Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: moot on March 29, 2011, 04:21:19 AM
-
In the new perk loadout system.
-
:huh
-
There is a new perk system?
-
Perk loadout system is on their todo/considered list.
:huh
Like it says. You get more troops at a price, the same way you get 20mm's at a price on the F4U-1.
-
However the A/C or GV was only capable of carrying X amount of cargo.
How are you going to increase its finite ability to carry more?
-
Well, if youre in a troop carryer, youre a sitting duck. Why would anyone pay perks to bring 20 troops in a c47? He has a massive chance to get shot down. Or, if the friendlies have cap over the field, why you need more troops?
-
However the A/C or GV was only capable of carrying X amount of cargo.
How are you going to increase its finite ability to carry more?
28 troops in the C47.
Well, if youre in a troop carryer, youre a sitting duck. Why would anyone pay perks to bring 20 troops in a c47? He has a massive chance to get shot down.
Because there's that much more of a chance that 10 of them will survive. Also what's the difference from any other perked plane flying with a neon perk tag? Assuming a 28 drunk goon would have such a clear telltale.
Or, if the friendlies have cap over the field, why you need more troops?
loaded premise and still leaves perked cargo load as worthwhile
-
I've vouched for certain vehicles having the ability to carry more troops for a long time. Why limit the number to 10? I say tie it into the number of barracks available on a base much the same as the amount of fuel can be taken based on the number of fuel tanks destroyed.
make it so that in the goon at its 16 troops (?) can not be taken if 3 barracks are down, the M3 and its 12 troops can not be taken if 4 barracks are down, the LVT2 and SdKfz 251 keep their 10 troops but are nixed if 5 barracks are down, and the jeep is always available until ALL of the barracks are down.
That right there would add in an entirely new strategic aspect to AH.
-
The 10 troop cap is because HT means for a single normal C47 load to be enough for one map room. So that ought to be the baseline for any wishlist cargo/troop system..
-
Thought about it a bit more.
I was always of the understanding that the #10 was a representative #.
How many troops could an M3 carry? In the game its 10 but lets try it to be a realistic
comparison. Moot gets his increase and gives more reasons to bring in differing A/C or GV's.
If the C47 gets its 28, give the M3 its proper loadout.
-
Proper loadout at a perk cost if over 10 troops.
This isn't about "my" fav plane or loadout.. It's a suggestion for the game itself.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M3_Half-track says 3 crew (driver/copilot/gunner) + 10 troops.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sd.Kfz._251 says 12 including passengers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_C-47_Skytrain says 28 troops
-
Moot, you forgot the LVT, Wiki reckons could carry up to 30 passengers. That might be less if you are counting fully equipped combat troops but it should still be a lot more than ten. Would make a nice trade off for speed versus loadout vs the half tracks.
-
Proper loadout at a perk cost if over 10 troops.
This isn't about "my" fav plane or loadout.. It's a suggestion for the game itself.
I understood that, was just saying you would get increased abilities that you do want.
And it makes more sense to send in C47's with more than just a fraction of its load.
-
28 troops in the C47.
Because there's that much more of a chance that 10 of them will survive. Also what's the difference from any other perked plane flying with a neon perk tag? Assuming a 28 drunk goon would have such a clear telltale.
loaded premise and still leaves perked cargo load as worthwhile
got it
Edit: this perk system is damn a good idea. It could be used for additional bomber drones, or for the gv camo thing, or maybe higher octane fuel for fighters, and the list goes on.
-
forgot the LVT
I'm looking this stuff up and dodging bullets in game hehe :D
That'd be a nice tradeoff yep, getting pretty crazy on the perk/death risk ratio though. Not many things easier to kill than an LVT2.you would get increased abilities that you do want.
And it makes more sense to send in C47's with more than just a fraction of its load.
But what I'm suggesting is for anything above a map room's worth to be available at a cost. So playing by HT's rules, "fraction-loaded" C47 will always be whatever number == <1 map room. Meaning e.g. if we wanted to give more vehicles a perked "overload" option, we could lower map room hardness to e.g. 8 troops, so that e.g. the 251 could have some meaningful perked cargo volume.
-
perked octane !!!! :aok :aok :aok
-
You won't get drones for perks. You won't get octane for perks. It doesn't work that way and HTC has said it won't work that way.
