Consider making key TT bases uncapturable

[Chalenge]

Overruled!!

[Franz Von Werra]

I vote that we get the airbases at tank/fiter town red outlined - so yeah, can't be captured.

I also vote that every map gets a tank/fiter town in the center, just remove the whatever was in the centers before.

I'd almost request that a 10k max alt be somehow implemented.

 

[chris3]

moin

if the bases were uncapturabel why should i fight there and for what

maybe the other way, closing this bases should be help to rise the fun for everyone more because on this map are ver very interetenings battel grounds which are not used much because of less ativity, because alot of people doing nonsens on this isle. im always Happy if this isle is taken away because it rises the aktivity at real frontlines, and this rices definetly the fun for everyone.

i think implementing something like that , Tanktowns or crater maps or spawns diret infront of eachother are some of the bades things HT could do because it dregs to many people out of the fight.

cu christian

[Chalenge]

I disagree, chris3. In fact I would say you are dead wrong. I suspect that once TT is taken that the combat levels on the periphery do not increase even 1%. The only thing that happens is that the vehicle drivers will look somewhere else for a tank battle. If they don't find one they log off. Meanwhile, the mudhens might try a sortie or two against other fields, but when they run into difficulty they will also log off.

Tank town has four functions.
1) tank versus tank
2) carpet bomber against hangars + tanks
3) mudhen versus tank
4) fighters versus mudhen

Of these the most likely to stick around for outside (outside TT) combat would be the carpet bombers, which are mostly just torqued off tank drivers. There is a lot of talk in AH about "the fight," which is nothing more than a fantasy ideal that does not exist in reality. Your suggestion of preventing a TT existence, an existence which has helped to increase the population of AH combatants altogether, would only cause the population overall to drop, not increase. I understand that the type of combat in TT does not meet with your desires. That does not mean that it needs to change in order to promote some fantasy ideal.

We have long lived under the premise that TT actually drains pilots from the war, but the reality is that those people that chose to be in TT will in most cases never migrate to the war as you see it. They come here for tank battles, not air battles. You know this to be true, because these same people log in every day and ask "any gv fights?" If they do not find that fight, they log off.

So, we have this wish that you choose to ignore. It's a call for a change to improve the situation for those that prefer tank battles. Ignoring that will not increase war combatants, but it will lose customers if requests like it are ignored continually.

Trying to make this wish about you, and your form of combat is a dreadful mistake.

[chris3]

hi

yes , i understand your points, sure you are right, expecialy on times with less numbers on.

But if there is no tanktown, the people go to the places were the red or green bar is the bigest. maybe some will look but not the mayority. the other point is if there is no fight around or only some limited aktion the people go as well.

im not sure if the most will look if there isn t a tank town, because on this map a are far better places to start a tank fight (5-6, 145-146, 135-136 theses places are grat an AH need s more of them) or other kinds of fight.
If the place is uncapturable there is no need to defent or to attack it, sure there a some guys wich will hunt each other but i think its not the mayority.

In the future the map desinge should be more like the uterus map, i think this is the best desing for fights, you have spawns al around and you have places were you can gv well. It is the best all around map and i remeber the greatest fights there.

cu christian

[Chalenge]

I can guarantee that if Ozkansas were changed only to make the TT air bases uncapturable, that the fight that is there now would remain just as it is.

[chris3]

hi

jes, that could be right. tank town will only loose these people wich want to take something.

ah did forgot to say. I would suport the wish that only tank town is playable, this would be an awesome battel ground lol. But its to small and some other isues will speak against it.

cu christian

[bj229r]

I made ozkansas a long time ago. it needs to be updated and most likely I am the best person to update it as I built the original one. it needs pacific textures. the tank town was made as something that was the checkmate island that if taken the country that grabbed it would have a better chance to capture every base of the enemy. when I made the map years ago there was no capture a % of each teams bases to win. if I can get myself motivated enough to finish updating my FesterMA terrain I will inquire about updating ozkansas with all the current changes to the game in mind.


I have some stuff I have set up in festerMA that you guys should enjoy. it has a variation of your uncapturable vbases but with a purpose other than just here is no capture zone.

my festerMA new map has 3 uncapturable vbases at 8000ft altitude on a very well contoured and textured  mountain littered with water obstacles and hull down positions in a very small area... right in the center of the map in very close proximity to eachother... with a capturable small airbase in the center with a town right next to it that belongs to the capturable airfield and must be destroyed to take the airfield as it is a regular small airfield with the town smack dab next to the field... an 8k airbase in perfect striking position for every countries strategic targets is something the strat dweebs and hordes will want to posses if nothing more than to deny the enemy use of it.

with the vbases checkmating the high alt base it becomes Pandora's box. always under threat of capture and very dangerous to fly out of without getting raped by wirbels as you struggle to get any altitude in the thin air.



