Strat model in AH2

[Eagler]

hasn't this just been thrown out to keep you happy until TOD is released?

But I am bias as I am ZERO into the strat, could care less who is "winning" as AH is an air to air combat sim to me

[otoole]

I think having less airfields and other objectives would increase the defenses of these objects.  This would decrease the effectiveness of the "Hoards" and allow all the countries a more level playing field.  I also think the sliding scale for perk points needs to be adjusted more allowing the undermanned side more of a technical advantage.

[lazs2]

any feature that makes field capture difficult to do but allows a simple way to make the field useless ruins gameplay for all who like action or only play for an hor or two at a time.

If, for instance fuel can be porked or fighter hangers taken down but the field remains uncaptured for 20-40 minutes... you have a large stagnant part spot on the map... if there are only a couple of good places for decent action...

kweas idea is also complex and unfair to those who wish to have fun fighting and not land grabbing.  you have a decent fight opportuniy for a few days but when you log on... you may be without resources like radar for the whole time you play.  for maybe a couple of days in a row... there will be useless fields everywhere.   unless you wish to just join rook and go on missunz with 20 other guys and fight over scraps over nearlyt deserted fields.

closer fields with easier capture make it so there is action and participation with no unusable fields.   landing the plane to capture worked as would dropping troops but only if the fields were closer together.   too far apart like now and it would still be a timid steamroller.

even with the convoluted strat we have now we see that the closer fields are pockets of action till the strat guys ruin em.

the more complex the strat and the farther the fields the more "missunz" and the more time spent in the tower looking for a decent fight.   the more long flights to nowhere to do nothing.

lazs

[MOIL]

Well here we go again:rolleyes:

What I've been saying since day one & now things are starting to catch up. Just read ALL the posts, same ol story IMO.

I will say it again, if you make the game a "PERK", "POINTS", "STRAT", "KILLS", "NUMBERS" game it will be played that way! End of story. {with the exception of a few that dont}

HTC is either going to take AH and make it the ultimate WWII online game {maybe sim} or it will be a Quake3 with planes/GV's with  a WWII theme.

[DREDIOCK]

Originally posted by Flit
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

And you think it "works" now??

I dont agree I think  it wouldnt take long at all for the arenas to balance themselves out for the simple reason is people want people to fight.
A bunch will also gravitate to the side with the smaller numbers simply for the challange.
In theory the 3 country idea is a great one.
It just never seems ot work the way its intended in practice.
Instead of the two smaller countries ganging up on the larger one. the two larger countries tend to gang up on the smallest while barely skirmishing each other just enough to keep each other at bay while each places the most attention on the smallest country.
And we end up with a situation exactly as you discribe
That being the case we might as well just have two countries.

[DREDIOCK]

Originally posted by AKcurly
Interesting night, tonight.  Both Rooks and Knights outnumbered Bishops during prime time USA.  They scrimaged (since they were close in field count) a bit which permitted 3 of us to kill all rook troops bordering Bishop territory.  So, under those circumstances, HTCs changes to the strat model worked out ok for the outnumbered country.

curly

LOL ya got lucky, Cause I know i've seen some very dedicated rooks travel 2 and 3 sectors with goons to take bases

[DREDIOCK]

Originally posted by lazs2
  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

Thats a good point but a good reason why you dont see more up to defend is they simply dont have the numbers to spare against the hordes because they often are desperately defending against superior numbers at a different feild.
Yea Rooks (and others sometimes) come in with 30+ players to hit a feild but often when they do it they have such numbers that even if those 30 werent online at all they would STILL outnumber their opponents by a significant number.
There have been several times where Ive seen rooks outnumber knits and bish combined. Now if half the knits are fighting bish and other half are fighting rooks and vise versa with the bish. that still leaves a hell of alot of rooks free to do as they please and horde at will.
Used to be a few pilots with a well timed counter attack on the base the hordes wee comming from could bring their attack in that area anyway  to a screaching halt. But with the changes now you cant do that anymore.
the onlyother option would be to have some sort of limit as to how many people can be in a country at a time and The powers that be will never go for that
 So the 30+ hoards are now going to be able to do as they please pretty much with perfect imputity. All that needs to be done is come in and kill the ack. Let a bunch vulch while the rest kill the town and goon the city.
These changes help the pure furballers and I can understand their complaints about fuel shortages.
But it also gives the hordes some un needed help.
And hurts everyone else.

[beet1e]

Originally posted by MOIL
HTC is either going to take AH and make it the ultimate WWII online game {maybe sim} or it will be a Quake3 with planes/GV's with  a WWII theme.

I agree 200%.

