Author Topic: Great new ideas for strategic evolution of game  (Read 3952 times)

Offline bacon8tr

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 733
Re: Great new ideas for strategic evolution of game
« Reply #45 on: May 30, 2011, 12:13:44 AM »
Just throwing this out there to see if it sticks.  I do not know as to the feasibility of implementation.   For me I would think it would be rather appealing to include components to the game that would directly effect a countries ability to win the war.  Whats the feeling on adding forward observation posts, rail yards, ship yards, local factories tied to an individual base or town, targets scattered around the map that wouldn't necessarily be seen on the map, but offered stratigec value to capture and hold.   Sometime ago there was a discussion on having a large town complex with varying bridges to gain access.  Having to ward off attacks on those bridges and hold that town could lead to some savage and meaningful fights.  Of course some how, some way this would all need to be tied in to what the games over all objective is,was or would be.  As I stated earlier im.just throwing some thoughts out there with no real answer as to how.
« Last Edit: May 30, 2011, 12:19:02 AM by bacon8tr »

Offline redman555

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2193
Re: Great new ideas for strategic evolution of game
« Reply #46 on: May 30, 2011, 12:18:43 AM »
Just throwing this out there to see if it sticks.  I do not know as to the feasibility of implementation.   For me I would think it would be rather appealing to include components to the game that would directly effect a countries ability to win the war.  Whats the feeling on adding forward observation posts, rail yards, ship yards, local factories tied to an individual base or town, targets scattered around the map that wouldn't necessarily be seen on the map, but offered stratigic value to capture and hold.   Sometime ago there was a discussion on having a large town complex with varying bridges to gain access.  Having to ward off attacks on those bridges and hold that town could lead to some savage and meaningful fights.  Of course some how, some way this would all need to be tied in to what the games over all objective is,was or would be.  As I stated earlier im.just throwing some thoughts out there with no real answer as to how.

Actually that sounds like a cool idea.  Like have munition factories but thy don't show up on the map.  And if you destroy it then all bases within so many miles can only take off with half the normal amount of ammo or something like that.  Would defiantly throw some good aspects in the game.

-BigBOBCH
~364th C-HAWKS FG~

Ingame: BigBOBCH

Offline chris3

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 690
      • http://www.ludwigs-hobby-seite.de/
Re: Great new ideas for strategic evolution of game
« Reply #47 on: May 30, 2011, 02:31:55 AM »
moin

another idee,

what if only 3 or 4 bases are importen to take for a country maybe that ones that are close to the strat.
that means every base on the map is takeable but only 3-4 are for wining the war. i gues expezialy on the big maps it would be rice the fun because every country is forced to made big bridghads into the enemy country.

cu christian

Offline DREDIOCK

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 17773
Re: Great new ideas for strategic evolution of game
« Reply #48 on: May 30, 2011, 07:29:12 AM »
Just do a search on the strat suggestions I've made over the last few years and repeat them here. Including but not exclusive to.

Go back to the zone base system
Institute a zone or sector based ENY or number limiter that ties in with overall ENY
Have strat factories that actually make something and who's destruction will cause that product to cease or at least severely limit to be available. But can be resupplied just like HQ
"With over 100 warbirds, vehicles, and boats available" Not to mention aspects of the game such as fuel,ord,troops,AI resupply trains,barges & vehicles,C'mon, we cant have a couple of factories that actually effect a couple of them? I mean really.

Maybe we can have a variable hardness for factories. The more numbers a country has. The more ord it takes to destroy the opposing factories

Its a long flight to the strat targets. Reducing at least 1 aircraft or vehicle for a short period of time should be the reward for being willing to make such a trek, successfully getting there and then being able to actually hit it. And with that long flight time to get to target. The opposing side has plenty of warning that its coming. There is no excuse for not defending. And if you dont. There isnt a plane or vehicle  ("out of "over 100")in the game that nobody cant be without for 15 min.
If a significant amount of people wont log off due to ENY then they shouldnt over this as it actually has a lessor effect then ENY does over and would over a shorter period of time.
Death is no easy answer
For those who wish to know
Ask those who have been before you
What fate the future holds
It ain't pretty

Offline ttflier

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 147
Re: Great new ideas for strategic evolution of game
« Reply #49 on: May 30, 2011, 08:32:53 AM »
Just a couple random thoughts for strategic play:

1. Base captures that require a multi-faceted approach, targets within town that require a GV only attack, required hardened targets that require a massive bomber bomb load, etc.  - anything to stimulate a more realistic 3D approach to a base take.

