• Announcements

    • BLKHWK8

      Squad vs Squad Battle for Notre Dame Postponed   08/03/2018

      The event for this weekend will be postponed... We have not been able to get a solid commitment to run the event. I will be posting a poll to select a better date and time. Poll:    Welcome back our Squad vs Squad events. Please check out the forum post here   
dre21

AFFMS

69 posts in this topic

 I STOLE this from another topic ( but what is written was written by me so i just copied and pasted it so i dont have to rewrite the whole thing for this idea)

The bottom of the text is more about the AFFMS idea. 

This idea came to me when some other player brought up RDP ideas.

If you want to go that route do that concept with Airfields. 

Make them take dmg everytime a Bomber drops it's payload the spawn pool goes down a few planes.

Now now don't scream pilots , how do you prevent that you ask well cover it ,it sure would cut down on having fighter pilots playing lawnmowers over FBS that's for sure. 

Not only that but it would give the Bomber pilots a new target to play with . And the Fighter pilots something to do also. 

We can go as far as have a few Mobil AF . Let's say Truck runs an AFFMS (AirFieldForwardMobilSpawn) to a section on the map . Sets it ( consistent of a small hangar and radio truck ) only fighters can spawn there. Setting it just off  a road that is fairly strait for take off and landing for resub. 

Also these AFFMS would be destroyable via Bombs, Engineers,Tanks .

It would add a whole new level to the game it would cut down flying time to the Frontline, the only time consuming part would be that the Truck needs to leave from an AF to be able to set the AFFMS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mobile or PPO airfields is being discussed, stay tuned :)

There is even a facebook poll on it.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Awful idea... game breaking, immersion breaking.

 

Is this even an issue? and since when?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, pbveteran said:

Awful idea... game breaking, immersion breaking.

 

Is this even an issue? and since when?

You are aware that there where not to many actual airfields in real life in WWII as we have in game .

Many where set up in fields with nothing but support vehicles . 

The IDEA is to get more targets for bombers , to give one side a chance to set up a temporary AIR strip without having to fly forever.  ( I'm sorry not everyone is a fighter ace here and many stay out of a plane if it means fly for 10 min just to get shot down in 30 seconds) 

Also it would give Paratroopers and ground troops a new Target to go after instead of just everything evolving around an AB and CPs. 

It's not like you get a full spawn list at the AFFMS. 

How is that immersion breaking ? 

Now a few good pilots sit real high over the closest AF and bounce and vulch everything that takes off . How is that good for game play I ask? 

 At least with that option there could be something coming from behind . Its all about more options in game . 

Hell if it where for me each hangar on an AF would have a certain spawn list , it gets bombed the supply spawn pool goes down. New Bomber targets and it keeps the Fighters actually busy defending AF like they did in real life along with CAS and ground target missions.

VARIETY IS THE SPICE OF LIFE.

Edited by dre21
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I quite like the idea of forward air fields, There are aspects of this idea that I do not like.

It's one thing to damage a forward air field. In simple terms, damage it like you damage an MSP. Heck hopefully, for all intents and purposes, the forward air fields WILL be air MSPs. If they get that down, hopefully Navy versions won't be far behind.

But the concept of knocking out the spawn list? I would not call that a  good idea. It would be along the lines of bombing a port city and knocking out the Navy spawn list.

I know historically, both would have been targets. DDs in a port or planes sitting on a strip made juicy targets. But for gameplay purposes, neither would help the game. It would allow  one or two good bomber crews to shut down ports and airfields altogether. Not just while they are in the air at the time, but if they could knock the entire spawn list from an airfield, they have 4 hours to rest up to rinse and repeat. If they had the folks to maintain the rotation, they could completely shut down the enemy's air or naval capability. Players could not even attempt to defend those positions very effectively.

For gameplay purposes, it's much better to allow the fields/ ports to be damaged or even destroyed, rather than destroy the spawn lists. RDP bombing already serves the purpose of slowing down unit replacement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For gameplay purposes, it's much better to allow the fields/ ports to be damaged or even destroyed, rather than destroy the spawn lists. RDP bombing already serves the purpose of slowing down unit replacement.

