New Gameplay Idea

[Widewing]

I like this concept. I also like that it is expandable and can be tailored to the specific map. Like others have said, the devil is always in the details, but first you have to start with a viable concept and this is viable.

[grizz441]

I like this concept. I also like that it is expandable and can be tailored to the specific map. Like others have said, the devil is always in the details, but first you have to start with a viable concept and this is viable.

Yep I agree on the details, I just wanted to get the base idea on here.  

Tilt, I thought about possibly adding to my original idea that each route to the corresponding supply yard has a railroad attached to it and by destroying the trains you can also inflict small re supplying penalties on each corresponding side, but I decided against it to simplify the intent of the idea.

Upon further reflection on GVing the supply yard, I still think it would be a terrible mistake for a few reasons:

1) Tanking would be more efficient than using air.  Since there are only a few acks and no (limited?) destroyable targets, there would be little reason to bring airplanes when you can take tanks in massive numbers and bum rush the supply yard.  The only way to stop that would be to take massive tanks and defend the supply yard.  Anti Tank airplanes would have to fly relatively far to even be effective against the GVs and they would also fall easy prey to airplanes around the airfields and lingering near the supply yard.  It would basically just turn into a massive GV war.  Although if there was a commitment, GVs could drive there from a base but that might take a bit of time.  Don't forget though, GV's would be completely unaffected for normal operations and the core reason for this addition is to help with base taking, so GV's would still be doing their thing on the ground helping take bases and defending bases obviously.

2) Capturing.  I think it would be better if C47's are required to be used for this.  Air superiority would be needed in order to capture a supply yard.  Again, this ties back into the no GV spawn thing.  It would be stupid and non air combat related if droves of M3s were driving to the Supply Yard.  It again would only encourage ground combat.

I appreciate the input so far.

[Tilt]

I take the point that enabling  GV spawns risks denying AC the key role that the game should be targetting. I  would agree that balance should be pro air power . I think as said above the devil would be in the detail..........

Gv spawns should not be such that they spawn so near a depot that air defence cannot get there and make a difference.......

Maybe depots should have plenty of  dug in 3" artilery  requiring air borne attrition prior to any GV attack being a practical proposition.

It should be expected that a "depot" would have fairly good fixed defences in comparison to a town.

Actually and in general I favour the  M3 as the "vehicle" of capture but balance should be maintained.

[grizz441]

I take the point that enabling  GV spawns risks denying AC the key role that the game should be targetting. I  would agree that balance should be pro air power . I think as said above the devil would be in the detail..........

Gv spawns should not be such that they spawn so near a depot that air defence cannot get there and make a difference.......

Maybe depots should have plenty of  dug in 3" artilery  requiring air borne attrition prior to any GV attack being a practical proposition.

It should be expected that a "depot" would have fairly good fixed defences in comparison to a town.

Actually and in general I favour the  M3 as the "vehicle" of capture but balance should be maintained.

I agree a depot in practice would have more defense than a town.  It probably needs more defense than I originally stated.  But how much?  And how long does the ack stay down for?  I want supply yards to be very capturable, not a seemingly insurmountable task to capture them.

[Tilt]

Well the nice thing about AH field guns is that they have no defence from air borne attack yet are effective them selves against gv's. Hence one solution would be to propose such fixed artilery defences that  establish an effective field of fire across such a "killing field" that makes air borne attrition essential...... at this point the inter air action becomes essential whilst not totally eliminating the the ground element.

[Tank-Ace]

several comments on the "GV's will be more effective than aircraft" thing.

1) as I've said before, this will be an army level facility, which would entail many AA guns, most of the ones at such a facilty in real life would make effective anti-tank cannons as well, and many 17lbers in our case.

2) who said that there will be few destroyable objects? Its an 'effing supply depot, of course theres going to be stuff to bomb.

3) if the depot is responsible for resupplying your base, then its kind of a moot point since odds are your ordnance is going to be down for a good long time.

[MK-84]

I like the idea in concept.  +1 

my .02

[hubsonfire]

several comments on the "GV's will be more effective than aircraft" thing.

1) as I've said before, this will be an army level facility, which would entail many AA guns, most of the ones at such a facilty in real life would make effective anti-tank cannons as well, and many 17lbers in our case.

