AFFMS

[dre21 413]

On 3/19/2018 at 0:57 PM, Zebbeee said:

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

no need to drive or fly to there. 

That would beat the purpose. The idea is the fly boys want it closer they will ( a player) have to run a Truck to set the AFFMS. Find a suitable location  ( big field, opening next to a straight road if smooth take off is wanted ) 

No one wants to take on the task no AFFMS,  simple as that.

I can tell ya I would love to see a Forward Air field /  strip  or whatever we want to call it. 

One reason why I fly so little is , long flight just to get shot down on the 1st pass is getting old fast , yes I'm not the best pilot but when I dump round after round into a EA and he flies while I hear pling and fall out of the sky well which mediocre pilot wants to fly 10 min at a time to target just to get shot down right away?

So I kinda came up with the AFFMS idea.  Destroyable of course cause I always think of the Bomber pilot cause I'm actually somewhat decent there.

Edited March 21, 2018 by dre21

[BMBM 473]

If you thought getting shot down after a 10 min flight (where DO you fly from, at what altitude?) how are you going to feel when you successfully land on a bumpy and winding road (try it now!) and get shot 30 seconds later, either on the ground or just after wheels up? And then you face another 10 minute flight anyway.

[madrebel 606]

On 3/16/2018 at 6:10 AM, dre21 said:

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

you're quite wrong. there was a map at some point in the past showing how many airfields are missing from the game that existed IRL, we're missing a LOT of airfields. As an example, only one airfield (brussels) the Italians used during the BoB is currently on the map. 

 

air fields need to be targets - yes! whack-a-mole though ... are there not enough issues IDn targets from the air? you want to now have to hunt for AFs that aren't even as valuable as real airfields? why?

 

if a new target type for bombers is the goal, splendid! let's do that. why a PPO though when we've been told that this team is either on the verge of or has cracked the terrain editing process. ok, great! now let's add all the missing AFs. now that we have more of those, let's make them bombable and interact with the supply system so we now have a new mission type. 

 

I don't understand why we need or want this to be PPO instead of a fixed asset. what is the advantage of PPO over fixed asset? wouldn't PPO just confuse players? 

Edited March 21, 2018 by madrebel

[dre21 413]

I would love to see AF become targets but the Fly boys complain. The PPO would be a inbetween step . Kinda like a ( if a player wants to set it up) our AF is out of commission but we can still get fighters in the air from the PPO . 

I'm not proposing that this PPO thing is the end all of things but a possibility that we can actually get more Targets for the Bomber pilots in this game . AF gets shut down due to debris on the AF due to bombing run set up a PPO as a gap stop to get some Air up. Till Engineers cleaned up the AF or an automatic timer goes into effect till the AF is fully functional.  Something like that.

 

[BMBM 473]

The PPO (if it makes it in) is unlikely to be a primary spawnpoint or the equivalent of a FB/FMS drawing supply from the AF. You will have to land before you can respawn. Your first sortie will have to be a long’un from a regular AF.

[Merlin51 1,387]

2 hours ago, madrebel said:

I don't understand why we need or want this to be PPO instead of a fixed asset. what is the advantage of PPO over fixed asset? wouldn't PPO just confuse players? 

 

I guess maybe depends on what one does with said PPO and what it's capabilities are.
Lets say you are getting up a big RDP run, lots of bombers, you going to run them nonstop

Well lifting constantly from brux etc, becomes a bit predictatble, someone if going to start flying the ingress vectors patrolling

But what if some refuel/rearm adhoc strips where set up along suitable roads, no spawning of course, but could RTB if needed
you can start splitting them up into unpredictable paths, they can refuel rearm, take a rest, reform for the next run etc.

I could see it having some use, and roads make great runways

[dre21 413]

10 minutes ago, merlin51 said:

 

I guess maybe depends on what one does with said PPO and what it's capabilities are.
Lets say you are getting up a big RDP run, lots of bombers, you going to run them nonstop

Well lifting constantly from brux etc, becomes a bit predictatble, someone if going to start flying the ingress vectors patrolling

But what if some refuel/rearm adhoc strips where set up along suitable roads, no spawning of course, but could RTB if needed
you can start splitting them up into unpredictable paths, they can refuel rearm, take a rest, reform for the next run etc.

