Author Topic: Logistic penalty for retreated factories  (Read 1132 times)

Offline alpini13

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 734
Re: Logistic penalty for retreated factories
« Reply #30 on: February 28, 2013, 11:41:04 PM »
+1 :aok

Offline Dragon Tamer

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2047
Re: Logistic penalty for retreated factories
« Reply #31 on: February 28, 2013, 11:46:57 PM »
+1

Offline jeffdn

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 406
Re: Logistic penalty for retreated factories
« Reply #32 on: February 28, 2013, 11:58:10 PM »

Put a 163 base near if you think that will even this suggestion out, many of us love seeing 'em.  I'd rather see a 163 than a jug way up there honestly.   


 :rofl  :airplane:

Offline HawkerMKII

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1133
Re: Logistic penalty for retreated factories
« Reply #33 on: March 01, 2013, 04:51:13 AM »
Or up bombers very often. 


You right I never do.....you won't even get close to the time I have spent in bombers in this game and yes I will say it again...you just want it easy to hit strat, thats probably the only thing you do besides milkrun towns :salute
8th of November 1965, 173RD Airborne <S>

Offline HawkerMKII

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1133
Re: Logistic penalty for retreated factories
« Reply #34 on: March 01, 2013, 04:54:33 AM »
double post
« Last Edit: March 01, 2013, 04:59:58 AM by HawkerMKII »
8th of November 1965, 173RD Airborne <S>

Offline tunnelrat

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1739
Re: Logistic penalty for retreated factories
« Reply #35 on: March 01, 2013, 11:01:46 AM »
Ok i'll agree to your wish......but if 15 minutes added to hanger down time when strat in rear.....+15 minutes to each cargo drop on strat?

Hangars aren't affected by strats, they are always 15 minutes.
In-Game: 80hd
The Spartans do not enquire how many the enemy are but where they are.

Offline HawkerMKII

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1133
Re: Logistic penalty for retreated factories
« Reply #36 on: March 01, 2013, 11:07:59 AM »
Hangars aren't affected by strats, they are always 15 minutes.

They want extra time added to down time if start is in rear
8th of November 1965, 173RD Airborne <S>

Offline tunnelrat

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1739
Re: Logistic penalty for retreated factories
« Reply #37 on: March 01, 2013, 11:12:44 AM »
They want extra time added to down time if start is in rear

HTC will never add extra time to hangars themselves... I would lay money on that.

All I am asking with my wish is that a retreated factory, even at 100%, would have a baseline of 45 minutes downtime for ack, radar, fuel, troops, town buildings... instead of the normal 30 minutes... both to simulate the extended supply lines, time to retool the factories, as well as to make an incentive to both attackers and defenders to attempt to keep the factories in the front and defended.

In-Game: 80hd
The Spartans do not enquire how many the enemy are but where they are.

Offline Lusche

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 23939
      • Last.FM Profile
Re: Logistic penalty for retreated factories
« Reply #38 on: March 01, 2013, 11:13:04 AM »
They want extra time added to down time if start is in rear


But not to the hangars.  :)
Steam: DrKalv
E:D Snailman

In November 2025, Lusche will return for a 20th anniversary tour. Get your tickets now!

Offline HawkerMKII

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1133
Re: Logistic penalty for retreated factories
« Reply #39 on: March 01, 2013, 12:32:01 PM »
HTC will never add extra time to hangars themselves... I would lay money on that.

All I am asking with my wish is that a retreated factory, even at 100%, would have a baseline of 45 minutes downtime for ack, radar, fuel, troops, town buildings... instead of the normal 30 minutes... both to simulate the extended supply lines, time to retool the factories, as well as to make an incentive to both attackers and defenders to attempt to keep the factories in the front and defended.



