Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: Volron on January 14, 2010, 05:49:28 PM
-
First of all, I would like to apologize if some of these/all of these have been mentioned before, but 200+ pages to look through under wish list is a tad rough. lol I guess you could call this consolidation.
There are some changes I would really like to see done to the current strategic. The first of which would be the addition of Radar Installations. Using the Trinity Map as the example, if I were to up out of an airfield at the edge of the map, once I get 300ft above ground (I believe that's when a dar bar shows, it's been a while so someone correct me if I am wrong), a dar bar would show. My dar bar could then be tracked all the way inbound. Something tells me that during World War 2, the radar range didn't cover 500 miles, assuming each sector in Trinity map was 25 miles. lol Again, it's been a while since I was on so I don't remember sector size of Trinity or any of the other maps now that I think about it. :(
2 size types of radar installations could be used, a small one and a large one. The large one will have a range of 4 sectors around it while a small one would have half of that (this is just an example). Both installations could have greater con (short ranged radar) detection range, seeing as they are dedicated dar installations and if you were to take the zone field it's tied to, it would come under your control. Hitting them would knock them out for an hour and they are not resupplyable. The towers for the long range dar, would take 1 500lbs bomb while the short range dar would be as it is now or maybe a little tougher, like 250? The installation complex would be spread out a little, forcing someone to either take friends or make more than one pass in a run, to knock it out. Since you would have large and small dar installations overlapping, it would not create a HUGE gap in the dar network if an installation was hit, but you could sneak some aircraft through the gap or just make them think "What is going on here?". With the addition of dar installations, you could take away dar on the small airfields and halve the dar on medium airfields and vehicle bases. The large airfields could keep their current dar range, making the dar installations more important and useful. The CV could have the dar range of a small installation and maintain it's current con dar range.
A second addition would be Rail yards. These could be hit, which would affect the resupply of bases and installations in their assigned zone. They would be decent in size in that you would need more than one pass or some help, to knock it out in one run and there would be 2 per zone. As they take damage, it would increase the time it would normally take to resupply, meaning at certain percentages, it would tack on an addition 15 minutes to the down time of bases and installations (this is just an example). Once it is knocked out (0%), nothing would be resupplied and the rail yard will stay down for one hour. Resupply would not resume until the rail yard has returned to at least 25% (assuming that part of it was hit, then later the rest of it). So if some people hits half of it, then 30 minutes later, someone else knocks it out, supply ability would be down for a total of 30 minutes. At which point, half of it would respawn and supplies would flow once more. Using the dar installations as an example, a group of people knock out a dar installation while another group hit the rail yards for that zone. The total down time for the installation would be 2 hrs.
A third addition really isn't an addition, but a change, and likely a coding nightmare. Ports should have dry docks put in and if hit would stay down for one hour, and are not resupplyable. There would be 2-4 per port and would take maybe 2k per to destroy them. Puffy ack would be put in as well, to help in defense of port. So if a carrier is sunk but it's home port dry docks were destroyed at the same time, the total down time of the carrier would be 1 hour and 45 minutes. (this is assuming the CV respawn is 45 minutes) The ships docked at port could also affect what the fleet would respawn with. Currently there are 2 CA and 3 DD docked when looking at current map. Change that to 1 CA and 4 DD's and make it to where, if some or all of those were sunk, your fleet would respawn minus those ships. The down time for the docked ships would be 30 minutes. If I remember correctly, there are 6 DD's and 1 CA that tag along with the CV. So if all the ships are sunk at the port when the CV respawns, it will only have 2 DD's for defense. The ships docked at port, would be as tough as they are when out at sea, so it would take a little effort to sink them. To beef up defense of the port, the docked ships would add some of their anti-air power to defense of the port. The CA would add 4 guns low level ack and any puffy it would normally put up in defense of CV and the DD's would add only 2 guns to low level ack. None of these guns can be manned.
The other function of the dry docks would be to allow players to repair and replace ships. Meaning, the ships out at sea, minus the CV, would not respawn unless you took the fleet to a friendly port with a working dry dock. The status of the ships at the port used, would affect whether or not you would get the fleets CA (assuming that it was sunk at sea) back or not, meaning if the CA is sunk at the port when you dock the fleet, you would not replace the CA the fleet lost. When you get the CV near the port, an option to "Dock Fleet" would appear but you will have to be in command of the fleet for it to show up. The fleet will then disappear for 15 minutes while repairs and replacement takes place, after which the fleet will respawn at the very least, with ships at 100% health. If the dry docks are hit while the fleet is docked, it will NOT affect the time it remains docked or damage/destroy the docked fleet. If the fleet is docked when the port is captured though, they would gain control of that fleet when it respawns.
