Since the terrain is getting updated,

[caldera]

Could some other changes be made at the same time?

Changes to the Base/Town Layout

1. Move towns farther away from airfields.
2. Remove all ack from towns.
3. Make every ack gun at field Auto/Mannable.
4. Add more ack guns at airfields.
5. Vehicle spawns much closer to the town than the airfields.
6. More vehicle spawns to more towns on the map.

The reasons for this are to encourage fights at a more neutral location, instead of the pork/cap/vulch method.  Attackers would be able to take a town more easily but not totally smother any opposition.  Defenders could get airborne but would have to venture out of the ack umbrella to save their base from capture. 


Raise NOE Dot Dar to 200' AGL and Darbar to 500' AGL

There, I said it.  Hordes will be hordes and there really is no feasible way to eliminate them from forming.  Making base taking easier is one way to get more bases under attack.  People seem to all be attacking only one base at a time, due to the likelihood of a small attacking force getting intercepted and ultimately stymied.  If four or five players have a legitimate chance of bum rushing a town, wouldn't that be better than the usual "Operation Steamroller"?  Defenders would also have a better chance to oppose such an attack and would have to spread out from all the flashing bases.  The result would be more smaller fights than there are right now.  Bases would change hands more quickly and maps less likely to stagnate.


Side Switching

1. Unlimited switches at any time to the lowest populated country.
2. No CV driving privileges or base captures for any player not in country for 12 hours.

Not going to explain this.  If you haven't gotten it yet, you never will.


HQ Griefing

This is a major flaw in gameplay.  Eliminating the darbar for roughly a third of the game's population is just plain griefing.  No fun paying to play hide and seek, nor is it fun resupplying the HQ and getting bounced by enemy fighters.  The destruction of the HQ should result in some other punishment, such as disallowing base captures until HQ is resupplied.

[icepac]

HQ routinely comes up at an average of 18 minutes and I've seen it come up in 11 minutes.

[715]

Your suggestions all seem to be biased towards extremely rapid base capture and difficult defense.  Is there some reason you want to see maps reset every hour?  Do you get bored with them quickly?

[bmused55]

Can't agree with much of the OP.

However, an option to spawn vehicles closer to town could help in the defence.
Also, allow all town ack to be mannable and install some quad 50 cal positions would be great.

Unlimited switching will only encourage spying.   Why fly for hours looking for a CV when you can switch countries, check the location, switch back and lead a mission onto it.
Do you want to push more players away? That's what will happen.

Make defending against the horde a little more doable and we'll encourage fights!

How does raising the NOE limits help defenders?  You're logic is flawed.  It would only benefit the hordes. Many of whom I suspect cannot fly for toffee and use the horde to perk farm and survive.
If you can't fly below 100ft, perhaps you should go learn to fly a bit more?

[Tinkles]

Could some other changes be made at the same time?

Changes to the Base/Town Layout

1. Move towns farther away from airfields.       
2. Remove all ack from towns.
3. Make every ack gun at field Auto/Mannable.
4. Add more ack guns at airfields.
5. Vehicle spawns much closer to the town than the airfields.
6. More vehicle spawns to more towns on the map.

The reasons for this are to encourage fights at a more neutral location, instead of the pork/cap/vulch method.  Attackers would be able to take a town more easily but not totally smother any opposition.  Defenders could get airborne but would have to venture out of the ack umbrella to save their base from capture. 


Raise NOE Dot Dar to 200' AGL and Darbar to 500' AGL

There, I said it.  Hordes will be hordes and there really is no feasible way to eliminate them from forming.  Making base taking easier is one way to get more bases under attack.  People seem to all be attacking only one base at a time, due to the likelihood of a small attacking force getting intercepted and ultimately stymied.  If four or five players have a legitimate chance of bum rushing a town, wouldn't that be better than the usual "Operation Steamroller"?  Defenders would also have a better chance to oppose such an attack and would have to spread out from all the flashing bases.  The result would be more smaller fights than there are right now.  Bases would change hands more quickly and maps less likely to stagnate.


