One thing that really seems false is the fact that in Pac War, and now in UV and most likely in WitP, bases are virtually indestructible. Oh sure you can bomb a base to 100% damage, but you can't bomb a base back to the stone age if you apply enough bombs to the task. While the fortification level will go back to zero upon capture, with some percentage credit already given for expansion, the airfield and port values never, ever get reduced once damage reaches 100%. Capturing an enemy base with 100% damage isn't a bad deal because all you have to do is repair the damage and you have a fully functioning base at the exact same levels with the same exact construction-in-progress left by the enemy. When bases reach 100% damage and receive more damage then the construction in progress level should be reduced accordingly until it reaches zero. Then if more damage above the 100% level is applied the program should then reduce the built level by one and add back some construction-in-progress to make up the difference. This should go on until the levels are all reduced to zero if the base has been bombed enough. Right now there's no penalty for bombing a base "back to the stone age" right before capturing it and then just landing enough engineers to repair it in a few days as if no damage had been done.
This is very unreal and I sure hope the UV team will wake up and make bases more realistic in having facility levels reduced by massive, long-term bombing. I would like to think that if the programmers can make the fortification level be reduced upon capture that they can make bases get reduced in facility level and construction-in-progress when damage exceeds 100%.
Eric Larsen
Indestructible bases
Moderator: Tankerace
-
EricLarsen
- Posts: 450
- Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2002 8:00 pm
- Location: Salinas, CA Raider Nation
-
EricLarsen
- Posts: 450
- Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2002 8:00 pm
- Location: Salinas, CA Raider Nation
Shame on Everyone!
I can't imagine that seeing quite a few players have read my earlier post regarding indestructible bases have all remained mysteriously silent regarding this issue. Geez, is this some kind of taboo subject because everyone wants to keep this unrealistic game gimmick? I can't believe that out of all you opinionated players that not one bothered to post some kind of reply, either positive or negative. I'm especially chagrined that no one from the UV team has either seen this or has bothered to reply to this particular point I'm trying to make.
I recently took Lunga from the AI IJN in scenario 19. I had waited until 4/43 to make my invasion and the AI had built the base up to level 5 port and level 7 airfield. I had damaged the base pretty well and when I first captured the base I had no airfield runway damage, 97 points of airfield ready damage, and 99 points of port damage. The airfield had 67% completion of the level 8 it was building and I had 155% fortification construction on level 0. The very next day I had a fully operational base with no damage! While I didn't bomb the Lunga constantly for months like I've done on some bases vefore invading it, I find it very unrealistic that I would capture such a fine facility and have it good to go so quickly. I also find it unrealistic that I would capture the construction-in-progress and that my bombing and bombardment didn't degrade the facilities one whit.
I mean where the heck is the "slash and burn" strategy at? Am I to believe that no commander would order the destruction of as many facilities as possible before a base capture is imminent? Are we saying that in the South Pacific there was no base commander with the same brains that the commander of Cherbourg had just before the Allies captured that port? While the US Marines may have captured Lunga's crude airfield facilities intact, that was a case of total surprise and no determined defense. In the case of a determined defense I would think a commander would order the destruction of facilities to keep the enemy from gaining advantage of them.
So someone out there let's hear it. What the heck could possibly justify this unrealistic base capture of intact facilities? The manual states that the base facilities go back to the hex default at the beginning of the scenario, yet the program doesn't operate that way except for fortification level which goes back to zero.
Eric Larsen
I recently took Lunga from the AI IJN in scenario 19. I had waited until 4/43 to make my invasion and the AI had built the base up to level 5 port and level 7 airfield. I had damaged the base pretty well and when I first captured the base I had no airfield runway damage, 97 points of airfield ready damage, and 99 points of port damage. The airfield had 67% completion of the level 8 it was building and I had 155% fortification construction on level 0. The very next day I had a fully operational base with no damage! While I didn't bomb the Lunga constantly for months like I've done on some bases vefore invading it, I find it very unrealistic that I would capture such a fine facility and have it good to go so quickly. I also find it unrealistic that I would capture the construction-in-progress and that my bombing and bombardment didn't degrade the facilities one whit.
I mean where the heck is the "slash and burn" strategy at? Am I to believe that no commander would order the destruction of as many facilities as possible before a base capture is imminent? Are we saying that in the South Pacific there was no base commander with the same brains that the commander of Cherbourg had just before the Allies captured that port? While the US Marines may have captured Lunga's crude airfield facilities intact, that was a case of total surprise and no determined defense. In the case of a determined defense I would think a commander would order the destruction of facilities to keep the enemy from gaining advantage of them.
