BH's, FH's, VH's & supplies

[Tilt]

Looking at aircraft hangers differently.

If we looked at BH's and FH's differently we could refer to them as large & small aircraft hangers.

To operate from a field large bombers would require large hangers but other aircraft would be able to operate if any aircraft hanger was available.

In todays parlance that would mean that all BH's and FH's would have to be destroyed before a field was denied fighters.

Looking at supplies differently.

If stationary aircraft could be refueled and re armed as vehicles can be (when within range of dumped supplies) then fighters and non formation bombers can be re armed and supplied at vehicle fields or indeed any area suitable for an aircraft to land and take off.

Presently supplies are linked to barracks (troop availability) if they were instead linked to  hangers (all hangers) then they would be harder to attrit.


IMO the above are pretty simple changes that would not need maps to be re engineered yet would open up MA game play whilst preserving elements of realism.

1) more hangers have to be destroyed to remove all aircraft from a field.

2)vehicle bases become tactically more important to the airwar as well as stepping stones in the ground war. (interms of both attack and defence)

3)by adding vehicle bases as forward player organised refueling & re arming  fields for aircraft the distance required to rejoin the fight is often shorter.

4) if there are any flat bits of grass near vehicle spawn pionts then these could be made in to "player built" forward fields by establishing a supply dump. Again reducing the distance for re arm. (for future maps flat areas could be added.)

[mars01]

BRAVO!!  

Delete this post it could foster better game play lolh.

[toadkill]

i like the idea of supplying planes. all im saying

[Treize69]

I like it, although I have to say that I think it will confuse gameplay a bit and is probably too strategic to be popular (the same people that ***** about bombing strat targets will ***** about supply dumps)

[Krusty]

Now... part of me likes the innovative new idea...

But part of me is pooh-poohing it already.

See, bombers and fighters would have separate hangars. Bombers are big and you can fight more fighters in a small hangar (and get them all out and in the air fast) than you could if you stuck the odd fighter in between big bombers.

On the game side of it, I see it as a bit gamey. If people take the time to hit all the FHs now, including that little one past the tower, that takes a coordinated effort or a second pass with bombers. To do that work and then just have fighters up anyways.... it's kind of a kick in the teeth, so to speak.

I'm against resupplying fighters in the field. Way too gamey. Sure if you had supplies you could. The RAF tried to steal a stuka in the desert by just going out and gassing one up (didn't work that easy, but, they sorta stole one). But that means you have to plan for it, you have to have things waiting. They didn't even try to arm the thing, just get its engine running (and it chugged pretty bad, at that). In AH I'm all for larger rearm pads. I'd like to see the entire runway be a reaming pad. But I don't want rearming pads off-field. If you're forced to land out in the field, that's a forced landing. You were defeated. You're either captured or out of the fight until you can re-up. So if you can just sit there and rearm/reload it's a proverbial nose-thumbing to the enemy pilot that put you on the ground in the first place.

So, while I applaud new ideas, I think these two punish people who work hard to achieve things, be it the bombers that kill all FH at a field or the fighter that forces you down over rough terrain.

Your mileage may vary, but that's how I feel.

[Treize69]

Afte reading Krusty, I agree with that point too- you'd have a lot of people using the rearm points to "game the game".

Use most of a tank of gas to get as high as they can and then just zoom around until empty, refuel/load and go back up- or take a 1/4 load of gas and heavy ord/guns loadout for max maneuverability/climbrate, then just rearm at the front and keep doing it.

Nah, novel idea, but don't think it would work too well in the MA.

[Tilt]

Originally posted by Krusty
On the game side of it, I see it as a bit gamey.

I'm against resupplying fighters in the field. Way too gamey.

The idea that 1 formation of B24's can take out all the fighter maintenance facilities at an airfield by making two passes is some what more gamey than proposed above.

Indeed I do not think a single airfield in WWII was disabled by air born bombardment. Or at least the occurance was very very rare.

Historically aircraft were maintained in any hanger that could be used.

Obviously however larger bombers cannot be maintained in small hangers.

The idea that airfields could not maintain fighters because their small hangers were destroyed (whilst they still had large ones) is false IMO. In this sense one could say that what we have is "gamey" and what I propose is at little closer to reality.


On the eastern front forward fields were constantly being "created" by moving supplies and personnel to grass fields which could be converted to landing strips. (both during retreat and advance)

Equally just after the Normandy landings the RAF were making forward fields exactly the same way.


Again the creation of temporary fields supplied by material is closer to reality than what we have now.

Vehicle bases would represent these very well and resupply is still dependant upon team work.


My view on the re arm pad is to eliminate it all together but I have not suggested it here....... the proposal is just to open up game play not cause massive map re writes............re arm pads are very very gamey IMO. They re equip an AC regardless of the supply logistics at the field. Very gamey.

[Colt44]

If the forward resupply bases could be established....they can be destroyed.  

Again.. it makes porking an artform and searching for these hidden bases sounds like a lot of fun.  


three or four c47 dropping airfield cargo to build it.  Make it twice as hard to kill as an airfield VH.  Say 6 thousand pounds.  Once destroyed it never comes back unless re-established by multiple c47's.  

Sounds complex, but might work.  

As for the realism question ? ... Heck, when was the last time we bombed a runway to shut a field down?    

[Tilt]

Originally posted by Colt44
If the forward resupply bases could be established....they can be destroyed.  

Again.. it makes porking an artform and searching for these hidden bases sounds like a lot of fun.  

 

Quite simply all that is required is that the vehicle supplies now available to M3's and C47's be made so that they can equally rearm/refuel aircraft....... in exactly the same way.

The aircraft has to be stationary

The pilot has to be in the cockpit.

The icon appears he clicks on it.

The aircraft slowly uses up the supply material.


So the aircraft has to land close to these supplies to use them....... then it has to take off again.........(there a re few places other than V fields and ports where this is possible)

The supplies can be used by either side and can be destroyed as they can be now.

[Clifra Jones]

Originally posted by Tilt
The idea that 1 formation of B24's can take out all the fighter maintenance facilities at an airfield by making two passes is some what more gamey than proposed above.

Indeed I do not think a single airfield in WWII was disabled by air born bombardment. Or at least the occurance was very very rare.

Historically aircraft were maintained in any hanger that could be used....

Your ideas have some merit. One htis regarding hangers is that, yes, It was probably unlikely that an airfields aircraft wee wiped out it the hangers were destroyed, but these same airfields did not have an unlimited supply of every type of aircraft known to man.

I also suggested a similar idea of player created forward airbases. There are definate pros and cons that would have to be worked out.

[Lye-El]

Might make aircraft more likely to help defend a V base as it seems a lot of pilots are loath to do. If not, it would be a help to the guys that do fly out to a V base to defend. As it is now once out of ammo or low on gas they either have to land and abandon their aircraft  or leave.

[mars01]

three or four c47 dropping airfield cargo to build it. Make it twice as hard to kill as an airfield VH. Say 6 thousand pounds. Once destroyed it never comes back unless re-established by multiple c47's.

You know this could truely be a brilliant idea.  

Could you imagine, player built fields, live and dynamic.  Now you have a moving map, now you have people invested in something.  Actually have different layers of life depending on what is flown in and trucked in.  

The first 4 goons establish an airfield for resupply.  The next four goons bring in men and AA and so on etc.  Incorporate this with a first person ground game and...

HTC - If you guys were able to pull off some thing of this nature you would have a blockbuster!!

There would be a new venerable CBEE type of player added to the mix.