Strat Guys

[Sixpence]

OK, I like the strategic part of the game, but I am seeing why players are complaining about it and I have to agree. I'm seeing one F6F take  fuel down to 25% for a large airfield. They come in and take all the fuel down and get shot down. A suicide run.

This is not acceptable. I can see why guys are complaining about it. What we need to find is something that will be acceptable for the strategic guys and the non strategic guys.

Two thoughts

1.) To make the fuel bunkers harder to take down

2.) Two different kinds of fuel bunkers(heavier bunkers for larger fields)

I like the strategic part of the game, but I have to agree with the non strategic guys on this. One plane should not be able to take fuel down for an airfield.

[AKcurly]

Originally posted by Sixpence
I'm seeing one F6F take  fuel down to 25% for a large airfield. They come in and take all the fuel down and get shot down. A suicide run.

When one country has two countries gang up on it or when a country is seriously outnumbered, taking down strat objects is the only way you can slow the onslaught down.

With a map like Trinity, killing troops & fuel can bring things to a crashing halt.  It's less serious with AKDesert and the smaller maps.

So, what you are suggesting makes it easier for one country to be overwhelmed.  I don't think that's good.

curly

[ccvi]

Just 5% of the players are really trying to work on strat targets at bases. If a single plane can't do any serious damage, it won't be possible at all.

[SlapShot]

"I'm seeing one F6F take fuel down to 25% for a large airfield"

Rather than watching ... you need to get up and shoot his bellybutton down ... problem solved.

[Revvin]

As usual people are too damned lazy to up a fighter and defend they'd rather complain and have HTC program away their problem

[Sixpence]

Originally posted by Revvin
As usual people are too damned lazy to up a fighter and defend they'd rather complain and have HTC program away their problem

Lol, that is easier said than done. I'm just giving the other sides arguement. They make a good point. I don't care if it stays the same, but I hate to see people not having fun over it and leave the game. I just think some fields should take more than one plane to reduce the fuel to nill. I'm not talking every field.


Lol, rolleyes, the peanut gallery has spoken.

[Trikky]

I think he means the otherway around i.e. the country getting ganged can buy some time by porking fuel, troops etc.

[Imp]

Originally posted by Trikky
I think he means the otherway around i.e. the country getting ganged can buy some time by porking fuel, troops etc.

Of course he did.

But its a double edged blade. One plane can take out fuel at one base wether you have 4 or 100 bases.

[tatertot]

iI dont use much stategy in the games justing to stay alive .but what if the fuel and barricks were harder to find maybe then 1 suicide plane couldnt get all the fuel or pork the troops.not sure what you could do about camo but its just a thought

[Toad]

Yeah, Curly.. one brave green soul sneaks out through the oncoming hordes of red and makes it almost 1/5 of the way to the enemy base and...... gets bounced by six red guys on the way to mob the green base.

Works good.

[mia389]

I agree with Six, should be more fuels at a base, 1 guy killing all the fuel is no fair. Also if bunkers would be harder to kill you would have missions going to kill fuel. Missions are starting to die out Ive noticed. Was a thread on this topic couple months ago

[rod367th]

I would argee with harden fuel cells if base didn't flash. Only way for 1 guy to get all fuel is for no one to up when base starts flashing or he's seen on dar.  If he porks base only ones to blame are those who don't defend base. NOT the existing game play...........




 only thing I would like to see is RADAR at hq stay down longer,or be harder to rebuild now that 163 is available. And Would like to see cv commander be able to block flight ops on cv........ Its frustrating to see cv sail for 1hr and 40 miles from base a newbie takes off gives it away ............... we kinda have this now when hiding cv so don't see much dif.

[Fariz]

Quite often when I was after some base fuel, it was 1 enemy pilot, who covered it at high alt, and made it impossible.

1 pilot who can kill fuel is normally heavy, so 1 enemy pilot who take fighter can catch him and shot down.

That mostly solves the problem. Though it may be borring to stay high over the base which may never be attacked, but strat choices are often borring, they have pleasure in result. It is your choice how to fly.

[AKcurly]

Originally posted by Sixpence
You make my point curly, so if you are down to 4 bases, you like the thought of one plane taking down all your fuel?

6pence, when you capture a base, have you ever heard the phrase "don't pork the fuel or troops?"  Most folks try to avoid damaging the base when they are capturing it.  Of course, you destroy the vehicle hangar, but generally, you leave fuel/ordnance and troops alone.

But, when you get down to 4 bases, the game is over unless the two countries who ganged you start fighting each other.  

curly

[Sixpence]

Like I said, I think a second fuel bunker that is a little harder to take down would be nice. Just so that it would harder to reduce the large airfield fuel supply.

It could stay and it wouldn't change what I think about the game(my complaint the GV model)(and bring the T-34!), but I see the arguement of the furballer, and it's understandable. But i'm a strategic guy too, and I realize you have to take out ammo at a coastal field so bombers don't take ur fleet out. And taking the fuel out at the field closest to the one you are attacking will make it harder for the enemy to fly over with altitude and make it a longer trip. So the strat system is good. But I was under the impression it could be added to the terrain editor like they added the bridges(wait a minute, can you change the value of any object to have the value of a fuel bunker? If it is, my arguement is moot, it can already be done)( which, by the way, have they made the bridges driveable yet?) so I thought it might be an easy add in. I'll ask in the TE forum.


btw, sorry for the double post