Author Topic: Q about HQ  (Read 1391 times)

Offline opposum

  • Probation
  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 467
Re: Re: Q about HQ
« Reply #30 on: August 10, 2007, 07:13:52 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by LYNX
How about the older HQ settings.  There was 3 phases of damage and if my pickled brain remembers correctly it was.....  Part damaged = lose of enemy DOT dar.  Badly damaged = lose of enemy DOT dar and enemy DAR BARS.  Total damage was same as now = everything lost.

Only a fully damaged HQ was resupply-able.  Part damaged was not supply-able and depended on their country strat.  Part damaged dar could be down for up to 3 hours.

Or how about just making it weaker so as 1 set of bombers could take it out.  Might be better to have HQ supply-able but with the possibility of more attacks.





At present you need a minimum of 3 sets of Lancasters to kill HQ and only 8 boxes of supplies to rebuild it.  As already stated local HQ bases are general awash with barracks.  It is kind of pointless with the exception of a few maps to even bother doing a HQ raid.  Perhaps with the older settings and the barracks we have today it would again encourage some of those HQ runs and ME163 defences.

 HQ was made harder because the knights were without part of their dar for about 4 days.....that's right, 4 days straight.



good idea lynx i agree with you
/_|o[____]o
[1---L-OllllllO-
()_)()_)=°°=)_)

Offline AAolds

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 442
Q about HQ
« Reply #31 on: August 11, 2007, 07:49:07 PM »
HTC may as well just get rid of strats and fuels tanks at fields since they barely serve any tactical value anymore.  Personally, I think it would rock to be able to leave the wittle Lghey pilot types only 25 % fuel, lets see em try and run "extend" now.
The AArch AAngelz is its own country, we owe loyalty only unto ourselves and those we fly with at the moment.---AAolds AArch AAngelz XO.

I love to GV and do Jabo missions vs GVs, get used to it.  Being good at one helps in the other.

Offline tedrbr

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1813
Q about HQ
« Reply #32 on: August 11, 2007, 11:09:34 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by AAolds
HTC may as well just get rid of strats and fuels tanks at fields since they barely serve any tactical value anymore.  Personally, I think it would rock to be able to leave the wittle Lghey pilot types only 25 % fuel, lets see em try and run "extend" now.

On the occasional map, once in a while, you can find a field that is worth porking all strats at that can't be resupped too easily.......Limit the Spits, Lgays, and Typhies to 75% fuel and no DT's.   But more rare now than it was in the old MA.

Granted it doesn't come into use much now, but no sense in taking it out of the game..... actually using resources and coding time to take something out that doers not see much use?  Doesn't make much sense.

Offline Bronk

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9044
Q about HQ
« Reply #33 on: August 12, 2007, 07:57:27 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by AAolds
HTC may as well just get rid of strats and fuels tanks at fields since they barely serve any tactical value anymore.  Personally, I think it would rock to be able to leave the wittle Lghey pilot types only 25 % fuel, lets see em try and run "extend" now.


Lets take a look at the other side of the coin.
 It's Sunday night in LWO numbers are 105, 120, 75.  I let you imagination work on what # goes with what side. The usual tag team the low side is in full swing. Since the low side is in full defense mode. you want to pork there fuel to 25% so they cant up the best defense fighters for more than 5 min?


Bronk
See Rule #4

Offline Tiger

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 766
Q about HQ
« Reply #34 on: August 14, 2007, 01:25:19 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Bronk
Lets take a look at the other side of the coin.
 It's Sunday night in LWO numbers are 105, 120, 75.  I let you imagination work on what # goes with what side. The usual tag team the low side is in full swing. Since the low side is in full defense mode. you want to pork there fuel to 25% so they cant up the best defense fighters for more than 5 min?





If they are in full defense mode, they really don't have to fly that far to fight and are probably better off taking 25% fuel.

Offline tedrbr

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1813
Q about HQ
« Reply #35 on: August 14, 2007, 03:15:18 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Tiger
If they are in full defense mode, they really don't have to fly that far to fight and are probably better off taking 25% fuel.


Wrong.  Because they are in full defense mode, they need to stay up longer as hitting the rearm pad results in a vulch and buffs overhead keep killing the hangars repeatedly to prevent upping in the first place.

