I agree Rude. But let's take it a bit further.
Make the front bases captureable so the battle line can move into a country, making their strat targets more accessible. But the rear bases aren't captureable, allowing all countries a fair ability to ward off enemy attacks until the end. The point at which victory is awarded is not based upon capture of the last base, but on the destruction of a country's resources. Destruction of resources would affect the country based upon the type of resource.
Loss of refineries would limit available fuel with a graduated affect based upon criticality. The less critical type operations would be affected first, such as perhaps the range of fighters, then the number of fighters, then on bombers, etc. This would mimic someone managing the use of fuel.
Loss of factories would limit the availability of the corresponding equipment. Such as factories making Spits and Hurricanes, B17s and Lancasters, tanks, ships, etc. A factory making a more general material, such as ball bearings, would affect the availability of everything dependant upon it.
Loss of food, clothing, training, arms, and transportation would somehow limit what the players could do. Like the number who can operate from each base, the number of sorties a player can make in a given time period (15 min. or a half hour), an increasing cost of perk points for each mission, or a combination of these.
The requirement for defensive operations would take on a new dimension and be more focused upon what must be defended most and a best guess of where the enemy missions are going. As radar is deminished, there would be a greater need for intelligence and a role for scouts. Currently defense is very simplistic, directed toward the base being targeted for capture. As the battle line draws closer, a country would have an increasing need for back line interceptor patrols in areas of suspected enemy penetration.
I think the benefit would be more realism. Greater incentive for strategic operations. Greater variety... land grabbing gets old. A need to plan missions based upon the current situation (hitting the most critical resources). A much greater role for bombers. More realistic roles for fighters, such as a more critical need for escorts and interceptors. And a greater ability for a country to function until the end.
On this last point, when the war currently nears and end, the down and out country is choked to a few bases where both countries can converge and stomp him into the dirt. With my suggestion, although the losing country will have a deminished ability to fight, it will at least have a place to play. And if the lead country does not continue the attack, the losing country's resources would rebuild. No more of this "get 'em down and keep 'em there" mentality.
grizzly
Originally posted by Rude
The terrains are too generic....no defined territorial boundaries.
Resources should be to the rear of the countries so that when you strat, you feel like you're really doing something.
Small fields should be close together and plentiful towards the frontlines of each country.....fields should thin out as you go deeper into enemy territory....the deeper fields should be larger the deeper you go and further apart....finally, you reach the countries cities and factories deep into their territory.
This kind of terrain would yield better strat, and better furballs.
For those of you who flew awdos, the old pac map is kinda what I'm talkin about.
Just my .02