I don't disagree with it , but the RDP bombing we have now slows down the resupply timer if I'm not mistaken , before it would actually effect how fast tiers would come in. CRS took that out and everybody was getting the same tier at the same time and we lost Bomber pilots ( players that left the game for good ) . THERE should be a risk and reward . Just to destroy stuff for eye candy really doesn't do it my opinion. 

I'm not saying one Bomber destroys the whole spawn list , but maybe  a successful run takes 1 or 2 out of the list . And with AWS the other side does know what is on its way .   My idea is just to enhance the tactical aspect of the game . Just bombing to bomb with no reward is pointless. Now if it's like taking down bridges and we get points and maybe if we Bomb a AF or a Port and it will leave destruction in its wake like barriers on the AF or around port and make take off and leaving port a bit more challenging .Then that would be an idea , there we have risk and reward .

 

Also back to Pb it still takes a dedicated player that 1st of all wants to drive and set a AFFMS , and I'm not saying you can set it right next to a Frontline town ,but it would still need to be far enough away that both sides have about equal travel time. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Quincannon said:

Heck hopefully, for all intents and purposes, the forward air fields WILL be air MSPs. 
 

You mean spawning in the middle of the air, engine on and with an initial speed V0 != 0 ? 

Or air-dropped infrastructure ? 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Zebbeee said:

You mean spawning in the middle of the air, engine on and with an initial speed V0 != 0 ? 

Well that wouldnt end well

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, merlin51 said:

Well that wouldnt end well

Too funny! :lol:

To answer Zebbeee, I have no certain idea how they would implement a forward air field MSP. One guess would be the ability to spawn a Quansett hut hangar on a field and have fighters spawn  inside it or a smaller hut with fighters spawning next to it. Not sure if big bombers would work. As far as runway, I would think that the builder would have to be smart enough to find a big patch of flat field. Otherwise, it could be a short mission for the pilots.

S!S!S!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the forward air base however it would go would have to be at a minimum distance initially from AO's.... i.e. no closer than 1.5 squares or so.... not sure really. 

For me it's always a bit demotivating to have to fly 3 or 4 (more?) squares to get into action especially when few friendly fliers are up, but that depends on the potential payback in terms of both having fun (having a good challenge) and making a difference.

I don't mind flying farther if I have others with me and action is worth the flight (combo of fun/comm's etc... and effect on battle) ..i.e. fighter action

With bombers if there is a bridge that really needs demolishing I'll go for it from farther out....despite being alone with high certainty of death because destroying the bridge has a known outcome that involves a definite reward .  I would't typically bomb an AB from far out because the effect ranges from high to zero, for all that time taken.

Perhaps this is all to variable to really work out.

Here's some stuff I found just searching around:

Feldflugplatz: field airstrip, advanced airfield or satellite airfield (minor – limited services; used mainly by single-engine aircraft). The Allies called this an advanced landing ground (ALG). 

Fl.H.Kdtr. E with 150 – 224 personnel was smaller, more mobile and designed for operational airfields near the front that moved frequently. The latter generally came in four versions, A, B, C, D, each having a slightly different structure, size and purpose. 

(Luftwaffe Airfields 1935-45 By Henry L. deZeng IV )

http://www.ww2.dk

http://www.forgottenairfields.com

Allied stuff:

Being a temporary airfield, its facilities were basic, but adequate. A fuel and ammunition dump was located near the airfield. A church near ALG B.2 is believed to have served as Ground Control for the entire Normandy 2TAF area of responsibility. The airfield was located only 2.5 kilometers from the Normandy beaches, and when it opened the frontline was not much further away. Over the first month of its existence the frontline only moved to 19 kilometers (11 miles) away.

 

20111214215400!ALG-B.3-landing.jpg

 

Anyway...lots to consider with forward airfields.

S!

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm happy that this has become a discussion now, originally nobody took any interest  in the idea.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like this idea but have an issue with this sort of thing being very unrealistically behind enemy lines .

I think it should only be able to be set near a friendly town so it has a link of some form as well as infantry / armour support.

Tr6al

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, tr6al said:

I like this idea but have an issue with this sort of thing being very unrealistically behind enemy lines .

