Primitive Airstrips for the MAs

[Babalonian]

You won't be allowed to put any sort of custom object or field into an MA terrain, been there, tried that.

What can be put in one are those same things that are in the other MA terrains, namely the three types of airfields, the V base, the port, the fleet, the strat city and the tank town group. Also the land and sea spawn points, road/rail/barge objects and the shore battery.

I know there are many things players want added to the standard default MA objects toybox, but I think a dirt/grass/primitive airstrip with limited ords (nothing larger than 500lb bombs available) would I think be great (and maybe easy (ie already on hand) to request from HTC's little artistic helpers)

[Reaper90]

I know there are many things players want added to the standard default MA objects toybox, but I think a dirt/grass/primitive airstrip with limited ords (nothing larger than 500lb bombs available) would I think be great (and maybe easy (ie already on hand) to request from HTC's little artistic helpers)

They already exist, I remember flying in an FSO I believe, P40's versus zekes in the Pacific, and our field was an unimproved grass strip with a straw hut for a "tower."

They're just not used on MA maps. But I agree, they should be.

[Tinkles]

Does anyone know why the FSO/AvA requirements aren't acceptable for MA requirements? I understand AvA FSO are 2 sided, but that doesn't mean we can't have dirt runways or different bases etc. I think it would be something nice, a nice change.

Tinkles

<<S>>

[mbailey]

AVA grass / dirt strips are amazing....would love to see them in the MA

[The Fugitive]

I know there are many things players want added to the standard default MA objects toybox, but I think a dirt/grass/primitive airstrip with limited ords (nothing larger than 500lb bombs available) would I think be great (and maybe easy (ie already on hand) to request from HTC's little artistic helpers)

You say you understand why they are not allowed in the Mains and yet you ask for them anyway. 

Does anyone know why the FSO/AvA requirements aren't acceptable for MA requirements? I understand AvA FSO are 2 sided, but that doesn't mean we can't have dirt runways or different bases etc. I think it would be something nice, a nice change.

Tinkles

<<S>>

From what I understand, custom objects may cause problems with the game, or players computers. HTC doesn't have the time to build them themselves, and can't take the chance of the game crashing using something someone else built. Debugging something someone else built is most likely as time consuming as building themselves.

So adding custom object to the mains isn't allowed as it is HTC's bread and butter, they can't afford to have problems. Look at the trouble they had with the last update that so many people had trouble getting on. They worked hard to sort that out but there were a lot of crabby people complaining on the boards because they couldn't log in, like it was the end of the world or something.

[bustr]

The object is not a problem if HTC decides to standardize it.

What does it do for the game we don't already have?

1. - Does it require a Map building requirement change? Currently airfield objects are limited to a distance of 3\4 of a sector from each other.

2. - Is your purpose to shorten the distance between fields and fights with it?

3. - If it's not to shorten distances then are you asking for an easy mode capture object that cannot put up much of a defense?

4. - Are you looking at it as an augment object to GV bases and Ports?

What does this do for the community and how can it be a detriment to the community?

Or is that Hitech's job to figure out it's purpose in the game while being the goat for not recognizing the brilliance of this object if he rejects it? After all of these years the man must smell like the Goat of all Goats.

[No9Squadron]

In other games there might be less players or less inventory, but the player inventory in this game is huge, I can imagine the struggle of bug-hunting giant maps with the range of inventory, possible scenarios, encounters, possible actions, over multiple numbers of maps, is just staggering. Not to say I wouldn't mind "experimental server - enter at your own risk" type of thing.

[Greebo]

From the MA map designer's perspective a grass airfield with no ord bunkers at all would be a useful object to have. A forward airfield placed near to a port or V base would allow it to be defended from the air but not attacked effectively when the airfield was taken. GVs would still have cannon carrying Il-2s, Ju-87s and Hurris to deal with but fewer bomb carrying aircraft from other fields due to the locally available fighter cover. The field would probably need its own designation (i.e. F6 instead of A6 on the map) so bomber pilots would learn not to try upping there.

[SmokinLoon]

From the MA map designer's perspective a grass airfield with no ord bunkers at all would be a useful object to have. A forward airfield placed near to a port or V base would allow it to be defended from the air but not attacked effectively when the airfield was taken. GVs would still have cannon carrying Il-2s, Ju-87s and Hurris to deal with but fewer bomb carrying aircraft from other fields due to the locally available fighter cover. The field would probably need its own designation (i.e. F6 instead of A6 on the map) so bomber pilots would learn not to try upping there.

Good point and on the same theme why could there not be forward air bases that have just FH's and VH's only?  Say two of each?  Model them after the actual air bases that were built in haste as the fronts moved alone, be it PTO, ETO, MTO, etc.  These bases could even be unable to be captured with gv spawns in every direction.  Have these bases with no ordnance and no barracks.  They literally would be only good for launching light fighters and gv's. 

[bustr]

Any ideas how Hitech would perceive this as a drawback? There has always been requests for a smaller base object like this with fewer available rides and functions. So far Hitech has not accepted the idea for primetime.

Why has Hitech so far not accepted requests for this kind of object in the game?

[EskimoJoe]

One of their concerns is the size of the file to download. More custom objects means a bigger file size, which means a longer wait when downloading a map for starters, and probably a larger bandwith cost for HTC.

I personally never understood why the latest version of the game download doesn't include all of the updated maps in the MA rotation.
Yes, larger download, however the many of them will have to be downloaded eventually anyway.

Back to the topic -- I believe the idea to add a small dirt/grass strip provides not only an immersive aspect to the game, but has potential to be a highly tactical piece of the chessboard.

[Greebo]

I don't think adding new fields would add much to the download size so long as the fields are made up of existing objects, i.e. the same type of fighter hangar, tower, fuel bunker and AA etc that are used in the other fields. These objects are already in the download. The only extra texture that might be needed is the grass runway itself, not sure if there is already one in the game. I'd guess the only additional thing that then needs to be downloaded is a small text file that tells the game which objects to put on a forward field with their rotational and X, Y and Z positions relative to each other.

[Paladin3]

The aircraft type should probably be limited as well. For example, I know 109s often use them (and rookie pilots dumped their planes often because of the landing gear setup) but could a P47, as heavy as it is?

[The Fugitive]

The other problem is "front line" bases don't stay front line for long. After the first hour of the map being up they are captured by one side and then will no longer be used. What does it bring to the game? Adding things just "because" isn't going to happen, nor is because "it's different" a good reason as after the first week it won't be. So what would it bring to the game?

[Greebo]

It would give some extra strategic options to MA map builders. Making the nearest airbases to TT frontline fields with no ordnance would both increase the journey times of bomb laden planes to TT and provide fighter cover. You could make a percentage of airfields along the border ordless frontline fields. This would concentrate the base taking brigade into certain areas but allow fighters to up elsewhere. Or make an ordless barrier zone of airfields to make hording more difficult, the horde takes the row of frontline fields but then has to up from fields two fields back to get at the next row of fields. Isolated ordless fields could be used as easy targets for CV attacks as well.

A similar object group they could add is a satellite grass strip that could be tacked onto other bases at the discretion of the map builder. Just a grass strip, a FH and a few AAs that could be placed near to an existing base (say within 5 miles) and would change hands with the parent airbase, V field or port.