Aces High Bulletin Board

General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: Baine on October 27, 2005, 08:30:52 PM

Title: A discussion on troop porking
Post by: Baine on October 27, 2005, 08:30:52 PM
I'd like to start a discussion on troop porking.
I think the current system, where one or two cannon-armed planes can shut down an entire front, is pretty lame.
It would never happen in real life (imagine D-Day being called off cause one FW hit an airbase in England), is frustrating and generally encourages lame-o dweebiness (when have you ever seen a troop porker make good his escape?)
I have never been able to understand why HTC _ which responded to whines about hoarding with the much maligned eny system _ continues to encourage such gamey behaviour by making it so easy to pork troops.
Of course, I will consider the the improbable possibility that I am wrong.
 I was wondering how other people feel. Do they like the current pork system or do they agree that it is totally lame and gamey and should be changed?
If so, how should it be changed?
If not, why shouldn't it be changed?
If it is good, are there any other totally lame and gamey that should be implemented to make AH totally lame and gamey?
Title: Re: A discussion on troop porking
Post by: Morpheus on October 27, 2005, 08:33:58 PM
Quote
It would never happen in real life


D-Day=Real life

Aces High= Game
Title: A discussion on troop porking
Post by: Baine on October 27, 2005, 08:37:17 PM
To kick off the discussion, I will offer this suggestion:
Why not make it harder, to pork troops, but also make it more difficult to capture bases?
My suggestion: Make porking troops as difficult as shutting down fighters or bombers, but require two planeloads of troops to capture a field.
That will relieve the frustration factor, plus add to one of the fun factors of the game _ trying to sneak a goon into a heavily defended field.
It would seem to me that this would a) make the game less annoying while b) also adding to the things that both attackers and defenders enjoy (capturing bases and shooting down poor, unarmed goons).
my two cents
Title: Re: Re: A discussion on troop porking
Post by: Baine on October 27, 2005, 08:43:03 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Morpheus
D-Day=Real life

Aces High= Game


No frickin' way!!
Really?
Title: A discussion on troop porking
Post by: Morpheus on October 27, 2005, 08:43:08 PM
Are you trolling? Aw what the hell...

Quote
My suggestion: Make porking troops as difficult as shutting down fighters or bombers, but require two planeloads of troops to capture a field.



Two sets of troops? As if you guys dont have enough trouble getting one set in? Hell I see FH's being dropped, towns, whole feilds being flattened... I cant count the number of times I have seen the above happen and then not seen a goon. Not one, forget about two.

How would that...
Quote
relieve the frustration


??????
Title: Re: Re: Re: A discussion on troop porking
Post by: Morpheus on October 27, 2005, 08:43:47 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Baine
No frickin' way!!
Really?


Yes really!!!

:aok

Which makes your original post completely pointless.
Title: A discussion on troop porking
Post by: Flit on October 27, 2005, 08:54:01 PM
If you resupply the base, the troops come up faster :aok
 Sometimes, troop porking is the only way to slow down the "horde", and therefore is a viable tactic.;)
Title: Re: A discussion on troop porking
Post by: hubsonfire on October 27, 2005, 08:59:11 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Baine
HTC _ which responded to whines about hoarding with the much maligned eny system _ continues to encourage such gamey behaviour by making it so easy to pork troops.


:rolleyes:
Title: A discussion on troop porking
Post by: ROC on October 27, 2005, 09:02:48 PM
I'll bite, dinners late and even bait looks good at this point.

You mean it is honestly that difficult to mount a defense against that one single porking fighter that is taking out the Troops?  At the moment, in "real life" a single insurgent can sneak into an encampment in Iraq, lob a single grenade and wreak havoc.  I can only imagine what a cannon loaded 109 would do to that real life situation.  

The game is defendable.  The troops can be defended.  You want it harder so you don't have to waste your furballing time defending?  

My "score" sucks.  I spend alot of time taking troops to bases, and Supplies to bases, and Supplies to vehicles out in the fight, and Chasing down city and factory porking dweebs.  This is a well rounded, multi faceted game that requires not just an artificially hard defense so everyone can participate in the funner aspect of an offensive position.  Sometimes you gotta be the grunt and be in the background supporting the effort.

Good point, though, that you "think" it's gamey.  Don't take this as a personal insult, I think the alternative is "gamey" and would cheapen the game to "Quake" level.

In My Humble Opinion, Your Milage May Vary, Opinions are like...well..you know.
Title: A discussion on troop porking
Post by: Morpheus on October 27, 2005, 09:04:47 PM
zOMFG this is a tROLL RUNNNNN!!! save yOURSELVES!!!

Hub please remove this hook from my cheek first.
Title: A discussion on troop porking
Post by: crowMAW on October 27, 2005, 09:10:45 PM
Didn't it used to be two goons to capture a base a loooong time ago?  Back before base towns...back when maprooms were on the base.

As I recall, it was dropped to 1 goon cuz it was too damn hard to coordinate 2 goons getting in and dropping with in the time limit between drops.

Troop porking seems to be the only way to slow an advancing hoard.  ENY is effective when one country has 200+ players and everyone else has half that number...that was the situation a couple years back with the Rooks and within the last few months with the Knits.  It is not effective against hord attacks going for lightly defended milkrun bases...I watched a Bish attack the other day.  More than 50 attackers simultaneously hit 2 lightly defended bases (one airbase and the other a v-base).  I saw three 262s many many Ponies and JugNs...ENY was not working against this hord.

Porking would have slowed the hoard...but not stopped it since I've noticed that Bish have been bringing 4-5 goons on attacks like that and hot loading them if necessary.

However troop porking was effective Wednesday night against a similar Bish hoard attacking a22.  A couple of Knits were able to sneak out of the vulched base and kill all the hiding goons (I counted 5 and one at 15k+).  In the mean time, another Knit had wacked the troops at the near bases.  It held off the hord for hours.
Title: A discussion on troop porking
Post by: ROC on October 27, 2005, 09:13:36 PM
Yes Morph, it's a troll, but I'm soo hungry!!!

Bait wasn't even that good, but worth a quick hook in the gums yanno :)
Title: A discussion on troop porking
Post by: megadud on October 27, 2005, 09:14:42 PM
(http://www.furballunderground.com/megasmiles/images/naka_gif.gif)
Title: A discussion on troop porking
Post by: Morpheus on October 27, 2005, 09:17:58 PM
LOL Mega (http://www.furballunderground.com/megasmiles/images/thefinger_gif.gif)
Title: A discussion on troop porking
Post by: Baine on October 27, 2005, 09:23:07 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Flit
If you resupply the base, the troops come up faster :aok
 Sometimes, troop porking is the only way to slow down the "horde", and therefore is a viable tactic.;)

I've spent more time flying supplies than your average DHL pilot. I known.
But troops seem to be always the last strat to come up when bases are resupplied. You can make multiple resupply runs without seeing troops come up. And then, after flying 4-5 c-47 missions, one dweeb in a typhie can take troops out? Not a good way to encourage selfless resupply runs. A good way to encourage dweebie behaviour.

