We as a community are looking really sad right now...

[zorstorer]

Originally posted by Hajo
Air Warrior went through the same growing pains.

Patience Lads!

where is it now?

[Westy]

"Further the community becomes less "Band of Brothers" and more "Lord of the Flies" in the manner in which it conducts itself."


 That is simply the best "short & sweet" and "directly to the point" analogy made yet.

 And the rest of your post Tilt is superb as usual.  

 And a big Guppy for expressing his thoughts in an effort to spark some type of improvement with the community.  
 
 *For the 80% of those who think they do that when they post please note the complete lack of whining,  blatant threat to cancel the account and spastic use of massive exaggeration to make ones point.

[Tilt]

I think we can see loads of very well intentioned suggestions in the wish list section.

I always return to gameplay as the aspect i would wish to develop further.

For me the ideal gameplay model is one where every one interacts and achieves satisfaction doing so whilst being somewhat representative of the roles played by their rides during the conflict historically.

I note that the strategic model within AH is now largely ignored. Buffs are not hitting factories to deplete the resources of the opposing side.

Generally buffs are being used to directly attrit field resources only being used agin strat for point farming.

Land grab is focussed upon airfield aquisition......

Gameplay has moved to a model which is based upon stopping your opponent from taking the field against you. (killing hangers, porking troops, vulch capping bases)

This may be very viable for a win but is poor on fun factor.

Its in effect negative gameplay.

I would like to see stuff that promotes positive gameplay.

Buffs must have targets that mean something, change something and influence the "war" its what they live for. However the effective ness of buffs should be cumulative and not instant One formations of B24's (ie one player) should not be able to take out a whole airfield and make it useless to ac. (it never happened in WWII why should it here?)

For me there should be more hangers per field ....... many more. making the existing few harder gives poor reward to the buffer........... he wants to destroy something....so let him.

Just make him destroy more or indeed cause more buffs to attack to be effective.

Move towns further from airfields and add towns closely linked to vehicle fields and ports.  Put vehicle fields (and their new towns) very close to those towns linked to airfields. This is to remove the need to vulch cap an air field in order to capture. It also tends to change the buffs focus toward the town its self and the local vh field protecting it.

Put these three groups  further from the normal front line than the airfield. Such that it is easier for defenders to recapture than it was for the invaders.

Make towns bigger infact double them up per field but put them together.

Remove the link between supplies and barracks (new)such that re supply is always an option if the ride (M3, Jeep, C47) is available.

Make it possible to re supply towns. (new)

Vastly increase the number of barracks at vehicle fields making it very difficult to pork troops at vehicle fields.

Increase puffy AA at airfields....significantly like 5 times.

Change town AA to gguns.

Increase manned guns at Vehicle fields particularly those covering map rooms.

Create a spawn matrix for vehicles that operates like a road network around the terrain.

Do not spawn vehcles toward air fields...........spawn vehicles toward towns (v spawns from airfields will only be to the linked town) and other vehicle fields/ports and their towns (from other vehicle fields/ports).

Create a period after capture where the field cannot be used and yet cannot be re captured. Say 5 to 10 minutes(new). During which stuff repairs as it normally would.

Make the terrain viable for time to target/action delays set distances that allow a reasonable time from spawn to target that folk can manouvre with prior to action yet not take too long to get there.

Overlap the radar ranges more............

OK what does all this do...............

Well in my opinion..........

Focus is moved from the airfield to the town and the vehicle fields/ports.

Big Buffs will tend to attack towns and vehicle fields/ports more, and be rewarded. The land grab will be very dynamic but biased to land forces and defences who rely upon the support of buffs to deplete the towns.

Fighters will now travel to fight over/near towns not their own air fields. Air superiority must be required to allow buffs passage.***

Ground attack will still be focussed agin enemy vehicles and town objects but have serious work cut out trying to stop infantry deployment from vehicle fields.

Towns will be the focus where all forms of combat merge.

The dead time after capture will allow for forces to gather to counter attack, dead times will prevent, cheap sneak recaptures, they will prevent steam rollering a map.

*** this is a whole other topic but if buffs do not need to worry about air superiority over their target then all game play balance is lost IMO.

[Oldman731]

Originally posted by Tilt
the community becomes less "Band of Brothers" and more "Lord of the Flies" in the manner in which it conducts itself.

Heh.  Best description I've yet seen.

My take:  We're about two months away from things being more or less normal again.

We've now passed through the trembling anger stage where those who are upset try to get HTC to change its corporate mind and reinstitute the old system.

We're in the middle of the self-examination stage.  Those people who value large squads more than simulated air combat are dropping out.  Hate to see anyone go, and hope that most or all of them will come back once they start to miss it.

We're starting to see the BBS return to its usual self.  Heck, someone just started a chute shooting thread.

While the change has been truly dreadful for the AvA arena, I think one of the reasons is that the other arenas have become so comparatively pleasant.  I've been to all of them now (finally ventured into LW last night).  People say hello, they salute you, compliment your flying or gunnery when circumstances warrant, and occasionally even apologize for ganging.  Haven't heard any foul language on VOX.  We used to get a lot of people in AvA who were just sick and tired of the rudeness in the MA.  Now we don't.  (If you don't believe that we are entering a kinder, gentler period, note that Storch just apologized to someone who got picked.)

So:  Not to worry, is my view.  Fundamentally, most of us want to fly airplanes against real people....or we'd be playing one of the men-in-tights games.  This is still far and away the best of the games that allow us to do this - and now we're doing it with just a bit more class than we were doing it a couple of months ago.

- oldman

[AKDogg]

Have manable ack in town also!

