Win Da Warz?

[zack1234]

Yes and no

[Tinkles]

Now as to the real reason the OP posted this book..... thread 


Then you have to think on the devious side of things.... what is the ulterior motive of this idea? Forcing the players to hit HQ could mean the guy likes flying the 152 and buffs are his "bread and butter" so this forces an easy way for him to find his lunch so to speak.

For me, I'd love to see the strategic, and tactical side of the game come back. It's boring seeing the same mission performed over and over again. Maybe if we had the tools like a "ready" room for mission briefings with a map that you could lay out waypoints for the different wings/groups to hit different targets or different approaches to the main target would add enough "spice" to make more diverse missions.

Maybe something for those unsung hero's that defend against ridiculous odds to stop a base capture. Something that might entice a few more players to defense instead of only playing the offensive side of things. Nothing to "force" a player to play a different way, but something that could help a player step out of his/her comfort zone and try something else.   

You're one to talk, you posted an article too  

I adjust to what is needed at the given time. I don't have any secret hidden agenda, no hidden goal that this would make all my evil plans come true.   I'm not forcing the player to do anything, it's no different than HTC's "required percentage" to win the war.  I agree it's a fine line, and like I've said twice already, everything I said was not set in stone. I presented it and asked for your spin on it, what in it would you change?  Some took it as a direct assault on the war effort, others for evil agendas *insert facepalm emote here*.

I find it odd that we have only one way of winning the war.  We have all these tools to carry out the same tasks, that's why we see all these p51 p38 raids.  What I'm truly asking for here, is to see other ways of winning the war, or contributing to the war effort that aren't in the typical hoard "bomb everything in this sector" fashion.  Maybe one of the "system missions" would be take a lanc skip bomb, and take out this dam that floods this factory. Preventing the enemy of having more of this resource .

(The above was a random idea, don't get your pursues in a knot over it).

Why do we keep seeing all these missions with p51s p38s p47s? They fly fast to the target and unleash heavy damage while still being able to dogfight if needed.  Why?   Because all that is currently needed is destruction to win the war, the same.. stale.. tasks that need to be done.  If I try to take a base with b29s, the town needs de-acked, leveled, and 10 unharmed troops.  If I try to take a base with M4(75)s, the town needs de-acked, leveled, and 10 unharmed troops. If I try to take a base with a 110G-2, the town needs de-acked, leveled, and 10 unharmed troops.

I am wanting to change THIS.

The town needs de-acked, the town needs leveled, the town needs 10 unharmed troops.

The war revolves around the TOWNS and TOWNS only.   Sure, you can attack the base, but in order to capture that base you need the TOWN. Sure, you can attack the strats, but in order to win the war you need the TOWN.  

I'm asking for more diversity in trying to win the war. Maybe on one map you need to capture some of the enemy fleets, and keep say a minimum of 2 of your ports while capturing 1-2 of the enemies.

I'm looking for a way how to balance having multiple ways of winning the war.

For example: In order to win the war you need.

20% bases
or
5 enemy sheep
or
Rescue Rosie from the Tower
or
% of enemy strats destroyed, # of fleets captured while defending your own and % of captured bases.


You could have all the combat focus on captured bases for one map.  Or have it be a balance of capture this specific type of base, and a % of general bases. Or, destroy # of enemy factories/strats and capture this # of enemy bases.. etc.   Again, I am trying to find more ways of winning the war rather than "flatten base and town with peons - drop troops - rinse & repeat". I posted this on the forums to ask for your help in refining this idea.  Is there something here that you see here that you like? Take it and refine it, post it here.  

If you want to assassinate someone's character, shoot them in-game or go on twitter/facebook.

 

[Tinkles]

Good post.   

A lot to think about. 

While I'm thinking, here is a question: Do you think that the game should have an "easy side to it" to keep newbies interested in staying?

That is sort of what my resource idea is for.. in a way. It's a different avenue for them to contribute to the war effort from.

