It's not fine the way it is. . .

[Jackal1]

Originally posted by Ghosth
Dica



 So take off from one thats not flashing, go to one that is. How hard is that?

 

Damn hard when there is not one that is not flashing.

[Mini D]

It's the fields that shouldn't have radar to be bombed and dar-bar that should be the only thing that disappears with HQ going down.  The dot dar at fields should never go out.

That said, none of this matters.  There is no game change shy of removing all of the players and then handpicking who to let back in that will solve the current problem.  A thread like this gets started and everyone starts to get all warm and fuzzy about a "consesus" being reached and then the reality of the MA slaps them in the face like a dead fish.

People only do what they want in this game.  There is absolutely zero reasons to do anything else.  HQ needs defending? Only if someone wants to do it.  One side needs more numbers?  Only if people want to play/switch/whatever.  There's no reason to engage with a disadvantage.  There's no reason to defend.  There's no reason to attack.  There's no reason to complete a mission.

Here's one person that hopes TOD gives AH a sense of purpose again.  It hasn't had that for a long time.

[Jackal1]

Originally posted by Mini D
 There is absolutely zero reasons to do anything else.  HQ needs defending? Only if someone wants to do it.  One side needs more numbers?  Only if people want to play/switch/whatever.  There's no reason to engage with a disadvantage.  There's no reason to defend.  There's no reason to attack.  There's no reason to complete a mission.
 

  Is there a reason for this?

[DoKGonZo]

What about if HQ controlled the percentage chance for a dot to be showed on radar? That is, if HQ is up full then everything is as it is now. If radar is 100% down, then every dot has only a 50% chance of being painted (or being added to the dar bar). And then everything scales in between. This would more or less reflect the reduced efficiency of HQ being able to send reports out to the field due to being bombed out. You could also change the frequency of these updates with HQ damage. So maybe if HQ was 50 down the dots to be painted or not gets rechecked every 2 minutes as opposed to every minute at 75% up. Obviously once a dot is in icon range it gets painted.

This wouldn't completely blind a country if HQ was doinked, but it sure could lead to some unpleasant surprises when 10 icons suddenly turn out to be 20 - or if you scramble 10 planes to meet what you think is 10, but really is just the 5 dots being shown; and meanwhile the real strike is elsewhere and you're out of position. You'd have fog of war instead of pitch-black-night of war. Taking out HQ would yield a good tactical and operational edge, without being so sweeping that people log off for an hour.

Or maybe just have the rate of radar updates conrolled by HQ damage. Dunno ... lots of ways to do this.



The real problem with complete radar outage is that the MA is so horde-centric.

But the 109G10 is pretty good at getting up after anything below 15K if they're spotted soon enough - just gotta keep eyes open when you land and see the threat inbound. And you can always take 10 minutes out from furballing to resupply HQ if it goes down.

[Toad]

Originally posted by Mini D
There's no reason to engage with a disadvantage.  There's no reason to defend.  There's no reason to attack.  There's no reason to complete a mission.
 

Absolutely true. It has ALWAYS been true, right from Day One Beta.

In my own experience though, the reason I did that stuff was for the fun of it. As I've said before, I had more fun in the "early days" when everything about the gameplay was simplistic. Seems to me that as ever more "stuff" was added to the gameplay the fun quotient declined.

Oh, it was more complex, more detailed more realistic but...... less fun.

But that's probably just my personal problem.

[Kev367th]

Why not just try defending your HQ?
People keep talking 'real life', real life a lot of places didn't even have radar of any kind. Gamey is people flying off map to get to HQ, if there was no off map flying then that would make it easier to intercept. Just make it 5 mins off map you die.
Of course this is yet another whine by the furballers who want as much as possible to make their life easier, just like the 75% fuel thing, no night etc. Next we will have dayglo pink skins so we show up better.

[beet1e]

Originally posted by Kev367th

Of course this is yet another whine by the furballers who want as much as possible to make their life easier, just like the 75% fuel thing, no night etc. Next we will have dayglo pink skins so we show up better.

Come to think of it, in the BoB film, there was a radar station at Ventnor on the Isle of Wight, a tiny little island about 16 miles across just off the south coast of England near Southampton. They relayed information to the guys in Stanmore, just north of London, who despatched the squadrons. In the film, the radar station gets knocked out very early on by Stukas. Stanmore then has to rely on the Royal Observer Corps - ie. there wasn't a radar station on each and every air base, so maybe HTC has it right in principle, but wrong for it to be deep behind that country's lines. It would have to be near the front line to do any good.

[Grizzly]

I think the problem with AH game play is that the strat system degrades a country's ability to defend. Thus a country with fewer numbers gets a double wammy when DAR and radar go down. Couple that with the base capture concept leads to gang attacks and land grabbing. While there needs to be an incentive to fight and a reward for victory, disabling a country's ability to play the game degrades players' fun. While this may not be an issue to the conquering country, it can stiffle the growth of AH... not good for anyone.

