Towns, Depots and moving the battle away from the airfield.

[Tilt]

Its neat IMO if gameplay changes effect improvement and reflect some sense of the actuality experienced ................

I note that mass near suicidal fighter/ attacker suppression of an air field is still the most effective method of capture given our present gaming model.

Further our gaming model effect airfield capture by the destruction of a local town and capture of its command post. The defenders being chased off by the attackers.

I do not think (with the possible exception of the odd pacific island)any such loss and capture of an airfield was effected during WWII where by it was in use as both sides battled over.

Generally as the land war ingressed towards an airfield so it was abandoned and air craft were moved back.

In AH1 (for a while) we had depots. These were basically towns with towers and maprooms. They were on the logistic supply chain if a depot was taken then the fields it supplied were denied strat based logistic supply.

Ground based war was about the aquisition of strategic territory thru capture either along a front or by encirclement cutting off logistic supply to those within.

I believe that this could be re created with positive gameplay gains if the depot/town was introduced to AH2.

Some suggestions as to how

-each field (of what ever type) would be linked to a depot/town which would provide all logistic supply via road (trucks)
-each depot town would be linked via a logistic supply road to one only base(of what ever type)
-the depot/town would be further away from airfields than current towns (see present logistic road lengths)
-the depot towns could be local to vehicle fields and ports
-each field (of what ever type) would have its own on field map room.
-each depot town would have its own map room.
-each air base would only have defence vehicle spawn points (one on base others to its depot town)
-each vehicle base would have defencive and attacking vehicle spawn points to their own and neighbouring depot towns as well as possibly some other vehicle fields and ports local to depot towns.(but not airfields)
-if a depot town is captured then the local base it supports gets no rebuild of any thing except player supported supply drops.
-whilst an air base is linked to a freindly depot town then supply is very effective.
-Other strat conditions apply but only via the depot town.
-AA is  massively increased at all air bases maybe via puffy AA at medium and large fields
-with respect to terrain layout depot towns are generally "forward" of their associated air base but may be also "rear" or adjacent to allied vehicle fields or ports.
-if fields lose ammo bunkers they also lose shells over 40mm.
-harden all ammo bunkers and increase their number on vehicle fields.

In summary

The land war should not interest itsself directly in air fields their loss/gain should be a consequence of the land war not stepping stone mechanism.

Air fields should not be the spawn origin of offence vehicle deployment.

Terrains with the above features would require that vehicle spawn points link depot towns, ports and vehicle fields like roads on a map.

Significant depletion of a fields assets should only be achieved either thru sustained and heavy bombing or through loss of logistic supply and (after that) gradual depletion of non rebuilding assets.

Heavily defended (AAA) air fields remain "no go" areas for attackers until the depot town is taken.

Air combat is focused over (in the main) depot towns whilst ground combat is focussed between vehicle fields, ports and depot towns.

[rogerdee]

careful tilt you will get a headake with all that thinking.


This sounds like a intresting idea making people think abount what they need to do to capture.

the ammo bunkers should be hardened i mean they are concrete bunkers and 20mm cannons shouldnt do as much damage as they do to them.

If we could couple this idea with some new terrain objects like bridges that could be destroyed stoping the flow of convoys and resupply or things like train yards that can be bombed to slow resuply it could open the came up to another level.


we have got rivers now,imagine droping the bridges with bombers or blocking the access to bridges with tanks to stop supplys.

the defenders would have to mount a counter attack on the tanks at the bridge to open up supplies or maybe send field supplies to rebuild the bridge?.


 you do have  a very good idea Tilt which could easily be expanded on

but would proberly mean a lot more work to get into action then HTC are willing to do at the moment.

[WMDnow]

Sounds good, I support it entirely.

-WMD

[Traveler]

Originally posted by Tilt
Its neat IMO if gameplay changes effect improvement and reflect some sense of the actuality experienced ................

I note that mass near suicidal fighter/ attacker suppression of an air field is still the most effective method of capture given our present gaming model.