Got ya....so if factories in front line down time for ack, aa etc would only be 15 minutes then,,,,,,faster resup cuz everything is closer....got ya....part of that give and take......you want then you have to give :salute
8th of November 1965, 173RD Airborne <S>

Offline tunnelrat

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1739
Re: Logistic penalty for retreated factories
« Reply #40 on: March 01, 2013, 12:33:37 PM »
Got ya....so if factories in front line down time for ack, aa etc would only be 15 minutes then,,,,,,faster resup cuz everything is closer....got ya....part of that give and take......you want then you have to give :salute

Your logic is too flawed to even begin a discourse.
In-Game: 80hd
The Spartans do not enquire how many the enemy are but where they are.

Offline Lusche

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 23939
      • Last.FM Profile
Re: Logistic penalty for retreated factories
« Reply #41 on: March 01, 2013, 12:35:10 PM »
Got ya....so if factories in front line down time for ack, aa etc would only be 15 minutes then


Where in the world did you get that from?  :huh
Steam: DrKalv
E:D Snailman

In November 2025, Lusche will return for a 20th anniversary tour. Get your tickets now!

Offline kvuo75

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3003
Re: Logistic penalty for retreated factories
« Reply #42 on: March 01, 2013, 05:54:31 PM »
maybe you should just have to take more than 1 of the zone bases to move the strats.. (not that it would matter much)
kvuo75

Kill the manned ack.

Offline bustr

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 12436
Re: Logistic penalty for retreated factories
« Reply #43 on: March 01, 2013, 06:44:25 PM »
Everyone seems to be under the delusion this game is about WW2.

The strats are there to entertaine Lusche and keep him in the game providing his excellent charts so HTC dosen't have to. :aok

They are not there to change an air combat game that uses WW2 toys into a WW2 Strategic War simulation. Players don't defend the strats. They entertain themselves with the notion of scalping defenseless bombers and getting their names in lights when they land. The strats are there to cause combat by giving bombers something to do and get shot at doing it.

The only way to make the strats have any impact on it's country's ability to fight is to fly 60 bombers to it and flatten it in one attack. But, that only slows down the rebuild time of some objects globaly for about 2 hours which players can resupply by M3 and C47 in the mean time. They can still up late war rides and fight back because the game is about combat. Not about about strategicly castrating a country so it's players have no way to fight back.

Thats called a Strategic War Simulation.

This is a Piu, Piu, Piu take that MoFu, I'm better than you are game. It's about whizzing in the other guy's wheaties and making him cry. Then coming back for revenge which your hanger has unlimited amounts of.

Everything in the MA is there to promote combat and your toys happen to be WW2 themed toys. Not recreate WW2. Thats supposidly what the AvA and SEA arenas are for. HiTech could just as easily change all the skins to look like the aircraft, vehicals and ships from the movie "Sky Crawlers" and the game would be the same. A combat sim using some kind of aircraft with guns and some kind of vehicals with guns so you can whizz in each others wheaties. Then go Neenner, Neenner, Neenner on channel 200 and all the other girly fight crap that keeps the customers using the unlimited revenge in the hangers.
bustr - POTW 1st Wing


This is like the old joke that voters are harsher to their beer brewer if he has an outage, than their politicians after raising their taxes. Death and taxes are certain but, fun and sex is only now.

Offline Lusche

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 23939
      • Last.FM Profile
Re: Logistic penalty for retreated factories
« Reply #44 on: March 01, 2013, 07:30:25 PM »
Everyone seems to be under the delusion this game is about WW2.

You are wrong

Everything in the MA is there to promote combat and your toys happen to be WW2 themed toys.

So is the intial proposal. It's an additional incentive to fight - to fight to capture (or hold) one of the zone bases. If the strats relocation such a successful capture would result in have detrimental effect on the defenders, they would be inclined to prevent that, while the attackers would try to go for it.

This is totally unlike the present situation, where it is all in the interest of the 'defenders' to let the enemy capture a base close to it's own strats, while it's not in the attackers interest to do so at all. It is a total paradox.
Steam: DrKalv
E:D Snailman

In November 2025, Lusche will return for a 20th anniversary tour. Get your tickets now!