Great new ideas for strategic evolution of game

[Letalis]

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.

Feel'in your pain Grizz.  If this game had a real strat element I'd be like totally  every chance I got and likely NOT canx my sub every 3-4 months. 
I now shamelessly promote my own ideas on the subject: http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,314024.0.html   

[icepac]

Already have this, it's call the AvA arena. Open 24 hours a day and 7 days aweek.
 

The problem with current A vs A is that the planeset always seems to feature some micro slice of the war in that I see each side only having 2 or 3 fighters to choose from............or I find WWI planes in there again with a 2 or 3 plane choice.

How long has it been since they had a rolling planeset based on service dates using a 2 or 3 week war in there?

[The Fugitive]

Ask the AVA guys, they even have their own area to post questions about the AVA. The point is that those things don't belong in the MAs because the MAs are must cover a wider audience. It is how HTC makes money.

[SmokinLoon]

I have already pointed out the fallacy of that belief...It`s the pilot, not the plane...

Interesting theory.  I maintain that arguement only goes so far.  Put the best of the best in a P40B and an average guy in a Spit16.  My money is with the average guy in the Spit 16.

Also, if that statement were true, we'd see far more players scootin' around in higher ENY aircraft and we dont. 

[jimson]

Forcing an AvA planeset on the community at large just isn't going to happen.

There is no way to have parity that way.

The AvA appeals to those who don't necessarily mind that the performance capabilities aren't always equal just as they weren't always equal in RL.

[pervert]

To bring in Player controlled Infantry (FPS) would be an instant win.

I read a quote from

http://ecommerceprnews.com/e-commerce_articles/2011/02/hitech-creations-introduces-new-version-of-aces-high-198326.htm

"This is the first step towards a vision of integrating AI infantry and paratroopers into a more pronounced role in the game," says company CEO Dale Addink. "Aces High is about player- to- player combat in planes and vehicles and it will continue to be that. AI personnel will add a new layer to the immersion level of the game environment. Whether it is infantry fighting for territory or support personnel manning guns or refueling planes, it will add a lot to the online experience."

[Bruv119]

wow I can't wait to vulch the runway with a panzerfaust or bazooka. 

maybe a flame thrower or is that a bit much?

[IronDog]

I would like to see AH evolve into a sim where it is more realistic and have realistic strategy and tactics.The first thing is to get rid of the third country so we could have it like it really was Axis verse Allies.You could fly or GV for the U.S.A. the Brits,Aussies,Russia,and you get the picture.One could chose to fight with the Axis,Germany,Italy,Hungary,Rumania,etc.The idea being similar to WWII online,where you have a front line and the battle ebbs and flows like it would in real life.The fronts would be in Europe or the Pacific.I know this is asking a lot,but I think the game would take a positive turn for enjoying the sim a great deal more.
You could have the same early,mid,and late war arenas.This would be a mix of War Birds,WWII Online,and Fighter Ace.Now comes the part that will bring some negative comments.Right now we have a great flight sim,but the vehicles usage is lacking.More tanks,artillery,infantry etc. would be needed.With only two opponents the bickering over two picking on one chess  piece would end.Well planed attacks could be accomplished and we wouldn't have the same old hoards,gang banging,and sneaking bases.I don't see how any one can take pride in taking a base that is not defended.
All this will probably never even come close to being accomplished.I think High Tech likes the three country thing because it brings whining,and negative comments on 200.I have never liked flying a Axis plane against another Axis plane or vice verse for the Allies.War Birds had the right idea,but it failed in a lot of ways.No one wanted to fly for the Allies early,as the early Axis planes kicked but.Later in the month,now the players switch to the allies because they have the better rides now!WWII has the GV'ing down pat,but the air war isn't very good.I say mix them all together,and give us a game that is realistic,and has realistic objectives with all the needed weapons.
I can only play this game as it is for a few weeks,and then I need time off,as it gets annoying doing the same thing over and over.Lets make some good changes are make it a pure flight sim.
The well meaning Dawg

[Airwolf]

Interesting theory.  I maintain that arguement only goes so far.  Put the best of the best in a P40B and an average guy in a Spit16.  My money is with the average guy in the Spit 16.

