Stratos and the Quakers

[Kweassa]

Not inteneded to start a flame, just a question out of curiosity and good will here.

 I've always liked the 'historical' aura and immersion factors of simulation games whether be it a strategy game, first-person shooter or flight simulations. To me the fun factor is 'history in the second-hand experience' itself, (of course, within certain boundaries and limits of gameplay) and always considered AH would be 'best played' in that manner. Missons, organizations, maybe a bit of loose 'rank' concept to implant a chain of command etc etc..

 However, I fully understand these are just my preferences and many find it either agreeable or distasteful. There is a lot of antagonism between the "Stratos" and the "Quakers" yet with a bit of common reasoning it could be held in control. I tend to disagree that those two different views on Aces High can ever be 'compromised'.. since if it could be compromised there wouldn't be the sort of nasty board-bashin' in the first place.

 What I am curious is about the .. um.. "Quakers" (sorry if this name offends you.. I just find it a nifty knickname for the two sides.. ) is.. what are your fun factors, and if you would turn from the strategic aspect of the game, why?

 I've heard a lot of people mention they haven't the time to play such long sessions.. and I guess that makes sense. Would there be other reasons? Maybe the fun factor lies in fighter combat itself for them?? (But even so, I've always thought many aspects of the fighter combat itself is within terms of cooperational operations. Could it be then the 1 vs 1 sort of 'dueling' encounters that excites folks more?)

 What do you guys prefer and why?

ps) and let's try not to flame others for their prefs. in this thread.. I'd just like to here many voices on this issue.

[Wilbus]

I'ma fighter pilot, hardly fly anything else and don't care all too much (most of the time) about field capture although I of course try and help out if needed, I help out all the time by keeping fighters down but I'm not the one that push on for field captures.

I just love the skill required for fighter vs fighter combat, more (at the moment) skil required for fighters then bombers, maybe I'll start flying buffs more in 1.1

[eddiek]

I personally fly fighters with a mind toward pure A2A about 95% of the time, but.......I know others do things their own way, and that's alright.  
Too many people take any news from HTC and automatically take it to the extreme, without giving HiTech and Pyro and the others there at HTC credit for thinking things through before they add a plane or a gameplay feature.
HiTech told me on the phone that all decisions made take into account all sides involved, and don't just cater to the furrballers or the strato folks.
I wish you folks would give these new features a chance before all these predictions of doom and destruction are made.

[Shift]

I love AH  I think that it is a brilliant well thought out and planned game, there are so many things you can do, including speacial things like scenarios.

When playing the game I am also a fighter pilot. I too love it when you work for a kill and it pays off. another big aspect of aces high is meeting people and talking to them. I think it's fantastic that you can meet such good  people and laugh around with them, while your fighting in the skies.

Ah high also provides a wide variety of new things to learn and try out, e.g. learning every single plane in Ah would take you a life time sotheres allways something else for you to do ,allways a new challenge.

Shift

[lazs2]

There arent many people up high and the ones that are arent very skilled... not much fun to fight.   They generally flyu planes that arent good dogfighters anyway.   It takes way to long to get up there for the reward of fighting said planes.   The planes perform better down low.   It is anoying to bother to work your way up to a stratto only to have him run away if he even thinks you might be approching an equal E state.   Not worth the effort when there are so many good fights close at hand.
lazs

[Hristo]

Immersion and, as Santa once said, role playing.

[Zippatuh]

Recently my online time has dropped considerably in the past 3 or so tours.

What do I want in my hour session of only 15 or so total for a tour?  I want my heart to start thumping.  I want sweaty palms, sweaty underarms, and blood warming combat.  When my session is over I want to be worked up physically to the point I feel I just got home from the gym.

I want the adrenaline rush tapped straight into my veins.  I want the sigh of relief from making it out of the situation that had odds of 3/1 against.  I want things to go boom and break apart as many times as possible in that hour.

