Author Topic: Strat model in AH2 (Read 2101 times)

AKcurly · « **on:** June 22, 2004, 10:23:05 PM »

I'm not sure I understand how some of the changes in AH2 enhance gameplay. I'm not saying they're wrong, but I don't understand.

For example, take one country which is persistently outnumbered (and one country has been persistently outnumbered 90% of the time since AH has been here.)

How does that country fight? Well, in AH1, you killed fuel around the perimeter of your country and killed troops at least two fields deep around the same perimeter.

In AH2, we cannot pork fuel, so we kill troops. However, with the gross imbalance of numbers, that has little effect. They simply hang around, vulch the fields and eventually a goon arrives. It's very difficult to find the goons since a) your DAR is gone and b) you can't descend to look, otherwise the hoarde falls on you.

I would have guessed that HTC would have made changes in the strat model which makes it easier for the outnumbered country to defend itself. Instead, it's harder now. I just don't understand the logic. OTOH, HTC doesn't pay me to think.

I have watched the Rooks and Bishops all occupy the position of being short on numbers for periods exceeding one year. I have watched Rooks, Bishops and Knights all occupy the position of being long on numbers for periods exceeding one year.

I'm tired of the current game play model (because of the built-in unfairness) and when HTC makes changes which exacerbate the problem, well, it's difficult to understand the reasoning.

Some of the gaming participants appear to have a country loyalty. That's goofy. I do have a sense of loyalty to the guys/gals that I game with, but not to the country.

So, why not do this? Every day at a fixed time, move all rooks to knights, all knights to bishops and all bishops to rooks. In that manner, we would still be flying with the same guys, but we would all gain an immediate understanding that our loyalty lies with the game and not with our current country.

This is a serious problem for HTC. Last year, I watched a number of rooks quit the game because a) they refused to fly for anyone but rooks and b) the rooks were badly outnumbered for over a year. It became such a big problem that many of the squads (AKs included) switched to Rook for a period of time. I'm seeing the same thing occur with Bishops now.

This is not good business and what's worse, our fun is minimized rather than maximized.

curly

Overlag · « **Reply #1 on:** June 22, 2004, 10:57:12 PM »

exactly what my whine was about....how is the outnumberd side suppose to stop a horde now?

Wotan · « **Reply #2 on:** June 22, 2004, 11:01:35 PM »

IMO the porking of fuel was one of the worst aspects of AH game play.

I am more then glad to see it a thing of the past. I gave up flying in the main all together in AH because 90% of the time I logged in the fuel at all the front line fields was porked.

It was porked not as some grand strategy to slow down the mission hordes but by 1 or 2 suicide tards.

It then took far too many re-supply sorties and it was just easier to log.

The whole "land grab" aspect of AH is the real problem. At least that is how I see it.

Even crappy FA2.XX had a better strat and “land grab" system then AH.

I am not saying that HT should eliminate the land grab. I am saying shift the focus off the land grand and place it else where.

Land grabbing could be a tool used to aid in the "real" victory condition but not the main objective.

Right now 90% of what goes on in the main is up with 50 guys fly to the closest field and set up gang bang. Repeat over and over. Why…? Because this is the easiest way to win a reset.

The just roll up on 1 field after another. The suicide horde doesn’t care how many times they die as long as they "get the capture" or "get those fuel tanks" or "get those fhs" etc...

I never will think it’s a good idea for the objective to be to "stop the other side from flying". I mean after all that’s why most of us started in these games was to enjoy air combat against other human players.

Fuel porking was major tool not just to "stop the horde" but to stop players in general from flying.

I am glad it’s gone. Folks can still suicide the FHs to stop the horde, and they do.

I for one would prefer the whole game play concept be reworked to take the focus away from "stopping the other guy from playing" to anything else. There are a sizeable number of players that don’t care anything at all about base capture or "start" or any of that. They just want to pop in for a few hours of fun. When all the close fields are in effect closed by a handful of suicide fuel porkers then they don’t even have an opportunity to play.

There have been many other threads that had good suggestion on how to adjust game play so there is no need to rehash it here.

Jackal1 · « **Reply #3 on:** June 22, 2004, 11:21:19 PM »

Kurly, I respect your opinion and believe you are trying to come up with a solution to an ongoing problem. Some of us though don`t go along with the country change thingy. My squad will fly for one country only simply because of total immersion in the game. I don`t believe your idea is the best solution.
I for one would be gone like a wild goose in winter if forced country change were to come about. Silly? Maybe, it`s just what trips my trigger plus it has been policy for my squad since AW.

