Improving the ground war to help the air war

[The Fugitive]

What is it about the "air game" that you feel is neglected?  I don't think HTC really cares if the guy paying for a subscription is flying an aircraft, or driving a tank.   I think a target is a target is a target.   And I have seen fights prolonged and drawing in many more targets for both sides where there is an area with a mix of GV's and Aircraft.

I don't think its neglected, however if all they do is improve the GV game and draw in only that type of player AND the numbers continue to fall and the replacement numbers are only GV type players the game will become Aces Low in truth. Im only saying catering to only one style of play is going to hurt the game more than help it. Generating more ground battles doesn't guarantee more air battles   

[Traveler]

I asked how you thought the air game is being neglected, your responding with:

I don't think its neglected

seems at odds with your original statement:

I don't have a problem with improving the ground game, but neglecting the air game while doing it is foolish and counter productive.

I’ll ask the question a different way, what is it you would change/ improve/ add to the Air Game?

[The Fugitive]

I asked how you thought the air game is being neglected, your responding with: seems at odds with your original statement:
I’ll ask the question a different way, what is it you would change/ improve/ add to the Air Game?

Im saying that if you ONLY improve the ground game....neglecting the air game..... you will soon only have gv style players. They must improve BOTH to help the game, not just one style. Improving the ground game alone will NOT help the air game as suggested in the title.... "Improving the ground war to help the air war".

I trust in HTC to continue on their even keel of advancing ALL aspects of the game and leave it to them to decide which is the right path for the game. While I trust in HTC, it isn't going to stop me from suggesting other avenues to take. 

[Traveler]

Im saying that if you ONLY improve the ground game....neglecting the air game..... you will soon only have gv style players. They must improve BOTH to help the game, not just one style. Improving the ground game alone will NOT help the air game as suggested in the title.... "Improving the ground war to help the air war".

I trust in HTC to continue on their even keel of advancing ALL aspects of the game and leave it to them to decide which is the right path for the game. While I trust in HTC, it isn't going to stop me from suggesting other avenues to take. 

I understand all that about HTC,  I’m asking a more straight forward question , based on your 13 years experience in AH, how would you like to see the air game changed/added to/ improved ?  Not a trick question, just wondered what your thoughts on the subject are.

[The Fugitive]

I understand all that about HTC,  I’m asking a more straight forward question , based on your 13 years experience in AH, how would you like to see the air game changed/added to/ improved ?  Not a trick question, just wondered what your thoughts on the subject are.

Personally I'd like to see something along the lines of what they were working toward in the "Combat Tour" setup.

We need a "Supreme Commander" for each team. Missions run with objective that need to be completed using both air and ground to attack and or defend. This part of the game MUST be voluntary as not everyone will like to play it. However I think it would help game play for everyone.

There seems to be a large part of the population that likes group play, organized missions, team work. This would cater to their style of play. With better organization and better mission planing you would see players move away from the typical horde in a ubur rides NOE type missions to missions with more thought and maybe needing a bit of skill and luck to pull off. I always found those missions that may have a bit of doubt on roll out being that much more satisfying a win when they did succeed.

While these missions/type of play isn't everyone's cup of tea, it can generate more fun for others as well. Furballs will flock to the sits of these battles as defends if only to have someone to shoot at. Some may join the mission knowing other will be up to defend. With GVs brought into the missions you will have more defenders upping in gvs to stop them rolling up on the field. With the gv on the attack there would be less spawn camping and more tactical fighting in GVs... hit and move, or use an tank to draw a group into a trap and so on.

While the main arena is a big sand box I think it needs a bit of a push to generate ALL of the options available and I think having a Supreme Commander would be the best way to do that. As it is now you either fight the horde and are in the horde. Some maps are GV spawns fights some you see very little GV fighting at all. With some organization to guide the play I think you'll see more options available to everyone.

Now, how to do this LOL!!! beats me! I don't think you could have it player side. While there are some like GHI, Joker, ET, and a few others that seem to be  able to get a team together none of them seem to have either the imagination, or the will to do it right. They are happy to call for a horde and point it at one base.

A player committee? 6-10 guys on each team that take turns pushing their team ahead sharing battle plans and information on where and how to attack/defend, a continuous command presence in the game for each team. It could work, but it would be a lot of work and communication and most of all dedication. Who has time for that kind of commitment?

Server side command. Best choice but how to program it. The program would have to know and be able to evaluate what was going on in the game if not every minute often enough to keep up with the game flow. Review and evaluate every 5 minutes or so would be the max I would think. It would also have to be accessed by players for those that like to run missions. Adding a mission would have to be "fit in" with the over all plan. The command would have to adjust it's missions to allow a player made mission by canceling one of its own missions or building something around the players mission to aid in the front/attack. A server side command could also detect enemy missions and announce defensive mission scrambles. It could load single player missions with a predetermined plane and you just select it and you roll. I think it could be fun to select a defensive spot to find myself on the runway in a P40 or something. Just to add a challenge to the game.