I have no problem with "slowing down the horde." I do have a problem with one plane being able to do it at multiple bases. If a side can get its act together and mount a major strike that takes out a hardened troop strat, more power to them! But they shouldn't be able to benefit from one dweeb making a suicide strafing pass. I seriously can't think of one, defensible reason to allow such a thing.

On the other hand,  a side should benefit from being able to maintain a sustained defense. The current system, that allows a single cannon-armed plane that doesn't care if it lives or dies to stop an entire offensive in its tracks, in no way, shape or form encourages base defense, since it is simply too easy to knock out troops. Require multiple passes by multiple planes and base defense makes sense.
Imagine the uproar if a single F-4U could take out all of a base's fighters.

The current system penalizes teamwork and planning and rewards dweebiness (but maybe I'm predjudiced).

Would my suggestion to require two troop drops cause some frustration?
Maybe. Maybe it would make it even more difficult to capture bases. That's a good way of slowing down the horde, right?
But it probably won't cause as much frustration as that felt by people who attack a base, knock down a town and then see it all go for naught since the goon has to fly in from east bumflup.
And it would also make the game more fun, since _ at least in my humble opinion _ defending or hunting a goon is a lot more fun than senseless furballing over a base you can't capture for lack of troops.

Am I trolling? Dang right. I'm trying to start a discussion, to get people to weigh in with their opinions on the setup. It sure bothers me the way it is set up now, but maybe I'm in the minority. I seriously can't think of any way of defending the current system and I'm curious if anyone can advance any good arguments as to why it should continue. Attacking the way the question is posted, and nitpicking about the way it is written just seems to prove to me a lack of defensible arguments in favor of it and an effort to draw attention away from the real debate.
Title: A discussion on troop porking
Post by: Morpheus on October 27, 2005, 09:39:05 PM
OMFG It is a TROLL. Yu R trolling your SElf

OMG YOU R TEH CRAZY!!!!11oneone!!1
Title: A discussion on troop porking
Post by: ROC on October 27, 2005, 09:39:51 PM
Quote
Attacking the way the question is posted, and nitpicking about the way it is written just seems to prove to me a lack of defensible arguments in favor of it and an effort to draw attention away from the real debate.


I don't see anyone attacking anything.  I see lack of interest at this point.  Might change, might not.

It's not encumbant on anyone to prove by their argument that you are wrong.  You created the debate, and clearly haven't proven you are right.  Lack of the response you were looking for does not, in any way, shape or form "prove" a lack of defensible arguments in favor of the current system.

It might simply be that not many think this is an issue.  It's not a fantastic idea to start a "debate" then get irratated if it doesn't go your way.  Perhaps nitpicking about the way it is written is the only logical way to address an issue that in itself appears to be nitpicking.  Maybe, but it seems that conversations tend to flow exactly down the channel they create.

I did notice, however, that in your fervor to point out the inequity in our replies you clearly avoided, what I felt was the strongest defense of the subject, which is frankly to simply up defenders and stop the attackers.  That seemed reasonable, well thought out, and quite easily done.  Should I cry foul or simply take stock in the impression that you didn't want to address so simple a solution, chosing to perpetuate an argument instead?
Title: A discussion on troop porking
Post by: Morpheus on October 27, 2005, 09:44:11 PM
Quote
lack of defensible arguments


I gave you the best argument so far.

Aces High=Game
D-Day=Rea Life

The fact that you are using real life to argue this game is the very reason you will never win with this argument.

You're trying to argue to change the design of the game. In that design not call for tens of thousands of players to produce D-Day type senerios. That was a foolish comparison, no offence.

The very reason the barracks are as easy as they are to destroy is simply because we do-not-have thousands of players to use in mounting an all out assult on a set of barracks.
Title: A discussion on troop porking
Post by: crowMAW on October 27, 2005, 09:53:00 PM
The best argument for the current system is as a hoard defense.  When 25-30 ponies and JugNs come in at 20k+ to a lightly defended base and take down the VH and all FHs, there is not much other way to slow the hoard down other than goon hunters and troop porkers.

If you want to make it more challenging for the hoard, then harden the hangers so that only bombers can take them out.  Plus increase both type of AA accuracy and make the AA guns harder to destroy.  That keeps vulchers away while allowing the attacked base to mount a viable defense.
Title: A discussion on troop porking
Post by: Jackal1 on October 27, 2005, 10:26:12 PM


  And it`s a winner.
The Worse Troll Evaaaar award goes to this thread. :furious
Title: A discussion on troop porking
Post by: Morpheus on October 27, 2005, 10:28:14 PM
(http://www.furballunderground.com/freehost/files/1/s-redeemerQUAH.gif)
Title: A discussion on troop porking
Post by: Booz on October 27, 2005, 10:37:08 PM
Troop & Ammo porking is done by the strat/base capture guys to the other teams strat/base capture guys.

   Furballers dont care, don't bother over it and don't desire to defend it. They got their way when they whined & won about gas porking. (but of course now they whine about hangars dying a WHOLE 15 minutes).

   It's YOUR job to stop the porkers Mr.Strategy...don't whine about being beat at your own game please, be smarter, pork first, supply faster, win the war.

   You know why rooks face 2v1 gangbang so often?? Cause knits & bish done porked their entire front lines vs each other and only have eggs & troops on the rook front.

   Know why rooks always have the best k/d? They catch & shoot down heavy porkers more than the other 2 teams.
Title: A discussion on troop porking
Post by: Morpheus on October 27, 2005, 10:39:43 PM
How about when you die you never get to play again?

How's that for comparing this crap to D-Day???

OMFG I R TEH SMART ONE!!!!oneoneone!!11
Title: A discussion on troop porking
Post by: FiLtH on October 27, 2005, 10:58:02 PM
Id prefer that the troops require 3k damage.  With 80% of the players on the deck, I rarely if ever have a problem killing the troops. I dont think anyone plays the game with defense in mind. Loitering over a base just isnt fun.
Title: A discussion on troop porking
Post by: DREDIOCK on October 27, 2005, 11:39:36 PM
You generally couldnt capture an entire airfeild and town with only a small handful of ground troops either.
 Imagine what would have happened on DDay if all they landed was less then 20 troops.

