Game Play Idea

[B4Buster]

NC, I think it's a great idea, but wouldn't work with the player base.

Fugitive - we have a surplus of Generals...

[The Fugitive]

NC, I think it's a great idea, but wouldn't work with the player base.

Fugitive - we have a surplus of Generals...

True, true, but what we need are good Generals   

Mugz was good, Tzr was good, I think Ripsnort was another one that ran missions. Knights had a good one too but I don't remember his name. These were guys that as soon as they logged in players were asking for them to run some missions to get the country organized.  These guys looked at the map and figured a way to push the team toward a favorable position, if not a winning one.

GHI and the Jokers run missions but they seem to do it for thrill of grabbing undefended bases. There really isn't any rhyme or reason for theirs other than that.

These old generals would use Noes, bombers, fighter sweeps as diversions, while having GV pork the next field on their list. They would play the arena like it was an orchestra. They generated fights all over the map all the while working toward winning the war. Thats whats needed again. 

[jimson]

How was this capture order implemented? It seems to need to be built into the terrain.

[Lusche]

How was this capture order implemented? It seems to need to be built into the terrain.

Yes, it had to be. Actually the capture order was a integral, yet hidden part of gameplay until very recently, as it was used to designate certain bases as uncapturable.
If you have to capture A9 before A10, but at the same time A10 before A9, both bases can not be captured.

[NCLawman]

Regarding the capture order....  I did not like that system at all.   For this idea, I would suggest that any base is capturable at any time.  I was just suggesting that it MIGHT improve on the fights and play if the 'end goal' was to capture the enemy HQ.  

I read one comment that said this would make all other bases irrelevant.  I don't think they would be.  They aren't irrelevant IF that is the path your side has chosen to try and reach the HQ.  By that I mean, that you may not want to 'run' straight up the middle.  Your strategy might be more of an end around and work toward a different approach to the HQ.  The vast majority might be stalemated in the center of the map, so you could take a squad and try to punch around the outsides.

The point is, the bases are irrelevant on the outside if you choose to go up the middle.  However, they provide a second avenue of approach.  But WHEN they are irrelevant, there is no point in dudes running these "uncontested NOEs".  yeah they got a base, but it did not lead anywhere.  It did not accomplish anything toward the "winz the warz".  I would hope that would discourage the mindless vulching and uncontested base capture.

[warhed]

Regarding the capture order....  I did not like that system at all.   For this idea, I would suggest that any base is capturable at any time.  I was just suggesting that it MIGHT improve on the fights and play if the 'end goal' was to capture the enemy HQ.  

I read one comment that said this would make all other bases irrelevant.  I don't think they would be.  They aren't irrelevant IF that is the path your side has chosen to try and reach the HQ.  By that I mean, that you may not want to 'run' straight up the middle.  Your strategy might be more of an end around and work toward a different approach to the HQ.  The vast majority might be stalemated in the center of the map, so you could take a squad and try to punch around the outsides.

The point is, the bases are irrelevant on the outside if you choose to go up the middle.  However, they provide a second avenue of approach.  But WHEN they are irrelevant, there is no point in dudes running these "uncontested NOEs".  yeah they got a base, but it did not lead anywhere.  It did not accomplish anything toward the "winz the warz".  I would hope that would discourage the mindless vulching and uncontested base capture.

I'm failing to see the differences between this idea, and what we have now.  Minus capturing HQ to win.  
If a NOE or Horde attack failed in your system, they would pop up at some other base with less resistance.
Which is what happens now.

I'm not so sure the "win the war" types are only about winning the war as a goal, I think they care more about winning (by whatever means) battles.  Not so much "win" the war, but "winning" the war, in other terms.

[HawkerMKII]

NCLawman..........this is a COMBAT game, not a win the war.....furball only....don't try to fight it....XBOX shoot em up wins......sorry dude win the war types lose......no reason to capture bases anymore.....no reason to hit strat......just up a plane so the score hordes can shoot you down and see their name in lights.

[NCLawman]

I'm failing to see the differences between this idea, and what we have now.  Minus capturing HQ to win.  
If a NOE or Horde attack failed in your system, they would pop up at some other base with less resistance.
Which is what happens now.

I'm not so sure the "win the war" types are only about winning the war as a goal, I think they care more about winning (by whatever means) battles.  Not so much "win" the war, but "winning" the war, in other terms.

That's fair enough.