It has been suggested in the past for new accounts to have a perk allowance for a short time so they can at least try out some of the big ticket items and experience them. I felt extremely intimidated when I first played this game, because it has such a high learning curve. I however am not really sure of a method that would make it easier to learn or more inviting for new players while still keeping it fun for veteran players.

However, I know it couldn't hurt having more avenues to win the war, it's just finding those avenues and implementing them in-game, which is why I posted this to the forums. Never hurts to have multiple perspectives.. as long as they actually contribute, rather than have purse fights.

Again, I am thinking more on your question, but right now I don't have an immediate answer for it.

 

[jimson]

It seems the objective type play neeeds to be standardized to work across a broad range of maps in an automatic arena.

What I have long wished for AvA was a way to set up a list of maps with custom planes sets and settings to automatically rotate through in a specific order and then options on setting parameters for winning the war. In our case it would be winning the battle. Say specific targets destroyed, specific bases captured, certain numbers of enemy destroyed, or combinations thereof to trigger a win the war reset and map rotation.

What we wish for and what is practical to code are often very different things.

[Tinkles]

It seems the objective type play neeeds to be standardized to work across a broad range of maps in an automatic arena.

What I have long wished for AvA was a way to set up a list of maps with custom planes sets and settings to automatically rotate through in a specific order and then options on setting parameters for winning the war. In our case it would be winning the battle. Say specific targets destroyed, specific bases captured, certain numbers of enemy destroyed, or combinations thereof to trigger a win the war reset and map rotation.

What we wish for and what is practical to code are often very different things.

I understand that this isn't something that can 'just happen' it will take time if it happened. However, I think it is something that should be addressed or at the very least looked at. 

What you said is pretty much exactly what I want. The "winning the war" designed around each type of map. Something that would work for a small map might not work as effectively on a large map.  This, along with having the multiple avenues for winning the war might assist with the off-peak hour problems. However, I am going to think more on this before commenting on it.

 

[The Fugitive]

You're one to talk, you posted an article too  

I adjust to what is needed at the given time. I don't have any secret hidden agenda, no hidden goal that this would make all my evil plans come true.   I'm not forcing the player to do anything, it's no different than HTC's "required percentage" to win the war.  I agree it's a fine line, and like I've said twice already, everything I said was not set in stone. I presented it and asked for your spin on it, what in it would you change?  Some took it as a direct assault on the war effort, others for evil agendas *insert facepalm emote here*.

I find it odd that we have only one way of winning the war.  We have all these tools to carry out the same tasks, that's why we see all these p51 p38 raids.  What I'm truly asking for here, is to see other ways of winning the war, or contributing to the war effort that aren't in the typical hoard "bomb everything in this sector" fashion.  Maybe one of the "system missions" would be take a lanc skip bomb, and take out this dam that floods this factory. Preventing the enemy of having more of this resource .

(The above was a random idea, don't get your pursues in a knot over it).

Why do we keep seeing all these missions with p51s p38s p47s? They fly fast to the target and unleash heavy damage while still being able to dogfight if needed.  Why?   Because all that is currently needed is destruction to win the war, the same.. stale.. tasks that need to be done.  If I try to take a base with b29s, the town needs de-acked, leveled, and 10 unharmed troops.  If I try to take a base with M4(75)s, the town needs de-acked, leveled, and 10 unharmed troops. If I try to take a base with a 110G-2, the town needs de-acked, leveled, and 10 unharmed troops.

I am wanting to change THIS.

The town needs de-acked, the town needs leveled, the town needs 10 unharmed troops.

The war revolves around the TOWNS and TOWNS only.   Sure, you can attack the base, but in order to capture that base you need the TOWN. Sure, you can attack the strats, but in order to win the war you need the TOWN.  

I'm asking for more diversity in trying to win the war. Maybe on one map you need to capture some of the enemy fleets, and keep say a minimum of 2 of your ports while capturing 1-2 of the enemies.