As for troops: It's a gameplay consideration that you get 1 shot per 1 player. You lose troops, then you missed your shot. HTC has said whatever they up the load of a C47 to, that will be the base capture limit. So if you get 28 troops out of a C-47, you need all 28 to take a base. (and it'll take 2.8x as long waiting for them to walk into the map room, IMO).
It's about manpower vs end results. Forget the actual troops onboard. One guy, one base. No more, no less (well, more people if you're smart, but not more than 1 base per person per load)
-
moot stated that it will be a perked loadout system. What would be perked then, which type of loadout? Bombs, DTs?
-
moot stated that it will be a perked loadout system. What would be perked then, which type of loadout? Bombs, DTs?
I would hope bombs and DT's would be standard, as is now...
However, I wouldn't mind having Incendiaries, parafrags, etc...
I would mention centerline bomb pylon for certain F4U models as well as Rockets on a certain
B-25, but I think those should be standard and perk-free :aok
-
Here's the problem with perked troop loadouts... If one goon equals one capture, what does the perked loadout mean? Does that mean NONPERKED loadouts now require 3 goons to take one base? Or do the troops get 0.3 "impact" points as compared toa normal goon, meaning they still need the entire shipload to take a base?
End result is you only take 1 base with 1 goon. You can't get mixed or perk loadouts and keep that rule. You screw with gameplay otherwise. This is a gameplay choice, not a historic number.
-
You won't get drones for perks. You won't get octane for perks. It doesn't work that way and HTC has said it won't work that way.
As for troops: It's a gameplay consideration that you get 1 shot per 1 player. You lose troops, then you missed your shot. HTC has said whatever they up the load of a C47 to, that will be the base capture limit. So if you get 28 troops out of a C-47, you need all 28 to take a base. (and it'll take 2.8x as long waiting for them to walk into the map room, IMO).
You're just rephrasing the status quo without arguing why it's better as is than as suggested.
It's about manpower vs end results. Forget the actual troops onboard. One guy, one base. No more, no less (well, more people if you're smart, but not more than 1 base per person per load)
I've landed 3 30 kill sorties today killing all sorts but esp. hordes. How's that not "more" than "one guy"'s worth? Why wouldn't 100 perk 28-trooper goon be worth it?Here's the problem with perked troop loadouts... If one goon equals one capture,
If one goon equals one capture, it's not a perked goon, so the rest of this picture is wrong already.
You can't get mixed or perk loadouts and keep that rule. You screw with gameplay otherwise.
Mixed loadouts why? Perk loadouts/models are perked because they screw with gameplay if they were free. How is paying for 20mm on an F4U or whatever perk loadout HTC have in mind any different from carrying more troops in slow and weakly defended vehicles?
-
No Moot, I'm not restating the status quo. I'm saying you're asking for a powerup. There is an established gameplay decision at work here (1 trip, 1 base) and you want more. HTC has said in the past that won't be the case.
Further, your idea of making it a perk loadout won't work either because it totally conflicts with normal (non-perked) loads and how both your suggestion and the old way work with the established gameplay at work.
If you want to ask for 28 troops per plane, but to have the cap increased to be 28, there is precedent for that.
If you want to be able to lose troops and still take a base, or to take 2 or 3 bases in a single sortie, it won't happen. That's what I mean by powerup.
-
HTC has said in the past that won't be the case.
Link or keyword to search for please.
Further, your idea of making it a perk loadout won't work either because it totally conflicts with normal (non-perked) loads and how both your suggestion and the old way work with the established gameplay at work.
I get that that's what you're saying. I just don't see how. What's the conflict?
-
We probably wont be implemnting all the troups in a c47 but rather will have 1 troop represent 2 or 3 real troops and adjust there weight accordenly.
Hitech
If We set it for 29 troups we would also change capture to require 29 troups, do you realy wish to have to drop that many?
HiTech
:neener:
wrongway
-
Not my fault he doesn't read the forums, hehehe
EDIT: No offense meant moot, but this topic has been brought up at least half a dozen times in the past (re:28 troops in a goon)
-
That says nothing about perked loadouts. It could be read as a restatement of the unperked game mechanics which I agree with.
What is the conflict?
-
Well, if youre in a troop carryer, youre a sitting duck.
not if we include the Ju-52 :bolt:
-
That says nothing about perked loadouts. It could be read as a restatement of the unperked game mechanics which I agree with.
What is the conflict?
