Wish: Reduce white flag requirements by half

[Krusty]

In a separate thread on another topic I floated an idea and based on the reply and the logic behind it I'm asking for it for Aces High as a whole.


We upped field capture requirements, we added a town (remember they used to have the map room on the field itself?), we required a much larger group of players to take a field.

Let's back that up. When the arena had 1000 players and then when we had 2 arenas of nearly 500 each, that was a valid requirement. Now the situation has changed and with the current environment I wish we could make base capture easier.

Please reduce the town % we currently have by half. This will allow smaller missions without the fear of constant failure, without the need to NOE sneak and without the need to avoid combat. In the days-gone-by I and some squaddies or friends or even just mission makers used to run a handful of fighters, a bomber formation (lancs) and a goon or two to take down and suppress a field. We weren't hiding, and we fought through whatever found us, but it allowed smaller team dynamics, more intimate camraderie, and a better feeling of accomplishment.

The way I see it, there is a problem that stagnates base captures lately. Let's make it easier and keep the action moving. Keep that front line shifting. And if we take a field? Guess what: It's just as easy for the other side to take it back or take another one to make up for it.

[bustr]

I ventured this also some time back, it would flip maps faster by the activities of the unopposed late nighters who seem to change the map after everyone goes to bed. I don't see it as a negative, more a neutral since the terrain queue will be run through faster. Unlike the large number old days when squads ruled the arena, and they would have apparent initiatives pushing across large terrains for some days. I doubt anyone cares anymore as much as they want change and activity. From listening to players and reading these forums gathering info for terrain building, as many who like features of some terrains hate those terrains and can't wait for the next. Even speed of rotation is not a bad thing to work with to see if it has benefits.

Just remember the M3 and troops, no one will know what hornet's nest will get poked until the percentage gets changed. The M3 birthed an old school epic whine fest here in the forums even with the SdK capable of delivering 10 troops.

[haggerty]

I dabbled in WW2 Online the other day, the fights for the caps were pretty large.  I liked that there were multiple objectives in the towns that had to be captured in order to take the whole town.  It would be interesting to have larger towns in Aces High and have vehicles actually capture the areas over time or with troops, with them being able to be recaptured before you lose the base completely.

[Krusty]

That works okay for vehicles: Have them "occupy" the circle for X amount of time. If they leave it goes back down, if it's contested it halts, if they die it gets captured back faster.

But it doesn't work for planes. You can't have the ground fight be so much faster and easier than the air fight. That's the problem with M3 troops right now: So much faster to roll troops for 5 minutes than to fly a goon for 20. Needs to be long enough of a capture that it's just as viable to fly a goon in. Maybe have a sequential set of capture points for any GV to occupy (one must be captured before the next appears) and those GVs then have to relocate to the new point. That way the benefit to dropping goon droops directly into the map room is faster and less open to enemy GVs stopping the clock on a capture point.

Just a thought.

[Lusche]

I could have understood this wish like 5 years ago, but now? Have you seen my statistic of hours played per base capture?. Bases are captured at about the same rate as with the old, small AHII towns (before 2010). There 's no stagnation in that area at all, especially since AHIII towns are much easier to WF than the last AHII towns (except for the rare huge airfield towns)

[Krusty]

I have not seen that until now. What I have seen is that the base take stagnates and lingers an in-progress slog-fest then the ground defender GVs outnumber the planes with bombs that can kill them and the overall attempt, valiant as it may have been, fails.

You've got a nice little graph there but I think it's not a valid comparison of the environment. There are too many variables including the much-lamented "it takes longer to find a fight now!" complaints and all that which are repeated on the forums lately. Those hours don't correspond specifically to how many man-hours are put into specific base-takes.

In short: I don't buy the chart because it's too subjective and you can read a million different interpretations into it. What I've seen is that base takes are being repulsed, stopped, halted, very easily and with only a small force. In short, I'm seeing base capture stagnate. First-hand I've seen it, and on the map I've also seen it while I was flying nearby or elsewhere.

[bustr]

I could have understood this wish like 5 years ago, but now? Have you seen my statistic of hours played per base capture?. Bases are captured at about the same rate as with the old, small AHII towns (before 2010). There 's no stagnation in that area at all, especially since AHIII towns are much easier to WF than the last AHII towns (except for the rare huge airfield towns)

Can you pull any stats of the scew based on late night low numbers and the small number of guys who completely change the base ownership of the map, or even flip the terrain due to no numbers to stop them? Prime time has a lot of dar tied up for hours in locations and not a lot of base turn overs on some terrains. Then the next day after low peak time, the map has completely changed. So a change in the down percentage would increase activity during prime time and unfortunately get maps flipped at night by the unopposed low numbers guys.

Still for new players looking at the game, I will bet are more likely to be prime time, and the activity would be attractive with the numbers.

