Base Layout idea for gameplay, MA or TOD

[Waffle]

Basically have each feild divided into "capture points". Almost like a "micro-zone"

Each Airfeild (a22) would have a VH and the control tower as a mapproom. To capture the airfeild you would need to get 30 troops in.

There would be a VH (V22) To capture this, you would need to get 10 troops in.

There would be a supply depot (SD22) which would have a maproom and a VH. (the way to capture these would to destroy all buildings and defensive aa then get troops in. Say 15-20 troops for capture)

The City (C22) would need to have all buildings destroyed as well as defensive gun emplacements. The city will also have a VH.
To capture the city, you would need 20 troops.


Now, Each "micro-zone" A22, V22, SD22, C22, would have 3 defensive spawns for gvs. these would spawn to the other remaining  parts of the zone.


The left over spawn points  (the ones that aren't defensive spawns) would be used for gv attack spawns at other VHs Airfeilds, Citys or Supply depots.

Gameplay Issues:

 Supply and demand.

Each feild is supllied by the Supply depot. At the Supply depot - fuel and supllies and equiptment are delivered by train.
If you want to slow the feild from having fuel or troops - the trains now become more important. We can finally get the mossies out for train killing runs. From the depot, there could have convoys running to the airfeild and VH

Also killing the Supply depot would slow or halt the suplly of fuel, oil whatever to the feild and surrounding zones withing the micro zone.


Now at the City (C22), We'll house the troops. There will be larger barracks at the city, which will be filled by troops delivered by train. Please note that A22 / V22 / SD22 and C22 will also have the smaller type huts for barracks as well. If you kill the larger barracks in the city, the supply for the other smaller barracks in the zone would take longer to replenish with troops.

Now, we can spread out the town from the airfeild as well as the Supply depot and VH from the feild and still have a great  war with Vehicles, gv killers , fighters and bombers.


So say if one country take and captures SD22 from the country that owns the city, the VH and airfeild. Well that Airfeild (a22) now has lost all supply. So once remaining fuel is used up or destroyed - there would only be 25% fuel to use.

So the country that has taken the supply depot (sd22) now goes on the offensive with say a gv run to the city..while waiting for their airstrikes and fighters to intercept the defending fighters that are lifting off 4-6 miles away at a22. Could make for some good dogfights. Fighters coming in to kill the 110s and il2s that are hammering the gvs.

I would also like to see several Manned acks at each Airfeild, VH. Supply depot, and City. These would include Manned 88 posistions, if possible.



Anyway - take a gander and run with some scenarios and how it would affect gameplay. Keep in mind that the scale on the map is not correct. I was thinking from the airfeild to the citys / supply depot and VH would be around 4-8 miles.

[Edbert1]

I like the idea, but for the MA not TOD

It is not cast in stone, but it is highly unlikely that TOD will even feature such concepts as base capture. The missions will be weighted to historical roles rather tightly. You may have to escort C47s if they implement "Market Garden" type of missions but there will probably not be maprooms at all.

[BlueJ1]

Seems quite similar to WWIIOL idea of captures.

[Waffle]

Actually, I think you're right - MA would be better suited for it.
More troops to capture, more organization - less vehicle milkruns when low numbers are playing.

if you see" SD22 captured by rooks" then you know theres going to be a good fight between SD22 and A22 be it gv or air, hopefully both.

[JB73]

similar was discussed in the Q&A with HT and Pyro

[Edbert1]

Of course you realise that what may seem to have a desireable effect on MA gameplay may in fact backfire. See, you and I see the added complexity requiring multiple role attack strategies and increassing the need for coordination and teamwork. The MA will see the need for using seriously oversised hordes increase, and of course it will oblige.

[Wotan]

I thought there was no base capture in ToD?  At least thats what HT said early on. What changed?  I can quote him, does any one have a quote that says something different?

Seems just too stupid to keep nonsense like base capture. If thats the case I know many folk who were hoping ToD would be more then the main.

[Waffle]

i'm not sure what the parameters were for TOD, but all in all was an idea for gameplay - and it seems it would fit MA.

Even the largest horde would have a tough time capturing the areas around the feild. To do a "one sweep" would mean lots of bombers, planes to kill gvs...plus the factors of adding more troops and distance.....

keeping everything down long enough for capture...
all while maintaining air superiority long enough to capture 4 interconected areas. Sounds tough to do to me.

Place them on a mid size map and have less feilds than what we normally have.

Seems like it would add up to good fights with planes and GVs designated for their proper roles.

[SlapShot]

Originally posted by Wotan
I thought there was no base capture in ToD?  At least thats what HT said early on. What changed?  I can quote him, does any one have a quote that says something different?

Seems just too stupid to keep nonsense like base capture. If thats the case I know many folk who were hoping ToD would be more then the main.

There is no notion of MA "base capture" as we know it, in TOD. There is no notion of the MA "Win the war and get a trip to Hawaii" either.

From what we were told, the historic missions will run as scripted. History will not be rewritten in the TOD. The missions will progress thru their historical sequence regardless of which side has success or not. So ... if bases were taken historically, then that is what will happen and the front will move as it did back then.

Success in TOD is determined by mission success and not base capture or the like.

[Wotan]

Originally posted by SlapShot
There is no notion of MA "base capture" as we know it, in TOD. There is no notion of the MA "Win the war and get a trip to Hawaii" either.

From what we were told, the historic missions will run as scripted. History will not be rewritten in the TOD. The missions will progress thru their historical sequence regardless of which side has success or not. So ... if bases were taken historically, then that is what will happen and the front will move as it did back then.

Success in TOD is determined by mission success and not base capture or the like.

I know everything that has been written on the forums about ToD. I can quote most of it from memory. In reading this thread that contains a suggestion about "base capture" and talk of XXX number troops I thought I had missed something. Waffle clarified it for me.

There's a thing called context and if you followed the thread you would see my specific question related to what waffle was suggesting as it relates to what HT has said in the past.

FYI back OT here's what HT said a while back. I am sure things changed but as I said I don’t recall any mention of base capture in the context of waffle's suggestion.


Posted by HT

Gentlemen realize there will be a lot of AI bombers & Vehicles controled by the host only. They will be what lead an attack type mission.

This realy is a must for the game because it is what provides targets so that one persone dosn't have to die for every kill.

The success of the attack mission can then be how well you defended the bombers, and not how many planes you shot down. I.E. Just chacing off the defender is a success.

As a defender your mission will be successful based on how well you stoped the attack. Think of if it in terms of 20% of the bomber force destroyed, the defender mission was a success.

Notice you didn't have to kill any real player on either offense or defense to succede.

With out this one concept in the game there is no way to put a hi penalty on dieing, and hence a desire to live. By simply adjusting the points per mission / points lost for death we can control this incentive to live. The back to training is needed for a 2nd LT death, btw a 1st LT 0 points would just return you to a 2nd LT, because with out it there would not be a real penalty for a 2nd LT death.

This is just a basic outline,im sure details will change on how you recieve mission points, like a bonus for killing a buff or fighter or high ranking player.

Also keep in mind this realy is a new game, and will be completly different than the MA, i.e. base capture,strat like the main,war win & reset,vulching, will not be there.


HiTech

[MA Lemming#0934]

Now, Each "micro-zone" ...

I see.
15 P38s, 10 dive-Lancasters, 25 NOE B17s to carpet just in case, a 50-man goon mission divided in four groups coming from different sides, and 50 La7s for top cover will do.

We should make it!!!