Author Topic: Ideas in general regarding offense vs defense and balancing the two  (Read 507 times)

Offline DurrD

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 76
I think the balance has shifted over the last few years to favor the defense.  Hangar down-times of 15 minutes vs 30 is a big one, not to mention the recent addition of resupply.  Personally, I would like to see hangars stay down for 30 minutes.

I have a bigger suggestion than that though.  I would like to see it so that once you have been killed from a certain airfield, you cannot re-up from that airfield for a certain penalty time (my suggestion would be 3 to 5 minutes), although perhaps a shorter time like 1-2 minutes would probably be more likely. Carriers would be exempt from this, as would ground vehicles.  This would help simulate that there are a certain number of aircraft at that field, and once they are destroyed they are gone.  So lets say there are 5 people defending a given base.  Once they are all shot down, they either have to wait out the penalty period, or they have to re-up from a nearby base.  It would help stop or mitigate several commonly complained about behaviors:

- Discourages vulching, as many vulch kills are the same person getting whacked over and over.

- Stops the irritating "revenge re-up" where you kill somebody near their airfield, often after chasing them for miles and miles, and they instantly re-up in an La-7, and continue doing so until you are out of fuel, and thus prevent you from ever getting home.  A small pause would give you the opportunity to get some distance and RTB once low on fuel and ammo.  This has been happening to me a lot lately, especially late at night.  I killed one guy 3 or 4 times but he just would not stop coming back.  I was never able to disengage long enough to escape and eventually ran out of fuel.

- Most importantly, it stops 1 person from re-upping over and over to stop a base take.  This happens frequently where the field is close to the town, and the same guy pops out of the ack straight to town to kill the troops.  It is nearly impossible to stop at some fields without de-acking the base, which is of course the tactical answer for preventing this.  Large missions will overwhelm the lone defender, and I know that many will not be sympathetic to this, but I don't think that it was ever the intent that one person would be able to thwart an attack being conducted by 4 to 6 people, unless they are truly a superior fighter pilot and are able to kill all the attackers.  The way it is now encourages hording and vulching, which so many people are so much against.

Overall, it would subtly shift the balance back to the middle a bit more.  It is a common axiom that military offense has historically required a 3:1 numbers advantage over the defender to prevail.  This maxim has held throughout many eras of tactics and technology.  Right now it takes a lot more than that most of the time to take a base.  
« Last Edit: September 27, 2013, 03:59:02 PM by DurrD »
FBDurr -- A Freebird since 2013, been playing Aces High since 2001.

Offline Tank-Ace

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5298
Re: Ideas in general regarding offense vs defense and balancing the two
« Reply #1 on: September 27, 2013, 04:41:51 PM »
DurrD, I've ran successful missions with 4 people. The bases were defended.

The reason that it takes so many to capture a base isn't that its so easy to defend, but that the guys who horde bases are just sub-par.
You started this thread and it was obviously about your want and desire in spite of your use of 'we' and Google.

"Once more unto the breach"

Offline Lusche

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 23949
      • Last.FM Profile
Re: Ideas in general regarding offense vs defense and balancing the two
« Reply #2 on: September 27, 2013, 04:44:29 PM »
I think the balance has shifted over the last few years to favor the defense.  Hangar down-times of 15 minutes vs 30 is a big one, not to mention the recent addition of resupply.  Personally, I would like to see hangars stay down for 30 minutes.


I may be misinterpreting your 2nd sentence, but AFAIK the hangar downtime has always been 15 minutes, there had been no changes in this regard at all. At least not during the past 9 years.
Second, a hangar downtime of 30 minutes (as well as most of your other proposals) would be greatly reduce the thing this game is in essence all about: Combat.

Steam: DrKalv
E:D Snailman

In November 2025, Lusche will return for a 20th anniversary tour. Get your tickets now!

Offline Halo46

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1155
Re: Ideas in general regarding offense vs defense and balancing the two
« Reply #3 on: September 27, 2013, 05:37:53 PM »

I may be misinterpreting your 2nd sentence, but AFAIK the hangar downtime has always been 15 minutes, there had been no changes in this regard at all. At least not during the past 9 years.
Second, a hangar downtime of 30 minutes (as well as most of your other proposals) would be greatly reduce the thing this game is in essence all about: Combat.



