Anatomy of the Base Capture

[Shifty]

Deleted for quote of #4

[Debrody]

See rule #4

[Arlo]

Deleted for quote of a #4 vilolation

[dedalos]

There is base capture and then there is 'base capture'.  Back when I was flying with the USMC/Grims rippers we would fly base capture missions.  It would be maybe 10 of us with bufs and fighters cap.  We would try to stay alive during the attempt.  It was not easy but it was fun because we had to actually try.

'Base capture' consisting of sending 10 guys to auger killing dar first, followed by a 50 plane unorganized horde that can figure out if they are there to vulch or run is not fun and not interested at all.

So, it is not really the game but it is the people.  The funnies thing on vox is the generals asking if anyone has a goon.  Never mind that they are not in one.  They blame every one else for not being in one lol

[Wiley]

The problem I see is, base capture is by its very definition boring.  You have the same targets at the base, the same tactics always work best, so why do anything else?  Same thing every time.

At least running defense, I never know what I'm going to get, except that there's going to be a lot of it.

The funniest thing on vox is the generals asking if anyone has a goon.  Never mind that they are not in one.  They blame every one else for not being in one lol

I've noticed that a LOT on the knights side.  Smash a base, country channel, "Are there troops inbound to field x?"  One night I saw it happen 4 times in a row at 4 different bases.  Had me chuckling pretty hard.

Wiley.

[icepac]

If your intent is to capture a base, the minimum requirement for the base take must be met.

Minimum requirement is.....

1.  white flagged town in the case of airfields

2.  all auto ack down at towns or vehicle fields and ports.

3.  troops to run into the map room


It doesn't matter how many hangars you blow up or enemy GVs you bomb down that are headed to town if the three criteria above are not met.

[Debrody]

lol Hitech. I give it up 

[Arlo]

Ok, ok .... ok ....... o ... k. 

[uptown]

I'd like to see a system in place for winning the maps dependent on destroying the enemy's factories/industry as well as capturing bases. Scatter and hide factories..... in the side of mountains maybe. This would necessitate the importance to destroy railways and train yards. When bases are taken, some factories are moved to different locations. Just as factories are move to the rear now.
Make radar where it's less predictable and make it where some areas just don't have it. And take away those silly dar bars. Make the players depend more on country communications as to where forces are needed the most.  

Ghi is right. If you take away the strategic aspects of the game we have nothing more than a oversized arcade style dueling arena. It's getting damned close to that now as it is. Smash and grab towns/bases can only keep players interested for so long. Put the strategy, thinking and planning back in the game.

[jimson]

I'd like to see a system in place for winning the maps dependent on destroying the enemy's factories/industry as well as capturing bases. Scatter and hide factories..... in the side of mountains maybe. This would necessitate the importance to destroy railways and train yards. When bases are taken, some factories are moved to different locations. Just as factories are move to the rear now.
Make radar where it's less predictable and make it where some areas just don't have it. And take away those silly dar bars. Make the players depend more on country communications as to where forces are needed the most.  

Ghi is right. If you take away the strategic aspects of the game we have nothing more than a oversized arcade style dueling arena. It's getting damned close to that now as it is. Smash and grab towns/bases can only keep players interested for so long. Put the strategy, thinking and planning back in the game.

+1

For AvA I have always wanted to see the ability to set different parameters and even combinations for win the war. Something like bringing strats down to a certain level along with capturing some key objectives, attrition by a certain number of kills etc.

May be impractical to do something like this and finding a one size fits all for the main arenas more difficult still.

I can see why base capture is the most practical way to go.

[Daddkev]

  No Bustr...NO !  Bad Pig...Bad Pig....BAD PIG !!! 

[The Fugitive]

The problem I see is, base capture is by its very definition boring.  You have the same targets at the base, the same tactics always work best, so why do anything else?  Same thing every time.

At least running defense, I never know what I'm going to get, except that there's going to be a lot of it.

I've noticed that a LOT on the knights side.  Smash a base, country channel, "Are there troops inbound to field x?"  One night I saw it happen 4 times in a row at 4 different bases.  Had me chuckling pretty hard.

Wiley.

The base capture should be the "end game" of that action. The mission is the challenge you work through to get there. The same as a dog fight. The kill is the end game, the maneuvering for that kill shot while avoiding the other guys kill shot is the challenge there.

What the players have done is looked for the quickest, easiest way to get the "end game". They don't bother with the journey to get there and so are not interested in the challenge.

