FH Forum  

Go Back   FH Forum > General > Warbirds International
FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #1  
Old 3rd January 2003, 17:22
Glas's Avatar
Glas Glas is offline
Registered
Squad: {JG13} Loki's Kinder
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Scotland
Posts: 3,928
Post Strategic field targets

AFAIK the only field target that affects the planes taking off from that field is the fuel. I think it would be good to see some changes in this, with more targets having different effects on planes taking off from an attacked field. I have thought of a couple of suggestions as follows:

Ammo - kill it, and the planes taking off from that field should have a reduced ammo load, say cut by 50%?

Hangars - kill hangars on a field and the amount of planes taking off from that field should be restricted, say to maybe 5-10 planes for the period the hangar(s) are down.

I think this would increase the fun in the game and would also perhaps curb the buffs who fly at 20k feet and just go round the map killing fuel and/or radar. Not completely stop them, but they may then decide to go for other targets which they know have increased importance.

Anyone any other suggestions, or any points to make about mine?

-glas-
__________________
-glas- JG13
sctsmn RDAF 3rd JaVa "Waalhaven"

-------------------------------------

Never get in to an argument with a stupid person.....they just drag you down to their level then beat you with experience!

Know religion, no peace. No religion, know peace.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 3rd January 2003, 17:49
sebbo's Avatar
sebbo sebbo is offline
Registered
Squad: JG13
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Sector Plural-ZZ Alpha
Age: 39
Posts: 2,415
Post

Heck, that's first time I heard Glas make a good point!

But seriously: I like the idea. I do remember you're not the first one to think this up though, and somehow those plans were shot down in flames. No idea why, though...

Nic? Whaddaya think?
__________________
Ignore list:

1. Common Sense
2. Good Taste
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 3rd January 2003, 18:57
Glas's Avatar
Glas Glas is offline
Registered
Squad: {JG13} Loki's Kinder
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Scotland
Posts: 3,928
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by sebbo
Heck, that's first time I heard Glas make a good point!
That'll be 1 more than you then mate, eh??

-glas-
__________________
-glas- JG13
sctsmn RDAF 3rd JaVa "Waalhaven"

-------------------------------------

Never get in to an argument with a stupid person.....they just drag you down to their level then beat you with experience!

Know religion, no peace. No religion, know peace.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 3rd January 2003, 20:20
-nicae-'s Avatar
-nicae- -nicae- is offline
Moderator
Squad: AFVS
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Brazil
Age: 33
Posts: 6,338
Post

restricted ammo would be annoying as having pre-damaged planes with dead hangar (not your idea, but already came up).
limited amount of planes? so killing hang for 3k is like closing it as soon as those 5 planes take off? that would make it too easy for attackers.

ill post a good idea that hohun gave in beta forum:

---original message--------------------

Hi everyone,

I've recently had a look at fuel bombing. Though a neat feature, it unfortunately doesn't improve gameplay since it fails to give any positive effect even to the bombing side.

All offensive territory-taking actions can still commence as reduced fuel still sufficices for Jabo attacks on the neighbouring fields. It even suffices for a long time over the target if you don't have to fly back to the home field, for example due to capturing the attacked field or getting killed trying.

Bombers have more than enough fuel to fly everythere they want even if there's a fuel restriction, so it doesn't help to restrict them either.

All fuel bombing currently can accomplish is to annoy players who like to fly long missions instead of racing right to the next furball.

In my opinion, fuel bombing should deliver decisive results. If fuel is down, it should be down to a value that actually affects operations from that airfield. I'd suggest 10% - that'll allow the launching of fighters to defend against paratroops and commandos, but not much more.

(To make the fuel restriction less absolute, I'd suggest reducing the streak length necessary to get 100% anyway to two. People with a streak are likely to not to take part in suicidal human wave attacks :-)

Of course, if the effect of fuel bombing is made more serious, fuel should be hardened against attacks, too.

I'd suggest to include the hangars in the objects necessary to create a fuel restriction, too. Though the results of fuel bombing are better, the restriction will last a much shorter time that way.

(While we're at it, I'd also recommend hardening the radar by making it necessary to destroy hut, mast and radar all at the same time. Currently, roving bombers accomplish little but to annoy everyone by taking out radars and fuels everywhere.)

What's the result of the new fuel restriction rule going to be?

A Jabo rush from one airfield to the neighbouring airfield can actually be stopped for a few minutes now by taking out both hangar and fuel.

