Wish for the week - Old strat system

[vonKrimm]

I'm toying around with a simple point system again right now...

Maybe I will put up a new proposal/discussion thread later... 

We will only pay attention if you bring some of your (in-) famous pies. 

[Lusche]

We will only pay attention if you bring some of your (in-) famous pies. 

  Unfortunately you can't quantify everything 

[WWhiskey]

I'm toying around with a simple point system again right now...

What about if AH would make the state of the strats as the major component of the war winning requirements (similar to what Chris3 had proposed a few times)? Capturing individual bases would then truly be a tactical objective as means to get better access to the enemy strats.

This could also result in more concentrated battles / frontlines, as there would be a natural inclination of exploiting already established footholds and continuing thrusts into enemy territoy instead of grabbing just more bases here and there to increase base count?
(This is what the old field capture order failed at because it was too ridid). Long range high altitude bombing missions would have much more of a point without degrading tactical combat and real strategy would play a much larger part.

Maybe I will put up a new proposal/discussion thread later... 

maybe the percentage of bases needed to win the map could be influenced by the  amount of damage to the strats?

[Lusche]

maybe the percentage of bases needed to win the map could be influenced by the  amount of damage to the strats?

That would be one way, and a relatively easy to implement one. 

[jimson]

I'm toying around with a simple point system again right now...

What about if AH would make the state of the strats as the major component of the war winning requirements (similar to what Chris3 had proposed a few times)? Capturing individual bases would then truly be a tactical objective as means to get better access to the enemy strats.

This could also result in more concentrated battles / frontlines, as there would be a natural inclination of exploiting already established footholds and continuing thrusts into enemy territoy instead of grabbing just more bases here and there to increase base count?
(This is what the old field capture order failed at because it was too ridid). Long range high altitude bombing missions would have much more of a point without degrading tactical combat and real strategy would play a much larger part.

Maybe I will put up a new proposal/discussion thread later...  

+1

We have tried to do something like this in some AvA set ups. Make the destruction of strat targets the main objective and base capture is relegated to tactical positioning, just to create a game distinctively different from the MA

Of course we don't have the right tools to have the map automatically roll at completion of these objectives, and had to manually tally the results, but it would be nice to see something like this enabled with some sort of point system.

[Raptor05121]

FRIGGIN +1!

[MK-84]

I'm toying around with a simple point system again right now...

What about if AH would make the state of the strats as the major component of the war winning requirements (similar to what Chris3 had proposed a few times)? Capturing individual bases would then truly be a tactical objective as means to get better access to the enemy strats.

This could also result in more concentrated battles / frontlines, as there would be a natural inclination of exploiting already established footholds and continuing thrusts into enemy territoy instead of grabbing just more bases here and there to increase base count?
(This is what the old field capture order failed at because it was too ridid). Long range high altitude bombing missions would have much more of a point without degrading tactical combat and real strategy would play a much larger part.

Maybe I will put up a new proposal/discussion thread later... 

+1 to the idea of making base capture tactical and strats...well strategic.

[Nathan60]

 Really would give a  more robust and  immersive aspect to the  game.

[Lusche]

Bumping this thread will do nothing for this wish.
And actually the chances of going back are... well, "very small" would be an euphemism
AH almost never goes back, particularly as it's not just a simple setting and after all the work involved.

The best chance you have getting something "better", is to present an idea that is fully fleshed out, easy to implement (just change of a few variables instead of having to do major artwork and the likes) and no negative impact on game balance.

[thndregg]

I'm toying around with a simple point system again right now...

What about if AH would make the state of the strats as the major component of the war winning requirements (similar to what Chris3 had proposed a few times)? Capturing individual bases would then truly be a tactical objective as means to get better access to the enemy strats.

This could also result in more concentrated battles / frontlines, as there would be a natural inclination of exploiting already established footholds and continuing thrusts into enemy territoy instead of grabbing just more bases here and there to increase base count?
(This is what the old field capture order failed at because it was too ridid). Long range high altitude bombing missions would have much more of a point without degrading tactical combat and real strategy would play a much larger part.

Maybe I will put up a new proposal/discussion thread later... 

Good thoughts, Lusche.

[Lusche]

Good thoughts, Lusche.

Thank you

But impractical so far. Every setup I have imagined in the last few days had several severe flaws.  

[james]

Take the old BLUE arena and put all axis on one side open plane set and all allied on the other open plane set, keep the radar as is, put the old strat system in there. Put the tanks and GV's in there as well.  The axis have the jet, but the allies have the c47. This would be at least worth a try to see if people like it no?

[EagleDNY]

As a start, how about just making the HQ not be resupplyable?  That ALONE will create some big HQ missions as it will suddenly be worth spending an hour to deny another country radar for two.  It should also make it worthwhile to intercept those big buff raids if you know your HQ is going to be down for 2 hours if they get through. 

I would also suggest at the same time putting a wind layer at 25K - there should be something to stop the unrealistic laser accurate bombing from way high altitude.  A wind layer to move those bombs a bit will make it a little tougher to get hits on the HQ.

$.02

[icepac]

They could make the train spawn buildings destroyable.........Maybe something like 4x1000 to kill one for an hour but make it that supplies dropped by M3 on train tracks nearby can bring them up faster.

Leave the ability to resupply the city by pilots and GV but reduce the amount of rebuilding from each air drop a bit.

[SectorNine50]

Just brainstorming here:

I've always thought that the strats should become the primary targets, and the fields secondary and purely strategic targets.

Perhaps a system similar to Battlefield 2: Project Reality's "Assault and Secure" would be a good solution, which is a modified version of Battlefield's "Conquest" setup.  This would help generate a battlefront while still requiring players to both attack and defend one or multiple points on the map.

For those who don't know, Battlefield 2 is a first-person shooter.  To win in "Conquest," you must own enough capture points to run the opposing team's tickets to zero.  The more points you own, the faster your enemy's tickets diminish.  All the points in "Conquest" are open for capture at all times.

Project Reality is a mod for BF2 who's emphasis is on realism and military tactics.  They modified the "Conquest" setup by making it so that you have own one or more prerequisite capture points before you can proceed to the next point.  If you lose one of the prerequisite capture points to the enemy, you can not longer take the next point.  You must then regain that point before you can proceed.  They call this "Assault and Secure."

Thoughts?