I could see it having some use, and roads make great runways

Thanks for thinking outside the box . 

[ZEBBEEE 421]

33 minutes ago, bmbm said:

The PPO (if it makes it in) is unlikely to be a primary spawnpoint or the equivalent of a FB/FMS drawing supply from the AF. You will have to land before you can respawn. Your first sortie will have to be a long’un from a regular AF.

I have never managed to rtb as a pilot, so I can’t say

[madrebel 606]

22 minutes ago, merlin51 said:

 

I guess maybe depends on what one does with said PPO and what it's capabilities are.
Lets say you are getting up a big RDP run, lots of bombers, you going to run them nonstop

Well lifting constantly from brux etc, becomes a bit predictatble, someone if going to start flying the ingress vectors patrolling

But what if some refuel/rearm adhoc strips where set up along suitable roads, no spawning of course, but could RTB if needed
you can start splitting them up into unpredictable paths, they can refuel rearm, take a rest, reform for the next run etc.

I could see it having some use, and roads make great runways

your example falls flat the moment you mention bombers and continuous runs.

 

how will a make shift airfield:

1) land heavy aircraft without cratering the run way?

2) have enough fuel on hand to refuel bombers that require thousands of liters per plane?

3) have a continuous flow of munitions to refit these bombers?

 

flexible/temporary airfields would likely be almost entirely single engined planes at best. CAS fighters, sure, but the logistical requirements change dramatically when you add that second engine and internal bomb bays. meaning, that context just doesn't work here.

 

This then really is only for single engined planes ... which don't really 'need' to be closer anyway as they're already so fast across the game world. If the intent of PPO AFs was to decrease TTC for bombers, ok ... not a bad idea but now we're back to "could a temporary air strip handle 50+ HE111s"? A20 Havocs? Cause those bombers are light compared to a full dress B17, B24, HE177, etc etc. Further still, you shorten the TTC for bombers and now the ground guys are even more over whelmed because it doesn't matter if you shut down the temporary AF PPO - you haven't done anything to stop the flow at the source - the static AF.

 

This is why the static AF needs to be the priority - the players can actually attempt to stop the flow at the source.

[BMBM 473]

1 hour ago, Zebbeee said:

I have never managed to rtb as a pilot, so I can’t say

In that case the PPO won’t do you an ounce of good. Like I inferred previously, it’ll probably be used by a small minority of experienced pilots who also like to move mud, to increase the bomb delivery rate. As if that’s what’s needed <shrug>

[bogol 105]

On 3/12/2018 at 9:42 AM, OLDZEKE said:

Mobile or PPO airfields is being discussed, stay tuned

There is even a facebook poll on it.

The facebook pool should be announced as a banner in the forums as well. 

 

I cannot find it on https://www.facebook.com/battlegroundeurope/

Where is it? 

Edited March 21, 2018 by bogol

[OLDZEKE 280]

It's a ways down the page

[bogol 105]

On 3/19/2018 at 1:57 PM, Zebbeee said:

 

15 minutes ago, OLDZEKE said:

It's a ways down the page

Thanks Zeke!

Edited March 21, 2018 by bogol

[madrebel 606]

NOw that I see the wording of the poll, this has to be a hard no.

 

"to get more pilots in the air fighting"

 

again to further bmbm's question, how does more airstrips closer to the front get people fighting in the air? all this does at best is get more people over the AO at low altitude. "but it can be attacked, won't people attack this target instead" ... maybe for a minute. then they'll realize they can't actually stop anything and this is just a game of whack a mole.

 

static AF's vulnerability needs to be the focus of the discussion. not MSs. MSs work great on the ground as analogs for force projection to offset the lack of numbers and literal chain of command with orders that MUST be followed at the risk of significant consequence that reality has. right?

in reality, planes launched from 'over there' and arrived at a place to either attack it, defend it, or patrol it. planes don't 'need' mobile anything, planes are mobile by default. 

