Strat model in AH2

[lazs2]

why all this prolonging the inevitable?

Make it so that as soon as one country has 25% more players than anyone else...

they "win" the war.

lazs

[beet1e]

Originally posted by lazs2
why all this prolonging the inevitable?

Make it so that as soon as one country has 25% more players than anyone else...

they "win" the war.

LOL! That cheered me up! Very good - don't be surprised if you see that in my sig!

The way I feel about it is that I want there to be a reason or a motive for engaging in combat. Just upping fighters to go against other fighters is OK for duelling, but doesn't hold my interest for long. I want there to be a particular outcome that we're fighting for, otherwise I would just spend my time in the DA.

The piss-poor gameplay is worst on the small maps, IMO. And when the fields are so close together that when someone dies he can be right back where he was just before he died, two minutes later and with a full clip, it's not hard to see why some folks are so cavalier about their own survival.

It has been suggested that when someone dies, he stays dead for a period of time - (2 mins., 5 mins. or some similar time) but that would be commercial suicide.

As this thread was started by an AK, I'll say it here: The AK-Desert/pizza map, despised by a vociferous minority, offers a solution to the woes described in this thread. The fields are further apart, so dead pilots take longer to get back to where they were just before they died, and tend to be more careful. The front line is more spread out, so you don't see hording on anything like the scale that it is seen on the small maps.

[Apeboy]

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.

This is dissapointing to read.  

One, if not the, reason I cancelled my AH account many moons ago was the strat model.  Logging on you had (have) the choice of taking part in the eternal furball or trying to organize a a few players to take a base or two.  Usually the bases targeted were well away from the furball and uncontested unless one country was down to a base or two and then it was just a vulchfest until the goon arrived.

While flight models and graphics have come a long way since I first flew in .xx WB and AH the strat model has lagged behind.  Pilot scores and perk points are fine but they have steered the game towards the individual fragfest style of gameplay.   Vulch field for perk points to get uber plane = frag until you can get the bfg9000 planet vaporizer.  Player scores need to be be balanced with some type of country score system possibly tied to technology and supply.  

-Apeboy

[lazs2]

spin it any way you like beetle but all types of strat depend on numbers.   pretending that one style of strat or another will affect the outcome over numbers is silly...  pretending that the size or shape of the maps will do anything but prolong the inevitable is silly.  

close fields allow for variety and action even when there is no chance of "winning"..  further fields prolong the inevitable but make that extra time... frustrating and less fun.   Look how rooks are attacking fields with 30 players.. these are abandoned or nearly abandoned fields... it doesn't cause players to up to defend... it causes most to look for a better place to fight.

lazs

[Sable]

The only thing I can think of that might cause people to switch numbers to even the odds is if different aircraft became available.  I think if we incorporated Kweassa's new perk setup this could help immensely.  Firstly, there wouldn't be all the massed P-51 or P-38 missions that can wipe out a field in seconds.  People would have to use bombers and dedicated jabo type aircraft to achieve the same quick kill of an airfield, but these type or raids would be easier for the defenders to intercept and fight back against.  Secondly, we could incorporate a trigger so that should one side reach a critical numerical disadvantage (say 50% disadvantage or whatever), all the cheap perk planes (say those under 10 perk points etc.) become free.  I would bet that a lot of people would start feeling a noble urge to fight for the underdog if free La-7s or P-51Ds were included in the deal.

Ideally I would like to see a more complicated strat system where we had a ground battle fought by AI controlled GVs and soldiers that would stalemate if there was no player involvement.  Players could aid their forces in the battle by bombing GVs, or by attacking strat targets (like rail stations, truck convoys, factories, tanker ships).  Some of the strat targets would still affect airfields, but most would affect the ground battle.  This way a country would win the war by bombing strat targets (off airfield) and ground forces or just by launching enough player controlled vehicles to defeat the other guys ... not by vulching and porking fields.

[Zanth]

AH strategic system is not the strongest aspect of the game, without argument  

The most "gamey" feature ever is the HQ strat.  The third country, already getting ganged everywhere, then gets to play without radar too.  HQ is just not needed in this capacity and takes away from the game.  Leave radar control where it actually is, on the fields.

The balance problem comes back to individual players.  The very last thing many players want is an even fight. I don't know what Hitech can do about that, especially as long as there is a "winning the war" feature in the game.

One solution put forward, and I apologize for not remebering who, is have a reset long before the beat-up team gets to 1 base. That way some fun can be had by all.

[jaxxo]

Well said Lazerus. Bish were relegated to gv duty last night. Most gave up on flying...bish rolled pretty easy due to numbers and I cant say I blame them. I upped a few times just for a challenge trying to get three vulchers to miss and weave my way to city looking for goons. On the few occasions I took off from a further field I was jumped immediately upon engagement (not really a BnZ'er) Anyway it's gettin tuffer to find a "good " fight. Still had a blast fighting up to 5 guys in a zeke though...got my fix that way.

