Idea for Strat Change for Refinery and Fuel Tanks and Better Game Play

[ink]

Yet when hangers are down, cv's destroyed, fields captured, ammo porked, the very what, how, when, are so restricted in the MA.

Quite clearly this is intrinsic to game play.... We do not discuss whether such restrictions are in play ( or not) for they clearly are so....... We discuss the degree and the technique of their implementation.

exactly right....that's why we need no more


I am thinking anything that restricts plane type....is the biggest issue for me.....


personally
 I think HTC should implement a strict WW2 arena........ based on the war................

[RotBaron]

I've been playing AH2 for 5 months (I played many years ago) and I've seen questions arise regarding strats too many times to count, and often from players that have been around much longer. Idk the reason for which players don't inquire further for their own knowledge about the ramifications of bombing the strats complex.

I like the way it is with the exception of the refineries and fuel depots. I agree with the sentiment that there should be some effect on aircraft for such attacks, as it is now it doesn't even stop the most fuel inefficient aircraft from playing offense. Not really sure about the gv suggestions here, it's not like we have something comparable to driving through Poland or France (distance wise.) The one thing I would note for players that don't like having their strats bombarded so much is, having a reason to drop on the refinery strat would take pressure off the other strat factories.


Overall, however, outstanding & fantastic game!   

 

Rot

[bustr]

Chilli and INK understand that the war if there is one, takes place at 200 or so individual places around the sand lot by individuals using WW2 toys. Chiili is asking for a localised change to the individual dynamic in hopes of solving a localised issue he feels needs adjustment.

There is no war in the MA. There are only unlimited opportunities to fight against other players. War by definition in real life or in a game format requires the ability to achive strangle holds and knockout blows towards crippling an enemies ability to wage war. The only strangle holds and knockout blows in the game are confined to each feild object that can be captured. Granted there is a secondary sphere of influence and support visa the closest few feilds inside of a four sector space. But, that limits the activities of small numbers to the localised combat at hand.

Combat is the goal. Not allowing a single player or players to strategicly cripple a whole country impacting the expected "fun" of hundreds of paying customers.

If you want to spend the personal time by yourself trying to cripple fuel, ord and vehical hangers across a wide front of enemy feilds, by all means if that juices up your goat. But, time will be against you creating a crippling choke point to deny the ability to play the game in response to your actions. If instead you have a following of passionate admirers who want to make your every dream come true. Yes, then you can organise them into an airforce for a short duration and create a resource area denial visa hoard.

All strategic based war games by definition require an option for a master stroke or strokes that quickly and difinitvely removes the other sides ability to wage war and conceed defeat. Thats not the MA unless you have the personal ability to organise a hoard to do your bidding.

INK,

Some years back when the CT's name was first changed to the AvA. The CM staff held WW2 in the ETO from BoB to 1945 over about 6 weeks. One would have thought a two sided war with icons and everything else we love in the MA would have been a gas. It turned into a greifer fest and ch200 nearly got half of some squads banned when their emotions ran high. Until then I had never known how many moderators lurked in any arena or that they used blue text. War requires chains of command to do more than just play chess with willing sacrafices. Even my own squad mates were getting testy with each other when our CO had to perform his leadership duties on them to keep them from getting banned by the Mods. Combat creates freindly rivalries opposed to war creates enemies who loose respect for each other reflected in the way they then play the game.

You think after all these years Hitech might know something about game play dynamics that tilt and many in consensus with him don't? Or are there players whos only happyness derives from the most greif(strategy) they can inflict to the many with the least amount of effort? War by definition has to have strategic choke points to force the enemy(s) to submit to the winner with the least amount of loss of life or resources to the winner. There is no other purpose for ww2 historicly modeled strategic constructs. You see the greif taking out the HQ does to the majority of players in a country who expected to have a fun filled evening of combat.

[ink]

Chilli and INK understand that the war if there is one, takes place at 200 or so individual places around the sand lot by individuals using WW2 toys. Chiili is asking for a localised change to the individual dynamic in hopes of solving a localised issue he feels needs adjustment.

