Combat Theater Poll: Why don't you fly there?

[Sabre]

Thanks for all the feedback, folks.  Buzzbait has done a good job of culling through this to improve what can be improved at this time.  I have to admit, I'm confounded by those who's posts above had no point other than to say "I told you it would never work," or "It will never work because ______, so give it up."  It's a threat to no one if it succeeds (and I still believe whole-heartedly that it can), yet some seem to have a personal stake in seeing it fail.  Salute, those who have supported and continue to support so well these efforts.

I've noticed some here saying, "Make it more like the MA and people will come."  I respectfully suggest that theory has a major flaw.  If it is nothing more than the MA with reduced icons or radar, or any other minor change people have suggested, people will have even less reason to go there then they do now.  They'ld still look at the log-in clipboard and hit MA, because the numbers would draw them and there, and because there would be nothing truely unique to draw them to the CT.  What we're trying to do is provide an alternative arena that more adequately emulates WWII combat, yet make it accessable and interesting enough to entice people to come in and give it a try.

Also, notice the number of conflicting opinions in the above posts.  The challenge to the CT team is to wade through all of that and determine where the "center of gravity" of opinion really lies.  Am I a history buff? You bet!  Does the CT have a historical bent? Well...yeah!  If it didn't there'd be no reason for it to exist, except as a simple overflow arena for the MA.  As such, it would be even more empty than the CT is now (bad connects and all).  Have we gone too far, historically speaking?  That remains to be seen.  Once the connects get fixed and the terrains more plentiful, better arranged, and less buggy we'll be better able to determine that.  We are definitely not trying to create our own "private" arena...what fun would that be ?

[Bullethead]

Sabre said:[/i]

I have to admit, I'm confounded by those who's posts above had no point other than to say "I told you it would never work," or "It will never work because ______, so give it up."

If you mean me, sorry you feel that way.  I don't apologize for my stating my opinion, however.  First, you asked for it.  Second, I was once an avid CT fan years ago.  It took me several heartbreaks to learn the bitter truth that they just don't work in the long run.  I really wish it was otherwise, but it ain't, and I've gotten over it because there's nothing to be done about it.  I wish you success and, if you somehow break the historical pattern of these things, great!  I'll start showing up then.  But in the meantime, my advice to you is to enjoy your CT while it lasts and don't take it too personally if it doesn't work.

I've noticed some here saying, "Make it more like the MA and people will come."  I respectfully suggest that theory has a major flaw.  ...  What we're trying to do is provide an alternative arena that more adequately emulates WWII combat, yet make it accessable and interesting enough to entice people to come in and give it a try.

I agree.  What you have to do is provide a gameplay experience that is significantly different from the MA, yet is very attractive to MA players.  If the CT is just the same basic MA landgrab, only with the same map for a long time and much few plane choices, people will see it as merely MA-lite, a "demo", reduced-feature version" of AH.  

The trick is figuring out what other attractive gameplay options are possible with AH as is.  I think the biggest obstacle to that now is that most pilots are conditioned to expect some sort of arena-wide victory to be possible.  It's not like the old days of AW where you could only capture a few central fields on the map, so nobody could ever "win the war".  That was fun in its day, and it was the only game in town, but that type of thing is no longer attractive to the masses used to "winning the war".

But in a continuous arena, what else is there?  If instead of landgrabbing you condition victory on relative losses, bombing damage to strat targets, etc., you pretty much have to put time limits on when such successes are measured.  This turns your continuous arena into a Snapshot or TOD-type thing, plus then you limit your potential customers due to time zones.  OTOH, if you do neither, you basically just have a dogfight arena, like AW was long ago.  Buffs are there but they don't really do anything except temporarily close bases.  This doesn't seem to be a winning formula any more.  Are there any other options?  I can't think of any offhand with AH as is.

[lazs2]

agree with bullethead..  hard to convince people that less is more.   I still think you could use the fact that we are getting more early war planes and no viable way to use em in the MA.   A niche worth exploiting me thinks.
lazs

[Lephturn]

The connection obviously is an issue, but that will get fixed at some point.

For me.

1.  Make it easier, not HARDER to find a fight.  Forget radar realism... you want numbers in the arena then make it easier to find a fight.

2.  Forget strat.  Strat game is always lame if there are not enough folks.  You can play the strat game in the MA.  There just aren't enough folks in the CT to make it work, at least not yet.

3.  Axis vs. Allies, but with a larger allowed planeset.  The more folks that can find their favourite bird in there, the better.

In short, I don't think it will EVER work if you try to make the CT a "better" MA.  You need to pick something specific and do it very well, and that thing is Axis v. Allied air combat.  I'll deal with somewhat limited radar and lower icon settings as long as I can quickly find a good AvA fight.  Make it easy to do that, and you'll get numbers.  Keep it simple and DIFFERENT from the MA.  I mean no field capture, smaller maps, concentrated on good Axis vs. Allies air combat.  The more similar it is to the MA, the lower the chance of it being reasonably popular IMO.

