Vehicle Bases

[The Grinch]

Good idea

[LCCajun]

So basically we want small Air bases with extra VHs and no town....? What exactly is the point?

I definitely do not want the zerglings having shorter hops with less weight, you also have to consider the mass NOE hordling mishuns coming from these forward bases.

You have to consider -flight- time when playing a -flight- game. The consideration of time and distance and the vulnerabilities while you're traveling are inherent parts of air combat.

Want to spend less time flying to the target? Stay alive longer when you get there.

Want big Vehicle bases with air strips? Don't give them bombs and re-arm pads.

If you read his post he stated that the fighters would not be enabled.

[WWhiskey]

new  and or different is good!  +1

[Rider]

So basically we want small Air bases with extra VHs and no town....? What exactly is the point?

I definitely do not want the zerglings having shorter hops with less weight, you also have to consider the mass NOE hordling mishuns coming from these forward bases.

You have to consider -flight- time when playing a -flight- game. The consideration of time and distance and the vulnerabilities while you're traveling are inherent parts of air combat.

Want to spend less time flying to the target? Stay alive longer when you get there.

Want big Vehicle bases with air strips? Don't give them bombs and re-arm pads.

Read the post before you flame.  It's not a small air base,  I said don't have planes available, just a rearm pad.  I also didn't say anything about dieing, I was talking about returning to base for fuel and ammo.

As I said in my post (if you read it) you would still have to launch from the rear field, the large v-base would simply be a rearm point.

If you're going to flame at least try to come across as somewhat inteligent and read the post so you have your facts straight.


Rider

[olskool2]

Having re-read your post, taking into consideration every sentence I may have missed the first read through, I still can't see it helping anything. You don't want re-arm pads any closer to areas that are designed to instigate GV combat, it would ruin more fun than it would ever breed and make it overall worse on the tank guys. Nor would it be good to have shortcuts to bombs between bases, there is a reason you have to travel for them.


No where in my first post did I include any insult, subtle or otherwise. But now I will.

For your own sake, and everyone involved, get your e-feelings off your e-shoulder before someone breaks them with their mean forum text. It would also be prudent to use your spell checker before questioning another poster's intelligence.

[Rider]

Much better post.  You read the post and based your opinion on what was said, kudos to you.  OK, you got me, I dropped an "L" in intelLigent.  Kudos to you again.

Now to the point.  My idea was to add a new aspect to the game to change things up a bit and IMO enhance game play at the same time.  This game tries to balance realism with entertainment.  IMO my suggestion helps with that balance.  FOLs were real in WWII.  There were muster points in WWII.  Your post stated that you had to take into consideration flight times.  Flight times in WWII were usually hours for one sortie which may or may not have resulted in actual combat.  If this game reflected that the player base would be about 4 I would imagine. 

Situations and tactics evolved during WWII.  I think the same should be true for AH.

To answer your "Want to spend less time flying to the target? Stay alive longer when you get there."  I say, don't want someone utilizing a FOL rearm point,?  Kill them before they get there.  Or take out the rearm point for that matter.  My original post mentions that capability.

As far as e-feelings go, trust me, you couldn't hurt my feelings.

Rider
Edited to correct a couple of spelling errors, don't want to get dinged for that again.

[Rich46yo]

Well I love the idea. Speaking from a personal point of view. Im a tank hunter so the more tanks put into the sights of my IL2 the better.

As it stands I pretty much leave VH bases alone. Most of all VH base vs VH base armor fights. Thats out of consideration for the tank drivers. That and I very rarely carry ords anymore cause I dont like what they do to the flight/dive characteristics of IL2s.

All that would change if we put these kinda bases in the middle of tank country. Just allowing re'arming might balance the scales. Might! its a much better idea then allowing active fighter and bomber hangars. Lets add to it by adding the rule no heavy 4 engined bombers can use the re'arm pads.

