Author Topic: Time to bring back field capture of old? (Read 570 times)

Tac · « **Reply #30 on:** January 24, 2002, 11:37:42 AM »

I like the current capture system, its better than having the map room in the middle of the field, where any moron could spawn in the hangar that faced the map room and fire rockets or guns and kill troops.

However, I would prefer the following changes:

Put VH on the opposite side of the town. Put a map room between the VH and the field.

Put 2 VH's in town, add 6 mannable acks to town. Town still has its map room.

To capture a field, you need to take the map room between the field and the VH.

Town can also be captured by taking the map room in town.

Towns are the SOLE determining factor in rebuild time of fields. If you take the field but not the town, no matter how much supplies you bring to the field, nothing will rebuild until you take the town.

Capturing the town will give the attackers a VH to launch GV's into the enemy field and will deny rebuild time to the field they're attacking.

Adding a few manned AT guns in the field and town would be nice too

The state in which the country's CITY is at is what determines the rebuild time of the towns. If any supplies are received, they should REDUCE the time down to a maximum of 25% of the time they would take to rebuild, none of this crap of getting supplies in and everything rebuilding instantly.

lazs2 · « **Reply #31 on:** January 24, 2002, 11:59:26 AM »

"Attack the subject matter, not the person, Laz. Haven't you learned yet?

__________________
VMF-323 ~DEATH RATTLERS~ MAG-33
VMF-323 Website
MAG-33 Information
German "Black Widow"
"Mid-life" is when you go to the doctor and you
realize you are now so old, you have to pay
someone to look at you naked.
"

once again.... pull the string and ripsnore jerks like a puppet on speed... If you were to read and comprehend what you read then you would realize that I was responding to an attack on people, including myself and the arena we fly in. I did not start the attack on people vs content.

banana.. dweeby and dweebfest are not negative? and... "unhistorical" and "unrealistic"?? I don''t know about that but there are plenty of unrealistic/unhistorical features to go around for all of the arenas including your precious events eh? To claim realism of one area over another is pretty laughable.
lazs

Tac · « **Reply #32 on:** January 24, 2002, 12:37:19 PM »

all I can say is that every thread Lazs comes into soon becomes a flamefest.

This thread has lost any purpose and any meaning because of this. Sadness.

LePaul · « **Reply #33 on:** January 24, 2002, 12:40:20 PM »

Tac,

While these guys flame the snot out of each other....

Good ideas!

muckmaw · « **Reply #34 on:** January 24, 2002, 01:50:31 PM »

In an effort to follow the original point of this thread, I think Tac has an excellent idea.

IN NO WAY do I agree with the "Ditch-N-Capture" concept. I would rethink my subscription if this became the case.

No need to take away the role of the goon. Also, I would not want to see it necessary to land the troops, as this would be somewhat historically inaccurate as well. C-47's carrried paratroopers (as well as everything else in WWII) and theres no reason to take this out of the game.

Make the Base and it's town 2 seperate entities, one relying on the other, like tac said. Toughen up the town buildings as well.

Tac has the best idea I've seen yet.

Also, what's the chances of letting the goons deploy light armored vehicles? Slim? none?

But no matter what, forget the idea of dumping the goon!

eskimo2 · « **Reply #35 on:** January 24, 2002, 02:12:07 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by muckmaw
Also, what's the chances of letting the goons deploy light armored vehicles? Slim? none?

GIGANT!

Sadly, even it couldn't carry a Panzer IV

(If I recall...).

eskimo

Dnil · « **Reply #36 on:** January 24, 2002, 03:59:25 PM »

Actually in the old, old days, once you ditched you had to cap the field because the other team could still come in and land and retake the field. It would only become yours once some object came back up on the field. I remember fields changing hands 10 to 15 times before a field finally came back up. Was complete and total fun but could be gamed waaaay too easy.

Dnik for awhile

Animal · « **Reply #37 on:** January 24, 2002, 04:33:41 PM »

i LOVED having to land on a field to capture it in the old 1.11 WB days. It was an adrenaline rush, and made the game much more fast paced.

Goons make this game slower.

Maniac · « **Reply #38 on:** January 24, 2002, 04:40:13 PM »

Whats this Seekers problem anyway?

Animal what was your handle in WB´s?

Animal · « **Reply #39 on:** January 24, 2002, 04:53:56 PM »

I left when they moved from 1.11
my handle was Alah

snafu · « **Reply #40 on:** January 24, 2002, 05:50:12 PM »

What Tac said

TTFN
snafu

NUTTZ · « **Reply #41 on:** January 24, 2002, 06:33:37 PM »

I like the way AH needs troops to capture. But it could use some revision, heres a quick idea.....

Each C-47 can hold 10 troops assign each trooper an object to capture... Example

Trooper #1 captures ack
trooper #2,#3 captures Bomber hangers
Trooper#4,5 capture fighter hangers'

Of course i would like to see needing MORE than 10 troops for a complete capture.

Etc. etc.. Each trooper in the "troop carrier" either GV or c-47 is asssigned ( by HTC) a capture object, so if some of the troops are killed you can only hold PART of the feild. Would be interesting, I'm sure hard to do,, but just an idea.

Would be fun to only hold part of a feild.

I know it will never happen, but i'm always thinking outside the box.

NUTTZ

Virage · « **Reply #42 on:** January 24, 2002, 10:27:02 PM »

1 big problem for me is:

mgs and light caliber cannon taking out buildings. acks/fuel/barracks sure. Bomber hanger!? Come on...

ps- this goes for armor as well.