Dueling arena

[Traveler]

You snipped a big part of what I said and clearly didn't understand the other part.  So let me clarify one more time.

1.  There is a longtime social aspect of the game that is important to building and maintaining the AH community.  To split it even more would not be a good thing so the " go to the DA" bs is just that.  The DA is for guys who want to train or work on thier 1v 1 skills.  Those who spend their time in Furball lake don't really interact with the larger community in game.

2.  That I like to fight against other planes doesn't mean I'm against the idea of base capture.  I'm against running the map as fast as possible by hitting undefended bases and then blaming the other team for not defending.   If you want to try and take a well defended base I'm all for it and odds are I'll be there trying to keep the sky clear.  But that doesn't mean I have any desire to kill everything at the field first and set up the vulch pattern should they try and defend then.  That's as boring as it gets. 


So in the end I want to be an ACE, as in Air Combat Enthusiast, in whatever form I can find it.  For those of us who started out way back when flying model airplanes across the room and then flying on green screens against computer controlled AI pixels, the thrill of competing against other real live people was a revelation and beyond what we imagined way back when.

So fighting against inanimate buildings or working to avoid competing against other people just doesn't do it.

No I understand what you said, quoted the parts I had a question about, that being the part where you said that two groups fighting between two fields could resolve ownership of one of these fields, I was asking you how that could be?  You must agree that in order to capture a field one has to take down the town, and put ten troops in the map room.   Not sure how your example of two groups fighting between two fields, does that?

[Guppy35]

No I understand what you said, quoted the parts I had a question about, that being the part where you said that two groups fighting between two fields could resolve ownership of one of these fields, I was asking you how that could be?  You must agree that in order to capture a field one has to take down the town, and put ten troops in the map room.   Not sure how your example of two groups fighting between two fields, does that?

<face palm>

In the midst of that fight, you do what you can to take down the town and get the troops in.  It's a lot more of a challenge when folks are actually fighting to defend the town.  I've strafed many a town in one of those fights and helped keep the town capped.  But it was after fighting for it, not sneaking it against no opposition.

Wouldn't be much more fun to have to fight your way in with armor and air cover against a stiff resistance than to spend the time shooting buildings down while tapping your fingers waiting for the troops to take the undefended town?

[Toad]

So, Traveler….your registration date shows you to have joined the BBS at least a year before the Donut map went into the rotation.

 It had a FighterTown and a TankTown pretty isolated from the main 'war'. It kept the community in one place and we could all joke and talk and enjoy the give and take.

What was your view on that map? Think we should have something like that now? If not, why not?

[Guppy35]

I was thinking about this a bit while on the road today.  Wouldn't it be nice if there was only one way into another country?  Everyone had to first take "Omaha Beach" before they could start expanding the front from that one landing spot?  Think of the intensity of the fighting at that one point.  You'd have to involve carriers and task forces to try and point the beach. LVTs to the shore, cap the airspace, get the troops in, take and hold the town and field.  Regroup and move on against the inevitable counterattack.  You could use the heavies to try and disrupt resources moving to the front lines and fighter bombers could be on the hunt for tanks and vehicles coming to try and retake the field.  Fighter sweeps and escort would actually have someone to engage.

If and when you took it, then you'd have to hold it and keep pushing forward.  You'd have to fight and the fighter drivers and bomber guys along with the GVs would have reason to work together.

Instead the front starts all over the place, diluting the fights and allowing fights to be avoided. Not much of a war game without a fight as far as I'm concerned.

[Lusche]

I was thinking about this a bit while on the road today.  Wouldn't it be nice if there was only one way into another country?  Everyone had to first take "Omaha Beach" before they could start expanding the front from that one landing spot?

We had that for a short time in the form of 'capture order' and it was a general failure for several reasons.
But that doesn't mean that somewhat 'guiding' or concentrating the battle is bad idea at all.

In fact I (as well as some others) think that the current way of winning the war by pure base count with all bases being worth the same, creates a gameplay problem, particularly with the low player density our maps suffer from these days. Imagine WW2 in Europe ended after a series of raids on unguarded, remote Norwegian or French fishing villages:
"HOST: Allies capture Négligeable-Sur-Mer"
"HOST: The war has been won"
"Führerhauptquartier: WTF???"

 

In my personal opinion, there are two ways this could be overcome while not being too rigid (as the capture order was): Either a point system for bases (and possibly strategic targets) i.e a Vbase is worth 1 point, a medium airfield 3, a large one 5 and so on...  Or having a central strategic target deep inside enemy terriotry that you have to reach (but this one would be very difficult to implement in a 3 country setup)

[Guppy35]

We had that for a short time in the form of 'capture order' and it was a general failure for several reasons.
But that doesn't mean that somewhat 'guiding' or concentrating the battle is bad idea at all.

In fact I (as well as some others) think that the current way of winning the war by pure base count with all bases being worth the same, creates a gameplay problem, particularly with the low player density our maps suffer from these days. Imagine WW2 in Europe ended after a series of raids on unguarded, remote Norwegian or French fishing villages:
"HOST: Allies capture Négligeable-Sur-Mer"
"HOST: The war has been won"
"Führerhauptquartier: WTF???"