I'm looking for a way how to balance having multiple ways of winning the war.

For example: In order to win the war you need.

20% bases
or
5 enemy sheep
or
Rescue Rosie from the Tower
or
% of enemy strats destroyed, # of fleets captured while defending your own and % of captured bases.


You could have all the combat focus on captured bases for one map.  Or have it be a balance of capture this specific type of base, and a % of general bases. Or, destroy # of enemy factories/strats and capture this # of enemy bases.. etc.   Again, I am trying to find more ways of winning the war rather than "flatten base and town with peons - drop troops - rinse & repeat". I posted this on the forums to ask for your help in refining this idea.  Is there something here that you see here that you like? Take it and refine it, post it here.  

If you want to assassinate someone's character, shoot them in-game or go on twitter/facebook.

 

I didn't accuse you of having a hidden agenda, I just pointed out that ideas posted will be scrutinized for them. You have to admit that it would be a great way to setup and find buff missions if it is a rule in winning the war.

Towns/bases are captured with ponies and 38s because it is the quickest easiest way to do it. Todays player base is into capture the flag, NOT fight for the flag. 3 buff groups in a tight formation flying e-w, or n-s carpet bombing a town could white flag it in one pass. Why don't we see this more often? It takes too long to get buffs high enough to be some what safe and so not be a wasted run. The same 3 guys could make a bunch of trips if they divebomb with a bunch of bombs and rockets and then bail/crash to reup.

It's not the game that needs adjusting, it's the players.

[Lucifer]

Yes-why, no-why? 

Yes and no

[jimson]

I understand that this isn't something that can 'just happen' it will take time if it happened. However, I think it is something that should be addressed or at the very least looked at.  

What you said is pretty much exactly what I want. The "winning the war" designed around each type of map. Something that would work for a small map might not work as effectively on a large map.  This, along with having the multiple avenues for winning the war might assist with the off-peak hour problems. However, I am going to think more on this before commenting on it.

 

I'd sure love to see it. Of course, my wishes are arena specific.

Like a BoB setup where once a certain number of enemy fighters are destroyed, you get your "yeehaw! we did it!" auto-generated "knights have won the battle" message and it rotates to Midway where a certain number of carriers need to be sunk etc

[Tinkles]

I didn't accuse you of having a hidden agenda, I just pointed out that ideas posted will be scrutinized for them. You have to admit that it would be a great way to setup and find buff missions if it is a rule in winning the war.

Towns/bases are captured with ponies and 38s because it is the quickest easiest way to do it. Todays player base is into capture the flag, NOT fight for the flag. 3 buff groups in a tight formation flying e-w, or n-s carpet bombing a town could white flag it in one pass. Why don't we see this more often? It takes too long to get buffs high enough to be some what safe and so not be a wasted run. The same 3 guys could make a bunch of trips if they divebomb with a bunch of bombs and rockets and then bail/crash to reup.

It's not the game that needs adjusting, it's the players.

Just like the strats.. or is it divided 'facilities' like it was way back when? (Haven't been online with my rig since december so I don't know).  

I am a 'rounded' player. I use all the tools in the game, fighter, bomber, attack, vehicle and anti-aircraft guns.  I don't try and suggest something that interferes or unbalances the others.  Just like the wishes for having 88mms turn 'realistically faster' I voted -1 on because I like the challenge. Or the fused shells (like the 5in) for 90mm anti-air defense turrets for bases.  I voted -1 on them because it would make defending easier and make it harder for me to attack bases if the enemy could aim even half as good as I can.   Demoting AH to point and click, which is something I want to avoid.


Geez, I keep getting ideas everytime I post.

Perhaps some of these factories or facilities could be shuffeled around each map rotation.  SO we need a scout-type plane to find them (and only scout type planes could find them).    

