Thoughts regarding revamping the strategic system

[Preon1]

Sabre,
Sweet ideas.  I think however, if HTC is going to make the city the main marshalling point for the entire train structure, then they may have to model a larger city.  (Ofcourse that could be the buff pilot in me hungering to drop more 4k bombs on dense paper targets worth lots of perks   )

[SpinDoc1]

As a fellow squad mate and friend of Preon, I feel the need to add my simple thought to this post...  The problem may be that there is not enough strategy in the game, not enough variables to contend with. But you'll find that in all games, you can't please everyone.  I feel the problem is in the mentality of the players. It's a thing called INSTANT GRATIFICATION that is getting people all riled up.  What do I mean by this?  In real life pilots flew for hours before they ever reached a target sometimes. I know it's not feasible to do this in the game we play, but how about less bases, and making maps a little larger. That way you wouldn't get to just take off and end up in a furball 2 minutes outside the base. It would take some time to get some altitude... perhaps then we would feel more like pilots than the typical "Counterstrike-esque" players we have become. I hate getting airborne and not even given a chance to get altitude before I have players from an nme base 5 clicks away diving on me. So to add the realism, and keep attracting all types of players to the game, I would move bases a little farther apart, and maybe make the spacing more erratic, not so defined. I agree heartily with all the suggestions to have mathematical formulas manipulating the supply lines and their effect on the country. If anyone remembers, a player made a post a long time ago about the "fluid front" I forget who it was, but this was an outstanding article, basically the same as this one. Good luck AH, and keep up the hard work. All these changes keep us on our toes!

[Preon1]

A lot of these are really good ideas, but I guess the real question is this:

HiTech, do you think any of these are feasible, and if they are, are they marketable?

[Aiswulf]

Geez I sure hope so  

Being an avid "wargamer" myself I can see all sorts of missions that could be developed with that kind of strategy in mind.

Surprised lazs1 hasn't been in here more trying to shoot down an idea totally contrary to his "closer bases" post  

Awulf

[lazs1]

well.... you guys have had your say.  I am of course totally opposed to most of what yu want.  lady wants the bases farther apart.. take off farther back I say.  Others want to affect the enemies ability to make war..  Limit player choice, to sum it up.

I can't speak for anyone else but.... I play an hour or two at night.   I don't give a whit about the grand plan but i do despise having no radar while everyone else does.  I hate having the only useful fields have the silly 25% fuel thng.   I would really hate any of the "board game" silliness that you have all suggested.   I bet I'm not alone.

If you make people log off it don't matter how many anal posters yu get to agree with you.
lazs

[Rojo]

Lazs1 wrote:
   

I bet I'm not alone.

No, I'm sure you're not.  However, from the lack of support for your position in this post I'd venture that you're in the minority.  As for "board game silliness," I can only reiterate that some of us want a purpose to our gaming experience besides just furballing. Nothing suggested above will prevent those who's only objective is to try to shoot others down from pursuing that goal.  No one has suggested limiting plane choice or availability beyond what is already built into the game.  With the coming changes in bomber operations (read the HiTech interview at http://www.wargamer.com  ), the ideas espoused above would give those changes true purpose.

The reason Aces High has more than just fighters is because it is trying to attract the widest player base possible.  This is how they sustain and grow their business, and how they can afford to produce more fighters for you to furball in. Stop biting the hand that feeds you.  If this game had nothing but fighters, with opposing bases always within spitting distance, it would be Fighter Ace...and it would have died already.

[ 11-13-2001: Message edited by: Rojo ]

[lazs1]

rojo... u have apparently not read this thread.  Certainly, you have not read what I posted.   Bases further apart and strat that limits parity and variety and choice along with action does indeed affect me and my ilk.  Bases closer together do not affect you and your ilk unlesss you are willing to admit that you are in the minority and that most people would shun the anal  boredom of board game strat for the fun of simulated air combat.

I would rather see bases closer together and easier captures along with fighters available up until base capture.  I would rather the "front" moved mre rapidly in keeping with the time "normal" guys have to play.   I would contend also that during any peak time you will find that "most" of the players are not participating in the so called "strat" except in a peripheral manner.  I would also contend that 90% of the guys you see playing during peak times do not post to this or any other board but... they do expect action, parity and variety.. they do not want things that are complex or cumbersome or take hours to accomplish.   You got to admit... 99% of us have never read the help files or care about em.  
lazs

[Rojo]

<Sigh> Pearls before swine.  I would engage him in a battle of wits, but it's not fair to fight an unarmed opponent.  Anyone have any constructive comments?

