Tool Shedding-Get rid of it.

[PJ_Godzilla]

How about this: put a fixed number of aircraft, by category ( otherwise choose able), at each base. You can up until the quantity is maxed, after that only when one lands.

Indeed, I think it'd be best if everything was arrayed historically accurately with the airplanes sitting out. You could up it until some clown strafed it to oblivion. After they're all gone, you have to fight from elsewhere, until some kind of reset.

This would have a couple of significant consequences.
1 the fighting would spread out, as opposed to being 1 big fireball a la pee-wee soccer
2. Capping a base would mean also having to shoot up the aircraft on the ground
3. "The war" would be more realistic
4. People who want instant combat would have to choose da.

[Tinkles]

How about this: put a fixed number of aircraft, by category ( otherwise choose able), at each base. You can up until the quantity is maxed, after that only when one lands.

Indeed, I think it'd be best if everything was arrayed historically accurately with the airplanes sitting out. You could up it until some clown strafed it to oblivion. After they're all gone, you have to fight from elsewhere, until some kind of reset.

This would have a couple of significant consequences.
1 the fighting would spread out, as opposed to being 1 big fireball a la pee-wee soccer
2. Capping a base would mean also having to shoot up the aircraft on the ground
3. "The war" would be more realistic
4. People who want instant combat would have to choose da.

1. fighting is already spread out, to the point where it is hard to find enemies.
3. Realism doesn't equate to fun in the ratio you think it might.
4. So further lowering the MA's population?


I'll give you a +1 for coming up with an idea to try and fix something.

But I give a -1 for reasons stated above.

[PJ_Godzilla]

Also, I'm chuckling a bit... BnZs again attempt to engage in a logical argument about something he's postulated. It always goes something like this:

Bnz: let's change the game such that local hangar destruction no longer impedes upping
Retort 1: you must suck
Retort 2: the only problem with this game is your whining
Retort 3: don't take off from a capped base
Retort 4: the sky is falling!
Retort 5: these go to 11
Retort 6: you're just mad because I boffed your wife/daughter/mother/girlfriend last night
Retort 7: you suck against bombers...

All I can say is, nice try - and good luck.  

[PJ_Godzilla]

1. fighting is already spread out, to the point where it is hard to find enemies.
3. Realism doesn't equate to fun in the ratio you think it might.
4. So further lowering the MA's population?


I'll give you a +1 for coming up with an idea to try and fix something.

But I give a -1 for reasons stated above.

1. I disagree. It's too bad Lusche didn't have a stat related to concentration - percentage of players within a specific subset of overall map area. My anecdotal observation:  all the action is in one, possibly two small clusters
2. There is no 2.
3. Agreed - but I like realism anyway.
4. Ma pop is a bigger problem that needs to be addressed by other means ( and would fix a lot of this complaining anyway)

Net = 0... Ideas are part of what I do.

[PJ_Godzilla]

Tertiary thought: fights were incidental, IRL, to the purposes in which the combatants were engaged.

"Bomb target x".
"Will there be flak and fighters?"

"Wipe the Luftwaffe from the skies".
"Will they cooperate?"

What we really need is a game atop another game. There needs to be a subordinate game that's all muddy and is about things like territory and strategic goals.

[BnZs]

Also, I'm chuckling a bit... BnZs again attempt to engage in a logical argument about something he's postulated. It always goes something like this:

Bnz: let's change the game such that local hangar destruction no longer impedes upping
Retort 1: you must suck
Retort 2: the only problem with this game is your whining
Retort 3: don't take off from a capped base
Retort 4: the sky is falling!
Retort 5: these go to 11
Retort 6: you're just mad because I boffed your wife/daughter/mother/girlfriend last night
Retort 7: you suck against bombers...

All I can say is, nice try - and good luck.  

[Tinkles]

1. I disagree. It's too bad Lusche didn't have a stat related to concentration - percentage of players within a specific subset of overall map area. My anecdotal observation:  all the action is in one, possibly two small clusters
2. There is no 2.
3. Agreed - but I like realism anyway.
4. Ma pop is a bigger problem that needs to be addressed by other means ( and would fix a lot of this complaining anyway)

Net = 0... Ideas are part of what I do.

I agreed/ had no issues with your #2.  

I see your perspective better than what I did with your initial post. I recant most of my objections. But I do have a question, if you can only take a certain #, and you get that 'ticket' back if someone lands, what if they don't?  Does it reset if they alnd, die, bail etc?  What if they land at a different base, does that intial base get the ticket back?

[Karnak]

My thought about this is that fighting over something meaningful is often much more intense than just fighting for the sake of fighting.  Removing the chance that the hangars can be destroyed may itself effectively destroy the fight.

[Tinkles]

My thought about this is that fighting over something meaningful is often much more intense than just fighting for the sake of fighting.  Removing the chance that the hangars can be destroyed may itself effectively destroy the fight.

I this idea would help with that. It's sort of a compromise on both sides, but still benefits everyone.

