thinking strat

[pluck]

I'm really curious, as a former (4 years+ago strater), to a current furballer....

I just don't get it anymore.  Maybe I'm just getting old.  But I remember clearly back in preverbal day, when I was a tool shedder, people making missions to attack bases that were causing "issues."  I also remeber, counter attacks being launched against bases in which the enemy had been beaten back. 

Maybe it was just me, but during a shocking incident today, where I somehow found myself bringing troops into a town, I realized how different things seem to be... 

First of all, it seemed odd, that with such little actually going on in the arena, that 2, that right, 2 tanks, were somehow making capturing the base difficult.  Don't get me wrong, we still captured the base, but really, only because, 2 tanks failed to see troops running right in front of them, into the base.

For some odd reason, I seem to remember that after one base was attacked, and that attacked squashed....the squasher, attempted to take the squashee's base.  I mean, it seems like the logical thing to do right.. They attack you, you beat the pulp outta them, then take their base for their insolence.  I've seen this many times to date, but tongiht just seemed (for the reason above) to emphasize the issue.  flying on a island, not completely controlled, entered battle with many friendly's defending a base against many foes.  foes utterly defeated, rest of team lands, packs up, and just goes mia.  A few of us, push the attack to the attackers base, kill their ack, all planes down, and where are the base takers?.....making a mission to some unrelated field, in a completely different area, with no planes anywhere in sight.

Now, I'm far from a strat guy, but it our fates our similar; strat guys need targes, and so do furballers:)  Lately this is the norm...

1) if there is no vulching, there is no support to take base

2) if base is attacked, there is no counter attack.  (most bothersome to me), in that, I would think that taking another person's field in retaliation for attempting to take your field, is the right thing to do.

3) missions are made to go to fields were there is no activity, what so ever.

4) if your are beaten, go someplace where the enemy is not.

In many ways, I just feel like this game is losing it's character.  Instead of trading the timeless "we beat you"  "you beat us" idea....we are moving to, "you had no chance" "you didn't see us coming" mentality.  It seems it is just like "fine take this base, while you are busy, we'll take this other base."  It's not just bases, it seems this idea is more frequently seen during combat as well.  What makes squad compete?  Maybe just nostalgia, but I remember squads like MAW and the AK's (just 2 of many).  I remember seeing them show up, and yes, many toolsheds would go down, but there would be a fight...and if you didn't defeat them and strike back, your bases (not the plural) would go bye bye...

I'm not posting this to try to discourage any type of gameplay, as I realize people enjoy different styles.  I am wondering, if it is just me, if the community is changing, and why groups spend so much time trying to avoid each other.  I somehow feel competion is dying in this game.  just my pov, interested in others

                         

[Zazen13]

1) if there is no vulching, there is no support to take base

2) if base is attacked, there is no counter attack.  (most bothersome to me), in that, I would think that taking another person's field in retaliation for attempting to take your field, is the right thing to do.

3) missions are made to go to fields were there is no activity, what so ever.

4) if your are beaten, go someplace where the enemy is not.

In many ways, I just feel like this game is losing it's character.  Instead of trading the timeless "we beat you"  "you beat us" idea....we are moving to, "you had no chance" "you didn't see us coming" mentality.  It seems it is just like "fine take this base, while you are busy, we'll take this other base."  It's not just bases, it seems this idea is more frequently seen during combat as well.  What makes squad compete?  Maybe just nostalgia, but I remember squads like MAW and the AK's (just 2 of many).  I remember seeing them show up, and yes, many toolsheds would go down, but there would be a fight...and if you didn't defeat them and strike back, your bases (not the plural) would go bye bye...


                         

It's not you, its people adapting to the HUGE maps and the subsequent fallout from that in terms of gameplay. The most efficient way to "win the war" is to exploit the myriad "paths of least resistance" offered by the 200+ fields of HUGE maps. Players who have been playing less than 3 years really have no idea what they are missing and what has been lost so just fall in line, goosestepping with the trend toward "non-fighting". They understandably assume the "non-fighting" methodology behind milk-hording is the only way to play, they are ambivilous to the any other approach for the most part.

With the exception of Pizza Map (AKDesert), HUGE maps are relatively new to AH. They went from being a singularly rare oddity to being the norm. It just took people a while to adapt to an environment with a 1:1 player to field ratio from an environment with a 5:1 player to field ratio..I covered this assertion pretty thoroughly in this post here...

Until the advent of HUGE maps and subsequently split LW arenas it was imperative to defend every base to the last or you would quickly find yourself circling the wagons at your HQ field. This is no longer true, especially on the HUGE maps. More often than not there are more fields than there are players in the arena, which I personally find completely ridiculous.

It boils down to a simple matter of mathematics and population density...Your average HUGE map has 200+ fields, your average small map has 40. If you populate both maps equally with 200 people, which tends to be about the average in the most populous of the two arenas over a 24 hour period, you get vastly different ratios of players to fields. Do not underestimate the impact this has on gameplay. There is a gigantic difference between a 1 to 1 ratio of players to fields and a 5 to 1 ratio.

