Idea for Strat Change for Refinery and Fuel Tanks and Better Game Play

[hitech]

Tinkles, the point is not about playing war, the point is about making a game of war, vs using what happened in WW2 as an argument for GAME change.

I.E. Aces High main arena play, is not trying to recreate WW2. It is simply trying to make a game using WW2 equipment. Hence any idea/discussions primary purpose should be how does it effect GAME play, Not using what happened in WW2 as a justification for a game play change.

And even the goal of winning the war, is just to promote different forms of combat.

HiTech

[Karnak]

The old fuel settings were a serious issue.  It didn't just shut down Bf109s, La-7s and Spitfires, it pretty much shut down all fighters.  A P-47N, P-51D or Mosquito Mk VI can't do very much on 25% fuel either.  I remember sometimes logging in to find that every airfield on the Rook-Bish and/or Rook-Knight front had been bombed/straffed/rocketed down to 25% fuel and being unable to really play at all.  It was way, way too powerful a tool to close down enemy operations.

[Halo46]

[start rant] -1 to another reason for porkers to fly their lame suicide missions instead of even trying to defend themselves or fighting and making game play worse. "Protect the strats..." no, come dog fight... I can honestly say I have noticed a seriously dramatic decrease in the ability to have a pleasant fight anymore. If not being hoarded then its a choice of kamikaze porkers or astronautical manifestations. Win the war types want everyone to fly cap at 35K to protect their strats or risk not being able to defend their map. It is getting ridiculous how many strat clowns have been born. And the number of porkikazes is crazy as well. Used to be someone porked to start a nice little fight, but now it is simply pork until shot down, rinse and repeat until the base is as defenseless as possible for the 30 guys to come swarm. Come on, the happy medium has been passed and it is far too lopsided towards the "win the war" zealots. As annoying as runners are, these are worse in my opinion. [end rant]


 

[Lusche]

Win the war types want everyone to fly cap at 35K to protect their strats or risk not being able to defend their map. It is getting ridiculous how many strat clowns have been born.

My experience & sentiments very much differ from yours.

First, the "win the war types", i.e. the big basegrab leaders are those that are among least involved in the new strat play. Neither I do see defending the factories, nor do i see them asking for it, as they usually totally ignore anything beyond the smash& grab horizon, and any kind of defense in particular. Actually a big share of complains about the whole strat system came from them (see "resupply town" threads)

Second: Yes, the strats are now much more attacked than ever before, which is nothing but a good thing. The gameplay and combat opportunities really broadened. I was on the verge of canceling my account of sheer boredom, the improved strat game and the resulting high altitude combat kept me from doing it. Not only I have made more than 200 strat runs myself since then, I also have gotten literally hundreds of kills by defending the strats since them (occasionally getting up to about 70% of my kills in fighters per tour up there).  And from that position  of someone really fighting there I can say that the number of extreme high ("35k") altitude bombers is actually very low. While indeed the majority is flying 20-27k, the number of bombers raising above 30K is relatively low.


The new strats had a very positive effect in terms of giving us more diverse combat opportunities. They gave bomber jocks a true strategic target and a reason to do long range bomber runs instead of the ever same "drop hangars & town" tactical bombing at the frontline. And with escorted bomber missions, you could now find also more real high altitude fighter combat without any of the participants immediately dropping down to the deck for lack of any reason to stay up there.

[EagleDNY]

The old fuel settings were a serious issue.  It didn't just shut down Bf109s, La-7s and Spitfires, it pretty much shut down all fighters.  A P-47N, P-51D or Mosquito Mk VI can't do very much on 25% fuel either.  I remember sometimes logging in to find that every airfield on the Rook-Bish and/or Rook-Knight front had been bombed/straffed/rocketed down to 25% fuel and being unable to really play at all.  It was way, way too powerful a tool to close down enemy operations.

Perhaps a sliding scale of fuel scarcity?   25% fuel in a box of B-24s is a whole lot more fuel from the base supply dump than is 25% of an Me-109 tank.  We have data on how much fuel everything holds at 100% internal fuel - it should be possible to come up with a chart of how much fuel each plane gets when the fuel at the base is at 100%, 75%, 50%, 25% and base it on a number of gallons of fuel.  So what happens then is when a base is porked to 25%, fighters that only hold a small amount of fuel (like a 109) might get 50 or 75% of a full internal load, but a P-47N might only get 50% as a max. 

Other option would have full fuel porkage limit all planes to 50% and no drop tanks - that gets you good ways if you aren't running full out all the time.   

[Volron]

The Snail nailed it.