But Snailman, how can they take the base if the other guys are allowed to defend it?  :noid

If you can not get away from an airfield after you shoot someone down because they re-up an LA-7 you have other problems not related to base attacks I think. I did not see one proposal that even remotely seemed good for the game, but I suck at the game so what do I know?
Used to fly as Halo46, GRHalo, Hobo and Punk at the end.

Offline DurrD

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 76
Re: Ideas in general regarding offense vs defense and balancing the two
« Reply #4 on: September 27, 2013, 06:36:50 PM »
The problem of not being able to get away when they re-up in an La-7 isn't that I cant deal with the La-7, because sometimes I can / sometimes I cant, depends on who it is, just like any other air combat.  

The problem is that they do it over and over and over until you run out of gas.  You can try to work the fight a little further away each time, and if there are other people on, usually it gets interrupted by others.  However, I play a lot late at night, and there aren't many people on, so it often happens that I will watch for people doing porking runs (commonly in a Dora or P-51).  I up to chase them, and of course it seems that the general trend is that they run for home despite their alt advantage and the 1v1 odds.  I chase, and even though I am sometimes able to catch them, it seems like it always takes most of the distance to their base to do so (I fly F-4U4's, P-51s, and Yak-9U for this duty, the first 2 of which can potentially catch almost anything, the last of which sometimes can).  Sometimes even when I don't catch them they are willing to fight with the safety of their airfield just behind them.  I have killed a number of airplanes this way, and you can count on the next thing you see is a Spitfire XVI, N1k, or La-7 taking off.  The first two arent a big deal, because once I am bingo fuel, they are easy to leave behind since they are slow.  The La-7 is the problem if they use that.  

Anyhow, I concede this is kind of a personal beef based on situations that have happened recently.  That is not the primary reason I want to see this change.  Forget that I even mentioned that part. The main reason is the overall shift of the balance of power towards defense.  

I play defense sometimes too, and it is childishly easy to stop almost all base take attempts unless they completely close the field down or get a good vulch going, and even then all you have to do is stay alive for 15 minutes while watching for the goon (not hard to do given the right plane (Yak9U!).  If its a big horde, they will do one of those two things (drop all hangars or vulch), but I'm talking the smaller attempts you see, such as at night.  

Lets take an example of 6 people or so (a flight of bombers, a goon, and four fighters for instance) trying to NOE a base.  I guarantee any pilot in the game worth his salt can stop this attack, no matter how they go about doing it, even if he doesn't realize they are there until the base flashes when they hit the dar ring.  If you think bases should only be able to be captured by a large horde, then OK, we disagree.  Saying I don't want people to be allowed to defend is silly, they would still be able to do so.  An ace pilot like yourself can take off in defense and just shoot us all down.  I just think if we shoot you down instead, you can't take off again for a few minutes from that base.  Feel free to up from a nearby base and come back with alt (which is what most people do anyhow, as that would be the smart move if outnumbered).

As to hangar downtimes, I am quite certain that a long long time ago it was 30 minutes (like in 2001/2002).  Can anyone else confirm or deny this?

And, I have taken bases with 3 people that were defended as well.  Just recently Zacherof, Google, and myself took a whole string of bases with just the three of us.  There were 2 defenders, and we still were able to take the bases due to good timing, maybe a little skill, and undoubtedly some luck as well.  In general though, the defender has a huge advantage, which is that he can re-spawn and be back in the fight almost instantly.  That makes one person worth an infinite amount of defenders unless you kill the hangars.  If attackers die, they face a flight back to the target area of 4-10 minutes (or more in some cases), which essentially takes them out of the immediate fight.  Defenders are in it until the hangars go down or until they get tired of dying, or the base gets taken.  You even have cases where a guy ups so many times the attackers run out of ammunition just from killing him over and over.  He may stink as a fighter pilot, but makes a great target.  Anyone can kill a goon though, and after he runs everybody out of ammunition, it is now obviously unsafe to bring the goon in.  For bases that are M-3 capturable, its not as much of a factor, but half the time you don't have that option.

