Author Topic: There is a bad number for the CT, and that is 1 (Read 655 times)

Thrawn · « **on:** January 29, 2002, 11:19:50 AM »

The milkrunner who enters the CT arena late a night a captures a crap load of bases. No way to fix though, I guess.

Raubvogel · « **Reply #1 on:** January 29, 2002, 12:03:17 PM »

Milk-running at all is really annoying. You're fighting 4 guys in 1 sector while 1 person starts capturing your bases 5 sectors away. Bases need to be tougher to capture to make 1 man captures impossible.

Wotan · « **Reply #2 on:** January 29, 2002, 10:58:43 PM »

I've brought it up since we first talked about field capture ..before cm cts.

I believe the current logic is field capture = more folks = more fun.

Well I had fun in the Euro map without field capture and there weren't anymore folks in the ct then.

Seems 6-8 really want it.

I have quit ct for that reason and the cv ack platforms. To much area to cover to few folks to cover and when I did find a fight it went ho, i avoided got on there 6 they dive away to ack repeat.

Back door base grabbin has always been a problem even in the main prior to the high numbers (do a search there was a quite a few threads that ctually called for base capture to be "suspended" in off hours. This is when you had to kill all the ack not just three.)

Suspending field capture during "off hours" is impractical for the ct as the numbers general hover around 15-20 during peak. So unopposed land grabs will always happen.

Some have said base capture leads to more fights but my experience has been base capture leads to less fights because they are grabbed away from the action or off hours.

The last allies victory was a direct result of these 2 types of land grabs.

Unfortunately if you want field capture until the folks that fly there decide on a friendly code of conduct then this is what you'll get.

I also agree with furious that if theres away to make the cvs "cm controlled" it would be better as well.

Until the next "land locked map" and/or field capture is changed I will avoid the ct. I can deal with 1 or the other but not both.

EDIT
In the stalingrad map the "deadly ack" kept field capture down but even there someone in off hours went to ther far corners of the map to grab bases 5-10 sectors away from the nearest base.

The longer down times for structures enabled this.

So as a solution heres my suggestion.........

Really short rebuild times. I mean real short 5 min or so that way it would take co-operation to get a field down and keep it that way. or atleast short rebuild time for ack.

Longer down times for the cvs if at all possible. This would keep the ack platform off shore a bit.

I mean neither side had an endless supply of cvs in rl.

I takes cooperation on part of the axis to grab a field because of the small ordinance options for the ijaaf/n fighters and the vulnerability and slow speed of the ju 88.

I think longer build time for no field capture or

extremely short rebuild times with field capture.

What do you all think?

Seeker · « **Reply #3 on:** January 30, 2002, 01:24:16 AM »

I think I understand the point those wanting capture are trying to make, inasmuch as it gives you something to fight over; but I also agree with Wotan that at least half the appeal of the CT is a freedom from from strat weenies and arena generals so prevalent in the MA.

How about making the fields uncapturable; but allowing capture of strat targets, is this possible?

Or having the outer lying bases uncapturable; and only the bases central to the map capturable, is this possible?

I'd be very interested in an arena where the emphasis is on fights, not landgrab.

Wotan's point about the totaly unrealistic use of the CV's is also very valid, and indeed gives the lie to the claim that the CT is "more realistic". It's not, certainly when this sort of thing is allowed. It may be harder (with respect to dar settings etc); but it's not more "real".

Löwe · « **Reply #4 on:** January 30, 2002, 07:54:06 AM »

Turning off base captures is prob a good idea, especially considering somebody can milk run the map!
It's apparent that there is always game the game type in every arena. This is just my 2 cents, but the damn CVs need to be out to sea not right on the beach!!!!!!!:mad:
Okay Im better now:D
Maybe if the base capture is disabled people won't be so inticed to run every CV fleet up on the sand bar.

Oldman731 · « **Reply #5 on:** January 30, 2002, 12:53:44 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Seeker
Or having the outer lying bases uncapturable; and only the bases central to the map capturable, is this possible?

I'd be very interested in an arena where the emphasis is on fights, not landgrab.

Agreed. Isn't it possible to limit base capture to just a few? Like the Olde Original AW map? This might also go a long way toward solving the "where the heck is the fight?" problem.

- oldman

Buzzbait · « **Reply #6 on:** January 30, 2002, 05:41:58 PM »

S!

Just to let you know:

In my next setup I will be setting a `night` period to run between 3AM U.S. EST and 11AM U.S. EST.

Ie. the arena will be dark.

It won`t prevent diehards from `milkrunning`, but it might slow them down a bit.

Airscrew · « **Reply #7 on:** January 31, 2002, 04:36:33 PM »

Reading this thread got me to thinking. I'm just started reading The Catus Air Force. When the Marines captured Henderson Field is was a few days before the field was operational and weeks before it was improved enough to handle a lot of traffic. And they constantly suffered from a shortage of fuel and ammo.

So... maybe it should require more troops to capture 20-30? and nothing auto regenerates like ack or hangers, you need 2-4 goons of airfield supplies to bring the field back to operational status. And lets say you have a limited amount of time to get the base operational or it goes neutral and belongs to neither side; or it reverts back to the last owner. I wrote this pretty quick so I'm sure I violated some law or rule but this might stop milkrunning.