There is no war in the MA. There are only unlimited opportunities to fight against other players. War by definition in real life or in a game format requires the ability to achive strangle holds and knockout blows towards crippling an enemies ability to wage war. The only strangle holds and knockout blows in the game are confined to each feild object that can be captured. Granted there is a secondary sphere of influence and support visa the closest few feilds inside of a four sector space. But, that limits the activities of small numbers to the localised combat at hand.

Combat is the goal. Not allowing a single player or players to strategicly cripple a whole country impacting the expected "fun" of hundreds of paying customers.

If you want to spend the personal time by yourself trying to cripple fuel, ord and vehical hangers across a wide front of enemy feilds, by all means if that juices up your goat. But, time will be against you creating a crippling choke point to deny the ability to play the game in response to your actions. If instead you have a following of passionate admirers who want to make your every dream come true. Yes, then you can organise them into an airforce for a short duration and create a resource area denial visa hoard.

All strategic based war games by definition require an option for a master stroke or strokes that quickly and difinitvely removes the other sides ability to wage war and conceed defeat. Thats not the MA unless you have the personal ability to organise a hoard to do your bidding.

INK,

Some years back when the CT's name was first changed to the AvA. The CM staff held WW2 in the ETO from BoB to 1945 over about 6 weeks. One would have thought a two sided war with icons and everything else we love in the MA would have been a gas. It turned into a greifer fest and ch200 nearly got half of some squads banned when their emotions ran high. Until then I had never known how many moderators lurked in any arena or that they used blue text. War requires chains of command to do more than just play chess with willing sacrafices. Even my own squad mates were getting testy with each other when our CO had to perform his leadership duties on them to keep them from getting banned by the Mods. Combat creates freindly rivalries opposed to war creates enemies who loose respect for each other reflected in the way they then play the game.

You think after all these years Hitech might know something about game play dynamics that tilt and many in consensus with him don't? Or are there players whos only happyness derives from the most greif(strategy) they can inflict to the many with the least amount of effort? War by definition has to have strategic choke points to force the enemy(s) to submit to the winner with the least amount of loss of life or resources to the winner. There is no other purpose for ww2 historicly modeled strategic constructs. You see the greif taking out the HQ does to the majority of players in a country who expected to have a fun filled evening of combat.

I agree.....

you list many reasons why a war game in the MA would not be fun....I played WW2 online.(barf for so many reasons but The War was the biggest)...basically thats what people are asking for in the MA.......makes me cringe thinking about it.

fun for 3 days a month.....

my comment was a dig for the AVA

we already have a WW2 arena(for the most part;-)

[Eric19]

I think the fuel tanks should be able to be dropped to 50% fuel loadout in hangar because as it stands now hitting the fuel tanks is just so impractical because even a 163 on 75% gas can still climb to well over 40k and land without fuel at a base 4 sectors away

[RotBaron]

I think the fuel tanks should be able to be dropped to 50% fuel loadout in hangar because as it stands now hitting the fuel tanks is just so impractical because even a 163 on 75% gas can still climb to well over 40k and land without fuel at a base 4 sectors away

Brilliant, man that's a such a great idea, never thought about porking the fuel at 163 fields. Now that would really change the strat situation.  There a handful of guys that I only see if 163's are allowed.

That's +1 more reason to make the refineries more important.

Rot

[Brakechk]

It seems to me that the ability to pork fuel down to 25% or 50% just enables the porker to prevent combat.  Why would anyone want to that in a combat game?  It would certainly assist base taking I guess but where is the fun in base taking with no combat?  I seem to recall being able to knock fuel down to those levels years ago.  It resulted in porkers dropping fuel on the front or even one base back much like they do with radar now.  It did hurt the fight and was at times done for no other reason but griefing.  I don't think a game mechanic that allows one person to have that much effect on so many others with one mission is a good thing.     

If you want to take bases with no combat load up offline and go for it...if you want to talk with your friends while doing it call em up on the phone before you load up offline.  That way you can tell 'em how awesome you are as you roll the map while getting kills on the drones like a boss! 

This isn't a dig at those whose goal is base taking/war winning.  (Attempting to take a base or defending a base is a good way to find a fight).  It's a question of why anyone would want to do so with no combat against other players while playing an online combat game.