2. A more complex mission planner for the general purpose and Squadron use.  Something that would give the ability to plan a single or series of missions to be launched simultaneously or on a schedule for a longer term strategic objective and would also allow the mission CO to assign individual targets within the mission.  This would not replace the existing simplistic mission planner, but be an alternative, available to be Commanded based upon ranking or other game variables (I know no one likes the ranking system, but lets face it, to achieve a reasonable rank you have to be somewhat skilled in most of the disciplines in the game).

3. Pay the mission participants, after all even our Military receives a paycheck.  I suggest a perk point system to reward the mission participants if the mission(s) succeed, the participant lives and/or destroys his assigned target.  Each mission can have a fixed amount of award-able perk points and the mission CO can decide how many perk points are alloted for each position or target.

The hope would be that missions become more meaningful and strategically executed and not just an overwhelming horde of warm bodies waiting to be killed!
Tree Top Flier (ttflier)


http://www.91stbombgroup.net

"Bush league pilots just can't get the job done" lyrics by Stephen Stills

Offline Rob52240

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3770
      • My AH Films
Re: Great new ideas for strategic evolution of game
« Reply #50 on: May 30, 2011, 08:42:42 AM »
More trains, add railyards, add some type of more significant supply system.

Add napalm for hitting towns.  Add partisans to the towns.
If I had a gun with 3 bullets and I was locked in a room with Bin Laden, Hitler, Saddam and Zipp...  I would shoot Zipp 3 times.

Offline zack1234

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 13187
Re: Great new ideas for strategic evolution of game
« Reply #51 on: May 30, 2011, 08:59:07 AM »
Rescuing squad members in jeeps etc or PBY's would add drama to the game :)
There are no pies stored in this plane overnight

                          
The GFC
Pipz lived in the Wilderness near Ontario

Offline Rob52240

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3770
      • My AH Films
Re: Great new ideas for strategic evolution of game
« Reply #52 on: May 30, 2011, 09:25:28 AM »
I'd like to have those tracked German motorbikes to tow planes back onto concrete.
If I had a gun with 3 bullets and I was locked in a room with Bin Laden, Hitler, Saddam and Zipp...  I would shoot Zipp 3 times.

Offline The Fugitive

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 17833
      • Fugi's Aces Help
Re: Great new ideas for strategic evolution of game
« Reply #53 on: May 30, 2011, 09:30:17 AM »
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?



Talking with my son and his "gamer" friends I asked what would draw them to AH, and what do they look for in a game. The answers were simple, but how to incorporate them....... well here are a few thoughts.

Gamers look for competition, achievements, and side quests along with the main quest of "Win the War".

Add a training arena like Lusche said. Create half a dozen missions that the trainee MUST complete before they can enter the MA or other arenas. Nothing too horrible but things that push them toward "learning".

1st mission Chalkboard on the wall of the Training HQ gives you the basics of the mission, Take off, fly to next sector going to Angels 5 (5K in altitude) dive in on target at a 45 degree angle and strafe target down with guns, return to base and land successfully.

Candidate takes off (auto take off enabled, later missions it's not), grab to 5k fly to next sector and strafe down a building with guns (building hardness is set so that it takes 80% of the trainers planes ammo to take out), return and land for a completed mission.

Completed mission gives them an atta-bot and a plaque on the wall and access to the next mission. First mission gets them in the air for some basic flying, strafing of target teaches aim, angels for dives, compression for those who go too high, and how to pull out of a dive as well as landing, all basic skills needed to play the game.

Each mission successfully completed gives them a "award" (plaque on the wall) and teaches them some aspect of the game. missions can include bomber runs, dropping the last few buildings to get the "white flag" to pop, obstacle courses for a GV run to target and so on. Teaching the basics of the game getting a player use to the controls and giving them awards for succeeding. Once all 6 missions are complete the MAs open up for a taste of the real thing.

The MA's

The competition is there, but for many they KNOW they can't compete. This is what drives the hordes. In most cases it could take 8 months to a year to be an average fighter in this game. So while they are learning give them something else easier to strive for. This is where the Achievements and side quest come in. Add a new column in the score sheet called achievement points. Like all scores it's reset each month. Some achievements that earn points...

