What Ever Happened to NOE??

[Karnak]

See Luche's answer below.  He is right, I was wrong. 

[Lusche]

Both darbar as well as dot dar had been 500ft, and now they are 65 and 250ft

[Tinkles]

Both darbar as well as dot dar had been 500ft, and now they are 65 and 250ft

Just a suggestion. In your previous post you said that currently there is no strategical value between bases.  Capture berlin or a "danish fishing village" and it is technically worth the same, yes?

So perhaps the war should be changed from base numbers to resources? Like certain types of bases have certain things, in order to win the war you have to have a certain amount of this, with that the other thing and some of whatever. 

I know it would be a complete and utter overhaul on the base system, but I think that is truly what is 'stale', the fact that it doesn't matter that you attack that strategical airfield or vbase next to the strats, or that base faar away from combat. They are both worth the same, in my opinion, that is wrong.

Tinkles

<<S>>

 

[The Fugitive]

Lusche, do you know/remember why either hearsay or official the reason the strat system was changed from a zone system to what we have now?

Zone bases use to be something worth fighting over and were always a rallying cry to help with either the defense or the attack.

[Lusche]

Lusche, do you know/remember why either hearsay or official the reason the strat system was changed from a zone system to what we have now?

I don't know of any official reason.
A wild guess by me was that they may had that stuff already built for Combat Tour / Tour of Duty, but as said: Just a wild guess.


I for one am still glad about the new strats and their (finally fixed) impact on the arena and would never get back to the old zone factory system, which would again raider true long range sorties pointless. But I am all for additional, new zones with resources in form of zone railyards  


My dream would be a true central target to be captured or killed for the win, so that the enemy would have to fight his way towards it. Sidestepping or opening a second front would still be possible, but not always desireable. In the end, there would be a large goal you would be thrusting towards, which would creatle more clearly defined "frontlines" and battles, with a possible 'epic' end battle.
I just have not found a way to implement it within the limits of our 3 country setup.  

[jeffdn]

My dream would be a true central target to be captured or killed for the win, so that the enemy would have to fight his way towards it. Sidestepping or opening a second front would still be possible, but not always desireable. In the end, there would be a large goal you would be thrusting towards, which would creatle more clearly defined "frontlines" and battles, with a possible 'epic' end battle.
I just have not found a way to implement it within the limits of our 3 country setup.  

What if the maps were set up so that one country defended that object and the other two were coming from each side, trying to reach it first. Defender wins the map if neither side takes it in a certain time period.

[EskimoJoe]

I don't know of any official reason.
A wild guess by me was that they may had that stuff already built for Combat Tour / Tour of Duty, but as said: Just a wild guess.

IIRC it was to increase strategic bomber play or high-altitude fighting, or something to that effect. Worked out great, eh?

[Lusche]

What if the maps were set up so that one country defended that object and the other two were coming from each side, trying to reach it first. Defender wins the map if neither side takes it in a certain time period.

While I for one would like it very much (as long as I could be the outnumbered defender)...

I'd say that the overwhelming majority on the 'Defender' team would massively complain about this setup.
And probably a lot on the other side as well, as ENY limits would have to be much more severe to cope with this institutionalized gangbang.

[Lusche]

IIRC it was to increase strategic bomber play or high-altitude fighting, or something to that effect. Worked out great, eh?

I'd say it worked out well, not great, as we rarely see the proper big bomber raids and defenses I was hoping for. But then, we generally have a lack in big missions (apart from some standard smash&grabs).

But ever since the strats were finally made working, almost all my own play has revolved around it, either as a strat raider or as a strat defender. Since then, my kills of bombers do outnumber my kills of fighters. And I would hardly have 134 kills of and 168 kills in B-29 today if it weren't for the new strats 

[JimmyD3]

In my opinion it's because base taking is old and outdated, and feels very copy and paste / rinse and repeat..

Dog fights always feel new because the altitude of your enemy, aircraft and pilot are nearly impossible to predict.. leading to a "new" fight feeling each sortie..

but as far as bases go.. they are always the same, the process of capturing one is nearly always the same.. and it tends to get old fast and not retain the interest of a large majority of the players..

You really only need to take a base once in your AH career to know what its like and then immediately feel like "been there done that"

The base taking system could use an overhaul.

 

I guess I don't see what your talking about Blu. The same variables you refer to in "Dog Fights" are just as applicable to "Base Taking". The difference, IMHO, is in your (the players) objective, a good dog fight, or a base take with good dog fights (note the plural). As I understand it, if you want dog fights only, you go to the DA.

[jeffdn]

While I for one would like it very much (as long as I could be the outnumbered defender)...

I'd say that the overwhelming majority on the 'Defender' team would massively complain about this setup.
And probably a lot on the other side as well, as ENY limits would have to be much more severe to cope with this institutionalized gangbang.

Maybe there could be a central object that everyone battles over, that holding for more than x amount of time results in a win. The strats and base taking that currently exist could be retooled as a way to diminish that country's capacity to make war.

[Agent360]

I do miss the "9 pound hammer" NOE mission...especially the "alamo" missions deep into enemy territory. Pure brute force taking a base.

Would be nice to see some of those missions again.

PS - I once flew a goon 5 sectors to take a base only to find I dropped vehicle supplies...Just the comedy that ensued was worth it.

[scott66]

Just leaned what NOE means can someone tell me what IMO means plz

[BluBerry]

Just leaned what NOE means can someone tell me what IMO means plz

IMO- In My Opinion

[scott66]

IMO- In My Opinion

thanks blue