Please fix the rampant Ordinance Porking

[TinmanX]

Hang on a tick....

What you're saying is, for all intents and purposes; "When a building, filed to the brim with explosive devices, is hit with another explosive device, it should not go kaboooooombloughy!!!"?

Is that what you're saying?

[Edbert1]

Not a "building" really, a tin lean-to or quonset hut more accurately.

But here's a concession to consider...All small and medium bases stay as they are but all zone-control bases, or maybe all large bases have the hardening, or maybe any base that is ~100 miles from nearest enemy base. Harden the troops/fuel/ammo all you want at main bases, just apply the same % of hardening to the FHs there as well.

I thiink the fluffers should be able to up a row or three behind enemy lines even if the front is porked, simulate the channel if you will.

[Simaril]

Originally posted by TinmanX
Hang on a tick....

What you're saying is, for all intents and purposes; "When a building, filed to the brim with explosive devices, is hit with another explosive device, it should not go kaboooooombloughy!!!"?

Is that what you're saying?

Hangars are NOT simulated objects, like planes and tanks. Their real life hardness is irrelevant.

Their entire purpose is to serve as ICONS for certain game functions, like the ability to launch a certain plane or to initiate a base capture.


Remember that this discussion is really about game balance, not anything else.

[mars01]

You guys crying about fuel need to understand, Fuel didn't change because of the porking, it changed becuase of the higher fuel multiplier.  With a mult of 2 you cant do squat on 50% and even less on 25%.  

For the rest of the group: what if HTC were to put in some sort of game mechanic, say a resupply like we currently have for GVs? Such a change would allow you to bring ord and troops back up at a porked field, without having to wait for 2 hours. I would think this would negate this "problem" completely, and would be easy to add.

This was the original problem when fuel porking was an issue.  The work to resupply was and is disproportionate to the little effort needed to drop strat.

Also we have been saying HT needs to up hardness on hangers and CVs and many of you say, "OH just defend your Hangers and CVs", and many of you have said, "Oh, you don't like your hangers going down?  Easy porkj the ord."  Well how do you like it now.  Im with Supa, every sorti I fly starts with porking ord and VH then I fight and I am glad to see it's catching on.

How's that medicine taste?  I know it didn't taste too good when you guys were shoving it down our throats.

[FiLtH]

A bomber bombs an FH
A fighter sick of being hangarless goes to pork the ord
He dives in easily strafing down the ord
The bomber pilot returns from another base and porks FH again
Fighter goes to that base and porks ord
Bomber guy comes from another and dive bombs his lancs on the fhs again

     Is that what we want?

   Id prefer each structure be hardened. That way it requires bomb missions on each side to attack things successfully. Either through many jabos or more than 1 set of bombers.

    The one plane shutting down a front is gayness. Defend against him? A D9 screaming in bent on porking? Unlikely.

[mars01]

Well Filth, due to the ignorance of many, this is what had to happen for them to open there eyes and see they are not in a vaccume.

They want to pork Hangers well they are going to lose ord.  Maybe if heros concentrated on the city and dropping troops rather than the hangers we wouldn't be in this mess.

Last week and I hate to admit it, the fights we so non existant that, we ( a few BKs and a few other knights) started taking bases.  All we dropped were the Ack, VH and City.  We took both bases we were after in less than an hour.  No horde, no hangers harmed.  Crap we were actually hoping for a big defence, but it never got that far.

[Oldman731]

Originally posted by mars01
Also we have been saying HT needs to up hardness on hangers and CVs and many of you say, "OH just defend your Hangers and CVs", and many of you have said, "Oh, you don't like your hangers going down?  Easy porkj the ord."  Well how do you like it now.  Im with Supa, every sorti I fly starts with porking ord and VH then I fight and I am glad to see it's catching on.

How's that medicine taste?  I know it didn't taste too good when you guys were shoving it down our throats.

Heh.

- oldman

[Souless]

Originally posted by mars01


They want to pork Hangers well they are going to lose ord.  Maybe if heros concentrated on the city and dropping troops rather than the hangers we wouldn't be in this mess.

Spot on mars I cant even count how many times been over a base and they go for the hangers.Meanwhile the vh and city are still up.A wasted effort IMO.

