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

[killnu]

and former (LOL) relaxed realism guys

Im a former RR guy...I dont do "strat game" as you call it...so you can quit with your stereotyping sir.

RR was all about fun as i remember it...even if it was in a fully gunned b17 turning/looping around otw to spit factory...but that was fun.  imo of course

[Murdr]

toolshedders and former (LOL) relaxed realism guys... like to say that their strat game is some form of extreme chess or something

Originally posted by killnu
Im a former RR guy...I dont do "strat game" as you call it...so you can quit with your stereotyping sir.
[/b]

What killnu said.  The previous statment is just dumb.

[Guppy35]

Agreed.  most of us started in RR.  I know i went kicking and screaming to FR.

Any number of us AH 'vets' were RR vets long before we went to FR including a certain BK CO who was hanging out with the Nomads in RR as +Uber, +Dead etc

It was about fun at that point too.

The RR/FR debate from a bygone era has nothing to do with what we're talking about now.

And I'd hate to derail any thread trying to come up with ways to improve the community by ressurecting old AW stuff.

[Charon]

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

Here's an idea I posted in June 2003, that sums up the concept, with my rational.

My fantabulous strat idea
The current version of strat in AH is seeing a lot of discussion lately. As with many, I find the recent changes to be a step backward. It was this very “big pork” concept which finally drove me out of AW after 8 years of playing.

Obviously, I’m not a strat guy in AH -- furball all the way. However, that does not mean that I don’t like tactical and strategic gameplay. Truth be told, I probably spend more hours playing games like Civilization 3 than I do AH. In fact, I can’t recall ever playing AH or AW for 18 hours straight like I have DOS Empire or Civ 1- 3 or a variety of wargames, so it’s not like I dislike strat in general. It’s just that the strat in AH, in spite of an excellent selection of tools to play with, leads to the least common denominator, steamroller style of play that keeps my interest about as much as tic-tac-toe. So, what can be done with the already excellent set of tools to add more variety, challenge and opportunity for both furballers and strat guys alike without forcing too much change in individual gameplay preferences? What could get a guy like me interested in AH strat? Here’s my idea.

1. Building upon the current zone setup, have strategic targets deep in each country’s territory that act as an on off switch for base capture (you could use existing facilities or change the current map layout to better suit the concept). In essence, each target would influence the airfields in its zone. If the strat target was up, then the fields would be invulnerable. Once the strat target received a certain amount of damage, the fields would be damageable and captureable as they are now for a set amount of time, say one hour. This would be indicated by a change in color on the map. The strat targets could not be rebuilt, but would automatically come up after the allotted time. Consider this the impact of industrial attrition that makes the “invasion” possible in the first place.

The strat targets could be set up to highly encourage the use of heavy bombers with more physical area, heavy low altitude AAA and their distance from the front lines earlier in the “war.” This would give the heavy bomber guys a real war-winning role. Bomber mission(s) would have to be organized, planned and escorted to open the drive into enemy territory. Conversely, the LW guys could hitch on the leather underwear and spend time flying high altitude anti-bomber patrols with some assurance of actually seeing regular action. Would this force someone out of their heavy P-51 to fly a bomber if they don’t want to? Perhaps, from time to time, but I rather think there would be standing bomber squads on call planning and executing these missions regularly if they had a stronger reason to participate.

2. Once the strategic target is hit, the airfields could be made invulnerable again if a truck convoy, barge or train reaches the airfield. These would have to be stopped at any cost, leading to an attack mission where some of the jabo horde would have to fly interdiction. Elements at the airfield like fuel, etc, could be rebuilt by a c-47 or M-3 with a more favorable ratio than currently exists. This would lead to the attackers having to fly some C-47 intercept missions as well as the defenders. You could also add a marshalling yard (trains), barge port (barges) or supply depot (trucks) at a size and distance and adjusted AAA that would make them primary targets for medium bombers where speed and load would count. Hitting one of these targets would slow down the resupply interval for that type of transport. You could also add bridge targets for divebombers, with some increased bomb dispersion for fighter jabos to be more historically accurate (IMO) and actually give someone a reason to fly a JU-87/88, Val or Dauntless (A-24). Dropping a bridge could block a river from barge traffic or cut a road or rail line. These should be heavily defended (AAA) as they were in real life. Bridges of Toko-Ri anyone?