The big reason horde-milking has become the staple of geographic domination is a direct result of these key ratios. Each base on a map with 40 fields is 5 times as important as a base on a map with 200 fields, therefore it logically deserves 5 times the attention and care from its owner and rightfully so. Conversely, because bases on large maps are individually almost insignificant a team bent on geographic domination must take a large number of them in rapid succession in order to have any real strategic impact on the enemy's position in terms of a reset. This is the basic recipe and reason for the predominance of milk-hording today.

On small maps the reverse is true from the perspective of defense. Losing just 5 fields on a small map could effectively cripple a country's position in terms of reset conditions and potentially put it's HQ at risk. So, it is critical to defend and hold each and every field with the utmost ferocity. Likewise, on a small map, the aggressors do not have "paths of least resistance" to fall back on if an attack on one field fails, therefore they must continue to press the attack with equal tenacity.

In my personal opinion, HUGE maps, followed by split LW arenas, in lowering population density, are largely to blame for the game's recession from its focus on actual air combat in the last few years.

[pluck]

aye, you did zazen, forgive me if I didn't read completely the first time:) 

[Zazen13]

aye, you did zazen, forgive me if I didn't read completely the first time:) 

No problem, you brought up some good anecdotal evidence of the truth of it.

[Mak333]

I agree with Zazen.  HiTech's choice for the extremely large maps have been changing the gameplay quite a bit.  Back in AH1, bases meant more than just a territory.  They meant planes, fuel, ordnance,  supplies, troops, territory, landing zones, takeoff zones, friendly fly zones etc etc.  With all of these new large maps, a base is now only a number and has no other meaning.  Why?  Because there is another friendly base right next to it, practically the same distance away with everything at 100%.  Remember when we could take out fuel down to 25%?  Being able to limit those gas guzzling la7s and 109s?  That's not the case anymore either.  The game has turned from a strategic chess match to a furball frenzy with 100 bases to each country.  There is no more point in taking bases, because the only hindrance for the enemy is a lesser percentage of bases they have until they get knocked out.

[Zazen13]

I agree with Zazen.  HiTech's choice for the extremely large maps have been changing the gameplay quite a bit.  Back in AH1, bases meant more than just a territory.  They meant planes, fuel, ordnance,  supplies, troops, territory, landing zones, takeoff zones, friendly fly zones etc etc.  With all of these new large maps, a base is now only a number and has no other meaning.  Why?  Because there is another friendly base right next to it, practically the same distance away with everything at 100%.  Remember when we could take out fuel down to 25%?  Being able to limit those gas guzzling la7s and 109s?  That's not the case anymore either.  The game has turned from a strategic chess match to a furball frenzy with 100 bases to each country.  There is no more point in taking bases, because the only hindrance for the enemy is a lesser percentage of bases they have until they get knocked out.

Interesting perspective. You brought up some good reasons why players bent on "winning the war" must resort to overwhelming application of force exclusively upon undefended fields to maximize their captures per unit time. If they attempted to "win the war" while actually fighting for bases that already had an established Alt/E laden defense, we'd all be worm dirt before they got halfway there on a HUGE map with 200+ fields.

[RUSH2112]

i really want to get aces high can someone tell me how much it costs my email is nwatkins3@yahoo.com. thanks

[fudgums]

  15 dollars man come on

[iWalrus]

You guys are absolutely right. I've been wondering why I can't find as many exciting battles as I used to, and why I haven't been having as much fun with the game as I did a couple years ago. This "path of least resistance" idea seems to be the cause, and, as stated, the inevitable result of the large maps and decreased population density.

I don't see any point of sitting at the computer for an hour straight, not flying, while desperately scanning the map for a fight. I don't enjoy attacking undefended fields. I am bored with the game. It would be silly for me to continue torturing myself. As I am typing this, I am deleting my account.

Thank you zazen and pluck.

[PFactorDave]

You know, this has the potential to be an interesting thread.

I'm actually starting to see how the ultra large maps are detrimental to both the "base capture" and the "furballer" player sets.

Very intersting.

This merits further exploration, in my opinion.

[uptown]

Well everyone complained about the small maps and this is the result. Now you have to fight a horde for 15 or 20 minutes and then run clear across the map to stop 2 guys in a wirbel and M3 from taking a Vbase in the back woods. I used to enjoy taking bases, but I don't see the point now. I haven't seen anyone win a map in 6 months at least.
I've seen guys hover over their own field for hours never leaving the dar ring, and all the while bombers and GVs roll in for the attack. They don't even attempt to take out the enemys ord, troops or even the VH. And worse yet they don't even resupply their own bases. They just move to another field thats all up.
The big maps are bug ridden, disco causing, cluster pucks with no objective except to kill and be killed. So I'll just pretty much furball and hope things change for the better.