Leave it as it is.

There are times when its the only way to stop an advancing horde. To change that would only give horde tactics an even greater advantage then they already have.

Plus, porking troops encourages Furballs ( a point Im sure the furballs like)

and you CAN defend your feild. The mistake everyone makes is in defending the feild AT the feild.
The idea is to stop em before they get there not once they have arrived.
fly toward their airfeild. The closer to their arifeld you get the lower they will be. Then you wont have to worry  about stopping a plane diving in from 20K.
Hang out at 8-10K a half a sector away from their base and you should be able to stop alot of planes from comming to pork your feild.

And taking troops out at anything but a small feild isnt always as easy as it looks.
feild ack often gets you more often then enemy planes and almost as often before you can finish porking troops.

I know. I do it
Title: A discussion on troop porking
Post by: Rino on October 28, 2005, 03:48:15 AM
Quote
Originally posted by ROC
I'll bite, dinners late and even bait looks good at this point.

You mean it is honestly that difficult to mount a defense against that one single porking fighter that is taking out the Troops?  At the moment, in "real life" a single insurgent can sneak into an encampment in Iraq, lob a single grenade and wreak havoc.  I can only imagine what a cannon loaded 109 would do to that real life situation.  

The game is defendable.  The troops can be defended.  You want it harder so you don't have to waste your furballing time defending?  

My "score" sucks.  I spend alot of time taking troops to bases, and Supplies to bases, and Supplies to vehicles out in the fight, and Chasing down city and factory porking dweebs.  This is a well rounded, multi faceted game that requires not just an artificially hard defense so everyone can participate in the funner aspect of an offensive position.  Sometimes you gotta be the grunt and be in the background supporting the effort.

Good point, though, that you "think" it's gamey.  Don't take this as a personal insult, I think the alternative is "gamey" and would cheapen the game to "Quake" level.

In My Humble Opinion, Your Milage May Vary, Opinions are like...well..you know.


     I think you are completely offbase as to the nature of the whine.  This is
OBVIOUSLY a strat weenie whine, not a furballer one.  What does a
furballer care if the troops are down or not?
Title: A discussion on troop porking
Post by: Tilt on October 28, 2005, 04:13:24 AM
I also think it inappropriate the way the game models the ability of a single ac to wipe out all infantry at a base or field.

Troops based at airfields could be considered smaller para regiments and so could be much as we have now.

Infantry based at vehicle fields should be virtual garrisons and have tented (defended) areas as large as the towns we have now.


Always seemed more logical to me that garrisons (not towns) should be depleted before capture was possible..ie you have to destroy the enemy infantry forces before yours can capture........

Supply should be a hanger function not a barrack function IMO.
Title: A discussion on troop porking
Post by: 101ABN on October 28, 2005, 04:49:52 AM
Quote
Originally posted by crowMAW
Didn't it used to be two goons to capture a base a loooong time ago?  Back before base towns...back when maprooms were on the base.

As I recall, it was dropped to 1 goon cuz it was too damn hard to coordinate 2 goons getting in and dropping with in the time limit between drops.

Troop porking seems to be the only way to slow an advancing hoard.  ENY is effective when one country has 200+ players and everyone else has half that number...that was the situation a couple years back with the Rooks and within the last few months with the Knits.  It is not effective against hord attacks going for lightly defended milkrun bases...I watched a Bish attack the other day.  More than 50 attackers simultaneously hit 2 lightly defended bases (one airbase and the other a v-base).  I saw three 262s many many Ponies and JugNs...ENY was not working against this hord.

Porking would have slowed the hoard...but not stopped it since I've noticed that Bish have been bringing 4-5 goons on attacks like that and hot loading them if necessary.

However troop porking was effective Wednesday night against a similar Bish hoard attacking a22.  A couple of Knits were able to sneak out of the vulched base and kill all the hiding goons (I counted 5 and one at 15k+).  In the mean time, another Knit had wacked the troops at the near bases.  It held off the hord for hours.



ha ha ha... we had a horde of rooks last weekend trying to take a base and myself with 3 others defended the base until they gave up.... it isnt impossibel to defeat the horde... i like to call it a target rich enviroment.. ha ha... a

as for getting 2 goons on target.. i agree with morph.. its really hard to get someone to bite the bullet and up a goon, now you want 2? wow, it will be like asking them to give up their left nut....
Title: Troop Porking
Post by: Patches1 on October 28, 2005, 05:57:26 AM
Be care for what you wish....as it may come true...as in the past ability to limit (pork) fuels at enemy airfields (which, by the way, limited the range of certain aricraft such as the LA-7, making them less of a threat overall and we didn't need an ENY limiter). The obvious result of this past wish is the importance now of denying enemies the ability to bomb your resources (take out  the ordnance), and their ability to capture your fields (take out the troop barracks).

Another consideration is the time zone in which you play the game. For some who log on during prime time USA, they may see "hoardes" of folks online....say upwards of 300, or so. For others, who play at other times... for example, very early morning Pacific Times Zones... one may log on to find a total of 60 folks online between all three countries. For these folks, a "hoarde" may be 5, or 6 folks, and of the 20 or so players online in your country, some may be furballing, some may be GV'ing, some my be in Bomber mode, and others in PT's or attack mode.

Increasing the difficulty in capturing fields by requiring more C-47s, or increasing the amount of ordnance required to drop various targets may make game play more challenging for an MA of 300, or more, players, but, may also make gameplay less enjoyable for those who play when the numbers of players online is quite less. It's not easy to acheive a balance of gameplay enjoyability and gameplay difficulty...just my opinion...
Title: A discussion on troop porking
Post by: BlkKnit on October 28, 2005, 06:03:02 AM
Look, how about you just....

Defend your fields!


oh, yeah...and maybe add a few barracks to each one ;)
Title: A discussion on troop porking
Post by: ColKLink on October 28, 2005, 06:11:38 AM
I got three words for a troop porker,......two sixty two:cool:
Title: A discussion on troop porking
Post by: Bruv119 on October 28, 2005, 11:24:27 AM
aren't those numbers   Bo  ....   ;)

Each side can do it so what goes around comes around....




Bruv
~S~
Title: A discussion on troop porking
Post by: fuzeman on October 28, 2005, 11:48:30 AM
How about this, when an enemy approaches a field all the little troopers in the barracks come running out so you actually have to straff each individual troop to take the barracks down at a particular field. When the attacker is gone all the little troopers, or at least the ones who have not been killed, go back into the barracks. Have  twenty or thirty little troopers at a field so you have to straff all of them to completely take down that base's ability to launch troops.
Title: A discussion on troop porking
Post by: SlapShot on October 28, 2005, 01:34:15 PM
They got their way when they whined & won about gas porking.

