War Win requirments

[Tank-Ace]

A post by Lusche got me thinking about the war win requirements. The current system seems flawed, in that it values all bases equally, regardless of size, location, or type. Lusche said he was toying with the idea of a big, main objective that is needed to win the war, but couldn't think of a way to make it work with 3 countries. The benefits would be a more clearly defined 'front', and that it REQUIRES you to fight both sides at once, as a single well-planned NOE sneak could effectively cost you the 'war'. Thus it would help alleviate the problems of finding fights during off-hours, and of two countries ignoring each other, because all the 'action' is on the other front.


The issue is that once you take one country's main base, the war-win players on the other country will drop all combat with that first country, and swarm to defend their main base. This would create a relative lack of combat for the first country, and would probably slow down the rotation of maps by a significant degree (literally, the enemy knows exactly where you're going, and how you have to get there).


So what I was thinking is that we could sort of merge the two systems. Instead of one main base, there would be a number of objectives scattered across each country, and you need to take two of each to win the map. There would be more lenient requirements about controlling your own bases, say drop it back to 70% of your own bases, as opposed to 80%.

This would help channel the fights during off-hours (due to a limited number of war-win targets), while still encouraging combat among all sides, at all times. You would still have the potential to win the map, even if you're "losing".

[Skyguns MKII]

perhaps a "berlin" style take? make 1 "mega base hq style" thing 2nd should be elimination of strats?

[Eric19]

I like it +1 to tankace

[Zacherof]

I like em both

[ScottyK]

72     General Forums / Wishlist / Re: Strat perks    on: September 24, 2012, 01:00:41 AM
 In my opinion strats need to be an important part in winning the war, make it that the opposing countries city has to be down under say 40% and keep the minimum bases required in order for a win.  




My fame suit is on.
 Reply  Quote  Notify




This was an idea i had in another thread,  instead of keeping the current percentages of bases owned the same, do like the OP suggested and drop them a bit.

[alpini13]

    this war win mentality IS flawed,simply because there is a large number of pilots that dont care if the war is even won.....they want a GV spawn for gv's to fight at all day long(and not get bombed), and there are bomber pilots that just want to bomb and sink stuff and dont care to join a planned attack...and then there are fighter sticks that just want to furball.     and so when numbers are low in arena's,you still have the same problem...no mission makers,or no mission joiners.sometimes we have this same problem when the arena is full simply because there is an 85 like spawn on the map.   not all spawn will flash a base,and gv's dont show up on radar.  you can have 40 guys fighting it out and not be on radar and one base flashing......and on the other front 40 guys in the air spread all over the place making multiple bases flash....it could be even numbers...but it looks totally different.  and then there are those guys that keep saying that because so and so shot them down or killed them...then somehow they have a cheat...and they say it all the time....and then ofcourse we also have the players that go on and on about how great their side is because they are taking a bunch of bases in a row...but dont stop to look at the fact that they go in a large group to a base where there are no defenders and usually have a 30-50 players advantage to boot,LOL. some  of these same players also go on and on about how their ENY is so high(because they have 30-50 extra palyers) and they cant fly their 5 eny plane.    the point here is, everybody pays their money and plays the way they want to play...as it should be.  some just want a good fight and dont care about stategy or winning the war.

[Tilt]

I think the Race for the Flag / Capital is a viable option.

I agree that a base loss count is less relevant than a capital loss

I would like to see the use of depots or rail yards as some refer to them as the logistical targets away from the central strat zone. I would like to see depots actually work in as much as  their attrition/loss removes/reduces the prospect of auto resupply to the bases they would normally feed.

Once a number of connecting towns (to a depot) have been captured then the depot also becomes vulnerable to capture. Depots would have map rooms and some town buildings. These connecting towns should not be confused with zones of supply.

In this respect I would change the local model radically.

Towns would be come even more focal. All fields, Ports, GV Fields, Air fields would be logistically linked to towns which in turn are logistically "linked" to depots.

Towns would be capturable as they are now. However capturing a town would not capture a field..... instead it returns the field status to capturable and denies the field any further automated logistics (stuff does not rebuild) until the town (or the field) is returned to the same country as each other.

All towns are supplied by depots but the zone of supply would be very large and overlap the zones of other depots. All towns will be capable of supply from two or three depots. Border towns will be linked to both friendly and enemy depots but only supplied by friendly depots. The zones would also cause depots to be resupplied by other friendly depots on the edges of their zones.

As above if all depots supplying a town are lost or severely damaged then the town will not rebuild...... neither will the field it supports.

In this way land grab is focused upon the capture of town and depots. Encirclement via capture cuts off logistics to isolated fields leading to their rapid loss.

As towns are captured close to the capital it too becomes vulnerable to capture. The capital however enjoys several (ac & GV) fields linked to it. These then remain in the possession of the capital until the war is lost.

All fields and towns can be player resupplied. So whilst an enemy field may be dead it can be resurrected by the enemy if it is not captured. Individual field capture becomes a two stage process. (capture town & capture field) but the 2nd stage is somewhat rapid whilst giving the defenders a recovery position.