I know what is involved in running a good mission with multiple prongs. There is the time to build and plan the mission, the time to lead the mission by assigning objectives and making sure everyone not only has a roll, but understands and can carry out that roll. If not they will need back up and this must be taken into account. Add in your "guessing" as to what kind of defense your heading into and must make changes on the fly to account for guessing wrong. Your hoping for defense as an attack with out one gets pretty boring. For our missions, more often than not I flew a buff or back up goon, and spent most of my time giving instruction as we flew. While running the missions was fun, as a fighter guy I was missing out on a lot of fighter sorties and that is ultimately why I stopped running missions.

I like to play defense too. Missions are pretty boring as everyone does the same thing all the time. It's a player issue. HTC has given us all the tools to play this game many ways. It's too bad most have settled on only just one or two of those ways to play.   

[bustr]

Since each base capture is a micro war leading up to the War Win and map change.

What would happen if Hitech offered Accomplishment Missions to reward the micro war captures?

1. - You select from an HTC provided list, a mission type with aircraft and vehicles chosen for you. You add the start and target fields. Troop delivery method along with start and target fields. You are given a troop delivery method to account for uncertainties on the map including changing the start fields if troops are down while your mission waits in the tower. Mission is officialy recorded as PlayerID's Mission.
2. - Your group achieves goals required from choosing the mission. At least one has to be included by HTC that can be accomplished by attacking the target field by one of the mission members.
3. - Accomplishment of the goals along the way rewards accomplishments for the mission membership. Capturing the field rewards mission members with perks. Zero goals achieved with a field capture equals zero capture perks. Mission failure gets highlighted in the text buffer. I can see players dedicated to forcing accomplishment missions to fail for the buffer message.
4. - Unless goals determining altitude and revealing yourself are required. Or strategies are specified. Anything goes with the required rides to get the job done.

Make a monthly contest out of these missions in some way to get names in lights on the WEB front page for the accomplishments like the overall rankings. Create a rank for mission master or something.

Another nested layer would be several missions can be combined into a common mission for the start timer. This would allow several of the accomplishment missions to be leveraged as prongs of a larger strategy. The individual accomplishment missions would be independent of each other for the achievements and perks rewarded. Ten perks per mission would be a good number. The mission owner gets his name in lights.

[ntrudr]

A bit of a ramble.  I like to participate in base captures, either organized or ones that seem to spawn from furball that formed over an enemy base.  I usually like to be fighter cap n vulch but I do go heavy and bomb and strafe down targets.  It would be hard to make base capture easy enough for a few players to accomplish, although some manage to take vbases with just a couple players, because during US prime time there are 300 players, but during the lull there can be a few as 100.  It can be really frustrating to work a base for a long time then have the attacking force get distracted by a furball elsewhere. I also like defending against attacks, killing buffs and heavy fighters that are inbound.  The p38 hordes can be a challenge though.  You have to try and get a few kills while staying fast enough to get away.

[Wiley]

The base capture should be the "end game" of that action. The mission is the challenge you work through to get there. The same as a dog fight. The kill is the end game, the maneuvering for that kill shot while avoiding the other guys kill shot is the challenge there.

What the players have done is looked for the quickest, easiest way to get the "end game". They don't bother with the journey to get there and so are not interested in the challenge.

The problem is, everything you describe below requires effort, planning, and execution.  When you've got the herd of cats who are drunk or whatever, or just plain aren't that good at the game, why would you do something like the below when you can have a far less chance of failure hording up and smashing the base?

The thing I really don't get is the amount of people who get bent out of shape if their mission runs into opposition.  It's like they feel they should be able to up a mission without considering the possibility of having to defend the heavies.

I know what is involved in running a good mission with multiple prongs. There is the time to build and plan the mission, the time to lead the mission by assigning objectives and making sure everyone not only has a roll, but understands and can carry out that roll. If not they will need back up and this must be taken into account. Add in your "guessing" as to what kind of defense your heading into and must make changes on the fly to account for guessing wrong. Your hoping for defense as an attack with out one gets pretty boring. For our missions, more often than not I flew a buff or back up goon, and spent most of my time giving instruction as we flew. While running the missions was fun, as a fighter guy I was missing out on a lot of fighter sorties and that is ultimately why I stopped running missions.

I like to play defense too. Missions are pretty boring as everyone does the same thing all the time. It's a player issue. HTC has given us all the tools to play this game many ways. It's too bad most have settled on only just one or two of those ways to play.   

Agreed.

The sad thing is, I could see Bustr's suggestion working with a simple script.  Have the script choose an enemy field near the front.  Put in room for 30 P51's, 30 P47's and 30 P38's, all heavy, 5 goon slots, and 10 B17 and B24 slots.  Put up mission.  Have it launch at a prescribed time, or if nobody goes in in time, once it's got say, 10 of each fighter and a goon.

Have the script put up multiple missions, one for each enemy base on the front.  For each base take, perks for all in the mission.

I could see that working, and it depresses the living hell out of me.

Wiley.