The Aces High War Doctrine

[68ZooM]

We get points in AH? 

Points are for dweebz   

[BaldEagl]

I agree with TnDep that 25 perks per category to win the war is no incentive to anyone who's been around a while.  Most of us have thousands of perks and couldn't burn them up if we tried.  

The noobs to the game however, have great incentive to win the war and get their 25 perks.  In general they don't have the skills to fly high ENY planes to farm perks.  Hell, they're lucky to manage 0.3 K/D.  So the hoard is born.  They can smash bases and try to win the war to get their perks while everyone else goes their own way.

Maybe HT should get rid of the 25 perks per category and instead add 10% to the perk total of anyone on the winning country, and take away 10% of the perks from anyone on either of the losing countries with a 25 perk minimum for the winners and no losses below a 25 perk threshold for the losers.

That way, a guy with 20,000 perks would stand to lose 2,000 of them if the map was reset by another country or to gain 2,000 if his country won.  Now that would make perks meaningful in context with the war on both the winning and losing sides.

Someone with a lot of perks to lose would gradually lose fewer and fewer with consective losses (20,000 to 18,000 to 16,200 to 14,580, etc.) while someone with few perks would gain more and more with consecutive wins (300 to 330 to 363 to 399, etc.).

[oTRALFZo]

I agree with TnDep that 25 perks per category to win the war is no incentive to anyone who's been around a while.  Most of us have thousands of perks and couldn't burn them up if we tried.  

The noobs to the game however, have great incentive to win the war and get their 25 perks.  In general they don't have the skills to fly high ENY planes to farm perks.  Hell, they're lucky to manage 0.3 K/D.  So the hoard is born.  They can smash bases and try to win the war to get their perks while everyone else goes their own way.

Maybe HT should get rid of the 25 perks per category and instead add 10% to the perk total of anyone on the winning country, and take away 10% of the perks from anyone on either of the losing countries with a 25 perk minimum for the winners and no losses below a 25 perk threshold for the losers.

That way, a guy with 20,000 perks would stand to lose 2,000 of them if the map was reset by another country or to gain 2,000 if his country won.  Now that would make perks meaningful in context with the war on both the winning and losing sides.

Someone with a lot of perks to lose would gradually lose fewer and fewer with consective losses (20,000 to 18,000 to 16,200 to 14,580, etc.) while someone with few perks would gain more and more with consecutive wins (300 to 330 to 363 to 399, etc.).

Nope, then there would be a mass exodus from the other countries that are loosing. And thats my fav time to play. 1000 squeekers all ded set on winning the war when 2 sorties will get you twice as many perks

[bustr]

Long distances between bases causes bordom, unwillingness to stay involved and promotes things like the NOE Plauge because the gamey nature of it for hoard lemmings gives near instantanious risk free rewards. If anything move more of the bases closer to promote conflict. Idle hands ends up with HiTech personaly managing our happines.

[curry1]

I dont understand what the problem is with NOE's they promote conflict and when they fail they start a large furball or something of the sort

Long distances between bases causes bordom, unwillingness to stay involved and promotes things like the NOE Plauge because the gamey nature of it for hoard lemmings gives near instantanious risk free rewards. If anything move more of the bases closer to promote conflict. Idle hands ends up with HiTech personaly managing our happines.

[grizz441]

That's not a doctrine.

Perhaps Falcnwng will drop in and clarify the meaning, its historical relevance, origins, and the misuse of the word in an epic wall of text that few men can read through without their brains exploding due to not being able to contain the wealth of genius being presented.

[TnDep]

I agree with TnDep that 25 perks per category to win the war is no incentive to anyone who's been around a while.  Most of us have thousands of perks and couldn't burn them up if we tried.  

The noobs to the game however, have great incentive to win the war and get their 25 perks.  In general they don't have the skills to fly high ENY planes to farm perks.  Hell, they're lucky to manage 0.3 K/D.  So the hoard is born.  They can smash bases and try to win the war to get their perks while everyone else goes their own way.

Maybe HT should get rid of the 25 perks per category and instead add 10% to the perk total of anyone on the winning country, and take away 10% of the perks from anyone on either of the losing countries with a 25 perk minimum for the winners and no losses below a 25 perk threshold for the losers.

That way, a guy with 20,000 perks would stand to lose 2,000 of them if the map was reset by another country or to gain 2,000 if his country won.  Now that would make perks meaningful in context with the war on both the winning and losing sides.

Someone with a lot of perks to lose would gradually lose fewer and fewer with consective losses (20,000 to 18,000 to 16,200 to 14,580, etc.) while someone with few perks would gain more and more with consecutive wins (300 to 330 to 363 to 399, etc.).

