Originally posted by Rino
I've been a WW2 buff for about 35 years. I've yet to see large numbers of
tanks, troops or artillery based permanently at an airbase. A couple of
times you could see large numbers of troops boarding transports, but I
cannot recall a single major ground assault based from a friendly airfield.
The reason for this being that the fields were rarely placed in the frontlines.
They might see large numbers of tanks there, as the bad guys overran the
field though 
Could not agree more............. I would prefer to see
1) delete the supply function from barrack objects (troops only)
2) put many more barrack objects on Gv fields and ports.
3) reduce the number of barrack objects on airfields
4) link gv fields and Ports to towns (placing them immediately adjacent to their town)
5) move towns linked to air fields further apart.
6) put the map room back on the air field (how about in the tower?)
7) create gv spawns to towns only (like roads) not directly to fields.
8) give ports more vehicle hangers. (should be like gv fields with harbours)
9) gv spawns from airfields one on base and one to defend the town. (no attacking gv spawns from air fields)
10) make multiple invasion routes along the roads created in (7) above.
The above is really just map design with no changes in code or core architecture however I would then speed up rebuild rates but add a mechanism that made base rebuild (gv, port or ac) totally reliant on the town's health and then enable capture when 75%/80% of the town was destroyed.
Add a 5" artilary piece that can be towed behind an M3 and deployed.
IMO this creates landgrab on a much more WWII based model. i.e. aircraft in a critical support role of the land based aquisition/neutralisation of key towns along major routes.
Plus the emphasis moves away from supressing an airfield but toward supressing towns. The town becomes the focus of GV battles and air fields are only capturable when the general area has already been over run and the field has run out of logistic viability.
