×

Warning

Empty password not allowed.
Welcome, Guest
Username: Password: Remember me
  • Page:
  • 1

TOPIC:

proposed game variation: "Outposts" 10 years 4 days ago #176459

  • [NLR] McFate
  • [NLR] McFate's Avatar Topic Author
  • Offline
  • Platinum Member
  • Platinum Member
  • Don't believe everything you think.
  • Posts: 2743
  • Thank you received: 5398
How about a game where you have to attack and defend "outposts"? B)

There could be 2-3 outposts/ refueling stations for each side which either need to be captured or bombed (2 hangars?). You could re capture or rebuild the hangars by landing like in a CTC. Which ever team loses all of their outposts and hangars at the same time loses the game.

Maybe the "outposts" could be anti aircraft/anti tank guns (like the tanks in the practice missions) which could be rebuilt by landing. If you were shot down or ran out of fuel you could walk or tank back to the base or outpost to get back in a plane.

Maybe the outposts could also have balloons which, while intact, provide a site radius where your map would show reds in the area.

This could be a good variation if Bombers (slower planes able to carry multiple bombs) were introduced. The slower bombers would be more vulnerable to the A A guns so having fighters and bombers working together would be more important.
The following user(s) said Thank You: [*M]VonHuLK, DD I Stranger, ZebraUp, Ziza, Fiery Tiger, =£= Knight!

Please Log in to join the conversation.

Last edit: by [NLR] McFate.

proposed game variation: "Outposts" 10 years 4 days ago #176465

  • ZebraUp
  • ZebraUp's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Platinum Member
  • Platinum Member
  • Flying & Fighting with STYLE!
  • Posts: 2684
  • Thank you received: 4244

Nice McFate.. didn't you mention something like this on zuperman's What you want me to do for the next Dogfight? thread?

Please Log in to join the conversation.

proposed game variation: "Outposts" 10 years 4 days ago #176468

  • [NLR] McFate
  • [NLR] McFate's Avatar Topic Author
  • Offline
  • Platinum Member
  • Platinum Member
  • Don't believe everything you think.
  • Posts: 2743
  • Thank you received: 5398

{£}ZebraUp wrote: Nice McFate.. didn't you mention something like this on zuperman's What you want me to do for the next Dogfight? thread?


Oh yea, I think the idea was more in the zygote stage then. :S
The "fuel" discussion got me going on this a bit more.

Please Log in to join the conversation.

proposed game variation: "Outposts" 10 years 4 days ago #176490

  • [NLR] McFate
  • [NLR] McFate's Avatar Topic Author
  • Offline
  • Platinum Member
  • Platinum Member
  • Don't believe everything you think.
  • Posts: 2743
  • Thank you received: 5398
BTW; this is my vision of what the "slow bombers" should be. B)

*[M] McFate wrote: If slow moving bombers (able to carry multiple bombs) become available they could also have turrets.

The turrets would need to be destroyed before the bomber becomes vulnerable. Each bomber would be controlled by one pilot. They would also have a "normal" front pointing machine gun. To use the turrets you would hit the camera view icon to switch between a front or a back (or left/right) turret. The turrets would come with the same firing capabilities and amount of ammo as the chute. When you switch from normal cockpit view to the turrets the bomber would continue on the current vector until you go back to cockpit view.

It would be great if you could select your plane with each respawn.


These bombers would be fairly vulnerable to the A A guns, so it would be important for fighters to take them out so the bombers could get through to the main base.
The following user(s) said Thank You: ZebraUp

Please Log in to join the conversation.

Last edit: by [NLR] McFate.
  • Page:
  • 1
Time to create page: 0.398 seconds