« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2   Go Down

Author Topic: Big strategy change  (Read 1823 times)

Offline Mister Fork

  • AvA Staff Member
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7255
Big strategy change
« on: November 18, 2005, 03:12:48 PM »
From the fields
- remove ordinance hangars
- remove fuel bunkers
- remove troop barracks

Ordinance Factories % up
100% - all ordinance is available including torps.
75% - all rockets and bombs 500lbs and smaller are available including torps
50% - all rockets and bombs 250lb and under are available
25% - all rockets and 100lbs are available
0% - ordinance and supplies/resupplies are disabled from all fields

Fuel Factories
100% - all fuel is available
75% - all fuel is available
50%-0 - only 50% of fuel is available for ALL fields

Troop Camps/Factories
100% - 10 troops are available
75% - 7 troops are available
50% - 5 troops are available
25% - 3 troops are available
0% - troops disabled from all fields

Thoughts?
Logged
"Games are meant to be fun and fair but fighting a war is neither." - HiTech

Offline Mr No Name

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1835
Big strategy change
« Reply #1 on: November 18, 2005, 03:22:11 PM »
It would make strats and defense a lot more important... at face value, i like it
Logged
Vote R.E. Lee '24

Offline Tails

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 604
Big strategy change
« Reply #2 on: November 18, 2005, 04:02:41 PM »
You mean, it would give people a reason to actually bomb factories? And it would make the zone system useful? And it would also mean a single La-7 or typh can't pork four fields by itself? That actually makes sense!!

That's why it will never happen.
Logged
BBTT KTLI KDRU HGQK GDKA SODA HMQP ACES KQTP TLZF LKHQ JAWS SMZJ IDDS RLLS CHAV JEUS BDLI WFJH WQZQ FTXM WUTL KH

(Yup, foxy got an Enigma to play with)

Offline Solar10

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 819
Re: Big strategy change
« Reply #3 on: November 18, 2005, 04:16:48 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Mister Fork
From the fields
- remove ordinance hangars
- remove fuel bunkers
- remove troop barracks

Ordinance Factories % up
100% - all ordinance is available including torps.
75% - all rockets and bombs 500lbs and smaller are available including torps
50% - all rockets and bombs 250lb and under are available
25% - all rockets and 100lbs are available
0% - ordinance and supplies/resupplies are disabled from all fields

Fuel Factories
100% - all fuel is available
75% - all fuel is available
50%-0 - only 50% of fuel is available for ALL fields

Troop Camps/Factories
100% - 10 troops are available
75% - 7 troops are available
50% - 5 troops are available
25% - 3 troops are available
0% - troops disabled from all fields

Thoughts?


Love it.  Makes the strat targets meaningful and eliminates pinpoint porking of troops.  Would still be good even if it were only the Troops camps that were implemented.  This might also break up the frontline hordes as some may be diverted to defending the strat.

Question though.  What would happen a base that has lost it zone base and so to its supply to troops, ord, fuel etc.  Do they all set to zero or what?


Solar10
Logged
~Hells Angels~
Solar10

Offline Tails

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 604
Big strategy change
« Reply #4 on: November 18, 2005, 05:11:19 PM »
I would hope so. Or maybe the old field strat can be kept, but its destruction only effects anything if the base is off the zone?
Logged
BBTT KTLI KDRU HGQK GDKA SODA HMQP ACES KQTP TLZF LKHQ JAWS SMZJ IDDS RLLS CHAV JEUS BDLI WFJH WQZQ FTXM WUTL KH

(Yup, foxy got an Enigma to play with)

Offline Oleg

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1000
Big strategy change
« Reply #5 on: November 19, 2005, 01:20:04 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Tails
You mean, it would give people a reason to actually bomb factories? And it would make the zone system useful? And it would also mean a single La-7 or typh can't pork four fields by itself? That actually makes sense!!


But leave FH & VH in field and single lanc formation still able to blow them in one pass? While you will need up 5 lanc formations to drop ordnance factory to 25% to prevent FHs porking?

Hope it will never happen.
Logged
"If you don't like something, change it. If you can't change it, change your attitude. Don't complain."
Maya Angelou

Offline Mr No Name

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1835
Big strategy change
« Reply #6 on: November 19, 2005, 02:22:36 AM »
Oleg, you missed the use of sarcasm bud...  He was in agreement with the idea.
Logged
Vote R.E. Lee '24

Offline Oleg

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1000
Big strategy change
« Reply #7 on: November 19, 2005, 02:55:56 AM »
I believe i understood him right. I dont agree with idea.

