HQ +City destroyed=> War lost, game over

[Mr No Name]

The game does need a stronger strat aspect... I am leaning in GHI's favor on this one.  Perhaps a smaller Base %age AND this.  ALSO it would make watching the map and defense more important.  That's one reason I liked that one map that drew so many whines where the base and town were separated by several miles.

[BaldEagl]

I see endless NOE missions to topple the map by killing the HQ and the city.

I do agree that HQ shouldn't be so easy to re-supply, if at all, but this proposed change is just TOO radical. 

I also agree that the strats need to be re-visited/modified to make them a more important part of the game but winning the war by basically taking out 2 strats?

[ghi]

to make them a more important part of the game but winning the war by basically taking out 2 strats?

You are right, that would be too much, maybe something like: capture 10-15% of both team bases + HQ and City or a combination something of  like that, to make those tgts useful for something. But anyway  i posted my wish like many others here ,i'm not expecting to see something like this done , to ecourage high alt fight raids/ bombing.
 Most of players want new toys in this "Wishlist" forum, i wish different kind of fights for the toys we got.
 

[wantok]

There's the kernel of an interesting idea here, but of course the original suggestion is a drastic change - much too easy to get a reset, encourages countries ganging up, etc.

Taking a step back, are we looking for a much easier way to win/reset, or are we aiming to make strat targets more useful and interesting?

A more balanced way to bring strat targets back into the game (right now they're pretty much ignored...) might be something like this:

A country wins if it

 - captures 40% of all fields (or whatever the current % is);  OR
 - captures 39% of all fields, plus flattens BOTH enemy HQs and ALL enemy cities (HQ and all cities from each enemy country); OR
 - captures 36% of all fields, plus flattens ALL enemy strat targets from both enemy countries (HQs, all cities, plus all AAA/radar/ammo/fuel factories and training facilities). 

As per the zone system, if a master field is captured, the cities/factories in that zone are no longer enemy cities/factories.

This way the reset might come slightly easier, but not a lot; and if you need to get both HQs and all cities, there's no huge incentive for two countries to gang up; and strat targets become useful and interesting again.

The actual percentages would need to be carefully chosen to get the game balance right... just off-the-top-of-the-head guesses above.

[BigKev03]

Was just thinking about making the strategic aspect of the game more of a player while keeping the same level of play we have now.  Here is my idea and I am sure it will be picked apart but hey it is just an idea and it might actually spur us to come up with a damn good idea.

As t is in the game now we capture V-bases and towns with 10 troops but how about allowing the capture of strategic sites with  an increased troop total like we see in AVA?  Maybe for strat targets the troop number required would be 30 - 40 or more?  If your sides strat sites are captured you of course would feel the effect through out your country by a reduction in the max fuel, ord, and troops that could be used by your coutnry.  Example of the fuel would be:  Let's say each country has four strategic fuel sites for a total of 100% fuel production (each site produces 25% of your country's fuel) and one is captured then the max fuel you could take out of any of your bases would be 75% and if more are captured then it is reduced more.  In addition, if you capture other fuel sites while one of your is captured then the production of that fuel strat goes to your country?  I know by making fuel a factor in flying time we might take bigger look at these little sites more agreesively. I haven't figured how the troop, ord and radar reduction would work except for a longer reduction in repair time at bases.  Example:  If one of your four radar sites is captured the normal time to repair radar at a base is increased by 30 minutes (this reflects the lack of strategic resources to repair/manufacture radar).  By keeping it simple like this we can still keep the same game play style we have but make strat targets more important to your side.  Why have strat targets if you dont feel the loss of them in your quest to win the war?  Any ideas are welcome as well as all the head shots I am gonna take for bringing this up.

BigKev

[BaldEagl]

Not a bad idea BigKev.

To take it further without having thought it through;

Troops:  Reduce by 2 for each strat, thus, a Goon could carry 10 at full strat, then 8, 6 and 4 as strats are taken.  Of course, more Goons would be needed for a capture.  The problem here is in how the capture is credited.  Likely last troop in like it is now but then everyone will be waiting to time it so they get the 10th troop in.

Ack:  Reduce the field ack that can fire by 2 for each strat... similar to the troop idea.

Radar:  Reduce the radar rings by 2 miles for each strat... 12.5, 10.5, 8.5 and finally 6.5 mile radar rings.

The problem with all of this is that once a country gets backed into a corner they will likely never be able to fight their way out.

The other problem is that all the small maps only have one of each type of strat.

[Solar10]

It seems to me you'de be taking all strategy out of the game and replacing it with one big GHI mission.

And the change there is?????????????

[Coog03]

Like the first idea but i dont think the second would last long. Right when the numbers favor one side you would see nothing but around the clock bombing. Hard to protect bases and HQ w/only 40 people on.

[Messiah]

No.