A New War

[Chalenge]

Aces High is NOT WWII. That is all!

[Tilt]

Much of this is an old chestnut for me..... But the OP does raise an approach I had not previously considered.

The strategic consequences of aircraft and vehicle losses.  These losses are currently only play a part in AH's tactical game model......( kill your enemies so you can capture a base)

It would be neat to also use aircraft and vehicle losses to influence stuff strategically...... Game play will not permit the restriction of any access to rides but it does permit the throttling of other resources. The gameplay mechanism would be one where aircraft and vehicle losses divert resources to replace them

Some maths could be put together such that the material losses affect the out capacity of Cities or indeed some other key  "strats" which  inturn limit various rebuild times. The maths should only be an "adjusting modifier" (~10%?) not capable of massively influencing gameplay on the scale of wholesale Strat destruction.

In general I have long held the view that the land grab should focus on towns linked to vehicle fields which enable resources to linked airfields. The link between this town/ vehicle field should be the same as that between port and cv , but with the town also functioning as a supply depot. The field property becomes the same as that of a fixed CV. This moves the focus of capture away from the ( now more remote) airfield reducing the Incentive to pork the field until the linked town is captured. Only by capturing the linked town can the airfield be acquired ...... But first it has to be destroyed to a point of inoperability after which it rebuilds to be under the same ownership as the linked town.

The only vehicle spawns relating to airfields would be between the field and it's linked town( which is also a vehicle base)

IMO the net result of this is to move combat away from an airfield and prolong the arial conflict.

[WWhiskey]

 At one point we had two late war arenas with 300 players in them roughly,,

I'd look at any and all the changes that have taken place between then and now to determine what effect they had on players participation and go from there .
 Just a thought!

[TW9]

Aces High is NOT WWII. That is all!

True but this is a wish list thread.

[asterix]

...
I think the focus of this game should not be just capturing as many of your opponents bases as possible. In my opinion to "WIN THE WAR" you should be required to be successful in all phases of the game. Not just one. So instead I think there should be a point system in place. The goal should be for each country to reach an established amount of points. Whichever country reaches whatever the set number of points is wins the war.

You get points by killing people (planes, gv's ect) bombing stuff, and well, capturing bases. Pretty much you can get points by doing whatever it is you like to do in this game. Whichever country does it the most and fastest wins the war.
...

Doesn`t this also mean that flying for the highest score becomes beneficial for the ones who care about winning. Right now the score does not matter, but if it did then some loudmouth players could start checking their countrimates for low score and then send some nasty private messages to those individuals. This could have the biggest effect on new players.

[Wiley]

This is not a terrible idea on the surface.  It would be a huge change, and need a ton more fleshing out as the devil's in the details.

The way I would want it to be weighted is to reward naked aggression.  Make it so if you get in and fight and kill many of them before you die, it helps your team more than if you play conservatively.  It might help give people some motivation to fight instead of flee.

Wiley.

[bustr]

There is nothing wrong with any of this.

If, the arena is full of players just as talented and motivated by this kind of board game complexity as are yourselves. When you are not in the arena and the average Joe Player logs in and just wants to blow something up and not "think" about his game like you do. How do you keep him coming back, if to play the game he has to understand the complexities of your game influencing mechanisms? How many players actually know the relationship between the city, strats and repair times? And that is relatively simple compared to your dreams.

The game as is allows the least common denominator of player to derive the most bang for his buck in a short period of time without needing a Masters degree in WW2 strategy or Game theory. So how do you keep Joe Player paying his $14.95 so you can have a master piece of nuance and strategy?

All of this spit balling is a wonderful exercise. None of you ever tackle the nuts and bolts of keeping dumb arse Joe Player paying his $14.95 so you can have your game. I know, that's HiTech's problem, you are ideas guys.

[Zoney]

There is nothing wrong with any of this.