Side Switching

1. Unlimited switches at any time to the lowest populated country.
2. No CV driving privileges or base captures for any player not in country for 12 hours.

Not going to explain this.  If you haven't gotten it yet, you never will.


HQ Griefing

This is a major flaw in gameplay.  Eliminating the darbar for roughly a third of the game's population is just plain griefing.  No fun paying to play hide and seek, nor is it fun resupplying the HQ and getting bounced by enemy fighters.  The destruction of the HQ should result in some other punishment, such as disallowing base captures until HQ is resupplied.

#1 I like it.
#2 Hmm.  What would there be to compensate for the lack of 'auto' defense?  The auto defense currently is a 'simulation' of 'actual' troops being there and defending, while still giving the player time (and warning via "flashes") to react.
#3 Yes. I really like this.
#4 Hmm.  Not really sure on this one.  Perhaps add quad 50 cals?  I mean, right now we can die from 1 hit if placed right by that 37mm. Not to mention more 88s?  I'm an 88 gunner and I don't think we need more 88s at airfields.  (My addition) Personally, I think for airfields once all fighter hangers are dead, that we should only be able to take off in 40ENY planes (to balance out vulching and still have a defense). As for vehicle bases, I'm up for a few more defensive auto/mannable guns (that you could switch out with, like your #3 recommendation).  But, more guns to the airfields, I'm not so sure on.
#5 Yes. This would promote combat and make vulching/capping a field harder, because of more distance to travel.
#6 Agreed with this too. I like it.


I think the darbar as they are now.. is fine. (I believe it's 65ft, correct?)  While I understand your perspective, I don't believe making it easier to NOE is a really positive feature.  Personally (and I think many others would agree), if they are willing to NOE, then make it somewhat challenging.   And it makes it more rewarding with this 'difficult' system.  I would rather win a chess match against someone good rather than a new guy. 

I agree with #1 and #2 fully on the side-switching 'section'. 

Hmm.

HQ griefing section, thinking on this one.  I think the HQ actually doesn't have enough of a penalty for it being destroyed.   There is really no incentive for anyone to defend it now, and as icepac said before, they can be resupplied in a short amount of time.   

This is what I was thinking for the HQ.

If it's destroyed

#1 No radar
#2 Can only get 1/2 the supplies/troops at bases (5 troops, 4/5 vehicle supplies, no cargo). 
#3 Convoys/trains take 50% longer (or more) to get to their destinations
^ #2 & 3 in my opinion have 'realistic reasons' for their ineffectiveness. HQ can't communicate to tell the convoys/trains what bases need supplies and troops.  And the bases that find out that HQ is down (that have supplies and troops up at the time), keep 50% for 'fear of being attacked'.
It's a debatable theory, but I think it has some fairly good points. *shrug*

*Potential ideas that I don't know are possible, but I think should be considered*
#4 Whatever is already down, it takes 25% longer to come back
#5 Perhaps no perk planes during HQ downtime - no realistic explanation for it. Just a thought.


When the new strat system came into effect, it left the HQ meaningless in comparison.  I think this is a way to keep the HQ a valid target, and give it more 'authority' and reason to be defended.

Unlimited switching will only encourage spying.   Why fly for hours looking for a CV when you can switch countries, check the location, switch back and lead a mission onto it.
Do you want to push more players away? That's what will happen.

He said to the lowest population

If bish have 30 knights have 25 and rooks have 31 (and he starts as a bishop) then he can only switch to knights. But he wouldn't be able to switch to rook or bishop again because they have higher population than knights.

Also, just because he could switch to that side doesn't mean that the intel would be save if he couldn't either.  Meaning, that anyone on the knights side (in this example) could PM anyone on bish or rook sides and say "cv is located at this coordinates, enjoy".   You don't need to swap sides to be able to do that.   I agree, that lowering the times poses this risk, there is no doubt about it.    The OP isn't asking for this to be effective during prime time, but only during the low-peak hours (less than 50 online).



 

[Tilt]

Agree with 1, 2, 4, 5, 6........ Very much so infact.

