Added Depth to the Stategic Element

[HawkerMKII]

“Capturing territory through the use of air, land and sea power is the objective of Aces High”. Quote from HT in the Game Info, under Playing The Game.

I think the fuel should go back to the way it was before. If I or another player pork your fuel down to 25% then so be it. I do think the ords needs to have some changes, like what was said: 1 ords bunker down you lose a percentage of all ammo and so on. The biggest problem is most players just want to fur ball and see if they can get rank and not want to waste their time with re-supplying. If my squad wants to up 15 sets of B-17’s and flatten 2 or 3 bases you better be ready to do 1 or 2 things, defend or re-supply if the fuel and ammo could be porked down to nothing.

The Fugitive said:

Like I said HTC has to walk a fine line. If ack was indestructible, there would be no vulching and base defense would be so much stronger that it would be very difficult to capture a base. They don't want the combat to stop, nor do they want to chase away those players that like the "win the war" side of the game by making it too tough to do it.

I say I think to a point it is chasing players away. Right now most of the big maps never rest till Titanic Tuesday, because there is no way to win the war. I know this is just a GAME but do you think the generals of WWII said “Don’t kill the fuel cuz we don’t want the combat to stop”. Killing fuel is a very important part of this game and should be brought back. My 2 cents worth and I know I will be slammed big time.

[Nemisis]

Hawker, the problem with the defense thing is that nothing (save the 163) can climb up to 25-30k before your B-17's arive at the drop point. You are saying that people should be ready to have fighters at 20k instantly, so they can climb upto you and defend.

Also, popular targets for bombers tend to be the bases at the begining of one way spawn streets, those without spawns, and bases taken by CV's (by their nature, the only external source of support is the CV, which is often already battered or sunk when the base is taken).

[The Fugitive]

“Capturing territory through the use of air, land and sea power is the objective of Aces High”. Quote from HT in the Game Info, under Playing The Game.

I think the fuel should go back to the way it was before. If I or another player pork your fuel down to 25% then so be it. I do think the ords needs to have some changes, like what was said: 1 ords bunker down you lose a percentage of all ammo and so on. The biggest problem is most players just want to fur ball and see if they can get rank and not want to waste their time with re-supplying. If my squad wants to up 15 sets of B-17’s and flatten 2 or 3 bases you better be ready to do 1 or 2 things, defend or re-supply if the fuel and ammo could be porked down to nothing.

The Fugitive said:

Like I said HTC has to walk a fine line. If ack was indestructible, there would be no vulching and base defense would be so much stronger that it would be very difficult to capture a base. They don't want the combat to stop, nor do they want to chase away those players that like the "win the war" side of the game by making it too tough to do it.

I say I think to a point it is chasing players away. Right now most of the big maps never rest till Titanic Tuesday, because there is no way to win the war. I know this is just a GAME but do you think the generals of WWII said “Don’t kill the fuel cuz we don’t want the combat to stop”. Killing fuel is a very important part of this game and should be brought back. My 2 cents worth and I know I will be slammed big time.

So your saying you believe that you should have the power to shut down large areas of the maps and kill fights for large groups of other players. In doing so you will have people log off in stead of defend which I'm sure would make it a lot of fun for you guys.... no body to fight. Or, people would switch countries to your side so that you can't effect their play and then you would be crying about ENY.

Your quote from HTC “Capturing territory through the use of air, land and sea power is the objective of Aces High” is on the page, but can you tell me HOW you go about doing those things? You do it by COMBATING the other players to achieve your objectives. By allowing players to totally remove the ability of the opposing players to fight back all your doing is is turning the "game" into MS Flightsim with a capture element.

I fly here to fight. I don't care where I end up on the score board, nor do I care to have my "name in lights". I don't care who wins the war, or even if it is won. If you take away the "fight" then there is really no reason to play.

[SmokinLoon]

So your saying you believe that you should have the power to shut down large areas of the maps and kill fights for large groups of other players. In doing so you will have people log off in stead of defend which I'm sure would make it a lot of fun for you guys.... no body to fight. Or, people would switch countries to your side so that you can't effect their play and then you would be crying about ENY.

Your quote from HTC “Capturing territory through the use of air, land and sea power is the objective of Aces High” is on the page, but can you tell me HOW you go about doing those things? You do it by COMBATING the other players to achieve your objectives. By allowing players to totally remove the ability of the opposing players to fight back all your doing is is turning the "game" into MS Flightsim with a capture element.