1 point for their first kill in each plane type they fly. With 83 planes to fly and get a kill in max is 83. If you get all 83, it gets rounded up to 100 as a bonus. Many have tried to get a kill in each plane, not many have succeeded, but as something to do as a "side quest" and you can add to your achievement points it something people have an option to do for themselves or by themselves.

1 point for a resupply run for a damaged base.

1 point for dropping supplies to GV (must have GVs in the area to use them)

1 point for RTBin in any vehicle or plane

1 point for bombing a strat

For side quests a number of missions could be added. to be used over and over again in the mission planner.

Mission 1, HQ bombing mission max 10 players 8 buffs, 2 fighters. Mission launches from a rearward base flies to enemy HQ bombs and returns. Successful landing is 10 achievement points for each that makes it.

Mission 2-6 assign a forward base as launch point, 20 guys max attack mission for next base. These missions won't come into play until the front opens the attack base to an attack mission. Again 10 achievement point to each who make it back.

Missions 7-15, pork run missions to enemy bases, max 5 people again either they are long mission behind enemy lines, or you wait until they become front line bases to shorten the trip. 5 achievement points for a successful landing.

Any player made mission using the mission editor with 20 or less slots available, 5 achievement points on a successful landing.



These are just a few things I can think of. These side quests, and I'm sure MANY more could be thought up and added will give people more options of game play, more options to achieve something and be successful, and be able to compete with other players even tho they have more experience.  While the "hot sticks" may get the 83 points for a kill in each plane a rookie could do the same by porking ord and dropping supplies. The "achievement points" would give a reason to do these other things and bring more stratiegyinto the game at the same time still having the win the war as the big prize!

Offline Airwolf

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 124
Re: Great new ideas for strategic evolution of game
« Reply #54 on: May 30, 2011, 10:45:15 AM »
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?

Well, I`ve been reading these posts for awhile and I continue to be amazed at all the complex ways to improve the game that people are coming up with....Worried about the"steadily shrinking player numbers"?... I believe that many people are missing some of the main reasons....I talked about this before and was royally smacked down....You want some radical changes?....
Improve the graphics...Compared to FA, AH graphics have a washed out appearance...The explosions all look (even 4,000lb`ers) like a kid kicked up some dust that was left in a carpet...

Arena caps....Your joking, right?....I can`t count the number of times I have logged into an uncapped arena, found a great fight in progress, only to get the warning, "5 minutes until arena is shut down" (or such)....Large numbers make for better fights and as such, more fun....If the servers can`t handle it, then, well...fix it....

Flight physics....Absolute, level 10 flight physics?....This is going to be a shock to some "old timers" here but, Not everyone who fly`s in AH can be a A+++ flyer....Many are only average or even mediocre....The attitude apparently is, "AH is ONLY for Top Guns"....And another secret, people don`t like being shot down all the time...There is nothing wrong with reducing the physics down a couple of notches....Some people here have already mentioned the length of time it takes to even fly properly, never mind shooting someone down....I once before talked about reducing the flight physics slightly and or having full screen views instead of cockpit views...But was greeted with howls of, "you want an arcade game!", and, "what`s next, unlimited ammo and fuel!?"....When people get frustrated, they leave....The last thing AH needs is to put more people off by "demanding" mandatory flight training...

ENY and perk points...See above....Not everyone is a fighter ace like Eric Hartmann, or a tanker like Micheal Wittmann...And not everyone plays 24/7 to get "perk points" to take out the better planes/tanks....Some people struggle to get the points to get a certain tank/plane, then get quickly destroyed....Now they have regain all those points lost...That quickly tires, and hence, "steadily shrinking player numbers".....Everyone says, "it`s the pilot, not the plane", so who cares if a newbie takes out a Tempest without needing points?....And the, "everyone will just fly Tempests and use Tigers", does not hold water...FA had not such limitation, and people were flying a wide variety of planes...And ENY?...Good Grief....On one hand, people want a game as close to WW2 realism as possible, then they want ENY to, "balance the game"...Hint: Not everything in life is fair...

BTW...FA went under due to the failure to adapt, to make changes...The same thing AH seems to be doing....That`s "strategic" enough for now...

Now, flame away....


« Last Edit: May 30, 2011, 10:53:17 AM by Airwolf »

Offline Lusche

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 23876
      • Last.FM Profile
Re: Great new ideas for strategic evolution of game
« Reply #55 on: May 30, 2011, 11:03:53 AM »
change the location of the fight

I think this post by Snuggie in th wishlist forum (as well as by others who have made similar proposals) has a lot of merit: To change the location of the fight. Change the basic landgrab system by changing the objectives.

