Zone system.

[BlauK]

Lots of valuable points and view points 

In any case, I'd vote for anything that promotes fights and action in regard to starts, against molesting isolated undefended "offline" strat targets.

If the wish is to make them more attractive tagets, they should also be made as more attractive property to defend. How to accomplish that, without the negative steam roller, is the million dollar answer

For some reason the defence is so often unattractive. Many people rather join large attacking forces than defend own property as underdogs. Then again some few (pun unintended ) prefer the underdog situation in a more target rich environment and closer to home base. How to balance this whole issue?

[waystin2]

After following this thread from the beginning and thinking a bit I give it a +1.

[Kev367th]

Lots of valuable points and view points 

In any case, I'd vote for anything that promotes fights and action in regard to starts, against molesting isolated undefended "offline" strat targets.

If the wish is to make them more attractive tagets, they should also be made as more attractive property to defend. How to accomplish that, without the negative steam roller, is the million dollar answer

For some reason the defence is so often unattractive. Many people rather join large attacking forces than defend own property as underdogs. Then again some few (pun unintended ) prefer the underdog situation in a more target rich environment and closer to home base. How to balance this whole issue?

Exactly, and I think the current HQ situation shows the problems.

A group of guys fly for over an hour to flatten HQ only for it to be back up and running before they even turn for home.

a) Wheres the incentive to attack it? Lot less now then there used to be.
b) Wheres the incentive to defend it? Just grab a goon before they even hit it.

For what should be the most important strat on the map, it's basically an irrelevant/pointless target.

[Baumer]

HT, I agree that most players probably don't understand the current zone system. But from their perspective (I assume) that it's very difficult to see any impact with the current system. For example, if a zone radar factory  is down to 25%, and none of the radars are down at any fields within the zone, then there is no apparent effect, hence no real need to defend the radar factory. By only effecting the resupply time at damaged fields, the current system is very hard for the average player to see or appreciate.

Now, if for example the health of the radar factory effected the radar range for all fields within the zone, it would get a LOT more attention (i.e. defense) if it was attacked. This is just like some of Hammers suggestions. By changing the relationship of the factories to the tactical aspects of the game, they will  produce a more immediate impact that all players would see and respond to, I believe.

This is just my SWAG at a list of how to change the strats impact. Each change would only effect the fields within that particular zone, and this is in addition to how they already impact resupply times.

• HQ- no change
• City- 100% down = 50% of airfield town ack down
• Ammo Factory- 100% down = no 1000lbs or 500lbs bombs, 50% down = no 1000lbs bombs
• AAA Factory- 100% down = 50% of all field ack is down
• Refinery- 100% down = 75% fuel and no DT's at all fields, 50% down = no DT's
• Radar Factory- 100% = 50% radar range for all fields, 50% down = 75% radar range

[BlauK]

Baumer,
it is pretty much in line with any damage systme we currently have. Your plane has no damage, unless some part is 100% damaged, right? Even if all parts are down to 25%. So there is no need to fly back home

[lyric1]

just throw it in there and see how it goes.

anything to spice up the stale old MA gameplay 

What he said.

[hitech]

Hammer Wrote,

I think the real problem with strats is there is no perceived advantage to hitting them.

I agree, and hence why I am talking about the change. I want to get back to less complexity.

HiTech

[Kazaa]

I think bombing the HQ should initiate a reset of the map.

We would defo see a lot more resets then what we currently have.

[jdbecks]

how about adding a civilian morale factor to city's?  lets say, if the Civilian morale or support is at 0% respawn timers are extended, for example instead of taking 10min for a hanger to be rebuilt, it might take 15min?


just an idea...

[Tilt]

Removing all strat back to the rear on larger maps is akin to removing it totally from game play.

Leaving uncapturable strat all across the map will put enemy strat in captured territory, where it will either be milk runned or ignored.

Capturable strat could add momentum to "steam roller" land grab.

How about making only cities capturable.  Place key strat to the rear then place cities all over the map (including the rear).

Cities affect key strat rebuild times but not the actual supply of key strat. Fighting over cities adds dimension.

Besides if you measure strat strength by % health then some other maths apply that do not promote steam roller.

Fighting over cities adds a RL orientated game play factor and moves conflict from above the airfields.

[Kev367th]

In which case the only way to encourage it is to make the penalty for failure to defend directly proportional to the possible reward for a successful mission.

If you dont strats remain a pointless target except for score potatos.

Use my HQ post as an example -
If it takes 6 guys @ 1 hour each (6 hours) to flatten HQ, why should only 6 guys in goons @ 10 min round trip (60 mins) be able to bring it fully back up.

The rewards for flattening HQ are not even in the same ballpark as the reward for failure to defend.


I can see why some guys are conscerned that the reward for flying a long mission deep into enemy territory will most likely not be worth it. Thus making strats totally redundant.

I realise it's a game, but there has to be proportionate penalties for failure as there are rewards for success (I know not PC these days). At the moment there isn't, so there isn't any value in defending strats.

 

[Tilt]

Simplifying the strat model.

Get rid of all strat except HQ and cities.

In the rear uncapturable zone make the HQ and some cities uncapturable. (choose the quantity of such cities carefully)

Make the rest of the cities capturable.

Choose resupply maths that reflect the ratio of cities to fields (that any side has) and bias it by the % health of the cities owned.

[Kev367th]

Simplifying the strat model.

Get rid of all strat except HQ and cities.

In the rear uncapturable zone make the HQ and some cities uncapturable. (choose the quantity of such cities carefully)

Make the rest of the cities capturable.

Choose resupply maths that reflect the ratio of cities to fields (that any side has) and bias it by the % health of the cities owned.

Reading back through HTs posts I get the feeling he wants to make the strats a more viable target hence promoting fights over them, rather than doing away with strats.

[moot]

Gameplay certainly would change in a major way if the strat targets were both unique (1 per strat type) and far inland, and had as meaningful an impact as in Hammer's concept.

[Dantoo]

Moot, AckAck and the CM guys (and a few others) have all put it pretty well I believe.  

If you want to use the factories and supply generally to create activity, then like anything else in life you have to provide a tangible incentive for a person to make that effort.  They have put forward a number of interesting ideas that would provide incentives and opportunities to attack/defend strat objects.

The old system brought forward attacks on factories only after one side was practically demolished.  Whilst the drama of the desperate fight to defend the last few bases was underway, there was always the strange sight of many of the attackers winging their way to the factories.  It possibly was their chance to get easy bombing points without much investment in time or risk.  Bombing in tactical terms always involves both of those investments.  Removing the factories from the tactical area and providing no further incentive in terms of increased impact on play means that there will be few, if any, willing to make those investments.