Author Topic: All or Nothing Base Strats: Too Absolute  (Read 386 times)

Offline SmokinLoon

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6166
All or Nothing Base Strats: Too Absolute
« on: February 27, 2011, 03:18:43 PM »
I’ve been tinkering around with a tiered system for the base strats (barracks, ords, fuel, etc) since I’ve started AH back in Jan of 2008.  I really like how the fuel depots have a tiered system, and I scratch my head wondering why ordnance and barracks do not have a similar set up.  I’ve suggested changes before and they’ve gone no where so back to the drawing board I went.  Let me try these suggestions out:

First, HTC would have to add in an “8 troops” option along with the current “10 troops” selection for M3’s 251’s, LVT2’s, and C47’s (or 3 troops for jeeps).  Why? My suggestion for a tiered barracks system involves disabling the 10 troop option once X number of barracks has been destroyed (4? The most is on a large field with 8), and not disabling the troops completely until all the barracks have been destroyed at that particular field.  I wouldn’t think that the coding for that would be too far fetched.  That system would give credit to partial attacks just like getting 3 fuel depots down disables DT’s, and it would still allow troops to be used, but not at full strength.  That system would still allow troops to be used, but with 2 carries or 2 runs.

With ordnance, that too is an “all or none” system.  I propose, using the current layout of the bases, a system in which the heavy ordnance (1k lb + bombs, torpedoes, 28cm rockets, etc) be disable at 1 ammo bunker being destroyed with the entire ordnance being disabled once all bunkers have been destroyed at that particular base.  That too would allow a degree of strategy, or rather a tiered system.  Coding would be rather simple, one could imagine.  

Regarding fuel, I’d like to see another level added: upon the 5th fuel tank being destroyed, the maximum fuel allowed would be %50.  This may have some conflicts because the small airfields only have 4 fuel tanks, but if that is the case then start with the 2nd fuel tank  destroyed = no DT, 3rd = %75 max fuel, 4th = %50 max fuel.

Food for thought.              
« Last Edit: February 27, 2011, 03:25:51 PM by SmokinLoon »
Proud grandson of the late Lt. Col. Darrell M. "Bud" Gray, USAF (ret.), B24D pilot, 5th BG/72nd BS. 28 combat missions within the "slot", PTO.

Offline AWwrgwy

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5478
Re: All or Nothing Base Strats: Too Absolute
« Reply #1 on: February 27, 2011, 04:37:37 PM »
Strats are about base resupply time, not amount.

I suppose partial ords are better than no ords.


wrongway
71 (Eagle) Squadron
"THAT"S PAINT!!"

"If nothing else works, a total pig-headed unwillingness to look facts in the face will see us through."
- General Sir Anthony Cecil Hogmanay

Offline SmokinLoon

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6166
Re: All or Nothing Base Strats: Too Absolute
« Reply #2 on: February 27, 2011, 07:00:31 PM »
Strats are about base resupply time, not amount.

I suppose partial ords are better than no ords.


wrongway

Im speaking of the localized destruction, not the strat targets near HQ. 
Proud grandson of the late Lt. Col. Darrell M. "Bud" Gray, USAF (ret.), B24D pilot, 5th BG/72nd BS. 28 combat missions within the "slot", PTO.

Offline 321BAR

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6140
Re: All or Nothing Base Strats: Too Absolute
« Reply #3 on: February 27, 2011, 07:05:39 PM »
make a tiered strat system with the city, and multiple smaller strategic targets behind enemy limes first please. Give the bombers something to do for win the war for once
I am in need of a new epic quote
Happy Jack's Go Buggy