Anyhow, I know not everybody is going to like this idea, I like it though.  I don't want it to become basketball where there is a score (base capture) every few seconds and it becomes not a challenge and meaningless; but it shouldn't be soccer either where it is almost impossible to take a base.  The offense and defense should be somewhat balanced.  Like I said, I would like to see it where it takes roughly about a 3:1 attack:defense ratio to overcome if we are talking about all average pilots.  With an expert or a noob, that would be out the window of course.
« Last Edit: September 27, 2013, 06:38:47 PM by DurrD »
FBDurr -- A Freebird since 2013, been playing Aces High since 2001.

Offline DurrD

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 76
Re: Ideas in general regarding offense vs defense and balancing the two
« Reply #5 on: September 27, 2013, 06:42:45 PM »
Something similar to this is occasionally implemented in some scenarios and I believe has been in effect various times in the AvA or its predecessor the CT, where you can only die so many times in a certain time span or you have to wait a few minutes.  I really liked it in those cases.  It creates a very mild death penalty, which I think is a good thing.

FBDurr -- A Freebird since 2013, been playing Aces High since 2001.

Offline The Fugitive

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 18276
      • Fugi's Aces Help
Re: Ideas in general regarding offense vs defense and balancing the two
« Reply #6 on: September 27, 2013, 07:53:34 PM »
Something similar to this is occasionally implemented in some scenarios and I believe has been in effect various times in the AvA or its predecessor the CT, where you can only die so many times in a certain time span or you have to wait a few minutes.  I really liked it in those cases.  It creates a very mild death penalty, which I think is a good thing.



Not everyone plays the game like you do. That is one of the big reasons this game has been around so long. Oh and in the almost 11 years I've been here I don't remember the hanger time ever being 30 minutes.

This game has lots of options. A lot of people couldn't care less how often they die. Giving these players a penalty, even a mild one would so see many people cancel their subscriptions. Dieing an not being able to reup is a big turn off for me in the scenarios. All that time getting organized, teamed up, climbing to alt and navigating to the battle area only to get shot down in the first few minutes of the attack and then NOT being able to join the fight? A wasted afternoon is about all I see of that.

Against a well co-ordinated attack with skilled players defense can be almost impossible as the attackers come in with all the advantages. Against the lemmings we have in the hordes these days, not so tough. Longer down times are not what is needed, all we need is players to work a bit more at getting better skills. This would make the attacks better, the defenders would have more fun trying to defend against a skilled attack. Win win in my book. 

Offline DurrD

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 76
Re: Ideas in general regarding offense vs defense and balancing the two
« Reply #7 on: September 27, 2013, 09:49:28 PM »
Now I remember why I stopped posting ideas before.  Three times in one day on different threads on different forums I get told not everyone plays the way I do.  Fair enough, but  I didn't even trot out the really controversial stuff!

This is what I really want:
- No icons ever
- 1x fuel burn
- No killshooter
- Friendly collisions on (some mechanism would have to be in place to prevent initial collision on the runway spawn, there are several possible ways)
- Axis vs. Allies style setup for the MA
- No moving map icon
- No way to see where your CV is while in the air.  You would get a sea plot of where its planned path was when you took off.  You would have to find it from there.  If people are moving it around a lot, you could get GCI vectors from somebody in the ship's radar room.
- No radar in the cockpit, and only a rudimentary form of dot dar in a ground control station
- Real nighttime
- Turbulence and weather (including clouds, fog, and vicious crosswinds)
- No autopilot if the plane didn't really have it
- Metric instruments for planes that had it that way
- Full engine/flight control management (no auto fuel tank switch, no auto trim, manual control of prop, mixture, cowling gills, etc)
- Engines overheat/fail if run at high power too long
- No external views in bombers or anything ever in the MA
- No ability to sent, read, or see at all text chat while in the air (no texting while flying!)
- No "all guns slaved to one gunner's sight" mode like now.  Any unmanned guns would have an AI gunner at all times
- A time death penalty for all deaths (2 minutes for all deaths if you take off from somewhere other than where you started the fatal mission / 5 minutes block from that field)
- A certain number of planes are stationed at each field, which replenishes at a set rate.  Strat attacks could affect this rate.  Once those planes are destroyed, no more can up from that field.  In other words, there are say 80 or 90 aircraft on the CV (which would be either a IJN, RN, or USN cv, with appropriate a/c only), with a certain number of those being fighters, dive bombers, and torpedo bombers.  Once they are gone, they are gone, until you get a replenishment, after say 30 minutes.  Same thing for airfields and V-bases
- No LVT and PT's from the fleet.  PT's from shore bases only, and LVT's from a separate amphibious strike force which would have LST's, Old battleships for shore bombardment, and possibly an escort carrier with reduced airplane numbers and types (Avengers and FM2s only for instance)
- All late war planes lightly perked that are not already (bringing air set more in line with ground set where most of the really good stuff has some small perk associated)
- Add infantry, artillery, submarines, seaplanes