So someone out there let's hear it. What the heck could possibly justify this unrealistic base capture of intact facilities? The manual states that the base facilities go back to the hex default at the beginning of the scenario, yet the program doesn't operate that way except for fortification level which goes back to zero.
Eric Larsen
Ok, Eric. I'll bite. I agree with you, but I don't think it's a gamebreaker. Unrealistic?...yes. Do I hope they include a way to fix it in War In The Pacific?...yes. Do I expect a fix for UV....no.
People have asked before for the ability to destroy the base and airfield facilities before abandoning or losing a base. The Matrix/2by3 folks have read it I'm sure. Hopefully they are planning a way to do it in WITP.
So...you are not alone. Feel better now?
People have asked before for the ability to destroy the base and airfield facilities before abandoning or losing a base. The Matrix/2by3 folks have read it I'm sure. Hopefully they are planning a way to do it in WITP.
So...you are not alone. Feel better now?
WW2'er
"That [state] which separates its scholars from its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards, and its fighting by fools." — Thucydides, 'The Peloponnesian Wars'
"That [state] which separates its scholars from its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards, and its fighting by fools." — Thucydides, 'The Peloponnesian Wars'
-
pasternakski
- Posts: 5567
- Joined: Sat Jun 29, 2002 7:42 pm
A good question.
I have been wondering the answer myself as well and been eagerly waiting for someone to reply -somebody who actually could do so.
I quess that if you are able to present a good, justified and well presented question, most of the readers wait for somebody with real knowledge to answer.
Thus you end up with an empty thread, untill somebody from Matrix answers; or somebody who didn't quite understand what you were after picks up the thread and posts something that causes further debate.
Such is the world of communication where you don't get immediate non-verbal feedback
I have been wondering the answer myself as well and been eagerly waiting for someone to reply -somebody who actually could do so.
I quess that if you are able to present a good, justified and well presented question, most of the readers wait for somebody with real knowledge to answer.
Thus you end up with an empty thread, untill somebody from Matrix answers; or somebody who didn't quite understand what you were after picks up the thread and posts something that causes further debate.
Such is the world of communication where you don't get immediate non-verbal feedback
OK
Greetings, First the differing faciltities can not be treated the same. I do have a minor issue with a "100 percent damaged" port being put back together in a few days. Hangers and airfields are much easier (you do not really need hangers to operate an airfield and concrete runways with holes in them can be fixed in a few hours) Fort level is hard to say. I think the lower levels take way to long to build. (what is level 1??? compared to level 0)
The tough job in building airfields is clearing the area and leveling it. Does the base being captured alter this once someone has done the work? The more time (higher level) spent building an airfield is making hard surface runways (for all weather operation) and longer runways (for larger aircraft)
Even if I started months before a base was captured using jackhammers to tear up the runway the enemy after he took the place would only need a few days at most to restore it. (just rake it flat and pour over top)
A port on the other hand.....if the cranes and drydocks are gone.
The tough job in building airfields is clearing the area and leveling it. Does the base being captured alter this once someone has done the work? The more time (higher level) spent building an airfield is making hard surface runways (for all weather operation) and longer runways (for larger aircraft)
Even if I started months before a base was captured using jackhammers to tear up the runway the enemy after he took the place would only need a few days at most to restore it. (just rake it flat and pour over top)
A port on the other hand.....if the cranes and drydocks are gone.
I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!
-
EricLarsen
- Posts: 450
- Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2002 8:00 pm
- Location: Salinas, CA Raider Nation
That's Good, But???
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mike Wood
Allowing the player to instruct a base commander to destroy facilities and the associated code for so doing is on our code request list. Michael Wood
Lead Programmer,
Matrix Games
Mike,
It's good to hear that being able to order a base commander (didn't know we had these) to destroy base facilities is in the works. But what about the damage caused by constant bombing and bombardment? I'm talking about when players, including myself, have bombed some enemy base for months on end and that bombing and bombardment never, ever degrades the facility levels. While the construction may stop due to constant repair attempts, the facilities themselves never get degraded below their current levels. I would think that bombing a level 9 airfield for months on end would destroy enough of the infrastructure that the base level should be degraded. Bombing and bombardment that goes past 100% should start to reduce construction-in-progress until it reaches zero, and then it should drop the facility level by one and add back some construction-in-progress to allow for the fractional damage of the lost level. This is what I'm driving at, there's no reduction of base facility levels for massive, prolonged bombardment that would be much more than just minor damage that needs to be repaired, but major damage that needs to be rebuilt!
Eric Larsen
Allowing the player to instruct a base commander to destroy facilities and the associated code for so doing is on our code request list. Michael Wood
Lead Programmer,
Matrix Games
Mike,
It's good to hear that being able to order a base commander (didn't know we had these) to destroy base facilities is in the works. But what about the damage caused by constant bombing and bombardment? I'm talking about when players, including myself, have bombed some enemy base for months on end and that bombing and bombardment never, ever degrades the facility levels. While the construction may stop due to constant repair attempts, the facilities themselves never get degraded below their current levels. I would think that bombing a level 9 airfield for months on end would destroy enough of the infrastructure that the base level should be degraded. Bombing and bombardment that goes past 100% should start to reduce construction-in-progress until it reaches zero, and then it should drop the facility level by one and add back some construction-in-progress to allow for the fractional damage of the lost level. This is what I'm driving at, there's no reduction of base facility levels for massive, prolonged bombardment that would be much more than just minor damage that needs to be repaired, but major damage that needs to be rebuilt!
Eric Larsen
Re: That's Good, But???
Hello...
Same issue. If we are able to address base destruction, we will handle take care of both (and some other base issues not mentioned herein). Will require interface changes, structure changes in saved games and we will have to teach the AI bout it (the hardest part).
Bye...
Michael Wood
_________________________________________________
Same issue. If we are able to address base destruction, we will handle take care of both (and some other base issues not mentioned herein). Will require interface changes, structure changes in saved games and we will have to teach the AI bout it (the hardest part).
Bye...
Michael Wood
_________________________________________________
Originally posted by EricLarsen
Mike,
It's good to hear that being able to order a base commander (didn't know we had these) to destroy base facilities is in the works. But what about the damage caused by constant bombing and bombardment...
Eric Larsen
Very interesting idea...
Hi all,
I wonder if Matrix/2By3 can comment on this for, possible, future
modifications of UV (and/or WitP).
Leo "Apollo11"
Very interesting idea...Originally posted by EricLarsen
It's good to hear that being able to order a base commander (didn't know we had these) to destroy base facilities is in the works. But what about the damage caused by constant bombing and bombardment? I'm talking about when players, including myself, have bombed some enemy base for months on end and that bombing and bombardment never, ever degrades the facility levels. While the construction may stop due to constant repair attempts, the facilities themselves never get degraded below their current levels. I would think that bombing a level 9 airfield for months on end would destroy enough of the infrastructure that the base level should be degraded. Bombing and bombardment that goes past 100% should start to reduce construction-in-progress until it reaches zero, and then it should drop the facility level by one and add back some construction-in-progress to allow for the fractional damage of the lost level. This is what I'm driving at, there's no reduction of base facility levels for massive, prolonged bombardment that would be much more than just minor damage that needs to be repaired, but major damage that needs to be rebuilt!
Eric Larsen
I wonder if Matrix/2By3 can comment on this for, possible, future
modifications of UV (and/or WitP).
Leo "Apollo11"
Prior Preparation & Planning Prevents Pathetically Poor Performance!
A & B: WitW, WitE, WbtS, GGWaW, GGWaW2-AWD, HttR, CotA, BftB, CF
P: UV, WitP, WitP-AE
-
EricLarsen
- Posts: 450
- Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2002 8:00 pm
- Location: Salinas, CA Raider Nation
That's Good!!!
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mike Wood
Same issue. If we are able to address base destruction, we will handle take care of both (and some other base issues not mentioned herein). Will require interface changes, structure changes in saved games and we will have to teach the AI bout it (the hardest part).
Bye...
Michael Wood
_________________________________________________
Mike,
That sounds good. I was hoping both issues could be tackled as one. Besides why should the owner of a base being bombed back to the stoneage receive the benefit of an indestructible base only to be able to repair the damage quickly and lose no base lelvel value. Hopefully we'll see this in a patch soon, but most importantly that it will find it's way into WitP before release.
Thanks!
Eric Larsen
Same issue. If we are able to address base destruction, we will handle take care of both (and some other base issues not mentioned herein). Will require interface changes, structure changes in saved games and we will have to teach the AI bout it (the hardest part).
Bye...
Michael Wood
_________________________________________________
Mike,
That sounds good. I was hoping both issues could be tackled as one. Besides why should the owner of a base being bombed back to the stoneage receive the benefit of an indestructible base only to be able to repair the damage quickly and lose no base lelvel value. Hopefully we'll see this in a patch soon, but most importantly that it will find it's way into WitP before release.
Thanks!
Eric Larsen