The M3 experiment is over.

[Lusche]

To become the dominant form of troop transport would be the best way to quantify it.

There was no surge in base captures by M3s when those changes you mentioned were made. The shift from bomber to vehicle base captures was a gradual and very slow one, starting back when Gv's were introduced to AH for the first time.

I can't attest to the overall percentage of GV use, but they seem to be the most prevalent way to achieve base capture. Seems in AH2, especially before the Storch, the GV game was mostly limited to spawn camp battles.

Players spend about one quarter of their time in vehicles. The peak (so far) was reached end 2016 with about 28%, since then it dropped a bit (last tour 22%)
In AH2, bases just got attacked (and captured by vehicles as today.  One of the main reasons of the gradual increase of the capture share is that the terrains were made more and more Gv friendly. For example Mindanao & Baltic had far less GV spawns back in the day. We had maps like Ozkansas and others which had many places you could only reach by goon at all.
Also spawn camp battles and TT were more prominent because of a) player numbers and b) terrains changes over the years. There's much less GV vs Gv combat in AhIII because of the terrain. In many places, tanker suddenly had a hard time finding each other.

When the GV control system was changed in 2010, GV's did in fact become more popular, because of the much increased accessibility. But that boost was not that massive at all, for the most part it recovered some ground lost (in terms of gametime) that occured in 2009-2010.

[Lusche]

again it involves trying to force people to play the way you want them to.. If they want to resup in M3s or get in a manned gun or climb to 37k in b29s to hit strats or hq it's all combat it's just not your idea of combat

The introduction of perks forced the players to play in a certain way. ENY did the same. So do side switching time limits.
Any gameplay mechanism/limitation is basically enforcing something on players.

[scott66]

The introduction of perks forced the players to play in a certain way. ENY did the same. So do side switching time limits.
Any gameplay mechanism/limitation is basically enforcing something on players.

I don't think it forces players that want to stay in a gv to get into a plane or at least it wouldn't me..I happen to defend in the air land and Sea myself

[Xtrepid]

Bring back the supply convoys/barges for towns/vbases/ports, and supply trains for cities/strats... maybe run supply trains to the towns.

Turn down/off the GV base/town resupply factor.

Might even promote more fighting/combat... just a thought... 



X

[bustr]

Shortening the GV icon range gave GV combat a reasonable chance of survival against aircraft in AH2. Add the new trees in AH3, GV's are invisible about half the time now and much harder to eliminate with bombs or guns from tank attacker planes. The storch bridges the gap some back to the old GV icon ranges that made GV's and especially wirbles and M16 sitting ducks. Being able to see them and tag the area around them helps expose GV's. And why the storch is one of the first casualties in tank combat in AH3. I'm very good spotting and tagging GV's with a storch, I've caused a few spawn battles to go dry in AH3 because you can hide between bushes and sneak up on GVs to tag them. And I didn't care how many times some T34 in commander mode skeet shot me in my storch as much as I think it's gamey as heck when I'm in a much faster plane.

In AH2 before the icon range change, I could land 5 GV kills per sortie in an IL2. Now, I'm lucky to get 2 and not get skeet shot from commander mode every sortie. So one way to screw with M3's running supplies to win a fight for a base with a single finger salute while never firing a shot. Put the map room next to the tower and remove the town. No rule says you have to have a town with an airfield. The problem is then you really have to get off your kester and fight or the tanks will be camping all of your hangers while an M3 runs troops to the map room sitting on the field.

As I've listened to complaints about this game for two terrains now, the heart of many of them, is players want all the bases in their own country configured to be impossible to capture while they are busy capturing the other country's "some how not as well protected" bases. No one even realizes they are saying that as they complain about all the things that ultimately describe this phenomenon. I discovered this deep seated bias only by building terrains and catching myself in the cognitive dissonance of trying to make all of the bases in the country I was populating protected from being captured. Then realizing two things: 1. If I did that to the two other countries the terrain would be boring and garbage for having fights. 2. - When terrains go online each time out of the queue, Hitech randomizes which of the three country's each chess piece will populate.

M3's are probably being misused by players who don't want to fight and like being able to dictate the outcome of a fight by groups of players with a low risk single finger salute. It is a core human nature of person to person shooter computer games.     

[Bruv119]

The m3 resupply problem is enhanced off peak hours.  It needs tweaking not removing altogether. 

During prime time I'm sure you have enough hands to camp their spawns or enough aircraft to hold cap and pummel the 1 or 2 diehards running the supps.

Off hours I have to be the bomber, fighter cover, de-acker and sometimes the troop carrier also.  I'd rather have a situation where 2-3 attackers and 1 or 2 defenders try and engage in combat because lets face it defending a base is super easy with those odds.  I've held out with 1 vs many before but with this get out they can just not up whatsover and have town back up before you can even get half way back to base.   Then that results in people bailing out to get the job done in time which in turns confuses the dar what shall i fly situation for the defenders. 

[redcatcherb412]

GV's gained a huge advantage by being able to sneak around with minimal air threat to them.

On the ground upping any GV at a spawn where the maps yellow spawn line and big yellow spawn arrow show players exactly where GV's spawn and which direction their guns will face when spawned can hardly be described as 'minimal air threat'.

[Delirium]

Would it acceptable to only allow M3s to supply towns when spawning from a different airfield? Since spawns are far enough from town it would be abused far less without removing the supply factor, which some people (strangely) enjoy. It would also allow some interdiction and give fighter bombers something to do.

 

[Devil 505]

On the ground upping any GV at a spawn where the maps yellow spawn line and big yellow spawn arrow show players exactly where GV's spawn and which direction their guns will face when spawned can hardly be described as 'minimal air threat'.

Right, because a GV is going to just sit there at it's spawn point and wait to get bombed. 

[lunatic1]

We can always use new pilots.

shuffler where u been?

[redcatcherb412]

Right, because a GV is going to just sit there at it's spawn point and wait to get bombed. 

Seriously ??? 

[Lusche]

Would it acceptable to only allow M3s to supply towns when spawning from a different airfield?.

This is so much acceptable that it's always have been that way.

[Devil 505]

Seriously ??? 

Seems that your post contained information relevant only to the instant a GV spawns into the game. Hence my sarcastic reply to it.

[Delirium]

This is so much acceptable that it's always have been that way.

Really?  I remember seeing M3s moving supplies to towns from airfields in the past.

[Lusche]

Really?  I remember seeing M3s moving supplies to towns from airfields in the past.

That would not work.
You always had to come from a different base, that's why "they can't resupp A12, no GV spawn"

Imagine, if it would work, you would see it all the time.