Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: hazed- on June 13, 2003, 02:33:59 PM
-
to stop fuel porkage being favoured over captures.
As we all know in wartime bases hid their resources in order to stop them being hit.
Well why dont we have Fuel bunkers UNDERGROUND? or camoflaged in random places on any given base?
If they were randomly placed in the area of the runways and hangers etc it would need a TOTAL carpet bomb of the base in order to find, hit and destroy them. No more easy to find milkrunning just to close a base from fuel.
No more suicide dives with a single jabo aircraft just to kill that last fuel!.
You would just be guessing where the fuels are when you dropped that single bomb.
Finally we would have a REASON or reward for JUST carpet bombing a target like they really did in WW2.
You could still have the fuel explode and burn once its hit but beforehand it stays hidden as if its camoflaged or in an underground tank.
Perhaps have 50% fuel underground and 50% in bunkers above like now? This way bases would rarely lose all the fuel down to 25% which seems to be the big problem most have with fuel porkers.
to make up for the removal of some of the visible fuel targets etc for jabo flyers with few bombs perhaps we could have a pilots mess or jeeps, squadron huts or trucks and repairing aircraft to make up for it. they could be low value but fun targets to straffe.no kill of course just another object to bomb.
-
neat idea
-
I like it:)
-
I must say I too have gotten entirely sick of the fuel porkers. Going from field to field looking for one that I can fly my short legged fighter off of is very irritating and I find myself logging off without flying more and more. (The fact that my short legged fighter should be a long legged fighter is just icing on the cake)
There needs to be a way to deal with the fast jabo diving in with no intention to do anything but kill a single fuel depot and then auger. When these guys come in using P-51s or Typhoons they are nearly impossible to stop.
Hazed's idea would at least prevent them from memorizing the location of the fuel bunkers and make their job a little harder.
Underground fuel bunkers might be a good idea too. Say, 75% fuel and add penetration bombs like the Tallboy that are required to get the last of the fuel. Only Lanc's could carry those so the suicide jabos would be stopped. Suicide Lanc's are much easier to stop.
-
Cool idea Hazed...... wtg .. good thinking!
-
Hazed your not paid enough for these ideas. Need representaion? I know someone...
-
:eek: Hmmm, was just thinking about the work involved with randomly placing strat at 250+ fields for an MA terrain..... sheesh, it would be a daunting task, to say the least. Especially when one considers that it would require that someone go in and do it on all of the current maps. That would be close to 1000 fields :eek: !
From what I have heard, what you suggest will be more easily implemented with AH2. But still...a LOT of work :).
-
Heck, just moving the stuff around on the field might accomplish the same thing.
I'm still not sure that it needs to be changed, however. I have enough trouble with the current setup.
shubie
-
I reread the original post, and think that there's one thing I would change about the idea. The addition of useless targets to bomb doesn't do anything for me--I bomb to get a result.
Why not try to attach fighter types to the hangars? If the base has three, as does a small base, the plane set could be divided up on that basis. When the NW hangar (for example) goes down, no American Iron could up. Same goes for the others.
That way, us building battlers could get a progressive result from taking out hangars.
-
And it ain't a train at the other end of the tunnel!!!
Let's go for a root cause analysis for our problem, here...
The real issue is only being able to take fuel based on what percentage of fuel is available at a base. Lots of people hate that, for a variety of reasons.
Let's change the model. Instead of making every plane take less fuel, let's limit the number of planes that can up from a base when the fuel is porked. I'm sure some agreeable schedule could be figured out.
It could work like this: A base has a large but finite amount of fuel when at 100% (not 125%, that's silly), that would decrease when planes take off, and when fuel is porked. The 25% quantity would seriously restrict the number of planes able to take off. Say, fuel for a dozen or so spit 5s at full fuel.
Fuel would be replenished by arrival of trains/convoys/barges. Incentive would be added to get those targets, which are pretty much ignored now.
Advantage for furballers: fuel is available right up until the time you run out completely. 25% fuel at the field, you can take 75% and furball all night long.
Advantage for strat guys: new strat targets, and no reason to hide or make the fuel bunkers harder.
-
Rshubert i dont agree the 'real problem' is the fuel load thing although I agree it is a little off that 25% in a p51 compared to 25% in a la5 is classed the same.Its been the way it is since AH started and it really hasnt caused any problems apart from for a few aircraft like la7s or 109s etc. Its hardly as pressing a concern as the actual fields ALL being stripped of fuel.
This is a suggested solution based on the CURRENT system of fuel loading. We should stick to one issue at a time.
You might be right it might well be too much to change maps but then again it might be possible for HTC to just not display the graphic of the bunker which would immediately reduce the amount of players that will hit them.
They might be able to programme a simple routine which shifts the position of any bunker around as a map loads in for the first time. It might not be as complicated as it at first seems which is why i actually suggested it.
If its possible to keep the fuel bunker object but stop the graphic of it showing you have your camoflaged underground bunker already :) True we could guess a bit easily where they would be but we would still mess it up a few more times.
Guess only HTC could say on this.
-
why don't you whiners defend your bases? oh sorry, your too busy 'furballing".
-
Whiners? someone came up w/ an interesting idea and you call them whiners? Piss off, John.
-
Originally posted by john9001
why don't you whiners defend your bases? oh sorry, your too busy 'furballing".
How do you defend against a 30 plane horde that come screaming in at 20K doing 400 mph and porking the base to hell? Oh Great Exalted One, please do tell.
-
sorry to hijack this thread but did u guys had any feedback on ideas ???? so far ?
-
I repeat my question.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
How do you defend against a 30 plane horde that come screaming in at 20K doing 400 mph and porking the base to hell? Oh Great Exalted One, please do tell.
well in that case, the base deserves to be destroyed and no changes are needed. The issue Hazed is addressing is the effect a very small number of players (or even a single player) can have on the game. I think he's just looking for better balance in gameplay.
The greatest benifit that I see is that by making that change is that strat players would be encouraged to use more teamwork to get a job done.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
How do you defend against a 30 plane horde that come screaming in at 20K doing 400 mph and porking the base to hell? Oh Great Exalted One, please do tell.
You can't.
If you spend enoough time orbiting between a friendly field and en enemy field in a P-51D you might get a few fuel porkers, but the vast majority will get through. The fact that they don't plan on surviving gives them a huge advantage as they can go transonic into the ground, firing their rockets just before impact.
In order to defend you would have to have a large number of players tasked with CAP duties around the fields. This would be quite boring and thus isn't going to happen.
-
Originally posted by john9001
why don't you whiners defend your bases? oh sorry, your too busy 'furballing".
We had an actual adult discussion of issues going on here, then you had to take it to the "whine vs. whine" level.
Please go away.
-
Originally posted by AtmkRstr
well in that case, the base deserves to be destroyed and no changes are needed. The issue Hazed is addressing is the effect a very small number of players (or even a single player) can have on the game. I think he's just looking for better balance in gameplay.
The greatest benifit that I see is that by making that change is that strat players would be encouraged to use more teamwork to get a job done.
I still disagree with the "balanced play" argument. I don't think there's anything to balance, since I think things are ok the way they are.
My squad works together. I know some don't. That's going to happen with a bunch of independent individuals in the game.
The gameplay is fine the way it is, imo. I understand that some disagree, but they have alternatives in the current setup. But, the proposal to hide the fuel is workable. Again, I like my idea better, (I usually like my ideas) but it would require major code. I don't mind that, as long as I don't have to write it. Heck, I can spend all day finding things for other people to do.
:)
-
Good idea Hazed, hubert, errrrrrrrr..... nevermind. :rolleyes: