Author Topic: Redesign Of Bases  (Read 403 times)

Offline BlckMgk

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 716
Redesign Of Bases
« on: November 17, 2002, 11:05:35 AM »
Since the new Bomber system was implemented, a few have noticed a tapering off of bomber activity.

Suggestions to help increase activity:
1) Centralize all supplies (Ammo/Fuel). By this I mean 2-5 factories of each "type" localized in the mainland of the bases which support all the bases. Removing fuel independent bases. So to effectively disable a countries fuel/ammo you'll need to bomb these factories, instead of the bases. Hardness would be increased and size also, to make them that much more difficult to destroy. As far as captured bases, you'll need to take over the factory which controls those particular bases (i.e. Pizza Map, but move control to factory, not bases), or a constant Goon Supply will be needed to make them operational. Factories should have a ground vehicle capabilities, as well as manable flak guns, and their anti-aircract airtilery numbers should be increased. Maybe even allow base/factories to increase the number of guns by flying "Parts and Mechanics" so defenses may be built.

(***edit*** After reading I do know this would mean total redesign of all maps, which may make this just a pipe dream, but just wanted to know I do understand the effort that would take to make changes of the sort ***edit***)

2) If supply lines are destroyed towards a particular base, they go on an "Attrition" plan, and counters are implace to show how much fuel/ammo is available before fuel/ordenance goes to 75%, then 50%, then 25% (Gallons or None available for Ord). This would be better implemented in the new "mission" arena, not in the Main arena.

Other suggestion that was mentioned above.
Allow bases/factories to have a particular "upgradeability" to strengthen front lines, this would help create more activity for those willing to setup defensive plans, instead of only offensive plans. Thus.. those bases which are just captured will not be at their full strength, and will be vulnerable to a counter attack. Though a mission planner could allocate Goons with supplies to help aide after capture. So thus not only would you need to capture a base, but you'd need to make it operational to make a "succesfull" capture.

---
Just some things that were brewing in my head, Thanks For reading, and comments/interpretations are more than welcome.
-BlckMgk
p.s. If I should post these ideas somewhere else, other than the General Discussion (they may be over run by flames/whines) let me know.
« Last Edit: November 17, 2002, 11:07:37 AM by BlckMgk »

Offline lazs2

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24886
Redesign Of Bases
« Reply #1 on: November 17, 2002, 11:32:49 AM »
you aren't talking about "bases".... you are talking about airfields.  The only thing you wish to affect is.... "airfields"...fighter planes ability to play the game.    So... what you are saying is that.... without fighters you are nothing and.... you can't think of any way short of interfering with the fighters to get the fluffs in the game.    "force" people tp play with you.
lazs

Offline Urchin

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5517
Redesign Of Bases
« Reply #2 on: November 17, 2002, 11:41:10 AM »
I'd like to redesign the fields to.  I'd like to put the fuel bunker things under about 8,000 feet of reinforced titanium armor, and spread them out so that one suicide tiffie can't pork 50% of the fuel in one suicide run.

Offline SELECTOR

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2742
      • http://www.332viking.com
Redesign Of Bases
« Reply #3 on: November 17, 2002, 12:18:01 PM »
as i have said in the past... more factories... maybe facrories for specific units.. like a la7 factory or a b17 factory , kill it and no more of that type untill re build..but make them big , big enough so at least 10 fully loaded lancs would have to hit direct to kill. say 25 town sizes..

Offline Shane

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8039
Redesign Of Bases
« Reply #4 on: November 17, 2002, 12:23:19 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by SELECTOR
as i have said in the past... more factories... maybe facrories for specific units.. like a la7 factory or a b17 factory , kill it and no more of that type untill re build..but make them big , big enough so at least 10 fully loaded lancs would have to hit direct to kill. say 25 town sizes..


no thank you.  that's 4 people who can screw up multiples of #'s of people's fun - made easier when one side is being overwhelmed.  make a factory that gives beaucoup points to buffers without it having a detrimental effect on one's side, after all, with the endless respawning, for most fighter pilots, it's all about the joy of seeing a target blow up, make it the same for buffs... it's the joy of a successful drop, seeing bldgs blow up.