Further our gaming model effect airfield capture by the destruction of a local town and capture of its command post. The defenders being chased off by the attackers.

I do not think (with the possible exception of the odd pacific island)any such loss and capture of an airfield was effected during WWII where by it was in use as both sides battled over.

Generally as the land war ingressed towards an airfield so it was abandoned and air craft were moved back.

In AH1 (for a while) we had depots. These were basically towns with towers and maprooms. They were on the logistic supply chain if a depot was taken then the fields it supplied were denied strat based logistic supply.

Ground based war was about the aquisition of strategic territory thru capture either along a front or by encirclement cutting off logistic supply to those within.

I believe that this could be re created with positive gameplay gains if the depot/town was introduced to AH2.

Some suggestions as to how

-each field (of what ever type) would be linked to a depot/town which would provide all logistic supply via road (trucks)
-each depot town would be linked via a logistic supply road to one only base(of what ever type)
-the depot/town would be further away from airfields than current towns (see present logistic road lengths)
-the depot towns could be local to vehicle fields and ports
-each field (of what ever type) would have its own on field map room.
-each depot town would have its own map room.
-each air base would only have defence vehicle spawn points (one on base others to its depot town)
-each vehicle base would have defencive and attacking vehicle spawn points to their own and neighbouring depot towns as well as possibly some other vehicle fields and ports local to depot towns.(but not airfields)
-if a depot town is captured then the local base it supports gets no rebuild of any thing except player supported supply drops.
-whilst an air base is linked to a freindly depot town then supply is very effective.
-Other strat conditions apply but only via the depot town.
-AA is  massively increased at all air bases maybe via puffy AA at medium and large fields
-with respect to terrain layout depot towns are generally "forward" of their associated air base but may be also "rear" or adjacent to allied vehicle fields or ports.
-if fields lose ammo bunkers they also lose shells over 40mm.
-harden all ammo bunkers and increase their number on vehicle fields.

In summary

The land war should not interest itsself directly in air fields their loss/gain should be a consequence of the land war not stepping stone mechanism.

Air fields should not be the spawn origin of offence vehicle deployment.

Terrains with the above features would require that vehicle spawn points link depot towns, ports and vehicle fields like roads on a map.

Significant depletion of a fields assets should only be achieved either thru sustained and heavy bombing or through loss of logistic supply and (after that) gradual depletion of non rebuilding assets.

Heavily defended (AAA) air fields remain "no go" areas for attackers until the depot town is taken.

Air combat is focused over (in the main) depot towns whilst ground combat is focussed between vehicle fields, ports and depot towns.

I'm all for more targets, however, it sounds like your saying GV's can't attack an airfield?  I'd like to see an actual road system in a map with supply convoy trucking and rail system transferring supplies to a supply depot from the factory and the Supply depot supplying the field with more supply convoys.  Perhaps some rivers to cross on bridges that could be destroyed or rail  road tracks that could be blown up.  

Captures of towns could be made more difficult by placing an additional Vehicle Base in the vicinity of the town.  Not just a Vehicle hanger, but an entire Vehicle base, similar to the small, midsized and large air fields,   with it’s associated number of vehicle hangers and AAA,  perhaps bring back the puffy ack.    

Double the number of troops that are necessary to capture a town or require troops to be put into each map on each field type, town, air field and vehicle field.

[Ghosth]

Not so much that GV's can't attack an airfield. But rather that it wouldn't gain them much. Give the airfields real manable antitank guns for defense.

Tie land grabbing to depot/city's instead of fields. Put fields in a support role, as a base only for planes. Make Depot's the default location to get in a vehicle.

To expand on his ideas.

If a tank or other ground vehicle is "guarding" a bridge, no unarmored convoy would have in the war tried to cross it. This makes a natural "choke" point. GV spawns can then be set inside of reasonable driving distance from the bridge.
Thus putting the fight not at an arbitrary spawn point, but at a natural choke point, ie bridge or causeway.  As long as one side holds one end of the bridge the supply flow is stopped.

