Map room placement change

[nimble]

It is one of my wishes that the map room be moved onto the airfield while still requiring the town to be down or something similar.

[RTHolmes]

why?

[nimble]

1) late night base rollers having to put more effort into taking a base
2) more coordination required to take a base
3) needing to actually shut down base hangars rather than just getting a fully loaded base from scratch
4) overall more complexity to base taking

[CountD90]

and no more laughing at the noobs who drop troops over the field hahaha

[bravoa8]

I like it the way it is.

[nimble]

and no more laughing at the noobs who drop troops over the field hahaha

lol that is soooo something I remember doing

[Plazus]

You already have auto ack and plenty of buildings to destroy at the town. Leave the maproom where it is. Its pointless to have maproom at base if you have to destroy town as well.

[WWhiskey]

Maybe you could put it next to the newly destructible rearm pad! lol

[nimble]

Maybe you could put it next to the newly destructible rearm pad! lol

haha

[nimble]

You already have auto ack and plenty of buildings to destroy at the town. Leave the maproom where it is. Its pointless to have maproom at base if you have to destroy town as well.

just as pointless to have a maproom in town when you don't have to destroy the base right next to it

just thinkin of ways to up the complexity a little

[guncrasher]

we can either destroy the base or destroy the town and maproom should be on whichever needs to be destroyed.  destroying both will require a horde that only the bishops can muster  ok that was a joke.

semp

[Plazus]

just as pointless to have a maproom in town when you don't have to destroy the base right next to it

just thinkin of ways to up the complexity a little

Good point. Thats debatable though. At least you have that option to drop hangars and pork the base if things get hairy. 

[Tilt]

In AH1 there was a map in the map room that was accessed instead of the clipboard map when moving from field to field and planning missions. Now it is merely a field ownership/ capture object

If you look at the "map room" object it can be any thing given "map room" properties.

When a field has a map room then

Enemy troops run toward it
Enemy troops damage it (when all the town objects are destroyed)
If enough damage is done to destroy it then enemy troops capture it (and the field)


re airfields.

Seems to me that in order to capture an air  field then troops would normally take control or destroy its hangers, its barracks (defending troops) and its control tower.

Hence if there was only one maproom then it would be placed in the control tower.

re Towns

Towns were key targets for lad based armies. They controlled logistics and movement of vehicles and troops.
They were stepping stones in the land based war yet AH use them associated with airfields and not with gv fields.

For me an associated town should be a piece of local but vital strat
When it is destroyed the base receives no logistics/rebuild activity from the strat system.(at all)

GV fields would be positioned immediately adjacent to their towns (as was the case)

Air fields would be positioned a little remotely from their towns (about the same distance as typically found now on most maps)

But how about multiple ownership/capture objects.

Supposing AH could endow any object with additional field ownership/capture parameters?

Imagine a small field with 6 hangers, 2 barracks, 2 ammo dumps and a control tower that would each require  # of troopers for capture (maybe only 2!).

Each AH object gets a number now in the terrain editor so troops always capture in the same order ie  maybe barracks 1st (barracks 1 to 2 in order
driven by the object number and its status (destroyed/not destroyed) then onto ammo 1 to 2 then hangers 1 to 6)

If an object is captured then it is removed from use unless the capture window times out.

If an object is destroyed then it does not need to be captured unless it rebuilds before all other ownership/capture objects are destroyed/captured appropriately

To take a field

Destroy its barracks or capture its barracks or a mix of both.
Destroy its ammo or capture its ammo or a mix of both.
Destroy its hangers or capture its hangers or a mix of both.
Capture its Control Tower



To weaken a field prior to capture

Destroy the town objects.

[waystin2]

I do not see the need to relocate it. 

[APDrone]

It really sounds like this is a request to allow very few, if not just 1, defender to prevent a base capture without the hangars also needing to be destroyed or enough vulchers present to kill anybody upping.

Here's the problem I have with that..

Whereas it's practically a requirement that town - based captures be a team effort ( not easy for one person to destroy town and capture it, is it? ) the defense of such should be a team effort also.

If your country cannot field enough defenders to stop an attack, then it deserves to lose.

Several changes have been made over the years to prevent a single person from easily impacting throngs of others.  For instance, Fuel porking, where a lone Dora was able to reduce max fuel load out to 25% at a base, or destruction of troops by a single fighter... Yes, it probably still can be done if the porker is not devoured by the beefed up ack.. but nowhere as easy as it used to be.