I have setup a cv fight hub as well on each side in the oceans.

there is an uncapturable cv in each ocean for each country. (2 ea ctry 6 total on map.) each country has 3 additional fleets all capturable.

the change is these carriers spawn a mere 35 miles from eachother with waypoints putting them on a collision course by default... about 25 miles equidistant from each of their spawn points is a capturable port with a cv fleet equidistant from the two other uncapturable carriers. thus the choice for the capturable fleet is this... hide? attack land bases? defend the port from certain and constant carrier based capture attempts? all have risks and whichever country captures the port and the enemy carrier has the advantage for the area in numbers of carriers if they can hold onto it.

the cv fight is out to sea a good ways from the land bases. the goal in its design is to make carrier vs carrier air and sea combat possible by allowing the opposing forces to get back in action against each other at faster intervals while staying a good distance from the land bases.

as much variety as possible is put into the setup of airbases and vbases.

each is unique in its aim.

the inner airbases have no gv spawns

the next outer section of bases have airbases and vbases setup in chains similar to ozkansas tt island but designed to continue the combined arms war as far as the combatants are able with the prize of being in striking distance of the enemies city with ground vehicles if the country has the ability to get this far and hold the ground.

beyond this ring of air and vehicle bases some distance from any airbases is a chain of vbases all capturable but with close spawn points and the initial 4 bases in driving distance of eachother. one of the chains is in a desert. the other vbase chains are in very mountainous terrain that is hard to flank in with very narrow valleys and hard to climb hills.

lots of rivers.. ( LOTS all over the map)

beyond this ring of vbases some distance away lies the costal fields with no gv spawns but sitting 20-25 miles from eachother. they will encounter carrier attacks most often or attacks from adjacent airbases.

its very close to done but its been very close for a long time. jsut have to get motivated to finish it. maybe I should play AH more thats ussually what gets me doing maps and skins.

Which was the one you made that had the gv tracks on the inside, and the air bases on the outside and further inside? (was some years ago, was nullified by some huge update that HT did) I believe that was my favorite map ever

[Citabria]

yes thats the one I have been workign on updating for a long time.

[TDeacon]

Fester,

Note that OP requests a quick fix to Ozkansas by making the 9 outer TT bases uncapturable, in order to avoid what happened this weekend.  If you are going to make a new map (which is kind of a separate topic), please keep the following comments in mind.  

You seem to be ignoring one fundamental fact, which is that a large group of players enjoy GV combat outside of the "combined arms" scenarios you envision.  Remember that in AH AC overwelmingly trump GVs.  They are 10 times as fast, any AC which can carry a 1000 pdr can kill any tank, and there is little the GV can do about this.  The relationship between the 2 platforms is in general *very* assymetrical.  Thus, you *don't* want to put an air base in any new/modified TT.  The Ozkansas TT works (usually) *in spite of* the 3 air bases, not because of them.  The Trinity TT was much better protected, with the exception of missing the "I am here" factor, as I have mentioned in other threads.  

Another way to look at the above is that the time scale of a GV engagement is 10 times that of an AC engagement.  Remember "endurium" in that 1980s PC game "Starflight"?  (I am leaving out the mode of play where GVs sit out in the open and shoot at each other, which is the GV equivalent to HOing, and which I find boring.  I am instead thinking of the type of thing where one tries to use terrain to get on a flank, which is the GV equivalent to AC maneuvering prior to a taking a killing shot.)  At any point during a slowly-developing GV engagement AC interference can ruin the engagement for the GV player.  That is why we need at least one place on each map where GVs can engage and "furball" with minimal-to-no AC interference.  On the rest of the map, of course, anything goes.  What do we have to lose by doing this? Nothing.  What do we have to gain by doing this?  We provide for a popular additional type of game play, which will incrementally increase HTCs revenue.    

MH

[Chalenge]

If just the three airbases were uncapturable, then no one side could be pushed out of TT. Nine bases would be excessive I think.

[TDeacon]

If just the three airbases were uncapturable, then no one side could be pushed out of TT. Nine bases would be excessive I think.

The reason I recommend 9 is the inter-base spacing increases by 100% once you capture one or more of those 9 bases.  It becomes an exercise in cross-country tank driving instead of combat; not fun.  We probably want to retain the quick-action option, so if we make any of those bases uncapturable, we may as well do all 9.  Remember, the purpose of the OP is to retain a popular game map niche for the duration of the map and thus keep more people playing.  

(That being said, however, making the 3 air bases uncapturable is better than nothing).  

MH

[Chalenge]

Or, you might suggest that a few short-spawns be added for each of those areas.

[aztec]

No

[Chalenge]

No

Non-GVers don't matter on GV wishes.