A fourth addition would be Fighter, Bomber and Vehicle factories. These would be located near the main HQ and would be rather larger and tough to knock out, maybe 1-2k per building. That means you really won't be able to do much damage alone. You will need the help of others to knock out one of these factories. As each factory takes damage, the perk price starts to go up. Once the factory is at 50%, you can no longer use perk rides. When the factory is completely destroyed (0%), you will be limited to Mid-War era aircraft. For the case of the Vehicle Factory, you just lose the ability to use the Tiger, Sherman and the T-34/85 at 50% and below. These factories will be down for 1 hour and are not resupplyable. But, since they will be rather large complexes, you won't have to worry about a single player ruining your day. :lol You could make the size of the complex around 25% - 50% of what the Capital City is now.
A fifth addition is a series of changes. The current City setup is a very large city with the standard factories inside the city. This should be changed to where this city is in the HQ zone at all times, but the other zones would have what we use to have for city and factories. This would eliminate the need to code a city "retreating", then later returning, when it's zone field is taken/recaptured. The HQ zone would have the Capital City and 2 rail yards, while the sub zone would have the old set up for it with the addition of 2 rail yards.
Another change would be, once a HQ has been knocked out, it will stay down for 1-2 hrs and is not resupplyable. But, there will be 2 HQ facilities, the main one we have now and a sub on inside the Capital City. This should put a little more worth into the HQ.
For some maps, you can swap out the River Barge for 2-4 Freighters with 1 or 2 DD escorts and for all maps, slow down the truck convoys and trains a tad.
Flak over targets seems to be a tad light, especially over the Capital. For a target like that, one would expect heavy flak considering the value of target. The following could have light ack, Ports, dar factory, troop training. Medium ack would be in ord and AAA factory, the smaller zone city, rail yards and the main HQ. Heavy ack would be in the refinery, Capital and Fighter, Bomber and Vehicle factories. When I mentioned the factories individually, it was intended that these factories were in a sub zone and not in the Capital. The Capital would put up heavy ack on it's own, with the refinery putting up a light ack in added defense. The sub HQ would also put up light ack as well. The other factories inside the capital would rely on the Capital's anti-air battery's.
I get the feeling I am leaving something out, but likely it will come to me AFTER the fact. :mad: :lol
I'll probably catch a lot of flak for this post, likely on, others have brought it up in the past, and probably on the amount of reading to be had. :lol
-
I guess it would be ok
+1 :aok
:salute
-
That's a pretty big meal to eat at one setting. :O
-
As it is something about the strategic system, I wanted to make sure there was a little info to each addition/change that I would like to see. I would think it would be better than, "I want this, this, this and that. Change this, this and this.", with no basic idea as to how/why to make the change. :lol
Though I COULD also add a list of aircraft and vehicles to this, I wanted to keep it within an hr worth of reading, since we all know there are more than a few aircraft and vehicles that could/should be added. :lol
-
Not complaining! Lol :salute After rererere-reading your post, I'm gonna go with +1 for all of it! :aok
-
First of all, I would like to apologize if some of these/all of these have been mentioned before, but 200+ pages to look through under wish list is a tad rough. lol I guess you could call this consolidation.
There are some changes I would really like to see done to the current strategic. The first of which would be the addition of Radar Installations. Using the Trinity Map as the example, if I were to up out of an airfield at the edge of the map, once I get 300ft above ground (I believe that's when a dar bar shows, it's been a while so someone correct me if I am wrong), a dar bar would show. My dar bar could then be tracked all the way inbound. Something tells me that during World War 2, the radar range didn't cover 500 miles, assuming each sector in Trinity map was 25 miles. lol Again, it's been a while since I was on so I don't remember sector size of Trinity or any of the other maps now that I think about it. :(
2 size types of radar installations could be used, a small one and a large one. The large one will have a range of 4 sectors around it while a small one would have half of that (this is just an example). Both installations could have greater con (short ranged radar) detection range, seeing as they are dedicated dar installations and if you were to take the zone field it's tied to, it would come under your control. Hitting them would knock them out for an hour and they are not resupplyable. The towers for the long range dar, would take 1 500lbs bomb while the short range dar would be as it is now or maybe a little tougher, like 250? The installation complex would be spread out a little, forcing someone to either take friends or make more than one pass in a run, to knock it out. Since you would have large and small dar installations overlapping, it would not create a HUGE gap in the dar network if an installation was hit, but you could sneak some aircraft through the gap or just make them think "What is going on here?". With the addition of dar installations, you could take away dar on the small airfields and halve the dar on medium airfields and vehicle bases. The large airfields could keep their current dar range, making the dar installations more important and useful. The CV could have the dar range of a small installation and maintain it's current con dar range.
