Discussion: Airfield Strategies / Differences in size

[Knite]

Hello Everyone,

This is an odd topic, but I thought it might bring up some entertaining discussion. This is not meant as a poke at the current game, or the people running it. This is also not in the Wishlist forum, because I don't wish it to be this way (yet), I just want to discuss it and see if it is something feasable, desireable, workable, or a complete and utter waste of time/garbage. =)

My idea is this... to add a little more "strategy" and "uniqueness" to the base taking game, we make actual differences between each sized airfield beyond what there is today. Right now, the only real difference (it seems) to each type of base is... GVs are GV only, Ports launch ships, and Airfields, any size, just have different numbers of hangars and runways. GV "pockets" tend to bring on some really nice and brutal GV battles, and Ports seem to be really heavily fought over due to the unique nature of spawning carriers, but what can we do to change the importance of standard Airfields to "mix it up" in the ole "land grab" mode of the game.

Here's my outline :
-----GVs untouched
-----Ports untouched
-----Small Airfields turned to grass/dirt runways. Keep the layout basically the same. Change it so that only aircraft with a base ENY of 15? 20? or higher are liftable. All non-perk GVs available. Small - Medium bombers are liftable. Town can be same # of buildings, but more "sparce", i.e. more space between buildings. 10 Troops to capture
-----Medium Airfields get increased number of AA guns. 2 Radar Towers. All non-perk aircraft (fighters and bombers) are liftable, all GVs available. Town is slightly larger and more densely spaced than small airfield (probably the same as currently). Requires 15 troops to capture.
-----Large Airfields have similar AA to medium, but now include Flak guns similar to CVs. 3 Radar Towers. All aircraft (except 163 which is still only at capitol), perk or not are liftable. All GVs available. Town is now more like the City tiles used for the Strats (could actually use the city tiles). Requires 20 troops to capture.

So why change anything at all? Don't need to, but if we stopped there, where's the discussion? ;-) This method would make each airfield feel a bit more "unique". Each would require slightly different strategies to capture, and each would have plusses and minuses to taking (smaller airfields would be easier to capture, but harder to defend. Larger would be easier to defend, harder to capture). I think this could make the different sized air fields mean something and alter the battle landscape because of it.

So what are your thoughts? Something worth discussing? What would you change? Just a garbage concept? How would it affect the game, and would it be for better or worse? Was it a mistake for me to even post this? haha

Thanks for reading =)

[AKDogg]

I actually like that Idea.  The only thing is the large field town.  The town should not be larger then the airfield.  That alone would make it to difficult to take.  Twice the size of the current town for large base.  1.5 times the current town for medium bases.  Leave the current town size for small bases.  Perk planes though can come up medium fields and large fields.  Not just large.

[Guppy35]

We've discussed it before.  Seems like there were always support strips or fighter strips nearby but separate to larger fields.  It would be nice when a base is being hit to be able to up fighters from a secondary field to support it.  Having to take out 2-3 fields at once would be a lot tougher then 1.  Seems like the fun police would have a tougher time, and those serious about 'strategy' would have to work at it a bit more.  It also gives the fighter guys a motivation to get involved in those kinds of fights.

[Ghastly]

Not arguing for or against, but here are the random thoughts that come to mind:

I'd think that most of the current maps would either need to be rebuilt to incorporate such changes, or turned out to pasture, making for less variety in maps for a time, possibly a long time.   This is probably not ideal.

Secondly, I'd worry that what would happen is that the arena's would be inclined to "stagnate" such that the lines really only move during off-peak.  This was a major frustration in the last flight sim I flew, where a relatively small percentage of players during the offpeak had more to do with the success or failure of either side than the primetime majority did. 

Lastly, having the "city" tiles all over place might be problematic.  I have a fairly robust machine, and the only time I ever take a frame rate hit is over the city tiles.  I'd be less than enthusiastic at having to scale back settings to accommodate running into them at all large fields, and I'd be afraid that some players with less robust machines may find the arena's to be "unplayable" even at miminum settings who can play just fine as things are now.

<S>

[DREDIOCK]

If I remember correctly. Something similar was tried in Air Warrior.

while I personally liked and would be in favor of it. It didnt seem to set so well with the larger community and was eventually reverted back to the way we have it even today in AH

[Sunka]

If I remember correctly. Something similar was tried in Air Warrior.

while I personally liked and would be in favor of it. It didnt seem to set so well with the larger community and was eventually reverted back to the way we have it even today in AH

But AW did a lot of interesting things with maps to make things different and i would like if AH would at some point try to do something more with maps bases and such.On that note TY!! AH for hopfully coming out with WWI arena soon!!!!

[Knite]

If I remember correctly. Something similar was tried in Air Warrior.
while I personally liked and would be in favor of it. It didnt seem to set so well with the larger community and was eventually reverted back to the way we have it even today in AH

Ah, see, I missed so much never having played AW way back when. The first online flight sim (and really, only one) I've played has been AH way back in Beta. Before that it was all offline sims like Aces of the Pacific, European Air War, and the like. (I think I started with Red Baron on the C64. haha)

Sad to hear it didn't go so well with the larger community. Do you remember what the major complaints about the system were? I'm thinking if we could flesh out the entire system it could get some consideration, as just throwing out ideas (rightfully so) generally doesn't. I.e. were the problems more related to A) Change itself, B) Expectations, C) delivery, D) game balance, E) anything else ?

We've discussed it before.  Seems like there were always support strips or fighter strips nearby but separate to larger fields.  It would be nice when a base is being hit to be able to up fighters from a secondary field to support it.  Having to take out 2-3 fields at once would be a lot tougher then 1.  Seems like the fun police would have a tougher time, and those serious about 'strategy' would have to work at it a bit more.  It also gives the fighter guys a motivation to get involved in those kinds of fights.

Guppy, would that mean taking the town would change the ownership of all 2-3 fields? I never even considered the possibility of multiple fields, as I figured the increase in ack, hangars, # of buildings to destroy and increased # of troops would still be a lot tougher than it is now.


Ghastly :
I wasn't thinking of City tiles all over the place. I believe the current strats are somewhere in the realms of 8km large? I wasn't thinking anywhere near that big. More like 1km at most. That should help allieviate a lot of the framerate hit you are mentioning around strats. I do realize the maps would need to be redone, and but I think quite a few people feel that we need more/more varied maps than what we have already (i.e. snow, desert, pacific, etc).
In terms of the other thing you mentioned, "Stagnation"... I'd like to explore that more. How do you feel stagnation would be introduced? You state the fear is that lines would only move after hours, but my thinking is, wouldn't it be tougher (than now) to move the lines off hours as large airfields would need an increased amount of co-ordination to take than currently?

AKDogg : Thanks for the input.


So overall, here's what's been suggested/discussed:

GV - Unchanged
Port - Unchanged
Small Airfield
-----Grass/Dirt Runway
-----All non-Perk GVs available
-----Planes 15ENY and higher available
-----Small/Medium bombers available (no B-24s/17s)
-----AA as current
-----Town same size/capture rules as current.
Medium Airfield
-----All GVs available
-----All Non-Perk AC available (Sorry Dogg, still keeping it here to differentiate something from large field (i.e. why go for large more defended field if medium is just as good?)
-----All Bombers Available
-----Increased AA. No Flak
-----Town 1.5x size current, need 15 troops capture
Large Airfield
-----All GVs available
-----All AC availabe (Except 163 rules as current)
-----All Bombers Available
-----Increased number of AA. Flak towers(?) in area
-----Town 2x size current, need 20 troops capture
-----*** Possible secondary strip? I.e. Maybe small airfield assicated with same town?

Pros :
-----Areas on map have more "unique" feel. i.e. more like real life where some towns are small, some are large, etc.
-----Increased level of strategy and co-ordination for both offense and defense.
-----Adds a varied risk/reward dynamic to base capturing (opposed to current more static system)

Cons :
-----Concerns about time required to implement change (maps)
-----Previous system in AW did not appear to work (Reasons?)
-----Concerns about framerate
-----Concerns about "stagnation" of battle lines

Thanks for the input so far guys. =) Any other thoughts/concerns? How do you think it will adjust the battle lines? Would this actually add interest, or would most people not care (i.e. does this add anything?).

[Ghastly]

smaller airfields would be easier to capture, but harder to defend. Larger would be easier to defend, harder to capture

I was responding to the statement above, primarily.  As it is now, with "enough" players online to prevent a few guys from simply taking territory unopposed, things are nearly evenly balanced in most maps - X guys attacking and X guys defending is more than likely to be a good hard fight, with something approaching a 50/50  chance on whether the field being fought over is going to stand or fall in any given 2 to 3 hour period, depending upon which X guys is a bit more effective, and/or have a bit better luck with timing.  Either side having an advantage of 20% more or so players is much more likely to accomplish their goal, whether it's defend or capture.

But if the fields become simultaneously harder to capture and easier to defend, then there will be much less trading of fields, and the guys who play the capture the flag portion of the game are going to become frustrated by the fact that they can't capture territory, except when the other side has too few players to mount much of a defense, as they would continually be brought up short when to advance the front they need to take a large field. And since there are some whose driving source of satisfaction is the capture the flag, you end up in the situation where they begin to focus their playing time in the offpeak, and you end up with the players that can play during those times in a race to see who can grab the most territory before the sides flesh out and the only way to take territory is with a markedly overwhelming superiority in numbers again.  And that's nothing compared to the frustration of having fought for 5 or 6 hours to keep a particular field, only to sign in the next day to find that a handful of guys working nearly unopposed took back days worth of territory in a few hours - which you can't do much about because when you play, you can't take territory.

The requirement for "better coordination" wouldn't come into play to any great extent because if you make it so that it takes a coordinated effort to take territory when it's unopposed, it's going to become nearly impossible when the other side has anything near an equal number of defenders.

Or at least, this was (one of) the problems in the other sim, when I played.

<S>

[Crash Orange]

But if the fields become simultaneously harder to capture and easier to defend, then there will be much less trading of fields, and the guys who play the capture the flag portion of the game are going to become frustrated by the fact that they can't capture territory, except when the other side has too few players to mount much of a defense, as they would continually be brought up short when to advance the front they need to take a large field. And since there are some whose driving source of satisfaction is the capture the flag, you end up in the situation where they begin to focus their playing time in the offpeak, and you end up with the players that can play during those times in a race to see who can grab the most territory before the sides flesh out and the only way to take territory is with a markedly overwhelming superiority in numbers again.  And that's nothing compared to the frustration of having fought for 5 or 6 hours to keep a particular field, only to sign in the next day to find that a handful of guys working nearly unopposed took back days worth of territory in a few hours - which you can't do much about because when you play, you can't take territory.

If you don't care about "capture the flag," why do you care what happens to the base after you log off? No one's taking away the fun you had defending it, and there'll always be another one to defend tomorrow.

[Ghastly]

I didn't say I did (I don't do the ground war much) - I said that some folks obviously do.  The complaint you heard time and time again was how after several nights of hard fighting to gain territory, they'd sign in and find that in a few hours when only a few players were on, territory that they might have spent days to take would have changed hands.  The war over there was a lot more "important" than the war over here, but I suspect that you'd see thing - and the same frustrations -  here if it became such that fields were too much easier to defend and harder to take.

Everyone likes to feel that their playing accomplishes something - and guard dog duty isn't generally considered to be much of an accomplishment - nor as much fun.   

Balance is a funny thing - just when it's just right is just when it's the most fragile.

<S>

[The Fugitive]

While I think the novelty of different bases would be cool, and if the game was played with "strategy" in mind it could work. The problem I see is the majority of the community isn't looking for a new challenge. They spend most of their time figuring out ways to avoid any challenges and do things the easy way. Why think up a plan, get people to join it and execute it when all you have to do is point the horde at it and it's done. 

I think we need ways to break up the horde. Give them more perks if they take a base with smaller numbers. Add a new score column to give you points for base captures, but with multipliers. Take a base with less than 10 double the points, more than 15 TAKE AWAY double the points 

[DadRabit]

While I think the novelty of different bases would be cool, and if the game was played with "strategy" in mind it could work. The problem I see is the majority of the community isn't looking for a new challenge. They spend most of their time figuring out ways to avoid any challenges and do things the easy way. Why think up a plan, get people to join it and execute it when all you have to do is point the horde at it and it's done. 

I think we need ways to break up the horde. Give them more perks if they take a base with smaller numbers. Add a new score column to give you points for base captures, but with multipliers. Take a base with less than 10 double the points, more than 15 TAKE AWAY double the points 

S!

if the majority of the community as some say, is not looking for a challenge or avoiding it.  is the majority not having fun as they do this?  i see them as doing something as a group and having a blast. 

