Win Da Warz?

[zack1234]

Yes-why, no-why? 

who is the chick?

[guncrasher]

Thinking of it that way would justify such ... but thinking of it that way gives a false impression on what air bases actually did. They weren't there to protect the nearby town. They were there to provide a base of operations for air units to project force and attack the enemy. During the initial Luftwaffe air raids on Britain the air bases were attacked and if that strategy had been maintained the RAF would likely have been rendered useless. At that point there would be no air cover for defense against invasion (pretty much like it was when France was blitzkrieged). Granted,there's still the Royal Navy. Bombing London and other cities didn't 'white flag' them.

the question you should be asking yourself is are we actually fighting a war or we just playing a game?  are we real pilots or just sitting at a computer drinking a beer and bs with some friends?


semp

[Arlo]

the question you should be asking yourself is are we actually fighting a war or we just playing a game?  are we real pilots or just sitting at a computer drinking a beer and bs with some friends?


semp

Well, actually, I don't have to ask any of that. It's never been in question .... to me. Do you ask yourself these questions? 

[guncrasher]

Well, actually, I don't have to ask any of that. It's never been in question .... to me. Do you ask yourself these questions? 

wells since you have such short memory and you are comparing our game to what happened during ww2.  would you like re rephrase the below statement.

Thinking of it that way would justify such ... but thinking of it that way gives a false impression on what air bases actually did. They weren't there to protect the nearby town. They were there to provide a base of operations for air units to project force and attack the enemy. During the initial Luftwaffe air raids on Britain the air bases were attacked and if that strategy had been maintained the RAF would likely have been rendered useless. At that point there would be no air cover for defense against invasion (pretty much like it was when France was blitzkrieged). Granted,there's still the Royal Navy. Bombing London and other cities didn't 'white flag' them.

semp

[Arlo]

wells since you have such short memory and you are comparing our game to what happened during ww2.  would you like re rephrase the below statement.



semp

Semp, if you're gonna ankle-hump me like this for the next week or so try to at least act like you're coherent part of the time. Someone posted a rationalization for white flagging the town to capture a base. I addressed said rationalization with a dose of reality. Personally, I couldn't care less if towns are white flagged to capture a base or drunks shag sheep on the runway to capture a base. Is this where you try to add 2 pounds of gold and two pounds of cotton again?

[guncrasher]

Semp, if you're gonna ankle-hump me like this for the next week or so try to at least act like you're coherent part of the time. Someone posted a rationalization for white flagging the town to capture a base. I addressed said rationalization with a dose of reality. Personally, I couldn't care less if towns are white flagged to capture a base or drunks shag sheep on the runway to capture a base. Is this where you try to add 2 pounds of gold and two pounds of cotton again?

but nobody posted a rationalization over why in ww2 we there wasnt a white flag.  should I bring up your post about how it didnt happen during the war?

Thinking of it that way would justify such ... but thinking of it that way gives a false impression on what air bases actually did. They weren't there to protect the nearby town. They were there to provide a base of operations for air units to project force and attack the enemy. During the initial Luftwaffe air raids on Britain the air bases were attacked and if that strategy had been maintained the RAF would likely have been rendered useless. At that point there would be no air cover for defense against invasion (pretty much like it was when France was blitzkrieged). Granted,there's still the Royal Navy. Bombing London and other cities didn't 'white flag' them.

semp

[Tinkles]

To Semp & Arlo

This

Leave your Purses at the door before commenting.

Also means tampon bags too. 

I actually question the idea that new players have to do little but die for month and years. I came here in 2006 after developing an interest in and playing some non-online flight sims. I spent a few hours flying around shooting drones offline and actually got my first air to air kill on my very first MA sortie. Within a few tours I was consistently killing as often as died. There were frustrations, but I am a confident person so I never doubted I could learn to fly competently. I think to a certain degree prophecies are self-fulfilling, and if you let yourself be intimidated by this "You'll be up against players with years of experience and die over and over stuff" then they may turn self-defeating.

I agree, I learned a majority of what I know by trial and error, but some took the time and flown with me, answering questions I had. Unlike most games, the information isn't all there for you, you still have to adventure out and discover some of these things for yourself. Or can only experience them first hand, to get a true 'grasp' of what it is, or how to deal with it.

