Flayed1 Can you do me a favor?

[SlapShot]

Was just looking at the map some more ... after a cup o joe ... and was thinking about the sneaky NOE backdoor raid ... so I added another front-line connector (in yellow). It's a long ride, but if done NOE ... it could be fun.

The possibilities are endless ... only thing is that I would think that each map would need multiple "attack" lists so as to mix it up each time the map is loaded.

Once a map is made, maybe HT would then let other players present an "attack" list for those that don't possess the talent to make a map, but can see the strat on a map.

[Flayed1]

I understand slap and that is what I was wondering after I got done...  HT seems real concerned about keeping the fronts small so I went that rout trying not to go to far from his plan but the more I look at it I think I may not have gone far enough...

 I think I might get my morning coffee and work up another version with some places where it spiders out more..   Then I'll have a couple options.

[SlapShot]

Sweet ... look for some nice "end-around" points like my yellow line ... for the NOE sneaky dudes.

Wish HT would jump in here and give ya a "yay" - "neigh" - or "your on the right track just a little something here ..."

[Flayed1]

Actually slap you seem to have a tallent for this type of thinking.    

 I really think your example could work as well or better than the round loop I have on mine...

 Ya know with this system we could use the same maps but with different capture lines..  and basicly turn 1 map into multiple maps...

 If we can help HT to get a good system working I hope he would release a tool that people could use to place lines on the current maps and submit them.. Most people don't have the time or patiance to build an entire new map but maybe this would be a way to introduce some variety into the same old stuff

[EagleDNY]

Might I suggest that lines of attack to multiple bases / thread crossing points be set up at Large Bases where possible?  

This sets up the largest battles at the large airbases, which have the ack and hangers to be able to survive a big battle (for a while) when the bomber stream starts coming in, and provides an actual strategic reason for the large base to exist - it guards a key defensive point.

I know this might not work perfectly on the maps we have now, but if you try to make it a point to do this and implement it on future maps I think it would be a good idea.

EagleDNY
$.02

[SlapShot]

Originally posted by EagleDNY
Might I suggest that lines of attack to multiple bases / thread crossing points be set up at Large Bases where possible?  

This sets up the largest battles at the large airbases, which have the ack and hangers to be able to survive a big battle (for a while) when the bomber stream starts coming in, and provides an actual strategic reason for the large base to exist - it guards a key defensive point.

I know this might not work perfectly on the maps we have now, but if you try to make it a point to do this and implement it on future maps I think it would be a good idea.

EagleDNY
$.02

Good idea .... maybe Flayed has, but I haven't really looked at the map with that much detail as to what should fight what ... I was just trying to see if this is the "technique" that HT was looking for.

If HT was to give a thumbs up ... then a more detailed and balanced "attack list" could be made.

With that ... as both Flayed and I have said ... you could make your own "attack" list if HT were to accept player made "attack lists". Like Flayed said ... this technique could give many dimensions to just one map.

I would think that making an "attack list", as tedious as it may seem, is no where on the level of tediousness when making a map ... and would allow "strat" minded individuals some real input into this game.

[Flayed1]

I know what your saying and I am trying to take things like that into account...

  I think things like:

  Base size
  Spawn lines
  Coastal/inland
  Base type proxcimity  IE- to many Vbases in the line with not enough air cover for either side is bad.
  Spetial bases--  163 base and zone bases.
  Terrain---  I don't think making the next capturable base be one that is on the other side of a huge 20K mountain range would be much fun trying to capture if you didn't have a good base to come from

  And the usuall base ALT



  There may be more things to think about..

 The thing is it is difficult to take these things all into consideration while adding this new system to it also...   All we can do is give it our best shot and see if it works out.

[hubsonfire]

I like the ideas of different routes with each reset, and the large bases being the points at which the front can take different directions.

[SlapShot]

If this is the way of the future, I would hope that HT could build ... a "Strat Attack Mapper"

The SAM would present a map in fullscreen mode and  would allow the same type of zooming and moving of the map like what we now have on the clipboard.

We would then use a route mapping tool (similar to plotting CV points) and it would allow the notation of 2-way and 1-way route points.

When your done, you push a button that will compile the "attack list" that could be submitted.

HT gets the "attack list" ... loads the "attack list" in the SAM ... checks it out and gives it a thumbs up or down or tweaks it himself, if need be.

Oh ... when the "done" button is pushed, it would let you know if you had not included any bases in the "attack list".

[EagleDNY]

Thats a good multiplier - the same map, but with different attack / choke points runs through the rotation on a reset.  Even with small maps, this adds a nice dimension.

EagleDNY

[whels]

HT,

is it possible under current setup to have it where the enemy can not see what bases are available to be captured by you side. example:

Knits see bases 1 4 8 and 10 captureable on thier map but  on bish or rook
side all they See is regular base icon. this would allow diversion attacks, to setup  the real strike. as it is right now. they have no reason to check/defend the non captureable bases, just pigpile defend the 1 or 2 captureable.  this would force you to defend the whole map, cause u wont know which bases are takeable on your side.

whels

[Traveler]

Here's a thought, design a base capture system that allows member of a country to attack at points that they chose to attack at and defend at bases that they chose to defend at.

[SlapShot]

Originally posted by whels
HT,

is it possible under current setup to have it where the enemy can not see what bases are available to be captured by you side. example:

Knits see bases 1 4 8 and 10 captureable on thier map but  on bish or rook
side all they See is regular base icon. this would allow diversion attacks, to setup  the real strike. as it is right now. they have no reason to check/defend the non captureable bases, just pigpile defend the 1 or 2 captureable.  this would force you to defend the whole map, cause u wont know which bases are takeable on your side.

whels

I see where you are coming from, but I think HT wants us to see where the attack points are so that a country can know where to concentrate their forces ... bottom line here is that he is trying to get forces to oppose each other.

Now, if the attack route is allowed to spider in multiple directions, then you could create a diversion attack at one captureable field, while another field on the spider leg is really the base that you intend to capture.

[SlapShot]

Originally posted by Traveler
Here's a thought, design a base capture system that allows member of a country to attack at points that they chose to attack at and defend at bases that they chose to defend at.

And who in a country would get to make the decision(s) ?

[hubsonfire]

Don't get baited, Slap, that's not a suggestion nor an idea.