M3 Effectiveness.....

[Devil 505]

That's not a foregone conclusion.  It will most assuredly promote less GV usage.  More air combat does not necessarily follow from that.

Wiley.

Maybe not more, at least not immediately, but the air combat will be better.

[Lazerr]

I like the fact the game has it all.. i play all aspects of the game.

I guess the goal of my rant of the last few years is to limit the effectiveness of supplies.. not nerf the gv game.

I understand there are still big battles for bases.. but there could be x2 as many if not for this gamey tactic.

Especially at low population hours.

Id would be nice to hear somethin from Hitech regarding this.  I dont recall him commenting on any of these supply threads.

[Mano]

Vehicles and planes are separate groups for the Sortie %
Name        Sortie %   
M-3                    35.91%
Wirbelwind             18.41%
T-34/85                 6.70%
Panzer IV H            13.33%

Since I guess I was hijacking another thread figured I'll start my own....

M3s make up almost identically as much and the next 2 vehicle sorties combined.

While in an M3, players aren't actively engaged in ANY form of combat(no sense arguing that it is, just ignorant if you think an M3 resembles any sort of combat in Aces High)

What they do, is make it so defenders dont have to engage in combat against an enemy to hold a field.

The war for the map generates combat by the progression of taking and losing fields.

My personal thoughts, remove town resupply completely, make it a standard 45 minute down time on town and make cargo trucks/trains/barges more valuable to defend.

I did not read this entire thread......but my suggestion is:
If there are too many M-3's bringing in supplies....why don't you up a M-8 and go kill them all? The M-8 can hide in the trees an avoid detection from harassing airplanes, then ambush the M-3's going by. They are running a straight bee line to the town and rarely do any of the drivers pay attention. Shoot the truck driver and boom, one shot they are gone. 

 

[Ramesis]

Saying no doesn't benefit the conversation in any way. Please elaborate.

uuuuhhhh... I didn't say no
 

[Zener]

...but my suggestion is:
If there are too many M-3's bringing in supplies....why don't you up a M-8 and go kill them all? The M-8 can hide in the trees an avoid detection from harassing airplanes, then ambush the M-3's going by. They are running a straight bee line to the town and rarely do any of the drivers pay attention. Shoot the truck driver and boom, one shot they are gone. 

 

While this might seem the most common sense approach, for some reason there is a belief that "if you change X, players will (automatically) do Y, and it's Y we're after."  So rather than deal with the M3s and see if the predicted increase in fights ensures, the notion seems to be that reducing/eliminating them will make more players jump in a fighter.  I doubt it will.  There are places on just about every map where continuing fights occur, but rather than hang there, some want it to happen over every airfield (with little interference from manned guns, of course).  In the last few months I can only recall ONE instance where a bunch of players were available, upped fighters, and totally repelled an attempted base take from a nearby field and a CV offshore.  I'm sure there were more, but that's the only one I witnessed, so I believe it to be a seldom-occurring thing.  That isn't going to change no matter if you took M3s out of the game and made troop/supply a goon-only thing or an AI thing.  As someone stated earlier, changing the M3 does not follow by an automatic increase in fighter defense.

I just wonder what the next reason will be after nerfing M3s.  Tanks are too fast?  Not enough town buildings/too many town buildings?  Runways too long?  Oceans too deep? 

[Wiley]

While this might seem the most common sense approach, for some reason there is a belief that "if you change X, players will (automatically) do Y, and it's Y we're after."  So rather than deal with the M3s and see if the predicted increase in fights ensures, the notion seems to be that reducing/eliminating them will make more players jump in a fighter.  I doubt it will.  There are places on just about every map where continuing fights occur, but rather than hang there, some want it to happen over every airfield (with little interference from manned guns, of course).  In the last few months I can only recall ONE instance where a bunch of players were available, upped fighters, and totally repelled an attempted base take from a nearby field and a CV offshore.  I'm sure there were more, but that's the only one I witnessed, so I believe it to be a seldom-occurring thing.  That isn't going to change no matter if you took M3s out of the game and made troop/supply a goon-only thing or an AI thing.  As someone stated earlier, changing the M3 does not follow by an automatic increase in fighter defense.

I just wonder what the next reason will be after nerfing M3s.  Tanks are too fast?  Not enough town buildings/too many town buildings?  Runways too long?  Oceans too deep?

I believe the next one to gain traction would be "tanks spawn too close to the base".  You can see rumblings of it in this thread.

Wiley.

