Thoughts regarding revamping the strategic system

[AKDejaVu]

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.

The MA is not one dimensional right now.  People are playing with totally different goals in mind.

The main thing the MA is: simple.  The strat is simple, the fighting is simple, everything is simple.  It really needs to stay closer to that than complex.  Not everyone plays AH to participate in "the war".  It is not right to change the game so drastically that they are virtually excluded.

I read the initial post and some others and get the feeling that this is what people are striving for.  I do believe that is not the proper direction.... not for the MA.

Basically, to the author and others:

If you feel AW has brought enough people over to merit a more advanced strat system, then tell them to get their butts in the CT and ask for these changes to be implimented there.  I regularly see 250+ players in the MA with 0 in the CT.

AKDejaVu

[jarbo]

I never claimed the MA is one-dimensional currently.  I think the strategic system could use some complexity.  I want many diffent ways to accomplish base capture objectives.  I was implying that to simplify the MA to "close base fast capture furball with no strategic system" would be very one- dimensional.

Also the CT doesn't have base capture or any objective other than historic matchup fightering.  The strategic system is completely useless here.  This setup is extremely one-dimensional and IMHO contributes to the lack of interest in the CT.

Jarbo

[ 11-14-2001: Message edited by: jarbo ]

[AKDejaVu]

Complexity is the issue.  Some want it in the MA, many do not.  That goes for dogfights and strat.  I think that's the point lazs so ineffectively tries to get across.

The complexity should come from other arenas and events... not the MA.  There is no way to make AH "one arena suits all".

BTW... there is something else that is important to remember.  The numbers playing the game have decided to do so with the current system.

AKDejaVu

[Rojo]

AKDeja, I don't disagree with your assertion that the set up in the MA should not exclude anyone.  I don't believe the bulk of the ideas discussed above would do so, either.  I agree also with Jarbo that the location of the bases is not the issue (never was, in my opinion.  I'm suggesting that the MA can offer more to more people than it currently does.  I used to love to do mass bomber raids on enemy cities and HQ's, but there is now no incentive to do so.  I also think that the addition of trains and convoys allows for a lot of possbilities without taking away from those that simply want to fly around and get air-to-air kills.  That's why they were added in the first place.  

While the above suggestions may go too far in some peoples' opinion, I think there's likely a happy medium that could make the MA a better experience for all.  Remember, air combat is more than shooting other fighters down (other peoples' opinion not withstanding).  As HiTech said in his recent interview, there's a balance he's seeking: Maintian the utmost realism in the flight model, but provide a great gaming experience for the largest crowd possible.

[AKDejaVu]

The main exclusion issues come in with changing strat systems.  Adding to them (as was done with 1.09) is seldomely the same as it only creates additional opportunities.

The one thing I've also noticed is that with the strat additions made to 1.09... there is more furballing than I've ever seen before.  This might be as a result of the AW closure, so its hard to tell, but its obvious that a large chunk of the arena really could care less about any complex game strategy.

As I look at the above suggestions:

*Convoys and trains completely and immediately rebuild whatever they supply (strategic or otherwise): I could care less
*Because goons carry 10 units of cargo that repair everything within a mile, they can drop just one on a town, base, or strategic target, a single goon can resupply any combination of these 10 targets.: A vailid point with one exception.  How long would it take for a single goon to resupply 10 different targets?
*Even if you've completely cut off an enemy base from its logistic support (either through killing strategic targets or through disrupting supply lines), the base rebuilds. This goes the same for strategic targets as well.: This is the one I find completely disrupting.  By being able to disable a base's rebuild, you make it possible to close a large number of bases with a small number of bomber pilots... without having to bother with capturing them.  This is a virtual pandora's box and would be one that should be avoided at all costs.

And the conclusion sums up why this thread is entirely in the wrong direction.

 

The reason why the war doesn’t seem to go anywhere is because it is impossible to cripple an enemy. It is way too easy to rebuild a target. This needs to be changed if we’re going to see a new map for a reason other than a hardware upgrade from HTC.

I'm sorry... but "crippling the enemy"?  Play the game and see what kind of whining is emitted when a country loses both of its CVs.  "If I can't launch from a CV I just log off".  Denial of vision with clouds or darkness: "I don't fight in storms" or "I log off as the sun starts setting."