AKcurly · « **Reply #4 on:** June 23, 2004, 12:36:05 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Wotan

It was porked not as some grand strategy to slow down the mission hordes but by 1 or 2 suicide tards.

Well, I never suicided and most of the time I escaped. Once in a while, someone would get lucky from a field gun. And, for the last 6-8 months, that's all I've done - pork fuel. Flying Bishop, that's all the choice you have at night -- try to control the larger numbers. And, it worked too.

I said, "that's all the choice you have." It isn't really. Lots of guys prefer to furball and that's cool, no problem with that. There's no point in killing fuel *if* you can muster the numbers to defend the base.

curly

AKleadbutt · « **Reply #5 on:** June 23, 2004, 12:47:41 AM »

ummm I played alot of FA, they had alot of strat ideal items in the gameplay. This change on the other hand goes the other direction.

The chance of stopping a gain bang WAS alot better here then in FA anyday.

IMO this was a bad change for those players looking for a real strat sim. Takes away a true strat ideal from a strat game and helps increase the furball ideals.

Furious · « **Reply #6 on:** June 23, 2004, 01:01:49 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Wotan
...The whole "land grab" aspect of AH is the real problem....

I agree, but also to a point. The taking of land needs to shift focus away from the AF's to some 3rd point, like numerous large cities with opposing forces on arrayed on either side of them.

RTSigma · « **Reply #7 on:** June 23, 2004, 01:03:08 AM »

Will there ever be just TWO sides? I hate to sound naive about it but what is the point of having three sides and if ever, there was just two sides thought about?

Wotan · « **Reply #8 on:** June 23, 2004, 01:06:50 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by AKcurly
Well, I never suicided and most of the time I escaped. Once in a while, someone would get lucky from a field gun. And, for the last 6-8 months, that's all I've done - pork fuel. Flying Bishop, that's all the choice you have at night -- try to control the larger numbers. And, it worked too.

I said, "that's all the choice you have." It isn't really. Lots of guys prefer to furball and that's cool, no problem with that. There's no point in killing fuel *if* you can muster the numbers to defend the base.

curly

Of course not every one suicided but many did. Of course not all fuel porkers were just doing to it because the fuel tanks were there but many did.

Fuel porking was a reason some didn’t even play AH1 any more. It was hard just to pop in for some quick fun if the fuel was porked across the front. Now with the updated fuel consumption 75% isn’t very much for some of the most popular planes (La-7).

You can still stop the horde by killing their fhs. It just takes a larger effort then 1 guy.

All I can say is that from my perspective things have gotten better for me since fuel porking was limited. I have flown more in the past 3 days then in the past couple years.

Country loyalty etc... doesn’t mean much to me but for what ever reason I have spent most of my main time as knights. It goes way back when most lw guys flew as knights. The only thing about random country rotation that I wouldn’t like is if it would split up squads. Wouldn't folks folks just switch back to their country preference anyway?

AKcurly · « **Reply #9 on:** June 23, 2004, 01:18:09 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Jackal1
Kurly, I respect your opinion and believe you are trying to come up with a solution to an ongoing problem. Some of us though don`t go along with the country change thingy. My squad will fly for one country only simply because of total immersion in the game. I don`t believe your idea is the best solution.
I for one would be gone like a wild goose in winter if forced country change were to come about. Silly? Maybe, it`s just what trips my trigger plus it has been policy for my squad since AW.

Think about it Jackal. Suppose htc used the names "1", "2" & "3" instead of chess piece names. Would you be loyal to a number? Nah, your loyalty lies with the guys that you game with on a regular basis - your squad mates and country mates. The name doesn't matter.

I fly bishop not because of loyalty to the name bishop, rather to the guys to who fly bishop. I don't care if they're called bishop, "2" or nothing at all.

curly

AKcurly · « **Reply #10 on:** June 23, 2004, 01:22:07 AM »

Quote

You can still stop the horde by killing their fhs. It just takes a larger effort then 1 guy.

Actually, it's very easy to kill all FHs at a small field now. It takes one buff. The 3 FHs are are in one row.

