Historical airfield limitations

[Traveler]

I saw this in another thread, I thought it warrants discussion:

YES. 

And it would only take one simple game mechanic to do that: Aircraft Basing Limits. Once the number of aircraft in flight from a base hits the limit, additional aircraft can't launch from that field.

It could be scale-able based on arena pop, so that it isn't quite as limiting when large numbers are in the arena.  It could vary by the size of the field, making large airfields more valuable/useful (something that doesn't matter strategically now).   It could have a timer before the loss of a plane is deducted from the "in flight number", meaning the first lemmings to die can't just re-up immediately.  This might make survival more important and give an incentive to defenders to try to attack attackers.  (Make this exclusive of bails without damage, to avoid abuse.)

There are lots of advantages to this as I see it: spreading out the fight, giving defenders a viable chance at defense, and most importantly placing importance on staying alive instead of augering into a hanger, as losing an aircraft has an impact on your operations.

Implementing something like this would spread out the fights some and incentivize surviving vs. suicide/kamikaze/bombnbail type play.

<S>

I like this idea and would love to see it in play.  I’ve always thought strange that one could up any type of aircraft from any side field with very few restrictions,  The 163 is the only aircraft that has such restrictions and is limited to certain bases.  But even with that restriction, an endless number of 163’s cold be upped from those fields.
I had always wanted to see field limits.  How many aircraft and type of aircraft could be upped at a time from a field based on field size. 
Small airfields should be limited to fighters,  medium fields a mix of fighters and medium bombers.  Large airfields would have fighters, medium bombers and the big stuff, B24, Lancaster, B29 and B17’s.
The airfield runway lengths  would have one small runway on a Small airfield, perhaps dirt, no more than 1800 feet of runways, Medium would have 2500 foot runways  and the large fields 4000 feet of runway.
A limit on the number of aircraft that can originate from any one airfield  and perhaps this could be tied to the strats.   
I know this needs more work , but I think it’s an idea that should be discussed.  I can see where it would add a new game dynamic and should increase the number of fights  it doesn’t eliminate the horde, but it does require them to spread out and take a new approach to rolling fields. 
It also adds a more historic limit to game play.   

[The Fugitive]

HTC has never been about limiting anything. If it restricts game play they seem to have a hard time messing with it. I agree that something along these lines may help with the hordes. Calling it "historical" wouldn't be enough to push it through. This has always been a game that uses WWII equipment and was never meant to replicate history or WWII.

[Traveler]

HTC has never been about limiting anything. If it restricts game play they seem to have a hard time messing with it. I agree that something along these lines may help with the hordes. Calling it "historical" wouldn't be enough to push it through. This has always been a game that uses WWII equipment and was never meant to replicate history or WWII.

I disagree, HTC made major changes to game play, a few years back, they wanted to set an order to how fields could be captured. Or don't you remember that?  I was just trying to be accurate and it is historical fact.  Only certain aircraft operated out of certain fields.   While I would think that any field could refuel an aircraft that could take off out of it once refueled.  That Bomber operations operated out of fields that were close to ammo depots that fighters operated out of small airfields with very short runways that bombers could never have operated out of. That is just historical fact  and may be a nice game improvement/change .     I just think it's a wish that merits discussion with or without your endorsement.

[Arlo]

I just think it's a wish that merits discussion with or without your endorsement.

Fugi is discussing this. As would I be if I mentioned the potential problem it could
cause for days/nights that had high populations in the arena (something I think most
of us would like to see more of/an increase in). Imagine logging on to find an arena full
of players and, due to plane limitation/restriction, all that was left for you to fly were
Storches from a rear field.

[Karnak]

When you say "A limit on the number of aircraft that can originate from any one airfield" are you thinking in terms of how many aircraft can lift from that field per time unit or how many aircraft can be spawned and active from that airfield at a given moment? 

In the first you could say a small airfield can only launch 24 fighters per hour.

In the second you could say that a small airfield can only support 12 fighters in the air at a time, but the moment one of those is destroyed it can launch a new one.

Which direction did you envision?

[The Fugitive]

I disagree, HTC made major changes to game play, a few years back, they wanted to set an order to how fields could be captured. Or don't you remember that?  I was just trying to be accurate and it is historical fact.  Only certain aircraft operated out of certain fields.   While I would think that any field could refuel an aircraft that could take off out of it once refueled.  That Bomber operations operated out of fields that were close to ammo depots that fighters operated out of small airfields with very short runways that bombers could never have operated out of. That is just historical fact  and may be a nice game improvement/change .     I just think it's a wish that merits discussion with or without your endorsement.

Yes I do remember that move and it lasted what a month, maybe two?  The reason was it was too restrictive and made game play predictable. Everyone knew where the next attack would be.