The reason I see this as different, is that while they may try to play the "whack a mole" game, if they just keep taking bases, uncoordinated all over the map, they are not really accomplishing anything toward "Winz the Warz".  You are completely correct though in that if their only goal is the capture of a base - for the sake of capturing a base, This system would be pointless.  And, that is where I think a lot of the anti-winz the warz types are arguing and I agree.  It is my opinion (and we all know what those are worth) that capturing pointless bases for the sake of saying I took a base is pointless and boring.  But, to each their own.  

What i might suggest about the Capture the Flag style (CtF) would be that all those WTGs on base captures, might drop off if the rest of the country realize that Squad A just wasted time and resources building a bridge to no-where.  On the other hand, if they capture a base on or along the active front, and move closer toward the 'end game' it might be worthy of some WTGs on channel.  However, capturing a base on the active front means they had to fight for it and therefore it is worthy of the WTGs.

Again, I am not saying this idea is the end-all beat-all.  I am just trying to think of new ideas that the community may be interested in to keep the game fresh and break the monotony.  

 

[Knite]

In a tweak to the original idea, how about make it even more "Capture the flag" like, and... well... kinda like this...

HQ contains a flag, and is surrounded by the cities that are currently used as Strats, including the flak towers, etc. To "win the war", you would have to land at the enemy's HQ with a C47, drop 10 troops, they'd run to tower and all 10 troops must survive, 60 seconds later, run back to the C47, and you'd have to successfully land with the enemy flag at one of your own airfields.
Maps will always state what sector the flag is in, but not where inside each sector. When your team's map is taken, the 163 is enabled at the closest surrounding friendly airfields to the HQ.

What this does is put a risk vs. reward system in for everyone. Do you try to sneak the flag from many airfields away? Do you capture all airbases on the way to the enemy HQ to make the egress a much shorter distance? It gives a lot of work for the bomber guys to do (take out flak towers, all hangars), attack guys and GVs (if you captured the bases close to HQ - take out local ACK), and puts risk of sitting your C-47 on an enemy runway for some time. (obviously you'd want to take out all hangars for this maneuver). It would allow the defenders ok defense with the heavy AA outside the HQ, as well as the fact that all you have to do to "reset the flag" is to shoot down a slow goon. Also makes the bases immediately around HQ that much more important. Also puts more emphasis on a moving battle line, to try to stop deeper penetration instead of capturing bases like ports irregardless of what's going on around them.

This is not a criticism on current gameplay, just an attempt to tweak the OP's idea a little. =)

[Ghastly]

What if the only thing that mattered was taking a (any) base to those doing so, not the effect it would have on the war?  The reason I ask is that I can't count the number of times I've seen (although more so when NOE's were more prevalent) a base that's taken, and by the time you get there, it's completely deserted.  And even when it's obvious that it's going to be retaken, at most 1 or 2 people up to defend.   If it were the war that mattered, people would defend the beachhead -it's almost always easier to defend than retake.  Yet despite this those who took the field are gone without so much as a backward glance - they're off to the races to take another field somewhere else. This argues to me that for many people, winning the war isn't all that important - but taking the base is.

"Then if the same group continues that path of least resistance and you see they have pushed 3 bases into your territory, you can send a few resources down there to keep them away from HQ".

Fine if there was some overall "Command structure" that could send folks somewhere - as it is, it's a cat-herd, with each individual doing his or her own thing.  Unless there is some sort of incentive to do so (and "fun" is the most usual) no one is going to do a durn thing regardless of how much sense it makes from an overall viewpoint.

But mostly, I'd be worried that any kind of capture the flag based end game is going to have a funneling issue that's going to hoover scummy pond water for the losing side. The closer one side is to losing, the more concentrated the other forces against them become as they are penned up closer and closer to their HQ and have increasingly less options. At some point fairly early on many (not all, but enough) will switch away from the side that's losing, exacerbating the unbalance, and accelerating the squeeze - and causing all kinds of headaches for everyone if ENY is still a part of your plan.

And having once flown another sim where the gameplay mechanics would allow one side to bottle another up to a single field and still not end the war, I can tell you that you definitely don't want to go there - people could and would delay the inevitable for as long as they could to club baby seals for as long as possible.  Being vulched is bad enough when you CHOOSE to take off from a capped field, but 5 hours of attempting to defend from 1 or 2 fields that are capped and camped all the while is enough to make anyone consider canceling their account. 

As gameplay stands now, the war-end mechanics generally prevent these scenarios from developing.

<S>