Focussing stuff over towns removes combat / attrition focus from airfields reducing the benefits of total airfield attrition until after the town is captured.

Whilst individual town & field capture is a little slower the ability to capture large sectors thru encirclement accelerates the pace of the "war". This risk of encirclement / logistic loss to large areas focusses combat in those areas threatening it. Capturing two depots with over lapping zones would have serious consequences to the towns supplied within the zones.

Single massive horde like attempts to roll up the map directly toward the capital risk being cut of them selves if they rely on only one thread of capturable depots to supply the fields they have captured. The whole incursion could be lost  or seriously limited by the loss of one depot.

So we have a race for the flag type system that can focus combat and produce drama with respect to massive incursion or targeted defence whilst removing focus away from the airfield towards and over  towns and depots, with presumably a big battle at the end as the capital is threatened.

[Greebo]

Instead of a flat percentage of bases needed from each side you could make it a points total. So for instance the bases could be worth:- port or CV = 1 pt, V base = 2 pts, small field = 3 points, mid base = 4 points and big base = 5 points. So a country would have to get XX points worth of bases off each of the other sides without losing more than XX points worth of its own to win the war. The points required could be adjusted for each map.

Doing it this way HTC could nominate one or more rear bases per side to have a very high points score, say 30 points. There would be an extra option on the map to indicate which bases these are. These would then become strategic targets for the opposing sides concentrating the attacking and defending players together. Maps that tend to stick around too long could get more high value bases.

The benefit of this approach is it does not involve making new maps, it just needs a few FE and host adjustments. The problem with it is with asymmetrical maps like Mindanao where some sides might have more high scoring targets in reach than others, however that map is hardly fair now.

[The Fugitive]

Instead of a flat percentage of bases needed from each side you could make it a points total. So for instance the bases could be worth:- port or CV = 1 pt, V base = 2 pts, small field = 3 points, mid base = 4 points and big base = 5 points. So a country would have to get XX points worth of bases off each of the other sides without losing more than XX points worth of its own to win the war. The points required could be adjusted for each map.

Doing it this way HTC could nominate one or more rear bases per side to have a very high points score, say 30 points. There would be an extra option on the map to indicate which bases these are. These would then become strategic targets for the opposing sides concentrating the attacking and defending players together. Maps that tend to stick around too long could get more high value bases.

The benefit of this approach is it does not involve making new maps, it just needs a few FE and host adjustments. The problem with it is with asymmetrical maps like Mindanao where some sides might have more high scoring targets in reach than others, however that map is hardly fair now.

This I like, it's simple, easy to keep track of, adjustable, and interesting for game play. HTC, "Make it so!"

















....Please 

[Lusche]

Instead of a flat percentage of bases needed from each side you could make it a points total. So for instance the bases could be worth:- port or CV = 1 pt, V base = 2 pts, small field = 3 points, mid base = 4 points and big base = 5 points.

(...)
The benefit of this approach is it does not involve making new maps, it just needs a few FE and host adjustments.

This is exactly the system I proposed as well  few years ago, and for the very same reasons. While I would prefer the "big single target" to push for, I have found no ways to make it work with the three side setup, nor with he current set of maps.
And while I don't know how the chances are for a change like this, I'd guess anything requiring a major redesign of all terrains has a "when hell freezes over" chance of implementation...


A point system would have another advantage it still allows for all kinds of gameplay, for example armored offensives along a chain of Vbases, because they would still contribute.

[hitech]

I am confused. What do you consider a "Main base".


HiTech

[Tilt]

Larger capturable bases close to the HQ equidistant from borders?

[The Fugitive]

I am confused. What do you consider a "Main base".


HiTech

Maybe like the former "zone base" we use to have?

[Tank-Ace]

I am confused. What do you consider a "Main base".


HiTech

Sorry sir, I was having trouble coming up with fitting terminology.

Let's just call the objectives needed for war win "objective bases".

So basically you need to capture 2 objective bases from each side, and control 70% of your own bases in order to win the war. With the 2 base requirement, these bases would have to be fairly large, and difficult to take, and a challenge to get to.

An idea I was toying with would be to use the FlaK tower structure as the only object that has to be destroyed to capture the base. Set it to need something like 60,000 lbs of ordnance to destroy. These would be placed roughly midway between the stats and the 'front'. Attach a medium airfield to it.

Or we could go with a "super base" type of setup. Say flack tower with hardness set at something like 100,000lbs of ordnance, with an attached vehicle base and two large airfield.  Put them very close to, or right on the front, use it to generate massive fights.


Something I just thought of with the former setup; they would be a great incentive for people to hop in bombers, and give the interceptor crowd a more reliable source of combat. Additionally, they would be magnets for B-29's, as they would be the only bomber capable of destroying it on their own, as well as the relative lack of FlaK, and distance from 163 bases.

[Arlo]

I am confused. What do you consider a "Main base".


HiTech

Any base with at least three brothels nearby would be considered a main base by my squadron.