I'm trying to find different ways that we could use the planes in-game for what they were actually used for.  For example: The storch, it has no real purpose in the game. I really like this plane, but I am commenting from an outside-the-box perspective.  It has no real purpose in AH, it carries no ordinance, and all it does it mark vehicles on the ground. It has very little durability and is an easy target for most.   Especially since you can take off in any plane, turn tracers on and "mark" for your friendly ground or bomber units even more easily, without dying nearly as much.  Or even attack the tanks yourself with bombs or strafing. Even if they weren't used like that during the war.

I am looking for different ways to implement the large variety of plane types we have in the game.  


As for your town example: I want to keep the captured bases as a familiar ground, it has kept AH around for over a decade, so something is right about it. However, I want to add new win the war ideas alongside this, for those who are looking for something different or engaging in a different way.  I do agree that player involvement is a big part but it isn't all of it.

I think having options like my dam busting idea with the lanc.. something that adds more diversity to the game. Instead of the usual grind.  No matter what map you go to, you still need to destroy the same things, no matter what tool you choose the same things need to be done. Over and Over and Over and Over and Over and Over.  There is no diversity in the overall goal of the game!    Sure, you as a player can take a tool out and find something to do with it, but the only way to benefit the 'war effort' is to join a mission and take a base.

I have taken bases with 2 people. Myself bombing the town and de-acking, and a friendly M3 nearby.    So I'm not saying that you can only take a base with a 'hoard' or mission. I am saying though, that there is no other way to contribute to the war effort, unless you add the TOWN into your equation, without the TOWN you don't win the war. Which I think is totally wrong.


You should be able to destroy DAMs that would flood key factories, or destroy key things that limit something on the enemy side (maybe not planes.. but how about capture % like mentioned before)?  


Whatever happened to brainstorming?

I'd sure love to see it. Of course, my wishes are arena specific.

Like a BoB setup where once a certain number of enemy fighters are destroyed, you get your "yeehaw! we did it!" auto-generated "knights have won the battle" message and it rotates to Midway where a certain number of carriers need to be sunk etc

I was thinking of per main arena map.

Not very good with main arena map names, but I think Ndisles would be a fairly good example.

For that map I would say 30% of enemy factories need to be destroyed or captured.
A minimum of 2 enemy ports and 2 fleets to win.
10% of general bases.. just for land grabbing if you will
5-10% of specific type bases
5-10% enemy strats need to be destroyed, to win the war.

You could have each of the 5 things I listed be a single requirement to win the war. You could bundle a few of them and have them be a requirement to win the war.  

This gives diversity, instead of just "grab land, win war".  

This would be customized to each type of map we have in-game based on what HTC wants, or if they allow, for us to vote *shrug*.
Since obviously ports don't exist on maps with no water  


Having this option for AvA would be superb as well  

 



What I would do in the Ndisles example:

* For that map I would say 30% of enemy factories need to be destroyed or captured.
* A minimum of 2 enemy ports and 2 fleets to win.  (so 4 ports and 4 fleets 2 from rooks 2 from knights). These wouldn't count towards the specific or general types of bases.

* 5-10% of specific type bases
* 5-10% enemy strats need to be destroyed, to win the war.

** 10% of general bases.. just for land grabbing if you will

** = optional, not needed, but can't really hurt either.

[BnZs]

"BnZ" said "The main point of the whole exercise is to put your guns on other player-controlled machines" which in this day and age is pure BS to most players. Yes there are many that are purely into nothing but fighting, and as been stated if the was no "win the war" goal the fights would dry up and disappear quickly. Today the majority of players are looking for the "pat on the back" they get when their "team" (AKA horde) captures another base, and ultimately the "Your country has won the war and you are awarded perk points". It's not so much fighting any more.

Except for hours when there are hardly any players at all, I haven't much difficulty finding other players in fighters or vehicles who will do their utmost to shoot me down while I attempt to return the favor. Your personal problems in that regard are a mystery to me. The fact that you seem to be flying the P-51 these days, an airplane few airplanes could run away from even if they wanted to, only compounds this mystery.