Zaphod 



 

[ink]

It seems to me that the ability to pork fuel down to 25% or 50% just enables the porker to prevent combat.  Why would anyone want to that in a combat game?  It would certainly assist base taking I guess but where is the fun in base taking with no combat?  I seem to recall being able to knock fuel down to those levels years ago.  It resulted in porkers dropping fuel on the front or even one base back much like they do with radar now.  It did hurt the fight and was at times done for no other reason but griefing.  I don't think a game mechanic that allows one person to have that much effect on so many others with one mission is a good thing.     

If you want to take bases with no combat load up offline and go for it...if you want to talk with your friends while doing it call em up on the phone before you load up offline.  That way you can tell 'em how awesome you are as you roll the map while getting kills on the drones like a boss! 

This isn't a dig at those whose goal is base taking/war winning.  (Attempting to take a base or defending a base is a good way to find a fight).  It's a question of why anyone would want to do so with no combat against other players while playing an online combat game.

Zaphod 



 

 

well said

 

[EagleDNY]

It seems to me that the ability to pork fuel down to 25% or 50% just enables the porker to prevent combat.  Why would anyone want to that in a combat game?  It would certainly assist base taking I guess but where is the fun in base taking with no combat?  I seem to recall being able to knock fuel down to those levels years ago.  It resulted in porkers dropping fuel on the front or even one base back much like they do with radar now.  It did hurt the fight and was at times done for no other reason but griefing.  I don't think a game mechanic that allows one person to have that much effect on so many others with one mission is a good thing.     

If you want to take bases with no combat load up offline and go for it...if you want to talk with your friends while doing it call em up on the phone before you load up offline.  That way you can tell 'em how awesome you are as you roll the map while getting kills on the drones like a boss! 

This isn't a dig at those whose goal is base taking/war winning.  (Attempting to take a base or defending a base is a good way to find a fight).  It's a question of why anyone would want to do so with no combat against other players while playing an online combat game.

Zaphod 

I'm in favor of fuel porkage dropping fuel availability to 50%.  IMHO it is FAR more likely to be used by a defending country trying to stop or at least slow down the base taking horde than it is by some anonymous porker trying to stop your furballing fun.  Just exactly how much fuel do you take need to take to a nearby furball?  Or for base defense?  50% is plenty and if you need more we now have a perfectly find resupply and strat system you can use.
This is no different from the ammo porkers we see every single nite.

[shoresroad]

I'm new to AH, but pretty quickly found myself wanting more strategic play after about a month.  The combat folks don't seem to care where they are fighting from or what's going on on the map, so how would it hurt to enhance strategic play also.  Let the furballs fly (and sometimes they are a lot of fun) but how would it hurt anything if the strategic oriented had more incentive also.  So one side wins, then the map changes and the furballs start again.  The combat guys would never know the difference and the strategic guys would have won (or lost) their war.  Seems like you could have the best of both worlds 

Add permanent achievements and recognition to give the strategic players something more to play for.  I think this would end up with more missions and more organized play opportunities.  Create goals for strategic play and the players will come.  I think it would ruin the fun of the combat players if you started to take away their toys, so not lobbying for that.  I think the strategic play should focus on taking ground, and permanent recognition to do so.

The other night I was part of a battle for two bases, with both sides hitting the nearest 4 bases that could resupply and spawn vehicles to the battle.  After about 3 hours we finally took the two bases in contention and it was the most fun I've had here.  Both sides were playing smart and it drew in about 40 players.  Some were there just for the furball, but many others were there for the bigger picture and it became very organized for those who were interested.  I'm sure the furballers had a blast also, as it was going on in the air and on the ground simultaneously.  It was a blast!

 

[Brakechk]

I'm in favor of fuel porkage dropping fuel availability to 50%.  IMHO it is FAR more likely to be used by a defending country trying to stop or at least slow down the base taking horde than it is by some anonymous porker trying to stop your furballing fun.  Just exactly how much fuel do you take need to take to a nearby furball?  Or for base defense?  50% is plenty and if you need more we now have a perfectly find resupply and strat system you can use.
This is no different from the ammo porkers we see every single nite.

Respectully, I'm not in favor of it.  I agree that both sides would use it.  Several years ago it was possible to drop fuel to those levels and it hindered the fight a great deal.  50% is not enough fuel for some fighters unless you want to up a vulched field (109s, ki-84s, F4U's to name a few).  It limits players to certain planes.  It's worse for the attackers as they have no choice but to fly to the field being attacked. Either side can be effectively shut down which shuts down the fight. 

