Author Topic: New toys!!! But......  (Read 11564 times)

Offline Krusty

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 26745
New toys!!! But......
« Reply #165 on: February 25, 2008, 03:13:22 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Tilt
I suppose if strat had its own peculiar radar?


now THAT is an interesting idea!

Offline LYNX

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2263
New toys!!! But......
« Reply #166 on: February 25, 2008, 03:43:38 PM »
Not wishing to cause months of recoding I think the strat system could be tweaked with the arena settings thingymajig....guys! please read the whole post before jumping off at the deep end.

Leave field strat hardness as is with the exception of troop and fuel cells.  Make them harder to a minimum of 500Lbs worth of damage.  Leave resupply amounts as is IE 8 boxes of sups for a fully porked field.  Lengthen strat down time by a 1/4 to a 1/3 again.  However, make strat factories and Cities harder.  Instead of each building being destroyed by a 250 Lb bomb make it 500Lb.  Remember bombing strat factories alone won't accomplish anything down time wise without actually destroying the corresponding target at the field level.

This has a 2 fold effect.  The defender knows he's in for a hard time and may wish to defend against it.  Either killing the strat destroyer or field porkers.  Elements of combat either way.  The attacker gets something for their effort.

My own sense of fair play would implement hardening of factories for a fully functioning strat system.  Using my own abilities in bombers as a guide line, above average on a good day.  I can take any strat factory below 50% easily with 3 passes and Cities are even easier.  However, using HTC's guidelines, without coding there is no way to meet this criteria other than hardening.
Quote
unless you make sure there is a way it can be defend with out standing guard


Now the dreaded "fuel" strat topic.  I'll jump straight in at the deep end. You can guess whats coming I bet.  That's right folks........50%.  Once those fuel cells are destroyed there's no drop tanks and only 50% fuel.  Once the fuel factory is severely damaged it's even longer to regain unless manually resupplied.  Blown ya stack at the very thought?  Calm down a bit lads...think about it a minute.  It wouldn't be and the fuel burn isn't as bad as AH1.  Even LA7's could still function as base defence within this remit.
The same would go for eliminating some plane types it would give one side an advantage in the actual fight , not the war game.

Look at this fuel proposition objectively.  Large fields have 8 fuel cells. medium have 5 and small have 4.  The vulnerable fields to fuel porking are only the small fields.  Hence suggesting hardening of that particular strat to 500Lbs worth of damage.  Even a small field is going to take a considerable amount of effort to disable fuel wise.  As a defender it virtually eliminates the straffer suicider.   Fuel porkers would have to bring ords or a pack of friends or be good in bombers.  However they do it isn't going to stop the defending team using an adjacent field which may well be a medium or large field.  A field impractical to be fuel porked.

The other side to that coin is if the fuel is porked and the field captured the new owners would have to resupply before they could roll either the hoard or co-ordinated attack depending how you view it:D  Those that were evicted would get breathing space so's to speak. Which I feel fits this guideline.
Any strat design must not have a steam roller effect that once a threshold is crossed , the defending side becomes hopeless.

HQ is an easy one.  I would leave damage effect and resupply criteria as is but make it weaker.  Make it that 1 set of Lancaster's could knock out HQ with 14 big ones....42k's worth.

Anyways lads my idea isn't about killing the fight at the hanger banging level.  Neither is it about beating the watermelon outta ya just for the giggle.  It's about bring the fight up into the air over strat factories.  Hopefully adding another area of conflict for those that want to participate.

As for actually recoding the strat system .....the skies the limit if the man wants to go that far.

Here endeth my dissertation for an Aces High diploma :D
« Last Edit: February 25, 2008, 03:56:16 PM by LYNX »

Offline Krusty

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 26745
New toys!!! But......
« Reply #167 on: February 25, 2008, 03:55:58 PM »
I don't like the idea of hardening strat to 500lbs because 500lbs is a HUGE bomb. sure we have 1k but that's the extraodinarily large bomb. 500lbs is a massive blast. In fact it's TOO large nowadays and modern attack jets are carrying smaller bombs in places like Iraq and Afghanistan because the 500lb bombs pack too much destructive power to take out a single target, destroying buildings around it as well. The emphasis is shifting to 250lb bombs, and more of them.


I don't think it's logical to assume that a basic unhardeneld building (house or warehouse) would stand up to a 250lb, let alone 500lb.


Building off of your idea, I like 500lbs for certain items on the field. I don't think fuel should be 50% because several planes that will last you until your WEP runs out then you're done. I do like the idea of using this on ord and troops and fuel, though. I'd like to see troops reduced to previous levels, but require 500lbs to take out.

THAT would be interesting. No more single-plane porking. Requires specific jabo activity to kill.

Offline Simaril

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5149
New toys!!! But......
« Reply #168 on: February 25, 2008, 04:06:04 PM »
Nicely reasoned, Lynx. Makes sense, and it might work the way we'd hope -- to increase the value of strat work.

