Author Topic: Idea........ (Read 1199 times)

hazed- · « **on:** January 15, 2002, 11:01:24 AM »

Ok heres the problem as i see it...

We have players of all types playing in AH and there are those that want to just match 2 opposing sides and fight with their fighters(see AKnimitz post) and those that want bombers and captures etc

Well in order to satisfy both types why dont we create a scoring system to allow both to participate but not to interfere too much with each other by making stategic targets much more part of the game?

We could make it so that rebuild times were very long maybe as much as 4x as long and make the strat targets(ie factories) part of the objectives/score to win a map.

Captures should be extremely difficult if you ask me.none of this drop 10 troops on a town and its yours.It should require 3 or more drops.

Take the britain/channel/france map: it didnt allow captures and as a result it made little sense to bomb anything apart from fuel at any enemy base.It agrovate those that just wanted to fly in fighters of historic matches and dogfight and spoiled those players enjoyment.
What if we made strategic tartgets the priority for bombers? If we scored the war on % of damage to a countries factories as well as their loss of aircraft .
To actually capture a base in france by the british would be next to impossible in RL so in CT it should be a rare occourance but for the 'games' sake it should be possible.
The more damage to a countries industries the slower the rebuild times and/or the less equiptment available.Bombing a base will still be possible of course but it should score less or cause less permenant damage.Im not sure if rebuild times on airbases and strat targets can be set differently though.

what we would have is bomber pilots trying to damage factories.Fighter pilots out for a quick fight will be able to fight other fighters or maybe try to stop the bombers to help the weekly score.Some really hardcore strat guys might organise what would need to be a large and/or coordinated attack to actually capture a base.
Perhaps its possible to set the arena so that in order for a base to become 'capturable' the rail system nearby has to be TOTALLY destroyed?

It would mean the quick thrill fighter types need not worry too much about defending from capture UNLESS he sees a coordinated attack.The strat/mission planner types would have a REAL challenge at last with strikes finaly requiring joint or coordinated strikes to more than one target.
Lone bombers can fly and actually add to their countries score (even if they avoid fighting)
Bomber groups will GENERALLY not flatten bases as they will be of little scoring value and (if its possible) will rebuild much quicker than a City or rail station etc.

So a country could be deemed a winner for a week if it has caused more total damage to another countries infrastructure AS WELL AS the amount of enemy fighters/bombers destroyed etc.

I really feel that the more we make the CT a thinking mans version of the MA the more pilots will use it.
Theres nothing worse than that moment you enter the MA and think 'hmmm what shall i do?' and realise youve done it all before and can now do it with ease.
Well lets give those pilots something harder and more taxing eh?

If it doesnt work then fair enough i'll shut up but you gotta admit we NEED something more in CT than the MA style of game with, what most newbies who enter CT think is, a smaller choice in planes.(DONT get me wrong, I love the real match ups of LW vs VVS or RAF etc)

Btw i applied to be a CM and I would be willing to try to learn how this map set up stuff is done, but as a mere pilot i can only state what I feel is missing.Sorry if it is perceived as a complaint as its not intended to be AT ALL.Im trying like you CM types to help make CT work (honestly

)

Airscrew · « **Reply #1 on:** January 15, 2002, 11:24:07 AM »

Hazed, I like your idea. I want to add my 2 cents here also.
(I posted this in the other thread but going to put it here also)

Ok, Hows this sound as a possible idea?
Taking Aknimitz, Woton's, and Greg (and now Hazed's plan) ideas possible objectives in CT

1. One of the objectives of the airwar in WW2 was attrition. Shooting down as many of the enemy's planes as possible, even destroying them on the ground. Why not have different types of objectives each night. One night could be limited number of planes if thats possible. Example
Axes 14 109-g10s, 18 109-g6s, 12 190-D9s, 20 109-f4s, etc.

Allies 16 P-51s, 14 P-38s, 12 P-47s, 14 Spit 9s, 18 Spit Vs, etc.

Each side starts with a certain number of planes and the objective is shoot down either a) as many as possible in a predetermined time limit say 2 hours or b) shoot down all the opposing sides planes. Then reset and start over.
Because the number of planes available is limited its not dependent on how many people are logged in. If only 20 people log in then they fly and fight until they run out of planes.