Actually most GV base vs GV base fights have some kind of CAP fighter presence anyways. Many have a lot of fighter activity and the presence of enemy fighters already puts a crimp in anti-Tank air operations consisting of slow IL2s and heavily loaded Jabos and attack planes.

One of these in a sector might not be a bad idea.

[olskool2]

Flight times in WWII were usually hours for one sortie which may or may not have resulted in actual combat.  If this game reflected that the player base would be about 4 I would imagine.

Exactly. Our flights are usually less than 25 minutes to target, and that's with a pretty substantial climb out. Not taking into account the incredibly short hops from our CVs that pull into land. Your 5 hour flight is scaled down to 20 minutes and has a promise of combat, it doesn't need to be less.

Most bases are attacked with an advantage in numbers. The attackers -always- have the overall energy advantage as most defenders will just be upping. It would be practically impossible to run down every P47 that runs to the re arm pad. GVs would be threatened even more, and it would probably ruin all our GV valleys that try to limit air activity. It would be a pain to have the same A20 dropping the same eight bombs on me every 8 minutes, and I don't even tank.

It's not hard at all to stretch fuel and ammo in this game, and taking out the entire capability of a small air base can be done with only six planes. Shorter hops to re arm wouldn't be fun.

OK, you got me, I dropped an "L" in intelLigent.  Kudos to you again.

I was referring to dieing.

[LLogann]

I like the idea of 2 sizes for vBases.......  Add a small strip where "light" fighter can land, rearm and take off.........  AWESOME. 

That 2nd thing about 5 minutes here 5 minutes back......................... ......  Now you're just sounding a little lazy and it takes away from the fruitful thoughts at the beginning of your post.

[Rider]

I agree that the large v-base should only be able to be utilized by fighters.  Afterall a small strip something like I described would not have been used by larger bombers in WWII.  To prevent it from being abused and used for heavy bombers just make the strip very short and put obstructions such as small mounds or trees that would make it impossible for a bomber to get off the ground.  Or maybe it could be written into the code that only fighter/attack aircraft could utilize the rearm pad.

Truth be told I think most people are going to die in the fight and have to launch from an airfield anyway.  I don't believe you would have "hordes" coming from the v-base, you wouldn't be able to spawn an aircraft there but only rearm one.

Let's look at it from another point of view.  Currently people use v-bases all the time to land their kills.  Wouldn't that be more along the lines of ditching your plane?  Afterall it's a ditch if you land 1k short of an airfield or even on the grass in the middle of an airfield for the matter.  If you can "land" at a v-base how much of a stretch would it be to take on fuel and ammo and take off again? 

To olskool2, ok more kudos to you for "dieing."  However spell check wouldn't catch that as you suggested, "dieing" is an actual word, granted not the correct one for my usage

Rider

[WWhiskey]

if we had the cub, or some kind of scout plane i would love to have it at a V base,unarmed looking for the enemy !

[sirvlad]

Stuka`s rearmed in the field often.

[AWwrgwy]

V-base with runway = airfield.

No aircraft enabled = no need for aircraft supplies/mechanics/armorers.


Did I miss anything?


wrongway

[JunkyII]

Like this? The background grass looks weird because I cant change it until the new TE comes out, but its a custom vbase that I'm putting on one of my maps.


(Image removed from quote.)

That looks cool but do you need the FH and BH to enable them?

[Larry]

That looks cool but do you need the FH and BH to enable them?

No.


Let me try and explain this without screwing up.

If there are no FH/BHs on a gv base and the CM enables planes to fly from there then there will be no way to stop planes from upping form that field. You could level that whole base and since there were no FH/BH there to kill the game thinks that they are still up making that base almost impossible to capture. I put that single FH and BH there so when someone wanted to take that base there was a way to 'disable' planes from upping. That's another reason why I put them so close together because seeing it is a GV base those planes that can up form there are a privilege and if you want to keep then there you need to defend it.