Both quotes are regarding asking why not 29 troops in a C-47 since that is the actual load out.
Ergo, the number of troops carried is set by how many are required to achieve the objective, capturing a town, not how many could be carried.
It's all a game play dynamic.
wrongway
-
Man.. What am I doing wrong with my english? I know that's what the regular gameplay mechanics are. That's why I'm not suggesting 28 troops but 28 troops perked.
why not 29 troops in a C-47 since that is the actual load out.
That's a different thing. I'm not suggesting a more historical loadout that would happen to be more than one map room's worth. Or more than a map room's worth in the C47 or any other troop vehicle "because" the C47/whatever carried more than the current map room hardness.
-
Man.. What am I doing wrong with my english? I know that's what the regular gameplay mechanics are. That's why I'm not suggesting 28 troops but 28 troops perked.That's a different thing. I'm not suggesting a more historical loadout that would happen to be more than one map room's worth. Or more than a map room's worth in the C47 or any other troop vehicle "because" the C47/whatever carried more than the current map room hardness.
OK. A simple analogy.
A touchdown in American Football is 6 points. It takes one planeload/half-track load of troops to take a town.
wrongway
-
The 10 troop cap is because HT means for a single normal C47 load to be enough for one map room. So that ought to be the baseline for any wishlist cargo/troop system..
Why was the F4U-1C taken out of non-perk population?
Both quotes are regarding asking why not 29 troops in a C-47 since that is the actual load out.
That isn't what I'm suggesting. It's not about historical loadouts for the sake of historical loadouts, but options that don't fit within the game unless they're curbed by artificial scarcity IE perks.
this topic has been brought up at least half a dozen times in the past (re:28 troops in a goon)
As a perk loadout?
Further, your idea of making it a perk loadout won't work either because it totally conflicts with normal (non-perked) loads and how both your suggestion and the old way work with the established gameplay at work.
What is this conflict?
-
What moot is suggesting is, as a perk loadout, allowing transports to carry some number of troops beyond the minimum needed to capture a base. For example, for 20 perks you get 15 troops instead of 10, thus requiring the enemy to kill 6 of them rather than just 1 to stop the capture.
-
And what they're saying is that HTC have said the amount of troops carried by troop transports will always be equal to the amount needed to capture one map room...
Which is understood, and what I'm asking in reply is how that rationale clearly applies to a perked troop/cargo loadout as well, and if it does, why a perk price wouldn't be enough to justify more than a map room's worth, or more field/vehicle supplies than we can carry now.
I can't think of a clearer way to articulate it.
-
How about allowing the C47 to carry cargo in addition to troops?
That way we fill up the empty space in the hold.
-
That could work.. Or field and vehicle supplies together.
-
perked octane !!!! :aok :aok :aok
This guy, this guy, I love him!
-
This guy, this guy, I love him!
Pony D with Kerosene :O
-
Geez...
the spirit is out from the bottle... i see the 150 octane, 370mph otd spit16 in your eyes.
It was a very bad idea of mine.
End of hijack.
-
So what exactly would your perked "extra troops" do? What purpose would they serve? If it's simply "in case they're needed for the capture because some of the troops got killed", or "so I could capture more than one base per sortie", you already have Hitech's answer.
-
So what exactly would your perked "extra troops" do? What purpose would they serve? If it's simply "in case they're needed for the capture because some of the troops got killed", or "so I could capture more than one base per sortie", you already have Hitech's answer.
well, that and the historical aspect of it. 10 troops to a goon would have been like a waste of fuel. and btw, does anybody know what the typical delay for troops jumping out of the plane was, if say, you were doing about 120 km/h at 250 feet?
-
well, that and the historical aspect of it. 10 troops to a goon would have been like a waste of fuel. and btw, does anybody know what the typical delay for troops jumping out of the plane was, if say, you were doing about 120 km/h at 250 feet?
Gotcha :aok
I vote to fill 'r up with 28 drunks. HT will up the amount of troops for capture to 28, as he said he would. The conga line to the maproom will be longer, take more time to get them all in there, thus giving me the extra time to get there to kill the last one and thwart the capture. :banana:
-
Gotcha :aok
I vote to fill 'r up with 28 drunks. HT will up the amount of troops for capture to 28, as he said he would. The conga line to the maproom will be longer, take more time to get them all in there, thus giving me the extra time to get there to kill the last one and thwart the capture. :banana:
also... wouldnt the base/maproom have SOME kind of garrison protecting it? so, 10 troops, which is like a squad, being able to secure an area, get inside, find the way to the important bit, and hold it? :headscratch|:
-
So what exactly would your perked "extra troops" do? What purpose would they serve? If it's simply "in case they're needed for the capture because some of the troops got killed", or "so I could capture more than one base per sortie", you already have Hitech's answer.
