The Aces High War Doctrine

[lulu]

Bear,
We all can noticed it!
Another proof of God existence !

 

[Bear76]

Bear,
We all can noticed it!
Another proof of God existence !

 

  No idea what that means

[lulu]

Q. E. D.!

[BrownBaron]

There ought be a comma after, "Yes", DOLT!

and a comma after Mrs.English.

[Crash Orange]

on that note I will say this ...Honor...is not a shallow thing and should be upheld above all and yes that includes LIFE

Honor includes the following

Integrity
loyalty
Respect
Righteousness
Dignity
Love
and above all is Truth


none of which, is held to high esteem in our "western" world.

Don't be so hard on our Western world. It proved victorious, materially, morally, and spiritually, in the two defining ideological struggles of the 20th century, and is, I think, on its way to winning the first great one of the 21st. Meanwhile the line of thought and definition of "honor" of which Musashi was a part ended with prisoner-beheading contests, mothers jumping off cliffs with their infants, and bayonet practice on babies after gang-raping their mothers to death. Thanks, but I'll take our soft and decadent Western world and its admittably imperfect regard for the sanctity and dignity of human life over that any day of the week.

[lulu]

It seems to me that Musashi was more a victim than a part. 

A war. every type of war, has no winners but only losers!

Who really think that somebody has won a war?
War is not something as a tennis game.

In Musashi coherence of actions could  be the appreciable factor.

A factor that is a rare thing if you consider that many people
seem to live as to be or no to be are the same thing at the same time.
They are more dangerous than Musashi and generally they support
personality as Musashi one.

 







 

[bj229r]

A war. every type of war, has no winners but only losers!

Who really think that somebody has won a war?

Well....I will draw my conclusions from photos of Berlin, Tokyo, and Washington, DC in 1945

[TheRapier]

Sorry, but this opening of this thread seems to be another "there is only one way to play this game and I have it!" threads. Its really sort of religious in that people believe a certain way, and they want to make converts by force or argument. It's sort of like, "if only we can get everyone to believe this same thing, the world (game) will be a better place."

In reality, if this were true, it would just be a religious dictatorship and we've all seen how those work. . .

The reality is that the game is whatever YOU make it, just as the world is. You can believe the base taking game is IT and do that. The reality is that HTC didn't design a game that you "win", they designed a game where the battle is supposed to go on forever. The evidence is there if you want to see it. In a real war, one side or another works very hard to get the edge in:

1. Numbers
2. Equipment

to get territory. They build up armies to overwhelm the other side. In this game, you can side switch, essentially throwing the numbers off. If the point were to win the war, why would you do this? How would WWII have worked if the Soviet armies suddenly changed sides?

As to Equipment, ENY is made to make this basically net even. If you get numbers, you lose in equipment. Generally this is not how a war prosecuted to win works. When you want to win, you work for qualitative and quantitative superiority. ENY's effects work as if, in 1944 when the Allies started to get quantitative superiority, they decided to go back to their 1941 plane set, P40s, Buffalos, P39s, Spit 1s, etc. This is obviously NOT what someone does to win the war.

The fact of the matter is that the base taking "war" is designed to be endless, to NEVER be won. The fact that someone eventually wins the map is due to temporary conditions and shifts that get going with too much momentum to stop. However those are to a great degree a matter of chance and or gaming the system (like rolling bases late at night). If the goal is really to take bases and win the map, you should be lobbying to get rid of side switching and ENY. However, I can guarantee that these mechanisms or something like them, will be part of every iteration of AH .

Now some folks look at this and see it as futile. What matters to them is the air combat or the tank combat or the ship combat and that is what they do. It is NOT wrong, its just approaching it from another level.

If you are looking for the Holy Grail of AH, it is designing things so that no one ultimately "wins" anything, but that combat AT ALL LEVELS should be endless. That makes a good game and a horrible life. This is why it is counter intuitive to lots of folks.

So enjoy the game and for goodness sake, stop trying to tell other people how to play it. They'll just ignore you any way .

[bustr]

Japan and Germany were defeated by superior numbers, materiel, industry and speed of developing technologies.

A tidel wave of human production was dumped on them in a short three year period that they had no chance to keep up with. Japan and Germany were the two top militairy services on the planet until they gave the U.S. a reason to get pissed. In both cases, as soon as the U.S. joined the conflict, the reality clock kicked in that they both had limited resources in all catigories compared to the United States. Both were defeated in a TOTAL WAR by a HOARD of all catagories.

The closest type of wars to the three country MA would be Japan's Warring States Period. The american indian tribes warrior culture pre 1900's. Bronze age to mid Iron age Celts. Scottish Clans up to Culloden. Pre Temujin Mongol tribes. Anywhere in history that war was not used for empire building but, as the principel cultural pastime and vehicle of status for the males of the society. This is how you get characters like Grizz.

