And the Hangar rejoices - Supply can be reduced by 100%

[allibone]

http://www.battlegroundeurope.com/index ... omment8696

DOC: We have for a long time had calls to increase the effects of strategic bomber operations against a countries RDP factories. This hearkens back to a time when the damage you could do was so great we lost many customers over the repercussions of such bombing. Great for your emotional reward and satisfaction but very bad for the games continued survival.

When we altered the consequences of strategic bombing to effect the numbers of new equipment available after attrition rather than the actual existence of those units, we were cautious not to instigate an effect that would be too overpowering. On the downside, this creates the impression it isn't powerful enough. It's a tricky balance to find, enough that it seems worth the effort but not enough that the losing side decides not to play and the whole game disappears for even the winning side.

We have thought about this, and studied the consequences on both sides of the question, and the results of many campaigns where strategic bombing was a part of the general play and many others where it appeared not to be. Currently the maximum effect to the resupply of units lost through battle attrition is 50% of the server resupply timer, which is achieved by reducing the RDP factories of your enemy to 100% damage state.

We are suggesting that this be increased to 100%, ie: double the current effect. If your RDP factories are 100% destroyed you experience an additional 100% delay to your resupply timers instead of the current 50%. For example, with 0% damage on a factory, a tank is resupplied in about 7 hours. With 100% damage to a factory, this timer currently increases to around 10 hours. With the changes proposed, at 100% damage to the factory, that same tank would now take 14 hours to be put back in supply. This makes strategic bombing of greater worth compared to the huge effort required to mount and sustain such a campaign, but at the same time doesn't deny the players on the other end of it the complete use of equipment parity like the old system did. They just suffer the effects of a lost battle to a greater degree because the wait to be resupplied with replacement equipment is greater. We have other ideas, too, but this is one we can implement quickly and easily until such a time that a more favorable plan can be fleshed out.

Some would be opposed to this because it "makes losing unfair" but the counter to this is that losing is always unfair to the loser.

The facts of the matter are that if we didn't have a loser there wouldn't be a winner either. You can only win by beating your opponent not by removing your opponents ability to beat you. Otherwise, you only remove your ability to beat your opponent.

[Reddog]

WOOT Awesome News.

[Sniper62]

^^^^

what he said

[Kizmet]

The Axis are so Fucked!

Thank you DOC!

I actually understood every word he said!

[Pegasusbelgar]

A step in the right direction, lets just hope they dont yield to whines on the ground in future. Now give us a Manchester/Wellington and I will return.

[wingit]

So, basically. We don't affect the tier status. Just the resupply timings.

Oh dear, the Axis scum are so screwed.

[Cono]

The Axis are so Fucked!

Thank you DOC!

I actually understood every word he said!

Doc has learned a new language, diplo-speak in addition to arrogant jack-ass speak. I understood it too, Kiz. Of course, the proof is in the pudding. Let's see how it measures out when Snippet looks at the data once it's in place.