Show me where he says perking extra troops/cargo is no good.
-
Show me where he says perking extra troops/cargo is no good.
I don't believe he said it would be no good, but he DID say they would up the required troops for a capture to equal what is carried by one person:
If We set it for 29 troups we would also change capture to require 29 troups, do you realy wish to have to drop that many?
HiTech
So again, what would you do with the extra troops you bought with perks? Answer is there would be no extra troops - you'd need them all.
-
Why is this so hard to understand? You'd be paying perks for the extra troops or cargo. This isn't about anyone being able to take more than a map room's worth, or that one vehicle or another historically had more than the arbitrary number of troops for one AH map room.
You would have more troops for the enemy to shoot to thwart capture, yes.
So again
Where in that quote or thread does it rule out perked extra troops or cargo?
-
I like my recent revision. After dropping troops and getting the capture, you could then resupply
the field :)
No need for perks. Just using wasted space, also keeps the drunks from partying it up with all
that free space in the back.
-
Why is this so hard to understand? You'd be paying perks for the extra troops or cargo. This isn't about anyone being able to take more than a map room's worth, or that one vehicle or another historically had more than the arbitrary number of troops for one AH map room.
You would have more troops for the enemy to shoot to thwart capture, yes.Where in that quote or thread does it rule out perked extra troops or cargo?
Like I said, the quote didn't say it was a bad thing - and it didn't say anything about ruling out perked extra troops. I still don't understand (yeah, I guess I'm dim) WHY you would want to spend perks on extra troops when you can't do anything with them other than make your vehicle/plane heavier.
-
Like I said, the quote didn't say it was a bad thing - and it didn't say anything about ruling out perked extra troops. I still don't understand (yeah, I guess I'm dim) WHY you would want to spend perks on extra troops when you can't do anything with them other than make your vehicle/plane heavier.
Because there's that much more of a chance that 10 of them will survive.
-
Like I said, the quote didn't say it was a bad thing - and it didn't say anything about ruling out perked extra troops. I still don't understand (yeah, I guess I'm dim) WHY you would want to spend perks on extra troops when you can't do anything with them other than make your vehicle/plane heavier.
Because there's that much more of a chance that 10 of them will survive.
That's my point, hitech's reasoning, and the why I don't understand what you would do with more troops. Hitech has said (and I don't see him changing his mind on this), that the number of troops one player can carry will always exactly equal the number of troops needed to capture a maproom.
So if you bought 5 extra troops and now have 15, because you could carry 15 troops the maproom requirement would be changed to now always require 15 troops for capture. So in effect you'd force people to always buy those 5 extra troops if 15 isn't the standard loadout.
-
Here's the problem with perked troop loadouts... If one goon equals one capture, what does the perked loadout mean? Does that mean NONPERKED loadouts now require 3 goons to take one base? Or do the troops get 0.3 "impact" points as compared toa normal goon, meaning they still need the entire shipload to take a base?
It would still take 10 troops to capture a base you would just have a better chance of getting it
-
It would still take 10 troops to capture a base you would just have a better chance of getting it
You're missing the point of what Hitech has said. He flat-out said if you want a vehicle (M3/goon/whatever) to carry more troops, he'll just up the requirement for capture to equal that number. So it would not "still take 10 troops to capture a base".
If We set it for 29 troups we would also change capture to require 29 troups, do you realy wish to have to drop that many?
HiTech
-
Dot you noticed the word "perked"?
-
Yes I noticed. And nobody has given any reason for perked troops other than "in case we need them for the capture". I keep saying (and quoting HT) that you cannot carry more than are needed for a capture. So what would those "perked" troops do to justify the perk cost?
-
But when Hitech stated that quote, no one said anything about perking for more then the required troops. Maybe it will be concidered with this option. A man can change his mind u know.
-
Stick an "infinite recursion" demotivator poster here.
-
I think in this case it applies to you moot. HTC has made the point clear, the gameplay consideration is 1 full load. You're asking to change the gameplay in the guise of a perk loadout request.