A second addition would be Rail yards. These could be hit, which would affect the resupply of bases and installations in their assigned zone. They would be decent in size in that you would need more than one pass or some help, to knock it out in one run and there would be 2 per zone. As they take damage, it would increase the time it would normally take to resupply, meaning at certain percentages, it would tack on an addition 15 minutes to the down time of bases and installations (this is just an example). Once it is knocked out (0%), nothing would be resupplied and the rail yard will stay down for one hour. Resupply would not resume until the rail yard has returned to at least 25% (assuming that part of it was hit, then later the rest of it). So if some people hits half of it, then 30 minutes later, someone else knocks it out, supply ability would be down for a total of 30 minutes. At which point, half of it would respawn and supplies would flow once more. Using the dar installations as an example, a group of people knock out a dar installation while another group hit the rail yards for that zone. The total down time for the installation would be 2 hrs.
A third addition really isn't an addition, but a change, and likely a coding nightmare. Ports should have dry docks put in and if hit would stay down for one hour, and are not resupplyable. There would be 2-4 per port and would take maybe 2k per to destroy them. Puffy ack would be put in as well, to help in defense of port. So if a carrier is sunk but it's home port dry docks were destroyed at the same time, the total down time of the carrier would be 1 hour and 45 minutes. (this is assuming the CV respawn is 45 minutes) The ships docked at port could also affect what the fleet would respawn with. Currently there are 2 CA and 3 DD docked when looking at current map. Change that to 1 CA and 4 DD's and make it to where, if some or all of those were sunk, your fleet would respawn minus those ships. The down time for the docked ships would be 30 minutes. If I remember correctly, there are 6 DD's and 1 CA that tag along with the CV. So if all the ships are sunk at the port when the CV respawns, it will only have 2 DD's for defense. The ships docked at port, would be as tough as they are when out at sea, so it would take a little effort to sink them. To beef up defense of the port, the docked ships would add some of their anti-air power to defense of the port. The CA would add 4 guns low level ack and any puffy it would normally put up in defense of CV and the DD's would add only 2 guns to low level ack. None of these guns can be manned.
The other function of the dry docks would be to allow players to repair and replace ships. Meaning, the ships out at sea, minus the CV, would not respawn unless you took the fleet to a friendly port with a working dry dock. The status of the ships at the port used, would affect whether or not you would get the fleets CA (assuming that it was sunk at sea) back or not, meaning if the CA is sunk at the port when you dock the fleet, you would not replace the CA the fleet lost. When you get the CV near the port, an option to "Dock Fleet" would appear but you will have to be in command of the fleet for it to show up. The fleet will then disappear for 15 minutes while repairs and replacement takes place, after which the fleet will respawn at the very least, with ships at 100% health. If the dry docks are hit while the fleet is docked, it will NOT affect the time it remains docked or damage/destroy the docked fleet. If the fleet is docked when the port is captured though, they would gain control of that fleet when it respawns.
A fourth addition would be Fighter, Bomber and Vehicle factories. These would be located near the main HQ and would be rather larger and tough to knock out, maybe 1-2k per building. That means you really won't be able to do much damage alone. You will need the help of others to knock out one of these factories. As each factory takes damage, the perk price starts to go up. Once the factory is at 50%, you can no longer use perk rides. When the factory is completely destroyed (0%), you will be limited to Mid-War era aircraft. For the case of the Vehicle Factory, you just lose the ability to use the Tiger, Sherman and the T-34/85 at 50% and below. These factories will be down for 1 hour and are not resupplyable. But, since they will be rather large complexes, you won't have to worry about a single player ruining your day. :lol You could make the size of the complex around 25% - 50% of what the Capital City is now.