With the few times I get to log in, I've yet to see any of the base take/win the war mission leaders even remotely HINT at attacking strats on Rook (not sure about Bish/Nit, but am figuring the same).  Commonly, the response by most of them are, "Waste of time/Too much time (which it does take a lot of time to do, roughly 2 1/2hrs depending)...", and/or "Can use those folks to take bases...".  Mind you, I said MOST of them, not ALL.   As a raider, the only time I climb to 30k+ is when I take a B-29, and NEVER a formation of them since I always lose 2 to the puffy.   Get's pricey...   It use to be that I would VERY rarely be intercepted if raiding a Capital.  Now, it's much different.  There are more folks willing to protect them, which makes it more interesting.  Don't know how many times I was falling asleep on the way to a Capital.   Now, it is different.   Still a pain in the arse to get folks together for a raid, but at least there are more that will do it now.


What pains me the most is, I just don't have the time to log in as often as I want.  Finally, strats have been given their due, and I really can't take full advantage of it.

[ink]

Tinkles, the point is not about playing war, the point is about making a game of war, vs using what happened in WW2 as an argument for GAME change.

I.E. Aces High main arena play, is not trying to recreate WW2. It is simply trying to make a game using WW2 equipment. Hence any idea/discussions primary purpose should be how does it effect GAME play, Not using what happened in WW2 as a justification for a game play change.

And even the goal of winning the war, is just to promote different forms of combat.

HiTech

hmmmm....too damn long to quote......but Thank you........ Thank you..........

BTW you have done what you set out to do, exceptionally well I might add.

[Tinkles]

Tinkles, the point is not about playing war, the point is about making a game of war, vs using what happened in WW2 as an argument for GAME change.

I.E. Aces High main arena play, is not trying to recreate WW2. It is simply trying to make a game using WW2 equipment. Hence any idea/discussions primary purpose should be how does it effect GAME play, Not using what happened in WW2 as a justification for a game play change.

And even the goal of winning the war, is just to promote different forms of combat.

HiTech

I see your point, and how it could be abused as well.  Just wish it would be implemented is all.   

hmmmm....too damn long to quote......but Thank you........ Thank you..........

BTW you have done what you set out to do, exceptionally well I might add.

Dearest apologizes, appears I was in the wrong.   

But I would really like to see the fuel have more value that what it has now.  What Karnak said (2 posts above) imo would be acceptable. Giving enough fuel to be effective in defense, but not as much as usual.

Just my thoughts.

Respectively,

Tinkles

 

[ink]

I see your point, and how it could be abused as well.  Just wish it would be implemented is all.   
Dearest apologizes, appears I was in the wrong.   

But I would really like to see the fuel have more value that what it has now.  What Karnak said (2 posts above) imo would be acceptable. Giving enough fuel to be effective in defense, but not as much as usual.

Just my thoughts.

Respectively,

Tinkles

 

no need for that

many start flying and try to make the MA all about the war and what not....if you are into that I suggest FSO 3 Friday's in a row every month a bunch of guys get together and do play out some battles that actually happened.....very fun....gotta be in a squad but well worth it, to find some to fly there.....MA like that would get old though

scenarios are also played...a bit different then the FSO's  but I believe walk ins are welcome.

[Halo46]

My experience & sentiments very much differ from yours.

First, the "win the war types", i.e. the big basegrab leaders are those that are among least involved in the new strat play. Neither I do see defending the factories, nor do i see them asking for it, as they usually totally ignore anything beyond the smash& grab horizon, and any kind of defense in particular. Actually a big share of complains about the whole strat system came from them (see "resupply town" threads)

Second: Yes, the strats are now much more attacked than ever before, which is nothing but a good thing. The gameplay and combat opportunities really broadened. I was on the verge of canceling my account of sheer boredom, the improved strat game and the resulting high altitude combat kept me from doing it. Not only I have made more than 200 strat runs myself since then, I also have gotten literally hundreds of kills by defending the strats since them (occasionally getting up to about 70% of my kills in fighters per tour up there).  And from that position  of someone really fighting there I can say that the number of extreme high ("35k") altitude bombers is actually very low. While indeed the majority is flying 20-27k, the number of bombers raising above 30K is relatively low.


The new strats had a very positive effect in terms of giving us more diverse combat opportunities. They gave bomber jocks a true strategic target and a reason to do long range bomber runs instead of the ever same "drop hangars & town" tactical bombing at the frontline. And with escorted bomber missions, you could now find also more real high altitude fighter combat without any of the participants immediately dropping down to the deck for lack of any reason to stay up there.

