Great new ideas for strategic evolution of game

[Letalis]

Leave the score system in place.  Tweaking it to factor in ENY as previously discussed in this thread for the sake of evening the scoring field is a good idea.  If you don't like score/rank, ignore it. If some idiot dweeb thinks he's better than you because of his score, go all DA on his derriere  or better yet, don't care what he thinks. If you think the scoring system is responsible for dweebish flying I disagree. People kill you because that is what they're there for and they will kill you any way they can because defeating futile attempts at survival is what we find amusing.  

Leave the perks alone, it basically serves its purpose.  Go a week seeing a 262 for every Pony and you'll be happy for a couple days because you'll have a free 262 as well.  Then what do you think will happen? You will start missing your sentimental newly uber uncompetitive  plane X and get frustrated. Variety is the spice of life.

When I drop a bomb on something I want it to go boom. No spontaneous structural regeneration crap if I die.  

If we want to see strategy we should have incentive to fight a war. The basic incentive to fight a war is the ability to win it. Map changes every several hours do not permit this.  Is there a point to capturing bases right now that someone isn't telling me about?  A vulch is fun but does nothing except pad stats.  

Change towns so they do not regenerate (but allow AAA to regen post-capture), let a team leave a satisfying wake of destruction in the scarce few hours of fighting on a given map.  Front lines will take battle damage, front lines will move faster and no bomb runs will be wasted.  "Porking" a town will have meaning for bombers instead of simply being a dweebish waste of time 90% of the time.

When it is time for the map to change, the game should flash some stats from the campaign and declare a winner for the engagement (taking relative player levels into account) instead of just kicking everyone.  

The game should track map wins by for each country over the course of an entire tour to give country loyalty some vague form of meaning.  To give players a little vested interest in helping the greater cause, give them some general use perks for base captures to use as they see fit. (IE I don't fly buffs but find the B-29 is appealing) Said perks could be used in any category and transferable to players who care about perks.  For those who really care about winning the war but understandably see goon resupply runs as boring, let them spend these general use perks strategically to regenerate the damaged towns that would not regen otherwise.
 
As far as stopping the "bomb and bail" crowd, I don't think this is a huge issue, it happens a minority of the time. Also, while I've never done it I can understand the temptation. Buff sorties get shot down a majority of the time, take mucho time and there is little incentive to wasting your day driving your virtual buff a half hour home after you've gotten your perks.  Most of the time these folks just provide easy kills for the rest of us.  That said, there are more "realistic" options to control this dweeb behavior.  IE: If they bail from a perfectly good aircraft, throw a modest perk fine at them instead of rewarding the sortie with additional perks.  If someone still does this despite the perk penalty I say let them- if they aren't doing it for themselves they are doing it for their country's war effort with the limited time they have online.

[ToeTag]

I didn't read through all the posts so sorry if I am repeating an idea.

WWII was fought over gaining real estate. So my idea is to make strats very important and have their strength determine how well country can

-build tanks and planes
-the mobility of supplies
-the mobility of assets

Instead of placing a fight at or for a base, place the fight at a major city/strat arrangement like what is currently in game, that when captured would allow the victor to have faster supply rate than the loosing side.

You would be required to capture the City and Strats (old strats like Radar, Aircraft, AA, Vehicles and Refinery) in order to acquire the bases in that zone. They would be captured in a specific order.  This order is only known to your country.  Once the zone assets are captured in the specific order the zone bases of your enemy are acquired. Bases are still able to take damage as it is currently in game but are only captured when the zone is defeated.  The capture criteria are the same as a town currently in the game.

A base will be able to service all strats in a zone and other bases will only service assets closest to them.  Your country is the only one that knows which base services which assets.  A dead VH at a base is the same as it is in game.  I would recommend making it harder to knock out than it is currently in game. I would also recommend killing channel 200 and pm’s from country to country (this is probably the biggest improvement in the game) to prevent cheating.