Hmm... Not exactly. I just want to say FHs & VHs must not to be porked easier than ords/fuel/troops. If you want to remove ords from fields, you must remove FHs & VHs also. Add airplane & tank factories to list and whole idea will ok for me.

Say factory >80% up - all planes available, <80% up - some planes with low ENJ becomes unavailable. Planes with ENJ > 45-50 (for example) always available.
Same for GVs.
Logged
"If you don't like something, change it. If you can't change it, change your attitude. Don't complain."
Maya Angelou

Offline Oleg

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1000
Big strategy change
« Reply #8 on: November 19, 2005, 05:36:30 AM »
And few more thoughts.

If you remove ords, fuel, troops, fighter, bomber and vehicle hangers what will remains in fields? Acks only? That is neither realistic nor "gamey". I believe "factory system" must supplement current system, not replace it.
For example, if you pork ords in one field - no bombs & rockets here; if you pork ordnance factory - no bombs & rockets in all zone fields. Or something like this.
Logged
"If you don't like something, change it. If you can't change it, change your attitude. Don't complain."
Maya Angelou

Offline Ghosth

  • AH Training Corps (retired)
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8497
      • http://332nd.org
Big strategy change
« Reply #9 on: November 19, 2005, 07:55:58 AM »
Well MrFork I for one like it.

As a matter of fact I like it so much I'd like to see this setup tried for a month.
If not in the main itself in a backup arena.

I don't know how much of this is possible. I suspect HT would have some rewriting of code to do. But the theory is fine IMO.

Oleg, as to the hangers, they have already been toughened twice that I know of.
Plus rearranged so as to be harder to take out with a single bomber.
It used to be a 500 lb bomb placed well would take out a hanger.

Now it takes 3k and the hangers are scattered around the field. Making it impossible for a bomber to take them all out in one pass. Thats good enough in my opinion.

Its high time that bombers had a legitimate target.
Take the attention off the hangers & citys. Leave the Jabo boys to mess with them. Give us a target, a real target, one that accomplishes something.

And then give us credit for it on landing same as the fighters get.
Logged

Offline Tails

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 604
Big strategy change
« Reply #10 on: November 19, 2005, 01:08:25 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Ghosth


And then give us credit for it on landing same as the fighters get.


I was going to post a faux system message for that, but honestly I cant think of how they would summerise a successful bomber sortie in one line :(
Logged
BBTT KTLI KDRU HGQK GDKA SODA HMQP ACES KQTP TLZF LKHQ JAWS SMZJ IDDS RLLS CHAV JEUS BDLI WFJH WQZQ FTXM WUTL KH

(Yup, foxy got an Enigma to play with)

Offline Ghosth

  • AH Training Corps (retired)
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8497
      • http://332nd.org
Big strategy change
« Reply #11 on: November 20, 2005, 08:31:24 AM »
Host Tails seriously whacked the bishops in lancaster

Host Tails slightly damaged the rooks in Ju-88

Host tails NUKED the Knights in b24

Tie it to perk points earned for the sortie, make up 4 or 5 good lines like above.
5 points for slighty damaged, 25 points for nuked.
Logged

Offline Mr No Name

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1835
Big strategy change
« Reply #12 on: November 20, 2005, 06:23:03 PM »
I had suggested using a system message for tonnage (HITS/DAMAGE Only) With say a 2 Ton Minimum of actual hits.

XXXX Landed 13 Tons In a Lancaster IV of XXXX


I'd really love to see the game change to increase the importance of strategic bombing and bomber defense.
Logged
Vote R.E. Lee '24

Offline Martyn

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 536
Big strategy change
« Reply #13 on: November 22, 2005, 12:51:04 PM »
I'm all for increasing the role of strategy in the game. Would it not be better to try it a bit by bit - just in case the changes affect game play so much that it puts some people off?

Just another thought - carriers seem a lot 'cheaper' in AH than in real life - i.e. if you lost one you didn't just get another one pretty soon after. They took a long time to lay down and build.
Logged
Here we are, living on top of a molten ball of rock, spinning around at a 1,000mph, orbiting a nuclear fireball and whizzing through space at half-a-million miles per hour. Most of us believe in super-beings which for some reason need to be praised for setting this up. This, apparently, is normal.

Offline Tilt

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7357
      • FullTilt
Big strategy change
« Reply #14 on: November 22, 2005, 01:03:00 PM »
This would work IMO............

rather than remove those field objects just call them field supplies and allow a player to resupply his own field (rebuild his own hangers) as well as others.
Logged
Ludere Vincere
Pages: [1] 2   Go Up
« previous next »