Strategic targets ?

Discussion in 'Warbirds International' started by babek-, Feb 25, 2002.

  1. babek-

    babek- Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2001
    Messages:
    941
    Location:
    Wiesbaden, Deutschland / Germany
    On the new map there are st´rategic targets like bridges, cities, raffineries and so on.

    Does it has any effect, if these targets are attacked and destroyed ?
     
  2. -exec-

    -exec- FH Consultant

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2000
    Messages:
    24,693
    Location:
    xUSSR
  3. Maletin

    Maletin Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2001
    Messages:
    1,183
    Location:
    Germany
    Don't use the Link FAQ.
    Under "Field Capture" you find:
    Currently, strategic targets (Cities, Ports, Factories, Bridges, Refineries, Convoy Fleets, etc.) do not affect the rebuild time of their owning country here at FH.
     
  4. -exec-

    -exec- FH Consultant

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2000
    Messages:
    24,693
    Location:
    xUSSR
    Maletin, I'm glad that you checked FAQ and entire site. :super:
     
  5. -nicae-

    -nicae- Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2000
    Messages:
    6,338
    Location:
    Brazil
    well actually its in both :rolleyes:

    for the lazy guys:
    8. What effect do factories, bridges, cities, refineries, etc. have in the game?

    Currently none. It is difficult to work out convenient economics and logistics from all the different opinions. But it is in future plans.
     
  6. Mach-1

    Mach-1 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2001
    Messages:
    1,089
    Location:
    Santana do Parnaiba - SP
    Hi all,



    Sorry all, but is a Big error the strategic target no have effect in Arena....

    Out Strategic target, you lost 25% of Fun in this is Map :(

    Salute all
     
  7. HoHun

    HoHun FH Beta Tester

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2001
    Messages:
    2,643
    Hi Mach,

    >Out Strategic target, you lost 25% of Fun in this is Map :(

    What would happen with strategic targets? The side that is outnumbered would be even more heavily penalized since the numerically superior side would destroy the strategic targets, of course.

    Do you really think this would be fun?

    Regards,

    Henning (HoHun)
     
  8. -exec-

    -exec- FH Consultant

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2000
    Messages:
    24,693
    Location:
    xUSSR
    HoHun, on the other hand you get strategical operations, in particular, well organised bomber raids.
     
  9. -nicae-

    -nicae- Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2000
    Messages:
    6,338
    Location:
    Brazil
    tough call!
     
  10. HoHun

    HoHun FH Beta Tester

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2001
    Messages:
    2,643
    Hi Exec,

    >HoHun, on the other hand you get strategical operations, in particular, well organised bomber raids.

    You only need well-organised bomber raids against heavily defended targets. If one side is heavily outnumbered, it probably will be tied up in airfield defense too much to defend strategic targets against any kind of raid.

    You'd have to make strategic targets more important than airfield targets to avoid that effect. That again would mean that you'd have to place a lot of strategic targets on the map, or people would just attack the airfields because they're conveniently close.

    Then the question is - how do you make strategic targets more important than airfields? The players aren't really interested in scores, but they expect the destruction of a target to have an impact on the enemies' capabilities (for example by closing an airfield).

    Maybe making the destruction and capture of strategic targets some distance off from the airfields the key event for closure and capture of the field would work. The furballers could happily furball around the field, but the conquerors could concentrate on their kind of fight without any misunderstanding whether closing or vulching is the goal of the mission.

    Regards,

    Henning (HoHun)
     
  11. gahis

    gahis FH Sound Developer

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Messages:
    1,482
    Location:
    Timmins, Ontario, Canada
    good idea, that wouold be sweet, what about linking fuel supplies to those targets?? certain targets bring fuel max down by 5% maybe ??
     
  12. -exec-

    -exec- FH Consultant

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2000
    Messages:
    24,693
    Location:
    xUSSR
    you may count on attackers. if bombing will help them, attackers will go buffs.
     
  13. HoHun

    HoHun FH Beta Tester

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2001
    Messages:
    2,643
    Hi Gahis,

    >good idea, that wouold be sweet, what about linking fuel supplies to those targets??

    Actually, I think the entire fuel bombing business went a bit overboard. It's a good idea to have the attacked airfield being influenced by the attacks, but it's so quick and easy to destroy the fuel that it has become more of a nuisance than of a feature.