I propose a change in the incentive and reward system as follows:

* Do away with base capture, or limit it to only the forward bases. Instead, make it so the bases can be destroyed so they cannot be used for a period of time (a half hour). Perhaps have some neutral bases located at strategic locations that can be captured to mount an attack.

* Make the HQ invincible to assure a country will always have a good base to fly from. Distribute the strat system among various targets located deep within enemy territory, plane factories, fuel and ammo depots, refineries, steel mills, ball bearing factories, armories, etc. This will provide the buffs with many targets and require planning to gain access without being spotted (like destroying radar at bases between to create blind corridores).

* Reward a country with victory for destroying the assets of the opposition, rather than taking aqway the opponent's bases. For example, award points for strat damage and declare victory when a country accumulates a certain number of points. Of course, the points will be taken away as the strat damage they inflicted rebuilds or is resupplied, but the ability to rebuild and resupply is affacted by certain damage, promoting strategic planning.

Advantages:

* Players will still have the arena reset for a goal.

* Planning and teamwork will be rewarded.

* No matter how bad a country is damaged, players will still have bases to fly from and an area to operate in.

* More realistic and consistent variables for strategic planning (as is, the need for planning decreases as the enemy bases are reduced).

* A single person will be much less able to blind or cripple an entire country.

* A country will have the ability to defend and a chance to recover right up until the end.

* There may be a greater variety of game play, like bombing runs, interception of bombers, escorts, scouts, patroling, and even land grabbing to an extent.

[Jackal1]

Originally posted by Grizzly


* Do away with base capture, or limit it to only the forward bases.

Oh boy, here we go.
  Base capture is what makes the game tick for most.

[xBarrelx]

all depends on your definition of "realism." is realism having a  clipboard with a digital display showing you where all the bad guys are right next to you in the plane? is realism a lone plane disabling troops and radar among other things at a large airfield? is realism having icons to identify who is good and who is bad? is realsim just appearing on the runway in a brand new plane again and again and again after dying? no taxiing? your engine starts up automatically. you have the ability to let the plane take off by itself. is that realism?

come on fellas the game is very far from realistic. if you dont like dar and they fix that whats next? what will you guys start complaining about now? first it was fuel. now you want dar. HTC tries very hard to please its patrons. but the game is how the game is. if you really cant deal with it, then leave. no one is hand-cuffing you to your computer with a gun to your head ordering you to play it (to the best of my knowledge). in fact you actually PAY for these services. you had two weeks to see if you liked it. you had two weeks to see how "realistic" the game play was. you chose to pay and you chose to take the game as it was.

i dont like radar either. i've always thought it was stupid. but its a smalll price to pay for the fun i have the rest of the time. and if the fun no longer out weighs the disgust, then this is definately not for you.

[Dica]

Gee grizzly that sounds like an awfully familiar system.

[DoKGonZo]

Dunno if I'd go that far. Things work pretty well as it is. The loss of HQ/radar is just somewhat dramatic in its overall effect. And it's too easy to game this kind of attack on many maps.

If the .50 cal was a little more useful for taking out acks, barracks, etc. you might see more bomber folks down in the fight in A20's too - so they may feel more involved in the flow. But that's another issue entirely.

[beet1e]

I agree with Jackal. AH without base capture would be as futile as Chess without Kings.

[Mini D]

Originally posted by Toad
Absolutely true. It has ALWAYS been true, right from Day One Beta.

In my own experience though, the reason I did that stuff was for the fun of it. As I've said before, I had more fun in the "early days" when everything about the gameplay was simplistic. Seems to me that as ever more "stuff" was added to the gameplay the fun quotient declined.

Oh, it was more complex, more detailed more realistic but...... less fun.

But that's probably just my personal problem.

What was added/not added had nothing to do with it except for one area:  The number of players went up.

I saw this behavior in the early days of AH too... it's just that there weren't enough people to matter.  Blame it on additions to the game all you want... it has nothing to do with it.  The numbers are higher and more people can play the EXACT SAME WAY THEY USED TO PLAY IN THE "OLD DAYS".

This behavior is not new.  It's not something some group brought to the game.  It's not something that was created.  It's what happens when people are just left to mill around with no real sense of purpose.  The larger the group, the more pronounced.

I know that doesn't fit with your excuses for why the game is what it is toad... but the only way to get what you're looking for is to only let certain people play the game.   Letting anyone play how they want, when they want and do whatever they want will always result in this type of behavior... even moreso when there are the numbers to support the ganglike behavior.

[Jackal1]

Originally posted by beet1e
I agree with Jackal. AH without base capture would be as futile as Chess without Kings.

 rofl Why am I getting this dejavu feeling?