Something like thise could work but the first thing that comes to mind is that when the other countrys are getting close to winning the war people would start getting off the game because they don't want to loose perks.

I believe that reguardless what is done it needs to be done on the amount of time that is spent in game so people who gets the phone calls were about to win the war and they sign on for the first time that tour doesn't get anything out of it besides 1hr multiplied by whatever.  If you do it by ingame time it helps the game (reward for time playing the game) and puts everyone on a level platform reguardless of skill or however many perks they got at that time. 

[lulu]

"1. Yes.

2. Combat is when people are fighting each other in vehicles or planes. How and why people choose to fight is irrelevant.

HiTech"

Not agree.
If and only you fight then you  satisfy some particular needs.

point 2 seems only if ... then ...

 

[bustr]

I dint understand what the problem is with NOE's they promote conflict and when they fail they start a large furball or something of the sort

Under the past radar configuration eventually the idle hands exploited the holes in dar as a form of invisibility cloaking and combat avoidance. It created the NOE Plague of 2010 that HiTech saw as an imbalance to promoting balanced offense and defence. Long sector distances to fights, or to finish a botched base take, NOE or otherwise, causes boredom which translates into a lack of intrest in maintaining an offensive. Under the current radar minimum of 65 feet, NOE will take awhile to re-evolve. In the mean time there will be more conflict.

Moving the bases farther apart will promote conflict avoidance and boredom. Sitting for a longer time during transit with the very real chance after investing so much time getting to a fight, then dieing to the first HO dweeb is untenable. I believe for most of the community who is not conflict averse this is true. Moving the bases closer together will promote conflict, get the fighters back into combat sooner, and bombers or "GO" strategy players can still fly long distances by upping a few sectors back of the action to avoid conflict.

To cut short a dweeby response right here:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dweeb retorts :

So if they are worried about flying so long and dieing the moment they get there, don't you neanderthals just go bang on each other in the DA to get better at survival? Longer flight distances would promote realistic bomber flights at altitude before the fight. Cause defenders to have to THINK<---(love how words like this are code to infer warriors are IQ challenged neanderthals) about patrolling fronts to setup for the bombers and it gives the strategists a chance to get setup in their ideal position to out think you mindless combat lemmings.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Guys wake up, the "GO" players in the game believe their combat avoidance strategies make them superior to all of you because they succeed in avoiding fighting you while stealing your toys. They want us to beleive that's the strategic intellegent way to win a fight in AH. Reminds me of the Movie Gladiator.............

Longer flights = boredom = unhappy community and no conflict. Join a Chess Club or fight. Musashi said there is no difference between personal combat or combat between ten thousand. Conflict avoidance and sneaking around is not a virtue if the point of the game you are playing is conflict. It probably means it hurts your ego more when you get caught and killed than those who seek the conflict as a source of pride with their comrads across the three countries.   

[ink]

.... Musashi said there is no difference between personal combat or combat between ten thousand. Conflict avoidance and sneaking around is not a virtue if the point of the game you are playing is conflict. It probably means it hurts your ego more when you get caught and killed than those who seek the conflict as a source of pride with their comrads across the three countries.   

Did you just quote Miyamoto Musashi?????? great warrior probably the greatest of all time.

you miss quoted him slightly,which incidentally I am about to do cuz im too lazy to look through my "Book of five rings"

"The spirit that defeats one man is the same that can defeat 1,000,000"

ether way I  you!!!

[bustr]

INK,

I was awarded a Menkyo from "Itto Tenshin Katori Shinto Ryu" school of Kenjutsu. Traditional schools of kenjutsu were schools of battle feild martial arts.

There are at least 5 western translations of "Go Rin No Sho" today that everyone quotes from. Musashi's teaching that combat between two men is no different than combat between Ten Thousand means:

First the warrior masters single combat because it is the most simple way of teaching the art of "Mastering" and the Way of single Combat. With the mastery of single combat and its strategies, ten thousand warriors are but a single combat by one master against another master weilding thousands of warriors. If the one master weilds superior numbers, then the response is the same as the techniques mastered during single combat training for one killing many.

In a game based on combat, sneaking around (strategy) only teaches conflict avoidence. Mastering the games combat teaches the practitioner the game, it's nuances, and creates a well spring of experience to draw from to defeat your enemies. That is true strategy. Any one else using the word strategy is covering up their own inability to compete on an equal footing with the games top combat practitioners.

Those who lust for combat already have strategy as the tang of their sword.

[lulu]

correction

"1. Yes.

2. Combat is when people are fighting each other in vehicles or planes. How and why people choose to fight is irrelevant.

