Instead of new vehicles

[guncrasher]

If we threaten with the inability to fly their dweeb planes, they'll either defend, fly something other than the %*#$fire 16, or just log off, leaving us with a less over-croweded arena. The fights can aford to lose the dead-wood anyway.

or maybe they will cancel their subscription and if enough of them cancel, then you can play all you want in a single fighter arena .

semp

[Tank-Ace]

If we threaten with the inability to fly their dweeb planes, they'll either defend, fly something other than the %*#$fire 16, or just log off, leaving us with a less over-croweded arena. The fights can aford to lose the dead-wood anyway.

Sarcasm

[Chilli]

EXACTLY! It is also far easier to bomb fighter hangers, fuel, ord, troops, and so on than it it is to protect them. So people gravitate to those easy/fun things and avoid the tougher more boring things that need to be done to slow them down like cap fields, do fighter sweeps, run supplies, recon missions and so on. The war has become very one sided with everyone on the attack. So the Bish grab 10 fields from the Rooks in 8 hours, the Rooks grab 10 from the Knights, and the Knights only get 8 from the Bish (we all know the Knights suck  ) in the same 8 hours. So maps last forever.

What we need is people who want to defend. The trick is dangling the right carrot in front of them to get them to do it.

I agree with Fugi.  There is much less incentivie to climb to 25k and above to intercept bombers than it is to climb there in bombers to fly merrily around the entire map and punch holes in any enemy airfield and most any aircraft that dare rise to attack you.  That is only one example of his wise insight into game dynamics. 

Make the game more dimensional, but how?

Again, I beg for a more active roll of troops.  Let them have a defensive roll also.  For example, the attacking forces release troops that actually fight their way to the maproom or whatever, destroying / conquering village buildings on the way.  Meanwhile the defender's troop carriers arrive with fresh infantry to hold off the advance through the village.  Animation could be elementary, just troops running or vanishing into dust (the way they do now Buffy style when they get "staked") along with buildings exploding as the attackers advance.

[kvuo75]

The war has become very one sided with everyone on the attack.

QFT.


map generals constantly complain about "losing bases".. so what is their solution? "lets go take a base!". nevermind the 2 or 3 under attack. "JOIN MISSION!"


someone posted a great screenshot last week.. 2 sectors of green bar going to an enemy base 50 miles away from 2 sectors of red bar attacking a friendly base.   


heres a crazy idea to mix things up.. remove friendly radar! only show red bar and dots, no green! 

[Chilli]

Kvuo,

The problem with mounting a defense against a horde is, the "cap" that is achieved by design of the horde.  When done properly, aircraft and vehicles are not allowed to leave their hangars at that base.  Okay so you say, what is stopping them from coming from another base.  The answer is, in the time that it takes to organize a defense and make it to the field under horde control, a well planned mission will have troops going into the maproom. 

So how many times do I follow a general that makes missions to lead me to DEFEAT?  Now, there are those base defense specialists.  LTars were one of the most notable squads in this respect.  You sir are one of those that I put in that category.  When I see your name associated with a base defense, I know to pay close attention to vehicle hangars, spawns, and every singe manned ack.  Besides the exceptional gunners and the few "in yo face" players, it makes more sense to advance the country's turf in another direction.  Besides having a better chance of survival, it actually helps to balance the numbers around the map.  IMHO the more map battles the smaller the hordes become. 

It is a feature of the 75% town percentage that large numbers roll bases.  If you want to get rid of the large hordes, you have to do something different with how fields are captured (PERIOD).

[lyric1]

Rather have new Vehicles.

[Wiley]

The problem with the strategy system is, the country that wins does it by taking bases faster than the other countries.  If I were to have 120 people who were dedicated to honestly following my commands, I'd send 50 of them to horde and roll bases on one front and 50 to horde on the other doing the same thing.  The remaining 20, I would put to work on both fronts porking enemy ords.

That is how to 'win the war'.  Anything other than that is essentially slowing down your country's ability to win the war.

Your country is far better off taking a base while the other country is taking one of yours.  You can always come back later and take it back when there aren't any of those pesky red aircraft in the area, or at least not enough to oppose your horde.

I'm not complaining or saying this is how the game should be played, but given the way the game works, I am just stating the facts as I see them.

Chilli's also got it dead on with this part:

The problem with mounting a defense against a horde is, the "cap" that is achieved by design of the horde.  When done properly, aircraft and vehicles are not allowed to leave their hangars at that base.  Okay so you say, what is stopping them from coming from another base.  The answer is, in the time that it takes to organize a defense and make it to the field under horde control, a well planned mission will have troops going into the maproom. 

And this is why having strats affect gameplay never works.  Unless a horde is met instantly with a superior force, it works out exactly as Chilli describes it.  By making losing the defense weaken your capability to fight, through inability to up with enough fuel or whatever, the only thing it does is demoralize and frustrate the losing side to the point of ineffectiveness.  This is neither fun, nor compelling gameplay.

What's the solution?  I haven't the foggiest, but this is the problem that needs to be overcome as I see it though.

Wiley.

[JUGgler]

Kvuo,

The problem with mounting a defense against a horde is, the "cap" that is achieved by design of the horde.  When done properly, aircraft and vehicles are not allowed to leave their hangars at that base.  Okay so you say, what is stopping them from coming from another base.  The answer is, in the time that it takes to organize a defense and make it to the field under horde control, a well planned mission will have troops going into the maproom. 

Very true, and this is why there should be "dead time" for bases where noone can use a base that has been filled with 10 troops for a set time, giving ample time for those who wish to contest the base CAN! and those who put the 10 troops in will have to defend it!!