Can it be done, I'm sure it can. Will it work the way I think it would, I'd love to see  I just think that if you have more going on than we the player generate now it can't help but be more fun for everyone.   

[DREDIOCK]

Personally I'd like to see something along the lines of what they were working toward in the "Combat Tour" setup.

We need a "Supreme Commander" for each team. Missions run with objective that need to be completed using both air and ground to attack and or defend. This part of the game MUST be voluntary as not everyone will like to play it. However I think it would help game play for everyone.

There seems to be a large part of the population that likes group play, organized missions, team work. This would cater to their style of play. With better organization and better mission planing you would see players move away from the typical horde in a ubur rides NOE type missions to missions with more thought and maybe needing a bit of skill and luck to pull off. I always found those missions that may have a bit of doubt on roll out being that much more satisfying a win when they did succeed.

While these missions/type of play isn't everyone's cup of tea, it can generate more fun for others as well. Furballs will flock to the sits of these battles as defends if only to have someone to shoot at. Some may join the mission knowing other will be up to defend. With GVs brought into the missions you will have more defenders upping in gvs to stop them rolling up on the field. With the gv on the attack there would be less spawn camping and more tactical fighting in GVs... hit and move, or use an tank to draw a group into a trap and so on.

While the main arena is a big sand box I think it needs a bit of a push to generate ALL of the options available and I think having a Supreme Commander would be the best way to do that. As it is now you either fight the horde and are in the horde. Some maps are GV spawns fights some you see very little GV fighting at all. With some organization to guide the play I think you'll see more options available to everyone.

Now, how to do this LOL!!! beats me! I don't think you could have it player side. While there are some like GHI, Joker, ET, and a few others that seem to be  able to get a team together none of them seem to have either the imagination, or the will to do it right. They are happy to call for a horde and point it at one base.

A player committee? 6-10 guys on each team that take turns pushing their team ahead sharing battle plans and information on where and how to attack/defend, a continuous command presence in the game for each team. It could work, but it would be a lot of work and communication and most of all dedication. Who has time for that kind of commitment?

Server side command. Best choice but how to program it. The program would have to know and be able to evaluate what was going on in the game if not every minute often enough to keep up with the game flow. Review and evaluate every 5 minutes or so would be the max I would think. It would also have to be accessed by players for those that like to run missions. Adding a mission would have to be "fit in" with the over all plan. The command would have to adjust it's missions to allow a player made mission by canceling one of its own missions or building something around the players mission to aid in the front/attack. A server side command could also detect enemy missions and announce defensive mission scrambles. It could load single player missions with a predetermined plane and you just select it and you roll. I think it could be fun to select a defensive spot to find myself on the runway in a P40 or something. Just to add a challenge to the game.

Can it be done, I'm sure it can. Will it work the way I think it would, I'd love to see  I just think that if you have more going on than we the player generate now it can't help but be more fun for everyone.   

Didnt AW at one point have some sort of automatic mechanism to direct people to where they were needed A sort of automatic mission generator?

I seem to remember something along those lines going on

[Chilli]

I agree with Fugi, that Combat Tour was "the dream".  HTC, has lived up to their promise to deliver much of what CT had to offer, including AI combatants, and a long list of improvements added to the current AH game play.   

One area that might be a short term "compromise" that we already have in place is the Achievement System.  Tweak it to represent more of a daily task and evaluation tool.

How should it be done?  I could write a page of suggestions, ranging from assigning rank (not just stars), to adding perked equipment for performing certain tasks.

As for the OP about ground war, helping to bring in pilots, the jury is still out..... so, I will keep practicing at both just in case 

[Tilt]

Didnt AW at one point have some sort of automatic mechanism to direct people to where they were needed A sort of automatic mission generator?

I seem to remember something along those lines going on

No but it did have an auto mission generator for single players to use.

I think we should revert to the question re how the ground war can be improved such that it also benefits the airwar.

The temptation is to return to a ground war v airwar debate which gets us no where.

[Chilli]

No but it did have an auto mission generator for single players to use.

I think we should revert to the question re how the ground war can be improved such that it also benefits the airwar.

The temptation is to return to a ground war v airwar debate which gets us no where.

Sorry Tilt,

Some of Tuton25's examples of improvements do warrant that debate.  I do however, agree with the larger assumption that improvements in the "ground war" could relieve some of the frustration with players' difficulty to find desirable action versus other online players on large maps with low numbers.  I just think that those improvements have more to do with how, when, where and what entices players to gather.  << That debate too, has been echoed since 2001. 

