Construction Ahead... planning stages

[fbabob]

I really like the layout, and very real looking. But one of my concerns, will it push away from the strategy of the game?  Only reason I bring this up, is some get easily fustrated and will give and just go to a furball instead trying to win the Map. ( a very real problem in Knight land) just my thoughts  great work Waffle <<S>>

[Tilt]

This seems to be a larger field...

First the stuff I like that will make this a more fun experience.....

The town clutter around the base is more realistic to what a base would look like it. The mix of forest and open approaches again much more realistic. The hiding of facilities within forest again more realistic. Soft hedgerow is a nice touch obscuring view but not access.

The increase in hangers is a plus. The increase in AA is a plus for players wishing to launch. I appauld the idea of unlinking capture from ggun health. If your troops are not killed then they count IMO.

I would encourage that vehicle fields also sit in small villages with town clutter

The concerns.

The biggest is the point that the town is now wrapped around an air base. I firmly believe that this will ramp up the tendancy to totally shut down a base prior to capture. Even though the hangers seem to have been increased. As long as the number of hangers is not proportional to the number of defenders then a base becomes uncapturable with only one hanger up or capturable when no one can access gameplay from the base( all hangers down. This is less fun for defenders who cannot launch and less fun for frustrated attackers who repeatedly cannot capture.

So whilst recognising the goals re the local terrain I do believe that towns should be removed a significant distance from airfields. Given this the vehicle spawn points should move with the town away from the airfield. Indeed now you have multiple vehicle hangers  some of these could also move with the town... as could barracks. The defenders should also have vehicle spawns into the towns from the defending field as well as access to town based 88's and 15lb'ers. No enemy gv's should spawn toward the defending air field only the defending town.

This then becomes the battle zone with access for all players who can enjoy the enhanced local terrain around the town whilst having access to the zone for both air and ground combat.

Capture of the town causes the airfield to be abandoned and within a few minutes it is claimed by the attacking side. (Much as a side capturing a port will take possession of a fleet after the cv is destroyed)

With town scapes coming complete with Gv hangers etc then I would use this as a gv facility. Ie gv fields are in fact towns or villages taken over for the purpose of acting as a hub for vehicle activity. Again historically correct... Cross roads were vigorously defended and such logistic junctions very often had towns or villages with them that provided local resources for troops an vehicles. Again even when limited to gv activity locally the terrain is enhanced for better gameplay.

Going beyond this into wish list territory.

Indeed you could go to the extreme of making every town a gv field and many such towns linked to " local" airfields like fleets are linked to ports.

Now every town is its own viable point of gv defence or origin of gv attack. Gv spawns are between towns and or ports ( like roads) never to airfields except when the two are linked as above.( one spawn from the associated town to its linked airfield)

Then all towns can be captured from air, land or sea. They are defacto vehicle fields. Ports would look very similar. With associated town buildings. Ports would be linked to Cv's as they are now, some towns are linked to local airfields which are abandoned as the town is lost then acquired 5 minutes later by the capturing side.

[bozon]

Please clear trees that grow near the ends of the runways.

[craz07]

^^^ Agree whole-heartedly with this stuff... Someone mentioned its like playing in a sandbox... I could not agree more with that idea...  Nice and simple... TOWNS with lots of structures to demolish (and capture) all around.. Airfields and Ports with air and sea forces to defend said towns.. simple.

[Changeup]

With town scapes coming complete with Gv hangers etc then I would use this as a gv facility. Ie gv fields are in fact towns or villages taken over for the purpose of acting as a hub for vehicle activity. Again historically correct... Cross roads were vigorously defended and such logistic junctions very often had towns or villages with them that provided local resources for troops an vehicles. Again even when limited to gv activity locally the terrain is enhanced for better gameplay.

Going beyond this into wish list territory.

Indeed you could go to the extreme of making every town a gv field and many such towns linked to " local" airfields like fleets are linked to ports.

Now every town is its own viable point of gv defence or origin of gv attack. Gv spawns are between towns and or ports ( like roads) never to airfields except when the two are linked as above.( one spawn from the associated town to its linked airfield)

Then all towns can be captured from air, land or sea. They are defacto vehicle fields. Ports would look very similar. With associated town buildings. Ports would be linked to Cv's as they are now, some towns are linked to local airfields which are abandoned as the town is lost then acquired 5 minutes later by the capturing side.

Add airdrops of troops,lol. 

[Randy1]

Waffle what about a special, two country arena with one new field design and one just plain old field to minimize work.  It doesn't have to have the new graphics engine just test out field layouts.  When you sign in, you get assigned to the old field or new field.  No score.  Maybe let it run for an hour or two at different times of the day and week.

[Chilli]

Waffle you are definitely on to some really great ideas!     Please continue with what you are doing.    Wonderful thoughts on capture tweaks also

Good Morning,

Again, just waxing out loud here - kicking out ideas, nothing set in stone.

