Primitive Airstrips for the MAs

[doright]

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."

Odd that you don't find sarcasm as a positive contribution.
It's a much more valuable contribution then endless iterations of 'it can't be done because that is not the way it is done now' comments. For HiTech knows, software is carved in stone, and hardware is etched in silicon (oops more sarcasm).

Now to make a more topical comment.

To stay fresh and avoid tedium a game (even based on simulation) needs an important element of warfare, which is adaptation. Every change needs to be adapted to. Defense adapts to change in offensive strategy and tactics and vice versa. The physics of flight are invariant, gravity is invariant. There are endless iterations of guns with wings or tracks, but for the most part the envelope of strengths and weaknesses of historical combinations has already been established, adapted to, and only minor tactical changes are required for any new air or ground vehicle that falls within that envelope.

So change must come from the sandbox. Small satellite fighter fields is one of those changes. We already have small satellite vehicle fields so it is not a request without precedent. It is a worthy of the wishlist, and serious consideration and discussion. It would also be a map specific change, so the effects on gameplay can be easily determined without a change to every map in the rotation.

Dynamic satellite fields, that spawn and despawn with changing and random conditions of the front would also be interesting.

[gyrene81]

you can have the ground crew that goes with the rest of the primitive whachamajingy's...



 

[bustr]

Doright,

I warned you not to steal my meds from the POTW locker room. See what you have become. Now this game has two really dumb smart people like my wife accuses me. Here's the dumb smart people test since you took my meds.

If you are at work trying to figure how to get your project wrapped up before years end. What do you do first?

1. - Seeing that Saturday the 25th is open. Schedule the day for your team?
2. - Seeing that Saturday the 25th is open. Call your wife and see if she has anything planned for Saturday the 25th you should know about.
3. - Put together the schedule, go to the next team and management update meeting on the 22nd and offer the 25th as an excellent way for your team to get caught up once again? They were happy with all of the other weekends being used to wrap up the project before the year's end and the incentive bonuses in their pockets.

Management called my wife, an HR AVP on speaker phone during the meeting, and asked her to tell me what day Saturday the 25th was. I am the dumbest smart person she has ever met. Doright stop stealing my meds man. You are confusing the nice people in this forum. I was relying on you to be the smart face of POTW.

[Babalonian]

you can have the ground crew that goes with the rest of the primitive whachamajingy's...

(Image removed from quote.)

 

They look no better than the group at our hangar... wait, are those stone tools in their hands?... correction, they are better.

[Sabre]

There is a very simple and valid reason for adding crude, unimproved forward air fields that cuts to the heart of why many (dare I say, most?) of us got involved in this game, and Warbirds and Airwarrior before that.  To wit, immersion.  A great many facilities that were called airfields were little more than grass or dirt strips carved out of jungles or forests.  The operations center was an abandoned cottage and the maintenance hanger was a tarp stretched between some trees.  Sand-bagged gun pits provided point defense, and everyone lived in tents.  I'd like to see such objects added to the MA, if for no other reason than it enhances immersion, and hence player enjoyment.  To use an analogy, great movie special effects without a compelling, well-acted story is pointless.  However, take a good story, with decent acting, and layer on great special effects and you have a blockbuster that people see again and again in the theater.

Now from a game-play perspective, it is reasonable to ask if these forward airfields should have limited or unique capabilities from our normal fields.  Personally, I'd like to see that.  Indeed, our current model of "any a/c from any field (with the unique exception of the Komet) is anti-immersive (just made that word up ).  Why not replace the small field with the grass-strip variety, and limit it to twin-engine a/c and smaller (plus GVs)?  Maybe for each medium or large field, you have a couple of forward airfields nearby.  Not every map would have to use this scheme, but allowing them would add some freshness to game play that has become somewhat stale and repetitive. 

[earl1937]

There is a very simple and valid reason for adding crude, unimproved forward air fields that cuts to the heart of why many (dare I say, most?) of us got involved in this game, and Warbirds and Airwarrior before that.  To wit, immersion.  A great many facilities that were called airfields were little more than grass or dirt strips carved out of jungles or forests.  The operations center was an abandoned cottage and the maintenance hanger was a tarp stretched between some trees.  Sand-bagged gun pits provided point defense, and everyone lived in tents.  I'd like to see such objects added to the MA, if for no other reason than it enhances immersion, and hence player enjoyment.  To use an analogy, great movie special effects without a compelling, well-acted story is pointless.  However, take a good story, with decent acting, and layer on great special effects and you have a blockbuster that people see again and again in the theater.