Yes, I used faulty generalizations and include more than just the armchair generals out there. You are correct that your enjoyment is different, as different as someone who is skilled and bored because they don't find anything challenging anymore. I am not skilled, nor bored fighting the average pilot as my skill level is not on par with yours or even most. Everyone is challenging for me, especially annoying is when they refuse to even try by either running or porkikazeing. I enjoy 2 or 3 guys trying to take a base while I try to thwart them by myself or maybe with someone else. Other than the map with all the islands in the middle, it is hard to find this anymore. Most of what I find are 2 or 3 guys porking field after field in front of and on the sides of the horde so they can roll bases with little chance of being forced to fight for it. they don't try to take me out, they just fly their typhies and 190s in cuban 8s until I can close with them or the ack gets them then they come back and repeat. It used to be a good enjoyable fight where they would try to take me out, now they care less, just pork mindlessly.

High alt fighting suits your preferred plane types and skills. It is more challenging I agree. The number of escorted buff runs are not all that many proportionally. When I watch for flashing bases away from the furballs it is usually a lone bomber flying 30 K who just flies over 3 or 4 bases to drop radars, hangers or hit strats. Buff hunting is another of your enjoyments, I don't care for it since they don't help me improve acm, so the increase for you is a decrease for me. Not everyone likes that, and if it was not as prevalent, I wouldn't whine about it. I am being selfish the same as everyone else. I do not support anything that makes people less likely to fight it out with the enemy than it already is, that's all. I am getting bored by how infrequent it is to get someone to fight it out. That's my mileage and perception based on my experiences the last half a year or so. I see it going downhill. By fighting it out I don't mean furballing, they are not that fun due to my poor skill level. Getting picked off or picking someone else in a large swirling group is not the same as being bested or besting someone using intellect and experience. That is much more stimulating in my opinion.

[Chilli]

Tinkles, the point is not about playing war, the point is about making a game of war, vs using what happened in WW2 as an argument for GAME change.

I.E. Aces High main arena play, is not trying to recreate WW2. It is simply trying to make a game using WW2 equipment. Hence any idea/discussions primary purpose should be how does it effect GAME play, Not using what happened in WW2 as a justification for a game play change.

And even the goal of winning the war, is just to promote different forms of combat.

HiTech

HiTech,

No doubt this game of war has EVOLVED from your original launch.  I as well as many others have been on board from almost its onset, and some even beyond that to another title that you were inspired to help create.  If you follow my original post and not my answer to ink (who ONLY seems to want to consider that I mentioned WW2 and none of the idea's merits on game play) then you should understand that what I am asking for is parity, when it comes to the features that "promote different forms of combat".

With this in mind, you might consider that a large RED dar bar does NOT necessarily promote "combat".   I believe that resupplying towns has its merits and does open up another dimension, but at some point it becomes ridiculous; just as ridiculous as the instant lvt resupply was at ports (that I must add - was somewhere along this path of evolution).

Please forget that I mentioned WW2 and consider the number of other points that I wanted to make in my original post, summarized by the following:  Two things happen with the one change that I wished for that should help to "promote" this parity and more balanced combat.  Disable Field Supplies when Fuel Bunkers are down and field capture can be balanced again.  Also, striking Refineries as well as Fuel Tanks on individual fields will actually have a strategic goal.  !! Note: Troops will NOT be affected!!

I don't get those that think that winning the war shouldn't be significant to any who play the  game.  There are many players that are no longer just waiting for the next piece of eye candy or next aircraft (things that I do appreciate just as much), but also anxiously awaiting the next big change that places more FSO "like" action in the Main Arena (by the way not everyone who pays $15 a month is available during that time slot). 

I think Lusche has the proper analysis of the situation.

[ink]

HiTech,

No doubt this game of war has EVOLVED from your original launch.  I as well as many others have been on board from almost its onset, and some even beyond that to another title that you were inspired to help create.  If you follow my original post and not my answer to ink (who ONLY seems to want to consider that I mentioned WW2 and none of the idea's merits on game play) then you should understand that what I am asking for is parity, when it comes to the features that "promote different forms of combat".

With this in mind, you might consider that a large RED dar bar does NOT necessarily promote "combat".   I believe that resupplying towns has its merits and does open up another dimension, but at some point it becomes ridiculous; just as ridiculous as the instant lvt resupply was at ports (that I must add - was somewhere along this path of evolution).

Please forget that I mentioned WW2 and consider the number of other points that I wanted to make in my original post, summarized by the following:  Two things happen with the one change that I wished for that should help to "promote" this parity and more balanced combat.  Disable Field Supplies when Fuel Bunkers are down and field capture can be balanced again.  Also, striking Refineries as well as Fuel Tanks on individual fields will actually have a strategic goal.  !! Note: Troops will NOT be affected!!