HiTech"

Not agree.
If and only if you fight then you  satisfy some particular needs.

point 2 seems only: if ... then ...

[lulu]

Yes, I'm mad    

On the concept of combat, it seems that there is a sort of misunderstanding.
For all Italian ppl i suggest to listen this good work:

http://www.radio.rai.it/radio2/alleotto/fiorespada/#

And I hope that somebody who writes English better then me could say something about the content.

The work tells about the life of Miyamoto Musashi in
connection also with a note on an important work due
by who seems a 'very powerful warrior',
Ruth Benedict, titled The Chrysanthemum and the Sword: Patterns of Japanese Culture (1946).

http://www.nndb.com/people/786/000097495/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Chrysanthemum_and_the_Sword

This work was important in WWII because it gave a real hope to defeat the japan empire. The work was request to Mrs Benedict by USA government and it states that the Japan empire's hope winning the war was based on an  idea opposite respect the USA one. So USA force knew that Japan empire have underestimated a real aspect of a war and USA have good chances to win. Which aspect?

Probably, I'm wrong, because i have a lack of information,
but if I'm a little lucky too the aspect is that
 

"The spirit that defeats one man is the same that can defeat 1,000,000"

is true if and only if you know the true meaning of the term

"spirit" but they unfortunately  used of a wrong concept and gave to USA a very big chance to win the war.

If combat means fur-balling only with no other scope, i still think that any rule that brings to that is a bad rule.
In fact in a pure fur-balling game relies the same bad spirit of Japanese Empire.

 

[Bear76]

Yes, I'm mad    

On the concept of combat, it seems that there is a sort of misunderstanding.
For all Italian ppl i suggest to listen this good work:

http://www.radio.rai.it/radio2/alleotto/fiorespada/#

And I hope that somebody who writes English better then me could say something about the content.

The work tells about the life of Miyamoto Musashi in
connection also with a note on an important work due
by who seems a 'very powerful warrior',
Ruth Benedict, titled The Chrysanthemum and the Sword: Patterns of Japanese Culture (1946).

http://www.nndb.com/people/786/000097495/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Chrysanthemum_and_the_Sword

This work was important in WWII because it gave a real hope to defeat the japan empire. The work was request to Mrs Benedict by USA government and it states that the Japan empire's hope winning the war was based on an  idea opposite respect the USA one. So USA force knew that Japan empire have underestimated a real aspect of a war and USA have good chances to win. Which aspect?

Probably, I'm wrong, because i have a lack of information,
but if I'm a little lucky too the aspect is that
 

"The spirit that defeats one man is the same that can defeat 1,000,000"

is true if and only if you know the true meaning of the term

"spirit" but they unfortunately  used of a wrong concept and gave to USA a very big chance to win the war.

If combat means fur-balling only with no other scope, i still think that any rule that brings to that is a bad rule.
In fact in a pure fur-balling game relies the same bad spirit of Japanese Empire.

 

I think from your numerous posts in several threads, we all get that you don't like the changes. Things are not going back to the way you want it no matter how many times you state your dislike. Once HTC makes a big change like this, they aren't going to reverse it. You can do one of two things, adapt or quit. I'm sure this may not set well with you and several others. There have been a lot of changes over the years and nobody likes every one. You just have to make the best of it.....or not.

[ink]

INK,

I was awarded a Menkyo from "Itto Tenshin Katori Shinto Ryu" school of Kenjutsu. Traditional schools of kenjutsu were schools of battle feild martial arts.

There are at least 5 western translations of "Go Rin No Sho" today that everyone quotes from. Musashi's teaching that combat between two men is no different than combat between Ten Thousand means:

First the warrior masters single combat because it is the most simple way of teaching the art of "Mastering" and the Way of single Combat. With the mastery of single combat and its strategies, ten thousand warriors are but a single combat by one master against another master weilding thousands of warriors. If the one master weilds superior numbers, then the response is the same as the techniques mastered during single combat training for one killing many.

In a game based on combat, sneaking around (strategy) only teaches conflict avoidence. Mastering the games combat teaches the practitioner the game, it's nuances, and creates a well spring of experience to draw from to defeat your enemies. That is true strategy. Any one else using the word strategy is covering up their own inability to compete on an equal footing with the games top combat practitioners.

Those who lust for combat already have strategy as the tang of their sword.

Awesome

    I think Musashi was speaking way deeper when he speaks about "The Spirit that defeats one man is the same spirit that defeats a million" when you reach "The way" and have full knowledge and use of "No strategy" as "strategy" you will be unconquerable, no matter the odds stacked against you.