Now from a game-play perspective, it is reasonable to ask if these forward airfields should have limited or unique capabilities from our normal fields.  Personally, I'd like to see that.  Indeed, our current model of "any a/c from any field (with the unique exception of the Komet) is anti-immersive (just made that word up ).  Why not replace the small field with the grass-strip variety, and limit it to twin-engine a/c and smaller (plus GVs)?  Maybe for each medium or large field, you have a couple of forward airfields nearby.  Not every map would have to use this scheme, but allowing them would add some freshness to game play that has become somewhat stale and repetitive. 

Excellent Point! I have felt that we have to many "small" airfields on all the maps, so why not delete 5 from each country and replace with "forward" bases, limited to single engine fighters and a handful of GV's, with no spawn point to another base! What I would envision is a "grass" or "dirt" strip, with one "outhouse" and no ords. Well, maybe some 500lbers for GV hunting by single engine fighters! I am not a computer "whiz" as many of you know, but wouldn't eliminating some of the small fields remove some of the "load" on personal PC's?

[The Fugitive]

Excellent Point! I have felt that we have to many "small" airfields on all the maps, so why not delete 5 from each country and replace with "forward" bases, limited to single engine fighters and a handful of GV's, with no spawn point to another base! What I would envision is a "grass" or "dirt" strip, with one "outhouse" and no ords. Well, maybe some 500lbers for GV hunting by single engine fighters! I am not a computer "whiz" as many of you know, but wouldn't eliminating some of the small fields remove some of the "load" on personal PC's?

And where would this "forward" or "front line" bases be? On the front line I assume..... but that is only when the map is first brought up. An hour later one country has double the number of "grass fields" and the neighboring country has lost them. An hour later and the grass fields become unused bases behind the front lines.

Again, I just don't see adding another "field" just because it looks different. Restricting what is available at this "field" is another no-no. People pay their $15 to fly what they want when they want it. HTC has NEVER been about restricting anything unless if crippled game play (fuel can no longer be porked to 25%).

[Babalonian]

There is a very simple and valid reason for adding crude, unimproved forward air fields that cuts to the heart of why many (dare I say, most?) of us got involved in this game, and Warbirds and Airwarrior before that.  To wit, immersion.  A great many facilities that were called airfields were little more than grass or dirt strips carved out of jungles or forests.  The operations center was an abandoned cottage and the maintenance hanger was a tarp stretched between some trees.  Sand-bagged gun pits provided point defense, and everyone lived in tents.  I'd like to see such objects added to the MA, if for no other reason than it enhances immersion, and hence player enjoyment.  To use an analogy, great movie special effects without a compelling, well-acted story is pointless.  However, take a good story, with decent acting, and layer on great special effects and you have a blockbuster that people see again and again in the theater.

Now from a game-play perspective, it is reasonable to ask if these forward airfields should have limited or unique capabilities from our normal fields.  Personally, I'd like to see that.  Indeed, our current model of "any a/c from any field (with the unique exception of the Komet) is anti-immersive (just made that word up ).  Why not replace the small field with the grass-strip variety, and limit it to twin-engine a/c and smaller (plus GVs)?  Maybe for each medium or large field, you have a couple of forward airfields nearby.  Not every map would have to use this scheme, but allowing them would add some freshness to game play that has become somewhat stale and repetitive. 

You know, I never thought of it that deep beyond "it would look good/nice/pretty", but you're right about the immersion factor.  Thank you a ton for that/your contribution.

Excellent Point! I have felt that we have to many "small" airfields on all the maps, so why not delete 5 from each country and replace with "forward" bases, limited to single engine fighters and a handful of GV's, with no spawn point to another base! What I would envision is a "grass" or "dirt" strip, with one "outhouse" and no ords. Well, maybe some 500lbers for GV hunting by single engine fighters! I am not a computer "whiz" as many of you know, but wouldn't eliminating some of the small fields remove some of the "load" on personal PC's?

On select maps (I'm thinking of the ones with "maximum # of bases" size), I'm sympathetic and really just don't like seeing a daisy-chain for miles/sectors of real-estate of only all-vbases or all-small airfields.  I think a primitive strip could 1)substitute and 2)influence more/variety of action in these areas on these large maps.

On smaller maps though... maybe not replace but add them between and off to the side of a couple bases at most (or not add them at all, these maps are very small/finitely-balanced).

[Babalonian]

And where would this "forward" or "front line" bases be? On the front line I assume..... but that is only when the map is first brought up. An hour later one country has double the number of "grass fields" and the neighboring country has lost them. An hour later and the grass fields become unused bases behind the front lines.

