Author Topic: Ok so on the big maps... (Read 979 times)

lazs2 · « **Reply #15 on:** July 01, 2003, 11:51:04 AM »

NB... I think that the changes you made to infinity are an improvement. It is this kind of change that I see as helping to satisfy the most people. The changes allow more choice I feel.
lazs

muckmaw · « **Reply #16 on:** July 01, 2003, 11:51:44 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by TW9
It was a joke.. Lighten up geek..

Actually, i was one of the 30 guys that felt standing in line for 5 hours to pork your mom was a good use of time..

Scares me to think theres a 1 and 30 chance i could be your father..

BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ!!

Foul!

Personal Foul, number 9...use of derogatory mother comment...

10 yards, repeat second post.

(Translation: A tad below the belt there TW9...)

lazs2 · « **Reply #17 on:** July 01, 2003, 11:56:33 AM »

muck... I still honestly don't understand. If the ultimate goal for Vehicle bases is to get close to the airbases in order to capture them then.... what would be the difference if the vehicle bases were eliminated, not really eliminated so much as changed?

you would really not be eliminating vehiclle bases if you changed them to airbases.

Vehicles can still opperate from the vehicle section of the airbase. the spawn points would not change either. What would be the downside for vehicles?
lazs

muckmaw · « **Reply #18 on:** July 01, 2003, 12:23:26 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by lazs2
muck... I still honestly don't understand. If the ultimate goal for Vehicle bases is to get close to the airbases in order to capture them then.... what would be the difference if the vehicle bases were eliminated, not really eliminated so much as changed?

you would really not be eliminating vehiclle bases if you changed them to airbases.

Vehicles can still opperate from the vehicle section of the airbase. the spawn points would not change either. What would be the downside for vehicles?
lazs

You're not changing the vehicles at all. What you're doing is making it harder to capture what was formerly a V only base, by adding on-sight fighter defence, thereby eliminating the relative ease with which that base once could be captured, and denying the capturing country's GV foothold in the area.

Steve · « **Reply #19 on:** July 01, 2003, 12:25:28 PM »

Beet1e.

Your spoof on Lazs's action packed map if absolutely hilarious.
Good show!!!

Fun for the whole family, two thumbs up... a gutbuster.

lazs2 · « **Reply #20 on:** July 01, 2003, 12:34:59 PM »

muck... your stated goal for the vehicles was to capture the airbase... you state that haveing vehicle only bases makes it easier to get closer to the airbases because they fall easier...

if the vehicle fields were changed to airbases then you would allready be there. you could mount a combined (or what appeared to be combined) vehicle air strike on a base that was a sector or less away.
lazs

muckmaw · « **Reply #21 on:** July 01, 2003, 12:39:20 PM »

*shakes head*

If the vehicle bases were changed to airbases, they would be just as hard to capture as...well airbases.

The point of the V only base is that it can be used as an easy Step 1 in getting a foothold, and using the relatively easily captured base to put pressure on the much more difficult to capture Airbase.

I can't explain it any other way.

Someone else might be able to make it clearer.

SlapShot · « **Reply #22 on:** July 01, 2003, 01:23:12 PM »

Muck .. He's not gonna want to hear this !!!

Lazs ... the keyword here is EASY.

V Base are EASY to take - for all intents and purposes only 2 guys are needed to take a V Base (ex. F6-F and a Goon). 2 guys could take an airfield, but not as EASILY as a V Base.

Once the EASY V Base is taken, an all-out GV assault can be mounted at the not-so EASY enemy airfield that the V Base spawns to.

If the EASY V Base was turned into a not-so EASY Airfield ... well ... (I'm not gonna touch this part at this particular juncture of this thread).

Muck, it's the EASY part that he's not gonna like.

Gixer · « **Reply #23 on:** July 01, 2003, 10:07:53 PM »

Can always gurantee a fun scrap in Lazs posts.

WTG Beet1e on the map. Looks alot of fun.

...-Gixer
-Hells Angels-

lazs2 · « **Reply #24 on:** July 02, 2003, 08:33:52 AM »

so.... you can mount an "all out vehicle assault" on an airbase from a captured vehicle base right?

If you had a airbase that was formerly a vehicle base (distance unchanged)... then would you not be able to launch GV's from said converted (from gv only to gv/air combined) base?

Are there restrictions on how many gv's you can launch from the gv part of the airbase? Are the aircraft runways and hangers in the way somehow?

Am I missing something? The only difference I can see is that you don't get to take the extra step of "capturing" an easy vehicle base... that step is eliminated. You are allready where you were trying to be.
lazs

SlapShot · « **Reply #25 on:** July 02, 2003, 09:12:22 AM »

"Am I missing something? The only difference I can see is that you don't get to take the extra step of "capturing" an easy vehicle base... that step is eliminated"

Nope ... you got it ... key word is EASY as opposed to HARDER.

You can easily take a VB in a short period of time and then roll an assault withing a short period of time.

muckmaw · « **Reply #26 on:** July 02, 2003, 09:23:52 AM »

I give up.

Lazs, I know you get it. You just don't want to.

Ask someone else, please.

lazs2 · « **Reply #27 on:** July 02, 2003, 03:29:53 PM »

slap... and the point of capturing the vehicle base is??

this would be different from having all the fields combined vehicle and airfields in what way?

Is it the "perk" points you get for the easy capture that is the lure?
lazs

NoBaddy · « **Reply #28 on:** July 02, 2003, 04:04:17 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by lazs2
slap... and the point of capturing the vehicle base is??

this would be different from having all the fields combined vehicle and airfields in what way?

Is it the "perk" points you get for the easy capture that is the lure?
lazs

Lazs...

Generally speaking, a gv field is EASIER to capture than an airfield. The same could be said of small, medium and large fields.

SlapShot · « **Reply #29 on:** July 02, 2003, 04:15:24 PM »

"slap... and the point of capturing the vehicle base is??

To gain more territory in the effort to win the war and to own an asset that helps to gain more territory.

this would be different from having all the fields combined vehicle and airfields in what way?

Its just MUCH EASIER to take vehicle bases than it is airfields ... less resistance to gain an asset that can be very strategic in taking the next/closest asset, be it another vehicle base or an airfield.

Is it the "perk" points you get for the easy capture that is the lure?

Nope ... less perks ... not as many strat targets as an airfield.

Lazs ... the key here ... again ... is EASY capture. Ya know ... some people like the EASY route. If ya removed ALL the easy captures, someone or some faction will get VERY PISSED OFF !!!

Regardless ... I still wouldn't want to see ALL vehicle bases changed into airfields ... just enough to balance the distance travelled between bases ... like NoBaddy accomplished on Trinity.