base turnover: guns vs hangars

[caldera]

Why do the guns instantly pop up on a steamrolled base, but the hangars have a fixed downtime? 

This rewards steamrolling eunuchs who run to the jack-in-the-box ack, the second the base changes hands.  It would require a bit of strategy in base taking if the scorched earth approach wasn't completely in the attacker's favor.

[The Fugitive]

Ive been saying this for years. It should force players to defend the base they just grabbed even if it is only for 15 minutes.

[Lazerr]

Ive been saying this for years. It should force players to defend the base they just grabbed even if it is only for 15 minutes.

This applies to the gamey resupply of towns, and how easily its done.  Sucks the life out of good battles.

[ccvi]

On the other hand, it would also make sense to speed up rebuilt time if the capturing country has a shorter rebuild time on stuff that is down than it has remaining at the time of capture.
E.g. ammo bunkers down for 180min, and the country that took the field has a fully working factory, that would grant a rebuild time of 30min.

[Ciaphas]

This applies to the gamey resupply of towns, and how easily its done.  Sucks the life out of good battles.

The ease of resupply is born from the losing side not engaging the resupply vehicles running to town. It's still like a 5 minute ride to most towns from the vehicle spawn. That's more than enough time to track them down and break their toys.

What I have witnessed is those that lose a base very rarely turn around and fight back. While a majority of the community (actively on these boards) want some form of back and forth exchange between forces, there is still a portion of those that play the game that prefer the path of least resistance or putting forth effort but, "effort" is subjective.

It would make sense for defenses to be up and running first after a capture as a fortified structure is much better to launch ops from than an undefended one.

If it's the "gamey" (<--- terrible word for this situation) or "unrealistic" or "non immersive" aspect that is bugging you then recommend something that would be tangible. Perhaps something like this:

• No sorties can be flown from field for 15 minutes
• ** No attacks on the airfield can happen for 20 Minutes
• AAA downtime adjusted to 10 min - defenses always go up first
• Supplies via GV only from a VB with direct spawn point if GV base is not under attack
• Supplies via AC are allowed
• Limit the number of supply drops to 4 (2 for field and 2 for town from any combination of GV or AC)

** You know that whole immersion thing that is being complained about here. After being pushed from a base it's very unlikely for the sake of immersion that your team would be able to mount a counter attack to reclaim the base because of logistics and what-not.

 

[The Fugitive]

I think the whole point here is to bring back the combat aspect of the game. As it is now it's roll a base and jump to some other side of the map and do it again. Sure it seems more and more players are looking to avoid combat and just roll bases. And look at where that has gotten us now. Low numbers and very little interaction between opposing sides.

[Ciaphas]

I think the whole point here is to bring back the combat aspect of the game. As it is now it's roll a base and jump to some other side of the map and do it again. Sure it seems more and more players are looking to avoid combat and just roll bases. And look at where that has gotten us now. Low numbers and very little interaction between opposing sides.

Taking a base is combat. It's not the attackers fault the defenders do not rise to the challenge... .

I also think AAA should have friendly fire turned on... .

[guncrasher]

I think the whole point here is to bring back the combat aspect of the game. As it is now it's roll a base and jump to some other side of the map and do it again. Sure it seems more and more players are looking to avoid combat and just roll bases. And look at where that has gotten us now. Low numbers and very little interaction between opposing sides.

what makes you think they're gonna stay and defend? 


semp

[Ramesis]

Taking a base is combat. It's not the attackers fault the defenders do not rise to the challenge... .

I also think AAA should have friendly fire turned on... .

+1

[Shuffler]

I think if more folks were in the game and not on the boards.    There would be more fights.

 

[The Fugitive]

Taking a base is combat. It's not the attackers fault the defenders do not rise to the challenge... .

I also think AAA should have friendly fire turned on... .

oh the defenders do "rise" to the challenge, they all jump into GVs and resupply the field!  From what Hitech says, AAA DOES hit friendlies as well as enemies.

