Added Depth to the Stategic Element

[SmokinLoon]

I've suggested this before, but I'm going to revisit the subject again since it has been quite awhile:

Fuel:
First, try out the 1.5 burn rate instead of the 2.0.  This would allow for higher fights, currently some of the high alt aircraft can barely reach high alt before having to RTB due to low fuel. 
Then, change the fuel tanks value by allowing %50 to be the max fuel allowed with the 4th fuel depot destroyed.  Currently, with #3 fuel depot destroyed it removes the drop tank availability, and #4 destroyed limits max fuel to %75.  So the new system, if my wish comes true, is to remove DT with fuel depot #2 destroyed, max fuel at %75 with #3 depot destroyed, and %50 max fuel with 4 fuel depots destroyed.  All airfields have at least 4 fuel depots so no changes would have to be made to the maps.     

Ordnance:
This wish a really out in right field, because the small airfields would need an additional 2 ammo bunkers.  Currently, it is an all or none set up. 
With the second ammo bunker down, disable the 1000lb/500kg and larger bombs.  With ammo bunker #4, all remaining ordnance are disabled.

Troops:
Currently, it is an all or none coding.  I suggest that with the 3rd barrack being destroyed, gv supplies be disabled.  With the 5th barracks destroyed then troops and field supplies are disabled. 

Im a fan of the stepped system in which some damage is going to do harm to the planning and strategic outlook of a base, region, or front, etc, on a map.  The way in which the fuel damage system is stepped could be used to a varying degree for the troops and ordnance as well.     

[Jayhawk]

Not bad ideas,  I do suppose most of this HTC implemented for game play reasons.

-1 Burn Rate, I don't feel this is a serious issue, what aircraft are you referring too?

+1 Fuel tinkering, as it stands, it's pretty pointless to pork fuel.

+1  Ord idea, I think something like what you have described would be cool, does this mean large fields would have something like 6 ord bunkers?

Not sure about the troops.

Good ideas IMO, but I think if these changes took place it should be accompanied by changed to the strat all together.  The big cities are awesome and I want them to stay, but they took away a lot of strategy IMO, but that's another discussion for another thread.

[WMLute]

I remember when you could pork fuel to 25% at fields.

-1 on that.  Terrible idea.

[shotgunneeley]

Ive never heard of or even asked, but why does the state of the ords bunkers not have any effect on machine gun or cannon rounds? If ords were down at an airfield or vbase, I'd think it would drastically reduce the amount of ammo a vehicle could take at a time, say 50% of normal loadout, to ration out what bullets were left. (E.G., the nicky normally carries 200 rpg, but if the ords were destroyed it could only carry 100 rpg)

[Plazus]

-1 for this idea. There is a reason fuel burn is at 2.0. It is for balancing reasons. We dont need to see La7s and Spits capping a base for 45 straight minutes. We already see this, except short leg fighters are there for a shorter duration than the longer legged ones. Now if the bases in the MAs were spread further apart, then sure, Id go a thumbs up for the whole entire wish. However, the bases are closer together than what was in WW2, and is to emphasize the difference between short legged, and long legged fighters.

Therefore, the MA bases are closer together, fights are closer and at lower alts, and there is no need to have a longer fuel burn rate. If you want more fuel time, start cutting back on power settings, or fly a pony.

[thndregg]

Most of your ideas are good, such as:

Ordnance:
This wish a really out in right field, because the small airfields would need an additional 2 ammo bunkers.  Currently, it is an all or none set up. 
With the second ammo bunker down, disable the 1000lb/500kg and larger bombs.  With ammo bunker #4, all remaining ordnance are disabled.

As well as:

Troops:
Currently, it is an all or none coding.  I suggest that with the 3rd barrack being destroyed, gv supplies be disabled.  With the 5th barracks destroyed then troops and field supplies are disabled. 

I like this. I'll still pork it, but I like it.

[The Fugitive]

The reason why none of this is going to fly is because HTC doesn't want the ability to have combat done away with, because after all....tho some of you don't believe it... this game is suppose to be all about combat.

The fuel burn use to be lower, but it was changed due to said capping abilities and such. Fuel use to be porkable to 25% but this stopped fights because even with the longer legs you couldn't keep a plane in the air long enough to do any damage. The same will hold true for the ammo and troops. Being able to shut down a function with only having to take out HALF of what it takes now would again take away the ability for combat.

