Author Topic: New Base Take Method (Read 1340 times)

JETBLST · « **on:** December 03, 2006, 03:42:06 AM »

I have heard alot of negatives about the new capture method being tested in Orange. I agree with alot of it. But if we gripe we need to bring a solution possibility as well.

My solution would be instead of having the thread be only one line have it be no more than say three or four, but more than one. The outcome would be less furballing and more NOE possibilities for base captures. That is the main complaint that I hear. Another Idea would be for us to have to follow lines but make them so that the other country does not know where they are. All they know is they have to defend. Now you'd have the element of supprise as well. The large Icon is good keep it. BUT ONLY WHEN the other country makes a move. Otherwise leave it small.

What do you all think?

KILLL:D

hitech · « **Reply #1 on:** December 03, 2006, 09:28:08 AM »

Killjoy: Element of surprise, while sounding great from an offensive mode, create big problems for actual game play.

Think of it this way, if the element of surprise is so overwellming that there is no way to defend against, then that is the path of least resistance, and hence will become the primary mode of attack. That is the state of affairs as it stood previously with big maps.

Now there are NOE raids that do not cause this, I.E. NOE raids to acheive singular objectives, I.E. hitting cities, factories, possibly 1 open field deep in enemy territory. But if all objectives can be taken by NOE raids, IT creates non defensible game play.

2nd it easy to say, well people should just defend then. Think about what it really takes to defend against NOE raids, and do you really want to do that defense.

To defend successfully at NOE raids, you need more than 1 player.
2nd to defend against them you have to sit in the tower, waiting for the base to flash, and then up soon as it does.
Does that defense sound fun to you ? I.E. do you really want to just wait in tower for something that might or might not occur? Sure if you new a NOE mission was otw, but didn't know where it might be fun. But not where you don't even know if one is going to occur.

Hence what we are talking about is simply balance. I see where NOE raids can be fun, but we have to have a system where they do not become the path of least resistance for base capture.

HiTech

Major Biggles · « **Reply #2 on:** December 03, 2006, 09:32:45 AM »

i think HT got it really spot on with the new capture system, because all the base capture stuff still happens, but evryone takes part, and there's always a fight. perhaps though HT, you could make it so that there are several ways into the system?

so instead of just following the blue line one by one, perhaps it would be possible to make several routes into the base structure?

hubsonfire · « **Reply #3 on:** December 03, 2006, 01:35:51 PM »

Wiggles, ask and thou shalt receive. Check out the "Flayed1 do me a favor" thread.

JETBLST · « **Reply #4 on:** December 03, 2006, 04:35:07 PM »

Not sure how to reply to HiTech's reply to my post so here goes.

I can understand about impossible defense of NOE outnumbered raids. True. I agree. What most are saying though HiTech is the huge furball that goes on and on.

So then I am thinking our stategies are off?

Secondly you did not address the possibility of multi string advances?

I think we'd all appreciate more on this from ya!

KILLL:D

Bronk · « **Reply #5 on:** December 03, 2006, 05:23:32 PM »

From another thread.

Bronk

JETBLST · « **Reply #6 on:** December 03, 2006, 06:00:17 PM »

Well can you rig the game for every combination so everyone is having fun?

I dont think you can. War is hell.

KILLL:D

skycaptn · « **Reply #7 on:** December 04, 2006, 06:44:12 AM »

I think i have several ppl one my side when i say i hate the thought of the game being limited to doing things one certain way.. lets face it nothing like a good surprise attack to bring people together.. it takes good planning and numbers to pull off. The orange arena is just a numbers game.. whoever can throw the most airplanes, bombers, tanks, troops at a base wins. Its usually one giant furball (while i like furballs i dont like them ALL the time.) With little if no direction.

AND HTC if you think there is no value to a long distance penetration into a heavily fortified enemy city to take an enemy nations capital read about our latest venture into bagdad.. 24 hours in a LMT baby

68Hawk · « **Reply #8 on:** December 04, 2006, 06:51:52 PM »

Quote

To defend successfully at NOE raids, you need more than 1 player.

If one person could defend against a whole raid, that would be a balance issue itself. That's actually a big problem right now, that a whole raid, suprise or not, is upset by one person shooting one troop. 4 or 5 people launching at the last second can still ruin it, they just have to know what they're doing. If you are worried about people sneaking Vbases next to HQ from the other side of the map do this:

Make it so you just need a base within a sector or two. Theres no reason why the bases in 7,2 on the map posted here should not be able to take the bases in 6,2 and 6,1.

Put 20 troops in a C47. Not only is it more realistic, cuz those things have space for a lot more than 10 troops, but it would give a little surplus so that one troop loss doesn't screw up the efforts of 30 people. This is the biggest balance issue in the game, and causes far more problems that people sneaking bases. Besides, what military commander plans an engagement without expecting to lose anyone?

NOE raids require some coordination and discipline, and don't happen all the time. There's still ways to blow their cover, and it still takes time to get there. If you're really worried about the big maps being too sparsely populated, change back to one LW main again so we can forget about grossly missbalanced teams and the ENY restrictions that are the biggest offensive killer this game has. ENY doesn't ever help anything and should be disabled.