I fly here to fight. I don't care where I end up on the score board, nor do I care to have my "name in lights". I don't care who wins the war, or even if it is won. If you take away the "fight" then there is really no reason to play.

Your ability to fight may be diminished at a particular airfield, but not the entire map.  What do you do currently if you're unable to take up bombs and rockets?  Do you tower out and quit the game?  No, you move to a different airfield.  Nothing would change for you under the proposals I (and others) have made, you'd still be able to up, have fun, and carry on as you always have.  Those players that play a bit of the strategic game would have an added element or 2 to attack or defend. 

[Plawranc]

I am all for the burn rate to drop, I hate having to run away from a fight due to low fuel.

+ 1 for fuel burn

[Nemisis]

SmokinLoon, the one problem I see with this is that the people who actually CARE about holding and taking ground (I do: it spawns some of the best fights this side of V85) will get annoyed at being bundled back a few sectors because there are no hangers (and therefor aircraft) within a 100mile radius.

As soon as the 91'st starts using lancasters, the ability of every base within striking range to defend is VASTLY diminished. How those guys work, a group of 3 will come over, level the field and town, and then have a goon roll in.

[Hap]

So your saying you believe that you should have the power to shut down large areas of the maps and kill fights for large groups of other players. In doing so you will have people log off in stead of defend

Not how it used to be.  Folks stayed.  Fought it out pretty much to the bitter end.  Was wonderful.

The power to shut down large areas would be avail to all countries.

[Tilt]

IMO fuel attrition (if re introduced) should be rationed in a ratio of gallons / engine and not % of tank capacity. Fuel attrition shopuld penalise gas guzzlers not ac with small tanks whilst rewarding (comparatively speaking) ac with large tanks.

Supplies should be linked to the relevant strat/field resource not the barracks.

Barracks should be linked only to troops. Atritting troops as a % of barracks isa good idea but again this should be in absolute numbers per plane/vehicle not as a %. (ie barracks down 60% = 6 troops in C47 & M3 but still 2 troops in a jeep)

[HawkerMKII]

Fugitive, could not agree with you more, the game HAS turned into a MS Flight sim, as one of my squad mates told me this morning “The game has been DUMBED UP” and will never, never be changed so I guess I will say no more. But for my wish list, how about this: Orange Arena stays the same. Blue Arena: Same map, HT tweaks it a bit, fuel down to 25%, ords on a percentage scale, back to old calibration for bombers with wind to contend with, no dar bar. Try this for one tour just to see what the numbers say.

Nemisis:

1-  91st does not use Lancs
2- We never have a goon with us
3- 99.9% of the time we never hit town unless asked to do so.
4- Our missions are never below 18k
5- 9 times out of 10 if we are at 25-30k there are cons at 35k, so tell me you have to try and up a fighter at a moments notice and try to get to 20k

[HawkerMKII]

Fugitive, could not agree with you more, the game HAS turned into a MS Flight sim, as one of my squad mates told me this morning “The game has been DUMBED UP” and will never, never be changed so I guess I will say no more. But for my wish list, how about this: Orange Arena stays the same. Blue Arena: Same map, HT tweaks it a bit, fuel down to 25%, ords on a percentage scale, back to old calibration for bombers with wind to contend with, no dar bar. Try this for one tour just to see what the numbers say.

Nemisis:

1-  91st does not use Lancs
2- We never have a goon with us
3- 99.9% of the time we never hit town unless asked to do so.
4- Our missions are never below 18k
5- 9 times out of 10 if we are at 25-30k there are cons at 35k, so tell me you have to try and up a fighter at a moments notice and try to get to 20k

[HawkerMKII]

Sorry.....puter messed up posted twice How do I erase one, anyone know??

[JunkyII]

Agreed, most planes are fine. A few with short legs (spit mk XIV) have trouble reaching the altitudes the start to stand out at, or are hampered by weight when they take more fuel (Il-2/Hurri IID: At their top speeds, your range isn't that great)

Im pretty sure you can get to 30K in a spit 14 just using the DT and wep........then have a fuel tank for fighting

[The Fugitive]

Your ability to fight may be diminished at a particular airfield, but not the entire map.  What do you do currently if you're unable to take up bombs and rockets?  Do you tower out and quit the game?  No, you move to a different airfield.  Nothing would change for you under the proposals I (and others) have made, you'd still be able to up, have fun, and carry on as you always have.  Those players that play a bit of the strategic game would have an added element or 2 to attack or defend. 

