More ground targets

[bongboy1]

 

[Butcher]

I'm actually working on all three of these things at the moment.  The only thing is the rail yards are purely for fun & blowing up.  They won't be a part of the overall strat system, just a target to go for.  They'll be used in the AvA where we can use them as objectives. The launch sites I am building are for V-2s though instead of V-1s.

That's fantastic, V-2 sites work just as well as V-1s, the idea are just NON-factory targets you can bomb for perks. So taking out V-2 sites does nothing in game, they only get rebuilt over time with Convoys/trucks.
Submarine Pen's are just Submarine pens, its a dock with bunch of buildings and the Pens themselves take quite a beating before going down - the idea is its a perk generator assuming you can destroy oen.

Semp, I really don't see whats got your panties in a bunch. Lately, you seem to be a bit crabby.

I agree, Titan hasn't done any trolling in game or out of game - he's been a model pilot and I would donate a second account to him if he wanted one, he earned his perks with me.

[ACE]

Semp's still upset at Grizz trolling him so bad that it actually made it to Semp's own signature.

[guncrasher]

well think about it, why would a guy who doesnt bomb want more targets to bomb?  is it because he currently doesnt play and wants more closer targets to bomb offline or is it because he ups heavy and is tired of the old town close to the base and therefore might have uppers to dangerous when he borrows the account online?

why have landing fields?  what is wrong with rtb'ing back to the base you took off from?  there's at least one base in just about every sector that has land.

why have planes on the airfields and tanks?  isnt there enough stuff to bomb on the bases already?

why have villages or town that arent attached to a base and therefore wont make a difference if they're capture or not?

all the stuff he proposes is just for milk running.  either with bombers of heavy jabos. 

I wasnt trolling, I was just saying dont you think there's enough stuff to bomb in the game already?  you guys forget the old scattered supply fields (or whatever they used to be called) that served for nothing except milk runs for jabos, bombers or tanks?

semp

[MAINER]

+1 

[save]

Railway guns would be a  excellent addition

[gyrene81]

all the stuff he proposes is just for milk running.  either with bombers of heavy jabos. 

I wasnt trolling, I was just saying dont you think there's enough stuff to bomb in the game already?  you guys forget the old scattered supply fields (or whatever they used to be called) that served for nothing except milk runs for jabos, bombers or tanks?

semp

think Semp is on to something...you can smell the milk all over the op.

[Tinkles]

well think about it, why would a guy who doesnt bomb want more targets to bomb?  is it because he currently doesnt play and wants more closer targets to bomb offline or is it because he ups heavy and is tired of the old town close to the base and therefore might have uppers to dangerous when he borrows the account online?

why have landing fields?  what is wrong with rtb'ing back to the base you took off from?  there's at least one base in just about every sector that has land.
  Lack of gas.  Damage I.E. Engine, Radiator... MISSING A WING. Etc.
why have planes on the airfields and tanks?  isnt there enough stuff to bomb on the bases already?
More realistic, and makes it so players have to pay attention when they see red dots near a friendly base, (assuming there would be reprocussions if the planes on the field were damaged).
why have villages or town that arent attached to a base and therefore wont make a difference if they're capture or not?
More fun, could attach them to a base (ex. GV base) and make it more interesting to kill/capture.  Plus, why not?
all the stuff he proposes is just for milk running.  either with bombers of heavy jabos.  
Perhaps, but all it takes is 1 262, 1 b29, or 1 tigerII death and poof go the perks.  Unless your incredibly rich.  Even then, why not?  Can still farm perks no matter if this is in the game or not.

I wasnt trolling, I was just saying dont you think there's enough stuff to bomb in the game already?  you guys forget the old scattered supply fields (or whatever they used to be called) that served for nothing except milk runs for jabos, bombers or tanks?

I respectively answer this.  Not here to mock or troll; this is my input.    

[guncrasher]

well think about it, why would a guy who doesnt bomb want more targets to bomb?  is it because he currently doesnt play and wants more closer targets to bomb offline or is it because he ups heavy and is tired of the old town close to the base and therefore might have uppers to dangerous when he borrows the account online?

why have landing fields?  what is wrong with rtb'ing back to the base you took off from?  there's at least one base in just about every sector that has land.
  Lack of gas.  Damage I.E. Engine, Radiator... MISSING A WING. Etc.
why have planes on the airfields and tanks?  isnt there enough stuff to bomb on the bases already?
More realistic, and makes it so players have to pay attention when they see red dots near a friendly base, (assuming there would be reprocussions if the planes on the field were damaged).
why have villages or town that arent attached to a base and therefore wont make a difference if they're capture or not?
More fun, could attach them to a base (ex. GV base) and make it more interesting to kill/capture.  Plus, why not?
all the stuff he proposes is just for milk running.  either with bombers of heavy jabos.  
Perhaps, but all it takes is 1 262, 1 b29, or 1 tigerII death and poof go the perks.  Unless your incredibly rich.  Even then, why not?  Can still farm perks no matter if this is in the game or not.