The problem with FHs/Buffs is one of speed. It takes time to get a buff in position. By the time you get "Fluffy" to the field with some altitude, they've captured your base and are currently attacking the next one.

From a stat pov, AH2 is hopeless ... well, that's a bit strong I guess. It's appears hopeless since I haven't found the solution.

curly

Octavius · « **Reply #11 on:** June 23, 2004, 01:46:32 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Furious
I agree, but also to a point. The taking of land needs to shift focus away from the AF's to some 3rd point, like numerous large cities with opposing forces on arrayed on either side of them.

That idea has some potential, but sadly, in the end, wouldn't airfield destruction make that 'neutral' city just that much easier to take?

In what ways can HTC encourage group combat? Bonus "points" for some 'score'? Perk points aren't applicable... not everyone wants to take the uber ride. Is there anything out there that gives incentive for non-horde activities? An alternative is needed - the landgrab can stay, but an alternative(s) for 'winning the war' should also be discussed.

An "escape route" you could say. If porking fuel/troops doesn't work or isn't allowed, a different method should be there for the 'weak' country to get back in "the fight."

not that i care about "the war" or anything

I can find fun, but I don't like seeing others finding logging off easier than playing the game

Wotan · « **Reply #12 on:** June 23, 2004, 02:11:32 AM »

Of course the land grab would stay but it would be a tool used to help facilitate a larger victory condition.

Here's an example. It’s very general and not offered as an alternative but its enough to get a discussion started.

Lets say at the start of each map each side is given something I will call "resource points".

Each strat facility in each strat zone produces x amount of resource points per lets say an hour. By bombing and destroying the strat you deny that side those resource points.

By capturing the main zone "city" or let's call it the zones Capital would mean not only is one side denied that zones resource points but the side that captured that zone gets them.

Airfields would still be alterable to gain closer bases to attack and or capture resource points.

You can take this idea and run with it and get as complicated as you wish. Each aircraft or vehicle destroyed costs your side resource points etc...

Once one side achieves a given advantage in resource points over the country with the least then the country with the most wins the reset and we start again. Or you can just say once one country drops below a given amount of resource points then the reset occurs with "victory" going to the country with the most.

Strat objects such as the factories, cities HQ etc... could all be alterable...

Resource points are just something that determines the reset trigger. They aren’t used to determine what plane you can fly or what equip you have available. There's no need to stop the other guy from flying.

The strat and mission generals could set there missions up to destroy and capture the other guys points, the furballers could fight it out between airfields and the vulchers could deack and vulch anyone stupid enough to up.

As I said there has been many "strat suggestions" and I am sure there will be more. My example above is just that; an example to demonstrate what I meant by moving the focus away from airfield capture.

ET · « **Reply #13 on:** June 23, 2004, 04:18:11 AM »

The inability to take the fuel down seems to lead to bigger hordes on both sides and changes the strategy too much.
Taking the hangers down is a good idea but they only stay down 15 minutes.
I'd rather see them add 2 more fuel bunkers to each field and let them all be taken out. It would make fuel harder to pork but the game play would be roughly the same as it was before.

MadSquirrel · « **Reply #14 on:** June 23, 2004, 04:37:01 AM »

So, if me and 25 of my P-38 Jabbo buddies all gangbang all the resource centers on both sides, then horde the zone cities we win. Right? Pork the Resource Centers instead of fuel supplies. Capture a few zone cities and win the reset. That would be the outcome. Good idea, but I think you are just changing the target from airfields to resource points.

That would make things easier rather than harder IMO.

When it comes right down to it, land grab is what wars are about. The porking of supplies is a very valid tactic, though be it very irritating as well.

I feel that one thing that might help that aspect of the game is an increased number of defensive field weapons. Three 40mm field guns are not enough. There need to be more. I am only going by what I have seen and read, but I have never seen an airfield in WWII that didn't have multiple .30 and .50 caliber mounts as well as medium and large AA guns. They should all be manable, and AI controlled when not manned.

As it is now, lone fighters (fuel Porkers), have little to fear from Ack. Just fly in, strafe the field ack, and then have your way with the rest of the field. Vulch any would-be defenders and away they go. But if they were only able to kill one, maybe two field guns before getting ripped up that might change the direction. Of course it might also encourage more horde attacks as well. Pros and cons to each I guess.

Anyhow, that is my thought.

LTARsqrl