Author Topic: CT suggestion re base capture (Read 1929 times)

brady · « **Reply #15 on:** August 30, 2003, 03:06:43 AM »

10Bears did a good thing, but it was kinda over kill, the bases are rarely taken on the slot map.

HQ hardness is easly adjusted, and often is for the very reasion you mention Dennis.

It can be adjusted, the map room hardness.

But were back to the same point so what if they milk run, it is easly erased, and they are having fun so whats the big deal?

Batz, your rapidely becoming part of the problem:)

Dennis · « **Reply #16 on:** August 30, 2003, 03:14:59 AM »

No big deal. It's a game. I can find something else to do when the milkers have made it less enjoyable for me.

But that's not what you're aiming for, is it?

This seems like an issue that could be fixed .. at least on a trial basis .. with a minor tweak by this week's setup author.
Why should we have to depend on/wait for a CT staffer to pop in and "fix" what the milkers have so easily porked?

Splash1

Slash27 · « **Reply #17 on:** August 30, 2003, 09:15:16 AM »

i've brought this up to individual CT staffers, but never here... What kind of feedback did you get?

I agree with Splash, If it can be done without too much of a hassle, try it and see how it works.

Batz · « **Reply #18 on:** August 30, 2003, 09:36:53 AM »

I dont care about the other cms. I blame brady for it all.

That bastage...................

I talked to brady on the phone about upping maproom hardnesss, he was just as jaded and inflexible live as he is on this board.

Oh brady thats my line

"All of you are quickly becoming part of the problem"

I demand an answer!!!!:eek:

brady · « **Reply #19 on:** August 30, 2003, 11:11:29 AM »

LOL:)

Mike_2851 · « **Reply #20 on:** August 30, 2003, 12:53:25 PM »

Yep I agree, with the idea of making some set ups harder to capture a base. The slot map for instance-for all the whining about the plane set was a map in which base capture and "the ground war" were basically non-exisistant. The reason is that with three towns multiple guns and just too many things to be taken down in too little time, base capture was dam near impossible. All players could have their fun and fly, drive, or shoot whatever was available and the attendance this last week was quite high. Now I'm not a fan of the slot map, it's down on my list of favorites but for the purposes of this thread it is a prime model.

With the Fin-Rus map for example one guy can take a tank, level a town and all guns, return with troops and capture a base-thats TOO easy. The CT is supposed to be a weekly rotating historical senario, the CT staff goes to great lengths to ensure as much as they can, historcal acuracy in available "toys" for us to play with. The one thing I think is overlooked is-it should take a concerted effort with at least a few players to capture a base. A few ground vehicles, aircraft for support and CAP, and at least 3 goons-2 with troops, and 1 with supplies (I think you should have to re-supply and rebuild your capture-it would be more historically real).

I guess the flip side of the coin is that if I drive into a town and start to level it and start to capture your base and you all don't pay attention to the flahing base and don't defend-then that would be your fault wouldn't it?

So to make my point-I do not think that requiring 20 troops for base capture (in some maps) is unreasonable at all. This week would be a good time to give it a try

Arlo · « **Reply #21 on:** August 30, 2003, 12:59:56 PM »

Wotan's actually coming close to being less uptight and actually funny.

Brady, did you change his perscription or something?

DiabloTX · « **Reply #22 on:** August 30, 2003, 01:40:05 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Mike_2851
The slot map for instance-for all the whining about the plane set was a map in which base capture and "the ground war" were basically non-exisistant.

So 28, what you are saying is that the Slot map is realistic. The majority of the fighting was over the land in the air and on the sea with the Japs trying to press on Henderson when they could. Damn those CT staffers for giving us a realistic WWII map, damn you all!!!

Mike_2851 · « **Reply #23 on:** August 30, 2003, 01:54:55 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by DiabloTX
So 28, what you are saying is that the Slot map is realistic. The majority of the fighting was over the land in the air and on the sea with the Japs trying to press on Henderson when they could. Damn those CT staffers for giving us a realistic WWII map, damn you all!!!