[Lusche]

It's not only the hours/basetake which is being low, it's also the number of basetakes per player being much higher than in recent years. You can harldy say basetakings are stagnating when there are objectively more of them per player.

Also, I don't believe your anecdotal method of proving the stagnation is that much more objective than mine. Base takes have also been stopped by just a few defenders years ago. Even more so than today, probably. And yes, I 'was there' too, and I was also here in the past few weeks.

[Krusty]

I can, actually... I can justify that several ways. You're reaching a conclusion that isn't definite. See Bustr's example. Skewed numbers because people get bored in the off hours and steamroll the arena. Those 10 players at night could get 100 base takes but the majority of players in normal hours get none. None at all. It's rare to see a field captured in prime time. I almost never see it anymore. I see attempts. I see action around base takes. It just never gets taken.

Too many variables. You can't draw any real conclusions from them.

[Lusche]

Those 10 players at night could get 100 base takes but the majority of players in normal hours get none. None at all. It's rare to see a field captured in prime time. I almost never see it anymore. I see attempts.

I see them.

[popeye]

It's rare to see a field captured in prime time. I almost never see it anymore. I see attempts. I see action around base takes. It just never gets taken.

   I see plenty of captures in prime time.  Granted, some attempts stall for a long time and tie up a lot of resources from both sides, but smaller forces will grab other bases while the big forces slug it out.

[pembquist]

Isn't the resupply dynamic new? What I see is that when a small group is serious about taking a base it will go through as long as it isn't resupplied out from under them or there is reasonably robust defense. When there are large gaggles fighting over a base it is usually pretty uncoordinated with things getting out of sequence and "its ready where are the troops, troops needed" calls happening ever 15 minutes. If a large gaggle is organized or, frankly, has a bunch of bomber pilots they usually overpower the defense and short circuit the resupply, the big clutchy fights happen with organized gaggles and strong defense.

Some maps it would be nice if they didn't turn over so fast others could probably use some help turning over. If I was king I wouldn't shorten the amount of damage a town needs for capture what i would do is reduce resupply, and extend downtimes. On the big maps I would make the downtimes for everything infinite with the exception of FTH Dar Guns and Ships, Town would come back up immediately after capture or close to. I would also make the guns at airfields indestructable.

I would be curious what would happen, late at night you would probably get a lot of troops waiting in town for a lancaster to come over but during the day it might energize the fighting over territory. Than again it might be awful.

[bustr]

I just finished building weather files for all the terrains in rotation. All except for mine bowlma, are 10x10 or what is called small terrains. Bowlma is on a 20x20 grid but the combat area is 10x10. Unless we get an influx of players so 300 a night are the norm, I suspect 10x10 is it. And at prime time you see less base taking even on a 10x10 but, you come in the next day and the map has been flipped or most of your countries bases are captured. Late night with low numbers no one tries to stop three guys with an M3 from running through a country capturing feilds.

There are two possibilities here, the M3 test of running supplies causes Hitech to stop allowing GV's to resupply towns which helps reduce stalled out base captures. Or he doesn't touch that and instead reduces the down percentage of the town which could also reduce the bad habit of fighters circling for vulches while the M3's run in supplies unopposed. A normal scenario is you have 10 guys in fighters circling the field after the town is de-acked doing nothing. One con ups, and all 10 are fighting over each other to kill it and hoping for more. M3's just run into town behind them and bring up the guns and maybe the town. But, the vulch light is lit and the fighters don't care. Sometimes more enemy cons up and other show up and chase off the fighters and kill GVs stopping it. Other times both sides stall out while the M3's bring back up the town, and instead of pulling back with a second field to go after, the bomber guys show back up and try it all over again. Missions often had plan B for things like this versus the loosy goosey show up with the herd to vulch if the bomber guys are hitting the town thing these days.

So where hoards used to let 30 guys at a time avoid combat and Hitech had to change the game for that, the current style of prime time loosy goosey, maybe we will, maybe we won't base captures, needs something to change the dynamic. When any country gets on a roll and players are energized by their quick successes. The quickness of the base captures doesn't let them stall out and get bored killing their enthusiasm.

[Becinhu]

The problem with most of the random base take attempts is that they aren't efficient. You can still take a field with 4-5 players. A good lanc pilot can white flag a town in one pass, two passes if he drops bad on first run, 2 heavy fighters and a goon.

I see a large number of base takes fail because no one can deack the town quickly. They either don't line up runs correctly or they say that they can't deack because they don't have cannons. 50 cals will kill a gun just fine. So you end up with 10-15 players you can't take a town down in less than one hour.

V bases are a different dynamic but it still only takes 2 bomber pilots who can line up correctly, 2-3 heavy fighters and a goon.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Lyme]

One stinking formation of lancs or 24’s will WF a town.  Make it harder if anything. 

In fact...The hardiness of town buildings should correspond with the city Strat.  Harden it.