What do I want?  I want to log the session with a smile and a sigh from an hour-long orgasm.  That’s what I want.  Whether I’m a strato or a quaker all depends on what the moment decides.

[Tumor]

I do it all.  The team-effort thing is more fun "for me" when possible.  I'd get more into furballing "IF" you didn't have to worry about seeing the same ole airframes ad-nauseum.  Actually, I usually try and get a little of both on all my flights, but I do stay fast and safe.. err, when the heat of the moment doesn't take over

[Don]

>>(But even so, I've always thought many aspects of the fighter combat itself is within terms of cooperational operations. Could it be then the 1 vs 1 sort of 'dueling' encounters that excites folks more?) <<


Kweassa:
I think there is a built in conflict for many here. If a group of guys within a country decide to capture a base, that becomes the focus. If a group of guys wants to furball, then that is their focus. However, they do the latter in the MA rather than in the dueling arena. Enter the conflict. The attack and capture guys want, and expect the furball guys to help with the effort, for the greater glory of the country; the furball guys simply want to furball, perhaps pad their K/Ds or have fun. I am sure that for many, it's a day to day thing; some days they want to do one over the other.
To capture is a cooperative venture, to furball should be more cooperative than it is. I think the goals of the participants differ, and everyone wants to do their thing in the same place, the MA. The dueling arena isn't used much in comparison, nor is the CT, yet both arenas are suitable for alternative forms of gameplay. In this case, the saying: "if you build it, they will come" is a bunch of malarky
The thing about AH is, it is designed to have a lil something for everyone. As a consequence, we ahve all types of folks who fly/play. I don't agree with the Realism crowd, as I have said before, "this aint real". But, even if a person wants to fly/play as if it were real, I think he/she can do that too. However, human nature kicks in and you get the unplanned for eg. guys with attitude; with strategic attitudes, with tactical attitudes; with cowardly attitudes; with brave and honorable attitudes etc. etc.
Hell, I can't even get consensus among my own squadron at times  I just don't think this kind of sim is ever going to be one way or the other. But I also realize there are always going to be those who will try or want it to be their way.

[xHaMmeRx]

I guess I'm a quaker, even though I don't live in Pennsylvania

My thought process in choosing where to fight is fairly simple:  I look for a big red bar with a slightly smaller or equal green bar.  I don't want to be a part of or victim of a gang bang.  I do want to find a fight when I get there, where ever there may be.  Sometimes (actually, fairly often), this is where we are either attacking or defending and it is right in line with what the strat folks think is important.  Sometimes it isn't.

What often amuses me about the strat folks is that their thinking isn't very strategic.  It is very goal oriented.  Granted those goals may be in line with the best way to win the map, but they often fail to look at the big picture.  For example, if the quakers stop fighting and come help capture base X, where are all the enemy the quakers were fighting going to go?  They are either a) going to take your nearest now undefended base or b) going to come defend the base you are trying to capture.  Either course of action is going to deter the goal of obtaining a reset.  

Another example is when the reset is near.  We lead the Pawns (name changed to protect the innocent) by 2 bases and need to capture 2 bases from the Queens to win.  The cry goes up:  STOP FIGHTING THE PAWNS AND HELP WIN THE RESET!  or IF EVERYBODY COMES SOUTH, WE WILL WIN!  Well, if everybody stops fighting the Pawns, the Pawns capture 1 of our bases and now our 2 base lead is gone (they got one, we lost one).  And, if the Pawns are smart, they capture another base and let us finish off the Queens and they (Pawns) win the reset.  

My final observation is how often I see calls for help at a base (for either capture or defense) and, when I look at the map, I see a huge green bar over a tiny red one.  I'm not going to stop what I am doing to rush there because someone is having feelings of inadequacy.  

I guess my point is the next time you think someone isn't contributing to your success, take a look at what would happen if they left what they were doing and came to where you were.  If you really think it through, you might find that just about everybody is contributing to the overall success.

HaMmeR
netAces.org - Info, Tactics, and More!

=GHOSTS=....You Will Believe!