New game stucture

[ReVo]

I don't think field guns are that big  an issue. After all they are pretty easily taken out.

As for adding toughness to target people say that they will just bring more people so adding to the horde. On top of that, hardening of the targets makes it even harder for small groups to attack and take bases.

The horde will never go away, every open world game has their own version of it. The proposed changes are meant to encourage fighting and prevent hordes from rolling over base after base by dropping every single hangar before 90% of players even know the field is under attack. As for the changes to field guns I frequently spend a good deal of time circling frontline airfields either by myself or with one or two pilots while some guy in the 88 and a half a dozen wirbles take shots at me and not a single aircraft comes off the runway. I have zero incentive to dive through the laser guided ack to kill the 88 since I don't even get a kill for my trouble, and they have zero risk since they can't even be killed while in the gun.

[The Fugitive]

The horde will never go away, every open world game has their own version of it. The proposed changes are meant to encourage fighting and prevent hordes from rolling over base after base by dropping every single hangar before 90% of players even know the field is under attack. As for the changes to field guns I frequently spend a good deal of time circling frontline airfields either by myself or with one or two pilots while some guy in the 88 and a half a dozen wirbles take shots at me and not a single aircraft comes off the runway. I have zero incentive to dive through the laser guided ack to kill the 88 since I don't even get a kill for my trouble, and they have zero risk since they can't even be killed while in the gun.

3 guys can deack a field in two maybe 3 passes depending on field size. If no one is upping why are you bothering circling?

Making a field harder to roll is just going to bring more people. Yes hordes are here to stay, but there should be some counter to them. Something that won't hurt smaller groups like hardening FH and such. Something along the lines of an early warning system so that those who want to defend can get organized, or the hardness of FH be tied to an automatic scale so that the more people you bring the harder it is to knock them down. This way small groups can still hit bases and have a chance at taking them.

Much like the change in the dar alts slowed the NOEs WITHOUT stopping them, we need something to either slow the hordes and give the defenders some way to fight back.

Yesterday was another prime example. Bish were running NOEs across the water with 30-40 guys in each mission for a single base. Meanwhile Knights got together and had their own horde or 25-35 guys rolling. Rooks were all over the place. I think we stopped the Bish once or twice but then they just disappear and go grab a base on some other front running NOE. After supper the Bish had to go to bed and the Knits fell apart and ET's put his horde together and rolled a few bases from the rook side. Same old same old. 

[ReVo]

3 guys can deack a field in two maybe 3 passes depending on field size. If no one is upping why are you bothering circling?

Because this game is about more then just taking bases. Bases are there to provide something to fight over.

I don't think my changes would hurt small base takes since they usually don't bother dropping all the hangars anyway.

[earl1937]

 

Here are my thoughts on some changes that I think might help promote combat over simply running over a base.

1:While not my idea I do like the concept of limiting the number of aircraft that can come off a base in a set time. Though I am unsure how this would best be implemented.

2:I think a small perk cost (2-4) added to Wirbles only when a player spawns at an airfield would help encourage people to up aircraft for defense. Perhaps some other AA vehicles that aren't quite as tough should be added as well?

3:Remove the 88mm flak guns from all airbases, and increase the number of 88's and other anti-aircraft guns on vbases. Vehicle bases need the extra firepower to defend against mass bombers/attack aircraft, airfields have fighters.

4:Count any gun that is destroyed while being controlled by a player as a kill for the attacking party, and a death for the defending party. If people towering when they see a con diving on them will be a problem then a five second delay should be imposed from the time a player ends flight.

5:Increase the hardness of hangars, or increase the number of hangars on every base. This should be implemented along with either a reduction in accuracy of the auto-calibrating bombsite as altitude increases or players should be required to manually calibrate. With the current mechanics two or three sets of 25k bombers can shut down an entire field in one pass.

6:Increase the hardness of ordnance bunkers. One suicide Pony should not be able to pork ords at a field.

