A discussion on troop porking

[FiLtH]

Kiss me you fool!!  

   Good post ROC

[MadSquirrel]

ROC, I am afraid that with that type of thinking, we would have only one plane to fly on a 2D grid.  Progressive ideas make for a better game.  If players see something that they think would make game play more fun, by all means bring it up.

The community felt a need to correct the Fuel issue and HT was nice enough to make the change.  A lot of players feel that the simplicity of the Troop/Supply aspect of the game needs attention.  I hope HT sees enough good input here to make a change.  If so, the game gets better.

LTARsqrl    

[Flayed1]

Ok it's late 4:00 AM   here so I didn't bother with reading the entire post.
   I do think troops are a bit to easy to kill but if troops were made harder to kill at least make fuel killable down to 50%.  The way it is now fuel means nothing and this I find is stupid.   At 50% fuel alot of fighters could still up and defend bases and some could even attack on 1/2 tank of gas.
   
     In short don't worry about troops unitill you fix the fuel so it would mean something to kill it.

[rshubert]

Originally posted by DREDIOCK
so long as they insist on defending their feilds AT their feilds they will never be able to stop an incomming porker.
You gotta get away from your feild and stop them enroute before they reach the feild.

Just people are too lazy to do it.

DINGDINGDINGDINGDING!!! We have a winner!  You are SO RIGHT, dred.  How right you are.  You are right.  You are da man.

But you knew that, 'cause how can you be da man and not know it?  Makes no sense.

I have been saying that for three years.  You cannot successfully defend a base from a position directly over said base.  You must defend your base from somewhere close to the ENEMY base.  Some guys know that, and play it that way, and are very good at frustrating my (horde's) efforts to take their bases.  Other guys fly in and out of the ack at their base, a good way to get me killed, eventually, but a bad way to keep me from dropping ordnance on their stuff.

And, parenthetically, this is why furballers make terrible defenders.  They are flying around in circles at a point between the bases, sure, but they are usually at low altitude, and the attackers have climbed to medium alt for their attack runs.  If you are not in position to intercept the incoming heavies, it doesn't matter how many light fighters you kill--your base is still destroyed.  Admittedly, those times when a furballer is at medium altitude, they eat the attackers alive, partly because of their 133t fit3r skil2, mostly because of the performance advantage of a light fighter vs. a heavy fighter.

[Snork]

Two changes would even things out. Reduce the down time to 20 minutes and put at least two encampments at each field, something like the v bases have now. Porking could still be done but it would take a lot more effort and it wouldn't last forever.

[ROC]

Squirrel, I see you point clearly, thanks for proving mine

You said HT Kindly fixed the fuel.

Flayed one says fix the fuel before worrying about the Troops

I thought it was fixed?

Half the guys or better in here say it's fine the way it is.

Your point on flying 1 plane in 2d is exactly what happens when games are built on committee modes such as this.  Everyone has a say, we all keep milling about and going back to work on the same thing from someone elses opinion.

Troops change because a handfull don't like it, but Most are silent on it.  Then those that were silent think the New way bites, so call for a change, can't go back to what it was or the original complaints will return, so come up with something new, now both are mad because the original complaint that was addressed is now messed up, how it was is now messed up, and a compromise didn't please anyone.

It's no wonder we made it to DX3 requirements at all.

Personally, I'd rather HT refined more maps and planes.  We have a backlog of events waiting for new product, TOD being invested in, and see no point what so ever in going backwards to "solve" an issue that isn't affecting the ability to play the game at a major level.  It doesn't seem to be a "problem" as much as an inconvenience to one specific style of play.  

I honestly joined this fray simply because I couldn't believe anyone was posting serious thoughts that this could be remotely considered a major issue.  It's too easy to overcome without a code revision.

But I thank you for helping prove my point

[SlapShot]

Admittedly, those times when a furballer is at medium altitude, they eat the attackers alive, partly because of their 133t fit3r skil2, mostly because of the performance advantage of a light fighter vs. a heavy fighter.

[ColKLink]

ratnick, my sheep have been kicked out of church, for telling on the preacher. I would never hide them in a church.