HTC has avoided anything in regards to denial of resources nationwide.  This is a strategy I happen to agree with.  If that is introduced, the tools are at hand to make things quite misserable for another country.. to the point they can't recover.  Its bad enough now that two countries excelling in one area (numbers) can roll over a third... make it so that you can reduce their resources on top of that and you make it totally pointless for the gangbangee to fight back.

Complex strategy in regards to supply are a good idea... just not in the MA.

AKDejaVu

[jarbo]

Why do you automatically assume that any complexity or change to the strat system would ruin the game in the MA?  You stated that its a possibility that the new strat system increased the furballing action, and is a positive benefit.  Why couldn't additional complexity enhance gaming more, if implemented correctly?  HTC has always been very careful on new additions that they don't destroy the fun.  If it did, they would rapidly change it back.

Jarbo

[lazs1]

"Complexity is the issue. Some want it in the MA, many do not. That goes for dogfights and strat. I think that's the point lazs so ineffectively tries to get across.
The complexity should come from other arenas and events... not the MA. There is no way to make AH "one arena suits all".

BTW... there is something else that is important to remember. The numbers playing the game have decided to do so with the current system."

well deja... It seems that I am not so inefective that you can't get it.   I believe that it is a reading comprehension problem combined with wishfull thinking that makes it impossible for some to understand..   I believe that I am quite clear and to the point.

I can't claim to speak for the majority but.. it is apparent by even a cursory glance into the MA what most people prefer to do.   It is not the furballers who moan and groan that no one participates in furballs... heck, give em a couple of close fields and the furball will be created... No, it is the "strat" weenies that are forever whining about "all they want to do is furball"  "it was nothing burt a big furball" "nobody wants to cooperate, they only want to furball".  It's not me claiming to be in the majority it is the strat guys telling me I am!  

There is plenty of so called "strat" to do right now if people wish to but they mostly...don't... the more complex... the less point to it for those who want to have fun or have limited time.  We are not interested in a stirring game of monopoly.

You may say that we just don't have the "right" strat yet but I believe that is like saying that "communism works... they just haven't done it right yet".
lazs

[Pongo]

I think the two sides in this understand each other perfectly.
The Buccaneers + attatchments gain motivation in the game by using combined and coordinated ops to curtail the enemies ability to resist. They feel that the current strat system advertises this ability but does not deliver on it due to the ease of resuply.

Lazs wants a strat system that gives the strat players things to do without limiting his fun during the limited time he plays a day.

I think both sides have presented their arguments well. I think that a great many players would aggree with lazs if they were presented with a crippled country every time they logged on. Such crippling is very unlikly to be performed by the underdogs but rather inflicted on them.
HT has gone out of his way to present us with a fragile but repairable infastructure. I am sure he is not finished the balancing and discussions such as this will help.

But from someone who is not sure either way, I would say that Lazs represents his concerns well. And they are real concerns.
This is more then just dont drop my hangers..this is about only wanting to play for 2 hours but not wanting to man an ack the whole time cause your fighter factories have been cratered

[Rojo]

The main exclusion issues come in with changing strat systems. Adding to them (as was done with 1.09) is seldomely the same as it only creates additional opportunities.

Version 1.09 brought the possibilities for more opprotunities; however, one could argue that the strat changes in 1.09 (as currently implemented) actually took away opportunities.  I point to the lack of interest in HQ and city attacks.  

 

its obvious that a large chunk of the arena really could care less about any complex game strategy

I would be cautious before making broad statements like this with only empirical evidence to point to.  It's also possible that we have more furballing because there's no point with the current strat system to do anything else.

You will always be able to find a furball, and I'm glad.  There are times when I have a half hour to kill (pun intended), so I up at a base close to or right in the middle of a fight.  The question is not "should I be able to close an enemy base."  We already can close them and close them completely.  In fact, what I've suggested above could never close an enemy base by itself, nor prevent it from engaging in a point defense of that base.

The remark about communism is simply inflamitory.  That sad experiment died after being tried repeatedly.  There are those who said democracy would never work either, that the experiment known as the United States of America was doomed to failure.  The difference is that democracy was tried and seems to have succeeded.  It is certainly a more complex scheme than a simple monarchy or dictatorship.  Yet it works pretty good.