Just ask for the maproom kill to require only 8 troops, and you'll get the already-mentioned HTC response. So you change the question to come at it from a different angle, but it's the same issue. It always has been the same issue. Doesn't matter if perked or not, it goes hand in hand with HTCs previous comments.
-
I am still waiting for evidence that HTC included perk loadouts when they said no troop transport will have more than a map room's worth.
Just ask for the maproom kill to require only 8 troops
That's totally different and not what I'm "asking". And I'm not asking but suggesting. So show me where HTC explicitly said that their gameplay design choice includes perk loadouts like the one I'm suggesting.
So you change the question to come at it from a different angle,
What, are you reading my mind now? That's not the motivation.
Doesn't matter if perked or not, it goes hand in hand with HTCs previous comments.
Because you say so? Nothing in that comment definitely excludes perk loadouts.
Arguing this with you is a waste of time. Word from HTC, if they've made their mind up on this idea, is probably the only thing that could be added to the troop part of this wish/suggestion.
-
So show me where HTC explicitly said that their gameplay design choice includes perk loadouts like the one I'm suggesting. What, are you reading my mind now? That's not the motivation.Because you say so?
So I would then like to see a new perk category: "Troops". To earn those perks you must capture maprooms. The amount of troop perks you get is proportional to the numbers imbalance between the three sides in the arena; the larger the imbalance, the fewer perks you earn.
-
Moot, you've been extremely defensive, combatative, and contradictory for little or no reason the past couple weeks with a NUMBER of threads. Not sure what's up with that man, but take a chill pill.
The number of troops it takes to capture a maproom is directly tied to the number of troops a goon carries. You cannot separate these 2 issues. Your "Show me where I can't!!!" retorts are not your best showing here.
-
what about looking at it from the point of view of giving people a little extra incentive for running supplies and troops? add a misc perk point deal and once a number of points is achieved, they can use their points to take extra supplies or troops in a single run. i know i'd do it if there was something besides what sometimes turns into a waste of time for running troops or supplies.
-
So I would then like to see a new perk category: "Troops". To earn those perks you must capture maprooms. The amount of troop perks you get is proportional to the numbers imbalance between the three sides in the arena; the larger the imbalance, the fewer perks you earn.
That could be one way. One of the things about this suggestion is that it's one more non-exclusive (ie you do this and every other thing that costs bomber perks) use for bomber perks, so that there's better chances that people don't have so many unused perks points that this idea's a non starter. IOW there'd effectively be no scarcity to something that's supposed to be rare.. and if not, we're back to square one: everyone carrying X number of troops means X number of troops is how many it takes.
This would also get more people in C47s.
Moot, you've been extremely defensive, combatative, and contradictory for little or no reason the past couple weeks with a NUMBER of threads. Not sure what's up with that man, but take a chill pill.
Show me where I've done anything but thoroughly and impartially argue. Take a chill pill yourself. This is all just hashing things out about a video game and I'm not taking it seriously other than being impartial and meticulous. If that chaps your bellybutton or you can't not take everything personally, then stop reading and replying.
The number of troops it takes to capture a maproom is directly tied to the number of troops a goon carries. You cannot separate these 2 issues.
Why? Just say why you "cannot separate these 2 issues". That's what I've asked since I dunno how many posts up. You never give an answer other than "just because". The HTC comment has nothing in it that explicits whether it includes perk loadouts or not. That these two issues cannot be separated in unperked scenario is understood, that they can't be in a perked scenario is not clear at all. Of course it'd all be settled if e.g. HT chimed in.
Your "Show me where I can't!!!" retorts are not your best showing here.
:lol Where did I even say that?
You know what I think Krusty? I'm totally trouncing your arguments (note the word arguments and not some other .. what's the term.. character assassination "word") and you just can't bear it.
-
You know what I think Krusty? I'm totally trouncing your arguments (note the word arguments and not some other .. what's the term.. character assassination "word") and you just can't bear it.
No.. you're not. You're repeating yourself ad nauseum and just about blowing a gasket doing so.
So show me where HTC explicitly said that their gameplay design choice includes perk loadouts like the one I'm suggesting.
That's where you asked it. The 2 go hand in hand. Troops per capture and troops per trip. They are intrinsicly tied together. Your only response is "Where?! Show me how they're tied together!" where the case has been stated by Hitech they are tied together, and will remain equal to each other.