While I admire your creativity, I must say that this is very ill concieved and will greatly hurt your game. If you keep with what you've got in orange now you'll lose a lot of people, and the game will never recover.

Martyn · « **Reply #9 on:** December 06, 2006, 07:18:02 AM »

NOE raids to capture specific bases are incredible fun - if you're on the capturing side. If not I can see why other players become pretty upset.

However, NOE raids deep into enemy territory become less feasible the deeper they go as more ground based observation posts (or any post for that matter) are able to report the passage of an enemy as they fly by. Raids deep into enemy territory have to be routed to avoid areas of population and smaller installations to reduce the risk of 'en-route discovery'.

However deep raids are still great fun.

I suggest that fields around the HQ, and maybe major zone fields, have the minimum radar height reduced to zero feet - not because they have 'special' radar but as means of easily representing the likelyhood of discovery by other means, while at the same allowing planners the possibility of flying through the radar gaps.

Martyn · « **Reply #10 on:** December 06, 2006, 07:31:07 AM »

...another idea might be the use of 'radio interception'.

I'm not clear on any details but what if all sides were informed of when a mission starts? Not any further details, just a simple message like:
Rook Mission Started

It would pay the other sides to check their vulnerable assets (I like that phrase! lol) and check the 'dar bars' to see what's happening.

It could be tied into a new 'factory' asset - a 'Communications Centre'. Each side can only receive the Mission messages if they currently have a working Communications Centre - a bit like a Training Camp or Ammo Factory.

It'll add a little extra to the strategy play while at the same time giving each side the opportunity to respond (to some extent anyway) to sneak raids.

Airscrew · « **Reply #11 on:** December 06, 2006, 08:47:12 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by 68Hawk
Put 20 troops in a C47. Not only is it more realistic, cuz those things have space for a lot more than 10 troops, but it would give a little surplus so that one troop loss doesn't screw up the efforts of 30 people. This is the biggest balance issue in the game, and causes far more problems that people sneaking bases. Besides, what military commander plans an engagement without expecting to lose anyone?

68Hawk, bring more C47s. If you are planning to capture a base and you only take one C47 then you are just asking for failure. at a minimum you should take 2 C47s. when we run capture attempts on bases we bring at least 2 C47s, and have them come in at different vectors. The enemy might see one but the other one can still get it provided you have enough fighter cover to protect them. some of you guys get so hung up on getting the 10 or 12 perk points for dropping the troops and getting the capture message that you risk a sucessful capture because you dont bring enough C47s, or M3s. I've seen these capture attempts, 4-5 fighters, couple of bombers or jabos, and 1 C47. all it takes is one tree to ruin it. and if the tree or hills dont get ya, then the one fighter that broke the fighter cap will find ya and shoot down the C47. And then you have to set around and cap the field while you wait 10 minutes for another C47 to be brought in. And then people start running out of ammo, gas, or the buildings start poping up.

when I'm defending either I'll break out of the cap or up from a nearby field and fly towards the most likely spot I think the goon is coming from which is usually the same direction most of the attackers came from because some of you have no imagination. Plus no one stays and provides cover for the goon, everybody wants to be in on the vultching.

68Hawk · « **Reply #12 on:** December 07, 2006, 07:53:29 PM »

yeah Airscrew, we always have to bring more goons. I don't have any problem with being forced into this tactic in case someone shoots down the other goon, but having to have a whole other one in case someone gets ONE of the troops is what really gets me. Failing to capture because ONE building is still up is also frustrating, but an understandable part of our current capture method.

Martyn, the idea of radio intercepts is interesting. Forcing radio silence on NOE missions would add an interesting factor, but it probably wouldn't work out in any way beneficial to the game.

Lately, the way things have been going with spies on both sides, a NOE mission that actually forms as a mission has a good chance of being outed before it even takes off.

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE TAKE THE DAMN LINES AWAY!

Martyn · « **Reply #13 on:** December 08, 2006, 03:25:01 AM »

If spys are such a problem - then why do we get so many people whinging about sneak raids and sneak takes?

OOZ662 · « **Reply #14 on:** December 08, 2006, 05:23:23 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by 68Hawk
Put 20 troops in a C47. Not only is it more realistic, cuz those things have space for a lot more than 10 troops, but it would give a little surplus so that one troop loss doesn't screw up the efforts of 30 people. This is the biggest balance issue in the game, and causes far more problems that people sneaking bases. Besides, what military commander plans an engagement without expecting to lose anyone?

HT has pretty much stated that he'll put as many troops as you want in the C-47s, but you'll always need exactly 1 C-47 to take the base. Catch my drift?

Not sure about you, but having 28 (real number of troops a C47 held, I think) troops hanging in chutes or running, hence 2.8x the amount of time needed for troops to get in and 2.8x the opportunity to kill one and screw up the raid wouldn't be worth it in any respect.