A fifth addition is a series of changes. The current City setup is a very large city with the standard factories inside the city. This should be changed to where this city is in the HQ zone at all times, but the other zones would have what we use to have for city and factories. This would eliminate the need to code a city "retreating", then later returning, when it's zone field is taken/recaptured. The HQ zone would have the Capital City and 2 rail yards, while the sub zone would have the old set up for it with the addition of 2 rail yards.
Another change would be, once a HQ has been knocked out, it will stay down for 1-2 hrs and is not resupplyable. But, there will be 2 HQ facilities, the main one we have now and a sub on inside the Capital City. This should put a little more worth into the HQ.
For some maps, you can swap out the River Barge for 2-4 Freighters with 1 or 2 DD escorts and for all maps, slow down the truck convoys and trains a tad.
Flak over targets seems to be a tad light, especially over the Capital. For a target like that, one would expect heavy flak considering the value of target. The following could have light ack, Ports, dar factory, troop training. Medium ack would be in ord and AAA factory, the smaller zone city, rail yards and the main HQ. Heavy ack would be in the refinery, Capital and Fighter, Bomber and Vehicle factories. When I mentioned the factories individually, it was intended that these factories were in a sub zone and not in the Capital. The Capital would put up heavy ack on it's own, with the refinery putting up a light ack in added defense. The sub HQ would also put up light ack as well. The other factories inside the capital would rely on the Capital's anti-air battery's.
I get the feeling I am leaving something out, but likely it will come to me AFTER the fact. :mad: :lol
I'll probably catch a lot of flak for this post, likely on, others have brought it up in the past, and probably on the amount of reading to be had. :lol
can you please post the executive summary.
semp
-
Do you perhaps have Cliff Notes for this wish? :D
J/K
<S>
Mbailey
-
And I thought I wrote alot. Definitely like the idea about being able to choke a base. :aok
-
I admit I did not get all the way to the end in the first sitting. but it is funny when a guy writes too little he gets flamed, and when he is so informative it looks as if he is writing the great AH novel he gets flamed...
+1 :aok
-
I am not sure about the game play benefits of differing radar ranges. Interesting idea thos I think it may be usefull if the captial city was given its own larger radar circle.
I agree re larger ports but for me its because of another preference of mine. I would like to see standard cites (or large towns) return as hubs in the distibution routes and where these routes are coastal so there should be a city port. Such cities /city ports would be capturable (as were the old depots).Roads (and therefore spawns) would not bypass them. Cities may or may not have air or vehicle fields allocated to them as ports would have fleets allocated to them.
In this way the captial city could remain at the rear with the HQ.
Local logistics remain game play objectives but are not as complicated as the strat system in play from the rear. (if you own it you have it...if not you dont).
-
My comment was not ment as a flame at all, just some light humor. Actually its refreshing seeing so much thought and time put into an idea.
+1 :aok
-
My comment was not ment as a flame at all, just some light humor. Actually its refreshing seeing so much thought and time put into an idea.
+1 :aok
quite true... and i wasnt really picking on anyone eather... just fummy how it works out... too little info people want more, too much and they dont want to read the darn thing.
-
There are some changes I would really like to see done to the current strategic. The first of which would be the addition of Radar Installations. Using the Trinity Map as the example, if I were to up out of an airfield at the edge of the map, once I get 300ft above ground (I believe that's when a dar bar shows, it's been a while so someone correct me if I am wrong), a dar bar would show. My dar bar could then be tracked all the way inbound. Something tells me that during World War 2, the radar range didn't cover 500 miles, assuming each sector in Trinity map was 25 miles. lol Again, it's been a while since I was on so I don't remember sector size of Trinity or any of the other maps now that I think about it. :(
2 size types of radar installations could be used, a small one and a large one. The large one will have a range of 4 sectors around it while a small one would have half of that (this is just an example). Both installations could have greater con (short ranged radar) detection range, seeing as they are dedicated dar installations and if you were to take the zone field it's tied to, it would come under your control. Hitting them would knock them out for an hour and they are not resupplyable. The towers for the long range dar, would take 1 500lbs bomb while the short range dar would be as it is now or maybe a little tougher, like 250? The installation complex would be spread out a little, forcing someone to either take friends or make more than one pass in a run, to knock it out. Since you would have large and small dar installations overlapping, it would not create a HUGE gap in the dar network if an installation was hit, but you could sneak some aircraft through the gap or just make them think "What is going on here?". With the addition of dar installations, you could take away dar on the small airfields and halve the dar on medium airfields and vehicle bases. The large airfields could keep their current dar range, making the dar installations more important and useful. The CV could have the dar range of a small installation and maintain it's current con dar range.
