Move towns for better fights...

[Rob52240]

So 1 person should have an easy time defending a base?  It takes a lot more than one person to take a base.  Maybe nobody wants to fly with you?

[caldera]

So 1 person should have an easy time defending a base? It takes a lot more than one person to take a base.  Maybe nobody wants to fly with you?

How did you arrive at this?    Didn't you say my proposal would make bases really easy to take?   

And I don't fly with a crowd to hold my hand.  I fly with me, myself and I. 

[Rob52240]

I'm saying that your proposal would make bases way too easy to take.

[caldera]

I'm saying that your proposal would make bases way too easy to take.

And a few minutes ago, you said:

So 1 person should have an easy time defending a base?

Where am I asking for it to be made easy for a solo defense?



The harder base taking has become, the bigger the hordes have become.  Pretty sad that the noe town bashing of old has devolved into the steamrolling  the hangars flat and de-acking (the sport of eunuchs) for no-risk vulching.  At least back then, you could up to fight.  That's the whole point of this: making it worthwhile to not steamroll everything in sight.  Smaller attack groups in two or three locations beats one big group in my book.   

[Rob52240]

It looked like you were complaining about how many people it takes to stop troops from getting into the maproom.

I'm not opposed to trying to require multiple locations but if we kept things the way they are aside from moving a town away from fields, bases would be too easy to take for it to ever be any fun.

The towns that sit nearly on top of airfields are harder than the ones with some distance between them.

Just my observations.

 

[caldera]

The towns would be easier for a flash mob of GVs to take but I'm not so sure they would be that much easier for airplanes.  But there would be a chance for defenders to get into the fight.  Right now, you have to come from another base for that.  So in some ways, it could also be easier to defend as well. 
Not much fun in trying to fight if you can't clear your own runway in one piece.  Personally, I don't care who has which base or wins teh war. 
Just want smaller fights.   

[TnDep]

Lets wait and see how these new changes affect gameplay in a full arena setting before we reinvent the wheel. 

+1

Also caldera I think the new flak 88's will make a big difference, can't wait to see them in action.  The idea you have is great, do I think it's 100 effective no but I think your onto some great ideas for the future. 

The one problem I see is that you have 40-50 plane hordes come in not wanting a fight, they just want to see "**base is captured by "insert country" most of the time it's bish"  how can you defend that, most of the time your 1 of about 3 to 5 upping to try and defend and it's no use.  I upped a 262 to try and defend one of these and I had a 15k f4u4 that dove on me, got a pm from him don't remember who it was but his response was got to love the f4u's in a dive.  So you got 40 planes hitting the field and town, vulching ect, and you got high alt cover for 262's ect.  how do you defend that?  Don't think you can regardless what you do.  Adding new guns to the field is going to be great, however against a horde they will not be effective.

Also another simple idea is allowing planes to spn out of every hanger instead of just the 1 fh or bh or vh for vh bases.  Allowing them to spn out of which one they choose if that makes sense.  That would stop alot of the vh camping for the most part and also help on the vulching of the fields, should be simple and not hurt a thing.  Thoughts?

[caldera]

I know what you mean about 262 defense.  Was chased around by a cloud level Tempest yesterday and had a tough time attacking low buffs.

It's true that you can't defend against a giant horde no matter what.  No idea is perfect or without trade offs. 

Allowing spawning hangar discretion at V-bases would work.

As for the 88, I can't wait.  Would like to see some quad Bofors on airfields too.  And dragon's teeth to keep out the GVs.

[TnDep]

Also on another note if the hanger is destoyed obviously you can't spn out of that hanger but whatever hangers are up should be your decretion, should apply to both vbases and abases

[Tilt]

Moving the town away from the base does not of its self make the town easier to capture or harder.

The placement of the defending vehicle spawns will contribute greatly.

Imagine there were two vehicle spawns actually in the town from the associated base. IMO its now much harder to capture but as the terrain designer moves these spawns further from the town it gets easier to capture. The balancing mechanic is within the terrain design. IMO the defending spawn should be positioned such that the spawn point could not be camped without the town flashing showing enemy present.

Further spawning  vehicles in the centre of town will demand that the associated VH be porked (it would become a pre requisit to any attack) .....denying folk accesss to the battle. Spawning further from town will permit the well organised "raid" to succeed as a well organised raid should. However if the raid is poorly organised then both defending air and ground assets should be able to arrive intime to disrupt it.

In this respect (a less than optimum raid design) the out come will be decided by the strength of the two battling forces. As it should be.

Even if the attackers are a horde, the defenders still have access to the fight because the defending base no longer falls under the same CAP as the town and has not been taken out the equation. The next question is how far should the base be from its associated town. Some of the same "rules" apply as when considering how close the vehicle spawns should be.

My first thought would be that the minimum distance be beyond Icon range. The the terrain should be taken into account.....is there a mountain in the way? (now its too far) ..is the base higher than the town (now even at the same distance it could be too close)....is the only approach (from the defending base) up a single valley (that maybe too hard to defend or intercept).

There would be subtle variations across terrains............. making some easier or harder than others for differing reasons (variety is gud!) some towns may be coastal some towns may enjoy multiple gv spawns from multiple fields, which as the land grab ebbs and flows means a mix of enemy and freindly spawns as we have now (the defending base spawn will always be the closer to the town). Some towns may be a little closer or further from their associated base. (infact if this were ever done across a whole terrain then mixing the distances would allow HTC to determine some optimum distances for game play)

IMO there would be no GV spawns pointing at air bases they will point at towns, ports and GV bases.

SO none of the above has requested anything that cannot now be modelled into a terrain.

If I were to consider any addition it would be a look out post. A high POV local to town accessable from the hanger such that any player could quickly access the (or more than one)  church steeple / tower and simply look over the town and it environs for enemy action. In this way if a town starts to flash its a very quick spawn to discern whats happening and also one that was very common in RL.