Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: 64kills on October 24, 2007, 05:51:07 PM
-
I think we need to have more attack qualitys.
For example:we only have ack at our base, in ww2 bases had howitzers troops and all that fancy stuff to attack with.
So, would it be in order to make mannable artillery at bases,I mean i know we have the planes and bombers but we have no other way besides makingyour way to the base in a tiger.
-
theres a mobile artillery unit..
:D had to say that.
-
Oh,and what are we going to do with 20 LVTA4s?
Never mind,i see your point but you have to travel all that way just to not hit anything.
-
Originally posted by 64kills
I think we need to have more attack qualitys.
For example:we only have ack at our base, in ww2 bases had howitzers troops and all that fancy stuff to attack with.
So, would it be in order to make mannable artillery at bases,I mean i know we have the planes and bombers but we have no other way besides makingyour way to the base in a tiger.
I've been a WW2 buff for about 35 years. I've yet to see large numbers of
tanks, troops or artillery based permanently at an airbase. A couple of
times you could see large numbers of troops boarding transports, but I
cannot recall a single major ground assault based from a friendly airfield.
The reason for this being that the fields were rarely placed in the frontlines.
They might see large numbers of tanks there, as the bad guys overran the
field though :aok
-
I just wouldnt mind a bit more variety in mannable acks such as 88s (if i dare, the 125mms would be a beaut ;) ) able to use quad 20mms and another AA GV like the wirblewind would be nice other then that i think ringo put the nail on the spot for this topic.
-
Originally posted by Rino
I've been a WW2 buff for about 35 years. I've yet to see large numbers of
tanks, troops or artillery based permanently at an airbase. A couple of
times you could see large numbers of troops boarding transports, but I
cannot recall a single major ground assault based from a friendly airfield.
The reason for this being that the fields were rarely placed in the frontlines.
They might see large numbers of tanks there, as the bad guys overran the
field though :aok
Could not agree more............. I would prefer to see
1) delete the supply function from barrack objects (troops only)
2) put many more barrack objects on Gv fields and ports.
3) reduce the number of barrack objects on airfields
4) link gv fields and Ports to towns (placing them immediately adjacent to their town)
5) move towns linked to air fields further apart.
6) put the map room back on the air field (how about in the tower?)
7) create gv spawns to towns only (like roads) not directly to fields.
8) give ports more vehicle hangers. (should be like gv fields with harbours)
9) gv spawns from airfields one on base and one to defend the town. (no attacking gv spawns from air fields)
10) make multiple invasion routes along the roads created in (7) above.
The above is really just map design with no changes in code or core architecture however I would then speed up rebuild rates but add a mechanism that made base rebuild (gv, port or ac) totally reliant on the town's health and then enable capture when 75%/80% of the town was destroyed.
Add a 5" artilary piece that can be towed behind an M3 and deployed.
IMO this creates landgrab on a much more WWII based model. i.e. aircraft in a critical support role of the land based aquisition/neutralisation of key towns along major routes.
Plus the emphasis moves away from supressing an airfield but toward supressing towns. The town becomes the focus of GV battles and air fields are only capturable when the general area has already been over run and the field has run out of logistic viability.
-
I would also like to see destroyers or criusers than a player could man and operate by himself and ask someone to join him like in buffs and gvs.http://www.thesmilies.com][img]http://www.thesmilies.com/smilie-generator/image/cyan%5E_%5Earial%5E_%5E0%5E_%5E0%5E_%5E5%5C%22+twins%21%5E_%5E.gif[/img
-
Originally posted by 64kills
http://www.thesmilies.com][img]http://www.thesmilies.com/smilie-generator/image/cyan%5E_%5Earial%5E_%5E0%5E_%5E0%5E_%5E5%5C%22+twins%21%5E_%5E.gif[/img
WTF was that?
-
:confused:
-
Just testing something and i didn't do it right.