LMAO-Yeah Diablo, I guess that's what I said.

Schitzen · « **Reply #24 on:** August 30, 2003, 06:03:14 PM »

Well, first off... NOTHING in this game is realistic, lol. A single 500lb. bomb should level a hangar, period. We have what, 2000+ to drop the damn thing? Yeah... real... okay.

Now, gameplay is the word of the day, that's what you have to use to balance things like reality and this game.

I actually like the idea of more troops for a capture. No way 10 troops could capture and hold a field for any length of time. And anything that brings this GAME closer to a SIM is good, imo.

Hardness... HELL NO!! It does NOT take 38000 lbs of bombs to drop anything, that is pure bull****! VH should drop with a single 500lb bomb., when was a VH ever reinforced or armored? Keep the other hangars as they are now. No to the increase of hardness to the ack guns too... but if possible, make them harder to hit, as they would be in reality. Hardness on fuel should actually be lowered, it does not take 300 rounds to blow a fuel tank. Basically, I understand that hardness has to be set high for gameplay, but it's getting nuts!

Yup, it takes a full load in a B-17 to drop a hangar.... BULL****!! Ya see where I'm coming from?

There's a solution in here somewhere and they WILL find it. to the staff for their work, we ***** while they work, and they do it for free... something to think about.

guess I'll just keep playing and see what happens... my guess? Nothing will change, lol

Batz · « **Reply #25 on:** August 30, 2003, 06:12:44 PM »

Quote

Well, first off... NOTHING in this game is realistic, lol. A single 500lb. bomb should level a hangar, period. We have what, 2000+ to drop the damn thing? Yeah... real... okay.

Yeah and it realistic to have flight stopped at some random time frame because a building is blown up. When you hit a hanger you are not blowing up a building you are closing down an airfield. How much tonnage do you think you need for that?

Also hangers werent magical buildings containing an endless supply of planes.

So I guess we all agree that the whole war winning/strat thing is just silly

Schitzen · « **Reply #26 on:** August 30, 2003, 06:26:53 PM »

In reality, that dead hangar wouldn't totally shut down the airfield for fighters, only the ones in for work would be destroyed. That is covered by the fact that even small fields have 2 fighter hangars. If we really wanted to get REAL with this, we should keep tabs on how many people have upped from each field, and not let anyone beyond that field's capacity get up, and at the same time, a sneak attack should find birds out on the dirt, away from the hangar, that need to be strafed. And, when you kill one that way, one less should be allowed to take off from that field.

Basically, the point is, we will NEVER have realism in this "sim" due to gameplay requirements. So... this can never be a true sim... it's a game. And as such, it's up to the people who set it up as far as what we can and can't do, and what is close to realism and what is not. Reality? You'll never find it here... go join the air farce.

Uhh... sorry John... I like the air farce, really! heh...
GO ARMY!!

Schitzen · « **Reply #27 on:** August 30, 2003, 06:40:08 PM »

Oh, and about that "magical hangar'... YES, the hangars in AH ARE magical! As long as they are up, you can spawn as many planes as you want. Next?

DiabloTX · « **Reply #28 on:** August 30, 2003, 07:25:20 PM »

While gameplay is the ultimate factor in whether a game succeeds or fails, I would still like to see more historically accurate situations in my games. I like the immersion one gets in the CT, its the main reason why I fly CT and AH. Some people like squads, some don't. I like the team work aspect and the feeling of "being there" as much as is possible with today's technology. If I want arcade, I play BF1942 or MoH, but for WWII combat sims AH is still my fave even if the graphics are looking very aged.

10Bears · « **Reply #29 on:** August 30, 2003, 07:33:23 PM »

Hey Diablo, the gentleman in your avaitar looks much like Louis Siffer.. Am I right?