I think it should only be able to be set near a friendly town so it has a link of some form as well as infantry / armour support.

Tr6al

No AFFMS behind enemy lines , it needs to bee so many towns away from the frontline . That's my Idea .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, dre21 said:

No AFFMS behind enemy lines , it needs to bee so many towns away from the frontline . That's my Idea .

That's how I'd see it as well. We need to discuss a ruleset, because some people will assume worse case scenario and only focus on the negative instead of any positive advantages. 

The difference between a glass half full vs half empty type. Doom and gloom is much easier for some :) 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create a rule that a forward airfield can not be placed closer than 15km from an enemy town and no further than 15km from a friendly town.  

Not sure if 15km is the right distance, but that sort of rule set should keep airfield on the friendly side of the front line.

Edited by GrAnit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would honestly consider a deployment from the main screen map (right click => deploy).

no need to drive or fly to there. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Zebbeee said:

I would honestly consider a deployment from the main screen map (right click => deploy).

no need to drive or fly to there. 

Thats too much for 0 effort, to me would cheapen the concept entirely

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, merlin51 said:

Thats too much for 0 effort, to me would cheapen the concept entirely

Well, I would see it more like an extra strategic HC feature than a tactical one that would require manpower we don’t have to perform such behind-the-front activities.

Just add a deployment timer simulating that deployment time needed.

we could say the same for brigade movements who are already managed from the map: otherwise players would need to drive a truck from one town to another to move the brigade.... 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Zebbeee said:

otherwise players would need to drive a truck from one town to another to move the brigade.... 

That is actually an AWESOME idea

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, merlin51 said:

That is actually an AWESOME idea

I really is.. I can see it now. Town taken, victor has to get a truck to town, linked towns air camped.. Air warriors now have a dedicated role, interdiction is a must.  All great except it only plays well when numbers are good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, stankyus said:

I really is.. I can see it now. Town taken, victor has to get a truck to town, linked towns air camped.. Air warriors now have a dedicated role, interdiction is a must.  All great except it only plays well when numbers are good.

Though this would definitely require numbers before you could mandate it, it would be cool if you had to deliver 2 of each category
(not each model or class) to consider the move complete.
So 2 tanks 2 trucks 2 atg 2 aa 2 infantry.

Be a little convoy at least.

This is the one area where i really wish they would have had the dev time to complete and perfect the original AI plan
to have the visible AI convoys and supply shipments and freight ships and trains.
I'd have traded the AI gunners for that.

Capture town, call for AI transport company to come move supply up, and then get a little band of guys 
to run with them for defense, or fly CAP etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The topic is worth discussing

As dre21 stated in one of the earlier posts, and I agree, the bombing must hit the hanger to effect the supply pool only at the AFFMS, not static AFs, even though this should also be open to discussion

However before this topic is discussed and decided upon the first few tasks that need to be ironed out is how one is built, how long does it take, can it be damaged during construction to slow completion rate/time...and finally would the AFFMS is destroyable or capturable or both ?

Personally I think it should take over 24 hours to build one. Now of course we don't have to have some engineers or trucks logged in for 24 hours non-stop to built it, but it should take a serious amount of time to construct one imho

I like the idea affecting the supply pool by bombing raids targeting the hangers but imho is should be the 3rd step after we iron out first step details

edit: also where will the supply be pulled from ? From Brux and Twerp AF supply or will the AFFMS only be allowed for landings to resupply and take off again ? imho the only thing it should be used for is to re-supply, not to spawn from. The air war is not even at this starge by a long shot and to allow spawning closer to the front could make matters even worse

if you are gonna allow spawning from a AFFMS then we should definitely be able to bomb the hangers to affect the supply pool, it would give our HE 111 pilots something to do and they are lacking with strategic missions and numbers now as it is 

Edited by kazee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Building an airfield should be so much more than just spawning from a single truck. Factors like the terrain and flight path should be taken into consideration. It would also be great to get transport planes involved to add some additional roles for them. I would love to see equipment paradrops added to the game.   There should also be a risk factor. Let these forward fields get overstocked with the  risk of losing any equipment placed there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.