[Edbert1]

Originally posted by FiLtH
A bomber bombs an FH
A fighter sick of being hangarless goes to pork the ord
He dives in easily strafing down the ord
The bomber pilot returns from another base and porks FH again
Fighter goes to that base and porks ord
Bomber guy comes from another and dive bombs his lancs on the fhs again

     Is that what we want?
 

You seem to be coming around to realize what those of us bored with "winning-the-war" have been saying for a while.Lather-rinse-repeat leads to boredom. One horde taking base A while a nearby enemy horde takes bas B rather than meeting one another, least to frustration if you are looking for a even-up fight. Nothing wrong with strat and war-winning, or even hording to some degree, but if in your qeust for the 10 perks you get for "winning" you avoid fighting; it is bad.

[TexMurphy]

There is nothing I hate more then when I come to a field to provide CAP for the bases takers and they drop their ord on the FHs instead of VH and town.

9 out of 10 failed takes is due to ignoring VH.

Not only do they waste my time but their as well as since by the time they get back to that base they need to drop FHs again.

If they wana fly a series of bomber sorties and dont care about actually taking the town why not use some strat (ammo factory, fuel depot or what ever) or something else???

Tex

[Kev367th]

Originally posted by whels
back in the day of old AH when you could pork fule to 25%, it was an easy way for the outnumbered to slow down the horde. now with it limited to 75% it doesnt slow them down at all, and really niether does hittin ammo or troops. cause they can bring multiple goons, and keep cap on the field, since they have atleast 75% fuel.

i say bring back the ability to pork fuel to 25%.  also, if HT is gona keep it so that 1 lone fighter can destrat a field, i say reduce the # of player resupplies required to repair the field. 8 is too many, and maybe 1 is too few. so  go with like 3.

8?

Sorry Whels always been able to do it with 5.

25% fuel porkage would also help to control one of the other major whines on the BB's. The amount of LA7's and Spit XVI's.

[TexMurphy]

Originally posted by Edbert1
You seem to be coming around to realize what those of us bored with "winning-the-war" have been saying for a while.Lather-rinse-repeat leads to boredom. One horde taking base A while a nearby enemy horde takes bas B rather than meeting one another, least to frustration if you are looking for a even-up fight. Nothing wrong with strat and war-winning, or even hording to some degree, but if in your qeust for the 10 perks you get for "winning" you avoid fighting; it is bad.

Nail on the head...

The problem isnt wanting to bomb, win the war or hoard... its not wanting to fight...

Its the "why defend a base when you can take a new one". Its that attitude that prevents the hoards from meeting each other.

What if there was a map that really forced the hoards to meet and where defense is important?

Something like a Pizza map where ALL the towns where in the center of each nations slice.

That would force the hoards to run into each other... but then again I guess it would just result in R on K, K on B, B on R base.

Question is still can a map be made that increases the incentive of defense? Or can something change to increase the need of defense?

Tex

[Simaril]

Originally posted by TexMurphy
Nail on the head...

The problem isnt wanting to bomb, win the war or hoard... its not wanting to fight...

Its the "why defend a base when you can take a new one". Its that attitude that prevents the hoards from meeting each other.

....snip....

Question is still can a map be made that increases the incentive of defense? Or can something change to increase the need of defense?

Tex

Even if an ideal fighting map were made, we'd still have problems with the majority of older maps that remain.

I'm having a hard time thinking of a land strat tweak that would increase the need for defense though. Tougher hangars, towns  and strats could backfire by requiring ever larger hordes to do a capture...

But, the idea of dramtaically toughening the strats like hangars and troops while leaving the town unchanged COULD channel efforts into the most efficient pathway, going after the town itself.

Bears consideration.

[Edbert1]

Originally posted by Simaril
ETougher hangars, towns  and strats could backfire by requiring ever larger hordes to do a capture...

Good logic, might happen, could also lessent the value of base capture/porking to some degree too. More reason to fight each other than grab undefended/undefensible bases...maybe.

[Simaril]

Originally posted by Edbert1
snip....
. More reason to fight each other than grab undefended/undefensible bases...maybe.

I suspect there's a good deal of player preference involved in the land war/air fight split, so most players wont likely switch when game mechanics make their "fun" harder.

In fact, look at the fighter guys' reaction to FH porking -- they didnt become land warriors, they became unhappy fighter jocks.

Might have more success giving the land war guys built in game incentives to not interfere with the fighter guys' fun -- like toughening hangars/strats while leaving town buildings and ack at their current levels. The more I think about this idea the more I like it...