That said, there are far better "war" games than Aces HighII. "War in the Pacific" is an old favorite of mine. The amount of control and detail one can put into resource production and war strategy in this game is truly astounding. If there are a small minority of players who are really playing purely for the hackneyed MA "campaign" instead of plane/vehicle combat, they should do themselves a favor and play something like WITP instead.

One example of a game mechanic that potentially needs tweaking to foster combat is HQ. While some combat is no doubt fostered by raids on HQ, it could be argued that even more combat is inhibited by the near inability of one country to find combat for as long as HQ remains down. This is an example of the sort of question by which changes to the MA dynamic should be gauged.

[Tilt]

Land grab is tool used to focus combat...... Nothing new in that statement it's just useful to remember its purpose.

Whilst ( in the main) it succeeds we we can also see the odd occasion where it is thwarted...... When hordes make opposition futile and unrewarding. I'll park this as basically horde control is a single subject best addressed outside much of the OP' post.

Why towns? IMO destroying / defending multiple objects brought about a need to use all the assets the game provided. Bombers were intercepted and escorted, gv's were used in both attack and defence. Early capture models did not use towns basically base assets had to be reduced and the map room was on base.

Towns were added to create targets, and a combat focus point away from base. In the early days the destruction of town buildings was created as the measure of town attrition and so formed the ready for capture mechanism.

As the game grew this remained. I would pose some questions....

If I wanted to capture a base would I not attrit infantry targets ( Barracks) as a priority?
Whilst towns are important to the free passage of logistics is bombing/ shelling them to destruction the method usually used?
Why are towns only linked to airfields?
Historically would we not usually find gv " hubs" in or beside towns.
Historically would we not find air fields more remote from towns?
Historically would we not find ports in towns?

Towns are in RL are captured by infantry.
This infantry takes possession of town buildings by combat.
The infantry is conveyed to the town by vehicles or aircraft from which the infantry is released to attack other infantry which may occupy town buildings or their remnants.
Some defending infantry may be already occupying town buildings or associated barracks.
The combat for the town is ( for a successfull out come) supported by mechanised land and air borne assets.
These are deployed for both defence and attack.
Blow up a building and the infantry inside are killed, blow up a barracks and the ability to provide troops for defence/ attack are removed, attack troop carriers and the troops inside are lost, defend the troop carriers and they may assist to capture the town. Etc etc etc.

In essence I would increase the role of the town in the land grab..... Indeed I would not bother capturing bases but focus wholly on towns as the measure of land grab. By definition as bases fall behind enemy lines so they whither thru lack of logistic supply and, just like a cv after a port is taken, eventually are occupied by the enemy.

I would like to see occupation by troops become the capture mechanisms.... Whereby their release to do a form of infantry AI combat in a town has to be supported by attrition / defence from land air and sea.

Gv' s would be able to spawn into the battle along roads from neighbouring towns or from neighbouring bases. Air craft would access the battle from more remote air fields. These air fields would have no gv spawn points from other fields other than those originating from their own base.

M3's would not be able to magically repair towns. They would be able to launch defending infantry.
Each AI infantry man would carry a bolt action 7.6mm or .303  rifle with an infinite clip. He is programmed to run to the nearest town building site . If he comes within range of an enemy AI infantry man they exchange fire and both die. If the first town building site he comes into contact with is occupied by a freindly AI infantry man he then proceeds to the next town building site . If the town building site is occupied by an enemy AI infantry man then they exchange fire and both die.
 If the town building is whole then the AI infantry man is impervious to mg strafing from players. If the town building site is rubble then they can be  machine gunned more easily.

If sufficient ordinance is dropped on a building site  then the AI infantry man occupying it is killed.

AI infantry men who have not been used after # minutes ( 30?) fall asleep and lose their weapons.