Another clueless one that feels the need to perpetuate that urban myth.

The fuel "porking" remedy was instituted due to the fact that when AH II was activated, HT and crew decided that the fuel burn multiplier needed to be upped to 2.0 ... with that, if fuel was allowed to be porked to 25%, that would have eliminated a vast amount of the plane set from being used (on a consistent basis).

It had nothing to do with anybody whining.

See this thread for some edumacation ... http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=117803&highlight=fuel+burn

Quote
Originally posted by GScholz
I understand the concept of using a 2x burn rate to compensate for the reduced distances compared to real life. However the arena is not "compressed" in the vertical, so the short-legged fighters that need altitude to fight with are at an unfair disadvantage IMHO.


Quote
Originally posted by Pyro
That's not as big of a factor now that fuel burn rate changes with altitude.  Once you get up to high altitude, you're burning a lot less fuel.  With a 2X burn rate, I can climb at mil power in a 109G6 up to 30K and have 20 minutes of fuel remaining at mil power.  If I switch to cruise, I have a lot more and that's not even considering what adding a droptank would do.

People will initially be surprised how quickly fuel is burned in AH2, but if they look, they will find a secondary surprise in how well they can conserve it.


Quote
Originally posted by Pyro
The larger fuel burn rate is not just there to give a purpose to managing your engine and fuel.  Range and endurance are crucial characteristics of these planes.  We want that to be a factor in the game but we don't want people to have to fly for an hour or more just to get into a fight.


Quote
Originally posted by Pyro
I wouldn't mind a restriction on DTs although I think that's a perceived problem more than a real one.  

I won't argue about us not using historical distances in the MA.  If you don't already understand why that's done, I doubt I can convince you.  

It's a mistake to say I want to handicap long range planes.  The long range planes are beneficiaries of this, relatively speaking.  The planes are going to be short, medium, or long ranged according to what trade-offs the designer made.  All I'm doing is redefining what short, medium, and long range is in the game.


Quote
Originally posted by Edbert
I agree with you completely there Batz (although I do still log 99% of my time in the MA), the fuel porking thing is WAAAAY outta hand. What does the burn rate matter if all bases within 3 sectors of your enemy are down to 25%? Even the Pony cannot up, fight, and hope to RTB with that crazyness. Some times the pork-potatos don;t seem to out in too much force, other times one must decide to switch countries or log off it is so bad.

Since this is the AH2 section lets figure out away to ameliorize this aspect of the gameplay. Are the fuel bunkers going to be hardened or anything? Any talk about limiting the porkability to 50% or so?


Quote
Originally posted by Pyro
Yeah, we are going to limit the amount of fuel porkage that can be inflicted on a base.  No DT's and 75% fuel will be the most that fuel supplies will be limited to.
Title: A discussion on troop porking
Post by: JTs on October 28, 2005, 01:51:42 PM
have all the little troopers run to thier own aaa guns and defend themselfs
Title: A discussion on troop porking
Post by: Blammo on October 28, 2005, 01:53:57 PM
Quote
Originally posted by SlapShot
They got their way when they whined & won about gas porking.

Another clueless one that feels the need to perpetuate that urban myth.

The fuel "porking" remedy was instituted due to the fact that when AH II was activated, HT and crew decided that the fuel burn multiplier needed to be upped to 2.0 ... with that, if fuel was allowed to be porked to 25%, that would have eliminated a vast amount of the plane set from being used (on a consistent basis).

It had nothing to do with anybody whining.


HIJACK ALERT

The how about we ask them to lower the fuel burn multiplier to 1.5 (or, heaven forbid, 1) and allow fuel to be porked back down.  Then maybe people will look to pork things other than the troops.  Right now, I rarely even bother to pork fuel because it makes very little, if any, difference.  Might as well remove the fuel dumps from the fields complete.

We now return control of this thread to the general populace
Title: A discussion on troop porking
Post by: x0847Marine on October 28, 2005, 01:59:32 PM
Quote
Originally posted by crowMAW
The best argument for the current system is as a hoard defense.  When 25-30 ponies and JugNs come in at 20k+ to a lightly defended base and take down the VH and all FHs, there is not much other way to slow the hoard down other than goon hunters and troop porkers.

If you want to make it more challenging for the hoard, then harden the hangers so that only bombers can take them out.  Plus increase both type of AA accuracy and make the AA guns harder to destroy.  That keeps vulchers away while allowing the attacked base to mount a viable defense.


Perhaps zones could have a 'commander' of sorts, based on rank?.. dunno, but said HMFIC could relocate resources / assets, even rearrange how particular bases are configured...ie placing troop tents off the base proper so 'porkers' would have to look, and look hard.

Moving troops should involve risk and time, of course, personally I think it'd be ok to go train / barge / convoy hunting for troop / supply transports. It's not unherd of for bases to be abandon with all assets moved or to relocate valuble assets at risk. At the first sign of an approaching 'horde', get the troops on a  convoy / barge / train and get em to safety... if said train get pwned, so be it.

How many grunts are going to just sit in their hooch knowing they are under attack?, at the very least they'd run like their sphincters were on fire and or burro into the Earth... but in this 'war' they sit, do nothing and wait to be slaughtered.

It's easy to eliminate assets when all bases are rubber stamped, assets are always in the same places, all the time with zero variation...  allow some changes to that 'game' aspect to, at the minimum, get some variety.
Title: A discussion on troop porking
Post by: SlapShot on October 28, 2005, 02:13:31 PM
Sorry ... Blammo ... not an attempt at high-jacking ... but rather to try and clue the clueless who feel the need to feed urban myths.

With that ... I forsee absolutly no change to the troop situation (or destroying thereof). Troops, or the lack thereof, has no bearing on limiting the ability of someone to get airtime/groundtime ... and that is what this game is all about. If you not in the air or on the ground doing something ... then AH is in trouble ... troops are inconsequential in that formula.
Title: A discussion on troop porking
Post by: mojo55 on October 28, 2005, 02:14:27 PM
1) You can't prevent barracks from being destroyed, even if a porker announced his/her intentions on ch. 200.
2) You can't kill the porker unless he hangs around to fight.
3) HT created this world in six days, and on the seventh day he said "let us pork" . Amen
Title: A discussion on troop porking
Post by: Blammo on October 28, 2005, 02:30:27 PM
Quote
Originally posted by SlapShot
Sorry ... Blammo ... not an attempt at high-jacking ... but rather to try and clue the clueless who feel the need to feed urban myths.