[Mak333]

Well everyone complained about the small maps and this is the result. Now you have to fight a horde for 15 or 20 minutes and then run clear across the map to stop 2 guys in a wirbel and M3 from taking a Vbase in the back woods. I used to enjoy taking bases, but I don't see the point now. I haven't seen anyone win a map in 6 months at least.
I've seen guys hover over their own field for hours never leaving the dar ring, and all the while bombers and GVs roll in for the attack. They don't even attempt to take out the enemys ord, troops or even the VH. And worse yet they don't even resupply their own bases. They just move to another field thats all up.
The big maps are bug ridden, disco causing, cluster pucks with no objective except to kill and be killed. So I'll just pretty much furball and hope things change for the better.

I don't know if I have heard many people complaining about small maps back in AH1 and the beginning of AH2?  Sometimes the same small maps got old yes, and Pizza was a nice change.  But to have a map with 200+ bases every single reset is ridiculous.

[Zazen13]

This merits further exploration, in my opinion.

Ok, allow me to paint this picture with a different brush. On a small map with 40'ish fields it is possible, especially during prime-time, to both defend all of your fields reasonably well and mount significant attacks against similarly defended enemy fields. The end result is, from the perspective of "winning the war", that the country that fights best defensively and offensively tends to be rewarded with the real estate and ultimately the reset. There is almost never the opportunity to mount an attack of overwhelming force against an undefended field and be rewarded with real estate without having to actually fight for it in any significant way. Attackers must always face an established and significant defense. It is possible to be able to mount a persistant defence at 100% of your front-line bases simultaneously as there are only going to be 10 or less of them for each team.

On a HUGE map, even during prime-time, it is totally impossible to defend even a small fraction of your bases simultaneously. The end result of this, from the perspective of "winning the war", is that the country that goes out of their way to NOT fight, that goes after all those indefensible fields is rewarded with the real estate and ultimately the reset. HUGE maps actually punish teams that seek to perpetuate a static engagement even if the end result is the ultimate capture of the enemy's field, it simply takes too long to fight for fields in this fashion to achieve any kind of long-term strategic geographical impact. In terms of defense on a HUGE map it is only possible to adequately defend perhaps 5-10% of your front-line fields simultaneously as there are 30-50 of them total. This makes mounting reactionary defense against an enemy determined to bring overwhelming force to previously vacant fields and not press the attack if repelled intially virtually pointless. Defense becomes an exercise of chasing the milk-hordes all over the map in wack-a-mole fashion.

So, what this really boils down to is this...

Small maps reward those that win protracted fights for fields.
HUGE maps reward those who do everything possible to avoid protracted fighting for fields.

[Zazen13]

I don't know if I have heard many people complaining about small maps back in AH1 and the beginning of AH2?  Sometimes the same small maps got old yes, and Pizza was a nice change.  But to have a map with 200+ bases every single reset is ridiculous.

I don't remember hearing anyone complain about the original small maps because they had fewer bases. Some weren't people's favorites due to various personal preferences, but it certainly wasn't because they had a manageable number of fields.

[PFactorDave]

Ok, allow me to paint this picture with a different brush. On a small map with 40'ish fields it is possible, especially during prime-time, to both defend all of your fields reasonably well and mount significant attacks against similarly defended enemy fields. The end result is, from the perspective of "winning the war", that the country that fights best defensively and offensively tends to be rewarded with the real estate and ultimately the reset. There is almost never the opportunity to mount an attack of overwhelming force against an undefended field and be rewarded with real estate without having to actually fight for it in any significant way. Attackers must always face an established and significant defense. It is possible to be able to mount a persistant defence at 100% of your front-line bases simultaneously as there are only going to be 10 or less of them for each team.

On a HUGE map, even during prime-time, it is totally impossible to defend even a small fraction of your bases simultaneously. The end result of this, from the perspective of "winning the war", is that the country that goes out of their way to NOT fight, that goes after all those indefensible fields is rewarded with the real estate and ultimately the reset. HUGE maps actually punish teams that seek to perpetuate a static engagement even if the end result is the ultimate capture of the enemy's field, it simply takes too long to fight for fields in this fashion to achieve any kind of long-term strategic geographical impact. In terms of defense on a HUGE map it is only possible to adequately defend perhaps 5-10% of your front-line fields simultaneously as there are 30-50 of them total. This makes mounting reactionary defense against an enemy determined to bring overwhelming force to previously vacant fields and not press the attack if repelled intially virtually pointless. Defense becomes an exercise of chasing the milk-hordes all over the map in wack-a-mole fashion.

So, what this really boils down to is this...

Small maps reward those that win protracted fights for fields.
HUGE maps reward those who do everything possible to avoid protracted fighting for fields.

I really believe that this deserves serious consideration by HTC.  Sure, I'm pretty new around here, but what Zazen is saying both makes sense and is readily visible during regular play. 

Actually, I like joining base capture missions in the hopes that a furball will result.  I really enjoy taking a base after a prolonged fight.