Author Topic: Does HTC understand that the ENY thing has totally failed?  (Read 3792 times)

Offline DoKGonZo

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1977
      • http://www.gonzoville.com
Does HTC understand that the ENY thing has totally failed?
« Reply #90 on: November 05, 2004, 06:47:32 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Overlag
you must be playing a different game game then. ive yet to see sides like 300:100:100 or 200:100:100 which you imply


I have seen odds like 90:160:80 .. a lot lately ... which is pretty close to 1:2:1.

Offline Midnight

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1809
      • http://www.brauncomustangs.org
Does HTC understand that the ENY thing has totally failed?
« Reply #91 on: November 05, 2004, 09:40:34 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Overlag
a small airfield with 3 hangers should be able to up 50 planes........

id all be one for each field having a "upping" limit, it wouldnt totaly address the problem of  local superiority but it would mean the side wanting  local superiority  would need to plan....IE upping from more fields, linking up THEN flying to target etc.. Kinda like what they did in real life

i also think if hangers go down the upping limit should decrease. lets say 30 planes for a small airfield with 3 hangers, but with only 1 hanger it only has 10????? Just an example. or it could be a percentage of the whole side?


Overlag.. this is one of the best ideas, but I guess HTC doesn't think so. There have been MANY people who posted this similar idea tied to ordnance and supplies as well as aircraft.

fields at 100% can launch X fighters
25% of FHs destroyed, the field can only launch X*0.75 fighters
50% of FHs destroyed, X*0.50, etc.

100% ammo bunkers up, all types of ordnance available
25% of Ammo Bunkers destroyed - only bombs up to 500lbs available
50% - only bombs up to 250lbs
25% - only 100lb bombs
0% - none available

100% of barracks up, each goon can carry 10 troops
75% of barracks - each goon can carry 8 troops
50% - 5 troops
25% - 3
0% - no troops

stuff like that.

Also, things such as forced resupply of captured fields before they can be used for offensive operations. No more leap frog of kill town and instantly launch new raid to the next field.

I could retype all night what has been suggested countless times in the past. Oh well :confused:

Offline Overlag

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3888
Does HTC understand that the ENY thing has totally failed?
« Reply #92 on: November 05, 2004, 11:10:52 PM »
just noticed:

Quote
a small airfield with 3 hangers should be able to up 50 planes........


should be

a small airfield with 3 hangers shouldnt be able to up 50 planes........
Adam Webb - 71st (Eagle) Squadron RAF Wing B
This post has a Krusty rating of 37

Offline Boozer2

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 108
Does HTC understand that the ENY thing has totally failed?
« Reply #93 on: November 06, 2004, 06:30:07 AM »
On the problem of long term local superiority facilitated by the same guys re-upping 6 times...
 
  On the problem of continuous low level bomber runs to sink a CV....

  On the problem of some players repeatedly killing their second account to pad score....

  On the problem of PT boat respawns 20 times to launch torpedo salvos...
 
  On the problem of continuos suicide dweebs...

  On the problem of no reward for sucessful defense...

 The answer is local pilot attrition.

  I proposed  this idea before, but it seems to me a lot of things get solved if the penalty for a death is that you cannot use the same field again until you've died twice more elsewhere. This doesn't stop anyone from flying, it doesn't limit what you plane can use. It doesn't encourage even larger hordes by making the field harder, requiring MORE folks just to succeed.  You that have died just have to fly elsewhere for a while because you've died and can no longer contribute as a member of the never ending horde stream.  

 So you have to get 2 deaths elsewhere, hey you can even try  another attack run with the gang by re-upping from the field next door, after all, the attack should have a little bit of reinforcement. If it's not porked already that is. But if you die again, now you might as well go fly the other front for your next death. A kamakazi run at this point ensures you won't be back. You can fly, just do it safely or else where you haven't lost lately.