Surrounded by suck and underwhelmed with mediocrity.
I'm always right, it just takes some poepl longer to come to that realization than others.
I'm not perfect, but I am closer to it than you are.
"...vox populi, vox dei..."  ~Alcuin ca. 798
Truth doesn't need exaggeration.

Offline BlckMgk

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 716
Redesign Of Bases
« Reply #5 on: November 17, 2002, 12:30:43 PM »
Lasz have you had difficulty sometimes expressing what you want to others? It seems you fail to see what I'm getting at. This idea of course would be more suited for the MISSION ARENA (If implemented down the road). Since the mission arena would be more goal oriented, and more along the lines of a WORLD WAR 2 SIMULATION (Yes World War includes EVERYONE), not an Air Combat Furbal Sim (JUST YOU, and your FIGHTER).

This is to make Stragety much more effective and incorporate one of the biggest influences of WW2 THE BOMBER, which is what gave the fighter pilots a Reason to fly a Fighter. To actually organize and execute an attack to its fullest would be worthwhile. (For me Atleast)

Though I do like furballin (when I'm not getting shot down, and Numbers are on my side) Its just gets pointless after the 5th hour or so.

The goal of the "redesign" was to focus, bombers into a strategy. I do see what you mean that " You just want to get people to play with you" because effectively you'd need to protect the factories, so that you could eventually have fun. And to that I point you to the comment above about the War sim.

And let me ask you, if we fly 45 min out of our way to Ruin YOUR fun, why not just take 5 min out of your Busy furballin to grab a g10 and splash us out of the sky, thus your fun won't be Ruined. I'm sorry if every minute of your time isn't spent furballing between two bases.

-BlckMgk

Offline Karnak

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 23048
Redesign Of Bases
« Reply #6 on: November 17, 2002, 02:50:47 PM »
Redesigned strategic targets will be introduced in the next version.  Targets designed with the new bomber method in mind.

Once that is done all that is needed are some gameplay changes.  HTC has been totally silent on thai, but that does not mean changes aren't comming.

My recommendation is for cities and factories (excluding the HQ complex) to not be resupplyable.  Cities and factories build and supply military bases, not the other way around.  There is a huge, massive disincentive to bomb targets that have marginal effect on the game when you know that a bored goon pilot will have it full repiared before your B-17 or Lanc lands.

The effect of strategic targets (other than the HQ) being damaged or destroyed should be more noticable, but how is highly debatable.
Petals floating by,
      Drift through my woman's hand,
             As she remembers me-

Offline lazs2

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24886
Redesign Of Bases
« Reply #7 on: November 17, 2002, 03:21:03 PM »
killing a fluff is not worth 5 minutes of my time... killing them is like playing a boxed game except that one of the 30 crew members is some mouse weilding strat guy..  not worth my time.   And why should I be 'forced" to kill fluffs?  it doesn't make my online experiance any better it is merely a "chore"... worthless pandering to a group of people who can't or won't play on equal terms.  

perhaps when the 163 is modeled i may rocket on up once in a while to kill the mostly drone gamey  fluffs if it doesn't take to much of my time.

Why don't you simply advocate large/huge cities that, once destroyed, end the "war"...  much more realistic.   Leave the fighters to do as they please.   Even Germany had no shortage of fighters till the end.   Why force people to pay attention to you?
lazs

Offline Taiaha

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 222
Redesign Of Bases
« Reply #8 on: November 17, 2002, 03:41:22 PM »
OK, all great suggestions. But before we debate what should be done about cities, effect of buffs on bases etc., let's address the original question: declining numbers of people flying buffs.  Does anyone know if 1.11 is going to see fixes for all the many bugs and problems besetting buff formations?

In no way do I want to go back to the pre-1.10 days with the bombing.  Much as I hate to admit it, Lazs and others had a point when they talked about how ridiculous it was to have one Lanc close an entire base.  (Of course, now that has been replaced by the gangbang Tiffie-dweeb mission, but that's another story).  And even as someone who flys buffs (although with a steadily declining frequency since the last release) I don't want bombing simplified in any way.  If I'm patient, and plan, I can get good alt, and do a reasonable amount of damage even from 20-25K.  The system takes a little getting used to, but it's not that hard.

