Eliminate zone bases...

[Latrobe]

There should be a penalty for strats retreating to the rear. Maybe something like all down times are doubled even with strats at 100%?

[RotBaron]

There should be a penalty for strats retreating to the rear. Maybe something like all down times are doubled even with strats at 100%?

We went down this road and it seemed like many were against it and called it the "easy button" way out; that (now, once retreat) for not defending their strats they'd pay even greater penalty      
      ^ maybe he just doesn't like defending and had to find an argument... I would much prefer that a zone base created a non stop combat, as it quite possibly would if the above were implemented.

Anyhow, +1 to the OP if what Latrobe has brought back up is out of the question...

[asterix]

How about linking the strats retreat to the territory lost not just certain zone bases? For example the strats retreat when 15% of the whole territory has been lost. It would make the defenders life a little easier in case two countries gang on one until they capture some of the land back. It would be bad IMHO if the location would be in front constantly.

[5PointOh]

There should be a penalty for strats retreating to the rear. Maybe something like all down times are doubled even with strats at 100%?

I like this but I'd suggest adding more to it.  Perhaps, a particular base for each strat.  Take one base, linked to the strat, then that strat has 5% downtime added across the country, take all 6 strat bases, strats retreat and 10% down time is added to strats across the country.  Just a thought...

[Tinkles]

I like this but I'd suggest adding more to it.  Perhaps, a particular base for each strat.  Take one base, linked to the strat, then that strat has 5% downtime added across the country, take all 6 strat bases, strats retreat and 10% down time is added to strats across the country.  Just a thought...

Perhaps make that base that is linked to a strat a large airfield that would be harder to take than other large airfields? 

I would be up for this, but the base should have a uniqueness about it so it can't be steamrolled like other bases are but with more of an impact after the fact.

Tinkles

<<S>>

[hammer]

+1 to the original wish. Make strats matter or get rid of them altogether.

I've always felt the main problem with the strats is, with the exception of HQ affecting radar, they have little to no impact on the vast majority of players. While one could argue that these are strategic targets and therefore should not have immediate impacts, the reality of game play, I believe, makes this invalid. You never see anybody rush to resupply the refinery, ack factory, etc after they have been bombed because they just don't matter.

I'd like to see a system where attacking strats could impact a country's ability to wage the war. Destroy a tank factory, lose perk tanks for some period of time. Destroy an ordnance factory, lose 1000 pound bombs for some period of time. It doesn't have to be a long time, but it should have a visible benefit for the side which makes a successful attack and a visible detriment to the side which fails to defend.

Regards,

Hammer

[shoresroad]

+1 this:

... as they are a gameplay paradox - They do not promote combat, they largely prevent it.

Instead of being key bases that are ferociously fought over, they are bases that a reasonable attacker doesn't want to capture and the defender doesn't want to hold - in fact, losing a zone base best thing thing that can happen to one side, as it then can go on conquering the map without having to worry too much about their own starts and thus downtimes of their own  towns, ords and so on.

Remove the zone base status from the three large maps and let people fight for them instead of avoiding them!  

or +1 this:

There should be a penalty for strats retreating to the rear. Maybe something like all down times are doubled even with strats at 100%?

If the Strats retreat there should be such a compelling penalty that it immediately becomes Job #1 to recapture the zone base(s) that caused the retreat.

[ghi]

I don't agree.
I don't understand your logic reason?  Ohh, you are rook and can't bomb bish strats in safe mode without Me163s in  range?Why to eliminate Strat- egy and  punish the Bishops for playing smart tactic / steategic?     Knights are always playing on the wrong side of the front line without understanding basic % math and strategy.

[Lusche]

I don't agree.
I don't understand your logic reason?  Ohh, you are rook and can't bomb bish strats in safe mode without Me163s in steats range?W

I thought you would have noticed over the past 8 years that I'm not that much affiliated with any particular chesspice or certain playing style (I was a Knight for months, am Rook now and will be Bish next tour). Furthermore, I have plenty of Komet kills over the past year and I am sporting a poitive K/D against them. And I'm the player with most kills in the Me 163 in the current year as well.
My wish has nothing to do with any personal preferences other than I want so see player engaging in battles, not avoiding them. No matter which side they are on.


As explained, the current strats retreat function creates a paradox - Lose bases near them to get an advantage. This is the thing without logic. Usually one would think a side would try to prevent the enemy from gettings near it's strategical center...

[ghi]

If the Zbase and strats moving system is eliminated, the strats are going to stay deep behind the front line, same like HQ; why would players engage in battle over this strats if are 4 sectors away?

[Lusche]

If the Zbase and strats moving system is eliminated, the strats are going to stay deep behind the front line

Who said that?

[RotBaron]

If the Zbase and strats moving system is eliminated, the strats are going to stay deep behind the front line, same like HQ; why would players engage in battle over this strats if are 4 sectors away?

 

Why would they do that?

[bustr]

If the genius of the strat is to promote visits from bombers so they can gain some perks but, eventually increase field rebuild times up to 120 minutes as a penalty for not defending them adequately. Which I've been there once helping, when 120 minutes was accomplished. The bish were SOL for a very long time that night as the knights dropped hangers. How many fields could your squad capture if It knew all hangers were down for the next 120 minutes for one side?

Ask Hitech to make it take x50 less bombs to reach 100% down for the strat facilities. You guys are fixated on punishing players like this is a 2 sided board game. If you can get the strat down 100% with a few bomber sortie early in the evening. The map is yours every single night you so choose. 120 minutes is real punishment after your bomber guys visit the whole front dropping VH and fighter hangers.

Then all you do is fighter hoard around your bombers to the strat like hoarding airfields. Kill all the defenders and your bombers cripple their country. At some point some of your bombers hit fighter hangers along the strat bomb run path as the down times increase to say 60 minutes.

Hitech does nothing but change a back end value and make a game change announcement.

Attention: Knights if all you care about is furballing beware. I have changed the damage to the strats so it takes x50 less bombs to achieve 100% down. This will mean all of your hangers will take 120 minutes to rebuild.

And we know as the strat goes down, so does the number of M3 and C47 trips goes up to rebuild them. And if your enemy has dropped hangers all around the strat, you get it. Just like AH1 when you could organize 300+ guys to reduce a country down to one field in an hour or so.

[Lusche]

 

[Tinkles]

It's Okay, I didn't understand him either.

Bustr, could you translate your speech for us?