    As it is, a single well-placed bomb suffices to take out the fuel supply for any field with a very minor effort only. A single kamikaze fighter bomber can make a field unusable for organized raids, and a single level bomber can take out the fuel supply for several fields.

    To make fuel bombing more of a feature, it should be impossible to harm the fuel supply until at least three bombs are dropped. This could be done by increasing the fuel tanks' target hardness, or by assigning more targets to the fuel complex. Hangars would be a logical choice, both for realism (they'd have some taking equipment in there, too) and for gameplay (since they're hard targets, more of an effort would be required to pork fuel for a longer time).

    Additionally, I'd say that fuel bombing should affect the offensive capabilities more than the defensive capabilities of a field. A fighter could be topped up with a fraction of the fuel needed for a heavy bomber, yet the fighters are affected worst by fuel bombing.

    Something like a minumum of 10% fuel for heavies, 25% for twins and 50% for fighters would be both more realistic and better for gameplay in my opinion.

    Regards,

    Henning (HoHun)
     
  14. -exec-

    -exec- FH Consultant

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2000
    Messages:
    24,693
    Location:
    xUSSR
    4 HoHun:

    after some elements of economics for wbmed3/wbawt3 introduced, i guess the staff may consider attached objects of wbmedrl2 usage.

    if things go such way, i believe that a role of single plasma jar could be strongly decreased.

    before it, we must suffer of overevaluated cans :rolleyes:

    those fuel problem may be hard for players, but easy for the staff. i'd wish the staff make other important things.
     
  15. mekh--

    mekh-- Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2001
    Messages:
    515
    Location:
    USA
    I'm not so sure I agree with that. Most players only take 50% or less fuel for fighters anyway, so doing this wouldn't affect them at all. It's -fighters- that are the primary offense, by far, and so restriction of field capabilities should hit them most, not least. With 25% fuel, fighters can usually still attack a nearby field, but not for long. With 50% they can attack far and stay there a long while (especially with high endurance fighters like the P-51) -- it won't impede a field's offensive ability at all. This is especially so since bombers take off from fields deep into their own territory, where it's not worth the effort to attack even with this functionality.

    Making the fuel work like this would pretty much be the same as removing the fuel restriction altogether.
     
  16. HoHun

    HoHun FH Beta Tester

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2001
    Messages:
    2,643
    Hi Mekh,

    >It's -fighters- that are the primary offense, by far, and so restriction of field capabilities should hit them most, not least.

    Fighter bombers do most of the air-to-ground work, but often, one side outnumbered, and its fighter are forced into an entirely defensive role at an attacked field. Giving them 50% fuel won't do much for their ability to attack the closest field that launches the enemy fighter bombers, but it will help their defensive abilities since they have a better chance to get a bit of altitude when the onslaught ebbs for a moment.

    With equal numbers, you might be right, but since attacks under these circumstances usually become undecisive large furballs anyway, 50% fuel will have about the same effect as 25% fuel. At 50%, however, there'd be more options for the players who don't actually wish to furball.

    >especially with high endurance fighters like the P-51

    50% will be nice for Mustang pilots, but 25% is really terrible for Messerschmitt pilots. In my opinion, the Reds have the advantage anyway, but the Gold disadvantage will be smaller with 25%.

    >This is especially so since bombers take off from fields deep into their own territory, where it's not worth the effort to attack even with this functionality.

    Hell, it'll be worth it if you can actually harm the heavies :) I don't think it's fun to limit the game to furballs over the frontal fields, anyway.

    Regards,

    Henning (HoHun)
     
  17. gahis

    gahis FH Sound Developer

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Messages:
    1,482
    Location:
    Timmins, Ontario, Canada
    Well, there should be other targets other then fields I think
     
  18. Maletin

    Maletin Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2001
    Messages:
    1,183
    Location:
    Germany
    The I-16 is now differently equiped. 12mm or 20mm gun.
    Maybe this can happen to more planes, when other targets get destroyed.
     
  19. -nicae-

    -nicae- Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2000
    Messages:
    6,338
    Location:
    Brazil
    fuel killers would become weapon killers ;)
     
  20. Snakeye

    Snakeye Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2001
    Messages:
    3,232
    Location:
    EPWA
    Yeah, just imagine a ki-43 without 12,7mm because of weapon shortages (strategic factory bombing) and difficulties in supplying fields (destroyed bridges)

    Would be quite interesting, wouldn't it ? :D :rolleyes: :D :shuffle: