Tonight summed it up for me

[Wiley]

No...what he is saying is that he joined for air combat and that air combat has pretty much died out.  The website says, "High fidelity flight simulation is the heart of Aces High...", which unfortunately with the low/divided player base is no longer true. So the air combat types are leaving.  The game tries to do too much and divides the small player base....it should be either Air, GV or ship combat focussed. It doesn't have the player base for all three.....

Well, the issue is moreso that the playerbase for various reasons seems to have gravitated toward the GV/Ship end of things, which leaves the plane combat guys with fewer opponents, which causes a snowball effect, which sucks.

Wiley.

[mbailey]

I'm happy for you.  How do you feel about Hello Kitty Island Adventure or Japanese girlfriend simulator games?  I'd be willing to guess not so much.  Understand that's how I feel about GVing.  There is just nothing interesting about it.

The point is, there often simply is not enough mass of opponents to have fun flying a fighter in this game.

Wiley.

I'm not sure whst Hello kitty has to do with anything but....ok 

I was just answering your statement to Coppr, with my statement. ....you see my statement makes as much sence as yours.  Opinions aren't wrong....their just that your opinion.....which I may add means nothing, like mine doesn't.

I'd be curious to see what the actual numbers are AC vs GV. I'm quite sure the "player Base" is still majority guys flying and fighting

[715]

I don't understand why people have trouble with the simple math: if you remove GVs you don't magically turn GVers into pilots.  You just lose players.  Nothing would change; you would still not have enough pilots to fly against.  So how does "focusing on one type of play" do anything but reduce the total population even further? 

And suppose through some magic you could change GVers into pilots.  The percentage of players that are in GVs at any point in time* is about 25%.  So if you magically force those players into planes, you only increase the number of people in flight by 1/3.  Is that really going to significantly enhance your chance of finding a good air battle?

*on certain terrains that are favorable to GVs that can go to 35%, on other terrains that are poor for GVs it can fall significantly below 25%.

[mbailey]

I don't understand why people have trouble with the simple math: if you remove GVs you don't magically turn GVers into pilots.  You just lose players.  Nothing would change; you would still not have enough pilots to fly against.  So how does "focusing on one type of play" do anything but reduce the total population even further? 

And suppose through some magic you could change GVers into pilots.  The percentage of players that are in GVs at any point in time* is about 25%.  So if you magically force those players into planes, you only increase the number of people in flight by 1/3.  Is that really going to significantly enhance your chance of finding a good air battle?

*on certain terrains that are favorable to GVs that can go to 35%, on other terrains that are poor for GVs it can fall significantly below 25%.

Yep....dead on

[Wiley]

I don't understand why people have trouble with the simple math: if you remove GVs you don't magically turn GVers into pilots.  You just lose players.  Nothing would change; you would still not have enough pilots to fly against.  So how does "focusing on one type of play" do anything but reduce the total population even further? 

I don't think it's a good idea either, but one benefit would be you'd know you're logging into an arena that has 12 enemy planes in the air at the moment, as opposed to seeing ~150 enemies in the game, and enough bardar for at best a dozen enemy aircraft.

And suppose through some magic you could change GVers into pilots.  The percentage of players that are in GVs at any point in time* is about 25%.  So if you magically force those players into planes, you only increase the number of people in flight by 1/3.  Is that really going to significantly enhance your chance of finding a good air battle?

*on certain terrains that are favorable to GVs that can go to 35%, on other terrains that are poor for GVs it can fall significantly below 25%.

I log in regularly to find 100+ enemies logged in, less than 10 enemies flying.  Outside evening primetime, it's often less than 5 on both fronts combined.  That's pretty far from 35%.

I'm not sure whst Hello kitty has to do with anything but....ok 

I was just answering your statement to Coppr, with my statement. ....you see my statement makes as much sence as yours. 

...Which makes as much sense as Coppr's.  You guys are both effectively saying, "Like what we like, or there's something wrong with you."  Just pointing out why that might not apply.  I mean, if you're into Hello Kitty, no slight intended.

Wiley.

[Lusche]

Overall, about 25% of arena total play time (excluding manned guns) in the late war arena is being spend in vehicles.

[FESS67]

Don't get me wrong - there was a good element of GVs in the game and that is not my issue.  The problem is that those who chose to fly planes in these attacks would simply go to another base if any resistance was found.

This is not an 'I hate GVs post'....it is 'I hate it when people prefer to hit undefended bases rather than fight for one'

But thank you for your assessment of how the problem is mine and I should really learn to have fun better.  I am sure you will agree with the person on ch200 who told me I should learn to defend better.  15 players and all those bases to cover....and the problem lies with us stupid people.

[mbailey]

I don't think it's a good idea either, but one benefit would be you'd know you're logging into an arena that has 12 enemy planes in the air at the moment, as opposed to seeing ~150 enemies in the game, and enough bardar for at best a dozen enemy aircraft.

I log in regularly to find 100+ enemies logged in, less than 10 enemies flying.  Outside evening primetime, it's often less than 5 on both fronts combined.  That's pretty far from 35%.

...Which makes as much sense as Coppr's.  You guys are both effectively saying, "Like what we like, or there's something wrong with you."  Just pointing out why that might not apply.  I mean, if you're into Hello Kitty, no slight intended.

Wiley.

I'm not sure how you got that out of what I typed in response to you but, I'm quite certain that I truly don't care if you like what I like. Im also fairly certain (correct me I'm wrong Coppr) that Coppr doesn't care either.  You see, I'm not the one that comes here complaining about the game. I actually enjoy it, and the day I come here stomping my feet and complaining like a petulant child is the day I'll stop playing. I can assure you though that the latter will never happen, as I have real world things that I worry about, not an online game. In a nutshell,  I was just trying to point out that your opinion means nothing....just like mine doesn't. We're going to play the game how we are going to play the game....and get out of it what we will. The game is what it is, and if it is frustrating someone that much, maybe it's time to step away.....but like many, we won't be gone long.....this damn game sticks its claws Into you and your done.

Still not sure about the Hello Kitty answer, but whatever

(None of this is pointed at you Fess) I'm glad to see you on in the mornings (my time) 

[Tumor]

The MA is a war-game.  The goal, is to win enough bases of the opposing countries, to win! 

Some people like the MA for what it is...  hording will be a rule of thumb.  That's how it is in real life, right?  Lets be honest, the U.S./Allies did an awesome job with great sacrifice in WWII.  But ultimately, for the win, we threw numbers at the Axis Powers. 

In this GAME... there are things you can do to disrupt the horde.  It's not hard, and it does take a bit of patience, but upping a horded base looking for "a fight" is not one of them. 

[SlipKnt]

Don't get me wrong - there was a good element of GVs in the game and that is not my issue.  The problem is that those who chose to fly planes in these attacks would simply go to another base if any resistance was found.

This is not an 'I hate GVs post'....it is 'I hate it when people prefer to hit undefended bases rather than fight for one'

But thank you for your assessment of how the problem is mine and I should really learn to have fun better.  I am sure you will agree with the person on ch200 who told me I should learn to defend better.  15 players and all those bases to cover....and the problem lies with us stupid people.

Not picking on you but I do want to play devil's advocate for a moment.  Maybe it makes no sense but for me, at this moment, it does.

 

One of the frustrations an attacker faces during one of the more epic battles to take a base is if you leave hangers up, you leave yourself open to defenders HO ramming you out then simply upping in time to possibly even kill troops before they get to a MR and the attacker having to fly all the way back.  Causing the grinder effect.  We could argue all day about HO rams and how to avoid one but that isn't my thought.  My thought is the frustration level of defenders, defending at all cost (which they should) to hold the base, but the attacker having to fly back in what essentially becomes a daisy chain of fights all along the route to target while the vehicle spawn becomes camped by a few cannon fighters and IL2s racking relatively easy GV kills.

The alternative is to drop the base, clean up the defenders, and take it.  Which sometimes is in the horde. 

Again, not picking.  Just throwing it out there for further discussion.

Thoughts?

 

[Volron]

+1 post count.

[The Fugitive]

Frankly, this is just another whine by the "THEY WON'T play the way I want them to" gang. Really tiring. You have a game that allows for various things to do, and you're like the teenager standing in front of a full refrigerator for 20 minutes saying" There's nothing to eat". Go make a better game, I dare you.....

.... and your doing the same thing by telling people to grow up and play other aspects of the game. You spend all your time berating players here on the boards because they wont play other aspects, instead of accepting the fact there are players who don't like doing it.

[Tumor]

....you leave yourself open to defenders HO ramming you out then simply...

The day HTC addresses the suicidal tendencies of ubertards.... hell will hath frozen over.

[Wiley]

I was just trying to point out that your opinion means nothing....just like mine doesn't.

...just like Coppr's doesn't, which is what I was pointing out as well.

Still not sure about the Hello Kitty answer, but whatever

I was trying to illustrate that your hierarchy of the three proposed activities would likely be

Flying->GVing (or opposite order)->Hello Kitty

Mine is

Flying->pretty much anything else->GVing.

"Get into a GV" is equally as meaningless as "get into a plane."  That's all I'm saying.

Wiley.

[bustr]

Some of this is due to the investment of time to get to other bases to fight. Showing up then dying, then having to invest time to get back, then rinsing and repeating grinds on people. A lot of time these days seems spent on gaining alt which is time consuming, combined with not wanting to really fight and chancing dying after investing that time. I've gotten tired of trying to engage 20k fighters who will simply come back 25-30k the next time around. The big furballs that do happen, people run out of fuel and rtb waiting for those high guys to grow a pair and fight.

In AH1 very few players got much higher than 12k to get to a fight. It has fluctuated in AH2 having gotten its worst in the last 2 years gradually as player numbers tapered off from 2008. There would be spikes for a few weeks right after some SFO AAF vs Luft 30k scenarios.

Airfields on many maps today were put in place to hinder the hoards and give defenders more time to respond from another era in AH2. Few are really 1 sector apart. More fields and bases are farther than 25 miles with many a much longer flight. Fester's recent map has regions that address this while trying to keep those cozy with wide no man's lands. CraterMA is a superb master piece of understanding the late AH2 hoard phenomenon.

AH2 era Airfields for the most part are too far apart to promote the air combat the OP wants right now. They are more mindful of the drawbacks of hoards and the shift during AH2 to base capturing.

The terrain editor for AH3 has come along nicely. Any of you want to build a terrain that is more air combat friendly for AH3? Just keep airfields down to 25 miles apart and accept that will make them easy to capture.