7:Introduce perked ordnance loads for the P-51 and F4U-1D.

I thought that you did get a kill, when u take out a manned gun! Is that not correct, some of these other guys know better than me about that, and maybe they will comment on this.

[BaldEagl]

I thought that you did get a kill, when u take out a manned gun! Is that not correct, some of these other guys know better than me about that, and maybe they will comment on this.

No, you don't get a kill because the gunner also doesn't get a death.  Furthermore, if you get shot down by a manned ack the system will tell you who it was (it records the kill as one that doesn't count for score or rank and records the death as a generic death to a field gun) when you shoot one down it doesn't tell you who it was nor does it record it in the stats.

[Tilt]

3 guys can deack a field in two maybe 3 passes depending on field size. If no one is upping why are you bothering circling?

I think we should be careful to note what actually typically happens rather than what "can"  happen or might be achievable.

Its clear that in game 3 guys do not routinely deack a field.... indeed this is quite rare...........

What is clear is that the battle is still over fields.......... the defences/ size of towns simply delay matters as the field has to be neutralised because it is so close to the town and so must be neutralised prior capture. (thus denying defenders access locally)

The only game play where the field is not fully neutralised is during a sneak capture (where was the gameplay combat there?) or as a result of heavy GV activity after porking ordinance and VH (showing GV capture to be more efficient in this respect....... again limiting AC combat effectiveness)

Neutralising a field denies the defenders access to game play..............

The "need" to neutralise the field sponsors the act of doing so...............

[The Fugitive]

I think we should be careful to note what actually typically happens rather than what "can"  happen or might be achievable.

Its clear that in game 3 guys do not routinely deack a field.... indeed this is quite rare...........

What is clear is that the battle is still over fields.......... the defences/ size of towns simply delay matters as the field has to be neutralised because it is so close to the town and so must be neutralised prior capture. (thus denying defenders access locally)

The only game play where the field is not fully neutralised is during a sneak capture (where was the gameplay combat there?) or as a result of heavy GV activity after porking ordinance and VH (showing GV capture to be more efficient in this respect....... again limiting AC combat effectiveness)

Neutralising a field denies the defenders access to game play..............

The "need" to neutralise the field sponsors the act of doing so...............

And that is the point I'm trying to make when it comes to players effecting change in game structure.

If these "generals" sent 3 guys ahead to 3 different bases, using Pand's map edited to show "ack runs" like these....



9 guys could effectively de-ack 3 bases. Now the defenders have a warning, but which of the 3 bases? The other 20+ guys could hit two of them and vulch instead of taking out all the FHs and most likely take both. This is where PLAYERS could make the game more fun for everyone by creating these types of fronts and battles instead of just the same old horde effect.

[Tilt]

This is where PLAYERS could make the game more fun for everyone by creating these types of fronts and battles instead of just the same old horde effect.

Then I think you are beating a long dead horse........... the original posting was related to "new game structure"........... if the outcome is a conclusion that a new game structure is one generated by PLAYERS behaving differently to the way they always have done then IMO it is a flawed conclusion.

Game play is not a construct of individual play........... it is a construct of mass play........... motivate the masses toward an end that improves game play. Take your lessons from what motivates the masses now........ understand what limits the masses now.

Do not assume to change what motivates the masses.

[Ack-Ack]

Not true they had a real game play effect in AW FR spreading combat and reducing the "Disneyland " effect (as Mage referred to it)

Further the AW base limit could be  attritted lowering the number of planes air borne from any one base from 24? To closer to 12? When certain objects were destroyed.( not something I would suggest for AH)

This forced mission planners to use multiple bases on many occasions.

The older AW terrains ( centre lake with three outer lakes) accommodated this very well as combat was to be had throughout the front.

