A matter of perspective.....

[Charon]

One approach that might work (as has been posted before) is to go back to a points system for winning the war with only certain bases being capturable. As with AW in its earlier days these would be the central ones on the map. [edit: In fact, I will go as far as to say it would definately work.]

For example, you get points for captures, A2A kills, A2G kills (tanks, PTs etc.) and perhaps even kills but no points for aircraft with the wheels still on the ground. You can structure the point awards so that shooting down flying aircraft is just as important to victory as capturing what may be an undefended base. Having a limited selection of capturable bases, centrally located would also concentrate the action more. It is a mode that, IMO, worked very well at promoting combat.

It was changed in AW around Gamestorm because with the increased number it stressed the existing AW netcode beyond its capabilities (as Moggy told me. I believe the limit was about 60 aircraft in one area and the smaller/older "central neutrals" maps would have stressed that regularly). However, AH has better net code, and with a larger map, and a larger group of capturable islands you could still spread out the action but have some degree of concentration beyond what we have now. [edit: I doubt it would stress AH netcode beyond the current "final bases" period of a capture]

All countries would, in essence, fight over the same 20 bases for the tour, with the points totaled at the end. Not a new concept obviously but one that worked very well and could work well again, IMO, with the right balance of base numbers, and point awards for activities. You could even make strat targets important from a points perspective, if not from a gameplay/role perspective, etc. Same with truck convoys and barges, etc.  

The downsides would be change (always scary); extra programming (points tracking database); adding new maps (current maps might be difficult to work since you want carriers to have a role); intellectual property isses with the AW game model?; and fine tuning the points to get varied gameplay.

Charon

[DoKGonZo]

Originally posted by Kweassa
With no disrespect, IIRC DokG, most of those 'enough threads' ended up with you alone arguing that the IL2 or Hurri guns can't kill tanks, and the rest of the people disagreeing with you.

...

You don't recall correctly.

[DoKGonZo]

Originally posted by Urchin
Ok, I made a "tutorial film" for the Hurri-2d.  

...

Cool. I can host if there aren't better offers.

[SlapShot]

A. Is it still possible to take screenshots from a film? It doesn't appear to be so, which kind of sucks. I'd like to be able to take snapshots of what I see at various times during the "run" to give people an idea of how to set up a pass on a tank in a Hurri-2D.

In order to get a screen shot you now have to use the windows "Print-Screen" button from the desktop. You then have to crop out what you don't want.

There are some nice freeware tools for screen capture. The one I use is "Screen Grab Pro" ... very simple ... PF9 to capture the "active" window or PF8 to "select" an area to capture. Captures go to the "clipboard".

[DoKGonZo]

Originally posted by Charon
One approach that might work (as has been posted before) is to go back to a points system for winning the war with only certain bases being capturable. As with AW in its earlier days these would be the central ones on the map. [edit: In fact, I will go as far as to say it would definately work.]

...

We kind of have this now with the new capture threshholds. But on bigger maps it's kind of lost.

Another simple change would be to make it a prerequisite for capture that all hangars at a base be down. That would cut down on the vultching, slow down the steamroller (captured bases would need to wait for resupply before being useful), and make counter-attacks meaningful.

But no matter what scoring and rules are in place, the style of play will optimize itself.

The more curious trend we're seeing in some of these posts is the "I just want to have fun, I don't want to learn" variety. Who plays a sport or game and doesn't want to get better at it?

[Charon]

We kind of have this now with the new capture threshholds. But on bigger maps it's kind of lost.

I don't see the current expanded thresholds as doing anything more than speeding the end of the capture. You still have large initial periods where its easy to steamroll and milkrun, with the final race being a gangbang fest against the country in the bucket (a milkrun with slightly more resistance). The infrastructure and tour winning system of AW SVGA/AOL period forced concentrated action far more than a huge map, win the war to the last base concept.