 But the defenders get farked with a setup like that!! Yeah they do, the way we defend today. We have to stop upping in the face of 20 guys inbound half a sector away.  Or maybe you will get up and be able to exit for alt, remember the P-40s at Pearl? :), these attackers are going to be looking to put real damage on this first run and make it count because they might not return. Every plane you down now is that much closer to halting the attack. Defending from the field next door is where the real reward is..or dare I say, flying defensive cap and planning to meet that darbar with alt gives the biggest payoff.  I can't count the number of times I've caught a flight of 4-8 heavy fighters inbound, killed a few and scatted the rest all to no effect. They're halfway back again when I turn to rtb.  Now if you whack 2 or 3 or 4 heavy inbound planes, they won't have the eggs to finish the field and town, and they won't be back, attack halted, move on, defenders win, plan better next time. Defenders have to start reading the map and hearing those Alerts. Defensive cap gets rewarded and you dont have to worry about that same loser grabbing an LA-7 3 times trying to get even :) [pwned twice, go away] Attacks on the CVs have to be well planned, no more re-upping low lancs until you succeed, you only get one try, the boats are going to float longer and be useful to good planners.

 This doesn't prevent a well planned local superiority attack. It allows the defender to stop the poorly planned (or rather unplanned) ones that never end with guys upping 6, 8, 15 times to help. If you get beat down, move on. Pilot attrition becomes a stopwatch for the horde. It may even be cause for additional planning. hey, we'll need 3 guys to cap the field next door from defenders. Undefended fields will still fall. But unrealistically vulching the same clown 15 times wont happen. Reupping again and again and again isn't an option anymore, work on staying alive in that attack.
 
 There are those pilots that will just jump form horde 1 to horde 2, good for them, horde 2 is likely on the other front, have a great time, maybe even stay alive this time. Just don't come back to MY field or we'll send you back again, lol.

 This will spread the never ending horde stream across the map, maybe even to other fronts for a while. Attacking a horde now has a payoff, you may just send them to fight the other enemy. But just making a field more durable (by hardening or removing ordinance) only encourages more hording, we're already playing the results of that from when the bigger cities were put into play.
Pilot attrition both makes the horde stream vulnerable and puts a limit on some of the gamey tricks we pull today.

 
fire away,
Boozer
« Last Edit: November 06, 2004, 08:29:47 AM by Boozer2 »

Offline Midnight

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1809
      • http://www.brauncomustangs.org
Does HTC understand that the ENY thing has totally failed?
« Reply #94 on: November 08, 2004, 08:10:03 AM »
Boozer

Yes, I agree this is another great idea. A prime example of this for me just happened the other day. I was defending a field in a Tiger and drove into the forest looking for a couple tanks that were shelling the town. After finding and killing them, the field was captured and I was all alone in the woods.

Now the guys I just killed new I was out there so they started coming after me in tanks and planes. I played cat and mouse under the trees as 4 or 5 players tried to kill me. I scored 17 victories on aircraft and GVs before I was finally killed by the same guy that I had already killed 5 or 6 times.

Offline Pongo

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6701
Does HTC understand that the ENY thing has totally failed?
« Reply #95 on: November 08, 2004, 12:12:21 PM »
Yup the only kind of attrition modeled in AH is moral attrition. Which by definition is a bumer.

I have proposed a sorti rate system in the past which has met with resounding thuds. Basically a sorti rate for every kind of hanger so that as the hangers get hurt or killed the sorti rate for the field decreases. So really big raids would have to be launched from really big fields.
So a jabo run that dings a fighter hanger but doenst kill it still impacts the field.
So that if numbers are out of whack you can lower the sorti rate for a whole country to try and level thing.
So loading DTs or Bombs on fighters lowers the sorti rate.

Like all things put in place to enable a small country to impact a large country, it must be assured that you do not make the small country even more vulnerable.
That takes alot of thought.

Offline XrightyX

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 277
Does HTC understand that the ENY thing has totally failed?
« Reply #96 on: November 08, 2004, 01:35:49 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Pongo
Yup the only kind of attrition modeled in AH is moral attrition. Which by definition is a bumer.

