Capturable strategic targets?

[LLv34_Camouflage]

Hi!  Here's a snip from Vermillions post in Flakbait's "Gizmo" thread: http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/Forum55/HTML/000009.html

 

Posted by Vermillion:
Its especially important to note that the only objects you wish to assign ownership to a country is the City, HQ, Factories, and other Strat objects. All airfields and vehicle fields, should be assinged within "Field" ownership, so that they can be dynamically set in the arena setup (when its actually used in a game arena) and can be capturable (change country ownership).

Is it possible to make capturable strategic objects if they are assigned to a field ownership?

For example, in the current arena map, the south city could be assigned to V61.  So when V61 is captured, also the city would change ownership?  

How to use this, would be important though.  If planned correctly, one could maybe make a real well working strat model to a map.  You could spread the factories all over the country.

Now, when the you advance into enemy ground and capture fields, you would capture strategic assets at the same time.  The amount of your factories would increase, while the enemy's would decrease.  When the enemy is down to just a few factory buildings, bombing raids on them would have devastating effects.  In other words, when a country is cornered, they will also feel it.  

Is it possible to spread strategic targets around the map like this?  For example, each airfield would be assigned a little town, which would count towards the "city" strat numbers.  When the field is captured, the city buildings would change ownership accordingly.  As this would reduce the absolute number of city buildings in the first country, bombing the remaining buildings would have a bigger effect on the damage percentages.

Any comments?

Camo



------------------
Camouflage
XO, Lentolaivue 34
 www.muodos.fi/LLv34

Brewster into AH!

"The really good pilots use their superior judgement to keep them out of situations
where they might be required to demonstrate their superior skill."

[-raxx-]

Camo,

Long story short.  No, you can't make country assets capturable yet.

I tried your idea of assigning country assets to a field a couple of months ago and ditched the idea because assigning them to a field simply makes them field assets and don't affect the strategic elements for a country when the field is captured.  I also tried assigning the AAA to a vehicle base.  

The problem is the point of reward versus penalty.  Destroying a city/factory denies resources to the enemy.  Capturing a city or factory does not provide a bonus for your side.  However when the factory or city rebuilds you can more easily destroy it again.  I don't think that conquering troops would destroy an asset over and over again when that asset can be turned to your own support.

I would like to have strategic targets captured in some way as the capture of cities as well as airfields is an important part of warfare.

Spotcha in the Air

[LLv34_Camouflage]

 

Originally posted by -raxx-:
Camo,

Long story short.  No, you can't make country assets capturable yet.

I tried your idea of assigning country assets to a field a couple of months ago and ditched the idea because assigning them to a field simply makes them field assets and don't affect the strategic elements for a country when the field is captured.  I also tried assigning the AAA to a vehicle base.  

Rgr, thx for the info.  Saves me the trying.  

Are you saying that you couldn't assign AAA to a vehicle base?  It can only have 2 acks?

The problem is the point of reward versus penalty.  Destroying a city/factory denies resources to the enemy.  Capturing a city or factory does not provide a bonus for your side.  However when the factory or city rebuilds you can more easily destroy it again.  I don't think that conquering troops would destroy an asset over and over again when that asset can be turned to your own support.[/b]

Yep, there has to be a bonus to capturing assets.

The more buildings you have in your city, the more of them the enemy has to destroy to achieve the desired percent destroyed, right?  And if you would add the feature that each additional building decreases the rebuild times, this would be a great feature!  There would be a strategic meaning to conquering bases...  

I would like to have strategic targets captured in some way as the capture of cities as well as airfields is an important part of warfare.
[/b]

Exactly!

Hopefully we'll see this in the future. The possibilities are endless!  

[Hamish]

It sounds like a great idea and would definately bring tank battalions a whole new meaning, but a major limiting factor i see right now would be the object limit per map. how many fields would you be able to have if you had cities spread all over the countryside? I love the possiblities this terrain editor is bringing us though  


------------------
Hamish!

 
<===<The ASSASSINS>===>

[This message has been edited by Hamish (edited 08-11-2000).]

[-raxx-]

Camo,
 

Are you saying that you couldn't assign AAA to a vehicle base? It can only have 2 acks?

No.  What I meant was that in creating a vehicle base in the middle of a factory I ran into the problem of which base should own the AAA that was protecting the city.

