2012 base taking squads, Good, Bad & Ugly

[JUGgler]

Great post and it is EXACTLY how the rest of us feel about attempting to prevent a base capture.

? For example, ack doesn't come up immediately and the flags stay white much longer after capture. Imho, until something like does occur, gameplay will continue to suffer.

I think it should be even simpler than this, and should be based on "the condition" of the base when it is captured.


Anything the base takers have destroyed during the capture should stay down for a further 20-30 minutes after said capture.

If they render the base to nothing to capture it, then they should defend nothing till it comes up!

I bet many would find ways to capture a base with minimum damage to it   and this would be good!



JUGgler

[icepac]

I would totally enjoy that and it might promote some pretty wild battles.

[Lusche]

Would you be in favor of HTC creating a reason to defend a newly taken airbase? For example, ack doesn't come up immediately and the flags stay white much longer after capture. Imho, until something like does occur, gameplay will continue to suffer.

I would have not much hope that this or similar changes (like hangars staying down for extended times after capture) would change the general play dynamics. It possibly could even increase the phenomenon. After some adjustment time, the horde will learn to keep hangars up, and just become even bigger. They may defend now (but only as long as necessary), but that doesn't mean the other side will actually counter attack, not to speaking of defending that base in the first place.
Because one main important factor in the whole problem is the general unwillingness to react and to defend. The system as is does rarely create prolonged battles, because no place is "worth" it. All bases count the same for "the war", and if you can hope to grab two bases instead of defending  (or re-capturing) a single one, it's clear what will happen most of the time.

It's that part of the game dynamics that I personally want to see changed the most. Create truly strategic hot-spots that are more worth fighting for than grabbing 3 different coastal VBases in insane horde NOE's. Either by reintroducing a kind of zone bases with big impact on local resupply, or additional regional ('zone') targets with a similar function, or by assigning a simple point value depending on base type and size for winning the war (like VBase=1, small Airfield=3, large airfield =6). Something so valuable that it's creating a battle, that it's worth fighting for even against fierce resistance.

[JUGgler]

I would have not much hope that this or similar changes (like hangars staying down for extended times after capture) would change the general play dynamics. It possibly could even increase the phenomenon. After some adjustment time, the horde will learn to keep hangars up, and just become even bigger. They may defend now (but only as long as necessary), but that doesn't mean the other side will actually counter attack, not to speaking of defending that base in the first place.
Because one main important factor in the whole problem is the general unwillingness to react and to defend. The system as is does rarely create prolonged battles, because no place is "worth" it. All bases count the same for "the war", and if you can hope to grab two bases instead of defending  (or re-capturing) a single one, it's clear what will happen most of the time.

It's that part of the game dynamics that I personally want to see changed the most. Create truly strategic hot-spots that are more worth fighting for than grabbing 3 different coastal VBases in insane horde NOE's. Either by reintroducing a kind of zone bases with big impact on local resupply, or additional regional ('zone') targets with a similar function, or by assigning a simple point value depending on base type and size for winning the war (like VBase=1, small Airfield=3, large airfield =6). Something so valuable that it's creating a battle, that it's worth fighting for even against fierce resistance.

I think you want a "thinking mans" game, a sort of "strategic" chess match, where the Rommels and Pattons will emerge to lead their chess piece to ultimate victory! I think the average player plays for far simpler reasons Snail! I think most could care less of the "strategic" or "war victory" conditions as they do getting some kills and landing them hence have their "fun meter" pegged as high as possible!
 I think most folks just want a fair and fun experience with the limited time they have online! By fair I mean less odiously one sided encounters.
 By fun I mean whatever brings them back for more!
    



JUGgler

[Delirium]

I agree with Juggler.

I'd like to see one of your piecharts on overall time spent online; the average for players during the tours. I'm guessing most average about an hour and 15 minutes to an hour and a half of actual game time a day and the strategic war is almost impossible to manage in that shortened time period, particularly without any centralized command apparatus.  Don't get me wrong, I'd like to see strategic targets for the bomber guys, but forcing the game to operate solely on a strategic level isn't the way to go.

Right now, Aces High is almost all tactical combat, so we have large strategic bombers pinpointing airfields for destruction, massive numbers overwhelming an airfields defenses, etc. There has to be balance between the immediate gratification of the tactical war and the long term success of a strategic one. Changing the game so the pendulum swings in the opposite direction, from tactical to strategic, is also the wrong way to go.