[scott66]

I did not read this entire thread......but my suggestion is:
If there are too many M-3's bringing in supplies....why don't you up a M-8 and go kill them all? The M-8 can hide in the trees an avoid detection from harassing airplanes, then ambush the M-3's going by. They are running a straight bee line to the town and rarely do any of the drivers pay attention. Shoot the truck driver and boom, one shot they are gone. 

 

finally a voice of reason ..+1

[bustr]

You can feel a bit for the original game play incidents some time back that got Junky talking about this. It's not as bad during prime time when you have enough players to occasionally police the spawns for M3. It's low peak time when one or two of you are prepping a field and there is no way to keep up with one guy who can run in M3's faster than one or two of you can find him. And he won't up a ride or even a tank and fight. he probably was hopping in a 88 and trying to tag them as his middle finger response to them asking him to fight. To a player like Junky or Lazerr, what is the point of playing the game without any opportunity to counter the M3 which is now being used to greif them because it's not against the rules. It doesn't reach the scale of the 49ers keeping the HQ down almost every night on the Fester map because there was no rule against doing it. But, one guy has always been found to be able to make players want to quit by over using the rules knowing they are pushing the envelope.

Saying it this way would have gotten Junky or Lazerr told to quit whining and man up with no one actually looking at why they were bringing this to the forums.

Hitech may be moving the 88 off feilds and onto a mobile platform, and he expedited debuging bridges because he likes the idea of them causing choke points for vehicles. 

[JunkyII]

It's slightly asymmetric, but if that's no combat then there's not much combat in many of today's wars either.

You are absolutely right there isn't(Most engagements in Afghanistan lasted the time it took to get air support on station)...but this is a video game which is supposed to simulate combat, if we are simulating the sustainment piece....then the amount of time to resupply should be tremendously higher.

You can feel a bit for the original game play incidents some time back that got Junky talking about this. It's not as bad during prime time when you have enough players to occasionally police the spawns for M3. It's low peak time when one or two of you are prepping a field and there is no way to keep up with one guy who can run in M3's faster than one or two of you can find him. And he won't up a ride or even a tank and fight. he probably was hopping in a 88 and trying to tag them as his middle finger response to them asking him to fight. To a player like Junky or Lazerr, what is the point of playing the game without any opportunity to counter the M3 which is now being used to greif them because it's not against the rules. It doesn't reach the scale of the 49ers keeping the HQ down almost every night on the Fester map because there was no rule against doing it. But, one guy has always been found to be able to make players want to quit by over using the rules knowing they are pushing the envelope.

Saying it this way would have gotten Junky or Lazerr told to quit whining and man up with no one actually looking at why they were bringing this to the forums.

Hitech may be moving the 88 off feilds and onto a mobile platform, and he expedited debuging bridges because he likes the idea of them causing choke points for vehicles. 

I first noticed this issue when the MA numbers were well over 300....it's not griefing, players more interested about the fields themselves have just found an EASY way to keep them...I'm asking for it to be nerfed because a NERF generally leads to different options being used.

CSGO just nerfed the Tech N9ne, a weapon everyone thought was OP....now you see a lot less of them because they aren't as effective.

Can you destroy the choke points you were talking about in earlier post? If not then that isn't a fix at all.....read my reply to Mano below...the point is I don't want to sit at a choke point and kill M3s all day long....Theres ZERO fight in it.

I did not read this entire thread......but my suggestion is:
If there are too many M-3's bringing in supplies....why don't you up a M-8 and go kill them all? The M-8 can hide in the trees an avoid detection from harassing airplanes, then ambush the M-3's going by. They are running a straight bee line to the town and rarely do any of the drivers pay attention. Shoot the truck driver and boom, one shot they are gone. 

 

I've done this, I've had 10+ kills in a FW190F8 all of M3s....guess how much fun I was having.....0. I've got enough kills while playing AH and landed big sorties that the hoopla around it is nothing....it's the fight....and the way you explained it pretty much proves my point that it isn't a fight.

finally a voice of reason ..+1

See above...your voice of reason helped my point so I guess your +1 is for M3 nerf now.



Oh and I certainly don't want to see an end to the ground war....which for sure helps push the fights along and evolve....the thing I'm asking to nerf(Make Far Less Effective) is the M3s ability to resupply town....NOT EVEN THE FIELD....just town itself.

I'd rather see 1000 whirbs sitting on a field then a single M3 running town supps ANYDAY....at least they are defending a field by meeting COMBAT with COMBAT....COMBAT with SUPPLY.