Base limits were dropped when larger PAC and Euro terrains were brought into play. Not because they did not work re game play but because Mage etc could not get them to work at all ( technically) on these larger maps . I Indeed struggled to get them working on the AW Niemen terrain I built for that scenario. Basically AW terrain COAD was PITA from both design and setup viewpoints.   ( lists!)

Base zone limits are the only tried and tested anti horde device  to have "worked" IMO.

AW FR with its lower player base, zone bases did have an affect but in AW RR where 90% of the players were playing in, zone bases didn't have any real impact.  All it did was create multiple hordes taking off nearby bases to join the main horde in VoD.  It wasn't uncommon to see almost all of Az and Bzland in the VoD while Czland was left alone to fight no one.

ack-ack

ack-ack

[The Fugitive]

Then I think you are beating a long dead horse........... the original posting was related to "new game structure"........... if the outcome is a conclusion that a new game structure is one generated by PLAYERS behaving differently to the way they always have done then IMO it is a flawed conclusion.

Game play is not a construct of individual play........... it is a construct of mass play........... motivate the masses toward an end that improves game play. Take your lessons from what motivates the masses now........ understand what limits the masses now.

Do not assume to change what motivates the masses.

But that is how the game structure was changed to get to where we are correct? If it is going to be PLAYERS that are going to again change the game play structure it's going to take a group of players who are looking for more fun/action than base captures which really isn't to hard to believe. The biggest problem with most of the players who like this type of play is that they are not "leaders", but players. Use to jumping from front to front, fight to fight even if it means changing sides.

Thats why I think it's going to take something from HTC to change the game structure that we have now. 

[Tilt]

But that is how the game structure was changed to get to where we are correct?

if the game structure changed  then it was the cause of any change in game play not the activities of players that modified their gameplay to meet the new structure.


If it is going to be PLAYERS that are going to again change the game play structure it's going to take a group of players who are looking for more fun/action than base captures which really isn't to hard to believe.

I'm sorry but its near impossible to believe that a group of players ("leaders") are going to change the game play motives of the masses.......... its been tried so many times and failed every time

The biggest problem with most of the players who like this type of play is that they are not "leaders", but players. Use to jumping from front to front, fight to fight even if it means changing sides.

Agreed the leaders that are "followed" are those that give the masses what they desire.... not what they "should" desire.

Thats why I think it's going to take something from HTC to change the game structure that we have now.

I do not see how your logic led to your conclusion but I agree with the conclusion in any event.

 

[Tilt]

AW FR with its lower player base, zone bases did have an affect but in AW RR where 90% of the players were playing in, zone bases didn't have any real impact.  All it did was create multiple hordes taking off nearby bases to join the main horde in VoD.  It wasn't uncommon to see almost all of Az and Bzland in the VoD while Czland was left alone to fight no one.

ack-ack

ack-ack

As a Die hard cz of the time we refered to VoD as Disney Land and I can advise that by early AW3 it was in FR to prior to base limit. Base limit was also introduced around that time that country rotation was introduced..prior to this Cz was always North and South West, Az was North and South East, and Bz were South West and South East. for us Disneyland was over the far South Eastern Lake. It was certainly a feature of RR and remained one of FR untill the base limit was introduced.

My squad moved to FR with the introduction of AW3 beta.


On the very small maps within AH it would be a waste of time . As soon as a country has suffured  a modicom of attrition the base limit would have to be raised just so everyone could launch and not have players stuck in the tower. As the shrinking number of bases pushes the base/zone limit up so it becomes useless to a point where it supports massive numbers from the defending side.

On larger maps this is not the case and so gameplay is spread further.

[Ack-Ack]

As a Die hard cz of the time we refered to VoD as Disney Land and I can advise that by early AW3 it was in FR to prior to base limit. Base limit was also introduced around that time that country rotation was introduced..prior to this Cz was always North and South West, Az was North and South East, and Bz were South West and South East. for us Disneyland was over the far South Eastern Lake. It was certainly a feature of RR and remained one of FR untill the base limit was introduced.

