Idea for Strat Change for Refinery and Fuel Tanks and Better Game Play

[Chilli]

Damage to Refinery Strats, currently are very low priority, considering the effect it has compared to other Country and Field Strats.  I believe the following idea would not only add to the importance of attacking / protecting All Strats, but also counter certain advantages by the new resupply features. 

Dear HiTech,

I wish that destroyed Fuel Bunkers on any field would DISABLE the field supplies in the hangars.   

Thank you,
ChiLLi


Discussion: 

• With the implementation of resupply for town buildings and ack, some base defenders (including myself) find it fairly easy to quickly resupply towns before the enemy troops can land.   
• I like that this is an additional option for strategic play, but there is no current parity in counter action.
• Some fields have closer town spawns from supporting bases as well as multiple bases.
• The number of barracks along with the difficulties in acquiring them as targets, makes them a timely and risky target with potentially short downtimes.
• The maximum downtime for any Vehicle Hangar is 15 minutes (multiplied by the number of fields that spawn in, and the 4 hangars at one Vehicle Base with a spawn).
• Currently, increasing downtime of Fuel Bunkers ONLY effects the ability to launch with Drop Tanks (not a game changer)
• Realistically, damage to fuel would impede that amount of traffic from that base (running manpower and supplies to reconstruct defenses would suffer).
• By disabling the Field Supplies along with the Drop Tanks, the Refinery now becomes an important feature for each country

* Personal Note:  My dad who is still with us, spent the last months of WW2 guarding such structures.  In his recollections to us, after landing in Normandy, German contact was less and less, although they were still under threat of strafing aircraft and flying bombs that he described vividly the emotional response of hearing them buzzing overhead, become quiet and then that was your clue one was either about to drop or continue to some other destination.

[ink]

Damage to Refinery Strats, currently are very low priority, considering the effect it has compared to other Country and Field Strats.  I believe the following idea would not only add to the importance of attacking / protecting All Strats, but also counter certain advantages by the new resupply features. 

Dear HiTech,

I wish that destroyed Fuel Bunkers on any field would DISABLE the field supplies in the hangars.   

Thank you,
ChiLLi


Discussion: 

• With the implementation of resupply for town buildings and ack, some base defenders (including myself) find it fairly easy to quickly resupply towns before the enemy troops can land.   
• I like that this is an additional option for strategic play, but there is no current parity in counter action.
• Some fields have closer town spawns from supporting bases as well as multiple bases.
• The number of barracks along with the difficulties in acquiring them as targets, makes them a timely and risky target with potentially short downtimes.
• The maximum downtime for any Vehicle Hangar is 15 minutes (multiplied by the number of fields that spawn in, and the 4 hangars at one Vehicle Base with a spawn).
• Currently, increasing downtime of Fuel Bunkers ONLY effects the ability to launch with Drop Tanks (not a game changer)
• Realistically, damage to fuel would impede that amount of traffic from that base (running manpower and supplies to reconstruct defenses would suffer).
• By disabling the Field Supplies along with the Drop Tanks, the Refinery now becomes an important feature for each country

* Personal Note:  My dad who is still with us, spent the last months of WW2 guarding such structures.  In his recollections to us, after landing in Normandy, German contact was less and less, although they were still under threat of strafing aircraft and flying bombs that he described vividly the emotional response of hearing them buzzing overhead, become quiet and then that was your clue one was either about to drop or continue to some other destination.

first.......MA does not replicate WW2......(thankfully..... it would be very boring if it did)
second -1

[Volron]

Don't knocking out barracks disable field sups as well?  I honestly do not remember...

[SmokinLoon]

Don't knocking out barracks disable field sups as well?  I honestly do not remember...

Yes.

No barracks = no troops, no gv supplies, no field supplies, and iirc I think no smoke for the Storch.

[USRanger]

Killing the fuel bunkers used to bring the fuel down to 75% then 50% then 25% max fuel for planes launching from the field..  That's a feature I wish they would bring back.  Made more sense than having them on the field as nearly pointless targets.  I think fuel loadout for GVs should also be a feature that matters, instead of 25% taking you as far as you choose to go.

[Volron]

Ah!  Thank you Smokin.

