base turnover: guns vs hangars

[ccvi]

The tweaks Id like to see is to slow down that base rolling style of play. Give defenders time to get organized to make a fight of it.

Yes. But it cannot be solved by some simple changes of the existing configuration. Whatever can slow down a capture will also make switching to an unharmed and undefended target in any kind of issues the preferred option, causing less fighting.

[ccvi]

More...

Imagine no defenders at all. Two targets to choose from: One with a half dead town, and a pristine one. The easier target is the latter one, as issues with rebuilding targets are avoided.

Going back in time. Small maps, few fields, many players. Such thing as an undefended field didn't exist, except on the other side of the map. The targets nearby were often partially damaged. Fights would continue due to lack of patience, and a higher ratio of people not understanding the issue with rebuilding stuff, hitting things randomly out of sync. A well-timed attack could turn a fight into a capture. Not by contributing much to the fight, but hitting things at a time when everything was up.
Attacking fields further away was an option, and paid for with a longer trip, or possibly low-E state at the target by going NOE. Less defense was a plus, but a huge advantage was that this avoided rebuild issues.

Today, there's almost as many fields that can be reached easily as there are players (well, EU primetime, with 15-20 in-flight per side). Unharmed fields do exist in large numbers. They are also undefended. Fighting for a capture doesn't make any kind of sense.

What is the proper way to drop supplies on town? Its not to bring all buildings guns up as fast as possible. Its to get the drop distance right to rebuild only part the town, sufficient to prevent capture. By the time that resupplied part be destroyed again, the non-supplied part is closer to rebuilding on its own.

There should be an incentive for persistence. It should be easier to capture a field that's partially destroyed than one that hasn't been hit at all. A badly hurt field should need more defending players than a fresh one.

I don't think that is possible with the current way how destruction/rebuild works.

Possible solutions might be a minimum time of air/ground superiority requirement for capture, or the possibility to prevent things from rebuilding while they are down (supply trucks are one way, but their destruction cannot prevent rebuild even when the field is under continued pressure).

[The Fugitive]

If things are set to slow down a capture at base "A" they certainly would be set to slow down a capture at base "B". 

If it takes 3-4 guys to flatten a hanger at ANY field defended or not, it is going to slow down the grab.

Resuppling towns was the biggest mistake. Its only purpose was to help in low numbered times..... which we more than likely wouldnt have had had changes been made to the game right along to keep up with the changing times in the gaming industry..... Resupply town because they only had 5 defenders for the whole country.

Thats the problem these days, there is only one plan. It doesnt work on a hurt field/town because it is designed to do nothing but flatten everything and then slip troops up to the last possible second for the capture, or to move on in the case of a failure. Short down time dont give enough time for them to get the troops in because they dont know how to fight/protect the troops, because it was never part of the plan.

The "war" has been watered down to the least common denominator. Add something in like a "2 pronged attack" and everyone would go "huh?" The NOE was the ONLY mission run for a long time until changes were made to radar and then all of a sudden they had to work for a base again until they came up with the smash and grab they run now. I just think its time for another change.

[ccvi]

If things are set to slow down a capture at base "A" they certainly would be set to slow down a capture at base "B". 

With different starting conditions of A and B, the slowdown / increased effort to capture can differ. Hardening things doesn't change the time scale of a capture, it just requires more or bigger bombs. The need to bring more bombs isn't satisfied "slower", the time scale of a capture is mainly determined by rebuild times, not hardness. Its not possible to drop the first klbs on a hangar, then 16 minutes later the second klbs, because the hangar forgets prior damage at some point.

Proposal: Add a capture requirement to have an attacking GV and no defending GV in town (or attacking aircraft and no defending aircraft over town) for 15 minutes. While the condition is fulfilled, a timer counts (displayed on the flag for everyone to see). When both attackers/defenders are close by it stops, and counts backwards when only defends or no-one is present. When the timer counts, freeze the rebuild-timer of town buildings. Make hangars vulnerable when they stop smoking (killable before they are up again).