Why do you think the extra ack guns where added? Why do the towns have three times as many buildings as they did before, why are the FH not all in a line any more? All of these changes was to make the game more difficult to stop one side or the other from being able to take away the ability to fight. 

[Nemisis]

Fugitive, if HTC didn't want the fights to stop at a base, he would make field objects (excluding ack) indestructable. The way it is now, we have 2 set of lancs coming over and leveling all the hangers. I fail to see a large distinction between the two.

[The Fugitive]

Fugitive, if HTC didn't want the fights to stop at a base, he would make field objects (excluding ack) indestructable. The way it is now, we have 2 set of lancs coming over and leveling all the hangers. I fail to see a large distinction between the two.

Before it was changed you could do the same with a single B17.  It's much harder now. You have to have some sort of teamwork, or a horde. A single cannon plane could pork fuel to 25% at a couple of bases on one run. 2 or 3 guys could kill ALL combat in a 3-4 BASE area before.

HTC has to walk a fine line keeping combat available, as well as keeping different play options for a wide range of players.

[Nemisis]

I must admit that I don't know how things were before late '06 or so. You are likely right (unless, of course, you are trying to make me look like an idiot  ), but even so, if 2 lancs can level a base and have ord to spare, 2 flights of B-24's could do it provided they have 100% accuracy, and use the most effecient salvos. There is still not a major difference since its impossible to intercept bombers at 15-20k before they drop.

And right now, I can up an M4A3(75), and eliminate a base's ability to attack or defend so long as there aren't some guys sitting in the hanger, waiting for a base to start flashing.

Here is the process:

Kill VH, kill ord, take out ack, move up onto field and kill BH and camp RW if able. So long as you can get the VH and ord within 4 mins, you have a reasonable chance of taking out the BHs before you get killed by the bombers that make it up.

[BigKev03]

I must admit that I don't know how things were before late '06 or so. You are likely right (unless, of course, you are trying to make me look like an idiot  ), but even so, if 2 lancs can level a base and have ord to spare, 2 flights of B-24's could do it provided they have 100% accuracy, and use the most effecient salvos. There is still not a major difference since its impossible to intercept bombers at 15-20k before they drop.

And right now, I can up an M4A3(75), and eliminate a base's ability to attack or defend so long as there aren't some guys sitting in the hanger, waiting for a base to start flashing.

Here is the process:

Kill VH, kill ord, take out ack, move up onto field and kill BH and camp RW if able. So long as you can get the VH and ord within 4 mins, you have a reasonable chance of taking out the BHs before you get killed by the bombers that make it up.

Very funny, I do the exact samething to small airfields and it is effective in shutting them down.  Only thing I did notice one day was that I dropped the VH and right after that I saw a Hurri or a spit (cant exactly remember) take off from the field.  In the meantime I dropped the ord and radar.  next thing was a bomb down my top hatch.  So I upped a T34 to head back wuickly and finish the ack.  Got bombed again by the same person.  So upped again and got bombed again by the same person.  Realized that even though the ord was down they could rearm with ord because they took off while ord was up???  Or is this a glitch?  If not a glitch then please fix that if possible. 

BigKev

[The Fugitive]

OK, say you can do this reliably. You teach a few hundred others to do it reliably and it becomes the "norm". HTC will then change it so you won't be able to do it.

This is a game designed around combat. Making it easier to stop, or avoid combat would kill the game, and HTC pockets would soon be empty. In all the years I've played here the only thing I've seen HTC do to make something easier was when the switched back to the "easy mode" bombing.

Like I said HTC has to walk a fine line. If ack was indestructible, there would be no vulching and base defense would be so much stronger that it would be very difficult to capture a base. They don't want the combat to stop, nor do they want to chase away those players that like the "win the war" side of the game by making it too tough to do it.  

[SmokinLoon]

All the issues with "time in the air", or %25 max fuel, etc., are problems solved by defending the base and more so resupplying the base.

I suggested the longer burn rate to off set some of that.  The 1.5 burn rate would add another few minutes to the flight times, and the penalty of not have full fuel available would be less dramatic.  Fuel would be just as important to hit for defensive purposes as the ord bunkers.

[HighTone]

I like the idea about the fuel on the base. +1 to that one


But I wouldn't want to see the fuel burn in the MA changed from where it's at now. 2.0 works   

[Nemisis]

Agreed, most planes are fine. A few with short legs (spit mk XIV) have trouble reaching the altitudes the start to stand out at, or are hampered by weight when they take more fuel (Il-2/Hurri IID: At their top speeds, your range isn't that great)