Zone system.

[Easyscor]

Doing away with the zone system is no different then having a single zone for each country, and you can have multiple factories of the same type in each of those country's zones now.


What is the benefit to doing away with the current zone system since the same thing can be accomplished now?


Will this free up resources for another game addition?

[Baumer]

To me the most difficult aspect of a discussion like this, is coming up with a proposal that will work to achieve the goal (of making strat targets more important) while balancing the playability over a wide range of arena population. From my perspective, a main arena can vary in population from 20 players to 700 players, so what might work in the Mid War arena (with 50 players) has to work with Late War Titanic Tuesday (with 700+) as well. I think a hybrid "stepped country resource" (like other have mentioned) might work the best to deal with the large variation in players between the peaks and the "quiet" times.

Sorry for the crayon like appearance of this, I just drew it up in paint very quickly.



But I think something like this would be interesting. Have the strats broken down so that the closer they are to the HQ the more resources they produce. I also think that each strat would need an increase in the number of objects as you get closer to the HQ. That way the bigger impact (of a strat deep behind the front lines) is balanced by more objects to reduce it's capacity (ie 2 guy's sneaking in NOE are not going to have a significant impact).

[Ack-Ack]

I was debating between this, and putting them all in the back / HQ area of the country.

HiTech

With the AI that has been developed, would it be possible to have drone supply flights in addition to the current drone supply system?  To prevent people using the drone flights to pad their score, make it so they don't count towards kills or score / rank.


ack-ack

[Mister Fork]

HT - I agree that the current zone system needs to be scrapped.  If we are going back to a regular strategic system, can we perhaps enhance it?

For example, remember in Air Warriors that there were 'Spitfire Factors' and if you took down that factory for a country, it would make them unavailable? (or was that Warbirds).  Anyhoo, how about some 'old-school' strat?  Aircraft specific factories - or maybe country specific factories - but make them hardened like a HQ.  I.e. American Bomber, German Bomber, American Fighter, British Fighter factories.  

Or
Rook Bomber Factories, Rook Fighter factories. Rook Tank factories.  If you take them out, you remove that sides ability to use them for x time or you reduce the # of active aircraft allowed per country. I.e. take down the main fighter factory, only 50% of aircraft can be flown in fighters.

Hitech - I do like Baumer's chart for impact % - question is, how do you envision the strategic object damage to impact gameplay that will enhance the war-like environment?

[Ack-Ack]

Gents, capture-able strat in the sense you wish will not happen. If you think that capturing strat would then permanently make the other counties rebuilds 75% less or what ever, you have just set up a steam roll condition.

I.E. Each capture makes it harder and harder for a country to defend. While this is how the world works, it does not make for good game play.

HiTech

If a local factory/depot is captured but the base it supplies is not, then the captured strat wouldn't supply that base and disrupt the bases supply line for other supplies until it is recaptured.  If the base is also captured along with the local factory/depot then the locat strat will supply the base.  If the local strat base is damaged or destroyed while captured the only way it can be restored is if supplies are taken in manually or the next tier factory/depot that supplies the local strat bases is captured.  Capturing won't cause the repair times to speed up, just enable supplies if the base is captured or deny supplies to the enemy base.


ack-ack

[moot]

While we're at it, the supply lines could use some extra relevence.  As it is, they're ignored.  Maybe make it so that supply hangars are feeding on a supply pool that's replenished by the HQ-area City.  This is no different from what we have now (strats rebuild directly proportional to City health), except that you could (and would have to, to make your attack on the strat effective) intercept the supply convoys. 
The problem with this, using the current supply convoy frequency, is that you would have to stick around for a relatively very long time to effectively suppress rebuilding of the strat.  So, what if the supply line sent a convoy in one or two bursts within a time frame that fits the attack's "normal" duration?  Say within 15min of damage.   If all convoys are intercepted, the supply hangar wouldn't send more convoys till the City had replenished it and the strat wouldn't rebuild in the mean time.

Alternatively, bridges could be the focal point of denying strat rebuilding, instead of the City-supplied supply hangar scheme.

[hitech]

HiTech,

I respectfully disagree on this being only a negative thing, and actually think it has the capability to make defending more palatable at times (and will concede it will also make it tougher, it's a give/take relationship). Here's my thinking... (again using my 4/40 example).

If bish lose 5 fields, but keep their 4 strats, each strat would resupply at GREATER than 100% (in this case : 114% efficiency). The attacking country would resupply at a SLOWER pace (88% efficiency) because of their lower strat/field ratio. Therefore attacks by the defending country would actually be MORE effective than standard. If the attacking country took a strat, that still leaves the defending country at 86% efficiency, while the attacking country now with 5 strats and 45 fields would be at 112% effeciency. Yes, it would make the attacker have the advantage at this point, but as it stands with zone supplies, wouldn't the zone fields be more affected than 86% efficiency? Plus, the option would still exist to fly supplies in from other airfields, as we do now, as well as likely that strategic target is still surrounded by the defender's airbases, making re-taking it easier than defending it.

My actual math equation is as follows... very simple :
#Strats x 10 (or 15 or whatever you want to use) / #airfields.

Just wanted to throw the concept out there to think about, that's all. 

But people would capture the strat first, and then put the country in a hole that they now have less to work with but have to do more with it, hence the steam roller.

HiTech

[Easyscor]

We really can't have it both ways.

Either bombing strat is more effective, and (somewhat) cripples a country until they resupply, OR it's a non issue that doesn't attract bombing missions. I see the problem of putting a country in a hole, but I don't see a way around it.

Oop, I'm not advocating strat capture.