Lephturn

[Sabre]

No need to feel sorry, Bullet.  It was not aimed specifically at you, though your comments were freshest in my mind.  And no one ever said it would be easy.  However, I think it's a goal worth fighting for.  As for not getting to passionate about it...well, when you're fighting a tough historical precedent you have to be.  Telling me not too will not kill my passion.  Indeed, it fans the flames, making me try all the harder.  So, thanks!

You do bring up some valid points, no denying it.  Interestingly enough, lack of base capture was a major complaint regarding the CT, before Pyro asked for volunteers to CM the CT arena.  We also realized there had to be more to it than that.  That's why we've gone to an objective-based theme for the last couple of CT's.  While it's still basicall a "land-grab," which land you grab now makes a difference to whether one side wins or looses.  The idea is to funnel the action along lines that guarantee maximum contact with the enemy.  Because it never leaves one side completely unable fly, those that aren't interested in the strat side of the equations aren't prevented from having fun.  Jury's still out on how much true merit the idea has.

In the mean time, we'll keep plugging away.  Keep the info coming.

[Wotan]

lephturn thats what we had in the ct with the euro map

sector dar
ok flight times (some thought a bit too long but i was fine with it)
friendly icons at normal range
3k nme icons
no strat or field capture

the numbers were no higher then  as a matter of fact I see the same folks now as then.

The thing now is the connection and the buggy terrains.

Even the euro map was buggy more so then stalingrad.

I submit that a good map and a good planset is what will get the most out of the ct.

I liked the original idea of phasing in planes. An rps would be good.

till we get a good terrain could we try the big week map? with aa "rps" sector radar 3k nme icons normal friendly icons and no strat no field capture.

I know weazel is working on the phillipines map but before we put it in circulation can we have it set up in  h2h  for debugging.

a playable terrain, good connection, an inclusive but semi-historical planeset, and good visual cue as to where the fight is.

This will get the guys that actually fly there a reason to spend more of their time there and may drag in a few new guys but it will never have big numbers and if it hurts ya to hear that oh well thats how it is..............

[Karnak]

It'd be kinda fun to have an all out Axis vs. Allies fight.  Have German, Japanese and Italian aircraft on one side and American, British and Russian aircraft on the other side (with the required substitutions) and play it out on a scaled down map of the globe.

That would allow everybody to have "their" aircraft available while still avoiding the Fw190 vs N1K2 problem.

[Bullethead]

Sabre said:

Interestingly enough, lack of base capture was a major complaint regarding the CT

No surprise there.  I blame "Command and Conquer", "Warcraft", and the rest of the never-to-be-sufficiently-damned RTS game genre.  These abominations have ingrained a whole generation with the primary desire to build and crush mighty empires shorn of all historical context, because they think that's the only type of game there is.  The MA is simply an RTS game writ large.  As such, it appeals to all those who cut their computer gaming teeth on RTS games.  Because such are the bulk of todays gaming crowd, that pretty much limits non-RPS models to the fringes.  This is not only within AH, but in the computer gaming industry as a whole

we've gone to an objective-based theme for the last couple of CT's.  While it's still basicall a "land-grab," which land you grab now makes a difference to whether one side wins or looses.

That's a great idea.  I don't recall it having been tried before.  I hope it works .

Other recent suggestions:

From lazs:  Earlybird arena
Yeah, if AW history is any guide, having early planes available without a rotating plane set just means no early planes get flown at all unless one is discovered to be a porked uberplane (like the AW Oscar and P40 were to start with).  OTOH, having special arenas for different types of planes hasn't been too successful, either.  I've seen WW1 and Korean War arenas come and go--they don't seem to fair any better than CT arenas.  OTGH, I didn't like WB's RPS--it so compressed the first few years and so stretched the end that it was largely indistinguishable from not having an RPS.

From Lephturn:  Mixing Axis vs. Allied instead of sticking to 1 theater
The idea of getting a larger number of popular planes has merit, but unfortunately the popular planes are mostly all Allied.  Case in point, the December 2001 TD.  In that, the top 10 fighters, in terms of getting the most kills, were as follows, in descending order:

Spit9, N1, 51D, La7, Spit5, F6F, 38, Typhoon, Dhog, 109g10.

It should also be noted that the top 4 on this list got more kills than the other 6 combined, and even this top 10 is less than 1/3 of all the fighters (including sub-types) available.  IOW, nobody much likes to fly German planes.  It can be argued that having 4 or 5 versions each of FWs and 109s dilutes the contribution of any one model.  However, there are also 3 versions of spits, 2 of which are in the top 10.  And all the FWs taken together don't add up to the score of the spit9 by itself.

So if you go for popular planes, you have to come up with some rather obscure or unhistorical situations for the CT.   Hmm, hypothetical US/Brit vs. Russia in 1945.  Russian invasion of Japanese territory in 1945.  Final stages of the CBI theater.

But the problem with this approach is that it's not much different from the MA.  If you want to have constant fights between spits and N1s, or spits and La7s, you don't have to go to a different arena to find that.