(quote)  "Small Airfields turned to grass/dirt runways. Keep the layout basically the same. Change it so that only aircraft with a base ENY of 15? 20? or higher are liftable."

if you do away with non perked planes at certain airfields, wouldnt that be like MW or LW arenas? limiting plane choices, i think, would not be an answer.  i dont have an answer for this problem mainly because i dont believe there is a problem.

S!

[DREDIOCK]

Ah, see, I missed so much never having played AW way back when. The first online flight sim (and really, only one) I've played has been AH way back in Beta. Before that it was all offline sims like Aces of the Pacific, European Air War, and the like. (I think I started with Red Baron on the C64. haha)

Sad to hear it didn't go so well with the larger community. Do you remember what the major complaints about the system were? I'm thinking if we could flesh out the entire system it could get some consideration, as just throwing out ideas (rightfully so) generally doesn't. I.e. were the problems more related to A) Change itself, B) Expectations, C) delivery, D) game balance, E) anything else ?

This was some time ago so Im going by memory. but I think the primary complaint was the same as people have about ENY.
People wanted to fly whatever type of plane they wanted from wherever they wanted.

I didnt particularly agree as it would have been more historically accurate and made things more interesting.
IMO and little twists and quirks such as diffing types of airfeilds for differing types of aircraft, Aircraft specific factories with a direct effect on specific plane availability. And probably a host of other ideas  give reason to both attack and defend such areas for reasons other then simply "because they are there" is a good thing and only adds to immersion.

Take the current strat targets for example. Now I could be wrong and it may be just due to the times I am up and playing but. I see great missions being made to run and bomb the strats. but what Im not seeing is great numbers of defenders upping to challenge those raids.

Why?
Again this is only MY opinion. But there isnt a great deal of reason to, as the effect on planes, ammo, fuel is minimal at best. It doesnt really effect gameplay all that much.In short there isnt a good enough reason to. Not when you can just attack a base with heavy fighters and acheive a more direct and effective result

This is the single area AW had it over AH. The spit factory. Even though it only disabled spits for 15 min. people upped to defend it. Which made attacking it even more fun. I used to love spit factory runs. to be honest. I have no real interest in heading to our strat targets here..not a good enough reason to. The immersion factor just isnt there for me

Now with the airfeilds its kinda the same thing.  Airfeilds that support bombers would be a high priority target. they would also be highly desirable to defend.
In short. there is a reason to both attack them and defend them
With a support fighters only field a short distance away this would make it more difficult for the horders to just steam roll everything and would provide a better opportunity to defend without having to travel a full sector to do so.
It would provide a way to have those desperate struggles over a base that go back and forth that I enjoy so much. Again. The immersion factor.

At lease for me anyway. But again thats just my opinion

[DREDIOCK]

While I think the novelty of different bases would be cool, and if the game was played with "strategy" in mind it could work. The problem I see is the majority of the community isn't looking for a new challenge. They spend most of their time figuring out ways to avoid any challenges and do things the easy way. Why think up a plan, get people to join it and execute it when all you have to do is point the horde at it and it's done. 

QFT

Take the most amount of numbers you can gather. And attack the base with the least amount of defenders. Then pat each other on the backs for the spectacular effort and skill put forth.

And if the base starts to put up anything resembling a defence. Give up and Go to where they arent.

Though to be honest there was a pretty decent base struggle between knits and bish last night in the middle of the map. but those are often the exception and not the norm.

[321BAR]

We've discussed it before.  Seems like there were always support strips or fighter strips nearby but separate to larger fields.  It would be nice when a base is being hit to be able to up fighters from a secondary field to support it.  Having to take out 2-3 fields at once would be a lot tougher then 1.  Seems like the fun police would have a tougher time, and those serious about 'strategy' would have to work at it a bit more.  It also gives the fighter guys a motivation to get involved in those kinds of fights.

why not also add a flexible plane cap per base to this also? because id love to see a more realistic environment for the furballs that happen over bases... say a 20 plane group flew to take a base, usually what happens is that these planes and their pilots just re up and go back into a constant fray. if we could only allow say 30 planes for those two bases, then we'd see more tactical decisions and less suicides along with the fact that ground war would step up a notch and if the defending planes died then the offense could swarm the field but if the offense died then that would leave the defenders to either be able to attack or if too many losses then they would be forced to up from another base to counter the said attacking country... you guys follow? yeah ik this may dampen the fun style flight but for that just allow a regenerating amount of planes to up. so say after 10 minutes 15 planes are allowed to fly and after 20 minutes the 30 plane cap is back...