The depot depending on those supply's are now vulnerable to be attacked and captured. Acks won't rebuild, there should be a limited # of vehicles able to spawn from that point. Once those are all destroyed the enemy would be able to roll in and capture that point. Thus advancing the ground war.

Air war gains because of vastly increased number of targets.
The ground vehicles are going to need close air support.
You can stop this kind of attack by bombing the bridge. Which if fully destroyed should stay down for an hour or more.

There is no spawn camping because the fight is not at the spawn point. Its at a choke point between opposing spawn points.

Ideally you'd have a choice of spawn points. H to spawn at the depot itself for defense. And others a short drive from the bridge, preferably one for each side. IE given a east west bridge. You'd have 2 points on the East side, one N and one S of the bridge approach. And the same again for the West side.

Make the main center span of the bridge the part that can be destroyed. And make it stronger  than a hanger in strength. Ideally more than what a single vehicle could carry in shells to destroy it. Or even a single fighter, put it up to 5,000 lb in bombs. And give a reasonable amount of perks for destroying it.

Also, they can (and in the real war often were) heavily fortified and defended.
The majority of those acks should be mannable 20mm and 37mm.

Heck make it so you can "capture" each end of a bridge and gain the acks.
So you have daredevils driving a jeep with troops across the bridge at full speed trying to capture the defenses.

There really isn't anything to this strat idea that can't be done with the code we already have. Worst would be a few new objects, depots and town/depots. The only real new feature that would be nice would be bombable switching yards near a depot, etc.

[Hornet33]

You know.....I really like this idea. It would get most players away from hovering over a capped field waiting to vulch some poor guy. Push the fight away from the bases and make the strats the targets for capture. In order to succesfully capture one your team would have to accomplish several things. Destroy ords at the nearby fields with tactical strikes, interdict the flow of supplies, and occupy the strats and capture them.

[rogerdee]

now if only htc would grab these ideas and implement them.

ok so the maps would need re designing but we have some great map makers that can and i think would do it if asked too .

this would take away a lot of the horde mentaliaty the HTC didnt like in the one large arena.the gground guys and the air guys would still have ther fun just not vulching fields and spawn camping.

Add to these tgts supply ships  and convoys and there would be more then enough things for every one to do with out gettng bored.

[Tilt]

if the the depot/town was re introduced as source of logistics as it was once in AH1 then no extra COAD or objects (other than what was left out when the depot was not coaded into AH2) would be needed.........

(excepting my wish that ammo bunkers also supply shells over 40mm)

Once you have the depot town this is a matter of Terrain design............

Depots were never really tried in AH1 they were part added to existing terrains without re locating the base locations and with one depot some times supplying several bases in some cases. I believe that the above is very achievable if a terrain is totally redesigned (in terms of field placings) using depot towns as described above.

Other stuff like bridges and other choke points may add to game play but I would not try to wish for all at once.

Basically fields should be very difficult to take whilst their depot towns are still in freindly hands.......once they are not recieving supplies from the depot their defences will wither quickly.

Nothing need spawn from a depot town. it can be passive  its defence is from local bases and it is from local enemy vehicle bases that it is attacked by ground or from more remote bases by air.

In terms of ground gameplay the depots are all like capturable TT's that povide logistic support to the ground bases and air bases defending them

[CAV]

Basically fields should be very difficult to take whilst their depot towns are still in freindly hands.......once they are not recieving supplies from the depot their defences will wither quickly.

One way to do that would be to limit the number of A/C and GV's once your base supply line is cut (the depot is captured).

In supply... unlimited planes & tanks like it is now.

Supply line cut... limited useable planes at a base. ie.

15 P-51D
18 P-51B
XX FW-190's
XX Bf 109's
Etc, Etc, Etc...

Once you use up the planes at a base, you don't get anymore till the base is back in supply.