Sorry, Slap...I was not trying to imply you were hijacking, but rather that I was because I diverged away from the primary subject.
Title: A discussion on troop porking
Post by: Elyeh on October 28, 2005, 03:45:19 PM
If you want to make it more challenging for the hoard, then harden the hangers so that only bombers can take them out.  Plus increase both type of AA accuracy and make the AA guns harder to destroy.  That keeps vulchers away while allowing the attacked base to mount a viable defense.


I agree:aok
Title: A discussion on troop porking
Post by: Lye-El on October 28, 2005, 04:24:16 PM
Quote
Originally posted by x0847Marine
placing troop tents off the base proper so 'porkers' would have to look, and look hard.



Interesting, like a spawn off base. Some random area. Down side would be no manned anti aircraft...for what little time it lasts. If you did place a anti air platform with the troops somebody wouldn't turn tracers off and guide the enemy aircraft right to the troops.
Title: A discussion on troop porking
Post by: Gato on October 28, 2005, 05:40:09 PM
If this is a hijack, I'm sorry that is not my intention.  There seems to be two frames of mind in the game.  Furballer and tool shedder.  This is a combat war sim.  With that said, the object of war is to win.  You win if you take bases from the opponent.  The only real reason to furball in a war is to kill the enemy so they can not fight you.  This is not the case we have in AHII.  When you die, you just go back up again.  When a supply is down on a base, a resupply is needed.  That happens by standard means and by individuals. (I happen to be one of them)  Porking factories slows this process down.

I agree, the setup now makes it too easy to kill the troops on any given base.  The idea of moving the troops would create more problems than it is worth.  I understand why all the bases are laid out the same, PROGRAMMING, but that is the problem.  IF the bases had a variation to the placement of troops, ords., etc, it would make finding them a bit more of a challenge and more interesting too.  Also, if there were AA next to the troops it would make it even more of a challenge.  Cannon fire is an effective tool and should be enough!  But a variation to the palcement and number per base is what is needed.  Even to the point of having some placed off the base proper, close to the town.

I keep hearing "This is a game, not real life".  If that is what you really feel and think, then don't complain about the planes not meeting specs!

I like to win, though my score doesn't show me to be a great pilot.  There are many times I will spend hours running resupply to bases.  I'm not saying this is my favorite thing to do, but without supplies.....

As for needing more than one goon to take a base, why not have them run in formation?  With 10 in each plane and needing 15 to take the base.

This is all IMHO!
Title: A discussion on troop porking
Post by: fuzeman on October 28, 2005, 06:00:26 PM
How about a score catagory , lets say PRK, that activates when the last thing you killed before getting killed was a Barracks.
If your PRK score gets to 3 the only rides available to you will be the M-3 or the C-47






{ or how about I stop posting  :D   }
Title: A discussion on troop porking
Post by: SlapShot on October 28, 2005, 06:23:31 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Gato
If this is a hijack, I'm sorry that is not my intention.  There seems to be two frames of mind in the game.  Furballer and tool shedder.  This is a combat war sim.  With that said, the object of war is to win.  You win if you take bases from the opponent.  The only real reason to furball in a war is to kill the enemy so they can not fight you.  This is not the case we have in AHII.  When you die, you just go back up again.  When a supply is down on a base, a resupply is needed.  That happens by standard means and by individuals. (I happen to be one of them)  Porking factories slows this process down.

I agree, the setup now makes it too easy to kill the troops on any given base.  The idea of moving the troops would create more problems than it is worth.  I understand why all the bases are laid out the same, PROGRAMMING, but that is the problem.  IF the bases had a variation to the placement of troops, ords., etc, it would make finding them a bit more of a challenge and more interesting too.  Also, if there were AA next to the troops it would make it even more of a challenge.  Cannon fire is an effective tool and should be enough!  But a variation to the palcement and number per base is what is needed.  Even to the point of having some placed off the base proper, close to the town.

I keep hearing "This is a game, not real life".  If that is what you really feel and think, then don't complain about the planes not meeting specs!

I like to win, though my score doesn't show me to be a great pilot.  There are many times I will spend hours running resupply to bases.  I'm not saying this is my favorite thing to do, but without supplies.....

As for needing more than one goon to take a base, why not have them run in formation?  With 10 in each plane and needing 15 to take the base.

This is all IMHO!


Here is what HT's take is ... I will bold the important parts so you won't miss them ...

Quote
Originally posted by hitech
Working together is not penalized. We are not trying to implement a system where consentrating your forces is hampered.

But it realy is a basic game concepts that all sides have the same number of players. If you don't belive that concept, please sight one case where a game is not designed with that in mind. And please do not tell me AH is war, because it is not, it is a War game. And games are ment to be fun and fair. While war is not ment to be either fair or fun.

With equal sides, doing what it takes to win , is what game play is. In AH there are multiple levels of winning, makeing a capture,just shooting down more people than shot you down, ending the war. All are items of game play in AH.

Having more on your team gives your side an unfair advantage to all other sides. All items of game play are effected by that imbalance. And there realy is nothing that the sides with less numbers can do about it. They can not swith countries to even the numbers, if they move to the country with more numbers it just makes everything worse. They could make a treaty, but that only works in a defensive mode.

Equal sides is such a basic consept that over the life of AH the sides have maintained a fairly equal number, the resone is realy simple, people have more fun when the sides are equal.

So now the question becomes not IF the sides should be equal,
but how to accomplish that equality with least impact to the social apspect of the game.


HiTech


... with that ... winning the WAR is not his only objective in creating and maintaining the game.
Title: A discussion on troop porking
Post by: MadSquirrel on October 28, 2005, 06:27:45 PM
You can park or put all that ack you want next to the Troops and one Bf110 or La-7 will kill them every time.  You see a con inbound to pork.  Some say, well up and shoot them down.  Go ahead and try to catch an La-7 coming in from 15K at 500+ knots.  Ain't happening.  Not till he is extending after killing your ability to capture.

I have often seen an organized assault on a base run up against an well-organized defense.  Then one lone porker will fly out and pork troops two sectors back in one pass.  See it happening all the time.  I fly out and take out troops too.  It is a very sound tactic.  However I feel it is wrong to be able to do it.

One solution is to do the same thing to the troops that they did to the fuel.  Normally you have 10 troops available.  If they get porked, make the number available 5 so it will take two loads to capture, or even 4 so it will take 3 loads.  Even in the BKs "Real War" after a base is attacked not every living thing is killed.  Troops are still there.  Just not as many.  Fuel is never completely destroyed, troops and supplies shouldn't be either.