In my head, the property lines / hedge rows would be more like sparse tree/shrub lines. Not like the current impassable hedges we have in the town now.   

(snip)
As far as how hard it is to capture a base, we do have variables for the amount of town that has to be down in order to capture, which can be adjusted.   
 
One idea was to have less town buildings for the medium / small /vehicle bases. Currently there is around 100 buildings in the town, which is what I was planning on for the large airfield. So maybe have 75 for the medium field, 50 for the small field, and 35-40 for the vehicle base.  That would set up hierarchy of difficulty on capturing fields, which is something I'm not sure we would want to do.   

(snip)
Another thought I had, is for base capture. if all auto ack / manned guns would have to be down, or just town guns. For this layout, I'm leaning towards town building only having to be down for capture. If you can get a goon or m3 in, and you or your troops don't die in the crossfire, you sir, deserve a medal. We'll have to discuss that one.   

Or just update the fire and smoke to look like USRanger did below (screenshots from USRanger AvA Terrain) 

[Chilli]

First thing that came to my mind while looking at that pic: "TROOPS STILL WAITING @A4! Get the %&%$ town down!" 

Leave it to Snailman and earl to find the picture worth a thousand suggestions.  Waffle do any of these things and you will be an AH gawd

[Greebo]

The new field layout looks great Waffle, I have a few suggestions:

WRT the eight spawn points around each field, I would like the ability for the map designer to assign say two or three of these spawns to each enemy field that has spawn routes into it. So hypothetically lets say field A17 can be reached via spawning from V28. The map designer could assign the NW, N and NE SPs to V28 and maybe the other SPs to other bases. Naturally no two bases could spawn to the same SP.

So in the game, when a player is about to spawn into A17 from V28 he would get a list of choices like this:

Spawn to the N of A17.
Spawn to the NE of A17.
Spawn to the NW of A17.

GV ambushes would then tend to be centred more on enemy GVs' objectives (i.e towns, VH etc.) than on the SPs as it would be easier for incoming enemies to avoid the camp by choosing a different SP.

Also I would like to see a non-offensive forward airbase added. A temporary tented airstrip with a PSP runway, a few AAs, fuel bunkers, tower, small town, map room, reload pad and a fighter and vehicle hangar. However no ordnance and no barracks. This would be a defensive field that could be used to protect say tank town, a port or a factory but that would not become a major threat to that facility if it were captured. One side benefit of no ordnance would be the increased usefulness of cannon armed anti-tank planes like the Il-2, Hurri IID and Ju-87G-2 to defend from GVs. It would need a different letter designation on the map, perhaps "F" (i.e. F25) for forward field so new players could be told why they couldn't select bombs or bombers there.

I'd also like to see a bridge base or double base. Maybe a couple of V bases in opposite corners of the square with a river running diagonally across the square and some bridges to act as choke points. Or failing that just a bridge object the map designer can place by hand across a river running between two closely spaced bases. This would need the current issue of coastlines and rivers disappearing when all the graphics options are turned down to be sorted out.

[715]

...the northern border of Grafton Underwood airfield as compared to the center south spawn. (hehe, you must have known someone would recognize it, right?).

Wow.. you're right.  It's a dead ringer for Grafton Underwood even down to the little ancillary roadways.

[Waffle]

I wouldn't mind adding single airstrip, maybe tucked away in the woods somewhere, for the vehicle bases. They need one for the Fi 156, and if need be by the map maker, they could spawn the ju87g, il2, hurri2d tank killers. Maybe just have one or two ordnance bunkers near the airstrip. Plus it would make a good place for wounded birds to land if you can't reach a friendly main airfield.

[craz07]

i'm thoroughly confused on what is good for the game.. the game is fun.. just work the magic you guys do and of course a litte graphics upgrade, thank you..  

[Easyscor]

FYI
Pierced Steel Plank (PSP) was used extensively in the Pacific where runways could be constructed within sight of beaches where the landing craft came ashore, not so much in the ETO because of transportation difficulties.

In Europe, Bitumen Impregnated Burlap (BIB - think asphalt impregnated) was used because it was much lighter and quicker to install. It came in rolls with the burlap and heavy wire mesh bound together. The burlap protected the compacted dirt runway from rain/water and held down the dust. The wire mesh held the burlap in place and provide some small degree of support, but it required constant repair while these Advanced Landing Fields (ALF) were in use.

Hence the black looking runways in avaChanl.

[Tinkles]

I wouldn't mind adding single airstrip, maybe tucked away in the woods somewhere, for the vehicle bases. They need one for the Fi 156, and if need be by the map maker, they could spawn the ju87g, il2, hurri2d tank killers. Maybe just have one or two ordnance bunkers near the airstrip. Plus it would make a good place for wounded birds to land if you can't reach a friendly main airfield.

 

[Easyscor]

 

Please include a large three span arched bridge we can install with the Terrain Editor for crossing rivers.
I think it should default as clutter, but with a destroyed shape, they could have additional uses if defined as bombable.