Primitive Airstrips for the MAs

[SmokinLoon]

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.

What about replacing some of the small airfields at or neat the front with these ad hoc airfields?  Also, what about making them un-capturable and/or able to be bypassed?  Allow for a spawn point to go behind the ad hoc field to the next field.  I could see these fields be one of those "pain in the arse" situations for chess pieces that are rolling fields.  If the ad hoc fields were unable to be captured, the threat of enemy fighters in the backfield so to speak would always be there.  Another variable.      

[WWhiskey]

I've liked this idea for a long time,  the small airfields could be set up without ords and be fighter only,,, grass or concrete shouldn't matter,, originally, I thought of the bases around tank town being this way,, you could rearm a bomb laden plane there, but you have to bring it from a bigger base ,farther away, with ords first!

I've never really understood why we have the three different sizes of airbases, yet everything is available at all of them,, all of the towns are the same size around them so no extra difficulty in capturing those bases.

[bustr]

How do these small fields fit into the 3\4 sector rule?

[Babalonian]

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

I do not, nor have I said to the contrary.     Why would I make this thread if I didn't see any good reason not to, and without any understanding for their exclusion?  ( )

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.

I think it's safe to say you are not well informed here of the nature of the situation.


I am requesting a standard (or more) terrain object be included by HTCs themselves so that unforseen problems or unsatisfactory issues are avoided.  If they give us one or two of thee objects and say "this is what these are and they are OK to be uses as such in the MA terrains".

I repeat, I am asking for the inclusion of a standard object.  All know examples of this object to day are custom objects, and thus the problem siince they can't be used.  Only HTCs (ala grand puba Pyro and grand puba HiTech) can truely address this issue.

[Babalonian]

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.
It could impact/change this requirement, forseeabley.  But this question is kinda asking how many chickens are we gonna get from the eggs.  You can change this rule without including any new objects, or add a new object and never change this rule.  I would think the object would come first, and any changes or exceptions to this rule would come later.

2. - Is your purpose to shorten the distance between fields and fights with it?
For the aircraft that logicly can operate off these primitive/dirt strips/fields - Yes.  Perhaps what may need to accompany this standard object will be a list of ac, as provided by HTCs, that can operate off these field in the MAs.  Idealy, you as a pilot will have limitations at these fields that you will not expereince at the more luxurious air facilities (such as 150% fuel, or ordnance loadouts that would otherwise sink you into the mud before reaching to speeds).  Without a doubt it is strictly so you can take an aircraft from a limited facility in trade for ease of location and time to combat (and this is not always a benefit in all situations, either).

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?
This is a very loaded trick question, as many of yours are bustr.  So in proper responce, I throw at you: "How long does a horde take to horde when the horde is hordeing?"....  Can two or three organised/communicating players capture it, yes.  Should one or two organised/communicating (but mostly observant) players defend it from such an effort, yes.

4. - Are you looking at it as an augment object to GV bases and Ports?
Augment implies replace or to upgrade existing locals, and as such no, although it may where in very small areas multiple instances of these objects exist already and serve no benefit other than to be redundent to the next.  As such, and to clarify, they are primarily to be (first) unique objects that will (second) compliment the other default and standard MA objects on the pallete. Another tool in the toolbox.

What does this do for the community and how can it be a detriment to the community?
One mans detriment can be another's warm milk, and I think that actually supports the arguement for this object.  For it to work well in the MAs, it will be as equal a blessing as a curse.  I am stresing for a limited airfield, where the avilable ac and loadout options are limited/governed by HTCs and hopefuly a revised/added MA requirement (one not yet in existence for the non-existing standard object).

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.
I'm not here asking Bionce or Jessica Simpson for the inclusion of a new standard terrain object in their product like I wish I were in my dreams... and hopefuly that makes me sane for asking HiTech/Pyro/HTCs instead. (Please  )

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.

I guess it should be put out there for further clarification, I think it's a given that most people see this request as one for a limited airfield, and since this is for a standard object to be used in the MAs (hopefuly), it would make the most sence if HTCs dictated those limitations.