LTARsqrl     :aok
Title: Umm No
Post by: PK1Mw on October 28, 2005, 06:29:20 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Baine
To kick off the discussion, I will offer this suggestion:
Why not make it harder, to pork troops, but also make it more difficult to capture bases?
My suggestion: Make porking troops as difficult as shutting down fighters or bombers, but require two planeloads of troops to capture a field.
That will relieve the frustration factor, plus add to one of the fun factors of the game _ trying to sneak a goon into a heavily defended field.
It would seem to me that this would a) make the game less annoying while b) also adding to the things that both attackers and defenders enjoy (capturing bases and shooting down poor, unarmed goons).
my two cents


We are spending waaaaaaaaay too much time on maps as it is. What you are asking would make it even longer. So lets just leave it the way it is huh? :)
Title: A discussion on troop porking
Post by: icemaw on October 28, 2005, 06:52:05 PM
Every notice how just about any gameplay thread turns into a furball vrs strat vrs buff vrs etc thread hijacked by the same people over and over again Blah bu blah bu blah bu blah.

One sticks their head in sniffs the air then more show up  the next thing you know its Blah bu blah bu blah bu blah.
Title: A discussion on troop porking
Post by: Flit on October 28, 2005, 06:56:54 PM
Of course, HT could always lower the time that troops are down.I think that they are currently down for 40/45 min(if I'm wrong, someone please correct me).
 Maybe back that up to 20 or 30 min and see how it works out.
Title: A discussion on troop porking
Post by: rod367th on October 28, 2005, 07:55:51 PM
I believe he has point. Just like HTC changed VH bases to be 3 vh's instead of 1.   Troops should be atleast 3k  each to destory. should be harder to kill troops than it is to kill lone hanger. towns were increased in size and made harder to tell if down.  But troops are easier to kill at a big airfield   than they are at a vh bases. If troops not harden  then install man acks at troops or 5 inch man aa gunns near troops. This way lone 190 coming in to pork troops a guy can hop in gunn  defend troops. Now 190 comes noe pops as base flashes kills troops before plane s get off tunway................



  My 25 cents........................ .......
Title: A discussion on troop porking
Post by: WMLute on October 28, 2005, 08:03:21 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Baine
I do have a problem with one plane being able to do it at multiple bases.


what about one player being able to take 20-30min and resupply those same bases.

better make the resuplly harder while we are at it.
Title: A discussion on troop porking
Post by: Gato on October 28, 2005, 08:34:52 PM
Slapshot, I think you missed the point I was making.  As always, some people think taking a sentence or two out of an entire thought will stand alone.  If you only looked at the Bold " ", then it all ties together nice.  But that was not the point.  If you would have included the previous sentences on both our statements, they support each other.  But good try anyway.

I agree to the thought that even if troops are porked, there would still be troops on the base.  If there weren't, the "unmanned" ack would not work either.  So let it take more trips in a goon/M3 to take a base.  Or like I said before, have the C47's fly in formation.  There is still the chance they will get shot down.

Lute, if you look at one plane porking troop vis the time to resupply those same bases, it takes a lot longer.  I know I have worked for 6 hours doing nothing but resupply on 3 bases.  Every time I could get them back up, someone would pork them and run off to another base.:O
Title: A discussion on troop porking
Post by: DREDIOCK on October 28, 2005, 09:09:13 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Gato
I agree to the thought that even if troops are porked, there would still be troops on the base.  If there weren't, the "unmanned" ack would not work either.  So let it take more trips in a goon/M3 to take a base.  


Yes but those troops are for feild defence. Not offencive actions as well as for general feild operations. repair and Maintaiing of aircraft loading ordinance cleaning the latrines etc.
In order to conduct offencive operations you need troops for both feild defence and general operations AND a surplus to use for offence.

I am against anything that will benifit the hordewarriors be they my country or anyone elses. And making troops harder to destroy does exactly that.

Even destroying Barracks doesnt always worked because I've personally witnessed  on more then one occasion, people dedicated enough to fly in goons (often several at a time) from 2-3 bases back during a hordefest.

Though Im not in love with the idea
I could buy into the "more goons/m3s needed" idea if they doubled with each barracks that was down.
Kill one barracks you need two goons/m3s Kill two barracks you need 4.

A better solution might be IMO to leave it as it is now but  be able to choose what kind of resupply you bring in to a feild instead of just "Feild supplies"

Make the choices be say
Feild supplies - Supplies a little bit of everything as it does now.
the individual supplies

Building material -rebuilds things like VH FH's BH's Tower & makes them come up faster

Ammo - Resupplies ammo & feild ack (Say 1 feild ack per M3)

Fuel - Fuel

Troops- Troops

Have it so when delivering "Feild Suplies" everything re-up as the same rate it currently does with resupply

But when you resupply with specific supplies it should increase the speed at which things re-up 25% faster per M3/Goon then with just "Feild Supplies"

As it stands now. Few people bother to do supply runs because unless you have a chitload of people doing it with you  it takes too many trips and takes too long  to bring anything back up to be worthwhile.

With the way  I am suggesting above 1 or two people can resupply whats needed at the moment on relitively short order.

also might not be a bad idea to increase the perks awarded for resupply so as to sweeten the pot a bit
Title: A discussion on troop porking
Post by: jaxxo on October 28, 2005, 10:02:37 PM
Look, how about you just....

Defend your fields!
 


Whos gonna be interested enuff to stop one fast plane from porking 4 or 5 fields of troops? If 5 guys happened to see a base flashing grabbed 10k and tried to kill him they most likely would fail from him killing at least two set of barracks..heck i remember being bored and seing how many troops i could pork in one sorty with a 262..think i got 5 fields solo in less than 20 minutes. (bks's sent me invite shortly thereafter) i think the reason they are so easy is it's one of the few way to stop the horde initially. As irony would have it the only way to slow the horde is to offer heavy vulchbait to keep the sissy's bsy long enuff for some defenders to arrive from a field 50 miles away where ftrs are still up.
Title: A discussion on troop porking
Post by: DREDIOCK on October 28, 2005, 10:35:06 PM
Quote
Originally posted by jaxxo
Look, how about you just....

Defend your fields!
 


so long as they insist on defending their feilds AT their feilds they will never be able to stop an incomming porker.
You gotta get away from your feild and stop them enroute before they reach the feild.

I manage to do it. One can make a pretty good living at it too.

When on a base porking run myself I sometimes get stopped before I can reach the target feild by people looking for people comming in.

It can be done.
Just people are too lazy to do it.
Title: A discussion on troop porking
Post by: Baine on October 28, 2005, 10:48:41 PM
Defending a field against a single suicidal porker under the current system is damn near impossible. It's just too easy to take out troops in a single pass.

