Author Topic: Thoughts regarding revamping the strategic system  (Read 1213 times)

Offline AKDejaVu

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5049
      • http://www.dbstaines.com
Thoughts regarding revamping the strategic system
« Reply #45 on: November 14, 2001, 06:28:00 PM »
Plan to defend the target from resupplying...

That would be the biggest "way" I could think of to prevent something from coming up 5 mins later.

AKDejaVu

Rojo

  • Guest
Thoughts regarding revamping the strategic system
« Reply #46 on: November 14, 2001, 06:33:00 PM »
Just the opposite, Deja. Complexity breeds choices.

Offline Preon1

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 571
Thoughts regarding revamping the strategic system
« Reply #47 on: November 14, 2001, 06:33:00 PM »
Somehow the idea of defending a target deep behind enemy lines that you can't put troops on doesn't seem very tenable... and one which doesn't have any real worth in the long run.

Surely you're kidding.

Offline ET

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 325
Thoughts regarding revamping the strategic system
« Reply #48 on: November 14, 2001, 06:50:00 PM »
Just came out of Mindanao map.Nme hitting our base hard.I bombed their fuel and barracks down after fighting to get there.Fuel and barracks popped up within 5 minutes.Not enough time for a goon to resupply.Automatic train.Tried it again.Same thing happened.The automatic resupply makes bombing useless in Mindanao.
In 1.07 you at least got 1/2 hour relief when you bombed something down.So what do I do.I go furballing.Thats why you got more furballers.
On N-D Isles map which does not have depots on the small islands,you can do some strategic bombing and kill resupply etc.To get it back up,they have to up a C47 and resupply it.If they do,good on them.But the strategic bombing on other maps is just not there at this time due to the automatic resupply.

Offline lazs1

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 996
Thoughts regarding revamping the strategic system
« Reply #49 on: November 15, 2001, 08:33:00 AM »
giving you the ability for crippling a country for hours on end will not force the furballers to participate in the strat... it will force them to log off.  

You guys have used many different words to say "limit the ability of fighters to take off or be useful".   In the end... It all raises a red flag to me tho and all I see is the inevitable outcome of boring 2 or more sector flights (to and from) chasing red bars that go away or double in size by the time I get there.... Actionless drivel... And to what purpose?   Is having fighters spread out in ones and twos across the map "realistic"  is higher alt hide and seek more worthy action than the good ol historical melee?  Of course not.   Is making the gamey and embarassing elements of the sim like fluffs, more important a good thing.  No.

I guess I would ask.... what do you forsee happening if your ideas were implemented?  do you actually believe that those with an hour or two of free time would participate in some boring building smashing "mission"??  Do you not see how at first, people would simply complain of the lack of action that you created and then.... simply begin logging off?   Great for WB, bad for AH.
lazs

Offline Preon1

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 571
Thoughts regarding revamping the strategic system
« Reply #50 on: November 15, 2001, 09:55:00 AM »
In other words, you believe that people fly bombers merely because they like to see the "city building destroyed" message fill the text buffer.  While that IS cool, it's not really enough to get most people to fly bombers.  Personally, I fly bombers because I know if I hit something, (be it a base or a strategic target) I stand a chance at facilitating the movement of that furball into enemy territory and away from mine.

To me, I think a game in which you can use strategy to become more effective has more merit than one in which you simply charge into combat and die simply to charge back in.  We have a difference of opinion here.  Such is life.

Offline lazs1

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 996
Thoughts regarding revamping the strategic system
« Reply #51 on: November 15, 2001, 11:13:00 AM »
well... that was some fancy footwork that "moving the furball" thing but...  You and I both know that not only is "moving the furball" of little concern to you but.. Your suggestions would pretty much destroy any action at all much less... furballs.    

when you blind a country or shut down it's fuel for a major part of the day/hour(s), you are in essence ruining the fun for a large percentage of people who are only on for the short term action.   When you force these same people to take off from 2 sectors away from a fight that may or may not exist by the time they get there.... you force those people to log off in disgust.  

If the fields are closer and easier to close with fighters available till the end then everyone is participating and... more importantly, having fun.   the choices are many.   Join the fast paced and fast moving "front" or... take off from a back field and gain as much alt as you wish, finding like minded folk to fight with, ignoring the peasants down below.   If you don't find anyone to play with then maybe YOU are in the wrong game and maybe it's not best to "force" people to play your way by removing the options for them to have fun.
lazs

Rojo

  • Guest
Thoughts regarding revamping the strategic system
« Reply #52 on: November 15, 2001, 02:01:00 PM »
Lazs, there are so many things wrong with the line you've taken, I simply don't have time to respond to them all.  Let me just see if I understand you correctly.

1) Are you suggesting that there should be no way to disable flight/spawning at fields at all? That destroying fuel tanks, ammo bunkers, barracks, and field radar should not be allowed, so as not to restrict a pilot's freedom in any way up to the moment the last trooper runs in to the map room?

2) Are you suggesting that only fighters should be allowed in the MA?

3) That the only kind of air combat that should be represented or have meaning should be air-to-air, fighter against fighter?

4) That the destruction of any other ground targets besides ack and (maybe) airfield towns should have no affect on the war in the MA?