The op's idea of adding more value to the fuel tanks on bases and the fuel refinery in the Capital has merit.  From the few times I've been on, that is generally the one strat that is fairly well untouched.

Although, if we added railyards, THOSE could affect field supplies, now that I think about it.   It would finally give us railyards to blow up, and they would have at least a marginal reason for being there.  With them there, any other changes may be added onto them.  Example: Like how HiTech changed it to where hitting the Industrial Center of the Capital affected town down times.  It would mean that we would need to add another object to hit on bases though.  Or, if depot's are brought back, have the railyards affect those?

Either way, the idea overall has some merit.  As Ranger pointed out, they are fairly pointless right now.  Could've sworn that hitting all fuel at a base would force a max of 75% fuel though.  Was that changed recently?   Haven't bothered to hit fuel with intent of affecting the base in some time now.  Usually I hit them just for the hell of it, and that's not very often.

[SmokinLoon]

Killing the fuel bunkers used to bring the fuel down to 75% then 50% then 25% max fuel for planes launching from the field..  That's a feature I wish they would bring back.  Made more sense than having them on the field as nearly pointless targets.  I think fuel loadout for GVs should also be a feature that matters, instead of 25% taking you as far as you choose to go.

Now when a small airfield is attacked (4 fuel tanks total), on the 3rd fuel tank destroyed drop tanks become disabled.  On the 4th being destroyed the max fuel is %75.  Ultimately, this has no bearing on anything.  I used to think that it restricted La7's from upping.  Nope. If HTC started with fuel tank #2 being destroyed = disabling DT's, #3 = %75 fuel, and #4 = %50 fuel THEN we may have something.  As it is now it is an *empty* feature, it restricts nothing.

I strongly encourage HTC to re-evaluate their settings of "on site" fuel damage ramifications.  I suggest to take the maximum damage down to %50.

[Tinkles]

Now when a small airfield is attacked (4 fuel tanks total), on the 3rd fuel tank destroyed drop tanks become disabled.  On the 4th being destroyed the max fuel is %75.  Ultimately, this has no bearing on anything.  I used to think that it restricted La7's from upping.  Nope. If HTC started with fuel tank #2 being destroyed = disabling DT's, #3 = %75 fuel, and #4 = %50 fuel THEN we may have something.  As it is now it is an *empty* feature, it restricts nothing.

I strongly encourage HTC to re-evaluate their settings of "on site" fuel damage ramifications.  I suggest to take the maximum damage down to %50.

*cough*  I agree with this but on a side note...

Fighter hangers and bomber hangers should mean something too.. Right now you have to take ALL of them down before nothing ups.  That's wrong.

1 FH down, no 5 ENY planes, sorry spit 16s, p51s etc.
2 fh down, no 5-15 ENY planes
3+ fh down, no more fighters,  except maybe the storch 

Bomber hangers I'm not sure of.  Perhaps separate manuverable from non-manuverable planes but how would that work out .  Either way something needs to be done, from fuel, to ords to Fh/Bh balance.

As for ords, if 1 ord bunker is down.. no 1000lb-4000lb bombs at that base, if 2+ bunkers are dead.. no ord .



I know this would count as a "hi-jack", however this said "better game play" in title.  So I think it relates, at least a little bit.

I think the above should be implemented immediately  .  Simply because, it is a "no brainer".  Because "all or nothing" in terms of disabling a base, is very... stupid, in my opinion.

Just my thoughts.

Respectively,

Tinkles

 

P.S. Got mah flak suit on 

[doright]

1 FH down, no 5 ENY planes, sorry spit 16s, p51s etc.
2 fh down, no 5-15 ENY planes
3+ fh down, no more fighters,  except maybe the storch 

To continue the hijacking drama.
100% predictable outcomes like this contribute to gaming the game. So what if the certainties are eliminated and make random airplanes unavailable for each fighter hanger destroyed.