I have proposed a sorti rate system in the past which has met with resounding thuds. Basically a sorti rate for every kind of hanger so that as the hangers get hurt or killed the sorti rate for the field decreases. So really big raids would have to be launched from really big fields.
So a jabo run that dings a fighter hanger but doenst kill it still impacts the field.
So that if numbers are out of whack you can lower the sorti rate for a whole country to try and level thing.
So loading DTs or Bombs on fighters lowers the sorti rate.

Like all things put in place to enable a small country to impact a large country, it must be assured that you do not make the small country even more vulnerable.
That takes alot of thought.


This is the best idea I've heard...for what my opinion is worth.  

Makes the most sense in the context of war--fly a lot and takes lots of bombs, better supply a lot to keep the war effort going.

Offline DoKGonZo

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1977
      • http://www.gonzoville.com
Does HTC understand that the ENY thing has totally failed?
« Reply #97 on: November 08, 2004, 01:50:03 PM »
Biggest problem with tying sortie rates to hangars is the pork-n-auger crowd. You won't get organized attacks like you envision - you'll get more of the same lawn-dart Jabo's and NOE buff's than ever. If one person can PnA a hangar and take away the ability for several people to fly from a base, that's a good deal for him.

In theory it has merit, but you have to assume the worst possible behavior. Associating sortie rates with total numbers is another deal - that could work. And if the sortie rate (and type) at a base were tied to the number of runways, then you could get closer to what I think you want.

Offline xHaMmeRx

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 402
      • http://www.netaces.org
Does HTC understand that the ENY thing has totally failed?
« Reply #98 on: November 08, 2004, 03:08:32 PM »
Boozer,

Great idea!

Offline g00b

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 760
Does HTC understand that the ENY thing has totally failed?
« Reply #99 on: November 08, 2004, 03:12:49 PM »
Boozer you're a genius! HiTech, listen up!

g00b

Offline DoKGonZo

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1977
      • http://www.gonzoville.com
Does HTC understand that the ENY thing has totally failed?
« Reply #100 on: November 08, 2004, 05:03:25 PM »
Boozer,

1) What is to stop someone from going to another front and just augering twice? Or are you assuming that "death" means "death by enemy action"?

2) One exploit for this I can already envision is using 2 or 3 "lives" worth of NOE B17 flights to inflict 4 or 6 casualties on an enemy field prior to starting the real attack. So maybe what you want is to say you can die 3 times before having to switch, and a formation of bombers counts as 3 "lives."

3) There are already those who complain about anyone who climbs over 10K, your proposal will foster more of that. What kind of tuning options would you want to prevent the MA from becoming too defensive in nature?

4) There are those who will complain that this will disrupt squad activities because of the different roles people have within a squad for field capture. Jabo guys will run through their lives quicker, for instance. What are your thought on this?

5) What is to stop a Horde from planned rotation through a base capture to ensure overwhelming odds. That is, you send 30 people in twice knowing they'll die, then once you've attrited the defender down the second group of 30 swings in more or less unopposed to finish the capture while the first group sets off to repeat the act elsewhere. Sure, it spreads the idiocy around - but the net effect may not change.

I'm not saying it's a bad idea, just looking for the holes which we both know Some People will use to advantage and continue ruining the MA for everyone else.

