give field-capture-minded players a reason to shoot others down!

[ccvi]

In the current MA there's almost no reason for field capture minded players to shoot others down, except when defending a base, e.g. beeing vulched while upping to kill the goon. But not even shoot down those that are trying to rtb, or they'll be back twice as fast.

When attacking it isn't a good idea to attack nme ac either, except when vulching. This kind of fight requires 'enough' players on the attacking side, and is boring for the defenders, too.

If the attackers don't have the numbers to keep the enemy planes from the target field down by vulching, it is a bad idea to kill them when trying to take the field anyway. If they're dead, and won't get vulched to often, they'll take off again. When they do, they're the biggest threat because they're close to the town - killing goons. Better tactic is to let them live, chase them, let them chase you, make them fight, but make them fight somewhere else than low over the town. This rewards good flying with a field capture, but not with kill marks on the plane.

The only solution to this I can think of (if adding a respawn timer is not an option) is to move the tactically/strategically (which? someone please give a definition of these terms) most valueable targets (currently: towns of airfields) away from the fields. This can be done in two ways:

a) Move the towns away from the fields. Maybe even add a few more towns to the fields, in the direction of every other field, half way there. If one town is captured, the field changes sides (and all other towns of that field, too). This also would allow GV battles between the towns. Furballs would no longer be over fields (vulching one side) but between them.

b) add something between the fields, which ensuresa field capture, if one side manages to keep airsuperiority in that area. this could be a vehicle base (maybe add a town, so that it's not that easy to capture), but GVs should spawn very close to the airfields, maximum 2 minutes driving time. This would move the fights to the vehicle bases (maybe disable GV spawn at the hangar, forward spawnpoints only, no GV spawnpoints TO the vehicle field), so if one side manages to keep enme fighters away for 15 minutes (respawn time of the vh), it is almost certain that the airfield will be captured, too. Like a) there would be no reason for vulching and fights develop between the airfields.

[ccvi]

How to merge air to air combat and territory capturing. And how to Give bombers something to hit, that is worth hitting, but is not the stuff the enemy needs to take off to defend.

[SlapShot]

Moving towns away from fields would lead to NOE mania. Any mission that flys Nap Of Earth could snatch fields so fast it would make your head spin.

NOE missions, even with the town as close to the base as it is, is almost impossible to stop if no one sees the flashing base.

With the town being close to the base, and with or without a decent vulch going on, there is always the possiblity of a plane making it up and to the goon to spoil the capture. If the towns were any farther away than they are now, this could never happen.

I have been on many base-taking missions where we get the vulch going, and at the same time, cons start coming into the area from all directions, and there is plenty of fighting to be had, so I don't understand your point ... "In the current MA there's almost no reason for field capture minded players to shoot others down".

Base-Taking Squads are not in it for the "furball" fight. They are into multiple people working together for one objective ... take the base.

It takes different pilots with different skills and different planes to get the job done. With that said, Base-Taking Squads also contain MANY skilled fighters, so when the "fur" starts to fly, they can fight with the best of them. They are usually the "fighter cover", while the JABO pilots, who get a kick out of blowing things up take heavy fighters, drop their ordinance and then join the fight.

Our squad is focused on base taking, and if you look at the stats for all the pilots in the MAW, you will see that we have all shot down ALOT of planes.

I am just a "run-of-the-mill" pilot, but here are my kills from ..

Tour 30 ... 350+ kills in a plane ... 239 in a vehicle
Tour 29 ... 250+ kills in a plane ... 169 in a vehicle
Tour 28 ... 500+ kills in a plane ... 165 in a vehicle

and this a flying with a base-taking squad.

[Karnak]

ccvi,

You are addressing a problem that doesn't exist.  Players that wish to capture a field must destroy the defenders and protect the C-47/M-3.  That is more than enough motivation to shoot down enemy aircraft.  This has been semostrated to me in every single base capture I have participated in.


If you're refering to the suicide jabos, well, they are usually trying to pork the VH, fuel or troops at a base that is trying to capture one of their bases.  They are not used often in base capture attempts.

Kamikaze remains a primarily defensive tactic.

[SKurj]

u might be right Karnak.. but what about them oops i stayedindivetoolong suicide jabos on offence? +)


SKurj

[ccvi]

Originally posted by Karnak
You are addressing a problem that doesn't exist.  Players that wish to capture a field must destroy the defenders and protect the C-47/M-3.  That is more than enough motivation to shoot down enemy aircraft.  This has been semostrated to me in every single base capture I have participated in.

Never ever one of the defenders you shot down on the way to the field later upped while the field was vulched and killed your goon? Probably because we're both flying for rooks

Shooting down enemy aircraft is usually not the best way to protect the troop carriers. It's a lot better to offer them your own 6, and let them chase you away from the field.

Originally posted by SlapShot
Moving towns away from fields would lead to NOE mania. Any mission that flys Nap Of Earth could snatch fields so fast it would make your head spin.

That's already happening on AKDesert with GVs. Can't see a problem with that. It depends on the radar settings anyway. Add radar to todwns. And ground observers, they should be able to see, hear and smell aircraft in those short ranges we think of radar ranges now.
With town buildings made of stone (.509s cant penetrate 1-foot walls), enough bombs are needed to let NOE raids run into problems. buffs usually don't fly NOE.
With field distances twice as long as now and towns in between, the ranges of the field radars can be increased to more real radar ranges  (80 miles would be fine i think).
NOE raids wouldn't be useless in such a setup, they could still pork certain targets at airfields.

Originally posted by SlapShot
NOE missions, even with the town as close to the base as it is, is almost impossible to stop if no one sees the flashing base.