Now a pirate counter-boarding of the hijacking.
What if other results were less predictable. A random fuel bunker had the drop tanks, or random number of fuel tanks have the 100/125 octane fuel and anti-freeze supply eliminating WEP on those aircraft that used that rating fuel or water injection.
This could even be extended into random effects of dropping troops barracks like limiting the number of resupplied objects, number of gv supplies carried in an M3, or even *gasp* number of troops available to be stuffed in a vehicle.
Ords could also be randomized so rockets, various bombs, even a/c gun and ammo load outs would be affected by the random contents of the destroyed bunkers.
Wouldn't it be fun if one random building in town housed a defense garrison of troops. Troops would be kicked out of the building when enemy troops are in the area, and sprint to the map room to defend (or do the macarena around the flag pole). Destroy that particular building the defense troops are dead. Drop buildings to get a white flag, but miss that random building and well things get interesting on local channel.

Time for the negotiations.
I would really like to see less of the all or nothing rule of field structures, and less hard coded down times to discourage porking for porking's sake. I'm sure this could all be whipped out in an afternoon of coding and no debugging or play balancing would be required (dang lack of sarcasm font). But inserting some of the fog of war aspects could help gameplay and allow more flexible play balancing schemes.

Hostages set free? Ransom paid? Or thread lock?

[Chilli]

Ink,

Having strictly, only WW2 aircraft and not having the game relate to WW2??  That would be like requiring all the NASCAR specs for race cars and then have them do the Baja Circuit 

Anyhow, some of you seem to understand as I do the futility of striking Refinery or Fuel Tanks.  (A note to HiTech, both of these were high value targets, not Churches, not Barracks, and not Village homes).

The one point that no one has seemed to discuss here, (but there is another thread dedicated to) is the EASY BUTTON field defense.  "Oh no!  Our town is white flagged (mercilessly bombed, strafed and pillaged)!"    "Don't worry, I have my mighty truck on the way.  I will be there in 2 minutes!"   

Yes, Troops and supplies may now be disabled by destroying all (however many) barracks there are on a single field.  At which point they only stay down as long as the first barrack that was downed, has not been rebuilt (which also can be repaired by bringing in supplies). 

Figure in the difficulty in acquiring barracks as a target.  Go ahead and fess up!  Most of you have no clue where they are and what they look like, especially above 10k feet.     I have played this game at least 10 years, and I can't tell you if some are still tents or not, but there is no mistaking fuel tanks, for anything else.  Add to that, there are at least one more set of barracks for each base than fuel bunkers. 

Bonus:  Currently destroying fuel tanks at a vehicle base or port does absolutely nothing.  Leave the troops and vehicle supplies ability attached to barracks, and move the ability of field supplies to attach it to fuel bunkers as well as current abilities .  (Note to status quo:  How often have you seen a message in the MA that you may not take 100% fuel?)

If the town resupply was an attempt at thwarting the horde, it has some merit, and I DO like the added strategy, but without parity, it only reinforces the horde mentality.  Now, I need to have enough players involved in a SINGLE base capture attempt, that can cover as many fields that spawn into that base's town. 

[EagleDNY]

Killing the fuel bunkers used to bring the fuel down to 75% then 50% then 25% max fuel for planes launching from the field..  That's a feature I wish they would bring back.  Made more sense than having them on the field as nearly pointless targets.  I think fuel loadout for GVs should also be a feature that matters, instead of 25% taking you as far as you choose to go.

+1 on this as well - taking out the fuel bunkers should matter again.  I like the progressive nature of destroyed fuel bunkers taking the fuel down by a percentage as each bunker is destroyed.  I also wouldn't mind it if taking out the fuel bunkers increased the wait time necessary on the re-arm / re-fuel pads.  

[Chilli]

+1 on this as well - taking out the fuel bunkers should matter again.  I like the progressive nature of destroyed fuel bunkers taking the fuel down by a percentage as each bunker is destroyed.  I also wouldn't mind it if taking out the fuel bunkers increased the wait time necessary on the re-arm / re-fuel pads.  

I really like the added re-arm also.

[ink]

Ink,

Having strictly, only WW2 aircraft and not having the game relate to WW2??  That would be like requiring all the NASCAR specs for race cars and then have them do the Baja Circuit 

Anyhow, some of you seem to understand as I do the futility of striking Refinery or Fuel Tanks.  (A note to HiTech, both of these were high value targets, not Churches, not Barracks, and not Village homes).

The one point that no one has seemed to discuss here, (but there is another thread dedicated to) is the EASY BUTTON field defense.  "Oh no!  Our town is white flagged (mercilessly bombed, strafed and pillaged)!"    "Don't worry, I have my mighty truck on the way.  I will be there in 2 minutes!"   