There is no flag or map room. Simply have more than "x" troops in town and greater than "y" % of all troops in town ........ then the gguns become yours and the town is considered captured. If it is linked to a local base simply hold the town for "z" minutes and the base becomes yours or it becomes yours once you have (cv like) destroyed some of its assets.

[Tinkles]

Land grab is tool used to focus combat...... Nothing new in that statement it's just useful to remember its purpose.

Whilst ( in the main) it succeeds we we can also see the odd occasion where it is thwarted...... When hordes make opposition futile and unrewarding. I'll park this as basically horde control is a single subject best addressed outside much of the OP' post.

Why towns? IMO destroying / defending multiple objects brought about a need to use all the assets the game provided. Bombers were intercepted and escorted, gv's were used in both attack and defence. Early capture models did not use towns basically base assets had to be reduced and the map room was on base.

Towns were added to create targets, and a combat focus point away from base. In the early days the destruction of town buildings was created as the measure of town attrition and so formed the ready for capture mechanism.

As the game grew this remained. I would pose some questions....

If I wanted to capture a base would I not attrit infantry targets ( Barracks) as a priority?
Whilst towns are important to the free passage of logistics is bombing/ shelling them to destruction the method usually used?
Why are towns only linked to airfields?
Historically would we not usually find gv " hubs" in or beside towns.
Historically would we not find air fields more remote from towns?
Historically would we not find ports in towns?

Towns are in RL are captured by infantry.
This infantry takes possession of town buildings by combat.
The infantry is conveyed to the town by vehicles or aircraft from which the infantry is released to attack other infantry which may occupy town buildings or their remnants.
Some defending infantry may be already occupying town buildings or associated barracks.
The combat for the town is ( for a successfull out come) supported by mechanised land and air borne assets.
These are deployed for both defence and attack.
Blow up a building and the infantry inside are killed, blow up a barracks and the ability to provide troops for defence/ attack are removed, attack troop carriers and the troops inside are lost, defend the troop carriers and they may assist to capture the town. Etc etc etc.

In essence I would increase the role of the town in the land grab..... Indeed I would not bother capturing bases but focus wholly on towns as the measure of land grab. By definition as bases fall behind enemy lines so they whither thru lack of logistic supply and, just like a cv after a port is taken, eventually are occupied by the enemy.

I would like to see occupation by troops become the capture mechanisms.... Whereby their release to do a form of infantry AI combat in a town has to be supported by attrition / defence from land air and sea.

Gv' s would be able to spawn into the battle along roads from neighbouring towns or from neighbouring bases. Air craft would access the battle from more remote air fields. These air fields would have no gv spawn points from other fields other than those originating from their own base.

M3's would not be able to magically repair towns. They would be able to launch defending infantry.
Each AI infantry man would carry a bolt action 7.6mm or .303  rifle with an infinite clip. He is programmed to run to the nearest town building site . If he comes within range of an enemy AI infantry man they exchange fire and both die. If the first town building site he comes into contact with is occupied by a freindly AI infantry man he then proceeds to the next town building site . If the town building site is occupied by an enemy AI infantry man then they exchange fire and both die.
 If the town building is whole then the AI infantry man is impervious to mg strafing from players. If the town building site is rubble then they can be  machine gunned more easily.

If sufficient ordinance is dropped on a building site  then the AI infantry man occupying it is killed.

AI infantry men who have not been used after # minutes ( 30?) fall asleep and lose their weapons.

There is no flag or map room. Simply have more than "x" troops in town and greater than "y" % of all troops in town ........ then the gguns become yours and the town is considered captured. If it is linked to a local base simply hold the town for "z" minutes and the base becomes yours or it becomes yours once you have (cv like) destroyed some of its assets.

While I understand that your initial intention of this post wasn't to attempt to de-rail the thread. Can you please re-post this in the wishlist forum?

Will think more on the pros and cons of this before commenting.
 

[MajWoody]

Holy wall of text.

[LCADolby]

Holy wall of text Batman!

[BluBerry]

bunch of mini bustr's in here