It happens more often than you think. A bunch of people will have a good fight going having fun and some people will come in and drop the CV, or all of the FH's or VH's for those on the ground. POOF !! fights gone. Many times it's the only real fight going unless you want to play in the horde.

Not how it used to be.  Folks stayed.  Fought it out pretty much to the bitter end.  Was wonderful.

The power to shut down large areas would be avail to all countries.

Yes folks stayed till the end, that almost never happens now. Battles for bases lasted half the night, because people didn't go around porking the surrounding bases, they fought it out head to head. Now a days if the NOE fails they move to another base nobodies at to try and sneak that one.


Fuel burn use to be lower, it caused problems so it was changed.
Fuel could be porked to 25%, it caused problems and was changed.
Auto ack was too easy to clear and the vulch set up, it caused problems and it was changed

While I personally don't care for these ideas due to the fact that good fights are hard enough to find already, I'm just posting what has gone before, and why things were changed from what you are requesting to what we have now. HTC has to walk a fine line. If he caters too much for the "furball" guys the "win the war" types leave, and visa-versa. While I'm sure that HTC loves the game, keeping the business running is the top priority.

[Nemisis]

Im pretty sure you can get to 30K in a spit 14 just using the DT and wep........then have a fuel tank for fighting

Right, right. forgot about that one. But you are still unlikely to make it to that alt, and catch them before they drop their ord.


1) Hawker, I said "as soon as", not "the 91'st uses lancasters".
2) Even if you level the base, you make it likely the base will be taken
3) goons can follow, and there is nothing you can do short of dropping the run.
4) I never said you guys worked below 18k
5) but how MANY fighters are at 35k? Comparatively few I would guess. I've escored you guys at 25k before (close enough), and we encountered a total of 5 fighters untill we reached the strats.

[SmokinLoon]

It happens more often than you think. A bunch of people will have a good fight going having fun and some people will come in and drop the CV, or all of the FH's or VH's for those on the ground. POOF !! fights gone. Many times it's the only real fight going unless you want to play in the horde.

Yes folks stayed till the end, that almost never happens now. Battles for bases lasted half the night, because people didn't go around porking the surrounding bases, they fought it out head to head. Now a days if the NOE fails they move to another base nobodies at to try and sneak that one.


Fuel burn use to be lower, it caused problems so it was changed.
Fuel could be porked to 25%, it caused problems and was changed.
Auto ack was too easy to clear and the vulch set up, it caused problems and it was changed

While I personally don't care for these ideas due to the fact that good fights are hard enough to find already, I'm just posting what has gone before, and why things were changed from what you are requesting to what we have now. HTC has to walk a fine line. If he caters too much for the "furball" guys the "win the war" types leave, and visa-versa. While I'm sure that HTC loves the game, keeping the business running is the top priority.

I'm vouching for %50 fuel availability be the maximum penalty, not %25.  Secondly, if the burn rate is changed to 1.5 instead of 2.0, we're roughly looking at an increase of %25 more fuel to be carried (roughly %25 more flight time).  In the MA, that equates to roughly 7-8 minutes more flight time for a fully fueled Spit 9 (30mins to 38mins).  For a Typhoon, that means 5-6 more minutes in the air (24mins to 30mins).  If the base you launch from has had the fuel reduced to %50 due to all of its fuel tanks being destroyed, with a 1.5 burn rate you will have approximately 19 minutes in the air in that Spit 9 and 14 mins in that Typhoon.  Stop and think how many gamers take that low of fuel because they think it gives them that much of an edge to get their "killz".  Also, this gives incentives for 2 actions to take place: first is to actually defend the base and secondly to use the resupply function (C-47, M3, Sdkfz 251, LVt2, etc) and bring back online those functions that were disabled.    

HTC has to walk a fine line, no doubt.  Playability, simulation, game play, fun, and costs involved all have to be weighed.  Go too far in any one direction and the ability to have fun becomes diminished.  That point I agree completely.  But, I fail to see how adding a few more minutes of flight to aircraft and deepening the stategic element will stave off players.  The "good fights" wont be any more difficult to find.  

What was the old burn rate?  What was the old maximum penalty for fuel amount?  I think a %25 max penalty for fuel is too low and a 1.0 burn rate is too much for the MA's.