Reworking the base/field system

[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.

[The Fugitive]

The problem isn't the game, it's the players.

The player mentality today is to WIN DA WARZ! and they do this the quickest and easiest way they can. Changing to towns/fields as you suggest will only be different for a bit and then they will find the quickest and easiest way to do it again, and the stagnation will be back for those that complain of it. A lot of work for nothing.

What the game needs is rewards for doing thinks the "hard way". The harder it is the bigger the reward. People will still be able to horde and NOE a base if they want, but if they want more points/perks/stars or what ever they may try to stay out of the horde type missions and look to do the harder missions. Maybe HTC could list a bunch of pre-built missions with rewards assigned to them. A player picks one and loads it up and if the parameters are accomplished they get the reward.

[Karnak]

Sounds something like a line of thought I had years ago about making territory capture be based on towns and cities instead of bases with the bases belonging to whoever controlled the territory.

[TDeacon]

I don't see how re-grouping bases and towns will change overall game play.  You will still need to suppress opposing bases.  As Fugitive says, the base capture guys will figure out the optimum capture sequence, and use hordes to implement it.  

A possible negative side effect of your idea would be encouraging GV fights in towns, which I personally dislike intensely.  It reduces the impact of skill in GV fights since sighting and firing ranges are point blank, and since it maximizes the effect of lying in wait around the corner (which anyone can do).  

MH

[Saxman]

A possible negative side effect of your idea would be encouraging GV fights in towns, which I personally dislike intensely.  It reduces the impact of skill in GV fights since sighting and firing ranges are point blank, and since it maximizes the effect of lying in wait around the corner (which anyone can do).  

MH

Just because you don't like urban combat doesn't mean others wouldn't appreciate the change in strategy.

[Tilt]

Focusing more on capturing towns which " supply" local ( but more remote) air fields or ( very) local gv fields will remove combat to the town IMO and allow more players ( not always, but more often than now) to access combat when the local town is under attack.

[jeffdn]

Focusing more on capturing towns which " supply" local ( but more remote) air fields or ( very) local gv fields will remove combat to the town IMO and allow more players ( not always, but more often than now) to access combat when the local town is under attack.

I think so as well, and it would mean for longer and more intense battles. Instead of fighting at random places on the map, one city/population center would be the focus of a thrust, and the attacking team would have to suppress the bases while the defenders prioritized and tried to save their city.

[gyrene81]

A possible negative side effect of your idea would be encouraging GV fights in towns, which I personally dislike intensely.  It reduces the impact of skill in GV fights since sighting and firing ranges are point blank, and since it maximizes the effect of lying in wait around the corner (which anyone can do).  

MH

just because you can't figure out how to fight in close doesn't mean it takes less skill to do it. besides, a couple of planes carrying bombs can take care of town campers as easily as open field campers.

[wpeters]

How about this. Keep towns and vbases and ports just like they are. But include a territory city that if attacked and captured would capture all bases with in the territory.

 Make a little harder like 40 troops to capture      Flak towers like the strats

This would make the game go two ways.

If you want a base capture the town  If you want a territory capture the city.
                                        

This is a good idea Karnak  +1

[danmac]

I like that idea ^...

[TDeacon]

just because you can't figure out how to fight in close doesn't mean it takes less skill to do it. besides, a couple of planes carrying bombs can take care of town campers as easily as open field campers.

I'm just expressing an opinion, guy; take it easy.  The fact is, however, fighting in a town is simpler than fighting outside a town.  In addition to removing the need to sight and shoot at varying ranges, there tends to be a certain sameness to game play.  I.E., if one party decides to sit tight, they can hear the direction of their opponent and be ready for them to come around the corner.  You see the same pattern in on-line first person shooters when one player sits tight and the other has to move.  

MH

[Tilt]

I think the town should always be the focus of open MA gvcombat. However whilst the town is always the same group of objects the environs approaching the town should offer as much variety as the terrain designer can deliver.

[wpeters]

Ok the thing we are forgetting is this can be taken by the air if you follow my thought.

Promotes large scale missions.   25+ people.   Could result in huge airbattles also this would make it were you could have huge airstrike inbound and as they bomb a huge gv mission could spawn in. 


Think of the possibilities guys.

I personally would like to see bigger Missions and this would promote it

[The Fugitive]

Ok the thing we are forgetting is this can be taken by the air if you follow my thought.

Promotes large scale missions.   25+ people.   Could result in huge airbattles also this would make it were you could have huge airstrike inbound and as they bomb a huge gv mission could spawn in. 


Think of the possibilities guys.

I personally would like to see bigger Missions and this would promote it

We don't need bigger missions, we have those. They are called hordes.

What we need is a reason for players to want to defend. This way when a "big mission" attacks a base there is a response and so a fight develops.

As it is now few defend and end up getting rolled more often than not and soon get discouraged with even bothering to defend and so join a horde to attack the other front. Soon its 3 horde avoiding each other and its a race to reset the map.

[wpeters]

I get your point fugitive but losing a zone would promote a vicious fight'