Survey of Combat Theater Preferences: STRAT SYSTEM

[Buzzbait]

S!

What are your preferences for a Strategic system in the Combat Theater ?

There seems to be general consensus that the CT needs a Strategic system to provide goals for those flying in it.

There have been several different types of Strategic systems proposed.  I will summarize them as best as I can.  (Please indicate if there is one I have missed)  Please respond indicating your preferences listed by number.

1)

Perk Points :

Every plane, except base model, can be perked.  Damage to Strategic targets, (Factory, City etc.) change perk values, and can cause a plane which was previously unperked, to become perked or cause a previously perked plane to become more expensive.  Thus each player has a vested interest in protecting his side`s strategic targets, or destroying the enemies.  This is in addition to base capture etc.  This system would require a setup which prevents players from switching sides so as to avoid paying high perks if their side is losing.

2)

Fluid Front :

There is no base capture.  Instead, as a team attacks another the more damage they do to the opposition's strategic system, (Factories, Cities, Convoys etc.), the further the "fluid front" moves into the enemy territory.  Ie. one side loses bases, and the other side gains.

(It is not specified, but I am making the assumption the front changes in terms of who controls a base will be implemented by the Server controller each day end, or week end)
 
Supply : A team’s supply is also related to the condition of their supply system. The less damage, the quicker the auto rebuild time. As a team’s supply network is damaged by its opponent killing convoy’s, bombing railyards, ports etc, the supply at bases goes down.

3)
Adapt the existing MA Strat system to the CT.

Factories, Cities, Convoys, Trains etc. are placed as close as possible to the the historical locations and routes.  Supply at Air and Vehicle bases is dependent on a functioning supply net, ie. Supply from the Factory or City goes by Rail or Convoy to Air or Vehicle bases.  Destruction of any of the links in a chain will cause the Forward bases to lose supply.  Base capture still allowed, but modified to require larger numbers of troops delivered to Map room.

[Kratzer]

I fall in between 2 and 3...

[SKurj]

i vote for.........

check the link in my signature
and read the whole thread please!

SKurj
|
|
|
|
*

[funkedup]

2 sounds cool.  I don't care for field capture stuff.

[ 08-29-2001: Message edited by: funkedup ]

[streakeagle]

Field capture is just not historical in any way shape or form.

Strategic bombing took years to have an impact. Despite an ever increasing number of allied raids, German aircraft production did nothing but go up. By late 1944, was only 2nd to US production. So as much as the buffs would like to have a game where their mission determines the outcome of the war, it just has not happened. Even in Desert Storm, the M-1 Abrams and M-2/3 Bradley were the real victors. F-117s, F-16s, F-15s, and A-10s just made their jobs a whole lot easier.

The fluid front has a lot of merit though. The outcome of key battles was greatly influenced by airpower. The Battle of the Bulge is an excellent example of how outnumbered forces could hold on long enough for reinforcements to arrive with the help of extensive air support despite absolutely terrible weather. P-47 pilots have much to be proud of from that battle.

To be truly realistic, the position of the front should depend entirely on ground forces. The air forces should merely effect the efficiency of the ground forces. But we do not have a sufficient number of players to even contemplate realism to any useful degree   So do we use artificial calculations to simulate ground results, with air superiority, air strikes, and strategic bombing altering the odds of those results?

Any system that will encourage historic missions is all I am really requesting. But as long as CT numbers are about the same or less than hth the whole question is moot anyway  

[Mark Luper]

Field capture is historical, in a sense. After D day there were several fields made to accomodate Fighters. Since we can't build the fields let's capture them.

I do beleive we should  make goons available only at certain medium to large fields on each side though. Make them cross the channel to drop troops.

[Maniac]

Any of the above options would be fine with me.

Regards.

[snafu]

Hi all,
 I used to be firmly in the camp of bring the MA strat (Or something very similar) into the CT but having spent some time re reading AKDejavu's & Skurj's alternatives I come down on the side of the "Fluid Front". I think that ground should be won & lost based on the damage done to the countries infrastructure (Factories, cities etc). I still think things should be able to be captured and would hate to see the C47 etc become redundant so perhaps a newly aquired base should not become available until it has been "supplied" which would initiate the rebuild time. I also think that Bombers should not be available at anything other than the original fields. I would think this would more historically correct also. (Although Germany did have bomber bases in occupied France during WWII they did not have the heavy bomber force the allies used).

My only concern about the "Fluid Front" approach is what happens when a factory etc is absorbed into enemy occupied territory? I would assume it is considered destroyed until the land is re taken at this time a supply drop would be needed to initiate the rebuild sequence.

TTFN
snafu

[hazed-]

id prefer option 2

field capture accross the channel would be a million times easier than it would be in real life and so becomes simply unrealistic.
Realism is what the HA or CT is aimed at right?

I would also think that planes should be available only if factories are producing.The more we destroy factories the less the enemy can use the modern versions of each model?.This way a concerted effort to destroy strategic targets affect the availability of planes.

[streakeagle]

I would like to read one instance from WWII where airpower destroyed and/or repelled all enemy forces sufficiently to allow a C-47 to drop in troops and take an airbase  

I love airplanes, but I don't even begin to pretend that the Air Force is the primary component required to win a war, or even a battle whose victory conditions depend on physical occupation of territory. The question is how to model the interaction between air power and the position of the battle front while keeping in mind that ground vehicles and ships are also available to this game.

I like targetware's stated approach to the problem: it is a flight sim: players fly, AI handles the ground war. In AH, AI already shoots flak at me, why not let AI provide a large number of targets (tanks, infantry etc.) whose destruction impacts the battles that determine the location of the front. No arena supports the numbers required to simulate WWII completely, AI could and should be used in a reasonable manner as necessary to fill these gaps.