new MA gameplay mechanics.

[Noir]

Because landing streaks or making 10 troop runs gets boring after a while.

[Raphael]

suggestions? I have a few ideas that I'll present to the AvA team but still haven't got the time to write all down nice and clear. Maybe you have some Ideas for the MA?

[Noir]

See rule #4

[Raphael]

there are plans for adding the infantry aspect aren't there?
so how can one say they have no interest in changing the mechanics when something SO huge is in the long term plans?
throw some ideas in!  

[Shuffler]

Because landing streaks or making 10 troop runs gets boring after a while.

Every single fight is different.

[Noir]

there are RUMORS of adding infantry. Aces High for me is about aces high in the sky and not troopers on the ground. I can play Wolfenstein for that, with better graphics too despite its old quake 3 engine.

A good start would be to make strategic bombing worthwhile, and make escorts/defenders necessary.

[Noir]

See rule #4

[Wiley]

there are RUMORS of adding infantry. Aces High for me is about aces high in the sky and not troopers on the ground. I can play Wolfenstein for that, with better graphics too despite its old quake 3 engine.

^^ That's my humble opinion as well.  I'm here to fly, not knock around on the ground.  I honestly can't see that kind of change anywhere even remotely near on the horizon.  There just isn't enough detail to the ground.

A good start would be to make strategic bombing worthwhile, and make escorts/defenders necessary.

I'll leave the 'how' out of it for now because it's irrelevant, but just devil's advocating.  Suppose *poof* strategic bombing is worthwhile now.  If escorts are necessary, what if there aren't any around?  Are the bombers supposed to just sit and wait until enough people decide to come escort them?

Wiley.

[Debrody]

How i can pity someone...
-fly against the horde
-dont run from every fight like a ....
-dont pick like a ....
-there is an other world behind the eny5.
and you wont land 10. Nor 5.
 
.
.
.
LMFAO  

[Noir]

^^ That's my humble opinion as well.  I'm here to fly, not knock around on the ground.  I honestly can't see that kind of change anywhere even remotely near on the horizon.  There just isn't enough detail to the ground.

I'll leave the 'how' out of it for now because it's irrelevant, but just devil's advocating.  Suppose *poof* strategic bombing is worthwhile now.  If escorts are necessary, what if there aren't any around?  Are the bombers supposed to just sit and wait until enough people decide to come escort them?

Wiley.

bombers don't need escorts to be effective in aces high. In fact with the me163 escorts are just being protected by the bombers.

[Wiley]

bombers don't need escorts to be effective in aces high. In fact with the me163 escorts are just being protected by the bombers.

Right.  And if for whatever reason, escorts are now necessary to succeed as you propose, as are defenders, what if they don't show up?

Wiley.

[Noir]

Right.  And if for whatever reason, escorts are now necessary to succeed as you propose, as are defenders, what if they don't show up?

Wiley.

their country would be in a bad position. But that would imply limiting the loosing players options and maybe force them to run logistics for their country.

Forcing players to act as a team, despite whatever freedom the player deserves, is good for a game IMO. Right now in the MA, players do whatever they please, with little impact on anything. It is more a team deathmatch with no score count that anything.

[Wiley]

But that would imply limiting the loosing players options and maybe force them to run logistics for their country.

Which is fun... how?  I notice you mention how much fun it is to have bombing the strats force the losing players to run logistics.  You didn't start it out with 'I feel the need for the game to force players to run logistics for their country.'  Notice one conjures images of fun, the other does not?

Forcing players to act as a team, despite whatever freedom the player deserves, is good for a game IMO.

You're essentially proposing scenario style play 24x7 then, right?

Right now in the MA, players do whatever they please, with little impact on anything. It is more a team deathmatch with no score count that anything.
[/quote]

What do you mean by 'impact'?

Wiley.

[Noir]

I'm leaving work so I can't answer in length 

In short my wish is "make the war win a meaningful accomplishment" Right now we are just pretending some fields are important to capture and try to have fun around that. You can read it "scenario like" if you want, even if I find the objectives in scenarios rather silly, so silly that most of the time nobody knows who won.

The day I won't be able to roll my shiny late war plane from any field because the other country took the time to destroy our factories I will be happy. Also if I could defend a strategic base so we don't loose that would be great. Right now the attackers just have to get another random base without any counter possible.

No strategy no limits no fun. Just team deathmatch.

[bustr]

Every individual capturable field is an equaly weighted strategic object or localised "mini war" counting towards the 20% of a countries total capturable feilds to loose the war. Large maps dilute this into a mindless series of spread out individual actions due to the unrealistic scale imposed on the short attention span of the general fun seeker. Small maps make it easy to see the results of, and the actual efforts in progress to winning the war to hold the short term attention spans.

You want the ability to eventualy by guile or minimal organised effort press a button and deny a whole country or regions of, the equal ability to wage war as a shortcut to winning the map by brute effort. With a 2 sided war game that is an expected part of one general defeating another general while directing the efforts of willing assets who sign up to be cannon fodder. In that kind of game the smart ones eventualy rise to the top because of their win record against other generals. Because of the game being structuered that way the cannon fodder naturaly join the smart ones.

We have a three sided war where no one signs up for anything other than the occasional mission or squad driven action. Everyone is a general controling the direction of their own tiny war. There is no Master Class of Stratagists to become part of to ultimatly control the disorganised masses and impliment master strokes against the Strategic class of the two other countries on the backs of the cannon fodder. This would mean allowing a small number of unknown players to nullify a large group of players $14.95 for that night with the press of a button rather than personaly fighting toe to toe for the map reset.

Not very egalitarian.

There is only the fight you can join or the Power of your personality if you beleive you are capable of inspiring large groups of players or groups of squads to follow you as a Populist Leader from the front. It has happened over the years. JSO comes to mind from AH1.

So Noir, why should I follow you to war?