Another simple change would be to make it a prerequisite for capture that all hangars at a base be down. That would cut down on the vultching, slow down the steamroller (captured bases would need to wait for resupply before being useful), and make counter-attacks meaningful.

That's assuming there would be a desire (unless forced) to counterattack in the face of resistance. Why do that when you can just milkrun one of their bases 5 sectors over?  I am increasingly convince that the issues in gameplay are related to the core infrastructre design of the game [edit: combined with a player base that now includes a large percentage of casual "gamers"], and that any subtle change will have, at best, a subtle impact. Of course, the unanswered (or maybe answered by inaction) question is, do HT and Pyro think the current system is failing or flawed? Are major changes needed?  Apparently not.

The more curious trend we're seeing in some of these posts is the "I just want to have fun, I don't want to learn" variety. Who plays a sport or game and doesn't want to get better at it?

Just look at the success of arcade games and consoles compared to hard core sims. People like fun as opposed to work. For you or me or any number of others getting good at a game like this is fun. For others that would border on work. I can relate. As much as I love these types of games something like Falcon (with all the systems, etc.) is alomst too much like work to get into. Though I never liked the view system either. The same goes for some of the modern attack sub games where you have to have a nuanced understanding of the sonar systems, etc. Look at the numbers that played FR vs. HT in AW.

FWIW, I think changing the infrastructure to the older AW tour/points limited capture model (pre gamestorm) would promote more action, but not necessiarily make the game too tough or unplayable for most of the player base. However, it might encourage individuals to develope greater skills because there would be more forced fighting and more balanced odds in the fight by the nature of the game design.

Charon

[humble]

Originally posted by Aubrey
I am a complete newbie.  I have been trying to fly the right way. well as far as I know the "right" way. It is kind of hard to know what the right way is.  

I have been working under the assumption that if I am doing something wrong then... some one will call me on it.  I will then ask them what I did wrong and try todo better the next time.

I cannot be on when my squad is on at times, well no big deal there is always something to do. I am not afraid to fly alone. during those times, I have been trying to help defend some  bases and asked on the range chat \ channel what I am needed to doand I get  ......*crickets* Ask again ....*crickets*.   So I just start freelancing. No one says anything realy no one mentions me  it is like I do not exist.  

I must of course acknowledge the  2 Count them 2 people who have acknowledged me and gave me  instruction.  ABDC and  Wonder.   Thankyou both

I am malleable clay  shape me mold me.

It was a  vet's duty to mentor new players in my last game. I took seriously. If you want the new guys to play "right"  teach them actually  Please Teach me I would like to be taught.

Anytime you see me up just give a shout....

[NoBaddy]

Originally posted by DoKGonZo
Another simple change would be to make it a prerequisite for capture that all hangars at a base be down. That would cut down on the vultching, slow down the steamroller (captured bases would need to wait for resupply before being useful), and make counter-attacks meaningful.
 

...on vulching... Something I have suggested before is to add disorganized ground fire to fields. There would be no tracers and nothing to shoot back at. It would represent the mechanics, cooks, clerks..etc. grabbing a weapon and popping off at anything flying low over the field. The way I envison it is that the longer a field is under attack (ie. planes at low alt within a certain range of the tower) the more intense it could become. While I really dislike random stuff...I do see this as a possible 'fix' for vulching.

[Badboy]

Originally posted by NoBaddy
...While I really dislike random stuff...I do see this as a possible 'fix' for vulching.

Of course no one likes being killed, but if I have to get shot down I would prefer it to be by a real person. Getting killed by the AI is fine for offline games, but I find it a tad frustrating to spend time getting to a good position to engage, only to be killed by flak. So I would much prefer to see more done to enable players to defend effectively, (such as more manable guns at the airfield, including flak batteries, or give players the ability to man more than one gun simultaneously to get the same effect as with buffs in formation) and give less responsibility to the AI. Personally, I think everything handed over to the AI, is a step away from what give this sort of game its unique appeal, the ability to compete with other real people.