PS - Next AHcon I think Greebo should get a complimentry keg which I'll gladly help him empty before the sun rises on Sunday.

[Babalonian]

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?

This is a valid arguement, BUT if applied as it is to Vbases and small airfields.... I think it would justify the removal of over half the bases on most of the maps currently, just off the fact they are only useful as frontline bases and that's it.

How do these small fields fit into the 3\4 sector rule?

Rules are rules.  We can speculate over the speculation of inclusion, or assume it will have to fall within that rule unless that rule is amended.

I would speculate it has to obey the 3/4 sector rule in regards to larger airfields, but in regards to GV bases, ports or other primitive airstrips it will likely only have to be 1/4-1/2 a sector away from those.

What about replacing some of the small airfields at or neat the front with these ad hoc airfields?  Also, what about making them un-capturable and/or able to be bypassed?  Allow for a spawn point to go behind the ad hoc field to the next field.  I could see these fields be one of those "pain in the arse" situations for chess pieces that are rolling fields.  If the ad hoc fields were unable to be captured, the threat of enemy fighters in the backfield so to speak would always be there.  Another variable.      

Ah yes, my "Sattelite airfield" request.  (nearby primitive strips that are uncpturable but are captured when you secure their nearby "parent" strip)  One at a time, one at a time. 

[The Fugitive]

I do not, nor have I said to the contrary.     Why would I make this thread if I didn't see any good reason not to, and without any understanding for their exclusion?  ( )


I think it's safe to say you are not well informed here of the nature of the situation.


I am requesting a standard (or more) terrain object be included by HTCs themselves so that unforseen problems or unsatisfactory issues are avoided.  If they give us one or two of thee objects and say "this is what these are and they are OK to be uses as such in the MA terrains".

I repeat, I am asking for the inclusion of a standard object.  All know examples of this object to day are custom objects, and thus the problem siince they can't be used.  Only HTCs (ala grand puba Pyro and grand puba HiTech) can truely address this issue.

So in over ten years of this game HTC has not added a new "base model" such as a grass airfield, I wonder why? 

Could it be that they don't want to take the time it would require to make these new elements because they think other things are a bit more important? Hitech has said before they he will not add something just for the sake of having it. Of course he was talking about engine management then, but what would adding a grass field ADD to the game? Another field to be rolled by the horde. And don't say a restricted field that you can only up fighters, no bombs because HTC has NEVER been about limiting anything.

So why take the time and put forth the effort to add a few new fields? Oh and who would up date all the maps? They don't just "place" themselves. More time and effort, for what, a grass field?

[bustr]

So in over ten years of this game HTC has not added a new "base model" such as a grass airfield, I wonder why? 

Could it be that they don't want to take the time it would require to make these new elements because they think other things are a bit more important? Hitech has said before they he will not add something just for the sake of having it. Of course he was talking about engine management then, but what would adding a grass field ADD to the game? Another field to be rolled by the horde. And don't say a restricted field that you can only up fighters, no bombs because HTC has NEVER been about limiting anything.

So why take the time and put forth the effort to add a few new fields? Oh and who would up date all the maps? They don't just "place" themselves. More time and effort, for what, a grass field?

Fugi,

I've lately argued pro with you on this issue in many cases. I once asked for a similar object though, but, with time in the forum and the game, I'm more concerned with unintended consequences versus evolution in our closed system. That's why I asked the OP to play his own Devils Advocate. One of our greatest failings in asking Hitech for things, is only presenting our personal wants and needs in our best perceived light thinking that will sell it. We rarely take responsibility for both sides and enumerate those positions showing we have considered the overall fun of the paying customers and not just what we want.

The OP's object wish is kind of a neutral thing in the sense, at any time it could have been updated to the game as an after thought. If it is a simple code function of spawning a limited number of rides and landing them. With a limited number of destroyable facilities on the ground to put it out of action. It probably can be updated into maps with a Hitech only tool to incorporate it. He may already have one in some format after 20 years of coding for air combat games. I cannot conceive of a Master Coder being without a master's tool box full of tools. More likely it's if he wants to do this.