I have lots more along that line, but you get the idea.  Don't even bother commenting, I know that almost everybody would passionately hate all those ideas except maybe the last one.  The population of the AvA arena, where only a few of them are in effect, sometimes in a very mild form tells me all I need to know about that.  Just saying, I wasn't even seriously floating the above, only proposed a super watered down version of what I want in a few threads and I get universally negative reactions.  

I know, I know, someone is going to tell me that I should build my own sim, and then I can do it the way I want.  Trust me, I can't coad like Hitech, and even if I could, I would probably only have 3 subscribers, based on almost nobody else wanting extreme realism.  I can at least dream about such a sim though.  HTC should be glad though, lack of realism in all the competition is keeping me here and preventing me from trying out that new sim that rhymes with sore plunder.  AH is the most realistic in flight modelling, and in some respects in gameplay (at least there are no airspawns).  The aspects of gameplay that are not realistic drive me crazy, but I guess if I still love this sim the most after 13 years (and I do), they must be doing something right.
FBDurr -- A Freebird since 2013, been playing Aces High since 2001.

Offline guncrasher

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 17425
Re: Ideas in general regarding offense vs defense and balancing the two
« Reply #8 on: September 27, 2013, 10:15:55 PM »

I want everybody to quit playing the game.


 :headscratch:


semp
you dont want me to ho, dont point your plane at me.

Offline DurrD

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 76
Re: Ideas in general regarding offense vs defense and balancing the two
« Reply #9 on: September 27, 2013, 10:24:20 PM »
I told you, I know that these won't be implemented because a very small amount of people want it the way I do.  So maybe my wish is that everybody share my flight sim preferences, and I guess I would have to make that wish with God instead of Hitech!

Seriously though, it is just as hard for me to understand everybody else's mentality as it is for the rest of you to understand mine.  When somebody says above that many people couldn't care less how often they die, I just cant understand it.  Same thing with people that don't want to win the map or don't care.  

So I agree to disagree, and keep playing anyway.  Just be glad that Hitech agrees with the majority of you and not with me!  
FBDurr -- A Freebird since 2013, been playing Aces High since 2001.

Offline gyrene81

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 11629
Re: Ideas in general regarding offense vs defense and balancing the two
« Reply #10 on: September 28, 2013, 12:55:50 PM »
DurrD, you know what "seal clubbing" refers to. that's exactly what would happen if your list was implemented...and in less than 2 months it would be just you and the few people who think it's all a great thing flying around avoiding each other.

if you want to make base defense more difficult, go pork the strats, then pork hangars and ords. kill the hq and the enemy loses all radar for a few minutes (get them busy running sups to it so you can sneak into a base and take it). the only thing that is missing from strats is ship yards and steel mills. the fact that 1 person can prevent 1 person from snagging a base is what keeps things from being easier than they are already.
jarhed  
Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. - Terry Pratchett

Offline DurrD

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 76
Re: Ideas in general regarding offense vs defense and balancing the two
« Reply #11 on: October 02, 2013, 07:49:04 PM »
Who said that I fly around avoiding combat?  When we are taking bases, I always hope for a little opposition, as completely unopposed would be boring if it happened frequently.  That almost never happens though.  We got 2 bases the other night without a single upper and that was an extreme rarity, even for late at night.  If I'm flying the C-47, then of course, I would like to see no opposition at all, but if I'm providing the fighter cover, then of course I want to get some kills before the base falls. 

For my real wish that opened this thread (a very minor time penalty where you can't take off from a base that you were just shot down from) my objective is to seek a little more balance (obviously what constitutes balance is pure opinion, but I think the 3:1 ratio I mentioned is not unreasonable).  So by that standard, 1 person would be able to prevent 1 person from sneaking a base, might be able to prevent 3 people, but would have a hard time preventing 4 people or more. 

