Author Topic: Increase Air Field Take Requirements (Read 1055 times)

NHawk · « **on:** October 08, 2007, 11:06:36 AM »

Just a thought that would make it tougher to take an air field....

1) Move the map room to the field itself.

2) Keep the requirement that the town needs to be down.

What this does is it makes the capture much harder. You not only need to take the town down but also de-ack the field, and probably destroy the whole base.

It would also slow the advance of the front lines because of rebuild/resupply time.

sgt203 · « **Reply #1 on:** October 08, 2007, 08:34:51 PM »

Not a bad idea at all.

It will however make it much harder to keep that which was just captured as you will most likely have little to no ability to up from the field to defend against any counter attack.

It will definately change the way you go about capturing a base and your right the field will just go flat immediately (all hangers) thus not allowing for any type of defense. Im thinking more hordes/missions to smash the base.

Would make for an interesting test though to see how it works out.

DarkHawk · « **Reply #2 on:** October 09, 2007, 10:45:32 AM »

lets just triple the troop requirements .

Easyscor · « **Reply #3 on:** October 09, 2007, 01:20:27 PM »

I think the tougher you make base captures, the bigger the horde you'll find being required.

IMHO, you keep the capture at 10 troops for a maproom at the town and make the towns with fewer buildings, ~25, and increase the size and building count at the factories with no more then 1 factory of each type per zone.

clerick · « **Reply #4 on:** October 10, 2007, 03:13:30 PM »

Havening spent more then a few nights fighting like heck to take or keep a base that was being actively defended, i would say that it is already pretty hard. Sure you can sneak a base, or hoard a base and beat it down in minutes, i don't know that the placement of the map room really matters in either case.

If you sneak it all you have to do it take down ack and vh, then vulch, which isn't a whole lot harder then just downing the town.

If you hoard it the ack and vh are usually going to be primary targets anyway. If your goal is to make it harder, change the number of troops required to capture or shorten the time it takes for base/town objects to pop.

Clifra Jones · « **Reply #5 on:** October 10, 2007, 03:50:58 PM »

I say increase troop requirements to 30 and make it so the ack does not instantly pop back up after the capture, That is very unrealistic. You should have to bring in supplies to get the ack back up same as you would for VH/FH.

Coshy · « **Reply #6 on:** October 10, 2007, 08:07:39 PM »

IMO to make a base more difficult to take, add a second VH and a spawn point at or very near the town/maproom.

NHawk · « **Reply #7 on:** October 11, 2007, 05:42:49 AM »

All good points gentlemen.

Here's my thinking on this...

First sneaking an airfield is completely eliminated. With the need for the town AND field ack to be down that base would be lighting up like a christmas tree before it was far enough down to take.

Taking a base would require some extra planning to prevent the re-take. People wouldn't be able to land and re-up using the existing hangars since they'd most likely be down. Which to me seems a little more realistic, since a P51 for example couldn't use very much from an enemy airfield and their supplies wouldn't have arrived yet. The best they could do is land and re-fuel/re-arm on a pad. If they don't do that, they had better have a defensive group already there or very close. And it promotes both supply runs to recently captured bases and GV cooperation.

With the map room near say the tower, the capture of a base would still be possible by just taking the town and field AA down but it would also be possible to quickly defend against the sneak take/attack.

clerick · « **Reply #8 on:** October 11, 2007, 02:35:10 PM »

Wouldn't hurt to have a few manned ack in the town too.

Tiger · « **Reply #9 on:** October 11, 2007, 02:41:13 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by clerick
Wouldn't hurt to have a few manned ack in the town too.

I think all ack's should be manned acks, no auto-acks... But that's a total different discussion I guess.

Oogly50 · « **Reply #10 on:** October 11, 2007, 03:10:47 PM »

I totally agree with this idea, it's the bestest.

I think it would involve more strategy, and would be a nice change.

clerick · « **Reply #11 on:** October 11, 2007, 04:43:57 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Tiger
I think all ack's should be manned acks, no auto-acks... But that's a total different discussion I guess.

Not sure i agree 100% If there was NO unmanned defenses, a base would be easier to capture. Instead, make all auto guns manable. The position is auto until someone takes control. Do the same for CV's.

Iron_Cross · « **Reply #12 on:** October 15, 2007, 06:03:07 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by clerick
Not sure i agree 100% If there was NO unmanned defenses, a base would be easier to capture. Instead, make all auto guns manable. The position is auto until someone takes control. Do the same for CV's.

Now this, I like. You have to include the CA and DEs in that equation too. Every gun auto, until manned, is something I can get behind.

Latrobe · « **Reply #13 on:** October 15, 2007, 06:24:21 PM »

If we can't have this done can we atleast get a mannable gun in the town??

Tiger · « **Reply #14 on:** October 16, 2007, 08:23:32 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by clerick
Not sure i agree 100% If there was NO unmanned defenses, a base would be easier to capture. Instead, make all auto guns manable. The position is auto until someone takes control. Do the same for CV's.

Yes, heaven forbid anyone actually have to defend a base... let's rely on the AI to do it for us.