A new map design could feature several larger towns/ cities as the actually capturable objectives, each one being supported by a small number of (small) air fields and vehicle bases (and, in coastal areas, by ports). Those fields are part of that cities "zone", and when the city get's captured, the bases will change ownership too. GV spawns are located at those cities.

I will flesh pout this concept later this evening, as there are still some flaws and a lot of open questions. But if it can be made workable, it may indeed shift the kind of fight from a standard "smash-cap-vulch" profile to a battle over a remote location.

As some of the Gv guys know, some of the best battles in the true sense do happen at locations like V135-136 on Ozkansas, where two bases hostile to each other spawn to a different location (without the spawns being just on top of each other), so that neither side has a significant "home turf" advantage, unlike in standard base attack situations when the attacker drives 5 minutes just to get killed by a Panther sitting on base (which can easily "land" if things get tough). Let's take this to a higher level!
Steam: DrKalv
E:D Snailman

Offline grizz441

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7000
Re: Great new ideas for strategic evolution of game
« Reply #56 on: May 30, 2011, 11:11:39 AM »
change the location of the fight

I think this post by Snuggie in th wishlist forum (as well as by others who have made similar proposals) has a lot of merit: To change the location of the fight. Change the basic landgrab system by changing the objectives.

A new map design could feature several larger towns/ cities as the actually capturable objectives, each one being supported by a small number of (small) air fields and vehicle bases (and, in coastal areas, by ports). Those fields are part of that cities "zone", and when the city get's captured, the bases will change ownership too. GV spawns are located at those cities.

I will flesh pout this concept later this evening, as there are still some flaws and a lot of open questions. But if it can be made workable, it may indeed shift the kind of fight from a standard "smash-cap-vulch" profile to a battle over a remote location.

As some of the Gv guys know, some of the best battles in the true sense do happen at locations like V135-136 on Ozkansas, where two bases hostile to each other spawn to a different location (without the spawns being just on top of each other), so that neither side has a significant "home turf" advantage, unlike in standard base attack situations when the attacker drives 5 minutes just to get killed by a Panther sitting on base (which can easily "land" if things get tough). Let's take this to a higher level!

Now THAT would be great.  If regions were contested for with a group of bases in a region.  Maybe hangars and damage could stay down for an hour or so per base.  Once this main city/hub/whatever it is is destroyed, this region switches control to the other side.  Idk if this capture should be an "instantaneous" thing.  I think the switch would have to be instantaneous but the objects stay on their natural timer for being down, so defense of this region would be crtical after it is captured.  Running supplies to help it build faster would also help it build faster.  Supplies would have to be run from another region.  Just a quick build on a great idea.

The only problem I see with it which would require some clever map making would be to ensure that flight times don't increase to get to the action.

Offline Lusche

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 23876
      • Last.FM Profile
Re: Great new ideas for strategic evolution of game
« Reply #57 on: May 30, 2011, 11:14:03 AM »
The only problem I see with it which would require some clever map making would be to ensure that flight times don't increase to get to the action.

That's one of the many open questions. Making this thing playable in practice and not just "reading great in theory" is the key.

Interesting task... to be continued  :)
Steam: DrKalv
E:D Snailman

Offline The Fugitive

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 17833
      • Fugi's Aces Help
Re: Great new ideas for strategic evolution of game
« Reply #58 on: May 30, 2011, 11:18:30 AM »
Well, I`ve been reading these posts for awhile and I continue to be amazed at all the complex ways to improve the game that people are coming up with....Worried about the"steadily shrinking player numbers"?... I believe that many people are missing some of the main reasons....I talked about this before and was royally smacked down....You want some radical changes?....
Improve the graphics...Compared to FA, AH graphics have a washed out appearance...The explosions all look (even 4,000lb`ers) like a kid kicked up some dust that was left in a carpet...

Arena caps....Your joking, right?....I can`t count the number of times I have logged into an uncapped arena, found a great fight in progress, only to get the warning, "5 minutes until arena is shut down" (or such)....Large numbers make for better fights and as such, more fun....If the servers can`t handle it, then, well...fix it....

