A different system for base capture.

[JUGgler]

A system that encourages "great deeds", struggle, victory or defeat I believe is within grasp using the current system of capture and war winning.

 Lets face it a very large percentage of folks here enjoy capturing bases. I believe the war and capturing bases is critical to the health of this game. There are also a fair # of dedicated  (albeit in far less quantity) of folks who try to defend and disrupt base captures. Let me 1st give my thoughts for both sides.

 The capturers: These folks are motivated by success, by winning, by coming together for a common goal. As many folks here would say ( they are horders and bottom feeders who will not improve themselves). I do not believe these folks are the bottom of the AH barrel who refuse to learn how to get better, they are playing the game within the parameters of the "current game system" In some ways they're approach to the game is healthier than those who relentlessly try to spoil their goals (incidently of which I am one)  They are not sheeple, they have been drawn together by one individual who has a goal, an agenda to alter the "war map" in some fashion. These base takers in total create more fights than any defenders ever will. Defenders do not cause a shift in the winds, they try to stop it. Now these fights they create are quite often heavily, overwhelmingly one sided because that is how the current system supports it. Ironically the change to the radar alt has created the necessity of larger #s of folks to capture these bases. Unfortunately for these folks, gone are the days of the "sneak attack" 6 sectors away, gone are the days when 4-5 guys can get together and say "lets try to take that base" then off they go. Gone is some of the "freedom of choice" for these folks who enjoy capturing bases.

 The defenders: These folks (including myself) are motivated by "spoiling" the goals of the capturers, sometimes we revial and detest the capturers, griefing them on 200 and openly laughing as if we are superior to them. The truth is, we (the defenders) would have very little to do without them (the capturers). The defenders thrive on finding that one goon or killing one of those drunks before he gets in the maproom, relishing in the sense of failure we think we've put on the capturers, we hold ourselves up high as the ones "fighting the good fight" against all odds we shall try to spoil the goals of the capturer. We the defenders will suffer being vulched/ picked time and time again for that one chance to spoil the goal. We know for a fact "most of the time" upping from another base just takes too long so we relentlessly up at the target field trying to spoil the action. Like moths to a flame we are drawn in.

 Now with that said there are a few things for both sides that just don't sit well and we both think are silly and lame.

#1- being able to kill the goon or m3 and spoil a 40 man attack is purely silly. I cannot count the # of times I've been in a jet and crushed a capture with overwhelming odds by merely hunting down undefensible goons. This is one thing that should be changed it really is silly and stupid one guy could have such a affect on the many!

#2- The capturers having to suffer the same couple guys upping over and over and over again is truely silly

#3- The defenders being relentlessly vulched/picked trying to prevent the capture is also mind bendingly silly

#4- the defenders having no way to realistically respond in a cohesive fashion to the attackers is also silly, and very very one sided.

#5- the fact all town ack pops upon the tenth drunk staggering into the maproom is silly

#6- the fact the base changes hands the instant #10 enters is silly and stupid

 With all of this said I have a few ideas to put some freedom of choice back in the game and instill in the capturers and defenders a sense of "the thrill of victory and the agony of defeat" Lets face it everything about this game is a competition, and when competition is done correctly someone wins and someone loses. But they both had the chance to do either.



#1- A delay of 20-30 minutes from the time the 10h drunk enters untill the base changes hands would encourage "follow on" conflict and encourage defenders to try a counter offensive

#2- the town ack and buildings stay down for this time period, this will further encourage a defensive response as no effort will be needed to destroy these targets again

#3- during this time period the base is unusable to any country. This makes everyone fly from adjacent bases so the fight is spread over a larger area and includes many many different aspects of "advantage and disadvantage"

#4- any country who can cook 10 troops in the maproom for the 20-30 minutes will at that moment be rewarded with a fully fuctional and fully rebuilt base and town. rewards of perks could even be given to the victorious


Pros and cons as I see them

Pro- this will force the original attackers IF they choose to defend their potential gain or lose it back to the original owners

Pro- defenders would feel they had some time to respond and not have to suffer the vulch/pick to try and make a difference

Pro- the actual struggle for the base would be spread over a much larger area than the space between base and town

Pro- this would set up epic GV struggles where all GVs would be approaching from adjacent bases, trying to defent the town and/or force their way into the town.

Pro- jabos and bombers would have to come from adjacent bases giving the coutrymen of the GVers time to interdict and harrass these bombers and jabos

Pro- there would be squads that would specialize in counter attack, interdiction, base capture etc.