2. To have strategic objectives Another possiblity is say the fighter hangers represent 10 of each fighter type, when the fighter hanger is destroyed the enemy loses those planes. (no rebuild, unless you want to include the C47 in the strat)

If you capture a base with intact fighter/bomber hangers your side gains those plane numbers for each of those hangers.
Fields could only be captured by ground vehicles and you should need more than 10 troops to capture, but you only need to bring the city down 50%. I would also limited the number of fields to between 5 - 10 for each side. Also increase the ack implacements (to prevent late night milkrunning) and add at least a few Vehicle fields in the mix.
Question? Is it possible to set the 88's to fire at ground targets??

One problem is maintaining balance in either of these sceniarios.
I sure there are other considerations I not thinking of right now, but its just an idea.

To piggyback on Hazed's idea also, you could keep score similar to the Squad scores. Numbers and percentages of kills, objects destroyed. Objectives met.

snafu · « **Reply #2 on:** January 15, 2002, 11:45:58 AM »

Along with others ideas these sound good Hazed, But why stop at extending the rebuild times by 4, I think it would be a good idea to remove them completely. Make the Train stations & truck depots an even more important target (or asset). With the small No's of people playing at the moment I think the "Super Goon" resupply and the trains/trucks are plenty for field rebuild without having an auto rebuild as well. Would make it harder to keep a field which was located deep in enemy territory as well if it had no direct link with either a depot or station. (As it should be).

Just my 2c
TTFN
snafu

Reschke · « **Reply #3 on:** January 15, 2002, 12:14:12 PM »

I like the ideas here but are the captures of strategic targets included? It seems that is what the ideas mention but I don't remember specific words on that part. I have wanted capture of strategic areas like ammunition factories, troop training and other areas for quite a while.

Anyway that is just my lonely thought here.

Buzzbait · « **Reply #4 on:** January 15, 2002, 12:52:49 PM »

S!

In order for an 'Attrition' style campaign to work, you need a server log which indicates how many aircraft and targets on either side have been destroyed.

A log like that exists in the SEA Arena. However it isn't in the CT. To install it requires some investment in time. Right now Pyro hasn't been able to squeeze that out of his busy schedule.

When we get such a log system in place, then we will start looking at doing a setup which bases victory points on aircraft/target destruction rather than base capture.

A map such as an updated Europe, with new Strat targets etc. would be a good one to use. Either the Battle of Britain, or the Allied campaign to dominate France could be examples of setups which could use this type of scoring system.

Furious · « **Reply #5 on:** January 15, 2002, 01:16:02 PM »

Would it be possible to extract information from the logs, apply some formulation to extract a score and then use that information to continually update the MoD?

F.

Sabre · « **Reply #6 on:** January 15, 2002, 01:31:50 PM »

In regards to the capture of strategic targets, there is currently no way to effect an automatic transfer of a strat target's group of objects (buildings, fuel tanks, etc) without editing the map itself. It's an interesting concept, though. Let's say a group of city buildings represents half of all the city objects owned by a country. Capture that group and the previous owning country is down by 50% in the rebuild time for all country objects until they capture it back.

While we don't have the means to automatically transfer a strat target from one country to another, the Philippine terrain Jihad is working may include a good stop-gap solution, if he manages to implement it in his rebuild. He and I talked about making the defenses of each strat facility (though not the facility itself) part of a capturable installation I dubbed a regional headquarters. Essentially, the RHQ would be an up-gunned VH with its own radar dish. The guns of the factories/city/station around this RHQ would be tied to the RHQ, so that capturing the RHQ would transfer control of the local strat targets' defenses to the capturing country.

Hence, the capturing country could pound the target flat anytime they want, without worrying about it's guns fighting back. These "captured" strat targets would still rebuild, but the guns (which now shoot at the original owners) would make taking a goon in there to resupply the strat target a very dangerous if not impossible task. Note, only the defensive guns are captured when the RHQ is captured; the strat target itself still belongs to the original owning country. It is simply at the mercy of the "occupying country." I hope Jihad manages to implement this. I think it could be the prototype for CT terrain design.

Airscrew · « **Reply #7 on:** January 15, 2002, 01:32:54 PM »

Thanks Buzz, someday then...
Ok, adding to the confusion and mass of ideas and thoughts.....
1. Fields depend on Depots for resupply/Rebuild.
2. Depots depend on Train Stations for resupply/Rebuild
3. Train Stations rely on the General health/status and/or availablity of resources/factories.