If you think its that way now, then you bring 2 friends and try to take a base I'm defending.  I'm not anything special at this game, and I am very confident that I by myself can prevent 3 or even 5 people from taking a base if I see them coming in time, and that is easy with the radar tools we have.  If HQ is down that might be another matter, and that is why if I have time, I commonly strike the enemy HQ and strats as soon as I log in if they haven't already been hit.

Regarding the lengthy unrealistic wish list of realism items, I said in that very post that I wasn't serious about those because I know they will never be implemented, and even for me they might make the game worse, and of course its not all about me, or even a little bit about me.  In an ideal world, my ideal flight sim would include all of those things.  Well OK, actually in my ideal world we would have access to a fleet of real WW2 airplanes, equipped with state of the art laser targeting systems and smoke, would have an unlimited supply of free fuel and parts, and a large chunk of Class G airspace to play in (and a brother in law that is an A&P with warbird experience that is willing to work for free).  That wish has about as much chance of coming true. 

Believe me I'm not stupid (OK, maybe that is debatable), and I understand why many of these things are in place the way they are.  I was trained as a navigator, so lack of a moving map would be no great hardship to me (ask 49Merlin about my fuel estimates on the HQ raid, and my projected enemy CV plot from the other day)!  For most people that wouldn't be possible simply due to them not having had the training.  Furthermore, it wouldn't even be fun for most people, and we all play this game to have fun, so I totally get that.  I understand why we have killshooter, as the game would be worse without it due to griefers and noobs shooting down friendlies, even though from a realism standpoint I hate it.  I even understand about the compromise inherent in having icons, and why we need them (not the least of which is as long as anybody can fly any plane, you have to have something to tell you which country it is with).

The bottom line is I concede that HTC has spent a lot more time thinking about all these issues than I have, and they certainly have the experience, and the data to make good decisions when it comes to gameplay.  This is my favorite flight simulator ever, and I play it even though I could be playing Rise of Flight, X-Plane 10, Falcon 4.0, or any of the 30 or so other flight sims that I own, many of which have most of the realism options I mentioned in my list.  I like people though (even the ones that can be such a trial sometimes on ch200 and here on the BBS), and I guess the social aspect of the game, as well as the unparalleled challenge of flying against real people is what keeps me here.  If it wasn't fun I wouldn't have played 160 something hours last tour (OK, so my wife being out of town all month had something to do with that amount of time played as well), and in the end, I trust Hitech and staff to continue making good decisions about the game.

I do still want the mandatory 2 minute downtime from the field you upped from if you are shot down though!
FBDurr -- A Freebird since 2013, been playing Aces High since 2001.

Offline Tinkles

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1501
Re: Ideas in general regarding offense vs defense and balancing the two
« Reply #12 on: October 02, 2013, 08:09:06 PM »
<snip>
I do still want the mandatory 2 minute downtime from the field you upped from if you are shot down though!

Why exactly do you want that?

Tinkles

<<S>>
If we have something to show we will & do post shots, if we have nothing new to show we don't.
HiTech
Adapt , Improvise, Overcome. ~ HiTech
Be a man and shoot me in the back ~ Morfiend

Offline DurrD

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 76
Re: Ideas in general regarding offense vs defense and balancing the two
« Reply #13 on: October 02, 2013, 08:18:05 PM »
See opening post for the detailed version, as I think I have already used up all my words for this thread and then some.  The short version is that I think the balance has shifted too far in favor of the defender given the addition of the ability to supply and the 15 min hangar downtimes.  I would like to see it shift back the other way slightly, with the defender still having the advantage, but at about a 3:1 ratio (to the extent that you can actually quantify that, which you can't due to variations in player skill and the many variables in this wonderfully complex game).

A slight downtime penalty would discourage suicidal defensive behavior, shifting the balance slightly back towards the attacker, but not excessively so in my opinion.  I think it would also have some beneficial side effects, detailed in the OP.
« Last Edit: October 02, 2013, 08:21:55 PM by DurrD »
FBDurr -- A Freebird since 2013, been playing Aces High since 2001.