Yes, Troops and supplies may now be disabled by destroying all (however many) barracks there are on a single field.  At which point they only stay down as long as the first barrack that was downed, has not been rebuilt (which also can be repaired by bringing in supplies). 

Figure in the difficulty in acquiring barracks as a target.  Go ahead and fess up!  Most of you have no clue where they are and what they look like, especially above 10k feet.     I have played this game at least 10 years, and I can't tell you if some are still tents or not, but there is no mistaking fuel tanks, for anything else.  Add to that, there are at least one more set of barracks for each base than fuel bunkers. 

Bonus:  Currently destroying fuel tanks at a vehicle base or port does absolutely nothing.  Leave the troops and vehicle supplies ability attached to barracks, and move the ability of field supplies to attach it to fuel bunkers as well as current abilities .  (Note to status quo:  How often have you seen a message in the MA that you may not take 100% fuel?)

If the town resupply was an attempt at thwarting the horde, it has some merit, and I DO like the added strategy, but without parity, it only reinforces the horde mentality.  Now, I need to have enough players involved in a SINGLE base capture attempt, that can cover as many fields that spawn into that base's town. 

once again...........ill type slow            t h e             M A          d o e s         n o t         h a v e        a   n  y t h i n g     t   o     d  o       w i  t  h     W   W    2...................e x c e p t..........T H E         T O O L S..............


it is a giant COMBAT sandbox using WW2 equipment.........COMBAT being the main goal, hurting the fuel will hurt COMBAT........

how difficult is that to understand

[Tilt]

I would tend to agree... in as much as barracks should be reserved for troops only...............

Supplies (and re arm pads for that matter) should reflect the health of the origin field IMO........... if the ammo dumps are down then you get no ammo, if the fuel dumps are all down you get 75% fuel, if the VH is down then there is no GV repair...................

[Tinkles]

once again...........ill type slow            t h e             M A          d o e s         n o t         h a v e        a   n  y t h i n g     t   o     d  o       w i  t  h     W   W    2...................e x c e p t..........T H E         T O O L S..............


it is a giant COMBAT sandbox using WW2 equipment.........COMBAT being the main goal, hurting the fuel will hurt COMBAT........

how difficult is that to understand

With all due respect Ink, I agree with you but I disagree.

 I think that the tools we have are nice (planes, vehicles etc).  However, what is the "main" objective of Aces High?


I say the main objective for Aces High is Combat using these World War 2 "tools" to use for combat, as you said.

The #2 thing I would say for objective purposes in Aces High is (for some, and I dare say a majority.. even if it's 51%), winning the war.

I think #2 is definitely true because of the fact that wars are being won fast nearly each day there is a new map (until we get to the bigger maps).  Even if the goal is to change the map, the key to that is winning the war.

But lack of fuel doesn't mean much.  You can normally fly 2 sectors with MOST planes at 25-50% fuel.  Some planes much further.  So does fuel REALLY have that much of an effect if you only have 25% of your fuel?  Do you need drop tanks to go 1-2 sectors?   If your fuel's were hit then there is a good chance that your base is under attack. So why do you need 75%-100% fuel for defensive purposes?     Again, no disrespect.. I am trying to understand it from your viewpoint. But try to understand it from ours. Negotiating. Compromise.  We ALL need to work on this on the BBS, that is why half of these wishes turn out to be long, drawn-out arguments of one minor factor that was barely significant (not saying that fuel has no relevance here).    But would it be so bad if you were limited to 25-50% fuel for 30 mins?  That's if you're waiting in the tower for 30 mins.

So adding these effects to the game gives it a SENSE of realism. Sure, it's a game... we have established this. But every game has their "realistic" points and their "gamey" aspects.  So, what of it?  The point of Aces High is to give you a realistic WW2 combat experience in the planes/vehicles that the real men did themselves.  It has it's flaws and drawbacks, but in my opnion; it is our responsibility with this wishlist forum to give our ideas on what we think would be best for the game.  

As of now, I think that this wish is valid, and should be implemented, along with what I and a few others said.

Again, no disrespect.    

Just my thoughts.

Respectfully,

Tinkles