Also, it would be a real shame to “fix” vulching in that way. Not just because it is a lot of fun, but because there are more realistic ways to do it. Staffing aircraft on the ground and suppressing enemy air defences has always been a realistic part of air combat, for example, there are many accounts of pilots trying to take off while their field was being bombed and strafed, those pilots knew the risks, and decided to do it anyway. The point is that vulching doesn’t just require a vulcher, it also takes someone on the ground willing to place themselves at risk, and in Aces High the prospect of getting into the air under fire and getting to kill a vulcher or two, is enough incentive to make the risk worthwhile for many players… Why deprive them and the vulchers of all that fun


Badboy

[NoBaddy]

Aaah, but the only side you are talking about is that of the vulcher. Sure it's fun...for him. I agree there are plenty of accounts of field suppression. At the same time, there are accounts of attackers taking fire from small arms also. BTW, the kind of thing I am talking about would have no affect on planes flying above say 1000 yards. Vulchers could still vulch or circle above the field and wait until they clear the field to attack. But, at least there would be some risk associated with vulching.

[Ack-Ack]

Originally posted by NoBaddy
...on vulching... Something I have suggested before is to add disorganized ground fire to fields. There would be no tracers and nothing to shoot back at. It would represent the mechanics, cooks, clerks..etc. grabbing a weapon and popping off at anything flying low over the field. The way I envison it is that the longer a field is under attack (ie. planes at low alt within a certain range of the tower) the more intense it could become. While I really dislike random stuff...I do see this as a possible 'fix' for vulching.

The best fix for vulching is not to take off from a base under attack.  It really is that simple.

As for DoK's suggestion, that's how it pretty much was in AW.  You needed to take down at least 60% of the base before you could capture it.  Made for some real intense battles and then there were the battles for control over the depots and factories.


ack-ack

[DoKGonZo]

We've wandered off a bit here, but vultching has always been part of the game. Always will be. The problem now is that it's becoming too dominant a theme for some of the following reasons:

1) Barracks are so easily porked which stalls the front, so vultch sessions over a base can last a long, long time.

2) Bases can be taken without killing FH's, which keeps the Vultching Lamp lit until the troops are in the map room.

3) The reward system favors multi-kill missions, which are easiest obtained by vultching for a protracted time. This sets up a conflict with the land-grab metaphor which is supposed to drive the game. Some peopel want to take bases, others just want the AAA down and to get their Horde installed overhead so they can vultch - bomber guys usually get precious little help from these types.


From a "it could happen" standpoint, it's kind of hard to imagine a commander sending C-47's or M3's within 1000 yards of an enemy base which could still launch fighters or attack bombers. So that's one reason I'd like to see fields have to be 100% down before a capture is enabled.

Another is that it will take time for said base to be useful to it's new owners after it changes hands. AAA will work, and you can re-arm, but that's about it. This will be a much more effective throttle on steamroller tactics than barracks porking.


As for AAA ... the more auto-AAA you have the more people will hide in their ack. What I could see, though, is a bunch of light AAA positions sprinkled around the field. Like .50 cal's in sets of 3 in a dispersed arrangement. And they'd function like a formation of single-gun turrets - so when you grabbed on, you would be controlling 3 guns (until they got destroyed). If you had 2 to 4 such clusters (depending on base size) then you'd have a nice increase in low-altitude AAA with a high enough rate of fire to do some damage. At a medium base you'd have basically 9 .50's sitting there - against bombers not a big deal, but against vultchers and porkers - more than enough to put a hail of bullets. And it's not random.

[Rolex]

For Urchin's Hurricane II-D film, right click here>> and Save Target As...

[DoKGonZo]

AHFilm crashes when I try to load this. Any custom terrain or skin involved?

[Urchin]

Don't think so, unless Redd was using one for the tank. There aren't any skins for the Hurri-2D as far as I know, and the film was in the DA.