Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: nimble on October 26, 2009, 08:24:41 PM
-
It is one of my wishes that the map room be moved onto the airfield while still requiring the town to be down or something similar.
-
why?
-
1) late night base rollers having to put more effort into taking a base
2) more coordination required to take a base
3) needing to actually shut down base hangars rather than just getting a fully loaded base from scratch
4) overall more complexity to base taking :)
-
and no more laughing at the noobs who drop troops over the field hahaha :aok :rofl
-
I like it the way it is.
-
and no more laughing at the noobs who drop troops over the field hahaha :aok :rofl
lol that is soooo something I remember doing
-
You already have auto ack and plenty of buildings to destroy at the town. Leave the maproom where it is. Its pointless to have maproom at base if you have to destroy town as well.
-
Maybe you could put it next to the newly destructible rearm pad! lol :rofl
-
Maybe you could put it next to the newly destructible rearm pad! lol :rofl
haha
-
You already have auto ack and plenty of buildings to destroy at the town. Leave the maproom where it is. Its pointless to have maproom at base if you have to destroy town as well.
just as pointless to have a maproom in town when you don't have to destroy the base right next to it :)
just thinkin of ways to up the complexity a little
-
we can either destroy the base or destroy the town and maproom should be on whichever needs to be destroyed. destroying both will require a horde that only the bishops can muster :lol ok that was a joke.
semp
-
just as pointless to have a maproom in town when you don't have to destroy the base right next to it :)
just thinkin of ways to up the complexity a little
Good point. Thats debatable though. At least you have that option to drop hangars and pork the base if things get hairy. :aok
-
In AH1 there was a map in the map room that was accessed instead of the clipboard map when moving from field to field and planning missions. Now it is merely a field ownership/ capture object
If you look at the "map room" object it can be any thing given "map room" properties.
When a field has a map room then
Enemy troops run toward it
Enemy troops damage it (when all the town objects are destroyed)
If enough damage is done to destroy it then enemy troops capture it (and the field)
re airfields.
Seems to me that in order to capture an air field then troops would normally take control or destroy its hangers, its barracks (defending troops) and its control tower.
Hence if there was only one maproom then it would be placed in the control tower.
re Towns
Towns were key targets for lad based armies. They controlled logistics and movement of vehicles and troops.
They were stepping stones in the land based war yet AH use them associated with airfields and not with gv fields.
For me an associated town should be a piece of local but vital strat
When it is destroyed the base receives no logistics/rebuild activity from the strat system.(at all)
GV fields would be positioned immediately adjacent to their towns (as was the case)
Air fields would be positioned a little remotely from their towns (about the same distance as typically found now on most maps)
But how about multiple ownership/capture objects.
Supposing AH could endow any object with additional field ownership/capture parameters?
Imagine a small field with 6 hangers, 2 barracks, 2 ammo dumps and a control tower that would each require # of troopers for capture (maybe only 2!).
Each AH object gets a number now in the terrain editor so troops always capture in the same order ie maybe barracks 1st (barracks 1 to 2 in order
driven by the object number and its status (destroyed/not destroyed) then onto ammo 1 to 2 then hangers 1 to 6)
If an object is captured then it is removed from use unless the capture window times out.
If an object is destroyed then it does not need to be captured unless it rebuilds before all other ownership/capture objects are destroyed/captured appropriately
To take a field
Destroy its barracks or capture its barracks or a mix of both.
Destroy its ammo or capture its ammo or a mix of both.
Destroy its hangers or capture its hangers or a mix of both.
Capture its Control Tower
To weaken a field prior to capture
Destroy the town objects.
-
I do not see the need to relocate it. :confused:
-
It really sounds like this is a request to allow very few, if not just 1, defender to prevent a base capture without the hangars also needing to be destroyed or enough vulchers present to kill anybody upping.
Here's the problem I have with that..
Whereas it's practically a requirement that town - based captures be a team effort ( not easy for one person to destroy town and capture it, is it? ) the defense of such should be a team effort also.
If your country cannot field enough defenders to stop an attack, then it deserves to lose.
Several changes have been made over the years to prevent a single person from easily impacting throngs of others. For instance, Fuel porking, where a lone Dora was able to reduce max fuel load out to 25% at a base, or destruction of troops by a single fighter... Yes, it probably still can be done if the porker is not devoured by the beefed up ack.. but nowhere as easy as it used to be.
-
From a realistic perspective, why would the ownership of a small room in a town a few miles from the base have any effect on the base itself anyway? :headscratch:
-
just thinkin of ways to up the complexity a little
I still think they need to change the size of the towns according to the size of the field.
Small field = what we have now
Med. field = 10-15 more buildings and another ack or 2.
Large field = 20-30 more buildings and 3-4 more ack.
You could STILL take a large field with 3 tanks/whirbles/ostis and an m3 so the milk runners can't whine too much.
It would please the 'bomber' types as well 'cause now they have 3 diff. town setups to egg and more targets to lob bombs at.
The 'strategy' types would like it because they would have to plan differently according to the field size.
It would appease the 'anti-hoard' types as it will slow down the swarm of nme from just jumping from base to base. (would also make NOE missions easier to defend against because it takes longer, and requires a bit more effort, to get that med/large field)
I think that is the best and most viable idea I have seen in a long time re: field captures. It makes the medium/large airfields more valuable as they would require more effort and diff. tactics to capture them.
