as the "trigger". The bombs shouldn't explode it the tip isn't rammed into something. Now they even explode if you drop them at takeoff http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/52.gif


- Yellonet

Yellonet
06-25-2004, 03:17 PM
Sure hope this is implemented on the torpedoes. A fair share of the torpedo hits just said clonk!

Would be nice to have only the tip of the bombs as the "trigger". The bombs shouldn't explode it the tip isn't rammed into something. Now they even explode if you drop them at takeoff http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/52.gif


- Yellonet

Yellonet
06-25-2004, 03:23 PM
Oh, and duds were (I think) featured in the old title Aces of the Pacific. That's twelve years ago.

One nice side-effect from using duds is that attacking in numbers becomes even more vital, 50% shot down before ariving to the target, 25% shot down by AAA, 25% carrying duds. Just hope it's not the 25% left flying http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/59.gif


- Yellonet

necrobaron
06-25-2004, 03:36 PM
I'd like to see that included too.

"Not all who wander are lost."

VF-17_Jolly
06-25-2004, 04:09 PM
Nothing more frustrating than taking off from your carrier flying for 30mins sighting the enemy carrier (with AA pickets) fighting your way through the fighter cover dodging the flack making an attack run at low level, low speed pressing home the attack when all your comrades have been shot down releasing you weapon, watching it glide towards the target and then to have it go "DONK" on the side http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gif

yes please http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

http://www.skyknights.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/jolly.jpg

Sakai9745
06-25-2004, 04:31 PM
Interesting concept...

Endure a swarm of CAP fighters all gunning for you. Survive that, and now the wall of flak to fly right through. More CAPs closer in, and finally, the torrents of tracer fire from the 40s and 20s (25s and 13s for the Japanese) bristling all over the target and its screen. If by some miracle you manage to get through it all, successfully deliver the Mk13 and make it go hot, straight, and normal... only to hear it go BONK! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gif

Someone might want to warn local street sweepers if duds do make it in. I can already see the computers flying out the windows and onto the streets. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Al - SF, Calif

"Defense Dept regrets to inform you that your sons are dead cause they were stupid."

Latico
06-25-2004, 05:18 PM
The MK13's also ran too deep, passing under the ships at times.

These problems were fixed later, but caused great frustation for Sub commanders and TB crews early on.

Sakai9745
06-25-2004, 07:43 PM
I swear, I just read this (can't remember where). Can someone confirm or deny that Mk13s used in aerial practice runs had warheads filled with water instead of explosives? This was suppossedly why the 13s ran too deep.

Thanks in advance. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Al - SF, Calif

"Defense Dept regrets to inform you that your sons are dead cause they were stupid."

Obi_Kwiet
06-25-2004, 07:47 PM
Mabye for the AI.. I'd hate that for me though...

Latico
06-25-2004, 07:47 PM
I believe I read that too. Apparently the test runs of the MK13 did not include the proper weight in the warhead portion. (might have been filled with water) The actual warhead weighed more than the fill that was used making the torp nose heavy when used in battle. Money was short, so the torps weren't tested extensively prior to the war.

heywooood
06-25-2004, 09:17 PM
http://www.boomerweb.net/Merchant2/graphics/00000001/milk_duds2.JPG

these ...right?

http://img78.photobucket.com/albums/v250/heywooood/3tbm_avenger.jpg
Goin'fishin'

Fliger747
06-25-2004, 10:36 PM
My brother worked at a Naval torpedo station years ago, and a few Mk 14's were still around at the time! My understanding on the depth problem had to do with a venturi effect reducing the sensed pressure for the depth and telling the torpedo it was shallower than it really was. That and the exploder problems, once fixed gave a fairly reliable weapon. That it took so ong to fix was a major scandal for BUORD.

I believe that the test "warheads" were water filled so as to be able to recover the (expensive) torpedo at the end of the run. I expect the water was displaced by compressed gas such that the unit would then float.

carguy_
06-26-2004, 05:15 AM
I would like to have dud torpedoes but if the normal bombs don`t have any duds then why should torpedoes be dud?

Either make them both dud or none.

http://carguy.w.interia.pl/tracki/sig23d.jpg

heywooood
06-26-2004, 11:56 AM
Maybe the AI could randomly be equipped with 'duds' but I don't think many players would appreciate it after a while... just my own oppinion. Like random engine failure - it sounds good and realistic - but when it happens to someone they will go on forums and complain... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/35.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/52.gif

http://img78.photobucket.com/albums/v250/heywooood/3tbm_avenger.jpg
Goin'fishin'

Fennec_P
06-26-2004, 12:13 PM
If it were implimented for torpedos, it would be logical to include it for everything else too.

Bombs had high failure rates as well. Not to mention explosive shells and rockets.

Realistic though it might be, I don't think many people would appreciate perfectly good hits turning out to be duds. Its would just randomly punish players for no reason.

It would also go against 1C policy of using "the best available data" for planes and weapons. Duds, like bent rocket fins or jamming guns, would not represent the best data.

[This message was edited by Fennec_P on Sat June 26 2004 at 11:25 AM.]

Yellonet
06-26-2004, 03:34 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by heywooood:
Maybe the AI could randomly be equipped with 'duds' but I don't think many players would appreciate it after a while... just my own oppinion. Like random engine failure - it sounds good and realistic - but when it happens to someone they will go on forums and complain... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/35.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/52.gif

http://img78.photobucket.com/albums/v250/heywooood/3tbm_avenger.jpg
Goin'fishin'



<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Make it an option!


- Yellonet

Yellonet
06-26-2004, 03:37 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fennec_P:
If it were implimented for torpedos, it would be logical to include it for everything else too.

Bombs had high failure rates as well. Not to mention explosive shells and rockets.

Realistic though it might be, I don't think many people would appreciate perfectly good hits turning out to be duds. Its would just randomly punish players for no reason.

It would also go against 1C policy of using "the best available data" for planes and weapons. Duds, like bent rocket fins or jamming guns, would not represent the best data.

[This message was edited by Fennec_P on Sat June 26 2004 at 11:25 AM.]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, not everyone can like realistic features in games http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-sad.gif You arcadie you! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/59.gif


- Yellonet