The assets of your country are hidden to the opposing countries. They must be found and identified (low level aircraft observation or GV).  All of your countries assets are interlinked buy multiple railways to each asset.  All spawns coincide with the train system.  The spawn from bases to assets are movable waypoints like the CV’s are currently in game.  They can be placed by a high ranking member of your country.  That individual can only control the spawn for one base or asset at a time.  They may only control the spawn for 30 minutes.  This spawn point may be placed anywhere along the rail system but no further away than 1.5K from the rail itself and or asset. You can’t spawn to the far side of an asset only to the closest side to your base.  If a spawn is moved rearward by a 1.5K increment then the spawn can not be moved forward again until the area is cleared of enemy GV’s up to the previous spawn spot.

GV fights would be amazing.
Air support would be required. 
Air superiority would be ideal.
Strategy really would become a critical factor. 

It’s a rough draft.

[Letalis]

Love the idea of adding a logistics/economic element to the game, but every time I think about asking for this myself I think of the times I only have a half hour to play and just wanna shoot something.  Scarcity is part of war and economics. Logging in to discover a favorite ride is not in supply or can't be outfitted the way you want might put off some while adding little for the rest.  Personally I like it.

Killing 200 AND PMs is pretty extreme. Perhaps a "boot" function in the msn creator would help cull the ranks of spies.

V-base difficulty is good as is imho.  Grabs would be much more difficult if more players cared about defending them.  As it is, there is no incentive to defend and most players trend toward aircraft for fun.  Fix the other factors and the V-base gets tough.

Fighting battles in order of specific objectives would make for some awesome battles but would hurt the FPS for some players, kill the elements of surprise and maneuver and feel very canned after playing the map several times.  The presence of a deep strategic system still is not necessarily incentive for the player to participate, hence ^^ the general perks idea above.

The spawn idea you threw out is pretty good, the current map architecture makes it hard to implement though    I've started building new maps but  prefer flying.  If I had it my way GVs could spawn ANYWHERE with the  following restrictions:
1. Outside a given radius of an enemy base
2. Aft of the FLOT a given distance.  The FLOT would be defined as a series of lines drawn between adjacent friendly bases. This measure would prevent magical spawns to the enemy's rear. If an enemy base is surrounded, spawns can happen 360 deg outside the specified radius.
3. Outside a specified radius of enemy GVs.

GV missions could be built with specific spawn coordinates for different groups as determined by the creating player, allowing for mass flanking maneuvers instead of simply getting spawn-camped en-masse.

GVs would be able to "land" anywhere they would be allowed to spawn in as defined above.

 

[ToeTag]

Love the idea of adding a logistics/economic element to the game, but every time I think about asking for this myself I think of the times I only have a half hour to play and just wanna shoot something.  Scarcity is part of war and economics. Logging in to discover a favorite ride is not in supply or can't be outfitted the way you want might put off some while adding little for the rest.  Personally I like it.

No limit to ride just resupply rate or rebuild time

Killing 200 AND PMs is pretty extreme. Perhaps a "boot" function in the msn creator would help cull the ranks of spies.

Joking, but would help over all for the reputation of the game

V-base difficulty is good as is imho.  Grabs would be much more difficult if more players cared about defending them.  As it is, there is no incentive to defend and most players trend toward aircraft for fun.  Fix the other factors and the V-base gets tough.

No "V" bases. Only "A" bases with vehicle capability.

Fighting battles in order of specific objectives would make for some awesome battles but would hurt the FPS for some players, kill the elements of surprise and maneuver and feel very canned after playing the map several times.  The presence of a deep strategic system still is not necessarily incentive for the player to participate, hence ^^ the general perks idea above.

With my proposed sytem suprise is about strategy or deception.  I have not laid out everything I'm seeing.  As the current game sits there is no suprise factor anyway. Unless NOE is your game.