This requires the attacker to focus for at a certain minimum time. It allows defenders to stop the condition. On the other hand, attackers can attack a partially damaged field (continuing a partially failed attack) without issues with rebuilding targets under attack.

[Ciaphas]

Hey Fugitive,


Here is the fix you are looking for:

Each country gets 5 airfields, 5 Vehicle bases, 1 port, 1 city, HQ, 1 flak, 1 aaa, 1 fuel, 1 troop and 1 radar factory.

FH's, BH's and VH's all require 3k damage to go away for 30 minutes. Towns should be twice the size that they currently are and to capture the town it must require that the number of troops required be equal to the number of military and non-military structures destroyed. Re-arming should take 5 minutes. Oh, and aircraft have to lift off in flights not solo. Bombers should be required to have three "Actual" pilots per box but all guns should be able to be manned by "actual" players.

Cities should have FLAK walls, there should be twice the number of AAA on airfields and in some towns (large airfields) and all towns should have forward observation for , you know, ground attackers.

Does that about sum it up?

[The Fugitive]

No, all IM looking for is tweaks and adjustments to force players to work for the base they are trying to capture. Players no longer add that dimension to the game. Now its all about grabbing as many bases as you can as quick as you can. If that means jumping from front to front to hit undefended base, run away as soon as a mission is spotted or defended against, that is what they do. It is poor game play and should be adjusted so it cant happen.

As a member of the 444th Air Mafia in the old days we took 11 bases in one squad night. 4 hours of intensive fighting, planning, and execution by 10-12 players. That was our "record". Something we were proud of. Some were NOE, most were head to head against other squads. That is what this game was all about. We didnt win the war, but for 4 hours we FOUGHT for every base we wanted.

You dont see that any more. The "fighting" aspect of this game is so lost in the need to roll bases that it isnt funny. "Birds of Prey" use to do the same thing. Their squad night was a night you KNEW was going to be a battle all night! Again, you dont see that any more. Squad rivalries, LOL!!! ya right.

There is so much missing from this game that is rolled over by these "smash and grab" groups that it is ridiculous. People are bored with the "same old, same old" that the game has been watered down too that they leave and look for something different. If WE the core players dont do something to stir interest in the game, bring back the "fight" in the game, I fear it will continue its slow decline into obscurity. 

[DmonSlyr]

The only way to truely "bring back the fight", is to perk the super late war planes.

Bustr also needs to focus on "paths of action" and keeping bases closer together and more compact when making new maps.

That's it.

That will make fights more fun and entertaining. I can promise you that most people just want fun fighter combat action. I really like the MA style, it's just that we have too many super planes that can easily run away, and far apart bases that make it hard to defend against a hoard that starts to take over the fight. Eventually, one side is going to be dominate, that's just how war works. Closer back bases would help to defend against that hoard a little easier.

Make the damn radar on the bases harder to kill. Radar problem fixed.

All of the problems that most people have with AH can be fixed very simply.

Other than that.  You really aren't going to be able to get people to stop ganging and doing what ever they want to do.

[Ciaphas]

"ganging" is an interesting concept in this game. This is a combat sim not a jousting simulator... .


Bases are far too easy to roll. Adding a certain level of difficulty would help prolong base captures and it will mitigate the " fights over before it starts" cycle we are in.

I participate in land grabbing when I am online. I prefer to he part of a team with an objective and not one of those that solo for the dogfighting aspect of the game.

With this being said, I would like to see Hitech implement the following as requirements to capture a field:

1. Barracks must be taken out at the attached base.

2. Total # of troops required to capture base must be equal to or greater than the total number of military targets destroyed +10 (map room).  (ie... 8 Town guns destroyed + 4 barracks destroyed + 10 (map room) = 22 troops ).

3. For fields within 20 miles of a large Airfield, auto resupply should exists at a x2 multiplier, providing it's (large field) Ammo, fuel, barracks etc... are up.

4. Heavy bombers ( B17, Lancs, B24 etc...) should only he allowed to launch from medium Airfields and larger. Medium/light bombers and those dual category planes (light bombers/ heavy attack) can be launched from all fields.