20-30 minute "contested" time for base capture. All town ack and buildings stay down for this time and the base is inert and belongs to noone!

 


JUGgler

[Chilli]

I would much prefer to have the AI troops battle it out, than to have one group sit on top of the other groups airfield and pick them off as soon as they touch the runway (just to remind them who is really in charge of their airfield).  This does not meet the criteria quoted for having base capture in the first place...... to promote air combat.

I could be wrong, but I believe that if carrying troops were made more fun (for example C47s have formations), more folks would bring more troops, especially if they got a chance to see their troops take over the village under attack doing something more spectacular than kicking dust on a mound of dirt.

[wil3ur]

You know... that might actually be interesting.

AI Battle for town...  It initially is assaulted and 'deacked' allowing troops to enter town, at which point the arena states:

SYSTEM:  Battle for A231 Commencing

There can then be set damage amounts per side, w/ possible 'garrisons' or soemthign similar GV's could help assult with.  These are strengthened through dropping of supplies, and weakened through attrition and friendly GV/air assault on certain targets.  Once the set damage amount has been reached, the game would anounce:

SYSTEM:  Field 231 has been Caputred by the Bishops

At this point, field ack would come back up, and the town timer would go into the 'rebuilding' side of things for buildings to start popping.

[JUGgler]

You know... that might actually be interesting.

AI Battle for town...  It initially is assaulted and 'deacked' allowing troops to enter town, at which point the arena states:

SYSTEM:  Battle for A231 Commencing

There can then be set damage amounts per side, w/ possible 'garrisons' or soemthign similar GV's could help assult with.  These are strengthened through dropping of supplies, and weakened through attrition and friendly GV/air assault on certain targets.  Once the set damage amount has been reached, the game would anounce:

SYSTEM:  Field 231 has been Caputred by the Bishops

At this point, field ack would come back up, and the town timer would go into the 'rebuilding' side of things for buildings to start popping.

You are overthinking it!

A simple "timeout" for a base that is "contested", "contested" being--> 10 troops have entered the maproom unmolested. 30 minutes later IF 10 opposing troops have not entered then the base changes hands. If 10 "counter troops" successfully enter the maproom then the next set, whomever gets them in takes the base, and it immediately becomes fully operational.


The idea for the "timeout" is simply in response to how missions work and how the general play of AH peeps is.


The average capture goes like this--> Horde assembles in mission then launches, defending country sees a bit of dar but most folks are off doing something else and do no wish to auger (for whatever reason) to respond in a timely manner. Defending country does produce a few "diehards" but they are waaaay to few. The mission arrives and pummels all before it and set up cap. A few defenders up from nearby bases trying to get there, those that come in low trying to be intime are poored over by the horde, those that grab alt are too late!


A "timeout" for 20-30 minutes will allow a response, it is still no guaranteed and the responders still need to get troops in (still very much against the odds) but doable if there is enough commited. The original attackers now have become the defenders for 20-30 minutes and maybe the attackers again if their defense sux. The "back and forth struggles" would be epic. Not all captures would be fought over, I suspect most would still be easy with little defence required, but a few of them would be "mindbendingly" intense and chaotic 


My idea does NOTHING to discourage the original "capture mission". Infact the same strategy could apply, they will just have to defend their troops for a time frame to ultimately be successfull 



JUGgler

[Wiley]

So the original 'defenders' would need to get 20 troops in to take it back?

It sounds to me like an interesting idea.  What would happen if the second group of 10 didn't make it in within the time limit, but the first one did?

Wiley.

[JUGgler]

So the original 'defenders' would need to get 20 troops in to take it back?
It sounds to me like an interesting idea.  What would happen if the second group of 10 didn't make it in within the time limit, but the first one did?

Wiley.

correct
it stays contested untill the next set goes in


 


JUGgler

[Wiley]

Hmm...  So once it's got 10 from each side into it, the only way to make it uncontested is to get 10 more troops into it from either side.

It would certainly slow down rolling bases...

Where does country 3 fit into this?  If they get 10 in, free base?

It could be good.  It could also stagnate the map completely.  I guarantee it would be hugely unpopular with the 'roll bases repetitively with as much speed as possible' crowd, which is the only way mud seems to move.

Wiley.

[JUGgler]

Hmm...  So once it's got 10 from each side into it, the only way to make it uncontested is to get 10 more troops into it from either side.

It would certainly slow down rolling bases...

Where does country 3 fit into this?  If they get 10 in, free base?
It could be good.  It could also stagnate the map completely.  I guarantee it would be hugely unpopular with the 'roll bases repetitively with as much speed as possible' crowd, which is the only way mud seems to move.

Wiley.

Well I wouldn't care if it was just 1 drunk that gets in for the ultimate capture, and YES if country 3 is that 1 troop then they win! The idea is NOT to stagnate the game but to offer the defenders a  realistic option to respond. The # of troops required for the ultimate capture is insignificant, the 20-30 minutes of 'contested" status is the "meat" of the idea.

As far as the "mud movers" are concerned, they could still move the mud however they desire they could even move on if they like, I'm sure "as we have now" squads that specialize in captures, we would have squads specialize in defending the potential capture as well as squads that specialize in 'counter attack" as well as "interdiction", GV defence/attack all brought on by the "timeout". You see the timeout gives TIME for a vast amount of diversity in gameplay to potentialy happen!


In RL the moment an attacker wins a possesion is the same moment he is the most vulnerable, <-- this is where all 'counter attack" theories are derived!



JUGgler