Base layout/options changes proposal

[whels]

Right now there is no real reason to take a medium or large base
over a small base, xcept for maybe spawn points for GVs.  I propose to change planes available at bases based on size of field

Small(reprecents frontline base nearest battle)
Fighters: all xcept 262
Bombers: Buffs like A20, mossi, TBM, Kate , no medium or large buffs.

Medium field (2ndary front line)
Fighters: all
Bombers: all xcept hvy(17s Lancs)


Large.   all planes available.

closer u get to your HQ the more Med n Larg fields you have.


when map is reset new, front lines are all small fields, with 1  or 2 medium fields within 40 miles of front lines, with 1 or 2 large near them.


this layout makes which base u take more important. do u take
another small fighter only field or do u go for the near medium field to get bigger Buffs. could be tacticly important to your fight.


the field size can be more med n larg as u go deeper into enemy
land.

whels

[DREDIOCK]

I agree with all of this. It would certainly add to the realism. Most  bombers during the war had to take off from paved runways due to the sheer weight of the fully loaded planes. And if it rained.. studmuffineddaboutit.
 While fighters were light enough that they could take off from just about any semi smooth surface.
Problem is this was simlilarly tried in AW and eventually changed cause too many people where whining that they couldnt take bombers off from a dirt (small feild) runway.
In the end people dont really want realism. They want conveiniance

Originally posted by whels
Right now there is no real reason to take a medium or large base
over a small base, xcept for maybe spawn points for GVs.  I propose to change planes available at bases based on size of field

Small(reprecents frontline base nearest battle)
Fighters: all xcept 262
Bombers: Buffs like A20, mossi, TBM, Kate , no medium or large buffs.

Medium field (2ndary front line)
Fighters: all
Bombers: all xcept hvy(17s Lancs)


Large.   all planes available.

closer u get to your HQ the more Med n Larg fields you have.


when map is reset new, front lines are all small fields, with 1  or 2 medium fields within 40 miles of front lines, with 1 or 2 large near them.


this layout makes which base u take more important. do u take
another small fighter only field or do u go for the near medium field to get bigger Buffs. could be tacticly important to your fight.


the field size can be more med n larg as u go deeper into enemy
land.

whels

[DREDIOCK]

one thing that would be real cool. but we will probably never see.

Is if as you say front line bases be small bases but have these bases eventually become larger bases based on how long the current country held them. Say a full day/night  or I should say Dusk/dawn cycle for each upgrade.
say after 1 cycle a small feild becomes a Med feild. after two it becomes a large feild.
If a base is totally porked it would revert it back to the lowest grade of being a small feild. If all FH are destroyed it becomes a Med feild. or something along those lines
This would simulate improvements and degradations made to a feild over a period of time due to building or being under constant attack.

I know it'll never happen. But its a thought

[Replicant]

RAF/USAAF airfield layouts during WW2 were usually like this:

Single runway (small base) = Fighters only

Two runway (medium base) = Fighters & Light bombers

Three runway (large base) = Heavy bombers etc.

[lasersailor184]

Drediock, no offense, but that is a bad idea.


As it is right now, suicide porkers can completely screw up what's available at a base for a short period of time.  Add in your idea and suicide porkers can screw up a base permanently for a few days.  That would not be good.


However, change the time to 2 days till a base evolves, and make it so that it can't devolve back down, it would be a great idea.


However, porkers will still be able to limit the usage at a field severely just like they can now.

[Virage]

restrict buff pilots .. not a good idea.

[DREDIOCK]

Originally posted by lasersailor184
Drediock, no offense, but that is a bad idea.


As it is right now, suicide porkers can completely screw up what's available at a base for a short period of time.  Add in your idea and suicide porkers can screw up a base permanently for a few days.  That would not be good.


However, change the time to 2 days till a base evolves, and make it so that it can't devolve back down, it would be a great idea.


However, porkers will still be able to limit the usage at a field severely just like they can now.

Never said I wasnt flexable with the idea

Thing is if the porkers pork it they also destroy its use for them also if they take it. Tis would provide less incentive for a country to kill off the hangars when going for base capture.
And I didnt mean real time days I ment AH days or the current dusk/dawn cycles inasmuch as we no longer have a night

[Cobra412]

I actually like this idea due to it's realitic nature.  Another thing if you wanna keep those porkers out make ack lethal at anything below say 5k or so.  Force the Jabo pilots to learn higher alt drops if they wanna pork a base.  No racing through at minimal alts with little to no damage.  

It'd be nice to have different AAA at the fields so you could somewhat control the crazy jabo/low level bombers.  Make it so there is coverage of a wider spectrum of altitudes.  Yes this forces game play to an extent but it would make it more realistic.  It's a bit unrealistic to allow them to cruise across the field and cause extensive damage and only have them maybe lose one drone if that.

[rogerdee]

all these ideas are good  and would perhaps make  the sides work togeather a bit more.Varying the ack  its places and amount would also help as well as the positin of the hangers.
   I think changes are need   and can be done on new maps  a little at a time

[mars01]

Problem is guys, the vets of WWII had thier whole lives to fight the war.  We ar playing a game when we can spare the time from our whole lives.  Thus making things realistic and playable are two different things.

[Morpheus]

Originally posted by mars01
Problem is guys, the vets of WWII had thier whole lives to fight the war.  We ar playing a game when we can spare the time from out whole lives.  Thus making things realistic and playable are two different things.

Bingo;)

[whels]

Originally posted by MoRphEuS
Bingo;)

but when they died they didnt reup or get to log in another day.
bases would be spaced for meduim n large so that u would be
close to frontline action, but not THE frontline, unless u lose
bases.

but we need a reason to take a specific base other then what
GV spawns it has.

whels

[DREDIOCK]

Originally posted by mars01
Problem is guys, the vets of WWII had thier whole lives to fight the war.  We ar playing a game when we can spare the time from our whole lives.  Thus making things realistic and playable are two different things.

LOL and their whole lives often  equated to what? 3 missions.

This would be no worse then loosing Dar as we have it now and most bombers take off from at least two bases back anyway. Well those that are smart do. lol
And it would be a tough job for even the hoard warriors to reduce ALL the bases in a two base radius.

But really we're talking hypothetically.
Nice and fun to talk about but I highly doubt we will ever see.

[Karnak]

Originally posted by whels
Bombers: Buffs like A20, mossi, TBM, Kate , no medium or large buffs.

Reapeat after me:

The Mossie is a fighter.

The Mossie is a fighter.

The Mossie is a fighter.

The Mossie is a fighter.

The Mossie is a fighter.

The Mossie is a fighter.

The Mossie is a fighter.

The Mossie is a fighter.

The Mossie is a fighter.


Dammit.

[Greebo]

I like the idea of limiting buffs to larger fields. Also how about a fourth type of field, a forward airstrip? This would have no aircraft hangars, just a short grass/dirt strip, some AAs, a reload pad and maybe a VH.

Also as has been said before, make the AAs much harder to strafe.