[lazs2]

I have allways liked the idea of having huge cities for each country that took massive amounts of bombs to kill..  when the city/cities died... end of war.. reset.

the fluffers could bomb the cities and the guys who liked to escort could and the rest could just fly fighter sweeps between the airfields and.... furball.  The fields could have very accurate and deadly ack to take down any fluff dumb enough to fly low enough over one to hit one.

the only way the furballers and the toolshedders can get along is if they have no real affect on each other and... rarely interact together.

lazs
Public Relations Officer for the BK's

[thndregg]

Originally posted by Oldman731
(If you don't believe that we are entering a kinder, gentler period, note that Storch just apologized to someone who got picked.)

You're living dangerously--putting "Storch" and 'period" in the same sentence. (j/k:D )

[Stoney74]

Originally posted by Tilt
Air superiority must be required to allow buffs passage.***

*** this is a whole other topic but if buffs do not need to worry about air superiority over their target then all game play balance is lost IMO.

I can't agree with you more here.  I hate focussing on such a specific issue within what otherwise is a multifaceted problem, but this one, IMHO, is key.

I remember a reading a story Ken Walsh told about B-24's getting jumped by Ki-43's and the bomber pilots screaming over the radio for help.  In AH, we'd laugh at something with the durability of a zeke and 2X12.7mm attacking a formation of buffs...

We need a situation where taking unescorted bombers anywhere is a suicide mission, or at least a very dangerous undertaking that guarantees high loss rates (as it was in real life).

[FiLtH]

"I'm so sick of the whining and complaining, I'm about to bust. Put the energy into constructive ideas to make the game better and to help HTC move it forward.

Way too many good people around here for there not to be good ideas too."- Dan


     I've given out alot of ideas.  Im tired of trying. The community is looking sad because it is sad.

[Charon]

Gameplay has moved to a model which is based upon stopping your opponent from taking the field against you. (killing hangers, porking troops, vulch capping bases)

This may be very viable for a win but is poor on fun factor.

Its in effect negative gameplay.

I would like to see stuff that promotes positive gameplay.

Buffs must have targets that mean something, change something and influence the "war" its what they live for. However the effective ness of buffs should be cumulative and not instant One formations of B24's (ie one player) should not be able to take out a whole airfield and make it useless to ac. (it never happened in WWII why should it here?)

For me there should be more hangers per field ....... many more. making the existing few harder gives poor reward to the buffer........... he wants to destroy something....so let him.

Just make him destroy more or indeed cause more buffs to attack to be effective.

I think this is absolutely key, along with the changes that Dan has recently rebroached to funnel the action. Personally, I'm a big strat guy... but not in AH. In fact, I would be playing a lot more in the new arenas (which are a lot more fun now when I have played) if I didn't recently make the "mistake" of finally purchasing Rome Total War. A bit busy putting the Gauls to the blade these days It's also a bit easier to play with the mouse in one hand and the baby asleep on the other arm...

There is no real "strat" game in AH -- more a version of tactical tic-tac-toe and that got boring about age 5. I know that I would participate actively in a real strat model with some added complexity and nuance where you were encouraged to have tough fights, in some historical combat context (platforms required to be used in the way they were in WW2 for success) and have each attack mean a bit more than it does now. It would also provide a natural tie in to th concepts that will be at play in the CT. For example, it might be cool to have those truck convoys etc. and trains that were once so exciting years ago when first added have some real significance There is so much underdeveloped/undeveloped potential in this area that it's hard to imagine HT and Pyro are fully satisfied with "AW 2007".

Charon

[Patches1]

It seems to me that all of the animosity ... i.e. furballers vs toolshedders vs GVers... really comes down to Base Capture and how Base Capture is accomplished.

Here's a thought on base captures:

GV Bases: capturable only by GVs, with the exception of the LVT. If the GV Base is upon a shoreline...the LVT may capture this GV Base. If the GV Base is one sector, or more, Inland from the Shoreline, only M3s and Jeeps may be used to capture.

Airfield Bases: capturable only by C47, with the exception of the LVT which may capture Airfield Bases upon a shoreline. If the Airfield Base is one sector, or more, Inland from the Shoreline, only the C47 may capture.

Ports: capturable only from the sea via LVT, or PT Boat (not a new idea putting troops on PTs). Ports would not be capturable from the ground via GVs (including LVT if the LVT launched from a GV Base), nor from the air via C47.

Before any capture attempt can succeed, the City Strat for that Zone must first be reduced to 50%.

[lazs2]

charon... exactly... the toolshedders and former (LOL) relaxed realism guys... like to say that their strat game is some form of extreme chess or something when in reality... it is as you say, tic tac toe.

others have said it to.. resets are just starting all over and nothing more.

lazs
Public Relations Officer for the BK's

[LYNX]

by patches1

Before any capture attempt can succeed, the City Strat for that Zone must first be reduced to 50%.

I think this is a great idea.  Loads of missions from this 1 single concept and thats before the land grab even start.

20k and 30k bombers.  Fighters struggling for alt to intercept.  Escorts doing escort stuff.  Fake raids on cities for a high alt fights.  Diversions to allow bombers to make it in.  High alt fighter sweeps because that dar bars inb from 3 sectors out and the 3 sector NOE jabo raids lol.

ummm down side...guys that don't know how to kill high alt bombers posting 50 gazillian whines about bullet proof bombers.  Deadly accurate tail gunners...blah blah.

[FiLtH]

That IS a great idea!

[palef]

Originally posted by Skuzzy
Palef, just FYI.  I never saw that email.  Here is a guideline.  If you do not here back from me (support@hitechcreations.com) within 24 hours (weekdays) of sending an email, you can safely assume I did not get it.

Fair call chief.