Offline ghi

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2669
Q about HQ
« Reply #36 on: August 14, 2007, 03:41:48 PM »
Fighting for "Win War" is nonsense ,close to imposible to reset with this bases uncapturable, caps, eny,...
Soo, why wouldn't HTC change the HQ downtime to 30 min, and every evening we nooke each others HQ, with massive raids, would be fun , no?
:)

Offline Anyone

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 307
Q about HQ
« Reply #37 on: August 15, 2007, 05:20:54 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by ghi
Fighting for "Win War" is nonsense ,close to imposible to reset with this bases uncapturable, caps, eny,...
Soo, why wouldn't HTC change the HQ downtime to 30 min, and every evening we nooke each others HQ, with massive raids, would be fun , no?
:)


yeah, large esscorted buff raids vs large defence wings.... so much fun... all sadly lost in the last year or so

Offline NCLawman

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 442
Q about HQ
« Reply #38 on: August 15, 2007, 09:11:00 AM »
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

I agree that improving the usefulness of strats would make the game more enjoyable by giving people a reason to bomb them AND a reason to DEFEND them.   I would love to have a reason to get back in bomber mission and to defend against them.  It would certainly re-add an aspect of the game that has been lost or is missing currently.  (Just my opinion.)

As a side bar:  I also agree that going back to the "old" map reset characteristics would help improve enjoyment.  The near impossibility of map resets leaves us with the same map on the arenas for weeks at a time.  I, personally, would like to see the map rotate more often to keep from going stale (just my opinion).  If this is a problem due to the "Win the War" issue, then just make the map resetable without the last line of... "rooks, bish, knights won the war."  Just put the tag "the map has been reset.  The terrain will change in (X) minutes."  Give people long enough to fly home and land, BAM new map.

:aok

>salute<
Jeff / NCLawMan (in-game)


Those who contribute the least to society, expect the most from it.

Light travels faster than sound.  This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.

Offline EagleDNY

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1514
Q about HQ
« Reply #39 on: August 15, 2007, 10:06:13 AM »
Have to agree that having HQ resupplied so easily makes it a waste of time to go bomb it.  The radar down for 30 minutes, and no HQ resupply possible option would be preferable IMHO.  That setting makes it worth it to bomb HQ, and makes HQ worth defending.  

As far as base strats go, why not have the limit be 50% fuel loads if all the base fuel tanks are destroyed.  Since 25% fuel loads are "too much porking" and 75% is "too little to make it worth the effort", lets try 50% and see how that goes.  With the new ack settings (which I like btw), it would be unlikely that a single porker could really shut down a base, but a well run mission would have a good chance.

Speaking of well run missions to shut down bases - a good example would be the mission the bish ran last night against 49 - a bunch of B17 boxes, escorted by about 20 Spitfires.  When you run a mission like that, you deserve to shut the enemy base down.  Knocking out the FHs for 15 minutes is one thing, but the possibility of knocking the fuel loads down to 50% for a while should certainly encourage more of those big raids (and the giant furball that results from them).

EagleDNY
$.02

Offline BaldEagl

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10791
Q about HQ
« Reply #40 on: August 15, 2007, 10:06:46 AM »
I'd like to see the HQ go back to the staged destruction method where it could be only patially down.  I mean what's the point of all those buildings at HQ?  All you need is the one hard building now.  I also don't think it should be able to be re-supplied.

As to fuel I'd also like to see the old progressive fuel destruction come back.  25% and can't fly far?  Up further back or take another plane with higher capacity.  I'm pretty sure that during WWII when a field's fuel tanks got porked there were repercussions.  You could still allow drop tanks (filled at 25%) as a partial off-set.  As an alternate you could limit the number of planes that could lift from that field.

As to barracks, field acks, etc. there are just too many now.  I never used to use field ack for cover but now I know that if I can drag some sucker in and make him turn just once it's a quick, effortless proxie.  Forget the field ack, the town ack is plenty for a quick proxie.  And why all the barracks?  Next we'll see 5 radars per field because, my god, they keep taking down local radar.

Finally, the old strat system on the large maps was great.  You'd almost always see the strats go before the field captures began.  Now it's a joke and very much because of the changes in the field lay-outs (too many barracks, acks, etc.).  I will say however, that it makes for easy milkrunning in the LWA's as there's a general feeling that there's no need to defend the strats (fuel strat a case in point... what does it affect?).

Oops, sorry, one more thing.  Bring back the old calibration method for bombing.
I edit a lot of my posts.  Get used to it.