[Aiswulf]

Lazs1 said:
 

I would rather see bases closer together and easier captures along with fighters available up until base capture. I would rather the "front" moved mre rapidly in keeping with the time "normal" guys have to play.  

For someone who promotes furballing over all else why would you even care about a more fluid front line?  That indicates a desire for strategy rather than just some close stable bases in which to furball from.

Regardless of what happens there will ALWAYS be furballs AND strategic attacks.

So suck it up and roll with it  

Awulf

[Preon1]

To be honest, considering that AH is inheriting all the business from AW, we're going to see a lot of changes in the MA (anybody notice that the new max is like 400 something people).

First off, I think the maps will simply get a lot bigger to avoid the crowding that we're already starting to see.  We'll probably still see a furball on every front, but, like now, the furballs won't have much to do with the outcome of the war.

Personally, I'd like to see the outcomes of those furballs decided by the work of a comparatively small number of people working in the supply lines.  That won't end the furball... it'll just move it back a base, in the direction favoring the country with the strategically minded personnel.

Both worlds can live together and affect each other; I'd just like the strategic world to become a little more malleable.

"Amateurs study tactics.  Professionals study logistics." -Napoleon

[mjolnir]

I'm his squadmate so I may be a bit biased, but I think Preon's right about the current status of the strategic targets in the game.  Once upon a time, when you saw a single dot or two heading towards your HQ, people would scramble fighters to intercept them.  Now, people just lift supply goons to reverse the damage done by 20,000 lbs worth of bombs dropped 20 seconds earlier.

I don't have the solution, although I've read many good ones in this thread, but I hope that HT will do something to fix the current situation.  And lazs, this won't hurt your precious furball in the least.

[jarbo]

I would disagree with bases further apart. However, I would agree with a more complex and developed strat system.  I think preon and sabre make excellent arguments here.  I dont want a 1-dimensional game as lazs seems to suggest.

Jarbo

[lazs1]

I think you have missed my point and in rojo's case... are simply poleaxed.   closer, easier to capture bases with no restrictoions on fighters till capture would allow more people to particpate (or seem to).  I have nothing against "goals" if... they promote action rather than destroy it.   "moving back a base" with the current field distance is a disaster for those who only have an hour or so to play and have no interest in some anal, gamey, complex and unrealistic (oops allready said gamey).

Face it... to add strat to such a game as AH you have to make these huge concessions to realism and add all these unrealistic elements to the, comparitively, "pure" realism of FM's, gunnery, and damage models.  Every step towards board game strat is a step backwards in realism.   At least... the ones I have seen so far and the ones suggested so far.   How do you reconcile the fluffs for instance?  They are a joke and you are trying to make em a larger part of the game.
lazs

[lazs1]

mj... of course it will hurt my "precious furball in the least".   If you can cripple a field or 3 so that any fighter action has to fly a couple of sectors or more to engage other fighters then the action will be sporadic and unfun.   This should be obvious...  

 If, on the other hand, the bases are closer together but easier to capture with planes available til the end... the fights will center around the base "capture".  

In you guys case... you depend on forcing people to fly in a manner that they dislike.  In my case people fly any way they want out of choice.  both methods end in "capture the flag" but... those who don't care about the "war" are still having fun while it is happening.  In your scenario... those who like action but have no interest in monopoly have nothing to do but mill around chasing red bars that dissapear or double in size before you can get to em.   Squads who don't want to spend half their time in the towers are fragmented... never seeing squaddies.
lazs

[Rojo]

At the risk of turning this into an anti-Lazs post, I quite frankly don’t understand what the guy’s motivation is.  The vehemence in his posts here and elsewhere, the disrespectful and denigrating tenor of his posts, all points to an unreasonable paranoia that the different ideas being explored above might actually be implemented.  He claims his views represent the majority, and that any move to make the game play more strategically realistic (granted, we seem to disagree on what “realistic” means) would totally ruin the game for this silent majority he claims to represent.  Yet, HTC would not change things in any way that would alienate and drive away a major percentage of their clientele.  See?  There is nothing for the guy to worry about.  So why come in here and disrupt with acerbic language (he uses the word “anal” three times…a fetish perhaps?) a harmless bit of musing by this (at least by his reckoning) minority?  These are suggestions on things that would improve our enjoyment of Aces High.  We won’t convince him of our view, and he won’t convince us, since we’re obviously viewing things through dissimilar paradigms.  

Instead of running our ideas down with condescending language, why doesn’t he instead start his own post on what his ideal vision of Aces High would be?  I would be curious to know, and promise to look at his ideas with a more open mind than he has shown thus far.  And I promise not to use words like “silly” or “anal.” Oh, and lighten up, guy!  Its just a game.