So my thought goes like this...
A44 is damaged, say fuel and ammo. Depot resupplies. If depot damaged no resupply until train station or C47 (x?) fixes Depot. If depot is captured then A44 is cut off from supply chain.
Same for Train Station, damage it or capture it and Depots are cut of from Supply chain which also cuts off Fields from the supply chain. Enable C47's to fly from train station and or depots (possible?).
If resources are damaged or captured then no supplies are available at all. C47 would not be able to perform resupply as well.
Also think 1 C47 for fuel and ammo,radar , etc , 1 C47 for Fighter Hangers, 1 C47 for Bomber Hangers, 1 C47 for Vehicle hangers

You could setup the maps with redundant depots and train stations or allow Vehicle base to perform resupply (limited to ammo and fuel and vehicle hangers, not rebuild fighter or bomber hangers)
Under this senario it would be possible to strangle the supply line (strat) and still have an A2A war. Still capture fields but use the idea of 30 or more troops to take a field.
Resources should be more heavily defended than the MA, (think CV x3/4)

If there is something I can do on my part to help let me know, I'm still pretty new at this and have never made a map before but maybe there's something I can do.

NUTTZ · « **Reply #8 on:** January 15, 2002, 02:04:50 PM »

Sabre, I read what you said about Jihad's system, Funny, I tried this in one of my maps. I WAS having problems ( 10bears,and weasel) thought it was a distance issue, but i did correct it.

I LOVE when people think outside the box!

10bears, weasel and myself shared ideas that night, very imformative when people work together.

BTW thanx 10bears and Jihad for comming in my map and offering suggestions and help.

NUTTZ

Reschke · « **Reply #9 on:** January 15, 2002, 02:23:58 PM »

I don't know why it posted that same part twice.

Jester · « **Reply #10 on:** January 15, 2002, 03:46:53 PM »

Sounds like a good plan. Just one thing - please make plans for the Carriers to be included. We Navy & Marine squads would like to play also.

Sabre · « **Reply #11 on:** January 15, 2002, 04:03:06 PM »

Andijg, the Philippines set up will start with the Americans on CV's, i.e. NO land bases in the Philippine Islands. They will have to capture a land base before they get land-based aircraft. Can you say "Amphibias Assault?" I knew you could.

Jester · « **Reply #12 on:** January 15, 2002, 04:11:14 PM »

Hey Sabre! Can't wait for the Phillippine Operations! Had to padlock the aircraft lifts to hold my pilots back! Really looking forward to a scenario like this.

Now if we can keep the "Gun CLub" from driving the damn fleet right up on the beach so they can shoot we will have alot of fun!

Wish you could seperate the carriers from the surface action fleets.

Buzzbait · « **Reply #13 on:** January 15, 2002, 05:00:51 PM »

S! Andjg

In Sabre`s setup there are two types of fleets:

CV fleets: (same as in MA)

Cruiser fleets: (with another Cruiser substituted for the CV)

There is no excuse now for sending your CV Fleet inshore or against enemy fleets. You have the Cruiser fleet to do the shore bombardment or surface to surface combat.

And it creates the interesting situation of sometimes having the CV caught by a Cruiser fleet which sneaks up on it. That was the historical situation which the Imperial Japanese Navy worked to achieve in the Battle of Leyte Gulf. Unfortunately for them, the USN Carrier fleets they ran into were tough cookies and refused to knuckle under when they came under fire from the big guns...

Reschke · « **Reply #14 on:** January 15, 2002, 05:04:07 PM »

For reference "Strategic Targets" in this post refer to: ammunition factories, troop training facilities, radar factories, gun factories, etc..

Sabre and anyone else that can answer this.

It was mentioned that the strategic targets groups of objects (buildings, fuel tanks, etc..) are not immediately changeable with the current setup.

Why?

It seems to me as a non-map maker that the strategic targets are just the same type of things as an airbase, vehicle base and depot. However I would think they are linked more like a depot than the others. Why not just add a town nearby or a depot and have it linked to the strategic target so that the capture of the depot would automatically cause it to fall as well. Although a significant amount of damage would have to happen to the strat target as well in order to have a successful capture. I don't think people are talking about being able to capture parts of a strat target but they want to capture the entire facility in order for it to add to their countries ability to make war on their neighbor.

I guess what I am getting at is that I need an explanation as to the reason they can not be treated the exact same way as an airbase, etc.. when you put them on a map.