Two Map room idea

[chris3]

moin

just a idea.
if every airfild get two map rooms, one at the air fild and one at the town, we can get much mor harder ground fights.
of course the town must get a own vh or some barracks area too.
so its posible that the town is hold by one country and the fild is hold by the other country.

what do you think?

cu chris3

[DERK13]

no. The point of town is to destroy it so you can capture the field. Thats how its been. Im thinking you may be new to the game, am i correct?

[EskimoJoe]

Very interesting idea, I kinda like it. Back in H2H, the maproom was on the field, forcing players to drop ack and provide a cap on the field.

If anything, I'd say let's try it out for a bit and see if we like it or not, find the pros and cons, somewhat similar to how the strat system came into play.

[chris3]

moin

lol it is my 9 jear now her in AH ;-).

jepp, this H2H or the old fields in some senarios bring me to this idea.
we just get two bases at one base thats all.

cu chris3

[MachFly]

why not just put a air field right next to a vehicle field? Perhaps have the air base right between the town and vfield?

[chris3]

moin

sounds good too

cu

[Tilt]

I would like to split the town and the fields. Both by distance and capture dependancy.

I would proffer a game play set where the town (a little further away from the field than presently situated) acted as the main conduit for all supplies to a field.

The town would carry no more defences than presently except for a gv spawn point from its allocated field.
Both would have their own map rooms and have to be captured independantly. Fields would not carry any town buildings but could carry more AA.
If a town or field is captured (such that they belong to different countries) then nothing rebuilds on the field unless field supplies are brought in by players using GV's or Goons.
Inter field gv spawns would be from field to town (geographically) not field to field. That is.. spawns are closer to towns and further from fields.

IMO this would promote game play over and around the towns which would continue even after the town was captured. Such that the game play emphasis is now capture and hold where as it leans presently to capture only (rapid retakes being the exception rather than the rule).

Further whilst the larger bombers are used to take the town down they also get to play a part in the subsequent destruction of the field assets to neutralise it ready for capture (much as with a GV field now). If field assets are not attritted then the field stays healthy with the prospect of retaking its town.

[kvuo75]

Such that the game play emphasis is now capture and hold where as it leans presently to capture only (rapid retakes being the exception rather than the rule).

rememeber, for a few days after the new towns were introduced, there was no ack in town.. had to stay back and defend it until a building popped. i didn't see a problem with that.

[EskimoJoe]

I like Tilt's idea