1 hangar dead, no 0-5 ENY planes, 2 hangars dead 0-15 ENY, 3 hangars 0-25  all hangars only 35-40 ENY planes can take off from a base.  That way you can't disable players from taking off (which promotes combat), however for the defenders failure to keep their hangars alive, they can only fly 35-40 ENY planes. However, it doesn't give a complete edge to the attackers, because the defenders can still take off in planes. While they might be 'lower quality' or harder to fly, they can still get kills in them.

DO you guys think this would work?  I personally think there is nothing wrong with it, I think it gives a compromise on both sides. For attackers, they give up the ability to fully disable a base, however get planes to vulch (and fight).  Defenders give up their lower eny planes if they fail to effectively defend, however, if they lose all 4 hangars, they can still defend even if it is with planes they may not prefer to use.

 

[Karnak]

1 hangar dead, no 0-5 ENY planes, 2 hangars dead 0-15 ENY, 3 hangars 0-25  all hangars only 35-40 ENY planes can take off from a base.  That way you can't disable players from taking off (which promotes combat), however for the defenders failure to keep their hangars alive, they can only fly 35-40 ENY planes. However, it doesn't give a complete edge to the attackers, because the defenders can still take off in planes. While they might be 'lower quality' or harder to fly, they can still get kills in them.

DO you guys think this would work?  I personally think there is nothing wrong with it, I think it gives a compromise on both sides. For attackers, they give up the ability to fully disable a base, however get planes to vulch (and fight).  Defenders give up their lower eny planes if they fail to effectively defend, however, if they lose all 4 hangars, they can still defend even if it is with planes they may not prefer to use.

 

No.  This runs counter to the low side having the ENY advantage. Destroying hangars with 30 ENY Mosquitoes is very easy and is almost as impossible to defend against as P-51Ds or Typhoons.  Using Mossies in that fashion would rapidly remove, at least locally, the only advantage of being outnumbered, the ability to use La-7s, P-51Ds and Spitfire XVIs against a side that can't use those.

Now, keeping it as it is until all hangars are down and then still allowing 35-40 ENY rides to be flown might work.

[Tinkles]

No.  This runs counter to the low side having the ENY advantage. Destroying hangars with 30 ENY Mosquitoes is very easy and is almost as impossible to defend against as P-51Ds or Typhoons.  Using Mossies in that fashion would rapidly remove, at least locally, the only advantage of being outnumbered, the ability to use La-7s, P-51Ds and Spitfire XVIs against a side that can't use those.

Now, keeping it as it is until all hangars are down and then still allowing 35-40 ENY rides to be flown might work.

That's fair.  At least it would make it so fights would last longer, and if the seals (higher eny planes) are getting clubbed hard. I can always man the 88 

[Chalenge]

I am sure this is more of a joke aimed at people who complain about losing fights than a statement of serious intent or a design parameter. The goal of any game is fun for both sides. If not, then it is a bad game.

I am NOT complaining about losing fights. I am complaining about people not having the opportunity to win or lose fights because the flawed game dynamic known as "toolshedding" allows spoilsports to take away the ability of one side to up and fight, pretty much at will.

Your entire premise is wrong. It's not the game that is poorly designed. It is your desire to change the game to favor your preferred gameplay that is poorly conceived. The game you describe would be a very shallow game indeed. The depth that Aces High offers is one reason that it has survived while others of similar design have withered and died. Is it perfect? No, of course not, but your suggestions fall far short of correcting the issues and would in fact destroy the game. Never fear, however, hitech is smart enough to steer clear.

[alpini13]

wow ,what a great post, what we need is to have endless furballs of fighters only that is easy to get to,easy to engage,and easy to come back to for more fun.....oh wait,  WE ALREADY HAVE THAT,ITS CALLED THE DUELLING ARENA......maybe this guy didnt have such a great post after all,LOL

[PJ_Godzilla]

I agreed/ had no issues with your #2.  

I see your perspective better than what I did with your initial post. I recant most of my objections. But I do have a question, if you can only take a certain #, and you get that 'ticket' back if someone lands, what if they don't?  Does it reset if they alnd, die, bail etc?  What if they land at a different base, does that intial base get the ticket back?

My initial thought was that it only resets immediately if they land at the same base. Otherwise, the reset takes some reset or resupply, just like the other fixed objects in the game. What I'm thinking is that the finite count of uppable machines live as fixed objects - ground targets - until upped and so behave like the radar or ack guns. If returned, they perpetuate. If shot down or moved, they take some time...

BTW, your fun issue is one I recognize. In some ways, this might make getting to a fight harder. However, I think the real issue in AH is the "idleness" of action. Play needs an underlying purpose, both to motivate it and to lend consequence for failure.

[kano]

Now, keeping it as it is until all hangars are down and then still allowing 35-40 ENY rides to be flown might work.

I suggested this earlier in the thread, just requoting as i believe this is possibly the best way as people can still try to defend at least