The zone limits were not introduced in AW3, it was already a feature in the game long before that.  I don't recall them being in AW DOS but the zone limits were in AW4W when the map was static and country rotation wasn't implemented yet (that wasn't until AW3) and bases were only numbers (named bases appeared in AW3).  VoD was, IIRC, B85 and A83 and that is where the majority of the fights took place (with the exception of factory and main base raids) and where the majority of the players were on the RR small ETO maps.  The zone limits didn't stop the horde at VoD, all it did was make players up from a nearby base and take the longer flight to VoD and then get shot down and hope a slot opened up at B85 (or A83 if you were an Azlander) so you didn't have to fly so far to the fight.  As a die-hard Czlander, my squadron often had to up from C83 and then fly across half the map if we wanted to fight as the majority of Az and Bzlanders were in VoD furballing.

ack-ack

[Tilt]

The zone limits were not introduced in AW3, it was already a feature in the game long before that.  I don't recall them being in AW DOS but the zone limits were in AW4W when the map was static and country rotation wasn't implemented yet (that wasn't until AW3) and bases were only numbers (named bases appeared in AW3).  VoD was, IIRC, B85 and A83 and that is where the majority of the fights took place (with the exception of factory and main base raids) and where the majority of the players were on the RR small ETO maps.  The zone limits didn't stop the horde at VoD, all it did was make players up from a nearby base and take the longer flight to VoD and then get shot down and hope a slot opened up at B85 (or A83 if you were an Azlander) so you didn't have to fly so far to the fight.  As a die-hard Czlander, my squadron often had to up from C83 and then fly across half the map if we wanted to fight as the majority of Az and Bzlanders were in VoD furballing.

ack-ack

I have to admit that even as I was typing I was  wondering if it was during the ever so brief period of "AW2" after AW4W that the base limit was used. I remember going FR during AW3 beta (Big PAC).

I am sure that during this period prior  AW3, base names  (Jennifer, Grey Eagle, Moggy etc)were introduced along with rotation, Multi field capture and possibly as you say base limits.

I suppose I could check this chronology with the Bigweek crowd.

I have distinct memories of launching from fields south of the river as a Cz and having to modify mission waypoints to merge from different bases because the field had been bombed and the base limit reduced below squadron strength.

So it could have been in RR during this period that I recall. However having said that I would repeat that base limit worked to spread combat.... And if you are correct re the timing then I would state that it worked in RR just prior to AW3..... Albeit my experience is Euro time zone related where numbers were not as great as US time zones.


Further it is still the only measure I have seen that breaks/ modifies the tendancy to horde.

[hlbly]

I have to admit that even as I was typing I was  wondering if it was during the ever so brief period of "AW2" after AW4W that the base limit was used. I remember going FR during AW3 beta (Big PAC).

I am sure that during this period prior  AW3, base names  (Jennifer, Grey Eagle, Moggy etc)were introduced along with rotation, Multi field capture and possibly as you say base limits.

I suppose I could check this chronology with the Bigweek crowd.

I have distinct memories of launching from fields south of the river as a Cz and having to modify mission waypoints to merge from different bases because the field had been bombed and the base limit reduced below squadron strength.

So it could have been in RR during this period that I recall. However having said that I would repeat that base limit worked to spread combat.... And if you are correct re the timing then I would state that it worked in RR just prior to AW3..... Albeit my experience is Euro time zone related where numbers were not as great as US time zones.


Further it is still the only measure I have seen that breaks/ modifies the tendancy to horde.

Indeed zone limits were in AW2. That is where I started playing AW. I bought the boxed game,and got some free hours to play on Compuserve. This was the time AOL quit having AW for free. When I started AW2 had like 6 or 7 players in FR. First trainers were  Soup and Root. I quit flying shortly after Electronic Arts took over. I still will never spend a dime on their stuff. Not even at a garage sale. I think you are dead on right Tilt. I think limits did work as you suggest.