Great new ideas for strategic evolution of game

[Lusche]

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.

I think this would be an interesting idea. Maybe also time dependent, bases would "upgrade" after some time, so the faster you push forward, the less equipment you have available.
On the other hands... maybe the effect could be contrary, by encouraging the enemy not to push a single front but to change fronts & targets even rapidly...  have to ponder over it  

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

Somebody is always screaming, no matter what, If it's not hem, it will be me 

[redman555]

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

Lol, I am probably gonna come back late this week for another shot. I miss all my guys (like you) so much.  Will give the game ONE last shot.

-BigBOBCH

[vNUCKS]

 

The game, and the players of course, yield some incredibly thrilling fights.  While I find the "mano y mano" fight in itself a reward, I prefer that there be a purpose to the fight, and winning the war offers that purpose.  However, on a strategic level the game is rather shallow, with the apparent singular strategy for winning the war being assembling the largest horde for base takes.  The game would offer so much more if it included a means to strategically limit the enemies ability to wage war, and likewise a necessity to prevent the enemy from limiting my county's ability to wage war.  Currently, it could be argued that a strat or HQ raid offers this, but rarely do these effects last long enough to even land a mission before they have expired.

Personally, though I will gladly join the horde for the sake of winning the war (duh, his names starts with "v"), I agree that the horde can diminish the enjoyment and rewards for both sides when it occurs.  It diminishes the return for the horder (less opportunity and reward for individual success), and the hordee (less likelihood for success).

a few thoughts to offer for improving the challenge:

1. Zone (country vs. country) ENY. Link the ENY vs. a country to the combatants each country provides to the other.  If 2 countries gang the third, recognize that the third is fighting a 2 front war while the others are only fighting a one front war.  Don't encourage country ganging!

2. Link the number of troops needed to capture a base, or the numbers of troops a transport can carry to ENY.  If you're gonna horde, expect the bar to be a bit higher.

3. Link the percentage of town that requires destruction to ENY.  Once again, if you're gonna horde, expect the bar to be a bit higher.

4. Make long term strategic initiatives matter.  If someone takes the time and effort to strategically damage their opponent, meaningfully reward them AND their country for it.  Likewise, make it worth taking the time and risk to stop them.

5. Reduce or rid the game of its AI defenses, or at least diminish it's effect on both score and rank.  Give the "score/rank potatos" less disincentive to fight for a reason.  Go ahead, try to sink that carrier, you might die to the AI puffy ack or AI ack guns, but HTC shouldn't diminish you rank vs. other players unless you're defeated by another player. (I don't pay my $15 bucks to fight an algorithim).  Likewise, if you man that field or ship gun, you deserve credit for it, and credit for dieing in it as well if it happens.. (You're welcome MANaWAR).

6.  Link ENY to the numbers of players in flight, not online, and don't have it instantaneously update.  Or, base it upon an average, or the total number of a countries "in-flight" time over the previous X number of minutes.  Diminish the players ability to influence ENY by doing anything except actually playing the game.  I'm not sure to what extent this actually happens, but I'm sure tired of hearing so many insist it does.

7. Increase the time required between country switches (I suggest 24 hrs for LW), and prevent recent country swappers from gaining control of Task Groups (I suggest a 2 hour delay).

8. If I'm NOE, then even my own country shouldn't be able to see me on radar.  If I'm trying to hide my goon or mission, let me hide it from everyone!!! 

9. Proxies?  Get rid of them, if you wanna kill, kill someone.

10. Give a time penalty before re-upping on the next sortie after you collide with another player, and make the penalty increase based upon your ratio of collisions/sortie during the campaign.  Make collisions more important to avoid. 

11. Make a few more Hungarian plane skins, It's getting boring getting shot down by Debrody's 109G6 over and over again. (Dude, I don't even know you're sister, no way it could have been me)

[Guppy35]

I think this would be an interesting idea. Maybe also time dependent, bases would "upgrade" after some time, so the faster you push forward, the less equipment you have available.
On the other hands... maybe the effect could be contrary, by encouraging the enemy not to push a single front but to change fronts & targets even rapidly...  have to ponder over it  


Somebody is always screaming, no matter what, If it's not hem, it will be me 

It seems to me that if the heavies had to go further and further as the war progressed, the defenders would have a better chance to stop them, instead of the heavies upping a field over and clobbering everything so fast.

The 17s and 24s never left England as the war in the ETO went on.  The Heavies in Italy didn't move forward.  The 29s had to go a long way to hit Japan.  You'd quickly get rid of "LancStukas' this way.  I'd think it would make it more 'mission' like if you wanted to take the heavies.  You'd want escort as the effort to make that flight would be greater.  You'd be more apt to get a bunch of buffs with escorts to either pound the front lines, or possibly go deep and take out the other guy's heavy bomber fields.  On the other side it would give the fighters a chance to up and get to altitude to defend.  Obviously the jets would be further back too so they are less likely to spoil a front line fight, but would be in place to do what they really did in going after bombers.