Cavalry

[rogerdee]

oh imagine all the grys  i cant fly my la la becasue we crashed them all.the answer would be go fly resupply then


but things should get badder for a base with no supplies,fuel should be less, ammo less and the number of avaible planes should become less with time as spares supply would be affected.of course flying fresh planes to the airfiled and landing them would help.


having a fixed amout of each or certain aircraft at a field would add the challange of landing and surviving instead of up kill die reupp that we have now.

we have 4 arenas 2 of which are late ones it would be good if we could try something like this in one of  the arenas to see how it works and if the horde were man enough to take up the new challange.

[Tilt]

Originally posted by CAV
One way to do that would be to limit the number of A/C and GV's once your base supply line is cut (the depot is captured).

.....................

Something similar................AW's zone limit was linked to hangers or fuel(I cant remember which) such that as it was depleted at a field so the max zone limit number got lesser.

I like zone limits for other reasons but this COAD does not have too be implemented to make the above functional........

But I like the direction of your suggestion (see below) ***

I would like it even more if logistics were finite and consumable but I fear that also requires considerable COAD not to mention heavy server usage...........

I propose that the base has no rebuild from strat at all whilst its depot town is in enemy hands.............unless players provide it via supply drops.

When a base loses its depot town nothing is repaired, all damage is cumulative nothing rebuilds. Under these conditions even the biggest, best defended base will gradually decline under air attack to a point where it is undefendable. (see below)***

Equally if a side captures a base without taking the depot then that side inherits a decimated field with no hope of rebuild. Hence the motivation is firmly in favour of capturing the depot town.

***
There is an option to both the above.

When a depot town is lost  a timer is started (say 30 mins) after which spawning is disabled at the base supplied by the depot town.

eg
1) Bishop base loses its depot to Rooks.
2) Bishops may continue to use the base for 30 mins.
3) after 30 mins they can no longer spawn from the base but can use its tower and maybe even its ground guns
4) Rooks must still capture the base to use it.
5) If Bishops re capture the depot the base is instantly available and any timer is switched off.
6) If Rooks capture the base whilst still holding the depot then the base is instantly available to them and any timer is switched off.

also consider if the base was captured prior to the depot. I would suggest...

1)If Rooks capture a base prior to capturing its depot then the base is still unusable (as if the 30 min timer has run its time out already)
2)If Rooks wish to use the base then they must also capture the depot town.
3)If Bishops re capture the base (and still have the depot town) then they have instant use.


Under the above the logistic function of the depot is replaced by a simple timer. Indeed the level of COAD to re introduce the depot (to AH2) is now significantly less.

Strat and rebuild times etc can be left exactly as they are now........

There would be no  requirement to increase AAA etc as the target capture motivation is firmly linked to the depot town. (hold a depot town for 30 mins and the base is ready for capture by virtue that nothing is spawning to defend it)

Effectively we have caused fields and their towns to have their own map rooms (adding towns to vehicle fields and ports) linking base spawning capability to town ownership and a delay timer.

Further existing terrains would be much more amienable to this. Airfield towns would be moved further from the fields and additional vehicle spawn/s would be added between the air field and its town.

Ports and vehicle fields would get their own towns.

We could dumb down the above even further............ without any change to COAD

We could add the existing town (with its map room) very close to all ports and vehicle felds (which lose their maprooms). We could move airfield towns to a point over half a sector away from the airfields and add defensive vehicle spawns from airfields into their towns.

Other attacking vehicle spawns are from local vehicle fields and ports towards towns. (not toward air bases).

I think that I would still like to stop rolling up the map by adding a time delay after each capture before the base was usable by the enemy. However even this last proposal would move combat away from the airfields................exce pting the motivation to kill the airbase VH early on in any attack.

[VWE]

I think you think too much... are you sure your not a woman?

[Tilt]

Originally posted by VWE
I think you think too much... are you sure your not a woman?

I am only sure of death and taxes

[Willfly]

Very well said, I support it entirely


                               -Willfly:aok

[Bad31st]

YES - Excellent Idea Tilt!