Actually Here's a thought, while the General Pattons of the M3 world are resupplying town a secondary group with a set of balls up's from a rearward base and Flys to the base being attacked and fights the attackers.... I know its a lot to ask from people but you know its a start.
Nice idea, but that approach to field defense is usually of not much value.
How's a field lost? By destruction of towns (usually requires some ordnance), elimination of ack (usually done by fighters), and troops. Everything else in an attack is just useful to support the primary objectives. What are the consequences for field defense, what are the possibilities?
- Keeping troops away is easily possible when they have to be flown in. This, however, does not create a fight, because getting committed to a fight means letting the goon slip through
- Keeping troops away when they are arriving on foot is much harder from the air, best done on the ground. Flying in from a different base for this purpose is quite useless, as the e-state will necessarily soon be as low as it would be taking off locally.
- Preventing the enemy from taking down the ack from the air. Most ack killers are pretty low on E, good climbing planes can quickly equalize that taking off locally - a trip from elsewhere takes longer than it takes to kill the ack anyway.
- Preventing too many bomb hits on town. Coming in from a different base for this works nicely. However, as the bombers are the targets, don't expect this to create fighter-vs-fighters fights. As with the goons, fighters are best ignored to focus on the bombers (and possibly heavy fighters). Once the first bombs hit and a fight is started, its usually too late to start defending.
- Don't forget the m3 with supplies...
- Further, if a capture takes so long that there's time to up from a different field, the best defense is to pork the enemy base
Traveling to the fight from elsewhere for fighter-vs-fighter fights? Of some entertainment value, but of very low relevance compared to other more important matters requiring attention. Of all the alternatives to defend, it's also the one that requires the least amount of balls, too - being the task that naturally requires the highest e-state, and targets the highest threat for the own well-being (compared to much lower e-states needed while protecting the assets on the ground).
You want a furball. That's fine. But this is war, and someone has to do the dirty job - or die trying at least.
ABSOLUTELY correct. As in a previous thread about Resup/defending, it was mentioned that with higher auto ack lethality it would get more folk to up fighters to defend. I am convinced this would help out!
If a carrier is right on the coast near a field, it either ends with quick capture, or if a fight starts to develop it ends with the carrier sunk. Furballing in such situation is fun in the same sense as cut-the-rope and angry birds (*) - as much as it is pointless for the war effort. Creating invincible ack will simply always guarantee the latter outcome, carrier sunk. Slightly beefed up ack will do nothing, even a carrier group can be deacked, but why would anyone do that when is easier to sink and get rid of the threat completely?
Crazy idea:
What seems to prevent more fights in the air is towns being too close to fields. Attackers can easily prepare the town for capture and closely watch the field, switching to vulching instantaneously if needed. Defenders can get to town quickly, but only at very low e-states. If towns were at say 10-15 miles (half distance to other bases) from the related field it would cause more complexity for the attack. Either allowing more easy departure at the local base (attack concentrated on town) or allowing more easy defense from elsewhere (forces divided between field and town). Obviously, it is getting more difficult for defenders, too, due to a longer distance between field and town.
Of course, such distant town cannot work with GV spawns 2 minutes out. Also, being further from one base, may imply its closer to another, which is potentially owned by the enemy, reducing the distance for the attackers. This might have been unsolvable in the old days when any field could be own by any country, but with the 90% of own + 20% of each other victory conditions a layout might be possible where this problem does not occur in practice.
(*) Those are great games, and lots of fun. Nothing negative implied here.