2) who said that there will be few destroyable objects? Its an 'effing supply depot, of course theres going to be stuff to bomb.

3) if the depot is responsible for resupplying your base, then its kind of a moot point since odds are your ordnance is going to be down for a good long time.

You're way too hung up on the concept that this is a real supply yard. You didn't shut down a real airfield by blowing up 5 sheds, but that's how AH works, isn't it? Tanks wouldn't have blown up aircraft on the runway as they appeared from thin air, would they? Do tanks magically appear 5 minutes away from an objective in real life? Fine, you don't like planes, but arguing that this concept would suck in the game because it's not realistic is pretty silly.


I like the concept. I don't know that it would work perfectly as is, but right now the "stragety" game in AH is simply who can be sneakier, or get more guided bombs in the air. Tying ord or troops to the resupply network, instead of sheds on the field... that has some solid potential, IMO. Focusing combat away from the fields could also give the defenders an advantage, since there's no side balancing, and you often find 5 guys trying to defend against 20 or 30.

[Tank-Ace]

ok hubs, why would HTC represent a major facility with a couple of ammo sheds, a tower, and a couple 37mm AA guns? If this is goiing to supply the ground covered by an Army, it should have strong defenses, both against aircraft and vehicles.

Puffy ack, auto guns, manned guns, 17lbers, the whole nine yards. If they do it right, GV's can be an influencial part of the fight without overshadowing the aircraft.

And how am I "hung up" on making it being a real depot? I think that if this is added, HTC isn't going to be half-assed about a major addition. They'll make it usefull, they'll make it defendable, and they'll put it all into the usual nice looking, eye-candy coated package.

[hubsonfire]

ok hubs, why would HTC represent a major facility with a couple of ammo sheds, a tower, and a couple 37mm AA guns?

Have you seen what resupplies fields now?

[guncrasher]

I like the idea but make it big enough for it to take more than 2 players to be captured.  and have it so it will resupply itself fairly fast.  make its own buildings stay down for only 15 or 20 minutes and the ack down only 15 instead of 45.  it will require a team effort to take it.  perhaps 2 sets of troops instead of one.

semp

[SPKmes]

I had thoughts like this...but don't really know the game well enough...I like the idea of using a train for supply lines also which could slow things down....which could lead into the wish from long back of bridges that could also slow things down.....when I first started this game I'm sure fuel amounts could be affected by bombing fuel depots...I was always seeing a20's and jarbo runs (didn't even know waht a jarbo was back then)onto these....Do I remember correctly or am I talking out my a@$..

[The Fugitive]

ok hubs, why would HTC represent a major facility with a couple of ammo sheds, a tower, and a couple 37mm AA guns? If this is goiing to supply the ground covered by an Army, it should have strong defenses, both against aircraft and vehicles.

Puffy ack, auto guns, manned guns, 17lbers, the whole nine yards. If they do it right, GV's can be an influencial part of the fight without overshadowing the aircraft.

And how am I "hung up" on making it being a real depot? I think that if this is added, HTC isn't going to be half-assed about a major addition. They'll make it usefull, they'll make it defendable, and they'll put it all into the usual nice looking, eye-candy coated package.

The point of the idea is to make something that is necessary to "wining the war" but not make it to difficult to take so that it creates fights both for the capture, and the re-capture. It will also draw the attention away from field so that defenders can up to defend. If you add a crap load of guns your going to turn them into the same type of strats we have now. Nobody  would go to them and nobody would fight over them. By making things easier and more effective then players WILL attack them generating more fights.

[Tank-Ace]

I don't see the reasoning behind something that will let Chewie, the vTARDS, CJ's, or a Jayro strike mission to take the depot and one base, and then roll the others virtually without resistance because the other bases only need to be porked once to keep ord, hangers, etc, down for half and hour at minimum.

IMO, giving it no more than token defense capability would just promote the "lets do an NOE horde and avoid fighting" style of play.


OK, how about AA density a bit lower than that of a port, but heavier defenses geared toward GV's. Maybe dug-in possitions for tanks. Or atleast improved revetments, that give you complete hull coverage. If there is a ridge nearby, an anti-tank battery would be placed on it.

Nothing to prevent a stuborn (or large) group of tanks from reaching the base, but enough so that you need at least some air cover.


And 20 troops needed for capture would be good.