It is vastly different from ammo porking in that ammo porking nearby bases doesn't effect the ability to up and fly a fighter.  The only effect porking ammo has is that bombers and jabos have to up from bases further away to attack carriers or gv's in the area.  That is a double edged sword especially in regard to attacking carriers as it results in higher alt bombers and jabos inbound to the cv which arguably are harder to defend against.  This is especially true if the attackers are down low dealing with uppers from the field.  The other big difference is that defending fighters can still be up defending while ammo is being resupplied by the players that want to bomb (more strategic players).  The attackers can still fly to the the field and supress it while the players on that side are resupplying ammo to restart the base attack.  Ammo porking in no way restricts the fight for furballers as all figher types are available regardless of ammo status.  It affects base taking/defense players only because they need the ords for both jobs and must resupply if they are down.  It's a pretty good deal for both sides as it is in the realm of strategic play with almost no effect of the tactical or furballing aspect.

With regards to the strat system.  I agree that we have a workable system for resupply.  However why force players who don't want to play the strategic game use it in order to play the tactical game?  The fact that the strategic system includes a mechanism to repair damage caused using the same system ignores the fact that the tactical players want to minimize their involvement in the strategic game as much as possible. 

Again none of this is a dig at base taking or furballing.  I am in a squad that does a little of both with maybe more emphasis on base taking/base defending and some strat runs.  All I'm saying is that a balance is required in order to keep both sides happy.  When we are trying a base take I see furballing as helpful.  I like the fight no matter what we are doing.  Friendly furballers keep the defenders busy or dead.  Enemy furballers means that there will be fun (combat) involved in the base take.  If I'm in a furballing mood then the first thing I look for is a base under attack (ours or theirs).

The ability to pork fuel to the levels in the OP was possible years ago.  It resulted in stopping the ability to fight for one side or another.  This was done many times for strategic reasons and at other times just to cause trouble and was possible to accomplish by one or at most two players.  I don't see the ability to shut down combat for any purpose as a good thing.  Especially if just one or two players have that kind of power. 

Both camps of players rely on each other more than they realize I think.  Base takers cause the fight that furballers want to find and can still take the base with our current system with regards to fuel.  Furballers provide the offensive or defensive component necessary to be successful in offense or defense and can still fly to and fight at the base with our current system.  I think we have to be careful about hindering either camp's ability to fight to the extent that they are unable to fight or totally ineffective.  In all honesty it's just as easy to go hit an undefended base if the presence of furballing defenders is too great to overcome at the original target.  In fact this is done with some frequency under those circumstances.

As an aside....arguements regarding war practices of shutting down the opposing side's ability to fight don't really apply here.  This is a combat sim....vs a war sim.  To me it's a one sided request that benefits base takers over furballers in the extreme.  It would be akin to furballers requesting that base taking be eliminated.  Both of which would result in very limited or no combat.

Respecfully,
Zaphod (sorry for the long post)

[bustr]

I agree.....

you list many reasons why a war game in the MA would not be fun....I played WW2 online.(barf for so many reasons but The War was the biggest)...basically thats what people are asking for in the MA.......makes me cringe thinking about it.

fun for 3 days a month.....

my comment was a dig for the AVA

we already have a WW2 arena(for the most part;-)

The AvA over the years has had the potential to be the WW2 Strategic War arena that many of this audience want HiTech to change the MA into. The CM staff and their MA freinds with squads could easily fill the arena a few nights a week. Then with the admin power of the CM's, arrange strategic choke holds and knock out blow strategic objects to be fought for to win the war. As usual, none of the regular complainers over the lack of WW2 style strategic choke holdery in the MA ever get off their collective whines and approch the AvA staff about creating their personal chokery dreams in the AvA. They prefer to whine in here and tell Hitech how inept he is at his choice for a game offering when he gave them an arena to strategicly choke themselves into a Carradine utopia.

In retrospect thats too much work by volunteers so idle individuals and greifers can pass through from time to time in the hopes they might become regulars. I'm not sure how many in this audience have been taking part in that arena from time to time since it originaly was called the CT Arena. Rolling plane sets. Different WW2 era setups. Strategic bomber missions announced days ahead in this forum to be defended against. Even a few hard core dedicated squads before it was changed to the AvA. When it was the CT something worked right since it kept several squads in there most nights. Wonder what it was...........