I like the idea of troop porking increasing the number of goon runs you must make to capture a base. It's a way of maybe slowing down the horde but not giving one or two suicidal defenders a total, overwhelming club they can easily employ to shutdown a whole offensive.
It also puts some of the responsibility back on the defenders, since while the offensive people should be responsible for defending their bases to prevent porking, the defensive players should also have to defend their bases  - in other words run the gauntlet of fighters to hunt goons - to prevent capture. I can't see why defenders should get a total pass on close field defense merely by crying "horde."
 
The point of AH afterall is to capture enemy fields. I can see where you would not want to make it too easy for a horde to steamroll an entire map, but the current setup is to heavily weighed in the opposite direction, where a small number of players can have an inordinate impact on events. It's time to restore some balance. Maybe that will lead to a letup in map stagnation.

I also like the idea of selectable field supplies, since it does give more incentive to resupply a field. If you want to capture bases you resupply troops, if you want to bomb bases you resupply ordinance, if you want to play in the mud, you resupply vehicles. Then you can enjoy the direct results of your taking the time to make a goon run.
Title: A discussion on troop porking
Post by: DREDIOCK on October 28, 2005, 11:06:11 PM
Something else I would be for is if you capture a feild Troops are automatically down and have to be resupplied.
wouldnt mind seeing hotpadding goons done away with either.

What are you suppoesd to be doing? Using the enemies troops to capture and man the next feild you take?
Title: A discussion on troop porking
Post by: Ratnick on October 28, 2005, 11:13:05 PM
(when have you ever seen a troop porker make good his escape?)Yes I escape alot - I also go back and take out dar and acks. Goes back to what Morph said - it's a game not reality. Why does it take just 10 troops to capture a field? Why should I have to blow up a town to take a field? What did the people in the church do that I have to blow them up (unless that's where they hide the really good sheep)? Why aren't the town acks manned? Has there been a real problem capturing bases lately? It seems to me that if there's a demonsterable problem with gameplay that is affecting the community there are variables that can and would be adjusted. I just haven't seen a lack of base captures. My 2 bits - someone kick me now.
Title: A discussion on troop porking
Post by: MOIL on October 28, 2005, 11:48:30 PM
"Plus increase both type of AA accuracy and make the AA guns harder to destroy. That keeps vulchers away while allowing the attacked base to mount a viable defense"
I've been saying this since day one. People love to argue the whole "realistic" side of this game and how these planes didn't do this or that. How certain planes fly better, blah,blah,blah:rolleyes:

Point is in WW2 more A/C were downed by AA fire than another fighter!!

In WW2 if an attacking enemy fighter were to dive in on or strafe strat type targets, he was 9 times outta 10 met with heavy AA fire, not a couple of inaccurate "unmanned" computer driven ack guns.
Don't believe me, look it up on the intardnet:aok

Have a nice day
Title: A discussion on troop porking
Post by: ROC on October 29, 2005, 12:15:04 AM
My whole point revolves around the simple concept of players playing the game.

The maps are setup, and the strats setup, so that if the players work as a team, both offense and defense have a shot at making headway.

The side that will not cooperate will suffer.

There is no way that you can model a more "fair" system as there will always be one element that want's their responsibility to be easier.

Work as a team, defend or don't, but if you don't then bases will be overrun.

If the system was flawed, the maps would never rotate as the war would not be won by anyone.

I personally don't feel that HTs resources need be spent trying to figure out every possible weakness or flaw in the playability of  this game.  The map are in place, the resources are available, and it is up to the Players to Play it to their limits.

For every person that want's the porkage easier, there will be a defender that wants it harder.  This will never change.  At some point you just take what is there, and learn it, and deal with it.  I would prefer that HT spends it's collective resources on completing TOD, inserting more planes, and more maps, then to constantly invest time trying to make a simple concept fair for everyones concern.  It cannot happen.  Every single person has their own unique view on what would be the "best" way.  The simplest way is to accept the reality of the current situation and do the best you can do.  There are lessons here that go far beyond a simple game.

Work together, any thing less is just lip service.
Title: A discussion on troop porking
Post by: FiLtH on October 29, 2005, 12:43:15 AM
Kiss me you fool!!  :p

   Good post ROC
Title: A discussion on troop porking
Post by: MadSquirrel on October 29, 2005, 03:50:26 PM
ROC, I am afraid that with that type of thinking, we would have only one plane to fly on a 2D grid.  Progressive ideas make for a better game.  If players see something that they think would make game play more fun, by all means bring it up.

The community felt a need to correct the Fuel issue and HT was nice enough to make the change.  A lot of players feel that the simplicity of the Troop/Supply aspect of the game needs attention.  I hope HT sees enough good input here to make a change.  If so, the game gets better.

LTARsqrl    
:aok
Title: A discussion on troop porking
Post by: Flayed1 on October 30, 2005, 04:09:31 AM
Ok it's late 4:00 AM   here so I didn't bother with reading the entire post.
   I do think troops are a bit to easy to kill but if troops were made harder to kill at least make fuel killable down to 50%.  The way it is now fuel means nothing and this I find is stupid.   At 50% fuel alot of fighters could still up and defend bases and some could even attack on 1/2 tank of gas.
   
     In short don't worry about troops unitill you fix the fuel so it would mean something to kill it.
Title: A discussion on troop porking
Post by: rshubert on October 30, 2005, 08:21:34 AM
Quote
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
so long as they insist on defending their feilds AT their feilds they will never be able to stop an incomming porker.
You gotta get away from your feild and stop them enroute before they reach the feild.

Just people are too lazy to do it.



DINGDINGDINGDINGDING!!! We have a winner!  You are SO RIGHT, dred.  How right you are.  You are right.  You are da man.

But you knew that, 'cause how can you be da man and not know it?  Makes no sense.

I have been saying that for three years.  You cannot successfully defend a base from a position directly over said base.  You must defend your base from somewhere close to the ENEMY base.  Some guys know that, and play it that way, and are very good at frustrating my (horde's) efforts to take their bases.  Other guys fly in and out of the ack at their base, a good way to get me killed, eventually, but a bad way to keep me from dropping ordnance on their stuff.

And, parenthetically, this is why furballers make terrible defenders.  They are flying around in circles at a point between the bases, sure, but they are usually at low altitude, and the attackers have climbed to medium alt for their attack runs.  If you are not in position to intercept the incoming heavies, it doesn't matter how many light fighters you kill--your base is still destroyed.  Admittedly, those times when a furballer is at medium altitude, they eat the attackers alive, partly because of their 133t fit3r skil2, mostly because of the performance advantage of a light fighter vs. a heavy fighter.
Title: A discussion on troop porking
Post by: Snork on October 30, 2005, 09:58:25 AM
Two changes would even things out. Reduce the down time to 20 minutes and put at least two encampments at each field, something like the v bases have now. Porking could still be done but it would take a lot more effort and it wouldn't last forever.
Title: A discussion on troop porking
Post by: ROC on October 30, 2005, 10:38:12 AM
Squirrel, I see you point clearly, thanks for proving mine :)

You said HT Kindly fixed the fuel.