The spawn idea you threw out is pretty good (TY) ,the current map architecture makes it hard to implement though    I've started building new maps but   prefer flying.  If I had it my way GVs could spawn ANYWHERE with the  following restrictions:
1. Outside a given radius of an enemy base
2. Aft of the FLOT a given distance.  The FLOT would be defined as a series of lines drawn between adjacent friendly bases. This measure would prevent magical spawns to the enemy's rear. If an enemy base is surrounded, spawns can happen 360 deg outside the specified radius.
3. Outside a specified radius of enemy GVs.

GV missions could be built with specific spawn coordinates for different groups as determined by the creating player, allowing for mass flanking maneuvers instead of simply getting spawn-camped en-masse. I likey this

It is pretty much what I had in mind with spawning 1.5K from any of the three rail lines entering a target.  Pretty much the same thing. Essentialy killing Spawn camping

GVs would be able to "land" anywhere they would be allowed to spawn in as defined above.

I think 1.5K from spawn towards a friendly base regardless of aircraft.  Make them work for it.

 

[The Fugitive]

I don't think you need to make such big changes.

GV battle would really pick up and be a lot of fun if the spawn points all had that "pitch fork" look to them. Spawn NE, and it spawns you at one of three spawn points located a mile or so apart. For more fun make them 5 miles apart to give you time for flanking maneuvers. Add numbers to the three points so you can choose which of the three you want to spawn at.

The biggest problem is getting defenders up. I thought when HTC increased the dar circle it made things a lot more fun. You could see where they were coming from and launch to intercept.  Make the dar a double station, both towers up we get the big circle, knock one down and it drops back to the smaller circle, knock the second tower down and dar is out. With the bigger circles it takes more planning and co-ordination to take out the dars to help you get to target. Once dars start dropping out you'll have people cruising the skies looking for the attacks.

They just have to make it worth while to have a fight so that less people look for more ways to avoid them.

[SmokinLoon]

I don't think you need to make such big changes.

GV battle would really pick up and be a lot of fun if the spawn points all had that "pitch fork" look to them. Spawn NE, and it spawns you at one of three spawn points located a mile or so apart. For more fun make them 5 miles apart to give you time for flanking maneuvers. Add numbers to the three points so you can choose which of the three you want to spawn at.

I've often wondered why each and every one of the spawn point direction tabs in the hanger are not used.  How difficult or time consuming can it be to simply add in all the available options?  Sounds like a good thing for an intern to do. 

[ScottyK]

I don't think you need to make such big changes.

GV battle would really pick up and be a lot of fun if the spawn points all had that "pitch fork" look to them. Spawn NE, and it spawns you at one of three spawn points located a mile or so apart. For more fun make them 5 miles apart to give you time for flanking maneuvers. Add numbers to the three points so you can choose which of the three you want to spawn at.

The biggest problem is getting defenders up. I thought when HTC increased the dar circle it made things a lot more fun. You could see where they were coming from and launch to intercept.  Make the dar a double station, both towers up we get the big circle, knock one down and it drops back to the smaller circle, knock the second tower down and dar is out. With the bigger circles it takes more planning and co-ordination to take out the dars to help you get to target. Once dars start dropping out you'll have people cruising the skies looking for the attacks.

They just have to make it worth while to have a fight so that less people look for more ways to avoid them.

 i think they should increase radar to sections not indvidual bases and have these radar stations well defended simialr to the strats, or have radar stations for groups of 5-6 bases or less.

[ToeTag]

Well with current competition amongst other games they need to do something to compete.  Funneling gv action into large battle scenarios in a town or locale, would make the GV aspect competitive with other player stealing formats.  Good for business.  If you then add Aircraft, which the others do not have or are not done to the same standards, you are the pinnacle in your environment.  Let’s face it that’s why they are here, to be the best overall gaming experience. Take existing code and apply it to different looking bases.  It will take work but that’s what a job is all about.  With this proposal your funneling gv battles to 10 points vs. the current 75 points. This equates to bigger better gv fights.  Then add the current aircraft support role (bigger better), fighter role (bigger better) and then bombing (now more relevant) you now have a game that offers a similar gv game with much more.  Considering the current changes to the GV interface it seems to me they are trying to be competitive. 