Pro- mission planners would have to get more creative, they would have to account for the potential counter attack by land, sea or air. counter attackers would have to plan for interdicters by land, sea or air

Pro- there would be less vulching by planes or GVs

Pro- the minimum radar alt could be raised back to 200' allowing creative sneak captures( these sneakers would still have to find a way to defend it) 

Con- there would be less vulching by planes or GVs

Con- no more storming a base and moving on to the next target without securing the 1st, I'm sure there would be squads to specialize in defending for the time alloted also freeing up the stormers

Con- the struggle for a base may last longer than some have time to spend online


As you can see in my mind the Pros out weigh the Cons significantly


I will now adress some concerns some may have


-The original attackers had to take down the town, so should the counter attackers. To this I say the original attackers had it much easier than the counter attacks will, as the attackers are already there and prepared climbing to meet the threat or already inderdicting the threat. The counter attackers still need to cook 10 troops in the face of a prepared enemy!

- What if a 3rd country got involved? the same rules apply whoever cooks 10 troops for the alloted time OWNS

- Concerns it will create larger hordes. Who cares, the horde for either side could now be responded to.

-raising the radar will encourage "unchallenged NOE raids" like old times. So, now you'd have the time to challenge it! Give the attackers back some of their choices


Anyway I think Lusche has some good ideas as well as Grizz, but they both would take some map changes and fundamental alterations. I think mine would be easy to accomodate untill a whole new system "if needed" could be planned and put forth!


These are just some thoughts, discuss         



JUGgler

[Nathan60]

I wouldn't mind this at all. Any reason to start a  fight is  good with me. If this was implemented  and  the strats moved to a "area control" format It could  create some  epic fights. Although area control starts  would doom a country that  loses  a good portion of  its  bases, but it  would  counterbalance  the fact that  the longer  it takes to flip bases the longer we gotta stick with crappy maps.

[Tank-Ace]

I like it for the most part. But how would you suggest doing away with the silly 'one drunk dead=no capture" system? Really like the delay between 10th troop entering and capture of the base (why is the controll of the heavily armed and defended military facility tied to ownership of the village of civilian buildings anyway?).


And liked how you defined the defenders, hit that nail on the head. IMO, the sweetest moment in the game is when you kill their goon/M3/troops and claim your well-earned right of making any would-be capturers listening to CH200 stir with undying rage toward you.

"Capture a base? he... hehehe... hehehHAHAH!!!!! you guys actually thought you could capture our base? Oh thats funny!" 

[guncrasher]

would be a pretty good change of allowing the base to be up for grabs for a few minutes after capture. this is how it was in aw and was always funny taken a base destroyed by another country.

but I have some questions:

#1- being able to kill the goon or m3 and spoil a 40 man attack is purely silly. I cannot count the # of times I've been in a jet and crushed a capture with overwhelming odds by merely hunting down undefensible goons. This is one thing that should be changed it really is silly and stupid one guy could have such a affect on the many!

so does this mean m3's/goons cannot longer be killed?


#4- any country who can cook 10 troops in the maproom for the 20-30 minutes will at that moment be rewarded with a fully fuctional and fully rebuilt base and town. rewards of perks could even be given to the victorious

confused about what "cook" means.  does it mean bring them in m3 or goon?  and does this change from somebody just killing the goon/me as indicated above?  why should the defenders have a full functional base if they retake it.  why not just leave it down for the full 20 (or whatever) minutes and the last country to bring troops in the map gets it.  makes for more fights.


Pro/con- there would be less vulching by planes or GVs

how is it gonna make people vulch less? most vulching is done while not taking a base.

also how would a country know if all 10 troops made it into the maproom alive?  will the flag change? perhaps system message base taken/but not up?

Pro- this would set up epic GV struggles where all GVs would be approaching from adjacent bases, trying to defent the town and/or force their way into the town.

most bases only have 1 spawn will more spawns be created?

some good ideas juggler to make for some interesting changes.  I dont think it will encourage more hording than what it already has.

semp

[Tank-Ace]

semp, I think he means that the attacking country has to get 10 troops into the maproom, and make sure that no enemy troops enter, otherwise the base goes back to the most recent owner.

As for the less vulching, I think he means that, since the defenders will be basicly guaranteed another 30mins ontop of whatever the first line of defense troop killers can buy them. So they won't be franticly upping from capped fields, and will instead arrive at alt and en mass.


And expanding on the capture idea proposed by Juggler:

Perhaps have it so if the defenders manage to get 10 troops into the maproom before the base pops and becomes the attacker's base, they only have to wait 5-10 minutes untill they can use it (since the troops just represent reinforcments comming up to help finnish off the attacking troops). But if the attackers get another 10 troops in before the base pops, the still have to wait the full 30 minutes.