Flayed one says fix the fuel before worrying about the Troops :huh

I thought it was fixed?

Half the guys or better in here say it's fine the way it is.

Your point on flying 1 plane in 2d is exactly what happens when games are built on committee modes such as this.  Everyone has a say, we all keep milling about and going back to work on the same thing from someone elses opinion.

Troops change because a handfull don't like it, but Most are silent on it.  Then those that were silent think the New way bites, so call for a change, can't go back to what it was or the original complaints will return, so come up with something new, now both are mad because the original complaint that was addressed is now messed up, how it was is now messed up, and a compromise didn't please anyone.

It's no wonder we made it to DX3 requirements at all.

Personally, I'd rather HT refined more maps and planes.  We have a backlog of events waiting for new product, TOD being invested in, and see no point what so ever in going backwards to "solve" an issue that isn't affecting the ability to play the game at a major level.  It doesn't seem to be a "problem" as much as an inconvenience to one specific style of play.  

I honestly joined this fray simply because I couldn't believe anyone was posting serious thoughts that this could be remotely considered a major issue.  It's too easy to overcome without a code revision.

But I thank you for helping prove my point :aok
Title: A discussion on troop porking
Post by: SlapShot on October 30, 2005, 11:39:56 AM
Admittedly, those times when a furballer is at medium altitude, they eat the attackers alive, partly because of their 133t fit3r skil2, mostly because of the performance advantage of a light fighter vs. a heavy fighter.

:rofl
Title: A discussion on troop porking
Post by: ColKLink on October 30, 2005, 11:55:20 AM
ratnick, my sheep have been kicked out of church, for telling on the preacher. I would never hide them in a church.:p
Title: A discussion on troop porking
Post by: rod367th on October 30, 2005, 12:00:02 PM
Quote
Originally posted by rshubert
DINGDINGDINGDINGDING!!! We have a winner!  You are SO RIGHT, dred.  How right you are.  You are right.  You are da man.

But you knew that, 'cause how can you be da man and not know it?  Makes no sense.

I have been saying that for three years.  You cannot successfully defend a base from a position directly over said base.  You must defend your base from somewhere close to the ENEMY base.  Some guys know that, and play it that way, and are very good at frustrating my (horde's) efforts to take their bases.  Other guys fly in and out of the ack at their base, a good way to get me killed, eventually, but a bad way to keep me from dropping ordnance on their stuff.

And, parenthetically, this is why furballers make terrible defenders.  They are flying around in circles at a point between the bases, sure, but they are usually at low altitude, and the attackers have climbed to medium alt for their attack runs.  If you are not in position to intercept the incoming heavies, it doesn't matter how many light fighters you kill--your base is still destroyed.  Admittedly, those times when a furballer is at medium altitude, they eat the attackers alive, partly because of their 133t fit3r skil2, mostly because of the performance advantage of a light fighter vs. a heavy fighter.





LOL  noe 190d or la7 has no problem getting to pork fields, unless you go with no NOE  you don't know cons loc or direction   so to say go hunt pokers first your folling yourselfs a 234 can pork troops and unless your going to sit over base not uunder attack and wait for pokers . you'll never stop porking untill troops harder to kill than hangers.
Title: A discussion on troop porking
Post by: IownU on October 31, 2005, 11:21:56 AM
omg i can not belive this post got to two pages troops are fine the way they are you need to defend them, i remember about a month ago LTAR was attackin a base and we saw that the knits were going to pork our base so we took the town down and went back to the base upped some fighters and alot of ostis, the ostis parked around the barracks and not one knit got close to the troops so we took their base from them. you have to defend your troops. and two goons all three countrys have problems gettin one goon in there let alone two would never happen. you know what would be nice to see is Hitec put on the front page of this web site what squad took the most bases for a TOD now that would be nice:aok :O
Title: A discussion on troop porking
Post by: AKDogg on October 31, 2005, 11:30:13 AM
The rearm pads should also only rearm the plane with what is available at that field.  So if troops down, goons can't rearm with troops, only fuel.  Fighters can't rearm bombs if ords down.  If fuel only 75%, then u get only 75% fuel with empty drops if U had drop tanks.
Title: A discussion on troop porking
Post by: gofaster on October 31, 2005, 01:11:56 PM
Add 20mm mannable guns at the town and 5" mannable flak guns at the airfield.

That should help on defense.
Title: A discussion on troop porking
Post by: Gato on October 31, 2005, 02:07:07 PM
I understand the concern about troops and the setup we have now.  I also understand the limited resources HTC has.  But if you look at any war game or any game at all, you can see room for improvement.  If that were not so, then the games would all be the same.:furious :furious

Kilz, sorry to say, but not everyone is as good or as able to mount a defense/attack as the LTAR’s are.  You guys are one of a kind.  :aok   As for your idea of listing what squad took the most bases, I  don't think that will work.  There are too many times when a joint effort of several squads take a base.  And on that note, why is it that only the ONE person who gets the troops on a base gets credit for it and not everyone who worked on it?

As for ack, why not have all the ack set up so that they can be manned.  If it is not manned, then let it be auto.  That would help out not only at the base, but towns, factories and HQ also.

Everyone knows people have their own specialty areas they like to work.  With more manned ack, the gunners would have more places they could play the game they want.  Of course, then there would need to be a perk point for them.

As it stands now, strat is too easy to kill because it is too standard.  Every base is set so you know where everything is, every time.  If it was mixed up from base to base on placement and number, then it would add more spice and make it harder to pork and even defend.

I have never understood how taking a town would take a base.  Also, if troops are left up on a base, how you could take it.  It seems that if there are still troops on a base, they would be defending it.  Also, if troops are left up at a base, how can you use them to move on another base?  Are all troops’ just mercenaries going to who ever has control of the base?  It seems to me that when you take a base, you would have to resupply new troops.

Furballer don't defend, they furball.  Tool shedders... on and on!  And why is there not a rearm pad for Gv's on the V bases?

IMHO
Title: A discussion on troop porking
Post by: IownU on November 01, 2005, 12:31:18 AM
:O OMG TY rearm pad for gvs a v base does no one think they didnt rearm gvs at a v base my god i been complaining about that one for some time
 :aok