I suppose 3 would give great access to manned guns but it does not make much difference one way or the other IMO.

[The Fugitive]

Could some other changes be made at the same time?

Changes to the Base/Town Layout

1. Move towns farther away from airfields.
2. Remove all ack from towns.
3. Make every ack gun at field Auto/Mannable.
4. Add more ack guns at airfields.
5. Vehicle spawns much closer to the town than the airfields.
6. More vehicle spawns to more towns on the map.

The reasons for this are to encourage fights at a more neutral location, instead of the pork/cap/vulch method.  Attackers would be able to take a town more easily but not totally smother any opposition.  Defenders could get airborne but would have to venture out of the ack umbrella to save their base from capture.

I don't have a problem with ack at a town. A few passes with a capable wingman and its down. I wouldn't want to see the town too easy to take. I agree that the fight should be moved more toward the towns than the base. 

Raise NOE Dot Dar to 200' AGL and Darbar to 500' AGL

There, I said it.  Hordes will be hordes and there really is no feasible way to eliminate them from forming.  Making base taking easier is one way to get more bases under attack.  People seem to all be attacking only one base at a time, due to the likelihood of a small attacking force getting intercepted and ultimately stymied.  If four or five players have a legitimate chance of bum rushing a town, wouldn't that be better than the usual "Operation Steamroller"?  Defenders would also have a better chance to oppose such an attack and would have to spread out from all the flashing bases.  The result would be more smaller fights than there are right now.  Bases would change hands more quickly and maps less likely to stagnate.

Hordes have little to do with the dar limits. We had NOE's as the ONLY mission available and finding those missions made game play more and more like whack a mole than any kind of battle. I think what we have now is a good compromise. A small SKILLED force can fly a long way under dar and do a quick strike mission. The key is "skilled", something that is lacking in a lot of players

Side Switching

1. Unlimited switches at any time to the lowest populated country.
2. No CV driving privileges or base captures for any player not in country for 12 hours.

Not going to explain this.  If you haven't gotten it yet, you never will.

No problems with this one.

HQ Griefing

This is a major flaw in gameplay.  Eliminating the darbar for roughly a third of the game's population is just plain griefing.  No fun paying to play hide and seek, nor is it fun resupplying the HQ and getting bounced by enemy fighters.  The destruction of the HQ should result in some other punishment, such as disallowing base captures until HQ is resupplied.

The "griefing" is the issue, not the hitting of HQ. Long bomber missions is one of the "options" of the game and should still be worth the effort. However I think the supplies runs need a bit of tweaking. As it is now it takes for ever to repair the damage, or such a large force that it is a horde on its own.

[caldera]

Your suggestions all seem to be biased towards extremely rapid base capture and difficult defense.  Is there some reason you want to see maps reset every hour?  Do you get bored with them quickly?

All I do is play defense.  Trouble these days is, it's all or nothing when the attack comes.  The bases are too hard to take.  That's why there are so few bases under attack at any one time.  The attackers want a chance at success.  The more difficult it gets, the more they horde. 

If this were implemented, there will be more NOE hordes but ask yourself; would you prefer fighting a bunch of low Lancs, 110s and N1Ks at your town or a bunch of high and heavy 51Ds, 47s and 38s that flatten everything, giving you no chance to up from the field under attack?

The large maps are pretty stagnant these days, hanging around until the automatic reset.  Three days in a row, is about the maximum I can take of any map.  More bases taken + more maps won = more happy base takers.  More happy base takers = more people sticking around.




Which reminds me.  I forgot to add in the OP, the wish for the "24 hour minimum/72 hour maximum" map duration standard to be enacted.  Any map reset within 24 hours would be reset to the same map.  Any map up 72 hours would automatically be reset to the next map in the queue.  Large maps seem to hang around too long and small ones are sometimes gone in a few hours.

Lastly, from Chalenge's thread, I would also like four individual strat complexes, much closer to the front than the current one is.  These four strats would be identical to the existing large strat, except each one would be comprised of only one type of factory (eg. fuel, fuel, fuel and fuel).  More targets for bomber guys, away from 163 interference.  More fights for everyone.

