A question about fire bases from Lure in The Barracks: "What is the point with FBs now that MSPs been in the game for so long? Infantry mostly spawn in the middle of the battle now from MSPs and don't need to run/ride to get to the battle. Why not just remove the FBs?  You would re-open a LOT of terrain for tank/atg ambushes. I miss setting up a small ambush team in the middle of nowhere.  The only down side I can see is for the slow tanks but I'd make that trade any time."

• It’s how the original game design was implemented, which means the very game engine that drives the basis of the game and how it was built. Changing it would require massive amounts of work, going as deep as the terrain, the game-world itself, all the strat and core game engine code that interacts with player action on the strategic layer (capture, spawning, movement and all dynamic host and player interaction and the resulting devices to control and switch those myriad aspects of strategic gameplay). It would mean redesigning and rebuilding the game from the core on up, because FB’s are endemic to the original design and it’s core code.
• FB’s do serve a worthwhile and necessary purpose in conjunction with all the additional ways to determine spawn locations in the game, and not at the expense of them. Some aspects of choice as to what you do and what gameplay takes place rely on FBs for the very existence of that gameplay.
• Removing FBs would remove from the game the distance modifier that they bring to reduce the downtime in travel from one town to another. They also focus the attack or defense nature of your sides current situation and give you defined options at a command level as to what your current mission importance is, such as in dealing with the enemies FBs and forcing them to perhaps instead have to deal with your FBs. Making the game less defined and more free-form is a popular cry but not always as great an option as it is often made to sound. Without defined choices game play often stagnates into a chaotic mess with little satisfaction of purpose to general play for most people. There are exceptions of course. Change for changes sake is not a good idea it’s better to use change to serve a purpose that is clearly defined and well researched.
• Basically we’ve been more interested in building on the original game and enhancing it than “rebuilding from scratch” since to totally rebuild it from the bottom up is not a realistic option or choice for us, or hasn’t been in the past. When you understand how deeply embedded FBs are into the core of the game and the code which makes the game possible, what makes a good “rebuild option” for the games developers becomes a little more clear.
• There’s nothing actually wrong with retaining FBs and adding to them the other methods of spawn/movement of forces to the game we have and continue to add to the game. As an alternative to getting rid of them and the huge stop to other development that might actually be forcing on us, and you. FBs are not hurting anything in the game and as we add other options they can instead become a part of those new options to multiply the variety of tactical/strategic choices you have, rather than hurting them in any way.