Great new ideas for strategic evolution of game

[dirtdart]

Funny, someone punted a thread from 03' that said the exact same thing.

[BaldEagl]

You want some ideas well, I'm never one to not propose something different so here goes some unrefined ideas off the top of my head to begin a discussion.

First go back to a single arena.  I think the split arenas and arena caps did more to harm the game than to help it and took away a lot of the sense of community as people were split apart.

Go back to the zone strat system.  More on that later.

Redesign the maps so that in default configuration all the large fields are in the rear, medium fields in the middle and small fields are along the front lines.

Limit the type and number of aircraft that can take off from each type of field.  Heavy bombers only from large fields, medium bombers from large or medium and light bombers from anywhere.  Limit how many fighters can utilize each type of airfield with more being able to take off from the larger fields than the smaller ones maybe limiting a small field to the size of an official AH squadron (what's that?  16?), twice that at a medium field and twice that again at a large field.  This will help disburse the hoards.  Also limit the impact of ENY so that it has full effect at the small fields, no effect at the large fields and something in between at the medium fields.  That way if you really want your uber bird you can have it but you'll have to fly to get it into the fight.  It will also limit the impact of ENY if one country is getting ganged as there would be no ENY restrictions at the rear (large) fields as you got beat back.

Back to the strat system.  Make each strat capturable.  If you take a field and don't own it's associated strat then whatever that strat controls is at a minimum at that field (maybe 25% fuel, no troops, no ord, no radar, no manned ack without the strats).  You want to use a field for more than short range fighter sorties then you better own the strats.  This would create a good war over the strats maybe even more than the fields and the interuptions of service between friendly and enemy fields in the same zone would create a dynamic strategic war.

Expand the naval and amphibious wars.  There's been a lot of demand for it over the years.

So there's a few rough ideas.

Here's another idea for the strat thing.  Maybe not owning it does what I said above but also owning it with it destroyed allows only 1/2 use or something along those lines (50% fuel, reduced radar range, lower value ords (say 500 lb bombs instead of 1000 lbers), 1/2 manned ack available, troop transports can only carry 5 instead of 10).

[Sunka]

I started playing this game after seeing a friend play it.
First reason was it was a WWII combait Sim with realistically handling planes.
Second reason was, it was real players from all over the world where we could match skills and see who was best for that fight.
Third reason i end up staying is because until i can shoot everyone down and not get shot down myself,until that point (which I'm know where near) I still have not reached my goal.

I think the game is just fine and to many changes can go quickly from an evolution to a De evolution.
My great idea is if its not broken don't fix it. 

[Lusche]

My great idea is if its not broken don't fix it.  

I think some would say: It is

I think I have to clarify: No, I personally do not think it's broken, but it has some dents and and quite a few spiderwebs all over. 

[redman555]

Idk man, im just saying. Take the multiple late war arenas out, and the game will double in greatness, not as good as it was, but close.

-BigBOBCH

[lulu]

Small targets.

The game needs small targets that can be taken by one player only.


 

[Lusche]

The game needs small targets that can be taken by one player only.

And that would help how?

[lyric1]

Most people don't like change even if things may be better it is just hard to change people's habits of many years. I am not against any change of strategic targets.  I do think any new change may just break the back of many players who don't like their game habits to be broken,& will just move on.

So what is the answer? I don't know the only thing I can offer that seems to get people excited is new vehicles. This is a slow process with a small staff as HTC is. If it was possible hammer out as many new items as quickly as they can & maybe even faster than the pace has ever been.

[Lusche]

Most people don't like change even if things may be better it is just hard to change people's habits of many years. I am not against any change of strategic targets.  I do think any new change may just break the back of many players who don't like their game habits to be broken,& will just move on.

If the change is too big, there is indeed a risk of alienating too many old players.. you always have to judge if it's worth it.

So what is the answer? I don't know the only thing I can offer that seems to get people excited is new vehicles. This is a slow process with a small staff as HTC is. If it was possible hammer out as many new items as quickly as they can & maybe even faster than the pace has ever been.

The pace has sped up a lot since Combat Tour was dropped. Doesn't seem to have had much impact on player numbers though    Is just "more planes" enough to keep new generations interested in this game to sign up?
I think the GV changes - as much as I do not like certain aspects personally - are an example for a good adjustment for the changing player demographics.

[redman555]

If the change is too big, there is indeed a risk of alienating too many old players

I quit the game because of the changes were to big, so this is a fact. I played for years and years, and then when all the stupid changes went in effect it made me not want to play anymore.  And again, I would love to give HTC more of my money, and I do greatly miss AH, but I would like for the arenas to be put back to one.  I would re subscribe in a heartbeat. Just have to run to the store and get a new joystick cause my X52 took a dump.