The real question, is there a need for this to improve the fun of the arena experience that Hitech sees? Players are bottomless appetites, willing to receive anything for it's simple novelty of the moment. Sharks with lasers, Claws, tiny planes with chain guns, giant squids, mother ships, whatever next new ride for about 2 weeks. And don't forget the global impact a single M3 suddenly had on capturing towns after Hitech changed that.

[Babalonian]

So in over ten years of this game HTC has not added a new "base model" such as a grass airfield, I wonder why? 
So I asked.  Shoot me. 

Could it be that they don't want to take the time it would require to make these new elements because they think other things are a bit more important? Hitech has said before they he will not add something just for the sake of having it. Of course he was talking about engine management then, but what would adding a grass field ADD to the game? Another field to be rolled by the horde. And don't say a restricted field that you can only up fighters, no bombs because HTC has NEVER been about limiting anything.
You have some points, particularly about limiting sandbox style gameplay in the arenas.  However, this is at heart really asking for an aditional tool/toy for us to use in the sandbox, and I hope that point is clear.  And yes, this probabley isn't the most important thing on their plate.  However, I know a couple of his favorite artistic helpers whom he recruits for skin and art work for recently aded content, have made these object before and maybe already have a couple done or almost done.... in short, I would be more surprised if they said yes and then only used in-house development time and resources to make it themselves.  

So why take the time and put forth the effort to add a few new fields? Oh and who would up date all the maps? They don't just "place" themselves. More time and effort, for what, a grass field?
Probabley would need to update at least one map with the new object for us to enjoy utilising it if it were to be released.  Most likely you could just replace on some maps every third Vbase in the long strings of interconnected vbases for a quick fix, or add them next to existing bases.  Change will have to happen sooner or later, objects get changed and added regularly and it wasn't too long ago all the maps received an update to the strats.  recently there was a lot of talk started on these boards in regards to main arena maps, with I felt like a strong undertone by many players asking HTCs to invest development time into new MA maps because relying on the players isn't satisfactory enough (or to make it easier for players to make maps so more get submitted, but both were the predominent opinion).  I think it would be something special to see a few new in-house maps released by HTCs, maybe also releasing some new standard arena objects, but what most likely will continue to happen is they will try to support and assist those who can independently contibute their artistic talent and time to teh process.  As such, it behooves them to listen to the community and their talents (me, I'm just a talker, but Greebo here is definetley slated by HTCs as a doer) and maybe add things to the pallete that they want for creating MA terrains.

To repeat, ONLY HTCs/Pyro/HiTech have the power or ability to aproove ro consent default terrain objects.  If they choose to they could invest time in creating it, or they can ask someone they regularly talk to for contributions.  If they choose to they can change some existing maps and/or create completely new ones.  But the sum of all things in this thread is that if we want this addition, creative talent or time investment on their part is the furthest from the issue, just consent and then a request at the very least.

[bustr]

Our current capture objects act as focal points to generate combat. Our map makers have leeway in their logic and intentions to how they are fixed around the map. Hitech allows for a certain number captured by your country, accidentally or by design, then the map resets bringing up a different map. Hurray for that country at that moment. In the next moment with a new map, everyone is back to an equal potential to do or achieve whatever they want in a new empty sand box of toys strewn about it.

Do we need new objects, or do we need new processes? Or both? Or does the last 13 years prove the test of time to the core process in effect? Our imaginations.

I don't know if discussing the process is as beneficial to change as nibbling at bits and parts of it almost at random. For Hitech it may be of more benefit to allow us to spitball like this ad nauseam as a passive sensor he can gauge our temperament from time to time.

Time has shown we get bored but, still remain playing this game. Kvetching seems to be a positive relief valve for many of us. We are still here in the face of glacially slow change. In most cases everyone wants only their change while vetoing everyone else's. Makes Hitech's job easy, all he has to do is Mod us if we get out of hand kvetching at each other. This forum's name of Wishlist is a bit misleading. I suspect it would be better named "Enter at your peril, Kvetching Ideas Fight Club".