Before any of this stuff about cities and strat changes gets addressed, the buffs themselves need to be fixed.  It's simply not worth my while taking up a formation when I know that the first plane that pings me is more than likely going to bring down two of the ships in my flight, if not all three.  I've lost count of how many times this has happened to me.  And on the other end of gunsight, as a figher pilot attacking buffs I know that if I get one I can almost always get a bonus kill; and it often happens that hitting one plane results in the spontaneous destruction of all three.  It's not the godlike powers of buffs we need to worry about, it's the godlike powers of attacking fighters!  There doesn't seem to be any predicatable reason that governs any of this behavior (what part of the aircraft is hit, what kind of plane is attacking, which position I'm in) and as someone who is reasonably serious about their flying (which is not to say I'm good at it!) if I lose the ability to know with any degree of certainty the performance of my plane in a variety of conditions, it's a waste of time flying.  Imagine the hell that would be raised if 109G-10 pilots found that their right wing spontaneously shed control surfaces as soon as they were attacked?  This is the kind of lame-ass behavior that buffers put up with all the time, and little indication that I've seen that anything is being done about it.  

And because of this, it really only leaves a couple of options if buffs are to be used in the main arena: a) if you are lucky you will avoid fighter attacks completely; b) a mass raid where some other poor bastard will get attacked not you, and he will suffer the random damage, the pea-shooter guns, etc; c) or, the preferred option for many, the low-level suicide run into a hotly-defended enemy base--because if the buffs are now modelled in such a stupid way, why not use them in a completely stupid fashion?  It was the announced intention of HTC when 1.10 came out to foster more realistic behavior on the part of buffs.  That goal has to be judged a complete failure, at this point.

Not flying buffs has absolutely nothing to do with the bombing model, the strat system or anything else.  For me it's simple: I want the same expectations to be realized that I have when I get into a fighter: i.e. that when I get into a plane,  whatever happens will be the result of my skill (or lack thereof) matched against the skills of those I meet.  

So, behind the whine is actually a serious question: has anyone heard if these kinds of things are going to be addressed in 1.11? But hey, even if the aren't, at least we're getting the 163. :rolleyes:

Offline bowser

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 317
Redesign Of Bases
« Reply #9 on: November 17, 2002, 04:06:04 PM »
"...Why don't you simply advocate large/huge cities that, once destroyed, end the "war"... much more realistic. Leave the fighters to do as they please. ...".

Good idea actually.  Fighter hangers could be moved away from the bomber targets...cities, factories, etc.  Bomber/strat guys can win the war without necessarily interfering with the fighter/non-strat guys.  Seems fair to both sides.

bowser

Offline Ecliptik

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 515
Redesign Of Bases
« Reply #10 on: November 17, 2002, 04:26:12 PM »
Quote


Then why do you play Aces High and not just some net games in IL-2 or something?

I play AH precisely FOR the large-scale strategy where what you do can affect the entire war.  That's the POINT.  AH is like a big war game where everyone plays a small part, and the object of the game is to defeat the opposing nations.

If there are people who want to have no part in this, and simply want to fly around "quake-style" in a large aerial playground where outcomes don't matter on any larger scale, but for some reason they still want to pay $15 per month, the dueling arena is right next door.  :p

Offline FDutchmn

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1114
Redesign Of Bases
« Reply #11 on: November 17, 2002, 04:30:21 PM »
wasn't this the depot we used to have?

Offline BlckMgk

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 716
Redesign Of Bases
« Reply #12 on: November 17, 2002, 07:29:23 PM »
But the depot didn't effect any airfield directly, it was just another factory/object to be captured.

