Revamp of Strategic Gameplay

[grizz441]

Look at this game from a pure Win the War perspective for a minute.  I know it is painful for some but bear with me.  Lets assume that the object of the game is to Win the War.  To do so you must win a certain percentage of bases.  The objectives do not distinguish between between capturing a base that was defended or a base that was unoccupied.  They do not distinguish between capturing a base with 200 players or with 3 players.  The point is, from a strategic perspective, there is absolutely no incentive to attempt to capture bases that are guarded.  Once a base becomes well guarded, you can help your 'country' out equally by moving to the other side of the map and capturing an undefended base noe.  THIS, is the root of game play problems.  Increasing the radar rings and lowering the radar floor just cut off a branch, not the root. 

The actual solution lies in a complete revamp of the game's strategic dynamic.  Making different bases carry different strategic importance, and with that, different size towns and capture requirements which will increase the difficulty.  For example, capturing one base might affect all other bases of that side, making hangars stay down 3 minutes longer, etc.  Make a certain 10 or so Uber Bases per country per map be required to capture, for there to be a reset.  This would cause the Win the War guys to focus on certain bases, as they must be captured and also carry rewards for capturing.  It would also be great for furballers, as it would create intense battles that are 'worth' something.

Discuss.

[Lusche]

Look at this game from a pure Win the War perspective for a minute.  I know it is painful for some but bear with me.  Lets assume that the object of the game is to Win the War. 

Why painful? My fav quote from the official AH Help Page:

Capturing territory through the use of air, land and sea power is the objective in Aces High.

 

Making different bases carry different strategic importance,

Not long ago we had those... they were called zone bases, and without them = drastically reduced auto supply to all other bases in that zone. Remember the yell "ALERT A24, ZONE BASE!"  

[SmokinLoon]

Why painful? My fav quote from the official AH Help Page:  

Not long ago we had those... they were called zone bases, and without them = drastically reduced auto supply to all other bases in that zone. Remember the yell "ALERT A24, ZONE BASE!"  

...and few knew what it meant.  Only those players who knew what happens when a zone base is taken actually knew of the importance of saving it.

There should be a real and felt consequence when a zone base is lost, or rather when "factories are moved to the rear" as they do now.  Currently, so few actually know of the long term "strategic" game and the penalty for losing a zone base or having the factories moved to the rear, that there is very little worth in mentioning the subject, really. 

Ask someone the next time they want to up bombers and go bomb enemy strategic targets way to the rear.  Ask them "other than the fun and/or working on your bomber score, what good does it do to bomb those strategic targets?"  I bet 4/5 will have no clue as to the benefit/penalty involved.  Obviously, having fun is #1, but if there is a strategic element to the game then have it be worth the while of pursuing the destruction of those strategic targets and if the penalty is severe enough then more people just might take notice of the strategic element.     

[lulu]

I agree with you grizz.

In another post I suggested to make a more smart head quarter function.

I also remarked that I understand others point of view.

If You make base capture too fast and in noe mode, then it seems that opponents
cannot develop they favorite not noe tactics that is not strong as fast noe capturing.

The reason is simple: they are loosing the war that they want to win (also if some of them say "I play for fun only"   ).

Not noe tactics require a lot's of time (and it is not so much fun if You are in a small squad.
On the contrary a small squad can have the opportunity to contribute taking a small base if old settings have on).

At the core the point is always the same.

We need new map where the ppl win the war not if they have more countries only.

An idea.

Half targets with old settings, randomly distributed and      nobody knows which they are among the rest
until ppl discover they.

Also add a new parameter to win the war as number of destroyed HIDDEN factories (randomly distributed), etc .


 

[lulu]

Another thing for you Grizz.

Cryptic wrote.

wish-list  ... discuss !      

[Guppy35]

As long as you open the can of worms.

Do you then move heavy bomber bases to further back and limit the bases they can up from?    I don't recall heavies operating from forward airfields.  Fighter bombers, sure, 4 engine bombers, nah. 

How do you incorporate the ground war?  I don't recall too many instances where a small force of paratroopers took over territory and everyone moved right to the base and jumped off again.  Are you going to make a country consolidate with ground forces before moving on?

Folks want to win the war in a few hours, not a few days, much less years.

Are you going to limit resources so that fighting a two front war is more then just getting 30-40 more people then the other side and hording?  If you pour X-amount of resources into one attack, it means you don't have enough to force another one so you have to consolidate and hold the line elsewhere?

How do you set up the chain of command that decides which front is the priority?  How do you decide what aircraft are produced?  Can strategic bombing cripple aircraft, vehicle, fuel production etc?

Folks want to win the war, but are they willing to work for it becomes the larger question?

Not aimed at Grizz btw, just throwing it out there.

[Jayhawk]

Half targets with old settings, randomly distributed and      nobody knows which they are among the rest
until ppl discover they.

Hidden, randomly disturbed strategic targets, I like that idea. But I'm probably in the smallest minority of people would enjoy flying over enemy territory for an hour searching for a little factory.  Since we're getting crazy here, you could have multiple cities throughout the map, some with and some without targets of strategic value.  Of course that opens up all kinds of accusations of side switching to find the targets like CVs, oh well, &^$* em!