It's such a complicated issue, though, that at least for me it's going to take some time to think things through some more. The AH community is big enough, devious enough, and communicates well enough that you can guarantee any weak spot in the system will be found and exploited in short order.



I don't have strong feelings about fuel porkage, as long as it doesnt prevent good combat. At first blush I'm a little concerned that the 50% idea might deprive overwhelmed defenders of the La7 and Spit XVI. They're hated, but they are the best hope at equalizing stuations where the enemy are swarming and you need acceleration, firepower, and the best survivability you can get.  But that's just my first reaction.


Krusty:

Don't fall into the trap of confusing game balancing with simulation accuracy. Strats on bases and in their own "factories" are NOT simulated airfield objects, they are icons for game functions. What size bomb it takes to kill a hangar in real life is completely irrelevant in this setting -- all that matters is that game effects are balanced
« Last Edit: February 25, 2008, 04:10:38 PM by Simaril »
Maturity is knowing that I've been an idiot in the past.
Wisdom is realizing I will be an idiot in the future.
Common sense is trying to not be an idiot right now

"Social Fads are for sheeple." - Meatwad

Offline LYNX

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2263
New toys!!! But......
« Reply #169 on: February 25, 2008, 04:31:56 PM »
Krusty I get what your saying about factory building hardness but without recoding there's no way of warning that the factory is about to be attacked, other than what we already have.  The suggestion of making buildings harder was to make it so that 1 sets of bombers needed 2 trips. Which would stagger the damage effect and shorten overall down time.  Or 2 sets of bombers were needed per factory.  That would maybe increase the dar bar in that sector or as it passed behinds the lines.  I think the community would soon adapt to the bar signal creating the guard HTC wrote about.

My example was just using the present day arena settings.  Saving HTC and co months of work.

Offline ridley1

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 677
New toys!!! But......
« Reply #170 on: February 25, 2008, 05:41:44 PM »
quick thought on the Bomber radar.....bombers (or maybe formations) are shown as x's

Offline Tilt

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7358
      • FullTilt
New toys!!! But......
« Reply #171 on: February 25, 2008, 05:47:57 PM »
If fuel rationing was measured by gallons per engine instead of % per tank then the fuel attrition could be used right down the scale from

125% = 1000 gallons per engine
100% = 500 gallons per engine
75% = 375 gallons per engine
50% = 250 gallons per engine
25% = 125 gallons per engine
0% = 62 gallons per engine

if you do the maths you will note that besides being sensible rationing it makes sense re ac ranges.
Ludere Vincere

Offline blkmgc

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 940
New toys!!! But......
« Reply #172 on: February 25, 2008, 06:09:24 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Krusty
I wonder if Hitech would entertain the idea of enabling full dot dar for all cons over 5k, no matter where they are on the map?

I wonder if that would change gameplay a little? Change the way folks steamroll across a map and whatnot.


Warbirds did that with their MA. Now it has about 30 regulars a night.

I like some of your ideas of bomber detection, and would agree with some of them as long as they either limit the 163's/262's or double or triple the perks for them. As it is now , the nearest airfield near the HQ looks like Laguardia at rush hour with 163's when bombers are near, and they are almost indefensible.

WE dont mind being flying targets,ita part of the job I guess. I just dont see the need to spoon feed bomber kils to fighter pilots seeing how there is 3 kinds of radar( radar, bardar, and flashing fields) already in the game.
Debdenboys.comAdministrator

Offline TwentyFo

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1006
New toys!!! But......
« Reply #173 on: February 25, 2008, 06:19:21 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by ghi
imop, the game needs few changes to push players in  more organized massive raids/fights , more realistic at high alt :ecouraje players to attack and defend the most valuable strategic target: the HQ:

--bring back the 4 steps progressive damage model for HQ, like in AH1, even if is not total destroyed, the bomber pilot gets something, not only 30mm shells, for the long flight and bombing skills, maybe more perks also

---HQ downtime, at least 30 min without resup option, now the HQ is resuped before the bombers get back to base

-- i would go to a formula , shortcut to Victory,where even the war is lost and map reset if the HQ and City is destroyed, like in chess, atack the king,you can have all the toys on the table but still get checkmate: If Hitler would have been killed , i'm sure WW2 would have finished early: This 40% of the both enemy bases win/reset model, makes the game inactive and boring with same map for weeks.


I agree.

We all play the game for different reasons. We have the furballers, base capturers, gv'ers, and milkers. We have all these different ways to play the same game. It is almost impossible to keep everyone happy. These different parts of the game have created various 'sub-cultures' within AH.
XO ***THE LYNCHMOB***

Offline TwentyFo

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1006
New toys!!! But......
« Reply #174 on: February 25, 2008, 06:21:47 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by blkmgc
I like some of your ideas of bomber detection, and would agree with some of them as long as they either limit the 163's/262's or double or triple the perks for them. As it is now , the nearest airfield near the HQ looks like Laguardia at rush hour with 163's when bombers are near, and they are almost indefensible.
 


