Lone wolves

[Krusty]

I agree on one point: Base taking is vital to the gameplay.


I disagree on the following: I feel a great sense of accomplishment when I help take a base. Mind you this is because I don't join those kinds of horde missions and usually taking a base for me involves working for it.


The suggestions you propose only really benefit people in the horde-hits-a-field example. For non-horde gameplay, does it help any? IMO not so much.

You can't change the system to accommodate the horde when it gives the non-horde players the shaft. I'd rather not see base taking tweaked to promote the phenomenon.

[kculon]

One cure is to find the right group of pilots to fly with. People who share your likes and dislikes.
I guess I was lucky to find a squad of great guys, and to be invited to join. I've flown with the same basic group of pilots for about 6 years in both AH and War Birds. If I didn't fly with my friends I think I would have left the game long ago.
So I encourage you to research the squads or ask some that seem to be doing what you like, if you can tag along. We have had some great guys join our squad from doing just that.
I think there is something for everyone in AH, you just got to find what you like, get good at it, and find others that do the same.
<S>
~kc "of the Loose Deuce"

[CAP1]

I'm one and if finally occurred to me why tonite. First of all this is not a dig or flame job on the mission type folks. They're just dandy. But tonight i joined 3 missions flying a heavy 51D and got to drop 2 bombs. I spent an hour and a half flying like I was told just to arrive at target to find nothing to shoot at or bomb. Boring ! I ended up bailing out during the 3rd mission because quite frankly I felt like i was just flying around doing nothing. The first 2 missions had 6 sets of 17s, at least 5 heavy 51s and just as many 38s. All that for a small airfield and a Vbase.
So as instructed, I held ord just to watch from 15K as the 17s did their thing. Base shut down, no uppers......now what. Land and type WTG.  

I'd rather fly the way I want to and get killed rather then fly in a mass and never get a chance to even engage a bad guy. This is why I never was a fan of these big squads that we have out there. I don't want or need CptMarv or GenFab telling me what to fly, when to fly, where to fly and how to fly. I'll figure it out.

Oh I forgot....I was allowed to kill 4 town buildings in one mission.  

I should say that ALL the guys in the missions were great guys, I like all of them. They just enjoy a different type of play. Actually more realistic then my preference of play. I'm just expressing my personal point of view. 

 this is why you'll never see me join a mission. i may tag along hoping for action.....but i'll never join.

[whopper2]

Players should be able to buy snippets of intel, number of planes, type of planes, GVs that are in missions by using perk points.  If the intel has already been purchased, the buyers name is posted.  

Most of them have already "purchased" it--it's called a SECOND ACCOUNT.

It's covered in the "Hordez" thread about how to keep the hoarde from happening and even how to destroy it once it has.  Extremely simple fixes.  If people cannot easily identify a hoarde mission by the huge red darbar 2 sectors back from the front they deserve to get hoarded.  If people refuse to kill enemy ords for front line hoardes they deserve to get hoarded.

No disrespect to you Changeup.

[JUGgler]

I agree on one point: Base taking is vital to the gameplay.


I disagree on the following: I feel a great sense of accomplishment when I help take a base. Mind you this is because I don't join those kinds of horde missions and usually taking a base for me involves working for it.


The suggestions you propose only really benefit people in the horde-hits-a-field example. For non-horde gameplay, does it help any? IMO not so much.

You can't change the system to accommodate the horde when it gives the non-horde players the shaft. I'd rather not see base taking tweaked to promote the phenomenon.

my idea would give the "non horde" or "defenders" a chance to respond, maybe this would bring 2 hordes together in a desperate struggle <-- this sounds like what most are after!


JUGgler

[zack1234]

Floats always make good missions, Jayro make ad hoc strike missions which are very good by the way (Base given for take off and take what you want).

It must be noted that both floats and Jayro are colonials

[ink]

I am a Lone wolf 99.99% of the time, always have been always will be.

the exception is when a lot of squadies are on, even then we are a bunch of lone wolf's....if I am in a fight, I hate being interrupted by anyone....

hell I remember I was in a fight with 3 cons and was doing very well, put rounds in each one of them, here come some friendlies and jumped on the red guys...I was so pissed off.