[Tank-Ace]

Upon further thinking, I've decided this is actually a rather bad idea. If you think the current base capture system with the instant-capture system produces a lot of hordes, what do you think this proposed system will do? 30-40 man hordes as the norm, instead of these 17-20 man hordes?


I can just see fewer attack aircraft, but then everyone else ups a P-38 with DT's so they have defense fighters with usable loiter-time already on station when the troops reach the maproom.


To truely improve the overall 'health' of the fights and the arena in general, we need to make captures easier instead of harder. We need those good old 4-man captures back.

I say reduce radar range, and raise the altitude to 100'!

[uptown]

Dear Juggler,
I read the first 3 paragraphs and figured ya lost your mind. I'll have to come back and read the rest later.  

[Chilli]

Upon further thinking, I've decided this is actually a rather bad idea. If you think the current base capture system with the instant-capture system produces a lot of hordes, what do you think this proposed system will do? 30-40 man hordes as the norm, instead of these 17-20 man hordes?


I can just see fewer attack aircraft, but then everyone else ups a P-38 with DT's so they have defense fighters with usable loiter-time already on station when the troops reach the maproom.


To truely improve the overall 'health' of the fights and the arena in general, we need to make captures easier instead of harder. We need those good old 4-man captures back.

I say reduce radar range, and raise the altitude to 100'!

I like the premise that defenders help to drive the action, but it must not do so at the cost of making attacks fruitless.  You are on to something JUGler, we just need to figure out what kind of incentives can be offered to the poor troop carriers, and other offense minded individuals.  You know something like allowing Goons to spawn drones in a formation, or giving them name in lights for successful deliveries of supplies or troops.

Here is an idea.  After troops successfully capture the maproom, it automatically opens up two vehicle spawns on opposing sides of town.  One spawn belongs to the captor and the other to the defender.  While the base is in limbo, any country's aircraft or vehicles may land there, but none can spawn from it, only the two town spawns are active for that base.  << This would make every town a possible Tank Town Battle arena!!!    Defending country's troops would have to be brought in from another base in order to recapture the maproom and end the special vehicle spawns. This will activate any base operations to the point they were when the maproom was first taken.

[Lusche]

I'm all for keeping any changes as simple as possible. More complexity breeds confusion.

My question. Wouldn't it be sufficient if there was just a single change:

All damage done to a base (including town) will not be undone by the capture

?

[flatiron1]

KISS

[kvuo75]

remove ack from towns altogether.

it WAS like that for a week or two when new towns first came out. after a capture, you had to watch town until a building popped, lest someone just roll an M3 or goon right up in there and recapture.

not only easier to capture in the first place, but easier to retake.

[PuppetZ]

I'm all for keeping any changes as simple as possible. More complexity breeds confusion.

My question. Wouldn't it be sufficient if there was just a single change:

All damage done to a base (including town) will not be undone by the capture

?

Achieve the same goal if you ask me. You'd still have to defend your take until stuff start to pop back up without needing a lot of change to the mecanics of the game. May allow for 10-15 min for the defender to try and muster a counter-offensive.

[The Fugitive]

would be a pretty good change of allowing the base to be up for grabs for a few minutes after capture. this is how it was in aw and was always funny taken a base destroyed by another country.

but I have some questions:

#1- being able to kill the goon or m3 and spoil a 40 man attack is purely silly. I cannot count the # of times I've been in a jet and crushed a capture with overwhelming odds by merely hunting down undefensible goons. This is one thing that should be changed it really is silly and stupid one guy could have such a affect on the many!

so does this mean m3's/goons cannot longer be killed?

No the goons and M3s and troops would still be as vulnerable. My thinking is that if you MUST defend the base after you get your troops in, your planning ahead and SHOULD have a defensive CAP in place. These cappers can also cover your troops better. On top of that having a number of troop carriers bringing troops is a good adition to ANY plan for taking a base as any who has ever tried to take a base can tell you, the whole thing just falls apart if your troops get picked.

#4- any country who can cook 10 troops in the maproom for the 20-30 minutes will at that moment be rewarded with a fully fuctional and fully rebuilt base and town. rewards of perks could even be given to the victorious

confused about what "cook" means.  does it mean bring them in m3 or goon?  and does this change from somebody just killing the goon/me as indicated above?  why should the defenders have a full functional base if they retake it.  why not just leave it down for the full 20 (or whatever) minutes and the last country to bring troops in the map gets it.  makes for more fights.

By "cook" he means that once the troops enter the map room that team MUST defend the map room and not allow any other troops into it for the allotted time so that the capture can be completed.

