Why? <snip>
It’s all about gameplay, with some immersion thrown in, but since the proposal isn’t self evident, I’ll explain.
Sorry about the wall of text, but you asked.
Those who know the old strat system, you can skip this part.
In the old system, factories were widely separated, but two guys in Lanc formations could make two passes on a factory and drop it from 100% down to 5%. Therefore posting a large mission to kill a single factory made no sense. The old zone system concentrated the factories somewhat better, but it adds extra work for the terrain builder in dispersing the factories, and missions still weren’t needed to kill a single factory. Also, since the City was key to the factory rebuilding, it would usually be back up in under two hours, and less if resupplied. Probably the most repugnant part of the old system was the milkrunning of enemy strat that ended up behind the lines. Even further back in game history, bombing the HQ was a percentage return. Knock certain parts down, and radar went down in 4 steps, friendly bar, friendly dot, enemy bar, and enemy dot. It was instant feed back. The HQ was THE strat target of choice, and some of us got so good at it that radar virtually disappeared for hours at a time during prime-time USA.
I suggested reinstating the old multiple zones because no one wants to play when down on territory, attacked from all sides, and then crippled because of the loss of a factory. The thing the old zone system had going for it, was that you could usually depend on at least a zone or two being operational, particularly the HQ zone. There have been suggestions that the strat must cripple the defenders, and enhance the attackers in order to make it valuable enough as a target. IMO, that’s not the way to go. Breaking a countries territory up into zones allows for real consequences to destroying the city complex while still being survivable for the defenders, as compared to a single zone with all it’s factories destroyed.
Under the proposed system, of reinstating the zones, all the factories for the zone would be concentrated in the City, making it a prime target for large missions. If taken down, the standard resupply system for the bases within the zone would kick in. Each base within the zone would depend on the game’s maximum resupply time, or player resupply to rebuild each base’s bunkers, ie ammo bunkers etc. Of course, the player resupply would still be an option at the factories as well.
For both the defender and the attackers, the destruction of these factories become much more apparent, making them the center piece for a more significant part of the action. When the zone base is captured, all the bases within the zone must be manually supplied by both sides.
Having the City complex disappear after the zone base is captured, gives a clear indication that the zone’s bases must be player supplied. It defeats milkrunning, and from an immersion standpoint, the attackers have exceeded their supply lines. It also mitigates the loss of territory for the defenders, but gives them the opportunity to recapture the zone base and have their City rebuild. I suppose all the factories would reappear at 100%, as some time must pass between the time the zone base is lost and recaptured, but perhaps the rebuild clock would still be running on some factory buildings. The point is, the defenders could recapture it and would have a self-suppling zone to advance their front.
Presumably, having more Cities, some would be closer to the front, and prime targets for large missions.