[grizz441]

There needs to be incentives in place to want to fight in certain areas and capture certain bases.  As I said in my OP, there is no difference between capturing an undefended and a heavily defended base.  You can't avoid combat if you *need* to capture a certain base for the good of country.  It would be good for everyone.

[Guppy35]

Hidden, randomly disturbed strategic targets, I like that idea. But I'm probably in the smallest minority of people would enjoy flying over enemy territory for an hour searching for a little factory.  Since we're getting crazy here, you could have multiple cities throughout the map, some with and some without targets of strategic value.  Of course that opens up all kinds of accusations of side switching to find the targets like CVs, oh well, &^$* em!

Probably not many of you out there.  Seems like you gents in the 91st don't mind launching your 17s from a ways back, forming up and going deep.  I'd imagine if a country had a field named Bassingbourne you guys would base out of it regardless just to fit the history  

But most would argue against limiting the bases of the heavies to further back as they were in the 'war' as it would slow things down.

[Greziz]

I think the game could benefit heavily from having wars WON in a day or less and simply leading to a small break as the map resets much like how many games like counter strike and stuff do sure some of the matches one side or the other will get shamelessly trounced so what enter round two in the time it takes to rotate to next map. So in conclusion I think it would be nifty if we played on large maps but had bases simply obliterated and inoperational until so much is destroyed that they are in effect defeated the last team to be undefeated wins ofcoarse. Think about it each map depending on how cut throat the teams become would probably last 2-4 hours for the time it takes the sides to lose 40 percent of their bases and 1 be declared a winner. NOW I KNOW YOUR Thinking it will cause longer flights and a boring type of game but at the same time it will give each team a sense of pride and willingness to work together from forming squadrons of dedicated bomber hunters and dedicated bombers etc because lets face it sooner or later there will be large gaping desolate wastelands of dead bases that will need to be flown over possibly even REAL USE of droptanks in a manner as they were intended to extend flight time instead of current use being take 50 percent and dts so you can ditch the dts for the ability to turn and burn better then rtb after fight. {Incase teams just quit or dissappear you could set a timer and best dmg at end of round wins}

[Ghosth]

What about longer rebuild times for captured bases? Sure let the acks come back up so the country the field was taken from can't just take it back. But when your the low # side and both other countrys are smacking you. They get a steam roller effect going that makes it very hard to stop.

If the bases that were captured did not have fuel, ord, rearm for half an hour. That would give the defending country a better chance to muster a defense. And keep the attacking country from being able to endlessly leapfrog forward.

[AKP]

So what about this Grizz?...

Keep the % number of bases captured / owned in order to "win the war", but add in a "Key Base" for each side that needs to be captured as well.  

Example, Team A would need to have X% of Team B's bases, X% of Team C's bases, and X% of its own bases (just as they do now)... AND they would have to hold team B and team C's Key Base in addition to holding their own.

To make it even more interesting, replace the central city strat in the middle of the huge town and factory area with the Key base... or just add it in.  Giving the key base massive ack defense, and surrounded by uncapturable bases, with GV spawns into the urban zones.

This would also give the chance for some massive ground combat in the new urban zones, and make the key bases hard to take even if the defending country has low numbers.  It would also make high level bomber strikes into the strat zones more necessary.

To make it more flexible, you either have to take the zone base and X% of regular bases, OR an increased percentage of regular bases.

Just a thought...    Still early... no coffee yet.

[Lusche]

What about longer rebuild times for captured bases? Sure let the acks come back up so the country the field was taken from can't just take it back. But when your the low # side and both other countrys are smacking you. They get a steam roller effect going that makes it very hard to stop.

If the bases that were captured did not have fuel, ord, rearm for half an hour. That would give the defending country a better chance to muster a defense. And keep the attacking country from being able to endlessly leapfrog forward.

It would surely having an effect of slowing an attacking country down, but it would not have a strategic effect like the OP is looking for, it would not really make one field more important or viable for capture as others. I think it would result in quickly changing lines of attack. Take a Knight field here, a knight field at a compeltely different place, than a rook field there...

and few knew what it meant.  Only those players who knew what happens when a zone base is taken actually knew of the importance of saving it.

or those that did care at all. If you are just going online for a few minutes of air combat, you are not necessarily looking for the fight with the biggest strategic importance.
But that's ok, as the MA should be that giant sandbox that allows for many styles (*insert nagging about recent dar changes here*).
The tricky thing is to get the balance right. IMHO people should be able to do not care, you have to incorporate a design that makes more strategic thinking and fighting viable and desirable, without having a too big impact on gameplay (like plane factories or proposals like "tie eny to strats" would have). And preferably it should be able to be implemented on the current maps without too much trouble.

That's one reason why I'm all for a return of the zone bases, along with some additional strategic targets (railyards) in place of the old factories. And  increase of importance and worth in terms of score for the main strat targets.

[321BAR]

IIRC HiTech wanted to make adjustments to the strategic portion of the game after reading another thread. There are some really good ideas out there for this but which one is best?

[Lusche]

IIRC HiTech wanted to make adjustments to the strategic portion of the game after reading another thread. There are some really good ideas out there for this but which one is best?

Mine, of course!