Pro/con- there would be less vulching by planes or GVs

how is it gonna make people vulch less? most vulching is done while not taking a base.

also how would a country know if all 10 troops made it into the maproom alive?  will the flag change? perhaps system message base taken/but not up?

In his version, the planes and vehicles would NOT be available to either team at the field under attack until one team or the other held it with troops in the map room for the full time period. During this time there would be no vulching as nobody could up. This would make the fights happen out and around the base/town as both teams bring in people from other bases to either defend or retake the base.

I think something like a system announcement when the troops go in "A35 in under attack!" and after the 20-30 minute time period an system announcement "A35 captured by XXXX"

Pro- this would set up epic GV struggles where all GVs would be approaching from adjacent bases, trying to defend the town and/or force their way into the town.

most bases only have 1 spawn will more spawns be created?

some good ideas juggler to make for some interesting changes.  I dont think it will encourage more hording than what it already has.

semp

I'm all for keeping any changes as simple as possible. More complexity breeds confusion.

My question. Wouldn't it be sufficient if there was just a single change:

All damage done to a base (including town) will not be undone by the capture

?

I like this addition. If the attacking force leaves the hangers up in anticipation of using them once they complete the capture it gives the defenders more time to up and defend before the troops get in (most attacks start by dropping hangers then work the town over then bring in troops.) which make the attackers work for it more. On the other hand should they drop the hangers to make it easy on themselves, they won't have the use of them until the 15 minutes to rebuild goes by AFTER the complete capture happens.

remove ack from towns altogether.

it WAS like that for a week or two when new towns first came out. after a capture, you had to watch town until a building popped, lest someone just roll an M3 or goon right up in there and recapture.

not only easier to capture in the first place, but easier to retake.

I like this as well. Either no ack, or only ack at the map room. It would make for a lot of GV battles in amongst the buildings.

[matt]

A system that encourages "great deeds", struggle, victory or defeat I believe is within grasp using the current system of capture and war winning.

 Lets face it a very large percentage of folks here enjoy capturing bases. I believe the war and capturing bases is critical to the health of this game. There are also a fair # of dedicated  (albeit in far less quantity) of folks who try to defend and disrupt base captures. Let me 1st give my thoughts for both sides.

 The capturers: These folks are motivated by success, by winning, by coming together for a common goal. As many folks here would say ( they are horders and bottom feeders who will not improve themselves). I do not believe these folks are the bottom of the AH barrel who refuse to learn how to get better, they are playing the game within the parameters of the "current game system" In some ways they're approach to the game is healthier than those who relentlessly try to spoil their goals (incidently of which I am one)  They are not sheeple, they have been drawn together by one individual who has a goal, an agenda to alter the "war map" in some fashion. These base takers in total create more fights than any defenders ever will. Defenders do not cause a shift in the winds, they try to stop it. Now these fights they create are quite often heavily, overwhelmingly one sided because that is how the current system supports it. Ironically the change to the radar alt has created the necessity of larger #s of folks to capture these bases. Unfortunately for these folks, gone are the days of the "sneak attack" 6 sectors away, gone are the days when 4-5 guys can get together and say "lets try to take that base" then off they go. Gone is some of the "freedom of choice" for these folks who enjoy capturing bases.

 The defenders: These folks (including myself) are motivated by "spoiling" the goals of the capturers, sometimes we revial and detest the capturers, griefing them on 200 and openly laughing as if we are superior to them. The truth is, we (the defenders) would have very little to do without them (the capturers). The defenders thrive on finding that one goon or killing one of those drunks before he gets in the maproom, relishing in the sense of failure we think we've put on the capturers, we hold ourselves up high as the ones "fighting the good fight" against all odds we shall try to spoil the goals of the capturer. We the defenders will suffer being vulched/ picked time and time again for that one chance to spoil the goal. We know for a fact "most of the time" upping from another base just takes too long so we relentlessly up at the target field trying to spoil the action. Like moths to a flame we are drawn in.

 Now with that said there are a few things for both sides that just don't sit well and we both think are silly and lame.

#1- being able to kill the goon or m3 and spoil a 40 man attack is purely silly. I cannot count the # of times I've been in a jet and crushed a capture with overwhelming odds by merely hunting down undefensible goons. This is one thing that should be changed it really is silly and stupid one guy could have such a affect on the many!

#2- The capturers having to suffer the same couple guys upping over and over and over again is truely silly

#3- The defenders being relentlessly vulched/picked trying to prevent the capture is also mind bendingly silly

#4- the defenders having no way to realistically respond in a cohesive fashion to the attackers is also silly, and very very one sided.