[The Fugitive]

Well with current competition amongst other games they need to do something to compete.  Funneling gv action into large battle scenarios in a town or locale, would make the GV aspect competitive with other player stealing formats.  Good for business.  If you then add Aircraft, which the others do not have or are not done to the same standards, you are the pinnacle in your environment.  Let’s face it that’s why they are here, to be the best overall gaming experience. Take existing code and apply it to different looking bases.  It will take work but that’s what a job is all about.  With this proposal your funneling gv battles to 10 points vs. the current 75 points. This equates to bigger better gv fights.  Then add the current aircraft support role (bigger better), fighter role (bigger better) and then bombing (now more relevant) you now have a game that offers a similar gv game with much more.  Considering the current changes to the GV interface it seems to me they are trying to be competitive. 

Your counting on defense, whats the pull that's going to make players WANT to defend? Most fighter guy coundn't care less if the resupplies take twice as long (because they lost a city/factory). As long as they have a plane to up they are good.

The horde groups complain about ENY when they out number the enemy 2 and 3 to 1 now and can't use their preferred uber machine, they don't care for resupply either, they are too busy laying waste to bases as they take them like a horde of locust.

GVers complain about getting bomber now, you want to centralize them to make it easier to wipe out large groups with a few dive bombing lancs.

GVers only game now is spawn camping, instead of spreading them out with the 75 spawns now you again want to close things up to have only 10.... might be a bit easier to find a spawn to camp there don't cha think?

Someone suggested to take the ack back out of town. I think this would be a big step in bringing GVs back into a capture set-up. Tank battles in that huge town use to be the rage, maybe getting a few going in the small towns would light that spark again.

[Guppy35]

OK this is what I want.

While WW2 took years to fight, for the sake of game play lets break it down into weeks.  First week is 1939-40.  Early war planes.  This will be the time that two of the countries can overwhelm the third with numbers.  Near the end of the first week the single country will still be backpedaling on one front, but will make a heroic stand on the other front.

2nd week is 1941-42.  Still early war planes but a small amount of midwar planes join the fray.  Things start to get stagnant on both fronts for the single country.  The other two countries despite their best efforts just can't keep the momentum up.

3rd week is 43-44 and the tide starts to turn.  The single country gets a lot more planes and pilots and starts to pound the other two with heavy bombers.  It begins to roll one of the other two countries and by midweek it's starting to make gains in the other.

4th week is 45.  The single country pounds one of the other two into oblivion by the first half of the week and in a surprise move HTC gives it a nuke which finishes off the other country by about Friday.

Rotate who the single country is every four weeks.   That way each chess piece knows it will win the war every four weeks.


And yes I'm kidding

[Rob52240]

Just a thought.  Why not introduce supply lines that are less effective the further you drive into enemy territory.  Instead of strategic resources (field ack, ords, radar etc.) taking 45 minutes to regenerate, maybe they should take longer to come back proportionally to how close they are to the original owner's HQ.

I'd also like to have more trains to shoot at.  I think the locobusters would agree with me.  Since we should add more trains, I'd also like to have a sapper platoon available for the half tracks to be used on sabotage missions.

[ToeTag]

Your counting on defense, whats the pull that's going to make players WANT to defend? Most fighter guy coundn't care less if the resupplies take twice as long (because they lost a city/factory). As long as they have a plane to up they are good.

They might want to defend Troops, Vehicle hangers, Fighter hangers, ords and so on. Other wise they wont have any thing to fight with.  If they are the fighter type they will want full tanks of fuel instead of 50%

The horde groups complain about ENY when they out number the enemy 2 and 3 to 1 now and can't use their preferred uber machine, they don't care for resupply either, they are too busy laying waste to bases as they take them like a horde of locust.

I don't think there is a defense to this type of game play

GVers complain about getting bomber now, you want to centralize them to make it easier to wipe out large groups with a few dive bombing lancs.