[bustr]

Hitech told me to make bridges indestructible. It's his opinion the bridge being the only access to a location will create GV combat and slow down traffic as a choke point. I believe that is his answer to your M3 problems. So hope more terrain builders add rivers between towns with bridges as the only access. From testing I determined the minimum is three bridges to be fair to all concerned, any more and you might as well not have bridges. And hope he is serious about changing the 88 to a vehicle pulled gun.

Anyone building MA terrains can see my screen shots or talk to me about how to setup the river and bridges.

[Ack-Ack]

The best way to resolve the issue would be to limit the number of building a field supply crate can repair.  Instead of being able to repair every downed building in town, code it so a supply crate only repairs something like 10 buildings.  This way resupplying town is still viable but not so over powered.

[Zimme83]

Back in the days the standard method of countering M3:s was to send 1-2 fighters out to the spawn to strafe them. it worked pretty well but then people stopped doing it and started to whine over how M3s prevented all their base takes..

[bozon]

I did not read this entire thread......but my suggestion is:
If there are too many M-3's bringing in supplies....why don't you up a M-8 and go kill them all? The M-8 can hide in the trees an avoid detection from harassing airplanes, then ambush the M-3's going by. They are running a straight bee line to the town and rarely do any of the drivers pay attention. Shoot the truck driver and boom, one shot they are gone. 

 

I tried taking an M8 the other day.
 Couldn't get it off the ground. 

[Crash Orange]

While this might seem the most common sense approach, for some reason there is a belief that "if you change X, players will (automatically) do Y, and it's Y we're after."  So rather than deal with the M3s and see if the predicted increase in fights ensures, the notion seems to be that reducing/eliminating them will make more players jump in a fighter.  I doubt it will. 

THIS

How many times do we need to flog this horse that's deader than Monty Python's parrot?

JunkyII must have screamed bloody murder about this a hundred times on this forum, and I must have given the same answer a hundred times, and he still has yet to acknowledge it, much less get it.

THE CONSEQUENCES OF YOUR PROPOSAL WILL NOT BE WHAT YOU WISH THEM TO BE, AND YOU WILL NOT LIKE THEM.

No matter how much you want or what you do, you canNOT dictate the way other players play. Even if your way is better. Even if they'd enjoy your way more if they tried it. Even if everyone else would enjoy the game more if they tried it. You just can't. You cannot force combat-shy players to hop in a fighter and take off to defend a base, no matter how much better the game would be if they did. Most likely they will just hop in an 88 instead and bang away until the base falls, like we already see every night once numbers get low. Or just go somewhere else and do something else, or log. If they wanted to fight they'd be fighting as it is. If they don't, they won't want it any more after this change.

The change you'll actually see is 10 times as many base sneaks with no combat as you have now, because having no effective way to resupply means that once you pork the strats a little a couple of players can take Lancs up and WFand/or deack 6 or 8 bases along the front and then sneak M3s into them for the next two hours, bailing once they've dropped troops so the town stops flashing, while the one or two defenders run around trying to whack more moles than they have mallets. The overall result will be LESS combat, not more. Instead of forcing people to defend bases from attackers who want a fight, what you will actually accomplish is making it easier for attackers to take fields without risking a fight. And you will not be happy, and you will just lobby for another ill-considered rules change meant to force players to fight in the air with you but which will actually have the opposite effect.

As for the numbers. it's a shame the stats can't tell what those M3s were carrying, because I'd be willing to bet that half of them were carrying troops and half the rest were carrying vehicle supplies. For every time I've seen people mass resupply a town under attack I've seen many more instances of people flooding a town with troop-carrying M3s (or LVTs) while defenders slaughter them en masse like ducks in a shooting gallery.

[Crash Orange]

As for being OP, we've been through this a hundred times as well. One player cannot stop a base take by resupping, because he can't possibly get from his spawn to the town with supps three times before the attackers can get one M3 from their spawn to the town with troops. All the more so if the attackers have any sense and the troops are rolling before the town is white flagged. But one player CAN take off in a fighter and kill any number of troops as long as the troop carriers come one at a time. With low numbers, fighting is a more effective way to defend a base than resupplying. If players are choosing not to fight, it's because they just don't want to fight, not because there are better ways to defend.

What you CAN do with resupply is stop endless attempts to sneak the same base. Which is as it should be. If the attackers can't do it right the first two times they try to take a nearly undefended base, they deserve to lose.