Can't agree with much of the OP.

Unlimited switching will only encourage spying.   Why fly for hours looking for a CV when you can switch countries, check the location, switch back and lead a mission onto it.
Do you want to push more players away? That's what will happen.

Make defending against the horde a little more doable and we'll encourage fights!

So there's no spying going on right now?  No cross country communication or multiple accounts?  Spies will spy, regardless of any measure to counteract them.  That said, the proliferation of spying is likely hugely overestimated by paranoid, country loyal players who don't understand how many clues the map gives out to all sides. 

As for making defending against the horde more "doable", I would think decreasing the need and therefore the likelihood for gigantic hordes, would accomplish that.

The "griefing" is the issue, not the hitting of HQ. Long bomber missions is one of the "options" of the game and should still be worth the effort. However I think the supplies runs need a bit of tweaking. As it is now it takes for ever to repair the damage, or such a large force that it is a horde on its own.

My point exactly.  Blast the HQ to smithereens all day long, for all I care but not at the expense of losing all darbars.  There has to be a substitute for the current result.

[715]

I do recall there used to be a map with towns very far away from their fields, so far that the field wouldn't flash when attackers were over the town.  They would typically be instantly milk run as people would not notice a tiny flashing yellow dot on the map.  In that case there were no fights at all as no one defended because they didn't know there was an attack until it was a fait accompli.

[Volron]

Tinkles,

I disagree with the HQ affecting convoy times.  You do that, then we are not going to see the railyards for sure.  It is railyards that should affect auto-resupply times, and it gives us more targets to go for, specially us bomber guys.




I recall someone mention a base take type plan along these lines:

You need to capture both the town and the field.  Take the town, the field's hanger down times increase to 20-30 minutes and both town and field no longer get auto-resupply.  Meaning; you destroy an ack and/or building, they stay down until resupplied or you take back the town/field to re-enable auto-resupply.  Troops and Field Supplies will also be disabled at a conflicted field.

A flaw however is, they really want to, they could have a few buddies on the other side resupplying the town while attacker farms it.  This flaw is too easy to see.  So a way to counter this would be to make the resupply/destruction of things at the conflicted field to yield minimal perks.  Only hanger rewards will remain the same as they are unaffected by resupply.

Troops are disabled when a field becomes conflicted with the thought of; they are currently in a stalemate between forces from town.  Field Supplies are disabled due to the troops using them in the stalemate.  Vehicle Supplies would still be available as troops don't use GV's.  Crude idea's as to why Troops and Field Supplies are disabled, and Vehicle Supplies are still available at a conflicted field.

This isn't my idea.  I remember someone laying out a plan similar to it a ways back.  It doesn't seem like a half bad idea, truth be told.

Coupled with:

Could some other changes be made at the same time?

Changes to the Base/Town Layout

1. Move towns farther away from airfields.
2. Remove all ack from towns.
3. Make every ack gun at field Auto/Mannable.
4. Add more ack guns at airfields.
5. Vehicle spawns much closer to the town than the airfields.
6. More vehicle spawns to more towns on the map.

The reasons for this are to encourage fights at a more neutral location, instead of the pork/cap/vulch method.  Attackers would be able to take a town more easily but not totally smother any opposition.  Defenders could get airborne but would have to venture out of the ack umbrella to save their base from capture.

It could be plausible.  I see more fighting all around in general.

[Lusche]

I do recall there used to be a map with towns very far away from their fields, so far that the field wouldn't flash when attackers were over the town.  They would typically be instantly milk run as people would not notice a tiny flashing yellow dot on the map.  In that case there were no fights at all as no one defended because they didn't know there was an attack until it was a fait accompli.

I forgot its actual name, but I remember this as the 'colour-by-numbers' terrain for it's 'unconventionally' (at that time) coloured map. 

And indeed the distant towns seemed to be a good idea at first, but it quickly turned out they were extremely vulnerable to any kind of surprise raids with little way to get a fighter to town in defense before troops went in.