The capability exist the SEA arenas to control the dar bar range, in the last scenario it was 25 miles. It was interesting to see large red bars appear from no where and find the enemy at altitude. I wish they would apply it to the MA, perhaps at 50 miles or so.
Strip
-
Something about the Trains, Trucks and River Barges:
"For some maps, you can swap out the River Barge for 2-4 Freighters with 1 or 2 DD escorts and for all maps, slow down the truck convoys and trains a tad."
More information about this, which comes to me a tad after the fact. :mad: LOL Has anyone noticed when you take out the locomotive of a train, the rail cars just keep on going? It's the same with taking out the tug on the river barge convoy. That is something I spaced when putting the idea in about the Trains, Trucks and River Barges/Freighters. Some maps would still use the river barge as a means to get supplies to island bases, seeing as they are so small. The point is, an update to that would be nice as well. You take out the locomotive/river barge tug, the rail cars and barges would stop, sitting there until respawn. Which means, it would deny the enemy those supplies. The freighters would have some ack for themselves, 1 or 2 low level ack, maybe 1 2x .50 cal gun and a single 20mil gun? Of course the DD's will have their full compliment of ack, including puffy.
Sorry, it's been a LONG time since I've been in a forum, so I forgot how to do quotes. lol
Tilt
A little of what you replied with, I thought of, mainly the "Port City" supply chain. I'm glad you brought this up, it was something I was thinking about prior to the original posting, but I forgot. *sigh* Again, something AFTER the fact, only this time, someone beats me to the punch. :lol Now that I have re-read my own posting, I see that I've forgotten a lot (if not all) about how the basic supply chain would work. Well....fiddlesticks. :furious
Strip
Well, right now you can't take out the long range radar (dar bar), just the short range radar. That's the reason behind my dar installation idea. lol So you could take out the long range radar, creating a small gap in the network to work over something deeper in enemy territory. :aok But even the change you mentioned, would make it more interesting, and easier on the HTC staff. :lol
Well seeing as I have to leave for work in 30 minutes, I will post more about the supply chain later. It won't be terribly long, maybe a tad short. We shall see.... :devil :rofl
-
As #1; DarBar is meant to represent ground observers/reports, not radar. Just as clarification.
I like 2 and 3
I doubt 4 will happen; they had a system like that in AW or WB I think, HT having played the former and worked on the latter, so if he thought they were a good idea they'd likely already be in Aces High.
5 is how it used to be up until last month. The current system is much better, although I think they need to make the targets more important to encourage more flights to them.
-
A fourth addition would be Fighter, Bomber and Vehicle factories. These would be located near the main HQ and would be rather larger and tough to knock out, maybe 1-2k per building. That means you really won't be able to do much damage alone. You will need the help of others to knock out one of these factories. As each factory takes damage, the perk price starts to go up. Once the factory is at 50%, you can no longer use perk rides. When the factory is completely destroyed (0%), you will be limited to Mid-War era aircraft. For the case of the Vehicle Factory, you just lose the ability to use the Tiger, Sherman and the T-34/85 at 50% and below. These factories will be down for 1 hour and are not resupplyable. But, since they will be rather large complexes, you won't have to worry about a single player ruining your day. :lol You could make the size of the complex around 25% - 50% of what the Capital City is now.
This will not happen as it specifically counters the ENY balancing system now in the game. HTC does not want the outnumbered side to also be fighting from a technological disadvantage, and that is the primary result this suggestion would have. In short, it would encourage ganging against the weakest side, something that is very undesirable from a gameplay standpoint.
-
Now we really need a B29 to bomb all this stuff......... :D
:bolt:
-
I re-posted my 5th change/addition, and separated them for better clarity. I do not know why I didn't separate it in the first place. bah Sorry about that.
A fifth addition is a series of changes. The current City setup is a very large city with the standard factories inside the city. This should be changed to where this city is in the HQ zone at all times, but the other zones would have what we use to have for city and factories. This would eliminate the need to code a city "retreating", then later returning, when it's zone field is taken/recaptured. The HQ zone would have the Capital City and 2 rail yards, while the sub zone would have the old set up for it with the addition of 2 rail yards.