I wont jump in on a 1vs1 even if the friendly asks for help, unless they are a squadie...but then most Muppets wont ask for help, and would rather fight it out to the end live or die


last night I ran across a huge hoard of 51's and 1 n1k...the N1k had the misfortune to be out front....he died in all of a half turn the 51's wouldnt engage me so I chased them back to the base they were bombing....got 3 of the 51's...... eventually I had I think 7 or 8 all trying to kill me....sad but I was still able to put rounds in a few of them before they dragged me down......was quite sad actually....the ones who always fly in the hoard have absolutely NO clue as to how to really fight and are easy kills even the guys that been here twice as long as I.

[LCADolby]

Being a 1 man band is great in AH, you can bounce between countries, squads and missions willynilly.
Never missing out on any fun. Flying for yourself and the greenies around you gets you places
 

[Chilli]

This is rather naive, These masses that take bases are made up of very diverse types and skill levels of players, from the very best to the very worst and everywhere in between. There is something to the accomplishments felt from taking bases that attracts a wide range of players. This should not be restricted it should be encouraged but the ability to respond to base captures should be enhanced to encourage a sense of "struggle" that includes risk, reward, thrill of victory and the agony of defeat! The system has made it one sided the players are merely operating within the system that has been created!


The system can be changed FAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAR easier than the mindsets of the folks wo use the system!





JUGgler

Amen JUGler.   Finally, I have got a witness!!!  Simply pointing to one another and saying that you are lame for what you do - not the answer.  Pointing the game in the direction of variety in action - priceless.

JUGler, I like what you have said about holding off the change in country colors to allow a proper defense, but with reservations on how that would be gamed.  Perhaps adding a time delay on base surrender might have the opposite effect and encourage larger hordes, justified by the increased difficulty- who knows?

But Krusty and some others seem to draw a hard line against enabling smaller numbers impacting the game play stradegy.  This goes against the valant "elite" forces that accomplished just that.  Small skilled teams inserted into enemy territory under cover with a precise plan of operation.  This is the stuff of legend, not the Hitler Blitzkrieg horde overrunning Europe that depleted both machine and men wrecklessly headed towards doom. 

[Wiley]

I'd be curious how Juggler's idea would work out.  If enough people were of the defensive mindset, it could make for a pretty intense battle.  What would the conditions for a retake be?  10 troops into the maproom?  What if the third country got involved?

I think it might result in more fights, but hard to say.  We might still have 2 hords operating a couple sectors away from one another rolling bases.

Wiley.

[TheAssi]

Being a 1 man band is great in AH, you can bounce between countries, squads and missions willynilly.
Never missing out on any fun. Flying for yourself and the greenies around you gets you places
 

Was a lot more fun when you didn't have to wait 1/2 a day to switch.

[The Fugitive]

I think base captures is a critical component to the game. It is the current system that encourages these base takes with no follow on commitment. I think most people think the capture system is integral to a healthy gaming environment, lets face it most will find constant furballing dull and anti climactic. The "all out effort" base take is rendered lame cause once the capture happens all fight is over cause the ack comes up immediately and the base is usable immediately for the victors requiring then an equal effort to recapture the base.
I think the ack and buildings should stay down (albeit the base is now defaulted to the current side who got troops in) and not be usable for either side until a set of troops has cooked in the maproom for 20-30 minutes. This would force (if they wanted to keep it) the original attackers to defend their new conquest amd give the original defenders a small light of hope at retaining posession of said property, creating risk, reward, victory and defeat!


As it is now, the victors certainly can't feel a sense of victory cause the capture had little risk or struggle and the vanquished don't feel a sense of defeat cause they probably weren't even there
 or honestly never had a chance in the 1st place!

encourage the desperate struggle and this game will be amazuzuzing!

With this idea, the capture system could be made easier! and it should be!


JUGgler

This would be great, I'd even be happy with letting the capture force have the use of what ever they leave up. If they hold it for 15-20 minutes it's theirs. Sure it would be tough on a small group to grab and hold, but if the idea works, the defenders would be spread out along the front defending at any number of capture sites.

Most of them have already "purchased" it--it's called a SECOND ACCOUNT.