-BigBOBCH

[SmokinLoon]

For me, it is about the maps, lack of target variety, and a narrow strategic system.

Maps: there are no snow maps and no desert in the MA.  Why?  If the odd-ball map "Mundanao" can be used in the MA then I ask why cant any of the snow or desert maps be converted for use in the MA???  is it really that complicated???  There are some very nice player made winter and desert skins that could be used. I, along with many other players are weary of constant green-green-green maps.  Also, is there a possibility to rotate the front lines on some of the bigger maps, maybe each team swap 4-5 bases on teh other side of the lake or front?  There are probably hundreds of bases out there that have no tank battles yet provide great terrain but are so far from the front that the opportunity for them to get used it nil.

Target Variety: There are no targets to hammer that are not bases, towns, or heavily defended strategic strongholds.  Prior to the new strategic game, a group of players (or just one) could take NOE jabos to a radar factory, fuel refinery, etc, and pound it flat.  Those are non-existent now.  There are no targets to try and stealthily fly to, quickly hammer, and get out.  I like the large complexes to bomb, but they are an "all or none" mission.  I'd like to see those old strat targets return if for nothing else just something to have to attack that isn't heavily defended.

Narrow strategic system: Perhaps that is a bit broad of a statement, but I'd like to see even more repercussions for hammering the strategic complexes in AH.  When the HQ goes down, there is a mad scramble to try and get it resupplied.  I'd like to see HTC develop something similar for the different factories.  Maybe there is such a thing as once the ammo factory is down below %50 there are no 1000 lb and larger bombs available??? Etc.

I also think ammo bunkers and barracks should have a tiered system similar to the fuel tanks.  Why not???  This all or none stuff has absolutely no flavor.  Likewise, why not vary the troops carriers in the number of troops they can carry???  Why are we stuck on 10?  Give the carries their due!  Let the C47 carry 20, the LVT 16, the M3 and 251 12, and the keep the jeep at 3.  Why not?  Why is 10 the magic number for troops needed for capture?  Give the defenders more to shoot at, stop and think how many request have been made to involve infantry that much more?  Allowing MORE troops running on the ground might be a good start?  It will give the MG's something to do, and gv's a reason to carry HE shells.              

[Lusche]

I quit the game because of the changes were to big, so this is a fact.

But allow me the sarcasm: You are just one
The big arena split of Split 2006 had created the biggest community outrage ever since... yet in the big picture, it did not hurt AH at that time at all, quite the contrary.

[redman555]

But allow me the sarcasm: You are just one
The big arena split of Split 2006 had created the biggest community outrage ever since... yet in the big picture, it did not hurt AH at that time at all, quite the contrary.

How did it not hurt the game? It destroyed squad nights. There are times 3/4 of the squad cant get in an arena. Or a certain 3-4 people cant.

-BigBOBCH

[Guppy35]

Anybody have any?  

The strategy is mundane and static.  Shoot town, take base, rinse repeat, win war, boot to desktop.  To use an analogy, I would equate it to playing a game of monopoly, except instead of a board with real estate, draws, go to jails, cool game pieces, fake money etc., it's just a blank board with nothing.  Roll the dice first one to get around the board wins.  The game needs more strategy.  Strats that have impact, factories and cities that actually matter, objects that when destroyed unlock other things that can now be destroyed.  Incentive to plan missions, incentive to defend against missions, incentive to get involved in the war!  The game has all the pieces it needs to actually be very fun.  100+ fully modeled aircraft, tanks, and carrier fleets.  Yet no dynamic strategy?

This is why I just fly around shooting bad guys.  I have no incentive to get involved in the war, because I find it incredibly dull.

I think it still comes down to finding a way to get people to want to fight.  Generally the 'strategy' seems to be get it done fastest and with the least amount of effort.

I have not idea how you get folks to want to have a decent fight.  The minute things get a bit more difficult, the crowd comes screaming that they can't win fast enough.

Maybe a layered base system where the forward bases only have fighters and attack birds, the next ring has fighters, attack birds,and Mediums, and a final layer that has all planes enabled.

As you move into a country the amount of stuff that can be thrown at you gets larger so it gets tougher and takes more effort.

Gotta believe folks would scream bloody murder though at that kind of set up.

[Lusche]

How did it not hurt the game? It destroyed squad nights. There are times 3/4 of the squad cant get in an arena. Or a certain 3-4 people cant.

That's YOUR game. I'm talking about the game as a whole, player numbers, subscriptions, business