I don't get those that think that winning the war shouldn't be significant to any who play the  game.  There are many players that are no longer just waiting for the next piece of eye candy or next aircraft (things that I do appreciate just as much), but also anxiously awaiting the next big change that places more FSO "like" action in the Main Arena (by the way not everyone who pays $15 a month is available during that time slot). 

I think Lusche has the proper analysis of the situation.

thats because all the ideas you posted are to turn the MA into WW2 online......

simply put...... NO THANK YOU

winning the "war" is significant already to many, and that is fine I have no problem with how others enjoy the game... personally I pay zero attention to the war....yes I know it is going on around me, but at this point the "war" does NOT effect how I play..(for the most part.... it still does because some players feel it is ALL about the war and actual aerial combat is secondary and they do NOT engage in COMBAT BUT that is the players NOT the game itself)..with the ideas you talk about.....it most certainly WOULD effect how I play and many others that don't care about the "war"


not sure if you will understand this or not......

I think if you are intelligent you will see the difference between a "WAR game" and a "COMBAT Game"

WW2online= War Game(played it.....it sux arse)
Aces High= Combat Game(been playing since 04 plan on being here till I cant hold the stick or they make cash money outlawed)


anyways 

[Tilt]

hmmmm....too damn long to quote......but Thank you........ Thank you..........

BTW you have done what you set out to do, exceptionally well I might add.

HT's point re game play being the primary concern is (IMO) well made but many seem to take this as a prompt to ignore all historical reference when considering game play mechanisms....... Some will quote or ignore historical reference to suit their own agendas.

My view is that a preference should be to develop and improve game play by invoking RL historical mechanisms where ever possible and not add in silly board game type mechanisms that work to remove historical immersion. Some times it may not be possible...... But IMO it should be the guiding light.

Regarding RL mechanisms used to solve gameplay challenges reminds me of one mentioned above...... This was the near denial of access to some rides by fuel attrition. In the end fuel attrition was just dumbed down and the solution worked by effectively removing the bulk of the effect of fuel attrition from the game. Actually the model was originally in error IMO. Fuel is and was never rationed by %'s historically, it was rationed by gallons and litres by applying this modelling the gas guzzlers would be the air craft to suffer range penalty via  fuel attrition. Strategic bombers and heavy long range fighters were penalised via fuel attrition not light tactical strike aircraft such as the bf109,Yak,La5/7 etc.

Yet the argument in support of % attrition was one of historical reference. Even if inaccurate (when did any USAAF aircraft suffer from lack of fuel logistics?).

[ink]

HT's point re game play being the primary concern is (IMO) well made but many seem to take this as a prompt to ignore all historical reference when considering game play mechanisms....... Some will quote or ignore historical reference to suit their own agendas.

My view is that a preference should be to develop and improve game play by invoking RL historical mechanisms where ever possible and add in silly board game type mechanisms that work to remove historical immersion. Some times it may not be possible...... But IMO it should be the guiding light.

Regarding RL mechanisms used to solve gameplay challenges reminds me of one mentioned above...... This was the near denial of access to some rides by fuel attrition. In the end fuel attrition was just dumbed down and the solution worked by effectively removing the bulk of the effect of fuel attrition from the game. Actually the model was originally in error IMO. Fuel is and was never rationed by %'s historically, it was rationed by gallons and litres by applying this modelling the gas guzzlers would be the air craft to suffer range penalty via  fuel attrition. Strategic bombers and heavy long range fighters were penalised via fuel attrition not light tactical strike aircraft such as the bf109,Yak,La5/7 etc.

Yet the argument in support of % attrition was one of historical reference. Even if inaccurate (when did any USAAF aircraft suffer from lack of fuel logistics?).

i'm down for anything that promotes COMBAT.....

not at all if it restricts it.


you guys are completely missing the whole point of it.....

WW2=GANGS(we have MORE then enough of them)....HO's.........90% of those that died NEVER saw the one that killed them.....

51's didn't fight 51's......ECT ECT

The MA has absolutely nothing to do with WW2(what countries do BISH-ROOK-KNIGHT represent?).......using.......what...how ...why.....it was done in the war should never be considered when it comes to logistics for the MA.

now the Flight model.......the Bullet coad......the graphics.....ECT ECT......those should be as close to realistic as HTC can get.....

I do love the fact that HTC will never implement something that restricts what.... how..... when....... we fly

not that I know them personally but from everything I read on the subject that he has spoken......tells me this.

[Tilt]

I do love the fact that HTC will never implement something that restricts what.... how..... when....... we fly

Yet when hangers are down, cv's destroyed, fields captured, ammo porked, the very what, how, when, are so restricted in the MA.

Quite clearly this is intrinsic to game play.... We do not discuss whether such restrictions are in play ( or not) for they clearly are so....... We discuss the degree and the technique of their implementation.