Another change would be, once a HQ has been knocked out, it will stay down for 1-2 hrs and is not resupplyable. But, there will be 2 HQ facilities, the main one we have now and a sub on inside the Capital City. This should put a little more worth into the HQ.
For some maps, you can swap out the River Barge for 2-4 Freighters with 1 or 2 DD escorts and for all maps, slow down the truck convoys and trains a tad. (edited/added)Has anyone noticed when you take out the locomotive of a train, the rail cars just keep on going? It's the same with taking out the tug on the river barge convoy. That is something I spaced when putting the idea in about the Trains, Trucks and River Barges/Freighters. Some maps would still use the river barge as a means to get supplies to island bases, seeing as they are so small. The point is, an update to that would be nice as well. You take out the locomotive/river barge tug, the rail cars and barges would stop, sitting there until respawn. Which means, it would deny the enemy those supplies. The freighters would have some ack for themselves, 1 or 2 low level ack, maybe 1 2x .50 cal gun and a single 20mil gun? Of course the DD's will have their full compliment of ack, including puffy.
Flak over targets seems to be a tad light, especially over the Capital. For a target like that, one would expect heavy flak considering the value of target. The following could have light ack, Ports, dar factory, troop training. Medium ack would be in ord and AAA factory, the smaller zone city, rail yards and the main HQ. Heavy ack would be in the refinery, Capital and Fighter, Bomber and Vehicle factories. When I mentioned the factories individually, it was intended that these factories were in a sub zone and not in the Capital. The Capital would put up heavy ack on it's own, with the refinery putting up a light ack in added defense. The sub HQ would also put up light ack as well. The other factories inside the capital would rely on the Capital's anti-air battery's.
Motherland
The dar bar pops up when I take off from deep inside friendly territory and it is quite annoying. lol If I'm over enemy territory, near targets/flak battery's, I can understand a dar bar being up. But when out in the middle of the ocean and/or over friendly territory that isn't close to enemy territory? As for the City, an alternative to this could be, the city would be in a single location and just add rail yards through out the country. The city would be far enough in, that you wouldn't see everything around it get captured, but not so far back that you would be doing an HQ raid to get to it, especially on the big maps. One possibility of making the targets more important would be to increase the down time. Maybe tack on another 1hr to the strategic targets.
Though I am kind of puzzled about what the main page says about strategic targets...http://www.hitechcreations.com/ahhelp/map.html#targets According to this, you can resupply strategic targets now. I hope I am misreading/misunderstanding this. :headscratch: When it came to the strategic targets section prior to the update, it had a No. Now there is a Yes... Someone clarify please. I have only been able to play for one day since the new update, not enough time to find stuff out. I'm still waiting on getting my main account activated. More stuff hits the fan......I need a new fan. :rofl Fiddlesticks....
Karnak
You make a very valid point. So maybe it wouldn't be applied to MA, but what about FSO? Example: In Frame 1, the Allies hit the Axis fighter factories. In Frame 2, there would be less aircraft available due to the factories being hit in Frame 1. I know they put a limitation on the number of aircraft used in each frame, but this could add a little more to it. Situation 1: Say in Frame 1, you have 50 109's available at the start (that is the factory output per frame), you lose 20 and the factories were not hit, you would have 80 available in Frame 2, because the factories are operating at 100%. Situation 2: In Frame 1, the Allies knock out half of the factory and the Axis lose 20 109s. In Frame 2, you would only have 55 109's available, since the factories were only operating at 50%. Maybe something like that could work. There is also the Axis vs Allies arena. It might be applied there as well. Maybe it could cause the perk price to rise? From what I've gathered, people tend to make sure it's fairly even in numbers, so it may work there.
Karnak.....Karnak..... That name seems very familiar. lol
For the supply chain (using the alternate setup mentioned to Motherland), the city would send trains to the rail yards, which in turn would dispatch trucks to the bases. The exception would be that it would send trains to the fleet ports, which would transfer the supplies to the river barges and/or freighters. (depending on the size of map and/or how bases are set on the map) These would then head to a port city on the islands. From there, trucks would resupply the bases on that island.
