Yet another one...

[Pepe]

The ideal (in my opinion) settings for hangar destruction and field capture would be if an individual hangar could launch a limited number of planes per minute. Let's say 20 planes per minute, so a small field will be able to launch 60 planes per minute ,that is,  1 plane per second. Damage to the hangar slow the output and destruction stop it completely. Say you destroy 2 hangars. Defenders can still take off at a rate of 1 plane each 8.5 seconds, if the remaining FH is still intact.

Is it restrictive with regards to the actual situation?

Cheers,

Pepe

[AKSWulfe]

Why do you want restrictions placed in the first place?

If you take down all the FH, no fighters can launch. I fail to see why coding in a few extra lines restricting how many can take off makes it any better.
-SW

[Pepe]

Because It would (IMHO) better simulate damage as it actually happens in real life.

Cheers,

Pepe

[mx22]

I do not understand why do you want to limit a number of planes upping from the field in MA? I find it fun to have enemies around me, this way I don't have to fly long flights just to find one single enemy.

mx22

[AKSWulfe]

We aren't simulating real life at all.

We are simulating air combat, in a fake world with faked airfields and what they mean.

Would taking down hangars in real life do anything? Sure, they would destroy the hangars, but most aircraft were stored outside during the day.
Therefore, aircraft would still be able to launch.

That's why runways were the targets in real life, not hangars. Or the planes lined up along the sides of the airfield. Hangars were a target only after the runway and aircraft in the dispersal huts were destroyed to prevent defenders from taking off.
-SW

[mx22]

Originally posted by Pepe:
Because It would (IMHO) better simulate damage as it actually happens in real life.

Cheers,

Pepe

No it won't. In RL planes were stored in hangars only on airfields far way from the combat area. Most of the time planes were disperced (sp??) around the airfield.

mx22

[Pepe]

Exactly, mx22. Since they are dispersed, they are not blown all and everyone at once. It was never an all or nothing issue.

So, attackers now has the dicotomy: either they flatten the base and risk a sudden respawn of hangars, or they have a permanent, unlimited flow of respawners. I think It would be better that an attack that achieves half of its destruction goals limit the airfield capacities proportionally, and hamper defenders accordingly. Current situation means that unless you have a 100% successful bomb attack on hangars, the practical results (in terms of actual damage to defenders) are nil.

Runways/aifields were not destroyed by the last golden bomb, It was a matter of progressive damage. And repairing time is a direct function of damage inflicted.

That's the reason beyond.

Cheers,

Pepe

[mx22]

You bet all available fighters will be scrambled if enemy is found near the airfield. Without any delays... Again we getting to a question, why to have this system in MA? To prevent people from furballing? I thought that was the whole point of MA.

mx22

[Nifty]

I see what he's getting at.  He wants to see some results from hitting individual hangars, and not just when hitting all of the hangars (of the same type.)

This one isn't too bad of an idea.  Why?  It's not much different from taking out the FH altogether.  

MX, the reason you want to limit fighters upping from a field is to take the field.  That's what happens when you take out ALL the fighter hangars at a field.  No fighters at all can up from it.  All Pepe is suggesting is extending it so that taking out some of the hangars has an immediate effect.

SW, in a way you argued for Pepe.  You're right, taking down hangars in real life had little effect, they weren't the targets.  You're also right in that we're using the hangars instead, since this is a simulation game.  IRL, if you took out 25% of the planes parked on a field, that's 25% that immediately couldn't come up.  If you took out 100%, 100% couldn't come up.  With the current AH setup, taking 25% of the FH out does nothing immediately.  Taking out 100% of the FH does have an immediate impact.

The general concept behind the idea is a good one.  The proposed implementation, I'm not too sure about.

[AKDejaVu]

I like the idea of each hangar causing some kind of aircraft loss... but not restricting the number of aircraft that can spawn.

I think something in line with restricting by ENY value would be better.  1 FH means nothing with an ENY less than 10 can take off... 2 FH... nothing with an ENY less than 20 can take off... and so forth.

If you go by a planes/time scenario... you bump into way too many problems.

AKDejaVu

[mx22]

Lol Deja,

I can see a beaten up country with 2-3 half damaged fields left fighting for its life in biplanes against late war monsters.

mx22

 

Originally posted by AKDejaVu:
I like the idea of each hangar causing some kind of aircraft loss... but not restricting the number of aircraft that can spawn.

I think something in line with restricting by ENY value would be better.  1 FH means nothing with an ENY less than 10 can take off... 2 FH... nothing with an ENY less than 20 can take off... and so forth.

If you go by a planes/time scenario... you bump into way too many problems.

AKDejaVu

[AKSWulfe]

Originally posted by mx22:
I can see a beaten up country with 2-3 half damaged fields left fighting for its life in biplanes against late war monsters.

Just like Poland during the Blitzkrieg!
-SW

[Nifty]

Originally posted by AKDejaVu:
I like the idea of each hangar causing some kind of aircraft loss... but not restricting the number of aircraft that can spawn.

I think something in line with restricting by ENY value would be better.  1 FH means nothing with an ENY less than 10 can take off... 2 FH... nothing with an ENY less than 20 can take off... and so forth.

If you go by a planes/time scenario... you bump into way too many problems.

AKDejaVu

Deja!!  you could kill two birds with one stone!  You get an effect from hitting some of the hangars, PLUS you give the George whiners a way to limit the amount of the "UFO's" they see!  

Seriously, this sounds like a good implementation.  

[AKDejaVu]

I can see a beaten up country with 2-3 half damaged fields left fighting for its life in biplanes against late war monsters.

Depends on what you are talking about...

If this thread is simply about spawning at a vulched field.. then you are correct.  If it is actually about doing some kind of strategic damage to a field via partially taking FHs then its not.

Basically.. the "I AM TIRED OF PEOPLE SPAWNING AT A BASE FASTER THAN I CAN VULCH THEM" consideration is minimal for me.  The strategy side is actually being considered.

AKDejaVu

[mx22]

Ahh the strategy and MA, two things that would never go together:-D Limiting number of planes or type of planes that spawn from the field might be a sounding strategic proposition, but then who will want to fly for loosing side?

mx22

 

Originally posted by AKDejaVu:


Depends on what you are talking about...

If this thread is simply about spawning at a vulched field.. then you are correct.  If it is actually about doing some kind of strategic damage to a field via partially taking FHs then its not.

Basically.. the "I AM TIRED OF PEOPLE SPAWNING AT A BASE FASTER THAN I CAN VULCH THEM" consideration is minimal for me.  The strategy side is actually being considered.

AKDejaVu