Once captured, the airfield would be linked to the capturing country's associated strat and supply zone.

3. How about a land war? Required a land assault to take the large airfields, but leave the small bases open to land or C-47 capture.

4. In general the current jabo capture style would remain the same, but various adjustments as discussed in other threads and a few of my own could lessen the sheer numbers aspect that exists now. More dispersed fuel targets. How many WW2 airfields had a big central fuel dump vs dispersed, camouflaged 55 gallon drums in the woodline (at least for the axis)? Adjustments on survival time requirements after the hit for the hit to count in order to counter the kamikaze hordes. Having a fuel or hanger hit take out the premium aircraft, but leave 1942/43 era aircraft flyable, perhaps from remote grass “spawn” fields around the main airfield. More mannable acks. Vulnerable Jeeps with a .50 that could spawn from a remote vehicle spawn point (even when the main VH was down) and drive to the field (give the defenders something to do and even give the vulchers some added action squashing the cockroaches  ). Of course, with changes 1-3 you could leave jabo as it is now and still have a more entertaining strategic game.

Well, build on it, ignore it or tear it apart. I believe these changes would bring some real strategy and tactical planning/operations to AH that I would actually like to participate in on a regular basis. It would make capture harder, but then there would actually be some challenge for the serious strat player and a worthy companion to the excellent A2A ACM simulator which is where the game really shines. Obviously, the maps would have to be readjusted. I would imagine that the strictly jabo guys would always be able to find a vulnerable zone to attack, the bomber guys a zone in need of hitting, and the furballers as much if not more opportunity to find a fight. The milkrunners on a Pizza or Trinity might be out of luck more often, but there’s always offline play.

Charon

[Overlag]

Originally posted by Charon
Here's an idea I posted in June 2003, that sums up the concept, with my rational.

 

Charon

fantastic ideas there.... ive always wished for strat targets to be more like real life..... clumped together. IE a big city, with the other strat targets around it. This protected by at least 3 bases and murderous flak. I always thought that damaging the strat factories should be what damages the strat at the field, NOT being able to pork the field itself (its too easy, and too short of a flight).

porking the base strat, should be only half of what is required to fully pork it. Bombing the main city (300mile round trip) and the strat targets within down to at least 50% is needed before local fields on the front feel the damage.

This way, "furballers" can have there fun, because the bases are never fully porked, but they HAVE to protect that main city. The bombers would also have to fly within properly organised raids, allowing them to meet people that like this style, and constantly fly with them, creating a friendly comminuty within that.

Heavy bombers will only be uppable from large bases, and large bases are not the front line bases... this would stop (or reduce) the suicide buff'ers at the fields.  and will also cause bombers to have to run lower speeds/ or max fuel.

Med bombers only uppable at med bases, which are close to the front line. These are used for base defence against gvs.

Front line bases are small bases, with only fighter/attack planes. mini FT at every front line base......

another aspect could be created would mimic what P47s did over germany, flying a attack mission to damage roads/rail, and to try and get the LW into the air and fight/die. Damaging railroad depots, or killing supply trains would slow down resupply of bases. (ie killing the supply trains can have the same result as bombing city, but you would have to do it every 5minutes)

[Stoney74]

Originally posted by Overlag

The bombers would also have to fly within properly organised raids, allowing them to meet people that like this style, and constantly fly with them, creating a friendly comminuty within that.

Heavy bombers will only be uppable from large bases, and large bases are not the front line bases... this would stop (or reduce) the suicide buff'ers at the fields.  and will also cause bombers to have to run lower speeds/ or max fuel.