Offline g00b

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 760
Very Simple and Easy rule
« Reply #101 on: November 08, 2004, 05:17:35 PM »
You die once you must fly from a different airfield once. You cannot die and fly from the same airfield you just upped from. Simple, easy, keeps the horde diminished. If someone wants to auger just they can get back quicker, fine, let em. It won't be that much of a problem.

g00b

Offline Soda

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1543
      • http://members.shaw.ca/soda_p/models.htm
Does HTC understand that the ENY thing has totally failed?
« Reply #102 on: November 08, 2004, 05:54:46 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by DoKGonZo
Boozer,

1) What is to stop someone from going to another front and just augering twice? Or are you assuming that "death" means "death by enemy action"?


my suggestion was simply to put the limit on a timer... if you die you can't re-up from that field for X minute regardless of what else you do.  Doesn't matter how you die, maybe a ditch can be 1/2 the time, but just make a death a death

Quote

2) One exploit for this I can already envision is using 2 or 3 "lives" worth of NOE B17 flights to inflict 4 or 6 casualties on an enemy field prior to starting the real attack. So maybe what you want is to say you can die 3 times before having to switch, and a formation of bombers counts as 3 "lives."


My system woudl only give you one chance unless you upped the B17's from another location and then came back from another field with your second sortie (once you died).  A good fighter sweep to clean out some enemies prior to the main attack would be an entirely valid tactic though, as it should be, unlike now where all it does is stir up a response of a guy who hopelessly defends 10 times until you run out of ammo and rtb.

Quote

3) There are already those who complain about anyone who climbs over 10K, your proposal will foster more of that. What kind of tuning options would you want to prevent the MA from becoming too defensive in nature?


Already happens, I doubt it would make much difference.  It's not like we are limiting how many times you spawn, only where.  I know HT says that "more ups means more targets" but it also negates any skills involved... 1 vs 10 is hopeless, especially when you know you could run up 5 of those as kills and get wacked by the first guy you shot down and effectively "lose".  But that's just my opinion...

Quote

4) There are those who will complain that this will disrupt squad activities because of the different roles people have within a squad for field capture. Jabo guys will run through their lives quicker, for instance. What are your thought on this?


Yes and No, certainly Jabo is more dangerous (or GV attack) but mostly because you are trying to do that while also fending off fighters.  If you had attrition, you could deal with the fighters and then use attack aircraft to deal out the jabo damage.  Some aircraft that are "tougher" like the Mossie/A20/Il2 could be more effective attackers if the fighters could come through and clean up some of th enemy defenders beforehand, knowing that the overall number of defending fighters would be less... wouldn't that make it safer? Sure, suicide guys are going to be upset about something like this but I'm sure they'd learn to adapt just like everyone else.

Quote

5) What is to stop a Horde from planned rotation through a base capture to ensure overwhelming odds. That is, you send 30 people in twice knowing they'll die, then once you've attrited the defender down the second group of 30 swings in more or less unopposed to finish the capture while the first group sets off to repeat the act elsewhere. Sure, it spreads the idiocy around - but the net effect may not change.


Overwhelming numbers is simply smart, but if you want to concentrate your forces in this system (where a death means you have to move on to another fight) then you may get stopped cold by a smaller force and fail.  As it is now, all you need to do is convince the superior numbers of players to continue to re-spawn until you eventually win... at least 90% of the time that's how it goes.

Quote

I'm not saying it's a bad idea, just looking for the holes which we both know Some People will use to advantage and continue ruining the MA for everyone else.


Maybe the idea is something for a different arena but it sure sounds to me like there is a large group of people waiting for this type of solution.  How hard would it really be to try?

-Soda

Online Shane

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7981
Does HTC understand that the ENY thing has totally failed?
« Reply #103 on: November 08, 2004, 05:59:58 PM »
then why doesn't this "large group" voluntarily enact such standards for themselves?
Surrounded by suck and underwhelmed with mediocrity.
I'm always right, it just takes some poepl longer to come to that realization than others.
I'm not perfect, but I am closer to it than you are.
"...vox populi, vox dei..."  ~Alcuin ca. 798
Truth doesn't need exaggeration.

Offline xHaMmeRx

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 402
      • http://www.netaces.org
Does HTC understand that the ENY thing has totally failed?
« Reply #104 on: November 08, 2004, 06:10:12 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Shane
then why doesn't this "large group" voluntarily enact such standards for themselves?


for the same reason the Yankees don't limit their salary... wait, is that a good example? :lol