Turns out the basic details for supplies, was rather short. :lol
-
Now we really need a B29 to bomb all this stuff......... :D
:bolt:
I agree :bolt: hope you got room in that foxhole Dadsguns
-
If any of these ideas were to actually draw attention from the HTC staff, how would we know they decided, "You know, this and this, would make a nice addition."? Would they come here and tell us something, or would it just show up as "the next update" type of thing on the main site?
People seem REAL desperate for the B-29. I would like to see it too, along with the He-111, Ju-52, Do-17z, G4M Betty, SB2C Helldiver, TBD Devastator, G3M Nell, PBY Catalina, H6K Mavis, H8K Emily....The list wouldn't end anytime soon. :lol
-
Some ideas have been commented on by staff, others have just materialized in game down the road.
Like you I'd love to see a new plane every week for a year.
But it takes a lot more than that.
If nothing else trying to find realistic unbiased data based on real numbers not some pilots "remembering" what it flew like is hard. Especially for the Axis country's, where things were being bombed on a daily basis.
-
I like how you put thought into this post and I like most of your ideas. +
-
People seem REAL desperate for the B-29. I would like to see it too, along with the He-111, Ju-52, Do-17z, G4M Betty, SB2C Helldiver, TBD Devastator, G3M Nell, PBY Catalina, H6K Mavis, H8K Emily....The list wouldn't end anytime soon. :lol
I was just making a joke about the fact that the mention of the b29 is met with either extreme agreement or extreme animosity. Just going for the laugh, guess I overshot. :D
-
I was thinking about the freighter's that would be used when supplying island bases. There would need to be a Troop Transport, Oiler and 2 Merchant ships in the convoy. One merchant would be bigger than the other, as one would carry munitions (ack and ords) and the other, basic supplies. It would also mean, 2 DD escorts. The country that the supply convoy belongs to, would see an icon, similar to a fleet icon, only it would say something like, SC1(Supply Convoy 1), and it would not be a controllable fleet. The DD's will have at least basic dar for the convoy and it would flash when it came under attack. If, for instance, the oiler and the large merchant ship were sunk, the bases on the destination island, would not receive fuel and any damaged things, like hangers and dar, would not be repaired. It would have to wait until the next supply convoy was dispatched or if someone decided to up a supply plane from the mainland.
MadHatter
lol There isn't a foxhole that will save ya from the B-29. :devil It's the same for the He-111, when it comes to it's addition. You have your Zealot's and your Non-Believer's. :rofl I haven't looked through all 270 pages of Wishlist requests, but so far I haven't found any for the Ju-52. Maybe I should start one.... Hmm....
Ghosth
But I wonder how often these things are checked as well. Is it checked when it's a "very hot topic"? I'm kinda curious as to what gets their attention. I'm guessing if something becomes "very hot topic", with legitimate posts and not bumps, it draws their attention. Or maybe someone on here directs them to it? HTC staff will probably take one look at this one and say, "Oh SPORK no!" :lol
-
I started thinking about the fleet setup (after reading some other postings about it), and the fleets could have two troop ships added to it. If they are sunk, you couldn't launch LVT's or PT's. You would have to return to the nearest friendly port to respawn them. There would be one docked troop ship at the port, but if it was sunk, you would only be able to spawn back one troop ship. They would be slightly tougher than their RL counterparts, otherwise they wouldn't hold up against bombs, torpedoes and strafing runs. Maybe between the DD and CA in toughness... They would have low level flak but no puffy and could possibly have mannable guns.
I've also thought about power station complexes. These would supply power to the dar installations and affect down time to the linked fields and facilities, and there would be at least 2 per zone (depending on map size). If a power station is hit, a dar installation would lose 25 to 50% of their dar range and increase down time of downed buildings by 15-30 minutes. The exception on the fields would obviously be the hangers, and the dry docks and docked ships at the ports. They would be large complexes and tougher than your standard strategic target (1,000 lb bombs to destroyed the buildings). This means that you would need help to knock one out in one pass. At 50%, the down time to the linked facilities would be 15 mins extra and the dar installations would lose 25% of their range. At 0%, it would be 30 mins and the dar installations would lose 50% of their range. Flak over these targets would be light to medium in intensity. These power stations would be down for 1 hr and are not resupplyable. You don't NEED power to repair/rebuild, but it helps a little bit. Example: If a rail yard, dar installation and the power station linked to them were knocked out, the total time for the dar installation being down would be 2 hrs and 30 mins and 1 hr and 30 mins for the Rail Yard. The power stations would get their supplies directly from the Capital, so the rail yards being down won't affect it's resupply. However, the industrial center in the Capital, could affect it's down time.