In the end just like the MA it all devolved each night into furballing amongst freinds. Even in the SEA in the last 15 or so minutes before the end. The fighter escorts are tearing it up mid alt to the deck furballing with freinds on the enemy side when the bombers release them.

The more strategic objects incorporated into the overall health and fighting ability of a country in the MA. The more dedicated griefers who don't want to fight in person for anything will focus on whizzing down the backs of paying customers because they can get away with it. And worse, they will expect to be patted on the back for it as heros becasue they can use the BS cover word of "strategy" to describe personal risk avoidance. At least they will be in good company with a few pilots who use the word "altitiude" to make people belive they are ACM geniuses while they pick and vulch their way to a single digit number in their score.

Anyone firgured out yet that the accomplishments are like awarding you a trophy for remembering your password each night? I wish the derned thing had a check box to turn it off for the individual player. I don't need a trophy for showing up.

[shoresroad]

I'm not suggesting changing anything about the MA rules, just adding achievements and rankings for Pickup Mission Planners, Pickup Missions Flown, and Troops Taking Towns/ Bases.  Leave everything else alone, but with those types of achievements added some players will start to focus on them leading to more mission and squad orchestrated action.  Furballers would be unaffected.  Nothing more fun than organized squads and missions marching across the map fighing the furballers!  Without the furballers, it wouldn't be any fun 

[bustr]

Been around this game long Shores??

Over the years HiTech gave players the TA, DA, SEA, AvA, WW1, EWMA, MWMA, and custom arenas aside form the primary game in the LWMA or simply "The Main Arena". He gave players control over all arenas except WW1 and the MA's which pay the rent and his companies debts and salaries. With this wealth of player controled arenas the only arena the players want to change is the one their inexperience will kill if they were realy able to monkey with the business success formula.

Do you even know why the MA has been so successful for 13 years the way it is? HiTech has changed some of the toys, the background operations and eyecandy. But, the principle by which the three sided sand box operates has remained the same and the doors have stayed open for 13 years.

Can you even define that principle before you get bored, then decide HiTech has no clue what he is doing as a result of your personal experience with the game? How can you presume to say something needs to be changed when you cannot even start your complaint with defining how the game works? The changes you want are not defining any problem with the game. But, reveiling an expectation you want to impose on HiTech to make you personaly happy after you found his operational vision of the game is different from yours.

This is like a group of passengers on a starship deciding the engineer dosen't know how to get the best performance from his warp engines while they are on their way to a sushi chef convention to chop cucumbers for the chefs. Yes captain just trust us. Cucumbers will make the warp drive run twice as fast. We are professional cucumber choppers.

[shoresroad]

Been around this game long Shores??

Over the years HiTech gave players the TA, DA, SEA, AvA, WW1, EWMA, MWMA, and custom arenas aside form the primary game in the LWMA or simply "The Main Arena". He gave players control over all arenas except WW1 and the MA's which pay the rent and his companies debts and salaries. With this wealth of player controled arenas the only arena the players want to change is the one their inexperience will kill if they were realy able to monkey with the business success formula.

Do you even know why the MA has been so successful for 13 years the way it is? HiTech has changed some of the toys, the background operations and eyecandy. But, the principle by which the three sided sand box operates has remained the same and the doors have stayed open for 13 years.

Can you even define that principle before you get bored, then decide HiTech has no clue what he is doing as a result of your personal experience with the game? How can you presume to say something needs to be changed when you cannot even start your complaint with defining how the game works? The changes you want are not defining any problem with the game. But, reveiling an expectation you want to impose on HiTech to make you personaly happy after you found his operational vision of the game is different from yours.

This is like a group of passengers on a starship deciding the engineer dosen't know how to get the best performance from his warp engines while they are on their way to a sushi chef convention to chop cucumbers for the chefs. Yes captain just trust us. Cucumbers will make the warp drive run twice as fast. We are professional cucumber choppers.

But I thought this was the "Wishlist" section 

I love joining "Pickup Missions" and taking territory 

Just wish there were more of them and thought HiTech would like feedback from new players