The majority of this wish is to add more ways of winning the war besides smashing towns down. I understand this is a combat game, which I support that, but they funneled the combat over the towns which increases the hoard sizes. "We know the combat will be over the towns, and there may be some defenders, so lets take enough people to ensure we capture this base".   I want to make it so you can still capture bases like you can now (would be labeled under the general "land grab" that I said in previous posts), specific-type fields, where you need 2-5% of the enemies large airfields or ports (if the map has water), and then some of the strats destroyed.. I honestly forgot about the HQ will think on something for that 

I don't think having multiple avenues for winning the war would be a bad thing. I think it would give more areas to have combat in.  More 'town-like' areas that can be destroyed in unique ways we haven't had before.  With the New Terrain Engine, we could maybe have dam busters and submarine attacks/naval attacks on certain bases.   Have destructible bridges, that once destroyed limit the supplies that can be received across the river. I'm not saying the game isn't fun, but I think that it wouldn't hurt to have all of this.

I mean we have HUGE maps, yet we can only bomb a small town in order to capture a base? No matter the map it's the same thing to win the war! Sure, you can bomb the strats to assist with the war effort, but even if you level the strats to 0% or destroy the HQ, that doesn't automatically win the war.  You still need to flatten towns, and run troops in.  I understand the concept behind it, I really do, but I think we should have more ways of winning the war rather than just that.   

 

[The Fugitive]

Having more ways to win the war is not going to get you anything other than options. It isn't going to stop the hordes,  it isn't going to promote more combat. It sounds to me like your bored with the game and you don't even play at the moment.

Look at all the game mechanics that are available now that aren't being used. Why do you think that HTC,  with their small crew should take the time to add these subs, dams, bridges, rail yards and so on? Most likely they will hardly be used once the new wear's off. The only way another way to win the war will be used at this point is if it is quicker and/or easy than the way they do it now.

[Tinkles]

Having more ways to win the war is not going to get you anything other than options. It isn't going to stop the hordes,  it isn't going to promote more combat. It sounds to me like your bored with the game and you don't even play at the moment.

Look at all the game mechanics that are available now that aren't being used. Why do you think that HTC,  with their small crew should take the time to add these subs, dams, bridges, rail yards and so on? Most likely they will hardly be used once the new wear's off. The only way another way to win the war will be used at this point is if it is quicker and/or easy than the way they do it now.

I can see how it sounds that way, but I assure you it isn't the reason.

Could you clarify on these game mechanics that aren't being used?

Well HiTech said he wanted to add submarines, with the new water I see that totally possible. Meaning the dams could be added as well, bridges - we have them now - but on land with no water.. just make them destructible      

I know what I'm asking for completely changes the core foundation of their system.  I'm not asking them to abandon their core foundation (capture 20%), but I'm asking them to add on to it. So those who don't want change, don't have to embrace it, but those who want something different can have it too.  In a way I'm a people pleaser (within reason), I try to make everyone happy, and when I see that something I said be it an idea in this case, that makes it too hard or is unnecessary, I try to compromise.

What I've asked for, would give purpose to otherwise meaningless things. Some of what I've asked for is already modeled in-game, but has no meaning, like the bridges.  Why is a large airfield "worth" the same as a port or a V-base?  Even if they changed it so you needed a certain % of enemy ports or specific type of bases, I think that would change it up a bit. So instead of steamrolling, you would have to actually plan.    Say knights have a port that bishops need, but the knights took it from the rooks, and the rooks need this port so they are eligible to win the war.  (Remember my keep # of your ports and take # of their ports in previous posts?)  So, you have bishops going for this port, knights trying to defend it, and rooks trying to take it back!  It makes that base actually worth something.

 Whereas now, it's take any base that is in sight as long as we get this #.  It lumps all the base values in the same pot, even though they are vastly different.  I fully understand why they did it the way they did.  Simplicity, Be it for their sake (time work etc) or for the player's, so they don't have to learn anything more in an already difficult game.  These are merely suggestions for the New Terrain Engine, which will unlock new things for them to experiment with.

 

[Wiley]

So instead of steamrolling, you would have to actually plan.    Say knights have a port that bishops need, but the knights took it from the rooks, and the rooks need this port so they are eligible to win the war.  (Remember my keep # of your ports and take # of their ports in previous posts?)  So, you have bishops going for this port, knights trying to defend it, and rooks trying to take it back!  It makes that base actually worth something.