If, the arena is full of players just as talented and motivated by this kind of board game complexity as are yourselves. When you are not in the arena and the average Joe Player logs in and just wants to blow something up and not "think" about his game like you do. How do you keep him coming back, if to play the game he has to understand the complexities of your game influencing mechanisms? How many players actually know the relationship between the city, strats and repair times? And that is relatively simple compared to your dreams.

The game as is allows the least common denominator of player to derive the most bang for his buck in a short period of time without needing a Masters degree in WW2 strategy or Game theory. So how do you keep Joe Player paying his $14.95 so you can have a master piece of nuance and strategy?

All of this spit balling is a wonderful exercise. None of you ever tackle the nuts and bolts of keeping dumb arse Joe Player paying his $14.95 so you can have your game. I know, that's HiTech's problem, you are ideas guys.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^  Nailed it !

-1 on the OP

[Wiley]

If you drop the strat change part of it, I think it does help with the least common denominator.  If a guy just wants to up and kill planes, or camp a GV spawn he's still helping his side, rather than the only viable method of helping your side win the war being to horde up and occupy territory.

Doing damage to whatever you can on their side would further the war effort.  That might be a good thing.

Wiley.

[TW9]

There is nothing wrong with any of this.

If, the arena is full of players just as talented and motivated by this kind of board game complexity as are yourselves. When you are not in the arena and the average Joe Player logs in and just wants to blow something up and not "think" about his game like you do. How do you keep him coming back, if to play the game he has to understand the complexities of your game influencing mechanisms? How many players actually know the relationship between the city, strats and repair times? And that is relatively simple compared to your dreams.

The game as is allows the least common denominator of player to derive the most bang for his buck in a short period of time without needing a Masters degree in WW2 strategy or Game theory. So how do you keep Joe Player paying his $14.95 so you can have a master piece of nuance and strategy?

All of this spit balling is a wonderful exercise. None of you ever tackle the nuts and bolts of keeping dumb arse Joe Player paying his $14.95 so you can have your game. I know, that's HiTech's problem, you are ideas guys.

Joe player really wouldn't have to think much about anything. He'd be helping the country simply by doing what he likes to do. It's really not all that complicated.

And btw the game is in fact marketed towards the WWII enthusiast types and not toward the average gamer. The only channel theyve ever advertised on is the history channel and maybe the military channel. You can ask across other games if anyone has even heard of AH and the answer would be mostly no. AH intentionly does not tap into those markets. If you ever had to deal with the obnoxiousness of say the WoW community, you would see why.

[Scca]

Player under current set up: Logs on and see's that his country is getting hammered on all sides and about to lose the war. He decides to leave and play another game or worse, spend time with his family.

Player under suggested set up: Logs on and see's that his country has reached 98% of the 50,000 point goal. He can't see what the status of the other countries are. Only they can see that. They could say on channel 200 their progress, but are they lying? He plays for Rooks and like the reference above his team is getting hammered on both fronts. Little do they know this is the worst thing they can do. His kid is tugging at his leg for attention. He looks down at his adorable son with a big warming smile and..... gives the kid his iPad. The kid distracted, he focuses on winning the war. He starts spawning IL2 out the hangers mowing down would be vulchers earning triple points in the process. Rooks win the war.

As already mentioned, you are assuming that person actually cares who is winning the war.   So many don't.  They could care less about points, or rank, or anything that doesn't have to do with a good fight.  I honestly feel this is the larger representation of populace in the game.  (but I could be wrong).

I do applaud you for looking outside the box.  I do however see a few snags.  You are presuming that everyone has a "country".  My squad rotates each month, some folks rotate once or twice a day for one single reason... to find a fight....  

While this isn't WWII, it's loosely based on war during the period.  In that time, you didn't win a war by doing damage, you won a war by taking ground.  

I guess I am just not seeing your vision... -1

[bustr]

Winning the war as a focused group (hoard) satisfies a human emotion worth paying for. Winning a war by point attrition as unassociated individuals. Even Joe Player from bubbaville is going to ignore it illuminating it isn't an emotional fix. There is no emotional attachment or investment. And who wants to win a game by accident doing nothing, other than a looser?