I 100% agree on that point. If noone defends it's impossible to stop an attack. Except if bish do them, they sometimes fail on their own But, if someone sees the flashing, chances of stopping a raid are quite good.

Originally posted by SlapShot
With the town being close to the base, and with or without a decent vulch going on, there is always the possiblity of a plane making it up and to the goon to spoil the capture. If the towns were any farther away than they are now, this could never happen.

Yes, and I think it should never happen. If it is impossible, there's no reason to up at vulched fields, which currently is a valid way to defend fields, expecially when outnumbered. In turn vulching would no longer be a good tactic to keep airsuperiority. Fights would no longer be over the fields but usually between them.

Originally posted by SlapShot
Our squad is focused on base taking, and if you look at the stats for all the pilots in the MAW, you will see that we have all shot down ALOT of planes.

Number of kills is not a measure for good air to air combat. Anyway, how many of those kills should have been scored as GV kills, because ac were still on the ground?


The goal of this game is to take fields. Most fun usally is air to air combat. These two things should be merged in some way.

[sling322]

Originally posted by ccvi



The goal of this game is to take fields.

I dont recall ever seeing this in the manual.  I thought the goal was to have fun.  At least that is what I try to do when I play.  Sometimes that means buffing...sometimes its field capturing...sometimes its furballing...and sometimes its killshooter jousting.

Play the game your way and let others play their way.  Its their money.

[ccvi]

Originally posted by sling322
I dont recall ever seeing this in the manual.

You didn't read the manual.

"Capturing territory through the use of air, land and sea power is the objective of Aces High." (http://www.hitechcreations.com/
click left side "help", "getting started", "aces high game play", http://www.hitechcreations.com/map.html)


If one of two chess players decides his goal is not to kill the opponents king but both knights, how much fun would that be - for both players?

Play the game your way and let others play their way. Its their money.

I'm not trying to tell anyone how to play. I'm just asking for the virtual reality to bend in a way that that those who persue the actual goal of this game can have some of the fun of those that ignore it.

[sling322]

Well...it seems that I have been playing this game wrong for all this time.  I thought the point was to have fun......better brush up on the 'sky-accounting'.  

[Revvin]

I think most of these arguments will be answered by the mission based arena. A much slower more methodical pace where players have to join a mission. No kamikaze's as to score you will have to RTB, no constant respawning at a contested airfield as players have to wait for a mission. Of course if the attackers get near your airfield then the preceeding CAP mission would have failed. It will leave the MA for those who like to take advantage of the game, sometimes not through any malice but because they don't know better or think historically because the MA was never meant to be that.

[SlapShot]

Originally posted by ccvi


Number of kills is not a measure for good air to air combat. Anyway, how many of those kills should have been scored as GV kills, because ac were still on the ground?

The majority of those kills are air-air do to the fact that we blow the VH first when attacking a base.

I get the same rush out of taking out a GV as I do taking out a plane in a dogfight. Both carry the same importance to me when trying to capture a base.

[ccvi]

Originally posted by SlapShot
The majority of those kills are air-air do to the fact that we blow the VH first when attacking a base.

I get the same rush out of taking out a GV as I do taking out a plane in a dogfight. Both carry the same importance to me when trying to capture a base.

Hunting GVs is one of my favourite things, and killing Ostwinds is probably at least as dangerous as air to air combat. But that wasn't my point. I didn't ask how many of those kills HAVE BEEN scored as GV kills, but how many SHOULD HAVE BEEN scored as GV kills, but were scored as ac kills, although at the time of their death they were GVs (sitting ducks on the runway).

[hazed-]

Originally posted by sling322


I dont recall ever seeing this in the manual.  I thought the goal was to have fun.  At least that is what I try to do when I play.  Sometimes that means buffing...sometimes its field capturing...sometimes its furballing...and sometimes its killshooter jousting.

Play the game your way and let others play their way.  Its their money.

there you go.its as plain as a bulgarian pin up.

[hazed-]

Originally posted by ccvi


Hunting GVs is one of my favourite things, and killing Ostwinds is probably at least as dangerous as air to air combat. But that wasn't my point. I didn't ask how many of those kills HAVE BEEN scored as GV kills, but how many SHOULD HAVE BEEN scored as GV kills, but were scored as ac kills, although at the time of their death they were GVs (sitting ducks on the runway).

Allied fighters claimed aircraft on the ground as kills in terms of airframes destroyed and you can bet your bottom dollar if a pilot was in one it was claimed as a true kill.

also in the pacific the japanes made many elaborate hoaxes with fake planes etc in order to make the allies waste their efforts.One documentary i saw said that claims for destroyed aircraft far exceeded the real figures.These claims were still confirmed by allied command as there was no way to know if the aircraft was real or a mock up from the allies point of veiw.

[ccvi]

hazed...

a) proposed changes won't effect furballs in a negative way. actually, by moving the fields out of the line of fire furballs will be more equal for both sides, and with less crippled fields to take off from. that should be more fun than it is now. if your oppinion differs please explain in a bit more detail.

b) though i don't believe your point about those 'kills' beeing scored as air-to-air kills (bomber crews probably got more kills than fighters), you missed the point anyway. slapshot tried to prove with his kill score, that playing the capture the field game gives a lot of opportunities to shoot others down. he's right, but it was my point that there won't be much roughly fair fighting when fields are going to be captured, but vulching.
slapshot, if most of your kills are air-to-air (not air-to-aircraft) during successful field capture attempts please let me know the trick how you prevent the enemy from reupping and killing your goon.