Help me to understand your position, instead of mindlessly attacking others'.  Your main argument seems to be that anything that prevents you from taking off in the plane you want, from where you want, and carrying what you want is inherently evil.  Yet, aren't you asking those that choose to fly differently and for different reasons, to bugger off?  What about their freedom?  I say again, not everyone logs on to Aces High for the same reason.

So please, to tell me what your ideal vision of Aces High is.  If it has no room for people that like to fly bombers, or to Jabo trains and trucks, isn't your vision the more restrictive one?  

Maybe if all the suggestions above were implemented, it would hurt the player base.  However, I believe many have merit, and could be implemented in such a way as to be an overall enhancement to gameplay in the MA.  I'm at least willing to consider it.  When the current base capture model was implemented (the need to kill every building at the town to capture), there were plenty of complaints: "It's too hard to capture a base now!" "It's too easy to capture a base now!"  We adapted, made suggestions on improvements to HTC, then moved on (yes, even you).  Yet, you seem incapable of believing there might still be ways to improve the overall enjoyment of Aces High's MA.  Again, who is trying to exclude whom?

Offline lazs1

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 996
Thoughts regarding revamping the strategic system
« Reply #53 on: November 16, 2001, 11:05:00 AM »
rojo... I am not your enemy.. it is your grade school reading comprehension teacher who is.

I stated what i wanted.. I would also say that... I would like each country to have one or more large city(s)  when this city(s) is say, 75% carpet bombed to death.... say 10 lanc loads on target, and... that country is down to two fields.... "the blah blah have won the war" message comes up.  Reset..  No crippling anything like radar or fuel or whatever.     I would of course, also like to have seperate "areas" on the map for early, mid and late war fields.   Fields closest together at early area and farthest apart at late area.  Furballers could appear to be part of the strat or.... even join in when it was FUN.   Strat sis... "guys"  could plot and plane and sneak and claim "victory" or plunge to the depths of despair depending on who won/lost the "war".   Action lovers could ignore them or not... depending.   everyone wins.
lazs
lazs

Rojo

  • Guest
Thoughts regarding revamping the strategic system
« Reply #54 on: November 16, 2001, 11:40:00 AM »
"Word"

Offline BlauK

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5091
      • http://www.virtualpilots.fi/LLv34/
Thoughts regarding revamping the strategic system
« Reply #55 on: November 17, 2001, 09:59:00 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by lazs1:
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.

lazs,

There is a very simple solution for you. Since you dont care about the grand plan, the country you play for.. uhh sorry .. the country you play in should not matter either.

Every time you log for your hour or two, you can select the country with lots of players and a working radar. Thus you have your intact bases and furball targets.

Or simply just go to the duelling arena with all those players who agree with you how the gameplay at MA should be.


  BlauKreuz - Lentolaivue 34      


Offline BlauK

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5091
      • http://www.virtualpilots.fi/LLv34/
Thoughts regarding revamping the strategic system
« Reply #56 on: November 17, 2001, 10:07:00 AM »
Preon1,

Excellent ideas. Just disregard the stupid counter arguments.....

Just imagine if chess players began whining about their limited choises when game pieces are lost and the game progresses... "I want to be able to play with my bishops all the way through the game.. it is unfair that you took both my bishops  :("    :eek:


  BlauKreuz - Lentolaivue 34      


Offline AKDejaVu

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5049
      • http://www.dbstaines.com
Thoughts regarding revamping the strategic system
« Reply #57 on: November 17, 2001, 10:49:00 AM »
WTF.. it went in the wrong thread.  Must be God trying to tell me something.

[ 11-17-2001: Message edited by: AKDejaVu ]

Offline Pongo

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6701
Thoughts regarding revamping the strategic system
« Reply #58 on: November 17, 2001, 12:03:00 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by BlauK:
Preon1,

Excellent ideas. Just disregard the stupid counter arguments.....

Just imagine if chess players began whining about their limited choises when game pieces are lost and the game progresses... "I want to be able to play with my bishops all the way through the game.. it is unfair that you took both my bishops   :("     :eek:

Just imagine a chess player that wants to be able to kill the opponents queen first move with one of his rooks.

Offline Drunky

  • Parolee
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2017
Thoughts regarding revamping the strategic system
« Reply #59 on: November 17, 2001, 12:20:00 PM »
For Laz to say that strategy and strat bombing is "unrealistic" is well....unrealistic   :p and they both certainly have a place in AH and the MA.

Obviously bombing and strategy was, and continues, to be effective.  It's not the be all/end all but it certainly is an important element to a balanced war effort.  And unless sublety doesn't work...I am also implying that furballing doesn't win wars.
 
If a person who can only play an hour or two a day wants to furball without strat concerns (the inconveinence of flying a sector before engaging or limited fuel/ammo) then may I suggest that they visit the Dueling Arena or H2H.

That point aside I would like to salute preon and the others <S> for having creative and thoughtful minds to offer innovative suggestions to how AH can get better.  I have been told that HiTech left Warbirds due to a lack of continued improvements (probably an over-simplified explanation) so I really doubt that someone (hint laz) who doesn't want changes will hold much sway here.
Drunky | SubGenius
Fat Drunk Bastards
B.A.A.H. - Black Association of Aces High