It's covered in the "Hordez" thread about how to keep the hoarde from happening and even how to destroy it once it has.  Extremely simple fixes.  If people cannot easily identify a hoarde mission by the huge red darbar 2 sectors back from the front they deserve to get hoarded.  If people refuse to kill enemy ords for front line hoardes they deserve to get hoarded.

No disrespect to you Changeup.

Sorry whopper, with the smaller amounts of time that I get to fly these days I don't want to spend that time porking ord along a front. A lot of people couldn't care less whether bases are being captured or not. The only thing they care about is that is where the fight is.

Was a lot more fun when you didn't have to wait 1/2 a day to switch.

I was never a big switcher, but would to find a fight, or wing with old friends. Since they changed it back to 12 hours I haven't switched once 

[Lusche]

I think base captures is a critical component to the game. It is the current system that encourages these base takes with no follow on commitment. I think most people think the capture system is integral to a healthy gaming environment, lets face it most will find constant furballing dull and anti climactic. The "all out effort" base take is rendered lame cause once the capture happens all fight is over cause the ack comes up immediately and the base is usable immediately for the victors requiring then an equal effort to recapture the base.
I think the ack and buildings should stay down (albeit the base is now defaulted to the current side who got troops in) and not be usable for either side until a set of troops has cooked in the maproom for 20-30 minutes. This would force (if they wanted to keep it) the original attackers to defend their new conquest amd give the original defenders a small light of hope at retaining posession of said property, creating risk, reward, victory and defeat!


As it is now, the victors certainly can't feel a sense of victory cause the capture had little risk or struggle and the vanquished don't feel a sense of defeat cause they probably weren't even there
 or honestly never had a chance in the 1st place!

encourage the desperate struggle and this game will be amazuzuzing!

With this idea, the capture system could be made easier! and it should be!


JUGgler

I'm with you in many points: That the base captures are a (maybe even the most) critical component of the game, and that more commitment to a certain area even after the immediate capture could mean more protracted battles, more fighting etc.
As of now, I personally think the current system of AH warfare is lacking in several way. The lack of strategic targets, but even more the purely numerical requirements of winning the war (x fields, no matter where) do not only favor the attack on a massive scale but, more importantly, also the "strike where they never expect it" way of operations. IMHO this is the part that's actually making defense very frustrating for most players, as once they finally started to react in a certain sector, the enemy will simply strike elsewhere.

I haven't mad up my mind on your proposal yet. However, I would wish for an entirely different system for winning the war: The capture of one (or a cluster of) strategic targets deep in the enemy homeland.
In theory, this could result in what we may be looking for: Commitment to a certain battle, the requirement of sustained effort and more actual strategy. Base captures would be required to get to the heart of the enemy country, so once a had been created, the attacker would have very high interest in continuing the attack at this specific place. Sneak raids would still be possible but not always make much sense. Diverting from the direction of main trust could happen to break a stalemate, get out of a dead end or eliminate a threat to the flank.
But in the end, combat could be less erratic and more concentrated.

[ap1102]

Well why even have base takes? Why have countries. Why have a war no side can win? The bottom line is people band together for different reasons, base takes, dog fights, etc. This game provides it all. I say do what makes you happy and dont worry about the rest. The map will still be there when you log on later.

[Changeup]

Er... would that not be undone by people not formally posting the mission, thus rendering the whole idea pointless?

I'd suggest a system where on the map it shows the number of enemy planes above a certain altitude, possibly displayed as a line in the sector they are located in that gets longer the more aircraft are in the sector.  This would give the defenders a heads-up that there are enemy planes in that sector, and it might be worth going there to stop whatever they're doing.

Sure, it has the downside that the players would have to look at the map or monitor the country channel for people calling out enemy activity, but I believe if people used this proposed system, they could use it effectively to respond to far more threats than they currently do.

Wiley.

Er, Wiley, they can already not formally post the mission.  Posting missions is a way for the mission creator to have the equipment necessary to prosecute the target and get a mass of people to join that they don't know or who are looking for something else to do.  That won't change.  It's much much more difficult to run a mission without the using the mission feature....unless of course you're in a mega squad like the vTards and they organize their own missions anyway and that won't change either.

I do, however, enjoy your sarcasm...it possesses a certain naive-pinache

Changeup