-
I still think they need to change the size of the towns according to the size of the field.
Small field = what we have now
Med. field = 10-15 more buildings and another ack or 2.
Large field = 20-30 more buildings and 3-4 more ack.
You could STILL take a large field with 3 tanks/whirbles/ostis and an m3 so the milk runners can't whine too much.
It would please the 'bomber' types as well 'cause now they have 3 diff. town setups to egg and more targets to lob bombs at.
The 'strategy' types would like it because they would have to plan differently according to the field size.
It would appease the 'anti-hoard' types as it will slow down the swarm of nme from just jumping from base to base. (would also make NOE missions easier to defend against because it takes longer, and requires a bit more effort, to get that med/large field)
I think that is the best and most viable idea I have seen in a long time re: field captures. It makes the medium/large airfields more valuable as they would require more effort and diff. tactics to capture them.
+1 :aok
-
HiTech is planning on changing the strat system. What the changes are? How will they affect the strategy and tactics? Only he knows and not telling.
Maybe the capture element will be chaged to coincide with the new strat system.
-
and no more laughing at the noobs who drop troops over the field hahaha :aok :rofl
No but then we could all laugh at the noobs dropping them over the town!! :banana:
-
I still think they need to change the size of the towns according to the size of the field.
Small field = what we have now
Med. field = 10-15 more buildings and another ack or 2.
Large field = 20-30 more buildings and 3-4 more ack.
You could STILL take a large field with 3 tanks/whirbles/ostis and an m3 so the milk runners can't whine too much.
It would please the 'bomber' types as well 'cause now they have 3 diff. town setups to egg and more targets to lob bombs at.
The 'strategy' types would like it because they would have to plan differently according to the field size.
It would appease the 'anti-hoard' types as it will slow down the swarm of nme from just jumping from base to base. (would also make NOE missions easier to defend against because it takes longer, and requires a bit more effort, to get that med/large field)
I think that is the best and most viable idea I have seen in a long time re: field captures. It makes the medium/large airfields more valuable as they would require more effort and diff. tactics to capture them.
yea, this is an excellent post. If only I wasn't so lazy typing on my iPhone. Thanks for filling in what I left out of my wish!
-
I still think they need to change the size of the towns according to the size of the field.
Small field = what we have now
Med. field = 10-15 more buildings and another ack or 2.
Large field = 20-30 more buildings and 3-4 more ack.
You could STILL take a large field with 3 tanks/whirbles/ostis and an m3 so the milk runners can't whine too much.
It would please the 'bomber' types as well 'cause now they have 3 diff. town setups to egg and more targets to lob bombs at.
The 'strategy' types would like it because they would have to plan differently according to the field size.
It would appease the 'anti-hoard' types as it will slow down the swarm of nme from just jumping from base to base. (would also make NOE missions easier to defend against because it takes longer, and requires a bit more effort, to get that med/large field)
I think that is the best and most viable idea I have seen in a long time re: field captures. It makes the medium/large airfields more valuable as they would require more effort and diff. tactics to capture them.
+1
As far as the orignal post I don't think so, why not just hide it so nobody can take the base :headscratch: :D
-
+1
As far as the orignal post I don't think so, why not just hide it so nobody can take the base :headscratch: :D
It wasn't about hiding it so bases can't be taken. It was more about having to deal with the actual base to take rather than town.
-
Check this post out has a different slant on it.
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,275967.0.html
-
Check this post out has a different slant on it.
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,275967.0.html
that's a good wish as well :)
-
Bases need to be made easier to capture not harder.
Lute's idea is interesting, well thought through and worth more than just a second look.
-
I'm all for making it more difficult for a few sneaky fellas to take a base. I like the idea of the "map room" being within the confines of the base. I never did understand why it is in the middle of a residential area. A strategically important place like the HQ bunker would/should be within the defensive compound such as a military base.
Taking a base should very much be a team effort.
-
(http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f100/brayidur/facepalm_2.jpg)
-
Check this post out has a different slant on it.
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,275967.0.html
The exact thread where that idea was created. (and I am not the originator of it)
As I said I think that is one of the best ideas I have seen in a long time and I hope HTC considers it.
My fear, after seeing that development thread, is that HTC will go a tad "overboard" with town size.
-
From a realistic perspective, why would the ownership of a small room in a town a few miles from the base have any effect on the base itself anyway? :headscratch:
From a realistic perspective, why would one want to own a completly destroyed, bombed out airfield that it would cost more to repair than good it would do? :headscratch:
-
HiTech is planning on changing the strat system. What the changes are? How will they affect the strategy and tactics? Only he knows and not telling.
Maybe the capture element will be chaged to coincide with the new strat system.
Just as a note, "strat system" refers to the resupply system in place involving factories, cities, HQs, trains, convoys, and barges. They don't have anything to do with a town and its capture system unless you stretch far enough to count that porking the AA factory changes the town guns' downtime.
-
i think it's fine the way it is. its a lot of work as it is when you have to cap an airfield and take town down and take it. and then you have the v-base that is probably the easyest, to cap.so if you don't like all that work just stick to caping the v-bases.
-
ok i will agree with dccboss and wmlute about make the towns bigger with the lay out of each airfield.large,med,small. :rock