Again, I just don't see adding another "field" just because it looks different. Restricting what is available at this "field" is another no-no. People pay their $15 to fly what they want when they want it. HTC has NEVER been about restricting anything unless if crippled game play (fuel can no longer be porked to 25%).

Funny you'd mention that Irony.    I only hear it brought up anytime a newer player asks "what are the fuel strats for" and the default respone of "just something to look purty in the game as it burns" isn't enough for them.

Yea.... the Aces High Fuel Strats are proposing to rename themselves the Acs High Dust Farms at the annual conference this year.  Talk about adding something useless for the sake of just adding something in the game (tounge-in-cheek).  All your hard work and at best you limit fuel to 75%.  25% might of been too severe, but 50% might justify the real estate the fuel strats occupy (nevermind the effort to drop a bomb on them or resupply them).


Alright, not to go off-topic any further.  Nothing personal, or wrong with agreeing to disagree on this Fugi, but it helps the conversation. 


I think the field should, on very very large maps, substitute other fields, again only on very large maps, but most maps I am hoping do not get touched (or need to be touched up) because of this decision.  That alone can be a huge deal breaker. 

I really want this object included though, and at the least just put in the toolbox and approoved for future use by HTCs.

The second issue/step would be do we want to see it on every single map, or do we want to see fields substituded on current maps with this object, or do we want to see it added in addition to other field on current maps.  That answer can be no, but achieving a yes in the object inclusion will at the least give us something to look forward to in newer maps.  And that's all I want here, is the first step.  Your concerns and arguements over the next step I also concede are very very valid, but are dependent on map design.

[Tilt]

IMO we do not need object orientated ( with grass run ways and buildings etc) " forward fields" ..... For game play all we need is the ability to land AC supplies to make places where our ac can land and rearm and refuel.

From a terrain view point all that would be needed is flat places where ac could land and be rearmed/ refuelled by a visiting C47.

Forward fields were very often not fields with hangers or permanent buildings. They were simply grass runways where ac would be flown in prior to deployment. Commonly used by the VVS and LW also used by the RAF during late June 44 in Normandy... Indeed Hawkinge and Lympne were used this way on occasion during BoB.

To limit any abuse it could simply be a function of a C47(player manned)  being parked such that ac landed in range could collect such fuel and ammunition as game play permits. IMO this would be limited to fuel, mg rnds, cannon rnds and rockets.

[WWhiskey]

IMO we do not need object orientated ( with grass run ways and buildings etc) " forward fields" ..... For game play all we need is the ability to land AC supplies to make places where our ac can land and rearm and refuel.

From a terrain view point all that would be needed is flat places where ac could land and be rearmed/ refuelled by a visiting C47.

Forward fields were very often not fields with hangers or permanent buildings. They were simply grass runways where ac would be flown in prior to deployment. Commonly used by the VVS and LW also used by the RAF during late June 44 in Normandy... Indeed Hawkinge and Lympne were used this way on occasion during BoB.

To limit any abuse it could simply be a function of a C47(player manned)  being parked such that ac landed in range could collect such fuel and ammunition as game play permits. IMO this would be limited to fuel, mg rnds, cannon rnds and rockets.

A supply that could be delivered from a C-47 , and re supply a plane could be  delivered anywhere!,  no need for a grass strip!   Say a pilot loitered to long,, to far away from home and needed fuel to make it home,, land and have a goon fly to you?    Sounds great,,

[tuba515]

    +1

[jeffdn]

Perhaps what is needed is a bit of a redesign of the way that "bases" are set up. Currently, we have vehicle bases and ports that just need to be de-acked and have troops brought in, as well as airbases with towns that must be de-acked and "white flagged" before troops are brought in.

What I envision is something a bit more like this: Instead of bases being the center of attention, there are population centers of various sizes. The current town-sized population centers would just have a base or two, perhaps a vbase and a fighter field, or a lone midsize airfield, or a port and a vbase, etc. A larger town could have three or four fields in various combinations, and then there would also be little cities, that could have up to and including a large airfield, two small airstrips, two vbases, and a port. The purpose of these bases would be to defend the population centers: a larger town/city would logically need more bases to defend it. The strats would stay largely or entirely the same.

This is just the kernel of an idea, there are numerous details to be worked out. I just think that it would be a good change in a game that I often hear complaints of stagnation about. This change would have several positive effects, including being much more realistic than the current model and the fact that it would be a total re-working of the "win the war" strategy, which would bring novelty to the game.