I think that improving the ground war will drastically improve the game all around. I mean "improve" by adding more tanks, artillery, and infantry options, as well as make battles between them more common (apart form the crater MA).  as far as infantry battles, that would be some feat to accomplish, everything else already done (and didn't support this assumption)
{snip}
If the game was more rounded and didn't cater to a niche market more people would try it out. With the popularity of other tank games on the market Aces High has the opportunity to compete with them.  if I am any indication, I tire of sitting on the ground, fairly stationary much faster than flying about looking at "stuff"; also the cost in performance making anything that resembles the other tank games, would probably lose popularity with the fighter jocks  that enjoy the flight model

This is more of a discussion on philosophy than a discussion on what should or shouldn't be implemented.  actually, it is more of a discussion on what brings money into Dale's pocket

[The Fugitive]

I agree with Fugi, that Combat Tour was "the dream".  HTC, has lived up to their promise to deliver much of what CT had to offer, including AI combatants, and a long list of improvements added to the current AH game play.   

One area that might be a short term "compromise" that we already have in place is the Achievement System.  Tweak it to represent more of a daily task and evaluation tool.

How should it be done?  I could write a page of suggestions, ranging from assigning rank (not just stars), to adding perked equipment for performing certain tasks.

As for the OP about ground war, helping to bring in pilots, the jury is still out..... so, I will keep practicing at both just in case 

There is no need to make it so complicated. You don't need ranks evolved. .. see how that works out for cv groups. All you need is a purpose behind the game and a way to guide it in an interesting and varied way.

Right now the purpose is to win the war, and they way it's done is with a horde running g the same noe raid over and over. If a supreme command ran the missions there could be more variety leading to more action and challenges.

Dred, I don't remember AW having something like this other than players. The Mafia was good at guiding the As, the MAW was good at guiding the Bs.  The Cs ..... who ever knew what they were doing   

[Traveler]

There is no need to make it so complicated. You don't need ranks evolved. .. see how that works out for CV groups. All you need is a purpose behind the game and a way to guide it in an interesting and varied way.

Right now the purpose is to win the war, and they way it's done is with a horde running g the same Noe raid over and over. If a supreme command ran the missions there could be more variety leading to more action and challenges.

Dr ed, I don't remember AW having something like this other than players. The Mafia was good at guiding the As, the MAW was good at guiding the BS.  The Cs ..... who ever knew what they were doing   

The 113Th Lucky Strikes hasn't been on an NOE raid in over two years.   I also don't see that many NOE missions  being offered up by Karo and his group of Knights.  I think an improved mission planner would accomplish a lot toward creating a more interesting game play for both Air and Ground units to be able to work together with some strategy.  The current mission planner is nothing more than a horde gather with no way to plan routs, altitude and assign targets.    I would love to see artillery  added.  But the maps would need many changes, a road system that actually means something.   Bridges that could actually cross a river and provide a target that actually has value.   Mobil AntiAir, Airborn units that attack other targets besides map rooms, come HI Tech, it's been 15 years. Engineer Units that defenders could use to repair, airfields, towns, bridges, roads.   Here we are on the eve of a major release and what is it that we will get, Pretty water, pretty trees and colorful mountains.   But game play will still be attack town, put 10 troops in map room capture field, big whop.

[Rob52240]

I would like to see more mobile flak vehicles.  Preferably with some armor that's effective against gunfire.

[The Fugitive]

The 113Th Lucky Strikes hasn't been on an NOE raid in over two years.   I also don't see that many NOE missions  being offered up by Karo and his group of Knights.  I think an improved mission planner would accomplish a lot toward creating a more interesting game play for both Air and Ground units to be able to work together with some strategy.  The current mission planner is nothing more than a horde gather with no way to plan routs, altitude and assign targets.    I would love to see artillery  added.  But the maps would need many changes, a road system that actually means something.   Bridges that could actually cross a river and provide a target that actually has value.   Mobil AntiAir, Airborn units that attack other targets besides map rooms, come HI Tech, it's been 15 years. Engineer Units that defenders could use to repair, airfields, towns, bridges, roads.   Here we are on the eve of a major release and what is it that we will get, Pretty water, pretty trees and colorful mountains.   But game play will still be attack town, put 10 troops in map room capture field, big whop.

One of the videos HTC has posted about the new release showed a new bridge. How much that will now co.e into play is yet to be seen. Will we have rivers and ravines that will bring the bridges into play and create choke points? Only time will tell.

[Arlo]

Ground's fairly covered (add a Kübelwagen).



Expand the water war. Add four battleships and 2 carriers.

Oh, and add a bomber or two and another fighter for the Italians.

 

[Tilt]

  The Cs ..... who ever knew what they were doing   

As a fervent C I resemble that remark!