If HiTech wanted this game to be a "WAR", he would have only two countries, no ENY, all feilds capturable and/or totaly destroyable until map reset. Limited lives per player per day and a 100-500 perks for the survivors on the winning side at map reset. If he didn't limit side switching to long periods of time, everyone would mostly play for a single side as a Super Hoard. Radar would probably have smaller coverage rings with a 200ft NOE gap to promote sneak attacks while bases would be spaced up to two sectors apart to promote stageing and planning. With only two sides everyone would be expecting everyone else to do anything they can to game the game to survive. No more Grizz type of players. A war with two sides would not promote a willingness to engage in conflict but, a scramble to avoid meeting the enemy as much as possible untill as much territory or feilds as possible could be captured and/or destroyed. The last fight to reset the map would be a lopsided affair to be part of the winning HOARD and collect points.

The Great AvA War a few years back was a bit like this. They gave out medals and ribbons. We even had an Air Marshall for each side to give us our daily orders and strategies. One side would hoard, the other would sneak around hitting and running depending on the time of day. Very rarely were there any "Grand Air Battels". The strategists on both sides were busy coming up with sneaky plans to out sneak each other to achive each weeks objectives. Winning the war became more about sneaking around to avoid detection to achive objectives without having to fight for them. Players were getting so irritated by it all, at one point we almost lost ch200 privleges because of the seriously vile levels our conversations sank to out of frustration. We all did alot of HOing, picking and running away to live another day. Throw into this staggered plane set releases so one side would rule with technology for a week or so at a time. Ch200 got really, really vile. It's hard to appreciate the nuances of a war when a player may only have an hour to hop in and play and everyone else is sneaking around avoiding each other acheiving non-conflict related objectives.

Three countries promote on going fluctuating levels of conflict where reseting the map is ONLY one possiblity but never a guarantee. Having two other countries should make it harder to avoid contact with the enemy and the resulting combat, while acting as a limiter to a lopsided domination of game flow by any single group and/or an exploit of environmental blind spots. If this game was a "WAR" then yes, strategy not combat would be the only way to survive and get your points at the war's end. Or as with the late great AvA War achive the Sneeeky weekly objectives.

One night a week in the FSO with a single life in a two sided war is about the most frustration large groups of players can endure without getting channel 200 shut down. Channel 200 was starting to get salty before HiTEch shut down the NOE Plague by changing radar.

[Traveler]

I've noted this problem from time to time on one of the break room PC's at work but not every time and never on my home PC.

It's a mystery to me.

I always use another editor and copy and paste back into here.

[DaddieDrax]

NOE combat can be fun

[falcon23]

Channel 200 was starting to get salty before HiTEch shut down the NOE Plague by changing radar. QUOTE by bustr

  channel 200 is,and always will be "salty"..I dont believe saltiness on 200 has anything to do with noe's only.shut down percieved Ho'ing by 2 fighters, that will get rid of alot more than noe's ever contributed.

[BushLT1]

Bear76 that's not a cave ..its moms closet 

[Bear76]

Bear76 that's not a cave ..its moms closet 

Ya, but it's your mom's 

[Agent360]

Sorry, but this opening of this thread seems to be another "there is only one way to play this game and I have it!" threads. Its really sort of religious in that people believe a certain way, and they want to make converts by force or argument. It's sort of like, "if only we can get everyone to believe this same thing, the world (game) will be a better place."

In reality, if this were true, it would just be a religious dictatorship and we've all seen how those work. . .

The reality is that the game is whatever YOU make it, just as the world is. You can believe the base taking game is IT and do that. The reality is that HTC didn't design a game that you "win", they designed a game where the battle is supposed to go on forever. The evidence is there if you want to see it. In a real war, one side or another works very hard to get the edge in:

1. Numbers
2. Equipment

to get territory. They build up armies to overwhelm the other side. In this game, you can side switch, essentially throwing the numbers off. If the point were to win the war, why would you do this? How would WWII have worked if the Soviet armies suddenly changed sides?

As to Equipment, ENY is made to make this basically net even. If you get numbers, you lose in equipment. Generally this is not how a war prosecuted to win works. When you want to win, you work for qualitative and quantitative superiority. ENY's effects work as if, in 1944 when the Allies started to get quantitative superiority, they decided to go back to their 1941 plane set, P40s, Buffalos, P39s, Spit 1s, etc. This is obviously NOT what someone does to win the war.

The fact of the matter is that the base taking "war" is designed to be endless, to NEVER be won. The fact that someone eventually wins the map is due to temporary conditions and shifts that get going with too much momentum to stop. However those are to a great degree a matter of chance and or gaming the system (like rolling bases late at night). If the goal is really to take bases and win the map, you should be lobbying to get rid of side switching and ENY. However, I can guarantee that these mechanisms or something like them, will be part of every iteration of AH .

Now some folks look at this and see it as futile. What matters to them is the air combat or the tank combat or the ship combat and that is what they do. It is NOT wrong, its just approaching it from another level.

If you are looking for the Holy Grail of AH, it is designing things so that no one ultimately "wins" anything, but that combat AT ALL LEVELS should be endless. That makes a good game and a horrible life. This is why it is counter intuitive to lots of folks.

So enjoy the game and for goodness sake, stop trying to tell other people how to play it. They'll just ignore you any way .

I address the two bolded parts of the quote.

With all due respect...you haven't comprehended the meaning of my OP. I think, perhaps, the OP was a little over your head, so to speak.

But, you did mention "endless combat", and "no one ultimately "wins" anything" as what should be part of the doctrine. I would be interested to hear a more intelligent post on how this would benefit the game.