I sure don't mind escorting a buff mission if it even remotely might feel like the history I like.  I'd be much more likely to pay attention to them then.  And if you could figure out a way to make refineries, aircraft factories, munitions plants etc a part of the bombing game, it might draw more of those kinds of missions to the game.

Along the front line if it's Fighter Bombers, A20s, Mossies, Dive bombers etc, it's going to take a bit more to take a field.  I suppose you could even think about flak traps between field layers

[PFactorDave]

9. Proxies?  Get rid of them, if you wanna kill, kill someone.

Don't agree on this one.  I have both won and lost fights by being outflown or outflying my opponent, without a shot ever being fired.  Plus, I don't see how removing proxies would affect gameplay in any way whatsoever.

[PFactorDave]

It seems to me that if the heavies had to go further and further as the war progressed, the defenders would have a better chance to stop them, instead of the heavies upping a field over and clobbering everything so fast.

The 17s and 24s never left England as the war in the ETO went on.  The Heavies in Italy didn't move forward.  The 29s had to go a long way to hit Japan.  You'd quickly get rid of "LancStukas' this way.  I'd think it would make it more 'mission' like if you wanted to take the heavies.  You'd want escort as the effort to make that flight would be greater.  You'd be more apt to get a bunch of buffs with escorts to either pound the front lines, or possibly go deep and take out the other guy's heavy bomber fields.  On the other side it would give the fighters a chance to up and get to altitude to defend.  Obviously the jets would be further back too so they are less likely to spoil a front line fight, but would be in place to do what they really did in going after bombers.

I sure don't mind escorting a buff mission if it even remotely might feel like the history I like.  I'd be much more likely to pay attention to them then.  And if you could figure out a way to make refineries, aircraft factories, munitions plants etc a part of the bombing game, it might draw more of those kinds of missions to the game.

Along the front line if it's Fighter Bombers, A20s, Mossies, Dive bombers etc, it's going to take a bit more to take a field.  I suppose you could even think about flak traps between field layers

This idea is very interesting.  It deserves exploration.

[Lusche]

It seems to me that if the heavies had to go further and further as the war progressed, the defenders would have a better chance to stop them, instead of the heavies upping a field over and clobbering everything so fast.

In AH it's usually the opposite: The heavies with the least impact on the enemy are the ones upping a field over - many of them die quickly before reaching the target because of their low altitude.
Those that do shut down whole fields mostly come in at altitude, the higher you go the safer you are, even with increased warning time. It's sometimes hard to believe how inept players can be at reading a map...  

And with a single fighter being able to kill a hangar, it's more efficient to up a dozen of jabos one base away, dash in and shut the base down.

[grizz441]

The game, and the players of course, yield some incredibly thrilling fights.  While I find the "mano y mano" fight in itself a reward, I prefer that there be a purpose to the fight, and winning the war offers that purpose.  However, on a strategic level the game is rather shallow, with the apparent singular strategy for winning the war being assembling the largest horde for base takes.  The game would offer so much more if it included a means to strategically limit the enemies ability to wage war, and likewise a necessity to prevent the enemy from limiting my county's ability to wage war.  Currently, it could be argued that a strat or HQ raid offers this, but rarely do these effects last long enough to even land a mission before they have expired.

Personally, though I will gladly join the horde for the sake of winning the war (duh, his names starts with "v"), I agree that the horde can diminish the enjoyment and rewards for both sides when it occurs.  It diminishes the return for the horder (less opportunity and reward for individual success), and the hordee (less likelihood for success).

a few thoughts to offer for improving the challenge:

1. Zone (country vs. country) ENY. Link the ENY vs. a country to the combatants each country provides to the other.  If 2 countries gang the third, recognize that the third is fighting a 2 front war while the others are only fighting a one front war.  Don't encourage country ganging!

2. Link the number of troops needed to capture a base, or the numbers of troops a transport can carry to ENY.  If you're gonna horde, expect the bar to be a bit higher.

3. Link the percentage of town that requires destruction to ENY.  Once again, if you're gonna horde, expect the bar to be a bit higher.

4. Make long term strategic initiatives matter.  If someone takes the time and effort to strategically damage their opponent, meaningfully reward them AND their country for it.  Likewise, make it worth taking the time and risk to stop them.

5. Reduce or rid the game of its AI defenses, or at least diminish it's effect on both score and rank.  Give the "score/rank potatos" less disincentive to fight for a reason.  Go ahead, try to sink that carrier, you might die to the AI puffy ack or AI ack guns, but HTC shouldn't diminish you rank vs. other players unless you're defeated by another player. (I don't pay my $15 bucks to fight an algorithim).  Likewise, if you man that field or ship gun, you deserve credit for it, and credit for dieing in it as well if it happens.. (You're welcome MANaWAR).