[beet1e]

Originally posted by lazs2
spin it any way you like beetle but all types of strat depend on numbers.   pretending that one style of strat or another will affect the outcome over numbers is silly...  pretending that the size or shape of the maps will do anything but prolong the inevitable is silly.  

Think back to how it was in WB. We never had this kind of discussion back then. I never knew the kind of hording in WB2 when you and I were there that we have in AH. This is partly due to the mentality of the gottawin hordes of AH, but also due in part, I believe, to the Missun Editor and bardar. How many of those hordes arise out of Missunz? I bet it's a lot.

I don't agree that the land grab is wholly dependent on numbers. My WB squad was a jabo squad - IAF Borg (=varg=, crtch=, -dawg-, -rod--, --jh--, joness - remember any of those guys?) and we could capture fields with just three or four of us working together. The key was organisation, not numbers. Still, in a game where the mantra for so many is "it's MY $14.95", forget about organisation. So yes, you are right. In AH, the watchword is "numbers". But it needn't be that way.

[Jackal1]

Originally posted by AKcurly
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
curly

Weeellllllll........in that land of time past it was A,B,C. We were loyal to one letter so to speak.

[Shuckins]

Having two countries instead of three would alleviate the problem of being outnumbered.  We've all been in the situation where our country was outnumbered by the other two countries who would not be fighting each other but would be concentrating on "us."  Having to split one's forces to defend two fronts makes it almost impossible to put up a sustainable defense of any kind.  Those pilots flying to defend their bases cannot engage in anything resembling a fair fight or one-on-one because as soon as they try they are jumped by two or three other enemy fighters.

Two countries.

Regards, Shuckins

[RT]

I've been playing on the Bishops side because in the evening US hours they have been really outnumbered.  

I came into AH in 00 or 01 as Rook.  Couldn't consider a switch for a couple years because this was when the rooks were always low in numbers.  I remember how rooks complained and when the AKs and a couple squads attempted to play rooks to even the numbers.  Anyway, having experienced that long campaign on the short-sided team, when I see it happening to knights or bishop I change teams for the sake of fair play.

As for what has occurred the last few days to the outnumbered Bishops, from what I have seen almost no one cares or is willing to work together to destroy barracks.  With over 100 people on line, I could not get anyone to help, and so I killed barracks at 3 fields then said to hell with it.  Good skilled veteran bishops demonstrate no leadership for others.  a lot of the mouthy good sticks never seem give up 15 minutes to help to improve the over all fighting position of their side.  

If a half dozen players had given up 15 mins of their time to work together, a 3 sector goon flight would have been required.  The openmindedness and willingness to do it was just not there.  

Barracks are much easier to destroy than in AH1.  Field ack is less effective and I have yet lost a plane on a barracks busting strike to field ack.  haven't lost a plane to being jumpt by an nme fighter either.  I fly in at 10 to 15k, kill the barracks and then dogfight until nme fighters drag me through their base ack enough for the ack to kill me.  

I am not convinced the new strat modeling is the problem, with all due respect to my friend Curly.  Bishop common purpose, team work, pride, and a little cooperation might go a long way.  Too few have shown an interest.

Basically the same in each team when it gets outnumbered.  teams dont have the same character that I remember seeing from time to time on the old rooks.  something drove us to put up a tenatious defense.  Course I remember when each team would scramble in the face of an incoming horde, and that isnt done anymore either.  

good hunting

rthus

[Samiam]

I think Wotan is on the right path. As is the current limit to the effect of fuel porking.

There should be at least one alternate victory condition that can be met without seriously impacting gameplay for those who just want to fly and fight.

Knocking out resource "points" is a great idea, so long as those resource points aren't directly tied to the ability to up planes on the front and fight.

Or maybe just designating three or four fileds in each country as strategic command centers. If those fields are captured and held for two hours of gametime, a victory is awarded. Thems that care about the war can all gang bang around those fields - those that want to fight can play elsewhere along the front.

[AKIron]

Since I can offer no solution to the problem how about we just declare WWII over, the rooks the winners, and move on to Korea? I really like the F-86.

[Shamus]

You could use a sliding scale making HQ harder to kill for the outnumbered country, or regenerate faster,  just as we have with perks.

Removing the perk tag if a country is a certian % low would make the perk plane more effective as well, I for one would be more inclined to enter a hord in a perk plane if I knew that everyone in the hord would not immediatly start HOing or othewise suiciding to kill the obvious perk plane.

shamus

[Flit]

Originally posted by Shuckins
Having two countries instead of three would alleviate the problem of being outnumbered.  We've all been in the situation where our country was outnumbered by the other two countries who would not be fighting each other but would be concentrating on "us."  Having to split one's forces to defend two fronts makes it almost impossible to put up a sustainable defense of any kind.  Those pilots flying to defend their bases cannot engage in anything resembling a fair fight or one-on-one because as soon as they try they are jumped by two or three other enemy fighters.

Two countries.

Regards, Shuckins

Sorry, but this will not work
Unfortunitly there will always be a large number of players who will flock to the side with the numbers,resulting in a even more unbalanced fight