[Tinkles]

Tinkles,

I disagree with the HQ affecting convoy times.  You do that, then we are not going to see the railyards for sure.  It is railyards that should affect auto-resupply times, and it gives us more targets to go for, specially us bomber guys.

I said that in the assumption that we didn't get the railyards.
If we get the railyards, sure, I'm all for them effecting those times. But if we don't, I think the HQ is a good secondary

I recall someone mention a base take type plan along these lines:

You need to capture both the town and the field.  Take the town, the field's hanger down times increase to 20-30 minutes and both town and field no longer get auto-resupply.  Meaning; you destroy an ack and/or building, they stay down until resupplied or you take back the town/field to re-enable auto-resupply.  Troops and Field Supplies will also be disabled at a conflicted field.

A flaw however is, they really want to, they could have a few buddies on the other side resupplying the town while attacker farms it.  This flaw is too easy to see.  So a way to counter this would be to make the resupply/destruction of things at the conflicted field to yield minimal perks.  Only hanger rewards will remain the same as they are unaffected by resupply.

Troops are disabled when a field becomes conflicted with the thought of; they are currently in a stalemate between forces from town.  Field Supplies are disabled due to the troops using them in the stalemate.  Vehicle Supplies would still be available as troops don't use GV's.  Crude idea's as to why Troops and Field Supplies are disabled, and Vehicle Supplies are still available at a conflicted field.

This isn't my idea.  I remember someone laying out a plan similar to it a ways back.  It doesn't seem like a half bad idea, truth be told.

Coupled with:

It could be plausible.  I see more fighting all around in general.

I also like this.

 

[caldera]

I do recall there used to be a map with towns very far away from their fields, so far that the field wouldn't flash when attackers were over the town.  They would typically be instantly milk run as people would not notice a tiny flashing yellow dot on the map.  In that case there were no fights at all as no one defended because they didn't know there was an attack until it was a fait accompli.

I never implied the towns would be moved out of the dar circle.  They would still be well within the radar circle so the scenario you described wouldn't happen.  I'm talking about a distance of say 5 to 6 miles.  By the way, some current maps have the towns far enough away to be taken by ground vehicles, without the base flashing.  Anyone checking the map can and does notice towns flashing.  HTC could even increase the radius that ground vehicles set off the radar, so even a ground only assault would alert the base.

You need to capture both the town and the field.

That's going to make base taking harder than it is now.  The harder it is, the bigger the horde.  Also any idea that is implemented has to be simple, as well as consistent.  Changing hangar down times and disabling troops and supplies because the field is down would be unnecessary complications.

[Tilt]

I never implied the towns would be moved out of the dar circle.  They would still be well within the radar circle so the scenario you described wouldn't happen.  I'm talking about a distance of say 5 to 6 miles.  By the way, some current maps have the towns far enough away to be taken by ground vehicles, without the base flashing.  Anyone checking the map can and does notice towns flashing. 

I would put the town at least half the standard radar distance from an airfield ( half the radar radius) . The airfields should have a GV spawn to the town. It should be the same distance from the town as incoming spawns from neighbouring fields.

As per the OP the desire is to focus combat ( ground and air) at the town.

If we could I would have the GV hanger/s on the edge of  town with a spawn to the field (reversing the above)and and a H spawn at the hanger whilst adding  a radar tower in the town.... but this is modifying stuff that HTC may rather keep as standard.

The idea is to avoid the need to travel to an airfield to pork GV's.

I would also welcome two types of gv fields adding the concept of a smaller  " out post" guarding their own towns. These would be small gv fields immediately adjacent to a town ( of their own) or even with objects located in a corner of a town.

As well as removing combat away from airfields it would introduce the land grab to the mechanism of advance by capturing towns which cause the associated loss of military bases.

[alskahawk]

 I would like to see fewer capturable bases. Which would push the fights towards certain area's and make the fights more intense. Fewer airfields near tank towns. Make some towns that need to be captured by air and ground elements. Or bases that can only be taken by ground elements. Make it so the base has to be subdued to take the base. Rather than just taking down the town. Increase the Eny penalty so there isn't so much advantage to numbers.