I think the current gameplay concerns being expressed come from a combination of increased numbers, large maps and a "land grab" war winning model that directly rewards low-contact, path of least resistance gameplay by all countries. You saw virtually the exact same gameplay develop in Air Warrior with the move to Gamestorm, which brought with it increased numbers and a huge map. Sound familiar?
I think if you aligned the Aces High MA with the AW pre-Gamestorm/EA approach, where the ONLY bases you can capture are a subset in the center (maybe even be a fairly large subset) you would have the best of all worlds. The uncapturable “mainland” area to the rear would have limited damage bases and contain the country’s strategic targets. You then have to add a points based system to win the war (each month points are totaled for various accomplishments and a winner declared). You could rotate maps on a set schedule (weekly, monthly, etc.). HT has noted he wants to see a broader gameplay impact analysis of any suggested change so here they are:
* Strat, in general, would remain much the same, including the ability to attack under-defended, and even sneak undefended, bases. But, that could only go on for so long until you ran into somebody else fighting over the same mutually beneficial territory. Countries would fight over the middle bases, which would go back and forth. Each base capture generating "win" points for the appropriate country. Perhaps win points accumulating for time of ownerhip in addition to the capture. Even if one country controlled the entire center there would be a broad enough front for the other two countries to launch an offensive to regain control. Not every border base or central base could be fully defended. There would always be a weak spot, but it would take some work to find it and make the move.
Similarly, the distance between the mainland bases and the capturable bases would be such that there is an emphasis for the furballers to support the assault on the center bases, which would be physically closer to each other and offer hotter furball action. If you want that kill and reup, hairs on fair action you have to help get to that action and then stay there. Frankly, I have gravitated towards furballing since I’ve played these games, but this was a strong motivator to get me to load bombs or even hop in a goon in the earlier AW model.
* With a points system, you could make the A2A kills and attacks on strategic targets (or any other aspect of gameplay you want to adjust) sufficiently important that it would encourage quality participation in those areas and reward those behaviors. By locating the strat factories deep in mainland territory and making them worth a lot of points when damaged, you would encourage traditional strategic attacks. By adjusting bomber point values (awarded to the other team when a bomber is killed) you would encourage less wasteful and unrealistic/non-historic gameplay (hitting the target gets a lot of points, but losing the bomber costs enough points not to do carelessly). Similarly, you could lead long-range strategic bomber raids between the mainlands of each country (which would also be separated by a couple of sectors of distance) regardless of the action in the center. Good opportunity for close to shore “strategic” carrier operations as well where water separates countries. This actually happened late in the Pacific war (and were probably the most effective “pure” strategic attacks conducted against Japan).
You win the war differently, but you still win the war or lose it each week or month.
* Furball: more action, more contact, more fun.
Potential downsides:
1. Change is never easy, and as HT has pointed out this isn’t just a game but a living for the HTC crew. I don’t believe the individual game elements (base capture, A2A, A2G, Carrier ops, rank, score, plane choice, etc.) would be changed significantly, likely much less than some of the band aids used to alter behavior like plane availability. It would be more challenging, but not immediately so severe that it would be a total culture shock. I think it would just encourage, gradually, smarter ACM and smarter strat tactics. In essence, most players would be starting fresh and equal on the same page, and could grow from there. FWIW, AW managed to host similar (or greater) numbers of total players in its reduced and full realism arenas using this gameplay model.
2. Not invented here. FWIW the current “war” model is not unique to AH. I believe it was tried (before my time) in AW, and I first experienced it the handful of times I played “Empire” in the late 1970s - an online Star Trek game on the PLATO University computer system. I don’t think the AW mode is unique either. There may be an intellectual property issue I’m not aware of, but these games seem to “share” quite a bit already. [as a writer there is a saying: "You have to be willing to kill your babies." Which means, even if you have an emotional attachment to a scene or idea, an investment in time developing it, etc. -- if it just doesn't work for what you're trying to accomplish cut it]
3. Map design. Designing a map with a center capture model could be more complicated for things like carrier ops than it is now. However, that is still a challenge with landmass-focused maps, and one that I believe could be met as it is today.
4. Map size. With a large enough center mass and a broad enough border around the center you could fill current space requirements. As it is, many bases go unused on the larger maps at peak gameplay (which is why we have what we have). The map could be built oversized (as some have suggested in the past) with a layer of inactive bases to the rear and the ability to change the status of the bases as needed. For example, if things get too crowded, change more of the mainland bases to capturable and activate a new layer of rear bases.
5. Programming time. A biggie I imagine, especially with TOD. I would hope this model could be added at some convenient point using the existing infrastructure with only a fraction of the effort required for TOD or AH2. I could easily be wrong.
6. Its not broken, its fine as it is. For some that is the case, for others it isn’t. I left AW because of this type of gameplay for the viable alternative AH. Now that gameplay is dramatically shifting here, if there was a viable alternative I would be looking at that right now (and I’m sure I would not be alone). It’s still worth the $15/month for me (still more action than the last days of Gamestorm or EA), but that is decreasing. Because there isn’t a viable alternative today doesn’t mean there never will be one. Nor do I think TOD will change things for those that really like the MA format.
I don’t propose this out of sentimentality, though there is a personal motivation. Big maps and the “land grab” concept seem to drain the fight out of an arena. Big maps are needed to support big numbers, but IMO, you have to force some degree of concentration of mass and offer ways to win the war in addition to base capture alone. Everybody should be able to contribute from attacking a base, to killing an enemy plane to bombing a factory. The AW model was proven, and proven over multiple years, to generate those results. It was apparently only changed in AW when the newly increased Gamestorm numbers stressed the ancient server code that was limited to about 60 planes in a sector (as Moggy noted one day). I don’t think it would really eliminate any style of gameplay that someone participates in today, except for those who exclusively like to milk run bases.
Charon
