Captured 163 Bases

[Zazen13]

I find it quite unbalancing that once the 163 base near HQ is captured the attackers can then use 163s that are meant for HQ bomber defense to vulch the defender's remaining nearby fields. In my opinion, 163's should only be available to the country that owns the HQ for gameplay and realism reasons. In real life, I have no doubt, in the face of imminent capture, those 163s would have been destroyed to deny them to the enemy..

Zazen

[whels]

Originally posted by Zazen13
I find it quite unbalancing that once the 163 base near HQ is captured the attackers can then use 163s that are meant for HQ bomber defense to vulch the defender's remaining nearby fields. In my opinion, 163's should only be available to the country that owns the HQ for gameplay and realism reasons. In real life, I have no doubt, in the face of imminent capture, those 163s would have been destroyed to deny them to the enemy..

Zazen

ive said before  HQ should have a small runway with it, and only 163 enabled in the hanger, maybe a VH for HQ GVs.

Whels

[hubsonfire]

Originally posted by whels
ive said before  HQ should have a small runway with it, and only 163 enabled in the hanger, maybe a VH for HQ GVs.

Whels

Yes, and disturbing amounts of flack.

[Mugzeee]

Originally posted by hubsonfire
Yes, and disturbing amounts of flack.

Manable.

[Saxman]

And hitting HQ should have a bigger impact on a country.

[frank3]

Why should destroying only 1 building have such a large impact to a country? The effect of destroying it is already way too big (Blinding an entire country!)

To get back on topic, I don't think the Me-163 should be particularly used for defending the HQ, like all other fighters and interceptors.

[Treize69]

I think before you further limit where the 163 can be flown from, you should also start looking at what other aircraft fly from which bases.

ie heavy bombers from single-strip, "frontline" bases.

Just one of the many 'strategic' aspects of the game that could use a second look.

[Zazen13]

Originally posted by Treize69
I think before you further limit where the 163 can be flown from, you should also start looking at what other aircraft fly from which bases.

ie heavy bombers from single-strip, "frontline" bases.

Just one of the many 'strategic' aspects of the game that could use a second look.

I've always wished, in the interest of deeper strategic modelling, there was some meaning to the various base sizes. As it is now small, medium and large fields are just scattered helter-skelter all over the map. There's no difference between them strategically other than the number of hangers they have.

 For example, make it so only planes that can be a flown in fighter mode are available at small fields, anything that can be flown in attack mode at medium fields, and anything at large fields including the big heavy bombers. Of course this would require a wholesale re-doing of maps to give thought to the placement of the various field types.

Huge maps would especially benefit from this as it would create strategic choke points. Currently, on huge maps with 255 fields there's rarely any place on the map where contentious fighting occurs, one base is as good as another in the milkrun, land-grab game. However with different sized bases being strategically significant to different degrees you could create some strategic points of contention that would otherwise just be a giant sea of homogenous fields.

Zazen

[Guppy35]

Interesting thoughts.

I wonder how difficult it would be to tuck some dirt 'fighter' strips in in places that couldn't be seen by the other side unless they actually flew over them instead of just checking the map.

Might be kind of fun to up from one of those carved out maps to interdict or intercept.  

Also might make some sense to have the heavies based at permanent bases.  It might give the strat guys a reason to go deep to deny the other guys heavy bomber use.  This in turn gives more reason to escort bombers or watch the radar to intercept an escorted raid deep.

[Mugzeee]

Guppy. I like the way you are thinking.

[lasersailor184]

Zazen, you need to tweak the idea just a little bit.  Everything can be flown from the largest fields.  All the medium and smaller stuff can be flown from medium fields.  All the smaller stuff only can be flown from small fields.

[Saxman]

Either that, or have each bombers-only base always accompanied by one or two light "fighter" strips. That adds further to strategy by needing to account for the fighter bases when trying to take the large field.

[ghi]

Zazen,
 
  That's the best punishment for the poor tactic team/players, that don't understand to defend the most important strategic base on the map.
Better lose the war with 3 Abases left, but hold the Me163s base if you want radar

 was a lot of fun last evening at A16 , i lost 1500+ perks  and over 25 Me163s, i porked those bases around in Me163/ got vulched in me163 by planes and tanks, but was fun and that's important !:)

PS. Zazen, be aware the Comet get drop tank next patch  !

[Zazen13]

Originally posted by lasersailor184
Zazen, you need to tweak the idea just a little bit.  Everything can be flown from the largest fields.  All the medium and smaller stuff can be flown from medium fields.  All the smaller stuff only can be flown from small fields.

Isn't that what I said? As part of this post below?

For example, make it so only planes that can be a flown in fighter mode are available at small fields, anything that can also be flown in attack mode at medium fields, and anything at large fields including the big heavy bombers. Of course this would require a wholesale re-doing of maps to give thought to the placement of the various field types.



Zazen

[frank3]

Originally posted by ghi

ROFLOL