Towns with no ack for vbases.

[Citabria]

I got to do some fighting in the town and I wish they had these towns at vbases. I remember the towns didnt have ack at first. given the nature of how hidden the acks are id prefer a town without acks for vbases since they are rediculously hard to find for ground vehicles.

the towns are just plain fun.

[Devonai]

So, in other words, you want the additional terrain to run around in, but none of the threat from ack?  Ok, no problem, but what about white-flagging?  Do you want to keep that in there?  Without ack, it would seem like just another opportunity for some free perkies.

[TDeacon]

-1  

I personally hate the current towns, and everything associated with them.  In particular, I hate GVing in close quarters, primarily because survival in such a situation is too much a matter of luck.

MH

[The Fugitive]

-1  

I personally hate the current towns, and everything associated with them.  In particular, I hate GVing in close quarters, primarily because survival in such a situation is too much a matter of luck.

MH

...or maybe it could be team work with other players in Storches, or someone sitting OUTSIDE the town on a hill spotting for those inside the town. Too many people look at spawn camping as the "be all, end all" of gvin'.

[Tilt]

Just give V bases towns IMO.

GGuns are easily killed off by shermans etc and it makes more sense that a gv battle is for a town........... In both Euro fronts towns were the focus of the ground war as they were control points in logistic supply, it was only in the great battles that the conflict was drawn away from towns and even then they were still the bridge head objectives.

Towns are actually more applicable to GV bases than airfields IMO.

[TDeacon]

...or maybe it could be team work with other players in Storches, or someone sitting OUTSIDE the town on a hill spotting for those inside the town. Too many people look at spawn camping as the "be all, end all" of gvin'.

Fugitive; if you think that GVing consists only of "spawn camping", then you are greatly mistaken.  Perhaps before you post again on GVing, you should do a bit more GVing yourself.  

With respect to “team work”, some of us fly (or drive) alone.  Not everyone is part of a squad.  

Just give V bases towns IMO.

<snip> In both Euro fronts towns were the focus of the ground war as they were control points in logistic supply, it was only in the great battles that the conflict was drawn away from towns and even then they were still the bridge head objectives.

Towns are actually more applicable to GV bases than airfields IMO.

There is practically zero relationship between how we implement the AH strategic game and historical WWII operational or strategic reality.  As I mentioned in another post, the purpose of the AH strat game is to add game play interest and facilitate individual fights between aircraft (and latterly GVs).  

Now if you support towns for vBases because you think it would make the game more fun, then I could respect that.  But arguing for it on the basis of historical realism indicates that you need to buy a few history books.  No offense intended.  

MH

[TDeacon]

There is an additional major isssue with the towns, which is another of the reasons I would oppose adding them to vBases.  

When defending the base, it is not unusual for a defender to up (possibly in a perk plane/vehicle) from the defending base, and immediately be under fire from the just-captured base via the distant out-of-sight town.  The advantage of having the map room on the base (as in ports and vBases and as it use to be in air bases) is the elimination of this discontinuity.  

The impenetrable maze-like hedges surrounding the new towns, often ending in cul-de-sacs, are no fun either...

MH

[caldera]

The towns were so much better when they were modeled without any ack guns (this coming from someone who never, ever takes bases).
Smaller groups of players could take bases and more of them, which kept the fronts from being stagnant and more bases under simultaneous attack.

I wish that towns were once again ack-free.  Also, please install at least 4 quad Bofors mounts on every airfield, as the 88s are ineffective at best.
Keep the fight away from the base so perch sitting punk vulchers can't keep you from fighting back. 

[TDeacon]

<snip>Keep the fight away from the base so perch sitting punk vulchers can't keep you from fighting back. 

Hmm; didn't think of that.  I guess that is an argument for remote towns for air bases then...  However, I still oppose adding them to vBases, as the vulching issue obviously doesn't apply.  In fact, quite to the contrary, as defending from vBase concrete is an advantage. 

MH

[caldera]

It would be great if towns were further away from fields and were without ack protection.  They would become free-for-all areas of sorts and that sounds fun to me.  Put friendly and enemy vehicle spawns equidistant and on opposite sides of the town.  The attackers would have the advantage of initiative in airstrikes, but if the fields were properly "tard-proofed" from vulchers, friendlies could at least get some air under their wings and make a fight out of it.  Hangars could still be dropped, but low alt porking done by a single 190, La7 or 51 would be hazardous to the porker's health.

That scenario would require the re-working of all the maps, so it's unlikely to happen.  Removing the ack in town and increasing it at the field however,  would be much less work.  I agree that Vehicle bases don't really need towns but maybe some dragon's teeth to force invaders into narrow channels to get on the base.  That could work against the defenders though.  Don't know squat about tanking, so I'll stifle myself about that.  This concludes this thread hijack. 

[The Fugitive]

Fugitive; if you think that GVing consists only of "spawn camping", then you are greatly mistaken.  Perhaps before you post again on GVing, you should do a bit more GVing yourself.  

With respect to “team work”, some of us fly (or drive) alone.  Not everyone is part of a squad.  

There is practically zero relationship between how we implement the AH strategic game and historical WWII operational or strategic reality.  As I mentioned in another post, the purpose of the AH strat game is to add game play interest and facilitate individual fights between aircraft (and latterly GVs).  

Now if you support towns for vBases because you think it would make the game more fun, then I could respect that.  But arguing for it on the basis of historical realism indicates that you need to buy a few history books.  No offense intended.  

MH

I'm sorry, I didn't realize that it was a requirement to have had hundreds of hours in GVs to post an opinion on this topic.  