You want to talk AAA, why do fighters get hit so much more often than buffs? AAA in the game targets aircraft by picking a spot ahead of the aircraft and firing a round randomly into a specific size box. You would think a bomber moving at a more "known" rate of speed with little or change of direction would have far more likely hits than a fighter that is maneuvering. I dont expect a bomber to be dropped by a single hit or two due to the size, but I have flown merrily along in B24 and have had "puffy" blowing up around me for 5 miutes or more and not take a single hit. Fighters, hit all the time WITH maneuvering, and dont even bother trying anything in a 262, you might as well just bail as soon as puffy opens up.

what makes you think they're gonna stay and defend? 


semp

That is where the changes should be made. Game changes that FORCE players to defend a newly captured base. Force players to fight to defend instead or run supplies. FORCING players to attack and fight for the base instead of "sneaking" them. FORCING players to attack BOTH fronts, take two bases from one team,MUST take at least one from the other team before they can continue on the first team again.

Is this a combat game or not? These days not so much.

[guncrasher]

how are you gonna force me to do something I don't want to do? or anybody else?



semp

[The Fugitive]

I think if more folks were in the game and not on the boards.    There would be more fights.

 

I know your just "trying" to be funny, but that is as far from the truth as you can get. I dont fly any where near as much as I used to and I'd say I run into about 90+ percent of the posters on these boards in game. The majority of the posters these days are those trying to help the game one way or another. Maybe if Hitech came on the boards and posted his game plan for what he sees for the future of the game.... you know, less players, less combat, closed down during EURO times, then maybe those of us who are looking for more could then decide on whether this is the place to be or not.

As for the boards, they are drying up too. With my job, I have lots of down time during the day. 2 minutes here 5 minutes there. I use to spend that time reading/posting on the boards. Even with all that time invested I could spend a half hour to an hour trying to catch up on the days posts and NOT get caught up. These days 4 or 5 5 minute sessions and I've red ALL the posts, even the FSO and scenario posts.

There use to be 2 or 3 lines of names listed across the bottom of the page of players on the boards, now, half a dozen is getting hopping.

how are you gonna force me to do something I don't want to do? or anybody else?



semp

Not going to force you, but if it is a requirement that "X" number of players must stay in the radar circle for 5 minutes after capturing the base or it automatically reverts to is former owner it would make some players stick around to try and hold it.

[Ciaphas]

oh the defenders do "rise" to the challenge, they all jump into GVs and resupply the field!  From what Hitech says, AAA DOES hit friendlies as well as enemies.         

Then take out the VH, it's not rocket science.

want to remove the GV resup from the equation, tae out the fields ability to launch them.

As far as the AAA hitting friendlies. I have yet to see a friendly take any damage from allied AAA.

You want to talk AAA, why do fighters get hit so much more often than buffs? AAA in the game targets aircraft by picking a spot ahead of the aircraft and firing a round randomly into a specific size box. You would think a bomber moving at a more "known" rate of speed with little or change of direction would have far more likely hits than a fighter that is maneuvering. I dont expect a bomber to be dropped by a single hit or two due to the size, but I have flown merrily along in B24 and have had "puffy" blowing up around me for 5 miutes or more and not take a single hit. Fighters, hit all the time WITH maneuvering, and dont even bother trying anything in a 262, you might as well just bail as soon as puffy opens up.

you explained why it happens in your question/complaint.

If AAA fires randomly in a predefined area, a target, regardless of size (as long as the target is not the same size as the target area) is less likely to get hit moving in a straight line. A maneuvering target is more likely to get hit while maneuvering through the target area as its path can and will encounter the random bullets more frequently by chance.

That is where the changes should be made. Game changes that FORCE players to defend a newly captured base. Force players to fight to defend instead or run supplies. FORCING players to attack and fight for the base instead of "sneaking" them. FORCING players to attack BOTH fronts, take two bases from one team,MUST take at least one from the other team before they can continue on the first team again.

whether you like it or not, everything that is being done by a player is related to combat. It doesn't matter if you agree with it. If that dude running sups to town prevents your attack, so be it. Prepare better next time.

Everything that HTC has given us to use serves a purpose. Everything has a tactical/logistical relevance in this game.

Is this a combat game or not? These days not so much.

It is a combat game, a very dynamic combat game.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ccvi]

You want to talk AAA, why do fighters get hit so much more often than buffs?

A feature exclusive to puffy, not cannons. Cannons seem to close in on the predicted path with longer time within range. Maneuvering definitively helps.

For the puffy ack, maybe it only feels that way, and isn't true. We need numbers. Lusche?

If it is true, maybe a faster plane is bigger, because it is at more places at the same time in any given time slice?