Hoarding happens because humans beings can invest in it emotionally. We are all paying to be here so the only way to influence players to work with you towards a goal is by appealing to their emotions.

Many of the players here in the forum saying the game has to be changed are loners. Their emotional fix is in the nuance of the process as it effects the outcomes of the masses while picking and choosing their activities from that smorgasbord. They all describe the same problem but, miss the answer. In the past the hoards were lead by dynamic individuals who were not loners. Squads lead groups of fans and action seekers towards a common simple goal with immediate satisfying outcomes. The loners worked the periphery of this always finding something to keep them occupied due to the numbers and odds favoring possibilities for them.

Now we don't have the numbers, and fewer dynamic individuals who want to bother. So the loners have almost zilch to occupy themselves unless they roll up their sleeves and cause it to happen. And that is not their personality style. Instead they make the mistake of believing HiTech now needs to impose mechanisms upon his paying customers to force nuance and game play paths that favor their loner needs. Add to this giant landscapes with low population densities.

So Joe Players from bubbavilles who make up about 80% of the community have to be punished by HiTech to act not in their own interests. Joe Players will also not act in the ways the loners want HiTech to push them either. As the unintended consequence of being forced to follow the loners detailed plans for making a new and better game in spite of themselves.

We can coin a new Aces High term now. The "AH Gruber Effect" and Loner Hearts Club.


 

[Wiley]

Winning the war as a focused group (hoard) satisfies a human emotion worth paying for. Winning a war by point attrition as unassociated individuals. Even Joe Player from bubbaville is going to ignore it illuminating it isn't an emotional fix. There is no emotional attachment or investment. And who wants to win a game by accident doing nothing, other than a looser?

So you'd prefer that the furballing continue to be 'worthless'?  Activity is activity.  Killing a bunch of the enemy should have some effect on the war.  For gameplay purposes, limiting the losers if they die is a bad idea, but it does make some sense that whatever damage you do to the enemy would move your side closer to victory.

Wiley.

[Scca]

So you'd prefer that the furballing continue to be 'worthless'?  Activity is activity.  Killing a bunch of the enemy should have some effect on the war.  For gameplay purposes, limiting the losers if they die is a bad idea, but it does make some sense that whatever damage you do to the enemy would move your side closer to victory.

Wiley.

I in a real world sense.  If deaths in game were real, yes, killing a bunch of nme would clearly have an impact just as it does in real war.  Real deaths (or the prospect of it) make people surrender even though they still have the numbers to put up a good fight.

This however is a game with options that allow you to participate as you wish.  You shouldn't have to be forced to bomb stuff or GV if you don't want to, nor should anyone complain if all you do is furball.  There is room for everyone and every style of play in the game.  It's not, and really shouldn't 100% be about winning the war.  It should be about having fun. 

Now, go have fun...  That's an order 

[Wiley]

I in a real world sense.  If deaths in game were real, yes, killing a bunch of nme would clearly have an impact just as it does in real war.  Real deaths (or the prospect of it) make people surrender even though they still have the numbers to put up a good fight.

This however is a game with options that allow you to participate as you wish.  You shouldn't have to be forced to bomb stuff or GV if you don't want to, nor should anyone complain if all you do is furball.  There is room for everyone and every style of play in the game.  It's not, and really shouldn't 100% be about winning the war.  It should be about having fun. 

Exactly right, but some of the stuff he's talking about there would make the furballers and spawn campers kills worth something toward the war effort.  That's why I'm saying it would be a good thing.

The strat stuff and 'active front' stuff he mentioned, I'm not really sold on.  The main point of the idea though, having everything we do worth something, makes some sense to me.

The losers shouldn't be penalized for dying, but the winners should gain *something* toward the war effort for killing IMO.

If I were setting it up, taking land would still be somewhat the best way to win the war, but it would also be possible to do it by scoring enough points in a system somewhere in the vicinity of what he's talking about.

Now, go have fun...  That's an order 

No problem there, unless there aren't any red planes in the air.

Wiley.