How do you make that system so people can understand it though?  The majority of the playerbase seems to have trouble understanding even something as simple as porking the ords of the other side to halt their momentum when they're steamrolling.  I'm not sure if it's the chicken or the egg, but it seems like the majority can't grasp anything beyond 'up in large green horde. bomb base, send in seven goons to troop.'  It's all they seem to do, anyways.

Whereas now, it's take any base that is in sight as long as we get this #.  It lumps all the base values in the same pot, even though they are vastly different.  I fully understand why they did it the way they did.  Simplicity, Be it for their sake (time work etc) or for the player's, so they don't have to learn anything more in an already difficult game.  These are merely suggestions for the New Terrain Engine, which will unlock new things for them to experiment with.

 

I don't know where the line is between interesting and simple enough for people to grasp.  Wherever it is, I think it's finer than the line between too hot and too cold on the handle of my shower.

Wiley.

[lunatic1]

i got a headache just reading this---i think this should have been in wish list--because you WISH to change this game..always somebody wants to change this game or a part of it...i guess new graphics and maps are just not good enough..when i started i died alot.still do in planes-just a little in tanks---people will learn the more they play...i know i'm gonna get smash here..but so what it's a free country..and i pay my 16.95 a month.which reminds me...................

[Tinkles]

How do you make that system so people can understand it though?  The majority of the playerbase seems to have trouble understanding even something as simple as porking the ords of the other side to halt their momentum when they're steamrolling.  I'm not sure if it's the chicken or the egg, but it seems like the majority can't grasp anything beyond 'up in large green horde. bomb base, send in seven goons to troop.'  It's all they seem to do, anyways.

I don't know where the line is between interesting and simple enough for people to grasp.  Wherever it is, I think it's finer than the line between too hot and too cold on the handle of my shower.

Wiley.

It doesn't have to be a complex explanation. It's simply adding value to the things that players have been destroying/capturing for years anyways. This obviously is something that would take a while to implement, or even think on the pros and cons of it from HTC's perspective. However, I don't think it would be as drastic as some think it would be.

i got a headache just reading this---i think this should have been in wish list--because you WISH to change this game..always somebody wants to change this game or a part of it...i guess new graphics and maps are just not good enough..when i started i died alot.still do in planes-just a little in tanks---people will learn the more they play...i know i'm gonna get smash here..but so what it's a free country..and i pay my 16.95 a month.which reminds me...................

Discussions provoke debate and 'grinding'. Grinding to me in the form of a discussion helps with polishing ideas and getting everyone's perspective.  Once the idea is more refined/polished, then it should go into the wishlist forum.   Because many ideas that go into the wishlist forum aren't polished by the community, they are shot down and eventually deemed "worthless" or "unnecessary". And any discussion on that topic is lost.

[Wiley]

Discussions provoke debate and 'grinding'. Grinding to me in the form of a discussion helps with polishing ideas and getting everyone's perspective.  Once the idea is more refined/polished, then it should go into the wishlist forum.   Because many ideas that go into the wishlist forum aren't polished by the community, they are shot down and eventually deemed "worthless" or "unnecessary". And any discussion on that topic is lost.

The same thing happens in there happens in here.  Ultimately anything we do as far as judgement in the forums is irrelevant.  Whether we think an idea is peachy, worthless, or unnecessary doesn't mean a thing.  If HTC likes an idea, they work with it.  If they don't, they don't.

Wiley.

[Tinkles]

The same thing happens in there happens in here.  Ultimately anything we do as far as judgement in the forums is irrelevant.  Whether we think an idea is peachy, worthless, or unnecessary doesn't mean a thing.  If HTC likes an idea, they work with it.  If they don't, they don't.

Wiley.

True, but I thought it would be better under "Aces High General Discussion" since I wanted to get everyone's perspective on the matter. Rather than just wishing for it outright.

[lunatic1]

True, but I thought it would be better under "Aces High General Discussion" since I wanted to get everyone's perspective on the matter. Rather than just wishing for it outright.

you would probably had the same outcome in the wishlist..whenever someone post here or wishlist--everyone sees it--we all visit these sites all day everyday...just to see whats cooking.