5. Naval and Marine aircraft should be limited to bases within two sectors of a coast line when possible.

* 4 and 5 are preferences and should not be taken seriously unless that is your cup of tea *





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[1stpar3]

  Only issue I can find  with...#1. Maps of late have multiple "Attached Bases". Lots of barracks and resulting Ack to fly through/destroy. Lately it seems, the desire to survive mentality would rule that particular part of capture change a deal breaker for lots of folk UNFORTUNATELY How ever the unintended result MIGHT help out the folk who want the game to go towards a constant furball type of game play  Probably not...but could happen

[Traveler]

If WE the core players dont do something to stir interest in the game, bring back the "fight" in the game, I fear it will continue its slow decline into obscurity.

Sorry to say it, but the writing is on the wall, put there by HiTech himself, War Online:Pacific.  It's all a down hill slide from here.  Very hard to attract new member to a squad when you can't say for sure that the game that we played weekly for 20 years will be here next week.

[Oldman731]

Sorry to say it, but the writing is on the wall, put there by HiTech himself, War Online:Pacific.  It's all a down hill slide from here.  Very hard to attract new member to a squad when you can't say for sure that the game that we played weekly for 20 years will be here next week.

(slaps Traveler with a wet carp)

You need an attitude check, my friend.  You sound like a grouchy old man.

(looks closely at Traveler)

...well...OK, but you don't have to act like one.  Buck up, son.  The world continues to turn, there are still over 100 people in the arena each night, and we have not yet sold New Jersey back to the Indians.  So brighten up.

- oldman

[Traveler]

(slaps Traveler with a wet carp)

You need an attitude check, my friend.  You sound like a grouchy old man.

- oldman

And you need a reality check.  How much new development do you think will go into AH3 from now on.  HTC only has so many employees.  The priority is WO:P. 

[Oldman731]

And you need a reality check.  How much new development do you think will go into AH3 from now on.  HTC only has so many employees.  The priority is WO:P.

OK, I'll bite.

AH3 already has all the planes it will ever need.  New ones are flown for a bit because they are novel, but people then gravitate back to the dozen or so that you see every day.

The sandbox already has been established.  For all the whining about various tweaks that it needs....well, I've just grown weary of hearing it.  You can have fun here now.  Up to you.

The two basic problems with attracting new players - and then keeping them - have always been the difficulty of becoming competitive, and the actual outlay of money, no matter how modest.  If the veterans stay out of WO, that should help with the first problem.  WO is one of these "free to play" (wink wink) games, so that should solve the second.  Hey, who knows, the FTP might even reward you with limited time in AH3.

HTC has been working on fly-by-mouse (the heads-up display, multiple mouse advancements) and VR.  The first reduces the need to buy expensive equipment, the second rewards people who already have it.  These are good things.

So...to stay on point...guns v hangars is interesting to discuss, but collateral to the health of AH.  Try it for a couple of weeks, see what happens (look what happened when (1) channel 200 was eliminated for a few days and (2) full Dot DAR was turned on for a day or so).  Meanwhile wait to see if WO brings some new folks into the fold.

- oldman (and stop talking with food in your mouth.  Really, it's repulsive)

[Lusche]

OK, I'll bite.

AH3 already has all the planes it will ever need.  New ones are flown for a bit because they are novel, but people then gravitate back to the dozen or so that you see every day.

From the three planes last added (Yak 3, Yak 7b, Tu-2), two have become very popular. I believe there are still planes out there that could get some reasonable usage in the MA when added to AH.
But of course, new toys by won't do any magic to the player numbers either. 

[Traveler]

OK, I'll bite.

I'm not talking about planes, or graphics, Heads up display, please list any WWII aircraft that contained them.  I'm talking about the game play itself.  Allowing for destroyable bridges, engineering troops to rebuild anything, actual roadway systems that mean something.  And please don't make this personal, I didn't call you any names please provide me the same respect.  You want a discussion that fine.