[hitech]

2 Concepts to remember.


1. This is not a stratigic game, and it's purpose is not strategic. The lesson I have learned is that more complexity, while sounding great, tends to make it used less. I can tell just from reading now, people do not now understand how the zone system works, because they believe the country system is the same as 3 zones, and it is not. Hence Im looking for less complexity.

2. If a system creates a steam roller, then it will create crappy game play.

HiTech

[hitech]

We really can't have it both ways.

Either bombing strat is more effective, and (somewhat) cripples a country until they resupply, OR it's a non issue that doesn't attract bombing missions. I see the problem of putting a country in a hole, but I don't see a way around it.

Oop, I'm not advocating strat capture.

Easycore, the difference is, if nothing else is done, the country will be back out of the hole soon. This is not a steam roller, but a temporary advantage. With capturing strat, they need to do something to get it back, but they now have less to work with to get it back. And it will never change unlike they temporary advantage.

Hitech

[Reaper90]

  on the switch. Sounds good.

[Easyscor]

Agreed, that's why I said I'm not advocating strat capture, but maybe you were responding while I plugged that in (it didn't show as an edit, sorry).

[hammer]

I think the real problem with strats is there is no perceived advantage to hitting them. In the MA as it currently stands, there is no tangible result gained by utilizing the long term effects that the current strat system has. Most of the base takers will move on to a different base if resistance is too heavy at their first target. Their goal is to take bases as quickly as possible. A slightly longer down time for the hangars or the ack has no real effect for the attacker whose main tactic is the blitz, particularly when the same result can be accomplished more easily by a couple of people with cannon armed fighters hitting resources at the target itself.

If you want strat targets to be attacked and defended, they have to be worth attacking and defending. The results of the attack has to be valuable to the attacker. A successful attack has to be detrimental to the defender. In other words, the outcome has to important to both sides. And all of this has to be done in a way that doesn't unbalance game play for the arena. A bit of extra time on a commodity has little to no value in the current game play dynamics. The only thing that comes close is the HQ and its dar. Take out the HQ, dar is gone. The effects are immediate and felt by all. What I propose is a change to what commodities are produced at the factories and what happens when they go down. For example:

1) 1000 lb bombs. A factory should produce 1000 lb bombs. Destroy the factory, 1000 lb bombs are not available to that country until the factory is restored. Now, the loss of 1000 lb bombs is an inconvenience. It means a single plane can't take down a fighter hangar. Heavy bombers have to be a bit more accurate to ensure hard targets are destroyed. It does not, however, take away any capability from any side. Game play should remain nearly as balanced as it was before the factory was destroyed, yet I believe most would consider this a target worthy of spending some time in the air to attack and defend.

2) Cruisers. A factory producing the 8 inch guns for cruisers is destroyed. Task Groups no longer spawn with cruisers. It would change the dynamics of how that task group is used, but it wouldn't really take much away in overall game play. Again, though, I believe most would consider that a target worth the effort to attack and defend.

3) Troop Training Facility. Destroy it, troops aren't trained as well, it takes 15 or 20 to capture a town vs 10 well trained troops. This one comes close to upsetting balance, but is really more of an inconvenience.

That's the general idea - a commodity based system vs a time based one. Just a beginning of a thought, but the main point once again is that strat targets have to be worth hitting and worth defending.

Regards,

Hammer

[Greziz]

+1 Hammer. I am in love with that idea. Simple but effective. I love having my 1000's to fighter down a VH but in the end not a huge point of rage if it were taken away though I would still put in time to defend it here and there and would fight forever to keep troops at ten even though most groups bring 2-3 sets of troops you will always have 1 set of troops die some how or fail to be troops.

[5PointOh]

I think the real problem with strats is there is no perceived advantage to hitting them. In the MA as it currently stands, there is no tangible result gained by utilizing the long term effects that the current strat system has. Most of the base takers will move on to a different base if resistance is too heavy at their first target. Their goal is to take bases as quickly as possible. A slightly longer down time for the hangars or the ack has no real effect for the attacker whose main tactic is the blitz, particularly when the same result can be accomplished more easily by a couple of people with cannon armed fighters hitting resources at the target itself.

If you want strat targets to be attacked and defended, they have to be worth attacking and defending. The results of the attack has to be valuable to the attacker. A successful attack has to be detrimental to the defender. In other words, the outcome has to important to both sides. And all of this has to be done in a way that doesn't unbalance game play for the arena. A bit of extra time on a commodity has little to no value in the current game play dynamics. The only thing that comes close is the HQ and its dar. Take out the HQ, dar is gone. The effects are immediate and felt by all. What I propose is a change to what commodities are produced at the factories and what happens when they go down. For example:

1) 1000 lb bombs. A factory should produce 1000 lb bombs. Destroy the factory, 1000 lb bombs are not available to that country until the factory is restored. Now, the loss of 1000 lb bombs is an inconvenience. It means a single plane can't take down a fighter hangar. Heavy bombers have to be a bit more accurate to ensure hard targets are destroyed. It does not, however, take away any capability from any side. Game play should remain nearly as balanced as it was before the factory was destroyed, yet I believe most would consider this a target worthy of spending some time in the air to attack and defend.

2) Cruisers. A factory producing the 8 inch guns for cruisers is destroyed. Task Groups no longer spawn with cruisers. It would change the dynamics of how that task group is used, but it wouldn't really take much away in overall game play. Again, though, I believe most would consider that a target worth the effort to attack and defend.

3) Troop Training Facility. Destroy it, troops aren't trained as well, it takes 15 or 20 to capture a town vs 10 well trained troops. This one comes close to upsetting balance, but is really more of an inconvenience.

That's the general idea - a commodity based system vs a time based one. Just a beginning of a thought, but the main point once again is that strat targets have to be worth hitting and worth defending.

Regards,

Hammer

What about and ENY 5 Factory?? <ducks>   I love your idea Hammer!