Very rarely do we question our individual change wish as a group of engineers would be required in a cost analysis meeting in front of the CEO. We usually do it like the department meeting where it's dog eat dog entertaining our bosses unspoken need to divide and conquer.

When everyone hates everyone else's ideas, Hitech doesn't have to take us seriously unless it's something he's been thinking about long before we got involved. And just like landing a kill string, you don't land anything helping other players make their kills even if it gets the crappy map you are on gone.

[doright]

In the beginning HiTech created a flat sandbox, and Fugitive decreed it was good for that is how it has always been and should always remain.
Then HiTech added airfields, vehicle bases and objects of war with which to play in the sandbox. Fugitive decreed it was good for that is how it has always been and should always remain.
Then HiTech added strats and an abundance of armaments. To which Fugitive decreed it was good for that is how it has always been and should always remain.
Then a lowly player beseeched HiTech for some trifle alteration. To which Fugitive decreed "HERESY!" that is not good for that is not how it has always been and should always remain. For I, Fugitive, am the self-appointed oracle to communicate and interpret all of HiTech's thoughts, motives, and cryptic posts.
Then HiTech made a trifle alteration. To which Fugitive decreed it was good for that is how it has always been and should always remain.

[Tinkles]

So in over ten years of this game HTC has not added a new "base model" such as a grass airfield, I wonder why?  

Could it be that they don't want to take the time it would require to make these new elements because they think other things are a bit more important? Hitech has said before they he will not add something just for the sake of having it. Of course he was talking about engine management then, but what would adding a grass field ADD to the game? Another field to be rolled by the horde. And don't say a restricted field that you can only up fighters, no bombs because HTC has NEVER been about limiting anything.

So why take the time and put forth the effort to add a few new fields? Oh and who would up date all the maps? They don't just "place" themselves. More time and effort, for what, a grass field?

Your post has merit.

Babalonian's has merit.

Bustr's has merit.


I support having grass airfields and dirt fields etc. I understand HTC not using their short and valuable time to create something like this. It would be nice for them to chime in at some point and give us a thumbs up or down on whether or not these could even be implemented into MA maps.

As for doright.  Don't insult. You are in violation of a rule. #4 "4- Flamebaiting, flaming, being abusing, being disrepectful, trolling, spamming or posting to incite or annoy is not allowed. If you cannot make a positive contribution to the thread, then just stay out of it."


As to Fugitive, Bustr and Babalonian  is it possible to come to a peaceful resolution on this?      

Tinkles

<<S>>

[Nathan60]

Your post has merit.

Babalonian's has merit.

Bustr's has merit.


I support having grass airfields and dirt fields etc. I understand HTC not using their short and valuable time to create something like this. It would be nice for them to chime in at some point and give us a thumbs up or down on whether or not these could even be implemented into MA maps.

As for doright.  Don't insult. You are in violation of a rule. #4 "4- Flamebaiting, flaming, being abusing, being disrepectful, trolling, spamming or posting to incite or annoy is not allowed. If you cannot make a positive contribution to the thread, then just stay out of it."


As to Fugitive, Bustr and Babalonian  is it possible to come to a peaceful resolution on this?      

Tinkles

<<S>>

I would also like primitive strips with maybe 2 fh's and 1 vh with 1 ammo bunker so they can be shut down easier than a main field. Maygbe even regulating how much fuel you could take and disallowing larger ord packages at these fields would be worth looking into aswell.

also check rule 5.(dang it tinkles you just made me a hypocrite by me posting this)

[Tinkles]

I would also like primitive strips with maybe 2 fh's and 1 vh with 1 ammo bunker so they can be shut down easier than a main field. Maygbe even regulating how much fuel you could take and disallowing larger ord packages at these fields would be worth looking into aswell.

also check rule 5.(dang it tinkles you just made me a hypocrite by me posting this)

<<S>> sir

Hope we can get these primitive airstrips, would be a nice touch.

Tinkles

<<S>>

[5PointOh]

I wouldn't care if they didn't change the base layouts, I'd just like to see a primative texture for the small bases. The standard perfect manicured lawns and nice concrete runways are just boring.  For me it's just aesthetics...but it would be a nice change.