End of story. You don't have to twist words or fling insults man. You don't have a leg to stand on. It's been discussed so many times. Pretending this is a new topic by using the word "perk" is a distraction and nothing else. You want more troops so you don't lose a capture. End of request. Hitech has squashed that idea. End of response.
-
:lol .. I'm blowing a gasket. Really Krusty? Show me where I blow a gasket. In fact recently I've been more nonchalant than usual. Maybe your crystal ball needs replacin. Maybe it's you that's blowing a gasket. Have you considered that?
Where am I insulting ? How can you get away with so many false statements in both factual matters like airplane stats or injecting meaning to ambiguous quotes like HT's comment, and keep getting away with it? It's been years that you've been doing this. When are you going to stop?
Where does HT say that if we got a perk loadout system the troops per vehicle would still be limited to one map room's worth? This might be what HT thinks but there's no explicit evidence that it is their design intention.
I never asked, this is just another "wish" where an idea's floated and entertained without being accepted or rejected beforehand.
Hitech has squashed that idea.
Not the perk one.
I'm gonna pass on pointing out how you're pretending that something as ambiguous RE: perk loadouts as HT's comment can be so definitively interpreted. You have no idea whether it includes perk loadouts, you're just guessing. It's dishonest. Whether you actually believe it or are just defending it because you want to have the last word is inconsequential to the fact that there is no explicit evidence that a perk loadout would or wouldn't be included in that comment from HT.
And no one here is blowing a gasket. What are you smoking? How is sharpening your arguments so that they leave no doubt as to their correctness or incorrectness when put to the test, blowing a gasket? Are you seriously this susceptible? Jeez :lol
Seriously. It's like being frank and diligent enough to take someone's argument and run thru it integrally, testing it from head to toe, and thoroughly considering everything - it's as if being that comprehensive is somehow threatening to you. What's going on? Are you just scared of arguments? It's the same deal in the 109K/410 thread and in the previous 410 thread, and a bunch of other threads over the years, e.g. one with WMaker where you're just totally off base and "blowing a gasket".
And I'm not the only one who thinks so. I've seen other people who I barely know and talk to make the exact same observations in other discussions I never participated in. Some of those by PM. One of those is HT (IIRC) himself - Krusties as unit of BS. Get a grip. I'm not blowing a gasket. Having a comprehensive POV on something and faithfully transcribing it to text doesn't require someone to be "blowing a gasket". Impartially entertaining an idea so that it's thoroughly weighed and measured isn't some symptom of evil, it's just honest common sense. Just shrewdness and discipline.
-
Another wall of text.. Dude, chill..
Regardless of what mechanism you're creating for it, the request is for more troops per trip.
You could have requested that partisans hiding in the city rubble jump up and join your troops to the map room.
You could have requested a loudspeaker on your C-47 that inspires citizens to rebel and join your troops in the map room.
You could have requested drones for the C-47 (formations) for 3 loads of troops at the map room.
You could have requested towed gliders so that you get more troops to the map room.
Instead you requested an attempted justification for the extra troops (paying perks).
End result: More troops per trip hit the map room.
HTC says "no" to that. Doesn't matter what method. Could be a magic wizard summons demons from the underworld to supplement your troops running for the map room. They said the numbers hitting the map room are for gameplay balance reasons. For all the reasons repeated to you over and over. Your grasp on the matter is either nonexistent or you're trolling. At this point I'm suspecting the latter, given your walls of ranting text in a few threads.
-
HTC says "no" to that. Doesn't matter what method.
Show evidence
-
what about looking at it from the point of view of giving people a little extra incentive for running supplies and troops? add a misc perk point deal and once a number of points is achieved, they can use their points to take extra supplies or troops in a single run. i know i'd do it if there was something besides what sometimes turns into a waste of time for running troops or supplies.
You earn perk points for running troops, for a base capture, and supplies now.
Show evidence
Since there is not a perk ord system, we know the answer now is no.
Just speculating, but I don't think a perk ord system would be an "extra ords" type deal but be a basic load out with "better" loads perked.
F4U-1D as "basic". .50cals and 500lb bombs. Perked, 1000lb bombs, 20mm cannon, nee F4U-1C.
B-17 with 500lb bombs as basic. 1000lb bombs perked.
Not extra bombs, extra ammo.
Not extra troops, better troops. Rangers. :P
wrongway