I have 3 groups on the map.  An airfield, a vehicle base and a city.
The city is 1 mile away from the airfield.

Attempt 1.  Place a city near to an airfield.  

Problem a.  The city AAA being country owned will open fire on any aircraft attempting to roll from the airfield.  You can't change the country assingments of a city or factory wothout editing the map.

Attempt 2. Put a vehicle base in the city and assign the city AAA to that vehicle base.

Problem b.  The AAA at the city would open fire on aircraft at the airfield if the city were captured.  The city could also be used as a quick launch point to attack the airfield.  Not very realistic.

Problem c. Capturing the airfield gained no advantage because the AAA at the city will still open fire on the aircraft launching from the newly captured field.  You have to capture both bases almost simultainously, (it's hard enough just capturing one base!)

Attempt 3.  Assign the city AAA to the airfield and have a vehicle base in the city.

Problem d.  Capturing the airfield means the AAA will open fire on anyone launching from the vehicle base.  There isn't any point in having the vehicle base there.

Attempt 4.  Put the vehicle base away from the city assigning the AAA to the airfield.

Problem e.  Then why have a vehicle base at all?  This allows the capture of the airfield to be followed by rapid and continued destruction of the city.  

Attempt 5.  Remove the City AAA and remove the entry points for the vehicle base.  Assign 88mm guns  which form a perimeter defence (10-15 miles away), to the vehicle base in the city.  This way capturing the airfield allows the quick capture of the vehicle base, (which secures the perimeter AAA defence of the field), and there is no counter fire from the city to the airfield preventing planes form launching.

Problem f.  see problem e.  The rapid and continued destruction of another countries asset can't be prevented.

Of all the solutions and problems above Attempt 5 was the closest that I got to a workable solution.  However this still doesn't prevent the attacker having captured the airfield from destroying the city over and over again.

In the end I've picked the two bases that were most important in the PNG/Solomons campaigns and put the country assets around them with appropriate AAA to make their destruction difficult.

If you have any solution that may work better than those I proposed above please write it here.

Spotcha in the Air

[LLv34_Camouflage]

 

Originally posted by -raxx-:

Attempt 5.  Remove the City AAA and remove the entry points for the vehicle base.  Assign 88mm guns  which form a perimeter defence (10-15 miles away), to the vehicle base in the city.  This way capturing the airfield allows the quick capture of the vehicle base, (which secures the perimeter AAA defence of the field), and there is no counter fire from the city to the airfield preventing planes form launching.

Problem f.  see problem e.  The rapid and continued destruction of another countries asset can't be prevented.

Of all the solutions and problems above Attempt 5 was the closest that I got to a workable solution.  However this still doesn't prevent the attacker having captured the airfield from destroying the city over and over again.

Ok, now I get it!  

But doesn't attempt 5 work pretty well?  If the city is in the heart of the country, it will take a long and heavy attacks to reach and capture it, so it shouldn't be too easy in the first place?  Exactly what war is about, right?

And if the vehicle base within the city doesn't have any entry points, then tanks cannot destroy it, solving the "camping" problem.

Of course, if the nearby airfield is captured, then the enemy can destroy the city quite easily.  One solution would be to place a large airfield with huge ack batteries there, making it very tough to capture.

But assigning a "cold" vehicle base within a strategic target is a great way to be able to simulate the capture!  Excellent!  

In the end I've picked the two bases that were most important in the PNG/Solomons campaigns and put the country assets around them with appropriate AAA to make their destruction difficult.
[/b]

And I assume if the enemy is already knocking on the door at those airfields, you have pretty much already lost the war, right?    So making the strat target captures unrealistically hard would only frustrate the attacker.  But it would also make it quite hard to defend them, but hey - war is hell!  

So far I like what I'm hearing, I think I'll try it out too.  Maybe a small 64x64 strategic test map or something...  

Camo

[Naso]

Wow, mates, keep up the good work, i am already dreaming.

one question: why a "cold" vehicle base? If you put an "hot" vehicle base you can simulate the last defenders of city, and if the airbase in the vicinity is under attack, i bet some good tactic will take tank and/or m16s to prepare the "last struggle", sound like Stalingrad (nice ground scenario).

Another think:

We know, usually for a country to lose a big industrial city, mean to lose a percentage of the support capability until retake, so the continuate destruction is not a big problem, you see?