Porking

[Tilt]

I dont have a problem with ground attack tactics but it does seem wrong to me that "infantry" for an area of some 200 square miles can be taken out by a couple of straffing runs across a few nissen huts.

Air borne troops should be a rarity and so the number of barracks presently at air fields seem to be appropriate.

However my wish would be to manifestly increase the number of barracks at GV fields. 10 fold increase would seem to be the minimum IMO such that the barrack camp takes on the aspect of a town.

I understand that flexibility, team work and defence of assets should be requirements of gameplay but the ease with which the work of many trying to capture a field can be wasted by a single or two pass straffing attack at a supporting field is  poor game play, de motivating and a "step to far" from reality IMO.

[Reynolds]

YES! Since it was much harder to take out an entire infantry unit. I say yes to this. Or maybe, its IMPOSSIBLE to pork troops at V bases. You need to kill the troop training centers. That way ground infantry is just about always a possibility.

[FiLtH]

Ya if they dont want to harden stuff, there should be more of it. It should take teamwork to strat a base not just 1 guy. Ive strated troops in a D9 at multiple bases many a time.

[Kermit de frog]

Originally posted by Reynolds
YES! Since it was much harder to take out an entire infantry unit. I say yes to this. Or maybe, its IMPOSSIBLE to pork troops at V bases. You need to kill the troop training centers. That way ground infantry is just about always a possibility.

You may have something here.  Pork troops at the training facility only.  Hmmm.  I need more time to think about this idea.

[E25280]

Originally posted by Kermit de frog
You may have something here.  Pork troops at the training facility only.  Hmmm.  I need more time to think about this idea.

First, up the capacity of C-47 to 20 (leave M-3 and Jeep alone).

Next, troops at airfields are "unporkable".

Third, number of troops actually loaded at launch is dependent upon training facility damage level.  90% - C-47 gets 18 troops, M-3 gets 9 troops.  At 50% damage, C-47 gets 10 troops, M-3 5 troops, Jeep only 2.  Etc.

Gives a strat that is worth hitting (and worth defending).  Never makes base capture completely impossible (training facility at 0% would be quite a feat), just need more people working together at each base.  For those who think hordes would get bigger - since every base would continue to be a "threat" for base capture, I think it would actually spread the fights out as no sector would be "safe" from capture due to porking.


Dunno -- could be fun.  Might be a bugger to code.

[Reynolds]

HELL ***** YEAH!!! Then, when we get 15 bomber pilots together we all have one target to drop on!!! Y-E-S!!!!

(dreaming of future Bomb-gasms)

[Tilt]

Originally posted by E25280
First, up the capacity of C-47 to 20 (leave M-3 and Jeep alone).

I think if this were done then standard maproom hardness should be increased to the equivilent of approx 15 troops...........

[E25280]

Originally posted by Tilt
I think if this were done then standard maproom hardness should be increased to the equivilent of approx 15 troops...........

My thought (not explained above) was that a single goon would still be efficient enough to capture a town up until 50% of the training facility is destroyed.  

Generally speaking, it is harder to "sneak" a goon into/near a town than an M-3.  Usually there is more "flight time" for a goon than drive time for an M-3.  Also, most goon drivers drop troops from the air, making them killable for a long time relative to an M-3's troops that are 95% of the time let out right next to the maproom.  (Not to mention it is a more "realistic" loadout.)  

So, due to the greater risk/effort involved with gooning vs driving, IMO their capacity should be upped even without implementing a different "pork" system.  With the proposed pork system, IMO it becomes nearly manditory.  Reward the single risk-taker trying to fly the troops in rather than those who drive them in because it is easier/safer.

[justfreds]

i am asking my grandpa (who flew a c47 in the pacific theatre in WWII) how many paratroopers you could stick in the back

[justfreds]

ok, i have found out. my grandpa said you could pack a maximum of 40 troops into the back of a c47, but a normal load would consist of 30 troops

[Billy Joe Bob]

 dayam i knew that the c47 should be able to carry more than 10 troops but a max of 40!