 

In my personal opinion, there are two ways this could be overcome while not being too rigid (as the capture order was): Either a point system for bases (and possibly strategic targets) i.e a Vbase is worth 1 point, a medium airfield 3, a large one 5 and so on...  Or having a central strategic target deep inside enemy terriotry that you have to reach (but this one would be very difficult to implement in a 3 country setup)

I remember that.  Did it disappear because it was 'too hard'?

[Lusche]

It lacked flexibility. It severely cut down players option, much more than probably desireable. The maps where not made for it, at some times you had a Vbase and were required to take an enemy airfield with the next friendly airbase several sectors away (and yes, that's 'too hard'). And prime time, you had that few designated battle places and nothing else, which sucks if your computer wasn't made do handle that many cons. You couldn't make another plan, as there was only "smash THIS base" available, no bypassing movements, nothing. In the end, even less 'strategy' than we have now.

But you gotta give the players options. In my previous example it could be like "go for that 6 point large base" which is probably very well defended because of it's value, or try to take 6 vbases instead.
Or with the "central objective" variant, you have all the options where to strike in the beginning, but the firther you move forwar, the less desirable it would be to open yet another front.

[rvflyer]

I don't remember it that way Lusche, you could still up and fight at other bases around the map it was just the order of capture that was effected. Maybe I am misunderstanding what you wrote. It sounds like you are saying people computers could not take it because all the fighting was involved only around certain fields.

It lacked flexibility. It severely cut down players option, much more than probably desireable. The maps where not made for it, at some times you had a Vbase and were required to take an enemy airfield with the next friendly airbase several sectors away (and yes, that's 'too hard'). And prime time, you had that few designated battle places and nothing else, which sucks if your computer wasn't made do handle that many cons. You couldn't make another plan, as there was only "smash THIS base" available, no bypassing movements, nothing. In the end, even less 'strategy' than we have now.

But you gotta give the players options. In my previous example it could be like "go for that 6 point large base" which is probably very well defended because of it's value, or try to take 6 vbases instead.
Or with the "central objective" variant, you have all the options where to strike in the beginning, but the firther you move forwar, the less desirable it would be to open yet another front.

[Scotch]

He is.

The fights mostly centered around the next capturable base.

[SirNuke]

For this to work you need to have several lines available for each side and maps made for it like festers

[Lusche]

I don't remember it that way Lusche, you could still up and fight at other bases around the map it was just the order of capture that was effected. Maybe I am misunderstanding what you wrote. It sounds like you are saying people computers could not take it because all the fighting was involved only around certain fields.

That was what I meant. There were a few very huge (at prime time) battles around the few capturable bases, and only very little outside of them. Few players were (and are) interested in duels, most play the war game to some extend, trying to help their team in one way or another.
That's why the majority were to be found in those hotspots, in which the airspace was quite crowded (and stacking up to very high altitudes).
On a map like Compello it also rendered Cv's about useless most of the time, if the bases a CV could reach are uncapturable there's hardly a battle evolving.

[Copprhed]

We had that for a short time in the form of 'capture order' and it was a general failure for several reasons.
But that doesn't mean that somewhat 'guiding' or concentrating the battle is bad idea at all.

In fact I (as well as some others) think that the current way of winning the war by pure base count with all bases being worth the same, creates a gameplay problem, particularly with the low player density our maps suffer from these days. Imagine WW2 in Europe ended after a series of raids on unguarded, remote Norwegian or French fishing villages:
"HOST: Allies capture Négligeable-Sur-Mer"
"HOST: The war has been won"
"Führerhauptquartier: WTF???"

 

In my personal opinion, there are two ways this could be overcome while not being too rigid (as the capture order was): Either a point system for bases (and possibly strategic targets) i.e a Vbase is worth 1 point, a medium airfield 3, a large one 5 and so on...  Or having a central strategic target deep inside enemy terriotry that you have to reach (but this one would be very difficult to implement in a 3 country setup)

This is, by far, one of the best solutions that has been offered.

[diaster]

Spacy is good people...cept he's a self proclaimed F3 fella.  He's been flying this game for longer than most people and never leaves the DA for that reason.

That is why i never DA, if they remove f3 mode (or at a LAN party where no one was in f3) I would DA. I just don't want to rig my stick for all the xternal view possibilities. For those that don't know, f3 is external view mode, pretty much arcade style flying, and if you are good with the view settings, its like having a transparent cockpit. Seeing is everything in an acm engagement. the body and the wings of the aircraft are necessary barriers to that and requires maneuvering to compensate.. read that realism. So when I get a da challenge.. I am good for it in the main arena where all is equal. btw the ones the claim loudly "I dont use f3 mode" are probably the ones that do.

[glzsqd]

  If someone can beat you with f3 mode than that means they can beat you with out it. 1 on 1 track is not very difficult.

[darkzking]

believe the f3 mode has more to do with delfection shots that most people would normally miss