[CRASH]

I logged into the ct last saturday night and within 30 or 45 minutes I had the best 3 or 4 fights of the last 6 months of flyin' the ma.  Ran into Tuck a few times and ended up in some really intense and brutally long dog fights.  I shot down a few and got shot down by a few...had some really long and intense fights. That never happens in the ma, too many people, you merge with a guy get a few turns in and he either dives into a group of friendlies to get away or your countrymen come by and gang on your victim, no chance for any long drawn out battles.  After a couple of those long engagements in the CT I had to go drive vehicles for awhile just to calm down and regroup..I was worn out  Lots of fun and a completely different experience than the MA.  Somebody tell HT that "realism fanaticism has its place"

CRASH

[Bullethead]

CRASH said:

I logged into the ct last saturday night and within 30 or 45 minutes I had the best 3 or 4 fights of the last 6 months of flyin' the ma.  Ran into Tuck a few times and ended up in some really intense and brutally long dog fights.  ...  Lots of fun and a completely different experience than the MA.  Somebody tell HT that "realism fanaticism has its place"

Damn, you hit the all the major conflicts of interest and such in the CT vs. MA debate in a single post .

Long fights in small numbers are a lot of fun and certainly different from the MA.  So that's a plus for the CT.  

OTOH, long fights in small numbers is not what happened in real life.  There is was massive gangbanging whenever possible, the idea being to win while minimizing losses.  IIRC, something like 80% of all kills were blindside bounces against non-manuevering targets, and most days entire air forces, hundreds and even thousands of planes, would go up to fight all at once, in an organized manner, with the attackers doing all in their power to AVOID the enemy's main strength.  That's what's happening in the MA now (much to lazs' regret ) and it's very realistic (except for the mix of planes usually involved).  Yet the CT is trying to be more realistic.  So score one for the MA here.

[NUTTZ]

The connection Is an Issue that needs to be addressed. ( I believe Skuzzy is working on it) I've read threw these post and feel the CT CAN make the grade. It does need to find it's niche and common ground as Sabre said. Strats and GV's IMO need to be in the CT or you just have mindless furballs which sounds like the DA. I have been working making CT maps and Think i have a few that are worthy of the CT. A few tweeks here a few feilds there and i'll be sending it off for review. I've always asked for advice and comments from the players and have asked people into these working maps Via H2H on numbers of occasions. The limited planeset and axis vs. allies is the way to go, as was stated the early planes will be more plyable in the CT than the MA. Maybe the CT never worked, in here or any other game, but i know IT CAN WORK! And theres alot of people willing to help make it work.  Give the CT 6 months then Bump this thread:)


NUTTZ

Originally posted by Lephturn
The connection obviously is an issue, but that will get fixed at some point.

For me.

1.  Make it easier, not HARDER to find a fight.  Forget radar realism... you want numbers in the arena then make it easier to find a fight.

2.  Forget strat.  Strat game is always lame if there are not enough folks.  You can play the strat game in the MA.  There just aren't enough folks in the CT to make it work, at least not yet.

3.  Axis vs. Allies, but with a larger allowed planeset.  The more folks that can find their favourite bird in there, the better.

In short, I don't think it will EVER work if you try to make the CT a "better" MA.  You need to pick something specific and do it very well, and that thing is Axis v. Allied air combat.  I'll deal with somewhat limited radar and lower icon settings as long as I can quickly find a good AvA fight.  Make it easy to do that, and you'll get numbers.  Keep it simple and DIFFERENT from the MA.  I mean no field capture, smaller maps, concentrated on good Axis vs. Allies air combat.  The more similar it is to the MA, the lower the chance of it being reasonably popular IMO.

Lephturn

[AKDejaVu]

My first experience with the CT was to watch the enemy park two CVs off the coast of France and procede to engage in a never ending SpitV vs 109 furball.  Someone came up in a Ju-88 and sank the CVs only to be yelled at by virtually everyone else in the arena.

On top of that, everyone would comment on how much supperior those flying in the CT were becaused they were sooo into realism.  Then they demanded base capture, closer fields and easier fight finding.  I guess because that was more realistic too.

AKDejaVu

[Buzzbait]

S!

Why am seeing posts by guys who don`t want a CT?

Why bother?

AK Deja Vu:  If the last time you logged into the CT was back when it had the Europe map then you are completely out of touch.  I have to smile when you come in here and throw in your two bits just for negativities sake...

Please post if the CT is something you would consider flying with some changes.

Indicate what you think those changes should be and what the existing problems are.  

That`s the advice we are looking for...  Constructive.  

We are not discussing the existence or non-existence of the CT.  We are discussing ways to improve it.  


                                                    Thanks Buzzbait

[Fatty]

Buzz, actually Sabre posted that people who were not interested in the CT were the ones he wanted to hear from, otherwise I'd have stayed out of this thread and he'd have put it in the CT forum.

[Beegerite]

I do fly there on occassion but it's not different enought from the MA arena.  I'm what Hitech called a "Reality Fanatic" and would like more reality e.g. no icons, more realistic flight model e.g. in the olden days the chog would groundloop without proper torque correction.  If we're not going to have the incentive then I would rather have my fun in the MA where things pop a lot faster.
Beeg