Great for milk runs though :-)

Offline lazs2

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24886
Redesign Of Bases
« Reply #13 on: November 17, 2002, 09:53:00 PM »
the fact that you have to avoid fighters is not such a bad thing... it is highly realistic.  unescorted bombers shouldn't be mixing it up with the fighters in any case.   Fluffs should have thier own targets... large cities to carpet bomb.... maybe large enough formations could cause firestorms in the residential areas?
lazs

Offline Shiva

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 966
      • http://members.cox.net/srmalloy/
Redesign Of Bases
« Reply #14 on: November 18, 2002, 09:16:00 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by lazs2
you aren't talking about "bases".... you are talking about airfields.  The only thing you wish to affect is.... "airfields"... fighter planes ability to play the game.    So... what you are saying is that.... without fighters you are nothing and.... you can't think of any way short of interfering with the fighters to get the fluffs in the game.    "force" people tp play with you.


It depends. Sometimes you're playing with them.

For example, last night, the knights were getting pounded at 42; there was a steady stream of rooks from 43 that were doing their best to keep the defenders at 42 low and slow and out of options -- if they backed up to 32 to get alt on the rooks, the additional flight time would let the rooks run roughshod over the field. So I backed up to 32 and took a formation of B-17s up to 13.5K and went south, taking out the west-side fighter hangars, then extending for about a third of a sector, turning back, recalibrating, and taking out the last fighter hangar, giving about 8 minutes of the field being closed to fighters. I lost one bomber after drop to a N1K2 that had climbed up to catch me, but shooed him off smoking, and pinged a 109 enough to discourage him a while later.

I landed and took a supply goon from 32 to 42. By the time I landed the supply goon, the knights had been able to take the respite from the steady stream of rooks from 43 to collect themselves and mount a jabo-based attack on 43; by the time I got my A-20 to 43, paratroops were already dropping on the town. So by m y buff run against 43, I reversed a defensive engagement and increased the fun my fellow knights were having.

It all depends on what you're aiming to do. With the current target setup, a single bomber formation isn't going to be more than a nuisance to anything but a small field or vehicle base -- but if properly applied, that nuisance can be very useful to your countrymen who want to play in fighters.

But, then, lasz, from what I've seen, if a bomber attack caused one iota of reduction in your ability to furball the way you want to, it's unconscionable interference, no matter how many people in fighters on the other side are happy with what the bomber did. And that's the fundamental problem with your attitude -- AH is a game with opposing sides; something that screws you over may be eagerly desired by the other side.

Because of the way that the game is set up, the ways that bombers historically attacked enemy air operations don't work. The strategic supply mechanism is broken, so attacking supply doesn't do anything -- a field's resupply of pilots, aircraft, parts, fuel, and ordnance are impossible to stop. The mechanism for equipping aircraft is unrealistic -- a field with half its fuel supply destroyed can only fill a plane's tanks to 50% -- but you can still fuel an infinite number of planes to 50%, regardless of the plane type, so a Bf-109E gets 200 liters of fuel, while a B-17G gets 5,300 liters of fuel. Aircraft availability is all-or-nothing -- planes are kept in indestructible underground bunkers from which they are teleported to the surface to take off, freeing pilots from the necessity of taxiing to the equally indestructible runway (although adding crater effects wouldn't impact fighters much, since most WWII fighters could take off from grass fields) from their hangars or revetments. Pilots that are 'killed' or 'captured', or bail dozens of miles from the nearest base are instantly returned to their field, where another plane is instantly available to them.

Quote
Why don't you simply advocate large/huge cities that, once destroyed, end the "war"... much more realistic. Leave the fighters to do as they please. Even Germany had no shortage of fighters till the end. Why force people to pay attention to you?


Do you really want a more historically-accurate strategic underpinning? Yes, Germany's fighter production continued to rise until the end of the war, but how many of those planes could they arm, fuel, and put in the air over a week of air ops? When a veteran pilot was killed, how much actual flight time did the new pilot that replaced him actually have before arriving at his unit? How would you like to fly from fields where the field had 10,000 liters of fuel -- for the entire day -- and when it was used up, there wouldn't be any more unless someone flew in more in goons? How would you feel if, after having been shot down and killed, the next few times you took off the game would apply random control inputs to simulate you're being a pilot fresh out of the Luftwaffe's training program with all of 30 minutes flight time in a real plane?