Complexity is not inherently bad.  AH is a great game in many respects.  Does that mean we should shy away from anything new?  New aircraft alone will not keep AH vital and improving.  Let's try different things.  If the majority finds those changes detract from the game, they will make their voices heard and HTC will heed their call.  They will heed it because that's the only way to make their business grow and last.

Oh, and Pongo: Great to hear from you on this.  Please understand that neither I or anyone above has suggested that aircraft choices should be limited in any fashion by hitting strat targets.  That would be disasterous! Smashing hangers and (for bombers) ammo bunkers at the base (as we do now) should be the only way to prevent aircraft from launching, in my opinion.

[ 11-14-2001: Message edited by: Rojo ]

[AKDejaVu]

Version 1.09 brought the possibilities for more opprotunities; however, one could argue that the strat changes in 1.09 (as currently implemented) actually took away opportunities. I point to the lack of interest in HQ and city attacks.

Actually... I agree with this and said as much early in the thread (in regards to dar).  But overall... strat has increased greatly.

As a rule, the only real reason people attacked factories in previous versions was a low risk perk point boost or attack stats boost.  They've always been a somewhat minor part of the MA and strat.  Not much was lost there.

As for DAR... I do agree that re-supply should not be possble there.  But that really only buys you 15 more minutes or so... so once again... no big deal.

But then, this thread wasn't just adressing those things.  A handfull of people <or squad> want to more drastically affect the outcome in the arena.  There is a clammoring for a means to do this.  That is a bad idea.

AKDejaVu

[Preon1]

I'd like to point out the situation that brought us to this debate:  Our joint bomber offensive was going to target enemy infrastructure and then hit the HQ.  This would allow us to attack multiple rear area bases with a low probability of somebody responding.

In the past, this was a goal that we could accomplish.  Yes, hitting the HQ would normally only give us a half hour in which to work before we had to hit it again...  however, if we attacked the city, that would increase the time it would take for the HQ to be rebuilt.

I don't mind if plans like this are foiled.  I don't mind if an HQ can be rebuilt...  but an operation like that takes some serious cooperation, timing, and communication.  It also takes numbers and time.  What a shame if that operation can be foiled by a single goon pilot with a pack of base rebuilding crates, or a single train that just happens to show up 30 seconds after the bombers pass overhead.

[AKDejaVu]

Umm.. preon1... you do realize you've just tried to justify that you should be able to do the same thing over and over and over again.

Strat is figuring things out.  Adjusting to the environment.  Predicting the unknown and preparing for it.  Work on that.  Using "we can't do it the way we used to" does not demonstrate an incredbile understanding of strat in general.

I don't mean that to be a knock.  But when the same old thing won't work... time to figure out something new.  THAT is strategy.  THAT is what made some generals famous.

AKDejaVu

[Rojo]

Strategy is figuring out how to limit an enemies freedom of action before the battle is joined.  Preon1 understands this very well.  What you refer to, Deja, is tactics.  What Preon1 was lamenting was that the strategic infrastructure in AH has no practical purpose in the AH main arena.  Why we hit a target is strategy; how we hit a target is tactics.

[AKDejaVu]

I stand corrected.

Irregardless... this thread is basically a complaint that the game isn't as predictable as it used to be.

AKDejaVu

[Preon1]

Unpredictability is a good thing.  Being unpredictable is what allows a group of 5+ pilots thinking strategically to take bases.

My only problem with the system right now is that there are no effects that last more than 5 minutes.  If there are going to be targets with strategic value, then that implies a reason for me to hit it.  However, if I'm going to spend an hour on a mission that involves me risking my neck on a high altitude incursion behind enemy lines where I'll probably get popped by a 262, there should be a benefit that lasts longer than the time it takes me to land.

The fact that the enemy can trail me in a goon and undo my work nullifies the worth of that risk.  Instead of enjoying the full spectrum of possibilities in the MA, I am forced to conduct a time management exercise and realize that I can accomplish more in a furball than I can in the enemy's rear.

If there's no point to attacking the target in the first place, then why spend the time?  or why take the risk?  If your response to that equates to a "so what? it's your problem", then I must ask why these targets are there in the first place?