If you don't want people to discuss.... or share their opinion.... like I did why bother posting it here? Send an email to HTC and be done with it. Don't take everything so personally. You'll never get any good discussions going with that attitude. For every "pro" to your idea, people are going to come up with a half dozen "cons", but that is what a discussion is. Learn to live with it.

[surfinn]

There is no honest solution to the horde. This Idea wont work for several reasons.

[BaldEagl]

I like the idea of limiting how many planes a field can support.  Once a plane is down an opening is created for someone to launch.

Furthermore I like the idea of that number differing for different types of fields (i.e. small, medium and large with each supporting respectively higher numbers of aircraft) and limiting aircraft types at different size fields (i.e. fighter/attack and light bombers available at all fields, medium bombers at medium and large firlds and heavy bombers only avaialble at large airfields).

Finally, I'd like to see the addition of grass airstrips with only pure fighters available and with an infrastructure of a single fuel truck and a pilot/crew barracks and nothing else.

[Traveler]

Yes I do remember that move and it lasted what a month, maybe two?  The reason was it was too restrictive and made game play predictable. Everyone knew where the next attack would be.

If you don't want people to discuss.... or share their opinion.... like I did why bother posting it here? Send an email to HTC and be done with it. Don't take everything so personally. You'll never get any good discussions going with that attitude. For every "pro" to your idea, people are going to come up with a half dozen "cons", but that is what a discussion is. Learn to live with it.

I didn't read anything in your first response that encouraged discussion. 

[Arlo]

I didn't read anything in your first response that encouraged discussion. 

Sometimes discussion doesn't involve agreement nor appeasement. People may
disagree with an idea in the midst of discussing it, even at the start.

Funny how that works.

[Traveler]

Fugi is discussing this. As would I be if I mentioned the potential problem it could
cause for days/nights that had high populations in the arena (something I think most
of us would like to see more of/an increase in). Imagine logging on to find an arena full
of players and, due to plane limitation/restriction, all that was left for you to fly were
Storches from a rear field.

I may not have described the concept correctly,   here is an example:  Saturday evening prime time  500 gamers in the late war arena, it's a small map with just 26 airfields on each side, lets say that only 30 aircraft were allowed to up from any one field  26X30 = 780 available aircraft per side. for a total of 160 pilots per side.   I'm just saying that all 780 can't take off from the same field.  get it?

[Traveler]

Sometimes discussion doesn't involve agreement nor appeasement. People may
disagree with an idea in the midst of discussing it, even at the start.

Funny how that works.

I didn't see where he was discussing the subject of airfield limitations. 

[Arlo]

I may not have described the concept correctly,   here is an example:  Saturday evening prime time  500 gamers in the late war arena, it's a small map with just 26 airfields on each side, lets say that only 30 aircraft were allowed to up from any one field  26X30 = 780 available aircraft per side. for a total of 160 pilots per side.   I'm just saying that all 780 can't take off from the same field.  get it?

Oh, I get the concept. When you log on as the 780th player and you have to up from the furthest field to the rear of the fight in a Storch then the idea appears to lose some merit. Get it? 

I didn't see where he was discussing the subject of airfield limitations. 

You didn't see him hopping aboard the yes-train. He certainly discussed whether the idea held merit, in his opinion.
Wish discussion isn't all about how great the idea is. It can well be why it's not that great an idea.

HTC has never been about limiting anything. If it restricts game play they seem to have a hard time messing with it. I agree that something along these lines may help with the hordes. Calling it "historical" wouldn't be enough to push it through. This has always been a game that uses WWII equipment and was never meant to replicate history or WWII.

[Arlo]

I would like to add that if you are looking for more of an historical feel then events may be more to your liking. 

[Traveler]

Oh, I get the concept. When you log on as the 780th player and you have to up from the furthest field to the rear of the fight in a Storch then the idea appears to lose some merit. Get it? 

You didn't see him hopping aboard the yes-train. He certainly discussed whether the idea held merit, in his opinion.
Wish discussion isn't all about how great the idea is. It can well be why it's not that great an idea.

No, it appears that you don't get it.  any player can select any aircraft  the same way they do now and right now, each side is limited   for the three sides to 600 in the arena,   Not sure why you are locked in on 780,   what I said was that for a small map if each field was limited to 30 aircraft being able to launch from that field, with 26 fields on a small map that would b 780 aircraft, they could all be 262's if the players wanted all to select 262.   why you think they are limited to a storch tells me that you don't understand.  and I still don't see in his first reply where he discussed the concept.  Yes, it's new, it's different then the way it's been, perhaps that might help, because clearly for many the way it is , isn't working.  We are losing players.  Just trying to help,  buy suggesting something new.