6.  Link ENY to the numbers of players in flight, not online, and don't have it instantaneously update.  Or, base it upon an average, or the total number of a countries "in-flight" time over the previous X number of minutes.  Diminish the players ability to influence ENY by doing anything except actually playing the game.  I'm not sure to what extent this actually happens, but I'm sure tired of hearing so many insist it does.

7. Increase the time required between country switches (I suggest 24 hrs for LW), and prevent recent country swappers from gaining control of Task Groups (I suggest a 2 hour delay).

8. If I'm NOE, then even my own country shouldn't be able to see me on radar.  If I'm trying to hide my goon or mission, let me hide it from everyone!!! 

9. Proxies?  Get rid of them, if you wanna kill, kill someone.

10. Give a time penalty before re-upping on the next sortie after you collide with another player, and make the penalty increase based upon your ratio of collisions/sortie during the campaign.  Make collisions more important to avoid. 

11. Make a few more Hungarian plane skins, It's getting boring getting shot down by Debrody's 109G6 over and over again. (Dude, I don't even know you're sister, no way it could have been me)

For the most part I really dig your list.   

[vNUCKS]

Don't agree on this one.  I have both won and lost fights by being outflown or outflying my opponent, without a shot ever being fired.  Plus, I don't see how removing proxies would affect gameplay in any way whatsoever.

I have no problem "penalizing" a player who is so poor a pilot that he augers, or so unsporting that he bails (make it count for 2 deaths for all I care), but I'm not sure I understand the rationale of rewarding someone for being near him when he does it.  Ever up a carrier that's under attack and get multiple proxies from your task groups ack?  What did you do to earn them?  Kills should be earned.  On the other hand, that doesn't mean I advocate that a death at your own hands isn't still a death.

[Guppy35]

In AH it's usually the opposite: The heavies with the least impact on the enemy are the ones upping a field over - many of them die quickly before reaching the target because of their low altitude.
Those that do shut down whole fields mostly come in at altitude, the higher you go the safer you are, even with increased warning time. It's sometimes hard to believe how inept players can be at reading a map...  

And with a single fighter being able to kill a hangar, it's more efficient to up a dozen of jabos one base away, dash in and shut the base down.

So dare we say it?  Maybe field captures might need to be a bit tougher?  That or throw in satellite fields and more then one VH so that to knock out a field takes more coordination and with the 'fighter strips' the defenders have more then one place to get up to defend that particular patch of real estate.

[FiLtH]

  Unfortunately many of us dont want to spend our time flying cap, or sitting in the tower waiting for a scramble call. Its the fighting thats the fun in AH. Events provide the realism end. The basic game of the MAs is rinse/repeat.The only difference between the MA and the DA lake is transit time to combat.

  To set it up so players govern other players would be like WW2OL and that sucked.
 

[grizz441]

  Unfortunately many of us dont want to spend our time flying cap, or sitting in the tower waiting for a scramble call. Its the fighting thats the fun in AH. Events provide the realism end. The basic game of the MAs is rinse/repeat.The only difference between the MA and the DA lake is transit time to combat.

But since the LW MA does make up 99.9xx% of the spent Aces High time flying, it is ultimately the most important, and improving the quality of play in this environment should be weighted accordingly.

 To set it up so players govern other players would be like WW2OL and that sucked.

Yes but who ever mentioned that?  

[vNUCKS]

So dare we say it?  Maybe field captures might need to be a bit tougher?  That or throw in satellite fields and more then one VH so that to knock out a field takes more coordination and with the 'fighter strips' the defenders have more then one place to get up to defend that particular patch of real estate.

Taking a field is plenty tough already, unless you're being horded.  I think it should be harder for a horde to take a base.  If 8-10 guys with sufficient skills and strategy can close a base and capture it against an enemy with comparable resources, they deserve it.  On the other hand, if 140 guys from 2 countries are ganging a country with 80 players, and 40 of them join a horde, they should find it much more difficult to take a base.  The game should encourage them to attack the other front.

[Lepape2]

For the most part I really dig your list.  

Yeah, I disagree with #5-9-10
Aside from that, some points need clarification and especially on how to implement that in the game in order to avoid possible exploits and low ratio of workload VS impact.

Oh and taking a town aint hard... all it takes is two P47s and a C47...

[Lusche]

Most of the mentioned proposals are just tuning the old concept.
But in the face of steadily sinking player numbers and a new generation of players (or "gamers", as some like to say), with different expectations and more competition in the online gaming world... what about some more radical changes? Bringing in some more Combat Tour elements, reviving the idea of a Training Academy or mandatory (short) training missions? And *gasp* gearing the arena stronger towards a true "war", with featured news on the frontage, a more detailed and worthy strat system and some kind of enhanced teambuilding? Maybe augmenting this War Arena with an improved Furball Arena?