#5- the fact all town ack pops upon the tenth drunk staggering into the maproom is silly

#6- the fact the base changes hands the instant #10 enters is silly and stupid

 With all of this said I have a few ideas to put some freedom of choice back in the game and instill in the capturers and defenders a sense of "the thrill of victory and the agony of defeat" Lets face it everything about this game is a competition, and when competition is done correctly someone wins and someone loses. But they both had the chance to do either.



#1- A delay of 20-30 minutes from the time the 10h drunk enters untill the base changes hands would encourage "follow on" conflict and encourage defenders to try a counter offensive

#2- the town ack and buildings stay down for this time period, this will further encourage a defensive response as no effort will be needed to destroy these targets again

#3- during this time period the base is unusable to any country. This makes everyone fly from adjacent bases so the fight is spread over a larger area and includes many many different aspects of "advantage and disadvantage"

#4- any country who can cook 10 troops in the maproom for the 20-30 minutes will at that moment be rewarded with a fully fuctional and fully rebuilt base and town. rewards of perks could even be given to the victorious


Pros and cons as I see them

Pro- this will force the original attackers IF they choose to defend their potential gain or lose it back to the original owners

Pro- defenders would feel they had some time to respond and not have to suffer the vulch/pick to try and make a difference

Pro- the actual struggle for the base would be spread over a much larger area than the space between base and town

Pro- this would set up epic GV struggles where all GVs would be approaching from adjacent bases, trying to defent the town and/or force their way into the town.

Pro- jabos and bombers would have to come from adjacent bases giving the coutrymen of the GVers time to interdict and harrass these bombers and jabos

Pro- there would be squads that would specialize in counter attack, interdiction, base capture etc.

Pro- mission planners would have to get more creative, they would have to account for the potential counter attack by land, sea or air. counter attackers would have to plan for interdicters by land, sea or air

Pro- there would be less vulching by planes or GVs

Pro- the minimum radar alt could be raised back to 200' allowing creative sneak captures( these sneakers would still have to find a way to defend it) 

Con- there would be less vulching by planes or GVs

Con- no more storming a base and moving on to the next target without securing the 1st, I'm sure there would be squads to specialize in defending for the time alloted also freeing up the stormers

Con- the struggle for a base may last longer than some have time to spend online


As you can see in my mind the Pros out weigh the Cons significantly


I will now adress some concerns some may have


-The original attackers had to take down the town, so should the counter attackers. To this I say the original attackers had it much easier than the counter attacks will, as the attackers are already there and prepared climbing to meet the threat or already inderdicting the threat. The counter attackers still need to cook 10 troops in the face of a prepared enemy!

- What if a 3rd country got involved? the same rules apply whoever cooks 10 troops for the alloted time OWNS

- Concerns it will create larger hordes. Who cares, the horde for either side could now be responded to.

-raising the radar will encourage "unchallenged NOE raids" like old times. So, now you'd have the time to challenge it! Give the attackers back some of their choices


Anyway I think Lusche has some good ideas as well as Grizz, but they both would take some map changes and fundamental alterations. I think mine would be easy to accomodate untill a whole new system "if needed" could be planned and put forth!


These are just some thoughts, discuss         



JUGgler

                gv spawns to the town from all the bases.

[JUGgler]

No the goons and M3s and troops would still be as vulnerable. My thinking is that if you MUST defend the base after you get your troops in, your planning ahead and SHOULD have a defensive CAP in place. These cappers can also cover your troops better. On top of that having a number of troop carriers bringing troops is a good adition to ANY plan for taking a base as any who has ever tried to take a base can tell you, the whole thing just falls apart if your troops get picked.


By "cook" he means that once the troops enter the map room that team MUST defend the map room and not allow any other troops into it for the allotted time so that the capture can be completed.


In his version, the planes and vehicles would NOT be available to either team at the field under attack until one team or the other held it with troops in the map room for the full time period. During this time there would be no vulching as nobody could up. This would make the fights happen out and around the base/town as both teams bring in people from other bases to either defend or retake the base.

I think something like a system announcement when the troops go in "A35 in under attack!" and after the 20-30 minute time period an system announcement "A35 captured by XXXX"


I like this addition. If the attacking force leaves the hangers up in anticipation of using them once they complete the capture it gives the defenders more time to up and defend before the troops get in (most attacks start by dropping hangers then work the town over then bring in troops.) which make the attackers work for it more. On the other hand should they drop the hangers to make it easy on themselves, they won't have the use of them until the 15 minutes to rebuild goes by AFTER the complete capture happens.

I like this as well. Either no ack, or only ack at the map room. It would make for a lot of GV battles in amongst the buildings.

Thanks Fugi, I think you completely understand what my intention is with all its perfect imperfections 


 




JUGgler