Flight physics....Absolute, level 10 flight physics?....This is going to be a shock to some "old timers" here but, Not everyone who fly`s in AH can be a A+++ flyer....Many are only average or even mediocre....The attitude apparently is, "AH is ONLY for Top Guns"....And another secret, people don`t like being shot down all the time...There is nothing wrong with reducing the physics down a couple of notches....Some people here have already mentioned the length of time it takes to even fly properly, never mind shooting someone down....I once before talked about reducing the flight physics slightly and or having full screen views instead of cockpit views...But was greeted with howls of, "you want an arcade game!", and, "what`s next, unlimited ammo and fuel!?"....When people get frustrated, they leave....

ENY and perk points...See above....Not everyone is a fighter ace like Eric Hartmann, or a tanker like Micheal Wittmann...And not everyone plays 24/7 to get "perk points" to take out the better planes/tanks....Some people struggle to get the points to get a certain tank/plane, then get quickly destroyed....Now they have regain all those points lost...That quickly tires, and hence, "steadily shrinking player numbers".....Everyone says, "it`s the pilot, not the plane", so who cares if a newbie takes out a Tempest without needing points?....And the, "everyone will just fly Tempests and use Tigers", does not hold water...FA had not such limitation, and people were flying a wide variety of planes...And ENY?...Good Grief....On one hand, people want a game as close to WW2 realism as possible, then they want ENY to, "balance the game"...Hint: Not everything in life is fair...

BTW...FA went under due to the failure to adapt, to make changes...The same thing AH seems to be doing....That`s "strategic" enough for now...

Now, flame away....




There are good reasons WHY things they are in the game.

Personally I think the graphics in FA were too garish, and far too bright. It was done that way only to set it apart from other games.

Arena caps were about business. With out them the subscriptions became stagnate, with the split and caps the subscription rate went up. Seeing its a business the split and caps where a good idea. With today economy, maybe it's time to go back to a single arena, but it's not MY business.

Flight model, I'm here to flight the closest thing I can get to in a WWII bird without spending a fortune, or getting killed. I'm 53 years old and my eye site isn't the best nor are my reflexes, but this game while challenging is more fun for being difficult. If I want to play something easier I'd get an Xbox.

ENY and Perk points are two different things. ENY is in place to make things fair. Seeing this is NOT A WAR but a game it is suppose to be fair for all sides giving everyone an equal....or as close to equal... chance to win. Perks are to limit certain equipment. When the F4u-1c was introduced it was THE plane to fly everyone was flying it and it dominated the arena. Adding a perk price to it slowed it's use and brought balance to the game again.

Aces High HAS adapted, and changed very much over the years. By adding new equipment, updating graphics engines and sound systems, reworking towns, factories and HQ, as well as terrain tiles and water effect graphics. Game play has changed from almost pure fighter to srtategic landgrab, to win the war hordes. Ground vehicles have been added as well as CV groups for sea battles. The arenas are now set-up to allow decent game play number not only at prime US time but as well as Prime Europe time.

What we have, has been added to continue the growth of the game, which is still here to grow (which means someone is doing something right), as apposed to Air warrior, Warbirds, and Fighter Aces.  While some of the changes haven't been popular, they seem to have been in the right direction....seeing we are still here  :D Going back or doing away with those changes will only put us in the same boat as those other games.... 6 feet under.

Offline SmokinLoon

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6166
Re: Great new ideas for strategic evolution of game
« Reply #59 on: May 30, 2011, 11:40:33 AM »

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


I'd like to see that.  I'd be willing to wager $50 says that two of the best ground-pounder players in the game would be very hard pressed to get %75 of the town down fully loaded with ordnance (slightly more than 4000 lbs each with the 2/1k, 1/500lb, and 10/5in rockets) and another 2800lbs in .50 cal damage. If they were able to do it, it'd be by the hair on their chinny-chin-chin.  So "aint hard" would not be the description I'd use.   ;)

I'm liking the idea of restricting the heavy bombers, or strategic bombers to certain bases a few sectors back from the front.  If the coding allows for the Me163 to be restricted to certain fields, then why not the B29, Lancaster, B24, B17, Ju88, B26, etc to designated fields off the front? As mentioned, it should be the A20, B25's, Mossi's, 110's, etc.  This has been discussed before.
Proud grandson of the late Lt. Col. Darrell M. "Bud" Gray, USAF (ret.), B24D pilot, 5th BG/72nd BS. 28 combat missions within the "slot", PTO.