Strats would be massive in size.  I think Icons should be eliminated for gv's

GVers only game now is spawn camping, instead of spreading them out with the 75 spawns now you again want to close things up to have only 10.... might be a bit easier to find a spawn to camp there don't cha think?

My idea would allow you to move your V spawn anywhere along a rail line.  It would be nearly imposible to camp.  Re read that part.

Someone suggested to take the ack back out of town. I think this would be a big step in bringing GVs back into a capture set-up. Tank battles in that huge town use to be the rage, maybe getting a few going in the small towns would light that spark again.

[The Fugitive]

Your counting on defense, whats the pull that's going to make players WANT to defend? Most fighter guy coundn't care less if the resupplies take twice as long (because they lost a city/factory). As long as they have a plane to up they are good.

They might want to defend Troops, Vehicle hangers, Fighter hangers, ords and so on. Other wise they wont have any thing to fight with.  If they are the fighter type they will want full tanks of fuel instead of 50%

Not at all. Fighter fight. As soon as the FHs are down some may up at the next base over to continue the fight IF it looks like it will still be a fight, but most just look for the next fight and go there.

The horde groups complain about ENY when they out number the enemy 2 and 3 to 1 now and can't use their preferred uber machine, they don't care for resupply either, they are too busy laying waste to bases as they take them like a horde of locust.

I don't think there is a defense to this type of game play

I agree with you here. The only way is if HTC puts some mechanism into the game that automatically increases the hardness/difficulty of taking the base in a direct ratio with the attacking force. The bigger the force, the harder/more work it takes to get the base. Once these guys figure out that 5 groups of 10 guys have a better chance of capturing 2-3 bases at the same time than 1 group of 50 has of getting 1 base the game play will pick up.

GVers complain about getting bomber now, you want to centralize them to make it easier to wipe out large groups with a few dive bombing lancs.

Strats would be massive in size.  I think Icons should be eliminated for gv's

Picture the island map we have now with the tank town  in the middle of the center island. You have a bunch of GVs spawning in and moving around, this generates the dive bombing buffs, which generates the picking fighters. Is that what your shooting for?

GVers only game now is spawn camping, instead of spreading them out with the 75 spawns now you again want to close things up to have only 10.... might be a bit easier to find a spawn to camp there don't cha think?

My idea would allow you to move your V spawn anywhere along a rail line.  It would be nearly imposible to camp.  Re read that part.

I read that part, I just think the coding for a movable spawn point would be a nightmare. The guys at HTC are much smarter than I am so maybe they could do it with ease, or maybe they could have multiple spawn points along your tracks but only open them when certain conditions are met. Even so I just don't think centralising your GV ground is a good idea.

Icons on, or off I don't think makes that big a deal. The dots are not that hard to spot for an old guy like me and if they are fighting the gun fire surely marks themas well as sending up a flare.

[hyzer]

All the ideas being brought forth all pretty good and have their own strengths and weakness.  Problems arise from that old fart Murphy.  Or if you prefer The law of unintended consequences.  What one group thinks is the perfect style of game play completely turns off another group.

The problem as I see it is HTC can't reliably predict what one change may do to something seemingly entirely separate, let alone massive changes as described by some in this thread.  I haven't been in AH very long, but I did witness the slow motion destruction of WB many moons ago when new ownership flew by the seat of their pants and changed stuff because it sounded cool.  Any change has to come with some assurance of staying profitable.

The only idea that pops in my head is to develop an AH game simulation.  Where all the different ideas can be tried out.  You could play as a tool shedder, furballer, bomb dropper, boat driver, tank driver, infantry troop or whatever.

A one minute Google search brought up this link:

http://edweb.sdsu.edu/courses/edtec670/boardgame/BoardGameDesign1.html

I fully realize that to create this board game would probably be just as long and arduous a task as creating AH itself. 

[ToeTag]

I think this idea could be produced without a lot of new codeing.  Just add spawns in increments along the rail to simulate a moveable spawn.  Change the town object to a larger one and seperate it from the airbase.  Oh yea and add the Strats and TRAINS!