Since the Jabo rush is the typical form of attack on Freehost currently, and the Jabo rush is generally won by the side with the larger number of players, this simple rule change will have a large effect!

In the future, it won't be numbers that are decisive - it'll be tactics. Taking out the other side's fuel will be important for the preparation of attacks as well as for the defense against Jabo rushes.

Short-range Jabos will lose some of their effectiveness so that level bombers become more attractive. If level bombers can actually harm the enemy's ability to fight instead of just annoying him, the game will provide a much better reason to fly these level bombers.

That's a simple rule change, but I'm confident it will help to make level bombers play a more important role in the game even with added dispersion and reduced otto.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)
---------------------------

this will give some life to radios and hangars.

btw: we had in FH a radio restriction when radios were killed. people in the twr of that field couldnt send messages in radio. THAT was annoying
you could just change fields to send your messages, or enter a plane. this was quickly removed ;-)
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 4th January 2003, 00:57
-fla--'s Avatar
-fla-- -fla-- is offline
Registered
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Lyon - France
Age: 33
Posts: 2,047
Post

Nice idea, I like it...
__________________
-fla-- Contact Officer AFVS
redley JG54 1-Life Squad pilot
-mengo VF-1 pilot
flaijn IJN Junyo pilot
Member of the Scenario Team
ICQ#54040734

<img>http://images.deviantart.com/emoticons/icon_cow.gif</img>
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 4th January 2003, 23:52
Glas's Avatar
Glas Glas is offline
Registered
Squad: {JG13} Loki's Kinder
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Scotland
Posts: 3,928
Post

I like the idea too, any idea that means other targets on a field have some kind of importance other than just being another domino to knock down on the way to a capture gets my vote!

-glas-
__________________
-glas- JG13
sctsmn RDAF 3rd JaVa "Waalhaven"

-------------------------------------

Never get in to an argument with a stupid person.....they just drag you down to their level then beat you with experience!

Know religion, no peace. No religion, know peace.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 5th January 2003, 16:31
raposa raposa is offline
Registered
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: portugal
Posts: 8
Post from TAN-GO

aBOUT BOMBERS,
I think JU88 need to be increased perfomances. JU88 need to climb faster.
I copy/past some inf. about Bombers. I think B24 and IL4 are overmodeled against JU88

Check inf.-http://www.kotfsc.com/

JU88 - Performance: (A-4) Maximum speed 292 mph (470 km/h) at 17,390 ft (5300 m) or 269 mph (433 km/h) with maximum loadout; service ceiling 26,900 ft (8200 m); maximum cruising speed 248 mph (400 km/h) at 16,405 ft (5000 m); initial climb rate 1,312 ft (400 m) per minute. (C-6b) Maximum speed 300 mph (480 km/h); service ceiling 32,480 ft (9900 m); initial climb rate (approx.) 985 ft (300 m) per minute. (G-7b) Maximum speed 402 mph (643 km/h) without drop tank and flame dampers; service ceiling 28,870 ft (8800 m); climb rate 1,640 ft (500 m) per minute. (S-1) Maximum speed 373 mph (600 km/h); service ceiling 36,090 ft (11000 m); initial climb rate 1,804 ft (550 m) per minute.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

IL4 - Performance: Maximum speed 267 mph (430 km/h) at 21,980 ft (6700 m); service ceiling 31,825 ft (9700 m); initial rate of climb 886 ft (270 m) per minute.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

B-24 - Performance: Maximum speed 290 mph (467 km/h) at 25,000 ft (7620 m); cruising speed 215 mph (346 km); service ceiling 28,000 ft (8535 m); initial climb rate 1025 ft (312 m) per minute.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

__________________
xtirpator
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 5th January 2003, 22:45
-exec-'s Avatar
-exec- -exec- is offline
FH Consultant
Squad: 228 ShAD
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: xUSSR
Posts: 24,693
Post Re: from TAN-GO

Quote:
Originally posted by raposa
Check inf.-http://www.kotfsc.com/
Check Before you post anything...
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
список шпионов и владельцев, партия 1: abrec-, gabba, flood- mixer Warbirds General Discussion 90 29th October 2003 13:07
spylist, 1st group: abrec-, flood-, gabba- mixer Warbirds International 18 23rd August 2003 07:08
The Way of the Air Warrior - Fields stay down 1800 s HoHun Warbirds International 7 31st January 2003 04:12


All times are GMT +3. The time now is 02:36.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.