I have no idea "who" you are in game, so I can't see how many hundreds of hours you have in GV's, but that only means your a bit slower in figuring out that most GV fight center around a spawn point. Now whether this SP is a hanger or a point out off base, they still almost ALWAYS end up with one group racking as many kills as they can before the camp is broken. It is almost un head of to see anyone flanking a spawn point even, most just drive strait ahead until they see something to shoot at.

As for the OP, he posted that town fights are fun, which I also find fun and exciting. He also posted he thought it would be good if there was no ack there either to make the hunt that little bit more even.

Now I understand that you might have a problem with town fighting, because well, it might be pretty rough on your score sheet if you hunt alone, but I find it pretty easy to work with who ever is around whether they are a squad mate, friend, or newb. The idea is to have fun fighting it out. The old TT use to be fun even with the ugly buildings we had back them. These days if it doesn't contribute to score or winning the war players just don't seem to be interested.

Now, if the town had to be cleared of enemy GVs AND white flanged before they could capture a V base..... whew-weee! talk about opportunities to have a fight!  

[TDeacon]

I'm sorry, I didn't realize that it was a requirement to have had hundreds of hours in GVs to post an opinion on this topic.  
<snip>

Yes, but one does need some minimal understanding of the topic on which one posts, doesn't one?  

MH

[715]

The impenetrable maze-like hedges surrounding the new towns, often ending in cul-de-sacs, are no fun either...

There are no cul-de-sacs at all in town (where a cul-de-sac is defined as a road that dead ends; none of the roads in town dead end).  In town you need to stay on roads or know which open areas connect with other roads.

GV fighting in town is more challenging, for sure, but I think that just increases the interest.  It also gives non-perked tanks a chance since most encounters are very short range.  I am aware of peoples dislike of being ambushed in a GV, as many complain when I do it to them, but I do not understand it.  What exactly do they want?  Do they want GV action to be medieval jousting- two opposing tanks line up on a flat open terrain and fire at each other until the Tiger wins?

Having an ack-less town surrounding v-bases (with the maproom still at the acked v-base) sounds like an idea with possibilities.  Perhaps it would be best if the capture criteria were the same, i.e. take down v-base ack and get troops into the v-base maproom, rather than having to take down the town for a white flag? 

If the town is close, and surrounds the v-base, it would kind of negate the 18-lbers.  They slew so slowly that they must be able to see an enemy approaching from a distance; if the enemy just suddenly popped out of the town onto the v-base at close range the 18 lber would be less useful.  But if the town did not surround the v-base then wouldn't attackers just avoid the town?  I guess the other possibility is have the town near but separate from the v-base and use the airfield capture criteria, i.e. white flag the town and get troops into the town maproom.  In this case, if the town had no defensive ack, wouldn't it be too easy to milkrun v-bases?

[TDeacon]

There are no cul-de-sacs at all in town (where a cul-de-sac is defined as a road that dead ends; none of the roads in town dead end).  In town you need to stay on roads or know which open areas connect with other roads.

Maybe I should have said “dead ends”.  Unless you have memorized the town terrain, if you approach cross-country, you often end up in a dead-ended hedge pocket, and have to turn around and drive back to the periphery again. 

GV fighting in town is more challenging, for sure, but I think that just increases the interest.  It also gives non-perked tanks a chance since most encounters are very short range.  I am aware of peoples dislike of being ambushed in a GV, as many complain when I do it to them, but I do not understand it.  What exactly do they want?  Do they want GV action to be medieval jousting- two opposing tanks line up on a flat open terrain and fire at each other until the Tiger wins?

Having an ack-less town surrounding v-bases (with the maproom still at the acked v-base) sounds like an idea with possibilities.  Perhaps it would be best if the capture criteria were the same, i.e. take down v-base ack and get troops into the v-base maproom, rather than having to take down the town for a white flag? 

If the town is close, and surrounds the v-base, it would kind of negate the 18-lbers.  They slew so slowly that they must be able to see an enemy approaching from a distance; if the enemy just suddenly popped out of the town onto the v-base at close range the 18 lber would be less useful.  But if the town did not surround the v-base then wouldn't attackers just avoid the town?  I guess the other possibility is have the town near but separate from the v-base and use the airfield capture criteria, i.e. white flag the town and get troops into the town maproom.  In this case, if the town had no defensive ack, wouldn't it be too easy to milkrun v-bases?

Well, you will still be able to fight in towns, since all air bases have them.  However, I, for one would hate to see this extended to vBases for the reasons previously stated. 

MH

[j500ss]

There are always 2 ways to look at everything, and so is the case here as well.   I like the idea of an added dimension of a town near or associated with a v-base.  I don't think the current town we have with full ack is right for the job, but I also believe that a ackless  town is pointless as well.   My take on it would be something along the lines of perimeter ack, less hedge rows, more buildings!   Also several different layouts would be cool as well, but also probably a lot of work to create.

I would like to see one with a river or stream between the base and the town with destroyable bridges..... That could be interesting especially with a properly laid out spawn point.    I think it would make for some great knock down drag em out fights...

I like the idea of having to white flag a town before a v-base take, yet leave the maproom at the v-base I feel is a must!

As it is, a town is really no big deal to de-ack and knock down to white flag, and if properly executed, a v-base is not all that big a deal either.    The 2 combined would make for a new dimension to the game, and if placed strategically on the maps with well placed spawns, I think it would make for some pretty cool ground pounding....  Especially with some well placed terrain features (i.e.  hills, water, landscape, and destructible buildings)  I have always felt that some of the barns and houses that are randomly placed on the maps, should have a %age of them that can be destroyed,

Just my $.02