Also, if that statement were true, we'd see far more players scootin' around in higher ENY aircraft and we dont. 

Well, it's not just me that believe's that...I hear many other people making the same claim....

[grizz441]

I would like to see AH evolve into a sim where it is more realistic and have realistic strategy and tactics.The first thing is to get rid of the third country so we could have it like it really was Axis verse Allies.You could fly or GV for the U.S.A. the Brits,Aussies,Russia,and you get the picture.One could chose to fight with the Axis,Germany,Italy,Hungary,Rumania,etc.The idea being similar to WWII online,where you have a front line and the battle ebbs and flows like it would in real life.The fronts would be in Europe or the Pacific.I know this is asking a lot,but I think the game would take a positive turn for enjoying the sim a great deal more.

While the concept is cool, it would never work.  Most people want to fly for the "good guys" who also conveniently have easier planes to fly and shoot in general.  So from the get go the Axis would be severely outnumbered.  If you brought this down to only 2 countries, it would be even worse.  Game would be dead in 6 months.  This would be a case where more realism would not warrant the slaughtering of the game.

I think High Tech likes the three country thing because it brings whining,and negative comments on 200.

 
No, there are three countries so one country cannot mercilessly gang the other, fights are more dispersed across the map, and there are more player choices.

Lets make some good changes are make it a pure flight sim.

I don't think the realism side of things is the issue.  The core issue is the actual "war" game play.  It is just beyond dull.  If it was spiced up or radically changed, it would be a lot more fun to partake in missions and in the war.  Country loyalties might actually make sense to me personally if I started to feel like the war was actually fun to get involved in.  I know Lusche is working on a new strategic idea right now for the wishlist, hopefully I can offer my 2 cents when he gets a draft finished.  But back to the original point, no I don't think we need historical plane match ups to have more fun.  Even if it was historical, it's still the same dull war blowing up towns and taking bases, ground hoggian day style.

Btw, mildly insulting request, but could you please use one space after commas and one/two spaces after periods?  That's the sentence spacing standard and it's difficult to read without.  

[Vinkman]

Players have the ability to organize missions in the MA now. But it doesn't force people to organize a response because losing a base in no big deal.

The changes being proposed would force folks to respond because there is a penalty for losing ground to the enemy. But the player who logs on at 9pm to discover his side is 'losing' is now victimised by circumstances from the prior two hours that he had nothing to do with. This would create a lot of frustration. Now that frustration might motivate some to get more organized in their response, which is what you're hoping, and some will, but many will simply whine about the unfairness of all.

I think these ideas appeal to the more serious players looking for the next level of challenge, but would frustrate many who just want to logon and get in a few good dog fights.

The community is bi-modal in what type of game play it likes.  I have no feel for the populations of those two groups, or which group is, currently, the unhappiest.

[ink]

there should be a realistic arena like AvA(full blown war IE COMBAT TOUR), a full realism arena like the MA's now(anything goes), a relaxed realism arena (non existent now), and training arena with AI and mission based sorties only.

[gpwurzel]

there should be a realistic arena like AvA(full blown war IE COMBAT TOUR), a full realism arena like the MA's now(anything goes), a relaxed realism arena (non existent now), and training arena with AI and mission based sorties only.

I quite like that idea Ink, given I fly where/when in what I feel like doing at that time.

Wurz

[ink]

I quite like that idea Ink, given I fly where/when in what I feel like doing at that time.

Wurz

I really do think it would give every one what they want, at any time they want.

me I would be in the MA mostly, but may join in the Combat Tour as a fighter.

the Relaxed realism would get the kids out of the MA.

[prowl3r]

been following this thread since started ive seen some excellent suggestions esp a redo of the strat sys. but i think what may be the simplest to do is to alter the score sys a little. first i think that all stats to do with time should be eleminated this would discourage vulching and spawn camping and second encourage ppl to take up longer range missions needed to hit strats. second change the way hits are weighted if in fighter escorting buffs deep in ene territory a .5% bonus or something (esp to perks) and same for buffs a bonus of somesort to give incentive to takeing longer range missions. with the strats make it a requirement to win war to damage the srtats you need 20% of bases in lw add on 10% dmg to strats as well.