Only consitent successful way of taking down HQ in MA these days are NOE Lancs.
XO ***THE LYNCHMOB***

Offline Tilt

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7358
      • FullTilt
New toys!!! But......
« Reply #175 on: February 25, 2008, 06:24:56 PM »
If triggered warning ranges could be set to identify the type of warning.....

Bomber/fighter/gv/boat

Perhaps a letter B or and F or and V at the flashing base / factory /city

I suppose base flash warning could be extended for bombers well beyond the radar range. This would give early warning allowing ac to scramble for alt even if they did not know the actual direction of ingress until the bombers crossed the radar boundry.

Adding radar to strat seems to make sense to..it would have happened.

Then the defence mechanism is in place rather than a guard mechanism.
Then the  effectiveness of strat can be brought more intrinsically into gameplay.
« Last Edit: February 25, 2008, 06:28:55 PM by Tilt »
Ludere Vincere

Offline kj714

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 874
New toys!!! But......
« Reply #176 on: February 25, 2008, 07:17:27 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by hitech
A few thoughts.

First do not confuse the words guard, and defend. People do not mind defending once they are attacked. But most people do not wish to stand guard duty.  


Yep, this is proved every night in the v-base shuffle. People will spawn camp for hours but give back a v-base in 10 minutes.

Offline Flayed1

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1091
New toys!!! But......
« Reply #177 on: February 26, 2008, 01:11:16 AM »
I see a few posts of people thinking porking to 50% fuel would be bad for LA defenders ata base and I really dont see why.  I up LA-5's on ocation with 50% gas to defend a base and can usually get several kills befor my fuel is close to being out... I cant speak for LA-7's because I usually don't fly them but I can't imagine them being a lot different.....

  I think 50% porkage is a nice middle ground compaierd to what it was and what it is now. (utterly useless strat object in game)
From the ashes of the old we rise to fly again. Behold The Phoenix Wing!

Offline SD67

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3218
New toys!!! But......
« Reply #178 on: February 26, 2008, 01:39:19 AM »
I use La's with 25% for base defence quite a bit since
a) I'll never be far away from the field anyway,
b) they grab alt quicker and turn faster, as long as you keep off the WEP they last long enough to do the job, and
c) In a base defence vulch-fest I'm usually dead well before I've burned through 1/4 of the tank :lol
The other thing about base defence is that the fighter hangars are usually down after the 3rd or 4th sortie so Il2's are the go and they last for ages on 25% fuel.
So, sorry but I don't buy the base defence argument for a second.
The buff guys won't bat an eyelid since most of them will fly around the map on 25% fuel so the only whines I can see would be from furballers who don't want to fly from the next base across.
Pork to 25% and set fuel burn to 1:1 and level the strat playing field.:aok
9GIAP VVS RKKA
You're under arrest for violation of the Government knows best act!
Fabricati diem, punc
Absinthe makes the Tart grow fonder

Offline LYNX

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2263
New toys!!! But......
« Reply #179 on: February 26, 2008, 04:39:40 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Simaril
Nicely reasoned, Lynx. Makes sense, and it might work the way we'd hope -- to increase the value of strat work.

It's such a complicated issue, though, that at least for me it's going to take some time to think things through some more. The AH community is big enough, devious enough, and communicates well enough that you can guarantee any weak spot in the system will be found and exploited in short order.

I don't have strong feelings about fuel porkage, as long as it doesn't prevent good combat. At first blush I'm a little concerned that the 50% idea might deprive overwhelmed defenders of the La7 and Spit XVI. They're hated, but they are the best hope at equalizing situations where the enemy are swarming and you need acceleration, firepower, and the best survivability you can get.  But that's just my first reaction.

 


HTC wouldn't implement fuel porking if it eroded game play.  I agree it's a complicated issue and he's the man with the stats, experience and knowledge to think it through....objectively.

As for the deviousness of the community or just plain mean spiritedness of certain individuals I fully understand the complexity of re-introducing fuel porking.  Worse case scenario would be a co-ordinated bomber attack by like minded individuals on field fuels cells along an entire front.  I'm 100% sure this would happen in the first week of fuel porking being re-introduced.  Folk want to experiment to see if it actually works and what effect it has.  Once the complexity of this is realised by players, fuel porking would probable become localised to the conflict area.  Namely 2 or 3 fields on given parts of the map....................
gggrrrr it's at this point I realised it's not going to work

I was going to argue the point for fuel pork to 50%.  Thinking that hardened cells would go some way towards stopping the gamey suicider straffer porker.  

All it's going to take is 1 mean spirited expert bomber pilot at a gazillion feet to pork the fight in a localized area.  The 2 or 3 fields I started to write about then realisation dawned.  We are infested with "tossers".  One individual would make it his life time ambission to pork pork pork fuel.  Either through mean spiritedness or or the deluded idea he was helping to "win the war"....... tosser.

Guess I've been a little naive really.  Bet HTC is going :rofl ..."welcome to my world bastige".

Last word on fuel strats and 50% porking in my defence would have to be to make the fuel cells as hard as hangers......sorry for waisting folks time.
« Last Edit: February 26, 2008, 04:49:16 AM by LYNX »