 

focus mobility where there isn't any and focus vulnerability at the points where your mobile forces are most vulnerable. that's how you create a fight. 

 

[bogol 105]

On 3/19/2018 at 1:57 PM, Zebbeee said:

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

no need to drive or fly to there. 

Absolutely not. This type of balance changing PPO (if we are still talking about mobile AFs) need to require coordination between players to place. 

At least 3-4 Trucks and maybe a few engineers. Also, one side should not be able to have more than a limited number of such AFs at any given time on the map. Maybe 3? 

Also, the air Squad with most ACTIVE members each side would be allowed to place one, where only the members of the squadron can spawn from. That would really foster healthy competition between squads, and discourage fragmentation. Which is what led to LW being in shambles today.

Edited March 21, 2018 by bogol

[bogol 105]

6 hours ago, madrebel said:

you're quite wrong. there was a map at some point in the past showing how many airfields are missing from the game that existed IRL, we're missing a LOT of airfields. As an example, only one airfield (brussels) the Italians used during the BoB is currently on the map. 

 

air fields need to be targets - yes! whack-a-mole though ... are there not enough issues IDn targets from the air? you want to now have to hunt for AFs that aren't even as valuable as real airfields? why?

 

if a new target type for bombers is the goal, splendid! let's do that. why a PPO though when we've been told that this team is either on the verge of or has cracked the terrain editing process. ok, great! now let's add all the missing AFs. now that we have more of those, let's make them bombable and interact with the supply system so we now have a new mission type. 

 

I don't understand why we need or want this to be PPO instead of a fixed asset. what is the advantage of PPO over fixed asset? wouldn't PPO just confuse players? 

I agree that all structures in game should be damageable, except perhaps the Bunkers. The Hangars and the landing strips should be destroyable with enough bombs.

However, the main reason I really like this mobile AF idea is that it would offer a less protected (in principle) AF to bomb. One should not be able to easily bomb a regular AF, there is tons of AA around it. However, around a mobile strip there should be fewer AA guns, mostly MGs. It really would create a totally new layer for the air game. One where bombers can be used as strategic assets, and where the fighters are naturally forced on a defensive position. IMO, a really fun addition to the game. 

[bogol 105]

28 minutes ago, madrebel said:

 

focus mobility where there isn't any and focus vulnerability at the points where your mobile forces are most vulnerable. that's how you create a fight. 

 

I understand the first part of the statement. No clue what the second part is supposed to mean. Are you saying that most vulnerable assets should be focused next to the most vulnerable mobile forces? 

Edited March 21, 2018 by bogol

[kazee 154]

36 minutes ago, OLDZEKE said:

It's a ways down the page

"deployed by truck (player)"  that tells me the build time would be short, and imho they should take hours to complete or maybe even a full day to build one. Of course no one is going to do that via a truck, so it maybe should be an HC command once HC discusses location with the air command and yes a limited number per map only, and yes 3 sounds about right

Also we need to discuss are they capturable or destroyable ? 

[madrebel 606]

so you're looking for a low risk target that offers little to no reward? how does that make for good gameplay that jives with the rest of this game's purported 'hard core' gameplay? 

 

yes it should be hard to bomb a defended airfield ... that's the point because success means you've denied your opponent something. 

 

now, if you removed all airfields and had nothing but player placed airfields ... that would be different. you'd need to figure out how to tie in supply to PPOs though ... and really all you're doing is essentially making the static fields we have now ... somewhat less static but still bombable. 

[bogol 105]

8 minutes ago, madrebel said:

so you're looking for a low risk target that offers little to no reward? how does that make for good gameplay that jives with the rest of this game's purported 'hard core' gameplay? 

 

 

I am looking a target that has moderate risk to  moderate reward. It is a mobile AF after all, not a production facility... And to add to the reward, the idea of the supply list that is attached to the AF being depleted slowly by bombs is actually great. 

 

[madrebel 606]

2 minutes ago, bogol said:

I understand the first part of the statement. No clue what the second part is supposed to mean. Are you saying that most vulnerable assets should be focused next to the most vulnerable mobile forces? 

meaning if you want to have a game people pay to play, you can't ask the slowest thing in game to walk a marathon. mobile spawns help infantry, tanks, and other slow crap get into a fight before the player's next birthday. further, you can't simulate a war with a front (however fluid) without using design techniques to help the players.