I agree wholeheartedly with the idea, but is the typical player in the community going to be willing to (1) put together 4-6 sections of buffs with 4-6 escorts (2) take the hour or more that it would take to fly the mission?

I think the biggest reason that the fight in the MA takes place below 12K is simply because people aren't patient enough to climb to altitude.  B-17's didn't drop at 28K feet for ease, and certainly not for accuracy--they did it for survival only...They made up for the accuracy with massive numbers, blankets of ordnance, and a pretty low expectation of what a "successful" mission was (30% of all bombs within a certain distance of the aimpoint IIRC).  Our targets, for the most part, are point targets.

One of advantages (to some of the players) of the current set up is that you don't necessarily have to engage in team play to create a decisive effect on the virtual battlefield.  You can take up a set of bombers, drop all the hangars, and shut down a base all on your own--or fly a fast plane and pork a field all on your own.  

Would the game sustain itself if achieving all those effects was much more difficult and required large amounts of "team" play?

[Overlag]

Originally posted by Stoney74
I agree wholeheartedly with the idea, but is the typical player in the community going to be willing to (1) put together 4-6 sections of buffs with 4-6 escorts (2) take the hour or more that it would take to fly the mission?

I think the biggest reason that the fight in the MA takes place below 12K is simply because people aren't patient enough to climb to altitude.  B-17's didn't drop at 28K feet for ease, and certainly not for accuracy--they did it for survival only...They made up for the accuracy with massive numbers, blankets of ordnance, and a pretty low expectation of what a "successful" mission was (30% of all bombs within a certain distance of the aimpoint IIRC).  Our targets, for the most part, are point targets.

One of advantages (to some of the players) of the current set up is that you don't necessarily have to engage in team play to create a decisive effect on the virtual battlefield.  You can take up a set of bombers, drop all the hangars, and shut down a base all on your own--or fly a fast plane and pork a field all on your own.  

Would the game sustain itself if achieving all those effects was much more difficult and required large amounts of "team" play?

i dunno, id just perfer to see the heavy bombers, used in the role that should be used in.... i almost cry every time i see a lancaster drop 14x1000lbs over a GV spawn then auger into the ground

[Slash27]

Originally posted by lazs2
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.

 

Its not the only way. I find I get along with furballers, toolshedders, GV'ers, and whatever other lable I missed. Is it really that hard?

[Overlag]

Originally posted by lazs2
others have said it to.. resets are just starting all over and nothing more.

its the fight to get to that point people do resets for.....its also about changing maps... sometimes i remember fighting even harder than normal just so we could get rid of a map we didnt like lol

Originally posted by 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.

i like it, which is unusal! However wouldnt that remove the need for fighters?

Originally posted by lazs2

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.

thats silly. If you furballers are so elite then surely you can down 3 slow moving objects? furballers could be part of "base" capturing if it wasnt to do with toolsheding/vulching, if it was a ZOC type thing?

[thndregg]

Originally posted by Slash27
Its not the only way. I find I get along with furballers, toolshedders, GV'ers, and whatever other lable I missed. Is it really that hard?

I try to get along with all sorts that prefer all sorts of game style, so long as we  respect each other's character  and differences. That in itself has proven difficult for some. I feel that there are those that, if it were  possible, would do everything they could to have HTC cancel the subscriptions of those who's difference in game-style conflicts with thier own-- hence the "I wish you would quit/go away/go play another game" statements I've seen pop up.

[storch]

maybe some of you fellows take what is typed in your direction far too seriously.

[Overlag]

Originally posted by storch
maybe some of you fellows take what is typed in your direction far too seriously.

to be honest..... so do you

[storch]

rest assuredly, I do not.

[hubsonfire]

At this point, I think only Darwin can fix things, and we're awfully short on large predators in these parts. Pity.

[Overlag]

Originally posted by storch
rest assuredly, I do not.

yeah.......


http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=190164