I wasnt trolling, I was just saying dont you think there's enough stuff to bomb in the game already?  you guys forget the old scattered supply fields (or whatever they used to be called) that served for nothing except milk runs for jabos, bombers or tanks?

I respectively answer this.  Not here to mock or troll; this is my input.    

I got thousands of perks and so a lot of people who play the game.  we dont have thousands because we spent countless hours porking undefended fields but because we dont lose a plane every time we up a perk ride.

I still think the op was only about having easier and closer stuff to pork.


semp

[Tinkles]

Well, then could have the trains effect the supplies in that sector.  So for example, there could be two trains per sector lets say.  Then if the train is destroyed or the crucial points of the train destroyed, then the supplies take longer to up in friendly bases from that sector (possibly troops as well or ordance too).  (When the sector is mostly controlled by one faction (example rooks) then the train is under rook command, however if the sector is captured by knights then the knights now have control of the train, and what happens to the train effects the knights in that sector.  If the train gets to the base in time (like the convoys) then the base is resupplied over the course of say... 3-5 minutes.  So the train stays there "parked" for 3-5 minutes while the base gets maybe 1 "field cargo" dropped from the train per minute.  A max of maybe 2-4 so it resets a good portion of the base (and it is easy to destroy so it isn't OP, at least not in the way I just described it).  It would have 1 auto AA... maybe a 37mm, then 2 player 'field ack" 1 88mm and 1 37mm or 1 20mm (like the CV has).  The trains would be an icon (like factories, but with a choo-choo symbol).  

When the sector is captured then the railyard associated with that base (if there is only one base in that sector) is awarded to the victor.

If there are a cluster of bases (Ex. TT) then maybe add 1 train per 2 bases, if clustered.  All they would have to do is destroy the train and those 2 bases would be more vulnerable.  Not in a way that would make them powerless against the enemy.  But would make it so that whatever would be attached to the train (Field supplies, GV supplies, ords etc.) would take longer to *pop* than normal.  Say an additional 10-15 mins.  Which is 1 more field supp.  

For landing bases, either have them associated with the closes airfield or GV base, where the kills would only count if they were under a friendly protection; or have them be neutral and allow anyone to land on them and get kills (which would mean that enemies could get wounded and land there without problem).  I support the 1st .

Planes on airfields, if damaged perhaps add a delay as to when the planes take off?  Or something of that sort.  Not fully sure of how this would be operated, without say perking whatever planes were destroyed on the field, but only for that field.     Again (don't criticize me on this, I'm on the fence here).  I would like to have planes on the airfields, but if they were destroyed/damaged then what would the punishment/repercussion for that?  That's what I'm having the problem deciphering.

 

[guncrasher]

Well, then could have the trains effect the supplies in that sector.  So for example, there could be two trains per sector lets say.  Then if the train is destroyed or the crucial points of the train destroyed, then the supplies take longer to up in friendly bases from that sector (possibly troops as well or ordance too).
 

this basically duplicates the reason for having the strats.  I think there should either let the strats control the resuply or train yards but not both.  if you keep adding things that will slow down base regeneration then pretty soon bases will be easier to take than what it already is.  ack, ords, radar, town being down for hours. this wont help the game.


semp

[Tinkles]

this basically duplicates the reason for having the strats.  I think there should either let the strats control the resupply or train yards but not both.  if you keep adding things that will slow down base regeneration then pretty soon bases will be easier to take than what it already is.  ack, ords, radar, town being down for hours. this wont help the game.


I agree, I think personally that trains should effect ammo loadout of all planes, and vehicles nearby.  So if the train (or trains if has enough bases) are destroyed, then the ammo loadout would be less than normal.  Example:  Spit 16 has 500 machine gun 250 cannon as normal.  If trains were down, it could be say... 25%-50% less.  This would make it so players would have an incentive to defend things, because the consequences would be higher than normal.  So instead of having a bunch of ammo then it would be  25% - 50% less.    This would also happen to GVs, instead of say... 60 HE 20 AP it would be either 45 HE 15AP or 30 HE 10 AP. ( 25%-50% )

Would certainly make it more challenging, that's for sure.

But it might make it too hard for the defenders.  So I'm not fully sure if this would be efficient however, it definitely would be effective.   

[Rob52240]

I love the idea of the rail yards, They can be randomly placed on each side (large maps may have 4-5 where small maps each country gets 1-2). If you knock the railyards under 20% it slows the convoys to resupply the bases.

Other targets of opportunity:
V-1 launch sites - although they will NOT shoot rockets, they are simply a static target worth bombing for perks

Different Factories:
Submarine Pens - kind of like HQ's they require a TON of bombs to knock the pens out, can be placed around water areas.

Convoys don't resupply bases anymore.  They only affect airfield objects if someone destroys the convoy.