I also forgot to mention, rail yards would NOT resupplyable and the toughness would be 500 lb bombs for the buildings. The industrial center in the Capital could affect it's down time. Which means, we should probably double the size of it, or at least make the individual buildings blow up, instead of a city block. I noticed this when I made a few runs on it. As a bomb hits, the whole block blew up, instead of the few buildings it landed near. As mentioned earlier, they would be large enough that you would have to make more than one pass, or take someone along, to even possibly knock one out completely. I am, of course, referring to the Lancaster. Some would say, "I can just take a Lanc and completely knock out a rail yard alone....". Though this could be possible, but you would HAVE to make more than one pass and it wouldn't be an easy thing to do as the flak intensity would be heavy, considering the value of the target. Coming in low would be costly, as there would be low level flak to defend against low level raids. Enough to make it really risky to do in a bomber, but not so much that you couldn't do with a group of fighter-bombers and dive bombers.
Which what was mentioned above, the Industrial Center in the Capital would 1) double in size, 2) change it to where the individual buildings blew up instead of the whole block and 3) would have to revamp the down time on the industrial center to 1 hr (which tacks on 1 hr to down time to linked facilities), seeing as they are linked to the rail yards and power stations, which are in turn linked to bases and facilities within their respective zones. Worse case scenario: The industrial center is knocked out, the power stations, rail yards, and a dar installation is knocked out in zone a, the total down time would be 2 1/2 hrs for the railyard, 2 hrs for the power stations and 3 1/2 hrs for the dar installation (just an example). I doubt that people would be willing to put THAT much effort into chocking bases and facilities, but the option WOULD be there. Since there are so many targets required to be knocked out for this scenario to happen, it would take serious effort on a country's part to do the job.
Example: 3-4 people would be needed to knock out the industrial center, 2-3 would be needed for each power station, 2-3 for each rail yard and 1-2 for the dar installation. Doubling the high numbers, that is 24 people working to hit these targets.
I can guarantee that they would draw attention from the country they are trying to hit, so it would require more to insure the job got done. Of course the chances of hitting the targets would increase with fighter escort (stating an obvious), which requires more people. 48 people, 24 bomber formations and 24 fighter escorts, is a lot of people. Like I said, serious effort required for the worse case scenario. Only a few times, have I seen several people at once, go after strategic targets (probably just missing the fun bits during the day). A setup like this, would probably be something akin to a wet dream to bomber zealots (more targets to hit, flying in huge formations), but at the same time, a total nightmare for both sides. The side trying to makes this happen, having to get a lot of folks together who are willing to fly for a while, and the side getting hit, having to defend and/or suffering the consequences if they should fail to defend.
Not an update to the strategic system, but I would like to see a change in how planes are shot down. One example is how many people hit the HQ or a target deep in enemy territory, then bail the moment they do. If they do that, they should be forced to ride the chute all the way down or just not deploy and smack into the ground. Smacking into the ground would count as a 3 deaths (the bails won't count), if they took a formation, or if they bailed and rode to the ground, 3 bails (I think it's 3 bails anyways, not too sure as it has been that long since I lasted played). In general, if you bail, you either let your self smack into the ground, or you ride the chute all the way to the ground, before you can end flight and return to a tower. If the pilot is killed, you could watch your plane fall in F3 mode (it would automatically switch), to the ground and crash. If you are a bomber formation, you just switch to the next bomber (unless it's your last bomber), but you could see the bomber that was hit, go down (though chances are, you are too busy to watch it). If you decided to watch it crash, you would, as well as everyone else, leave wreckage until you end flight. (This wouldn't apply to drones shot down) The option to end flight, would be there if the pilot is dead, instead of watching it fall to the ground. If a wing in your lead bomber is taken off, you "bail" from it, or it gets 1k away from your drones (if you stayed inside), you would automatically switch to the next bomber and you could see the stricken bomber fall all the way to the ground. I highly doubt something along this line would be implemented, as 1) coding nightmare (would also have to recode the drones to go all the way to the ground when going down) and 2) resources required for these things to happen. Still can wish though. :aok