Strategic vs tactical: Just an idea...

[Lusche]

Is your goal more to cultivate a wider sampling of aircraft than the typical MA "B24s slam a field" tactic?

If the goal is to cultivate more medium bombers, I think that changing the scoring category isn't the solution.

Yes, that's sort of "goal". But it's just part of my goals, and surely my proposal isn't aimed at radically changing the game and what not. Of course it will not make everyone act totally different all of the sudden - but that's nothing I'm trying for anyway

What I had in mind (not in order of importance!)

- Simple way to increasing the strat target's attractiveness (though I would very much prefer a increased gameplay significance for them)
- Making the most difficult target (distance/target spread/auto puffy/ obvious route) the most rewarding one. I'm not annoyed about the "drop 12 town centers" routine (which is far easier, and with much les risk and effort involved). I just think it's just not the way it as should be
- Increasing the number of long range high altitude sorties and thus increasing the gameplay variety by shifting the focus a tiny bit away from the purely tactical smash&grab
- Making it more attractive to use medium bombers for tactical missions, without forcing anyone to do so. If you still wanna NOE Lancs... fine.
- And I also think there should simply be more differentiation between tactical and strategic missions. Why shouldn't score reflect that difference? It also reflects difference between fighter and attack missions, a line being much more blurry than this one.


I'm very well aware that there may be better solutions for individual aspects or problems. But this is, in my opinion a rather simple and reasonable  approach to adjusting several aspects at once.

I'm not so sure about this because it takes something away but does not give anything back that I can see.  If buff drivers enjoy doing a tour and just hitting the town centers, well he's found his fun there and I'm fine with that.  

I don't take away his ability to do so and have fun. But as I have stated, I think risk, effort & reward should be somewhat proportionate.
And there have many things been "taken away" like that. We once used to be able to spawn to strats in GVs to boost our scores. That has been taken away too without getting anything in return

[zack1234]

Wonderful idea Lusche may be we could have pie factories to bomb,and thus increase value of said savoury products

[Traveler]

I like it lusche, I would also like to see every plane except bombers default to fighter mode when launched until a legitimate ground target is destroyed, then the sortie would be scored in attack mode! No more "gaming" attack mode to protect your "fighter score"  



JUGgler

I disagree with the concept but would agree to only aircraft carring bombs being in attack mode but as soon as bombs are released, changed to Fighter mode.

[Shuffler]

Something similar would be great. I want my 38 scored as a GV when the 80th is rolling out to defend a spawn from tanks.

It would only go to bomber if we take off.


AWESOME   

[Lusche]

Something similar would be great. I want my 38 scored as a GV when the 80th is rolling out to defend a spawn from tanks.

It would only go to bomber if we take off.


AWESOME   

Ok, you support my idea, I support yours. Deal?   

[Krusty]

I don't see why we even HAVE the attack category.... Instead of automatic switching, why not do away with it?

Just have "gun hit on planes %," "kills," "bomb hit%," "gun hit on buildings %" and just call it "score" -- no "bomber score" no "attacker" no "fighter score" --- just 1 comprehensive "score"....


Why does it need to be categorized?

[shdo]

because your more likely to die when attacking a base????

come on krusty don't be dense.  it's because people want to be able to have a high K/D against other planes and be able to attack something now and again and not ruin the K/D.

it's not hard to understand. don't have to agree with it, wasn't this way in a previous life of HT's game but there were plenty of complaints about not having two scoring modes.  was also a way to get squadies who worried about K/D to actually carry ord once upon a time too.

it does have the ability to let you "protect" your fighter score when abused and someone will abuse anything.

I would like it if anytime you launched with ord Attack was automatically selected.  I don't worry about fighter score but I like to see info on the ord i place on target.

shdo

[infowars]

Couldn't your wife have done the dishes when she got home...?  Just sayin'

[dirtdart]

A while back a made a thread about increasing the value of the strats to get guys to quit bombing town centers for points.  One guy bombing town centers can desynchronize base taking for hours. 

Providing someone with no reward for bombing the town centers with certain planes may not be the way ahead, unfortunately the way ahead is to have an effective strategic distribution system.  I have seen a couple of neat ideas for ones on the wishlist side. 

What I have begun to consider, everytime I have a GFI is whether or not a guy would go to another field, switch sides, or just log if something was not available.  Say you dropped the refinery and the new strat someone put in place made it so all airfields are limited to 50% fuel.  Would that make folks more prone to defend the strats, or as said above, log? 

I really do not think there is an answer.  Personally I wish there was a  better strat system, or a way to rally folks on one side to defend something, but most folks who play seem to be content doing there thing with squads or by themselves.  Status Quo may just be the best way. 

[guncrasher]

A while back a made a thread about increasing the value of the strats to get guys to quit bombing town centers for points.  One guy bombing town centers can desynchronize base taking for hours. 

Providing someone with no reward for bombing the town centers with certain planes may not be the way ahead, unfortunately the way ahead is to have an effective strategic distribution system.  I have seen a couple of neat ideas for ones on the wishlist side. 

What I have begun to consider, everytime I have a GFI is whether or not a guy would go to another field, switch sides, or just log if something was not available.  Say you dropped the refinery and the new strat someone put in place made it so all airfields are limited to 50% fuel.  Would that make folks more prone to defend the strats, or as said above, log? 

I really do not think there is an answer.  Personally I wish there was a  better strat system, or a way to rally folks on one side to defend something, but most folks who play seem to be content doing there thing with squads or by themselves.  Status Quo may just be the best way. 

log


semp

[Chilli]

A good concept to try and compell players to alter their game play style, if it has become counter productive for game play.

So, I assume that game play suffers from players taking the option to fly to a nearby target and grab easy points for easily destructible objects.    Lusche, you and DirtDart are on to something there. 

The difference in the type of concepts that you and I have is the motivation.  I like to think in terms of community and not just the individual.  Score is an individual goal.  Increasing your chess piece's chances for "conquering" a map, has both individual and community value.

<sub>Here is how the bomb town for score, has become counter productive for game play:

Player A, takes a full load of bombs in a heavy bomber, with no intention of capturing any of the towns he hits, he is successful in obtaining a remarkable "score" for hitting multiple targets at their most vulnerable (condensed) locations.

Player B, takes a full load of bombs in a heavy bomber 30 minutes later, with the intention of preparing one town for a base capture.  He hits the required amount of structures in no less than 3 passes, while encountering alerted fighters protecting their field.  Only, he has no knowledge of how long ago buildings have been destroyed by Player A, and just as the 9th troop entires the maproom, town pops and capture has been effectively ruined by Player B's own countryman.

Player B loses 2 drones and is badly damaged or low on ammo or fuel and is forced to try and make it home with a considerable lesser score than Player A.</sub>

Man that Player A, sure did an awesome job.   

Remove towns from the capture process altogether and I have a completely different view of player A, but for now he is just another person playing an online game as if they were offline.   

[MAINER]

+1 i think its a good idea 

[BaldEagl]

So you want to make the base attacking hordes bigger?  Good idea.   

[Lusche]

So you want to make the base attacking hordes bigger?

I'm afraid you have to explain that one to me...

[zack1234]

How often has anyone bombing strats affected game play?