 

planes on the other hand, by nature an extremely wide envelope in which they can freely and quickly move about the world. due to the 1:2 world we play in, all planes technically have twice their normal range too. they don't need ANY assistance with mobility. that is the key point.

 

further, any time you have a 'queen' you need to make sure she is punished if she is vulnerable. that's a chess reference in that planes can move in and attack in any direction. because you can't pin them down, their home base needs to be highly vulnerable. when it is, the queens all have to bear that in mind and some of them should defend the air space around the air field and or attack near by enemy air fields. when those fields are directly tied into the logistical back end ... now you have something to fight over.

[madrebel 606]

2 minutes ago, bogol said:

 

I am looking a target that has moderate risk to  moderate reward. It is a mobile AF after all, not a production facility... And to add to the reward, the idea of the supply list that is attached to the AF being depleted slowly by bombs is actually great. 

 

how are mobile spawns that can be bombed better than static AFs that can be bombed? i don't get why there should be preference. if we added vulnerable mobile air fields AND the static ones are still invulnerable that would be even WORSE than where we are at now. essentially we're saying "its ok to attack and airfield, but only kinda" doesn't make a great deal of sense to have a vulnerable cart before the invulnerable horse.

[bogol 105]

3 minutes ago, madrebel said:

meaning if you want to have a game people pay to play, you can't ask the slowest thing in game to walk a marathon. mobile spawns help infantry, tanks, and other slow crap get into a fight before the player's next birthday. further, you can't simulate a war with a front (however fluid) without using design techniques to help the players.

 

planes on the other hand, by nature an extremely wide envelope in which they can freely and quickly move about the world. due to the 1:2 world we play in, all planes technically have twice their normal range too. they don't need ANY assistance with mobility. that is the key point.

 

further, any time you have a 'queen' you need to make sure she is punished if she is vulnerable. that's a chess reference in that planes can move in and attack in any direction. because you can't pin them down, their home base needs to be highly vulnerable. when it is, the queens all have to bear that in mind and some of them should defend the air space around the air field and or attack near by enemy air fields. when those fields are directly tied into the logistical back end ... now you have something to fight over.

 I agree with everything you said, up to the very last logical inference. You are saying (and I agree) that the home base needs to be highly vulnerable. Which is what I was suggesting for the mobile AF. Less AA as a large AF. It is scaled, after all. 

Also, tying it to the logistical back end. Do you imply forcing them to be placed at least a set distance away from the frontline? Because if you do, that would only make them less vulnerable. 

[bogol 105]

5 minutes ago, madrebel said:

how are mobile spawns that can be bombed better than static AFs that can be bombed? i don't get why there should be preference. if we added vulnerable mobile air fields AND the static ones are still invulnerable that would be even WORSE than where we are at now. essentially we're saying "its ok to attack and airfield, but only kinda" doesn't make a great deal of sense to have a vulnerable cart before the invulnerable horse.

As stated before, ALL AFS SHOULD BE DAMAGEABLE. Now I go make dinner. In the meanwhile, another thing. If you severely limit the number of mobile AFs one side can place per tier (say 3 per tier and no more, once they are all 3 destroyed, you got to wait till next tier) Then you do have an asset to protect. See, it all works out?

Edited March 21, 2018 by bogol

[madrebel 606]

12 minutes ago, bogol said:

As stated before, ALL AFS SHOULD BE DAMAGEABLE. Now I go make dinner. In the meanwhile, another thing. If you severely limit the number of mobile AFs one side can place per tier (say 3 per tier and no more, once they are all 3 destroyed, you got to wait till next tier) Then you do have an asset to protect. See, it all works out?

then make the source vulnerable first. now mobile AFs actually matter as you might be able to hide them and use them either to better attack opposition AFs and AOs or use them as defense for your own AFs. mobile fields are a cool idea in search of a problem. vulnerable home bases are a problem mobile AFs can solve.