[Lusche]

I think you want a "thinking mans" game, a sort of "strategic" chess match,

No, I don't.
I just want the game giving incentives to shape the fight into fronts, to see more sustaine battles. The players should have a reason to stick to a battle instead of just going elsewhere at the slightest sign of resistance.

As it is now, all targets are worth the same, translated into real world: A small fishing village in Norway counts as much as Berlin or Tokio for the war, and that what makes defending so unattractive and sometimes futile even. Once the defenders have finally rallied, the well known 'leaders" have taken their mob in a NOE to a totally different place. And this is much more "chess like" than anything I have in mind.

As a matter of fact, we once had something in that direction. Called "zone bases".

[Lusche]

Right now, Aces High is almost all tactical combat, so we have large strategic bombers pinpointing airfields for destruction, massive numbers overwhelming an airfields defenses, etc. There has to be balance between the immediate gratification of the tactical war and the long term success of a strategic one. Changing the game so the pendulum swings in the opposite direction, from tactical to strategic, is also the wrong way to go.

I don't want to change the basic way the game is working.

[Lusche]

If you remember the original "Base Capture Order" Hitech tested a few years ago - it was actually trying to aim at the same thing I am with my proposal. He had the same goal I have. Creating hot spots of action, clear & distinct fronts.
It just didn't work becasue it was way too rigid, took away all freedom of action (you could ONLY fight at that massive battle or nowhere at all) and worst of all, often ran into dead ends on the maps. The result was quite horrible. That's what I definitely want to avoid

[JUGgler]

No, I don't.
I just want the game giving incentives to shape the fight into fronts, to see more sustaine battles. The players should have a reason to stick to a battle instead of just going elsewhere at the slightest sign of resistance.

As it is now, all targets are worth the same, translated into real world: A small fishing village in Norway counts as much as Berlin or Tokio for the war, and that what makes defending so unattractive and sometimes futile even. Once the defenders have finally rallied, the well known 'leaders" have taken their mob in a NOE to a totally different place. And this is much more "chess like" than anything I have in mind.

As a matter of fact, we once had something in that direction. Called "zone bases".

I don't think you'd have this result without some "restrictive" element to the game, ie: restrict which bases can be captured, restrict captures based on strategic values or some other "limiting" idea. I don't think limiting ones choices is ever the answer.
With my idea above you limit nothing, in fact bases can be taken in any fashion desired, Smashed to bits, surgically, or sneak the hell out of it, who cares?
If you choose to smash it to bits then you must defend it for 30 minutes or so till it is usable. This defense would be from another field as well as the folks your defending against will be from another field, giving some separation, altitude and planning space for whatever is to come. I bet in any of GHIs "smash and grab" missions he would have supported defense of the target until it was usable! As I believe most anyone would. As it is now there is no need to defend it as it pops almost instantly or very soon there after. Most players are "offensively" minded I think, and that goes for those who might wish to defend a base as well, but those types are virtually stuck with "immediate" defense from the attacked base because of the timing involved. With my idea they would have a choice, they could defend the attacked base, wading thru the horde and vulchers time and again trying to get that one shot on the troops to "make a difference", suffering 20+ deaths in the process OR they could prepare a counterattack themselves from a nearby base to try and retake the base! Ironically the original attackers also have a choice to make, #1 crush the base, making it unusable for 30 minutes but easily capturable or take the base "HOT" hoping to use it to defend from it, or any combination in between! This way everyone has choices with no weird restrictions!  



JUGgler

[Lusche]

I don't think limiting ones choices is ever the answer.

Exactly. And that's why I  am making these suggestions of mine 

[icepac]

I'm for the opposite of restricting capture.

I feel all bases should be captured to win or lose the war.

Having an opponent taking your last base would be a huge incentive to actually fight.

[Delirium]

That is the way it used to be, Icepak. It was horrid, the last several hours it was a vulchfest until the defenders all logged off. You don't want that, trust me.

[Lusche]

Having an opponent taking your last base would be a huge incentive to actually fight.

Which opponent?
Both? Then you can forget winning the war.
One? See Deliriums answer.

[icepac]

I can log in seconds after the war was won by one country and can't even tell that any war has been won by looking at the map.


Much of the incentive to take a base has been removed.

[matt]

I think it should be even simpler than this, and should be based on "the condition" of the base when it is captured.


Anything the base takers have destroyed during the capture should stay down for a further 20-30 minutes after said capture.

If they render the base to nothing to capture it, then they should defend nothing till it comes up!

I bet many would find ways to capture a base with minimum damage to it   and this would be good!



JUGgler

sounds good then the bases remain uncapturable for the whole
time the said map is up.