I would argue that World War 2 Online has as many players online as Aces High does and it's been around for quite a while. I would also argue that World War 2 Online had way more players at some point. Planetside failed because SOE is retarded (hello SWG).
People don't take out strategic targets because it takes only a few hours of just zerging bases to win the map with the current "war." Why can't the game require one country to take a capitol before they win? Those clusters of factories/cities/capitol look awesome and I'd love to fight in/around it, but it NEVER happens. There is no war currently, it feels like a battlefield map where you take maybe two or three bases and you win (I know it's more than two or three, but not by much). This is silly especially with how easy it is to fly under radar with 20 or less people and immediately take down every spawn building before defenders can even spawn onto the runway to attempt a defense. Attack orders like in World War 2 Online would allow defenders to actually defend. I'm not going to repeat my reasoning behind it, but if you care, you can look back when I talked about it a couple pages ago. I don't know what the sequential base order thing was, but attack orders sounds different from what that was.
This is your line that caused me to start my post the way I did. I followed that up with the information that I played WWII on-line when it first started so that you could under stand why my comments where what they were. The old "Been there, did that" info.
Take out the first paragraph and your argument becomes much more solid. You constantly berate me for being young, yet you're the only one slinging insults around. I never said World War 2 Online came out first, nor did I say that it had a flawless launch. What I do know about World War 2 Online is that they have an actual persistent war with strategic targets that matter. I also know that at their peak, they had way more players than Aces High. The game you are talking about didn't really exist for very long. Comparing the old versions of both games to each other is silly. It would be like comparing Starcraft: Brood War to Warcraft II even though Starcraft II and Warcraft III are already out. It just doesn't make any sense and doesn't add anything to the discussion.
Where did I "berate" you for being young? Although, you start this post proving that you are young with one bigarnold chip on your shoulder. The point I was making, with YOUR information, is that while Aces High is still here and has grown, WWII On-line had it's hey day early, and is now slipping away. Maybe it's because of the way this game is managed, as compared to how that one is.
I remember playing old FPS games on a 56k modem. I remember playing MMORPGs where the players had to make their own content (sandbox). EVE online is still around with that model and has done nothing but grow over the years, but it doesn't have anywhere near the numbers that the major "theme park" MMOs have where a lot of the content is scripted. What I'm trying to say is that games evolve or they become extremely niche. Again, the question is do they want this game to have a small and loyal playerbase or try to attract a larger crowd?
Flight Sims have always been a niche type game, especially ones that have good flight models. The reason being is that it takes time and practice (as you are finding out) to become average, never mind elite at them. Eve, WoW, COD are all games that you can learn in an afternoon, and be good at them in a week or two. They are also games that you can be bored with in a couple months.
As for being history buffs. I'm fairly confident in my World War 2 knowledge, but that doesn't mean I want to have a full war simulation. I want the planes to behave historically, but I don't want to go on multiple hour long sorties with the possibility of not even seeing an enemy. Snapshots are available for those that do. The current bases are spaced really closely together such that you have to try really hard to fly for more than ten minutes toward an enemy base and not find an enemy. I like that, but there are times where I may want to sit back and watch the ballgame while auto climbing in a bomber and go bomb something. Adding in some real strategic targets could possibly increase the number of people flying high level bombing attacks and since they will show up on radar and have to fly way behind enemy lines, fighters would be able to intercept them. This could lead to some interesting fights to go along with the base fights. I'd also like to see some actual flak guns on the fields. The factory that produces them could make for a good strategic target. The flak would make it much harder for people to simply swarm a base. A high altitude bomber would have to take the flak out before the smaller planes could get near the field. Taking out the strategic factory could accomplish the same thing, as could ground vehicles or cruiser guns.
I wasn't picking on you directly when I said that about the player base NOT knowing WWII history. From what I've read of your post it's doesn't sound like thats the reason your here to play either. The reason I mentioned the history is that most of the older players, or those that played years ago even if they have left, played the game for the thrill of being a WWII pilot. For most of them it wasn't a game, it was an alternate reality, and alter ego. They played the "game" like they had read about WWII. They built missions, looked for enemy missions, fought tank battles on a battle field. To most it was the battle that was what they were after, winning the war was secondary. [/quote]
That brings me to my realization of the problem. My solutions may not be the best choice or the most popular but the problem remains. The problem is that currently, the best way to win the war is to take the bases as fast as possible and ignore strategic targets. The fastest way to take bases is to zerg them. It's very hard to take out all the bombers and fighter bombers using short range AA (they fire their rockets and drop their bombs before you can come close to killing them) and your own fighters. It's very very difficult to counter a horde of fighter bombers hellbent on beelining towards the base with their ords. So the problem is that to win the war, there are no other options than to take bases and taking bases is best accomplished by zerging. There needs to be more options to take bases and there needs to be more options for base defense. Cutting off supplies, large flak guns, destroying factories for said flak guns, etc.
Todays players are all about winning the war, to them it is the ONLY goal in this game, much like other games, you must battle and defeat the "boss monster" to win, how they get through that battle is unimportant. "Power-ups", "walk through guides" "hidden manna" what ever. I see it with my son all the time. He's 24 and works for a Security Software company and has been brought up on Nintendo. I think he beat Zelda before he was even in school! I've seen him go through game after game. Assassins Creed lasted 2 weeks. He beat it in 3 days, then went back and did all the "side games", and then he moved on to another game. This is the player mentality these days. Whether your young or old, if your playing Xbox, Playstation or WWii it's how your "trained". Buy the game, look up the codes, play the game, beat the game, and BUY a new game. It's how they make their money.
Aces High on the other hand isn't like that. You don't just whip through it and move on to the next one, though I'm sure the turn over is higher these days than it was 7-10 years ago. It's a fun game, and so many are looking for the "next one" because they "beat" this one by winning the war so often and they are bored. That's why you see sooooo many request for this pane and that plane (even tho they were never in the war), or this tank or that tank, or new terrains/maps. They are bored. The problem is, to play all the side game in Aces High, you have to LEARN how to really play, TRAIN and PRACTICE to get good enough to accomplish them, and that's just too much work.