[rod367th]

Originally posted by rshubert
DINGDINGDINGDINGDING!!! We have a winner!  You are SO RIGHT, dred.  How right you are.  You are right.  You are da man.

But you knew that, 'cause how can you be da man and not know it?  Makes no sense.

I have been saying that for three years.  You cannot successfully defend a base from a position directly over said base.  You must defend your base from somewhere close to the ENEMY base.  Some guys know that, and play it that way, and are very good at frustrating my (horde's) efforts to take their bases.  Other guys fly in and out of the ack at their base, a good way to get me killed, eventually, but a bad way to keep me from dropping ordnance on their stuff.

And, parenthetically, this is why furballers make terrible defenders.  They are flying around in circles at a point between the bases, sure, but they are usually at low altitude, and the attackers have climbed to medium alt for their attack runs.  If you are not in position to intercept the incoming heavies, it doesn't matter how many light fighters you kill--your base is still destroyed.  Admittedly, those times when a furballer is at medium altitude, they eat the attackers alive, partly because of their 133t fit3r skil2, mostly because of the performance advantage of a light fighter vs. a heavy fighter.

LOL  noe 190d or la7 has no problem getting to pork fields, unless you go with no NOE  you don't know cons loc or direction   so to say go hunt pokers first your folling yourselfs a 234 can pork troops and unless your going to sit over base not uunder attack and wait for pokers . you'll never stop porking untill troops harder to kill than hangers.

[IownU]

omg i can not belive this post got to two pages troops are fine the way they are you need to defend them, i remember about a month ago LTAR was attackin a base and we saw that the knits were going to pork our base so we took the town down and went back to the base upped some fighters and alot of ostis, the ostis parked around the barracks and not one knit got close to the troops so we took their base from them. you have to defend your troops. and two goons all three countrys have problems gettin one goon in there let alone two would never happen. you know what would be nice to see is Hitec put on the front page of this web site what squad took the most bases for a TOD now that would be nice:aok

[AKDogg]

The rearm pads should also only rearm the plane with what is available at that field.  So if troops down, goons can't rearm with troops, only fuel.  Fighters can't rearm bombs if ords down.  If fuel only 75%, then u get only 75% fuel with empty drops if U had drop tanks.

[gofaster]

Add 20mm mannable guns at the town and 5" mannable flak guns at the airfield.

That should help on defense.

[Gato]

I understand the concern about troops and the setup we have now.  I also understand the limited resources HTC has.  But if you look at any war game or any game at all, you can see room for improvement.  If that were not so, then the games would all be the same.

Kilz, sorry to say, but not everyone is as good or as able to mount a defense/attack as the LTAR’s are.  You guys are one of a kind.     As for your idea of listing what squad took the most bases, I  don't think that will work.  There are too many times when a joint effort of several squads take a base.  And on that note, why is it that only the ONE person who gets the troops on a base gets credit for it and not everyone who worked on it?

As for ack, why not have all the ack set up so that they can be manned.  If it is not manned, then let it be auto.  That would help out not only at the base, but towns, factories and HQ also.

Everyone knows people have their own specialty areas they like to work.  With more manned ack, the gunners would have more places they could play the game they want.  Of course, then there would need to be a perk point for them.

As it stands now, strat is too easy to kill because it is too standard.  Every base is set so you know where everything is, every time.  If it was mixed up from base to base on placement and number, then it would add more spice and make it harder to pork and even defend.

I have never understood how taking a town would take a base.  Also, if troops are left up on a base, how you could take it.  It seems that if there are still troops on a base, they would be defending it.  Also, if troops are left up at a base, how can you use them to move on another base?  Are all troops’ just mercenaries going to who ever has control of the base?  It seems to me that when you take a base, you would have to resupply new troops.

Furballer don't defend, they furball.  Tool shedders... on and on!  And why is there not a rearm pad for Gv's on the V bases?

IMHO

[IownU]

OMG TY rearm pad for gvs a v base does no one think they didnt rearm gvs at a v base my god i been complaining about that one for some time