The best times for me to play have been the afternoons, local time in Britain. But during the summer months it's hard to stay rooted next to a PC screen during the daytime. And the hording seems much worse during USPT when there are 500 people online than the off hours when there may be only ~100 online. The situation is worse on the small maps.

The added realism of the gunnery and flight model in AH2 may make the situation more competitive, and is a blow to the Quake-style play, in which case I may only agree with you 150%!

[DipStick]

Originally posted by beet1e
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.

Call me vociferous if you want but Pizza sucks (no offense to AKs, good bunch of guys). Pizza is nothing but a milkrunner map for pointpotatos.

tend to be more careful

This is the problem (with most maps and the player mindset) as I see it. Can't get ANYBODY accept the few who understand what I'm saying to engage AT ALL without at least 5k alt and 5:1 odds in their favor. Alot of times even in that situation a couple will venture down, make 1-2 passes then run like hell.

It's just BORING!

[beet1e]

Well Dipstick, we mustn't agree too much - else people will start thinking we're a pair of willy-wooftas!

Don't agree with your pizza assessment, but what you see and what I see could be accounted for by the different times of the 24-hour day that we play.

[DipStick]

Originally posted by beet1e
Well Dipstick, we mustn't agree too much - else people will start thinking we're a pair of willy-wooftas!

Don't agree with your pizza assessment, but what you see and what I see could be accounted for by the different times of the 24-hour day that we play.

Well I got a pair of willy-wooftas but that's a different thing altogether. As far as Pizza goes, it's like most of the maps, an occasional good fight from CV to near base, otherwise boring as hell for someone who likes to mix it up.

[Tilt]

I have always (todate) favoured a frontline approach to strat attrition.

Basically there is a battle front of sorts set between each country.

As that countries strat is atritted the battle front moves back and forth depending upon the total strat balance which decides the rate of movement. This could be zone orientated to allow local strat superiority even when down to only a few zones.

Ownership of a base would also cause a zone of occupation however if this zone its self was behind the enemy front line then it would recieve no logistics. Bases could then be captured but to hold them effectively requires them to be close enough to the front line that the new zone of occupation forms the front line.

Strat bombers then get direct feed back from their efforts (they see front line movement).

Bases can be supplied very quickly when inside their own lines but attritted and captured quite quickly when allowed to fall behind enemy lines.

The land grab pork emphasis is moved from the airfield to the strat target without denying individuals access to combat, except when the air field has become surrounded by enemy occupied territory.

Defence will not be a rapid responce to a field flashing due to a massed surprise raid. It (defence) will be able to gather to prevent a gradual incursion of the front line.



At a basic level its no more than the above...........however it could be "enhanced"

Gv spawn points could be geared to the front line such that you are spawned at the front line not directly at an enemy base. (Sort of like the LVT's spawn from carriers toward the shore now)

An AI front line with eg machine gun pits (at tile intersections?)and  various GV's (supply convoys) could be added such that local hits on enemy frontline AI  (via air to ground or ground to ground) moves the frontline locally.

[lazs2]

dred... numbers or not... you are correct, it is local superiority, gameplay that counts.   It is not that the other countries can't up enough players to defend... It is that it is no fun to do so.  Why counter a boring missunz with another boring missiunz?  better to just find a good fite somewhere els so... with the huge maps and far fields, a lot of players are mostly spending thjeeir time looking for some good air combat.. yes I know... hard to believe anyone would sign onto a game like this expecting good air combat but..

With closer fields that fell easily without being left fallow... guys could up one field back and stop the steamroll and at the same time have a good fite.

lazs

[Wotan]

Laz is right.

The "fun" part about air combat games isnt getting kills but the fight.

Flying some stupid boring "cap" sorties over a field is just plane boring especially when the guys who are attacking the field dont care about "fighting" and go out of their way to avoid contact with the enemy just to fly into the ground to get after those pesky fuel sheds.

Chasing them about is no fun or more players would do it.

There's nothing wrong with a horde that is looking for a fight. A horde looking to suicide a field to death is what sux.

I dont agree with laz about making capture easier because the building battlers would just split up rolling up one field another. Just make "winning the war" soemthing other then just base grabbing.

[SlapShot]

With closer fields that fell easily without being left fallow... guys could up one field back and stop the steamroll and at the same time have a good fite.

Lazs ... The capture, be it harder or easier, has nothing to do with it.

Fuel and base spacing is where its at. If there is enough fuel, and one does not have to fly 2 sectors to find/create a fight, field capture is moot.

As a matter of fact, there could be a good furball between 2 fields and while the fight is on, if field capture were easy, the base could be taken and there goes the battle. Very similar to sinking a CV when there is a good battle/fight going on.