Author Topic: just an idea (Read 944 times)

muckmaw · « **Reply #60 on:** November 22, 2002, 02:23:20 PM »

For what it's worth Shiva, I really like the idea.

You're not going to convince Lazs of anything aside from his concept of what AH should be, "WWII Quake", so I would not bother trying.

All you'll get for your efforts are insults and closed minded- Arguments.

lazs2 · « **Reply #61 on:** November 22, 2002, 03:02:54 PM »

LOL... ok... TWO no talent guys have to milkrun a 'factory'... Their big "effort" is ... is what? patience? and what do they affect for their hour of doing basicly nothing? why, they affect the choice of from 0-dozens of players who had no say....

why 0-dozens? because as you say, "random"... if it stops the production of -4 corsairs nobody would notice for weeks.. If it is La7's or spit 9's... it will cause dozens of people to be pissed... 234? who cares... Spit one? ur kidding?

The whole thing sounds allmost sensible (or at least not immediatly nonsensical) until you look at the actual impact and.... more importantly... the actual benifiet... The impact is ruining the game for a lot of folks who had no say and the benifiet is making a couple of otherwise usless folk feel like they are "contributing" Simply a "you can't ignore me" idea.
lazs

Shiva · « **Reply #62 on:** November 24, 2002, 01:07:42 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by lazs2
why 0-dozens? because as you say, "random"... if it stops the production of -4 corsairs nobody would notice for weeks.. If it is La7's or spit 9's... it will cause dozens of people to be pissed... 234? who cares... Spit one? ur kidding?

You're still not reading what I wrote. Destroying a factory doesn't stop production of a plane, it slows delivery of that plane. Each field has a 'ready launch' capacity that depends on the field size. As long as there are no plane supply disruptions, fields get planes as fast as they're used, as they do now. Disrupt the supply of a plane, and the each field only gets one of that plane per minute. If you and your countrymen aren't taking up that plane that fast -- because you're not trying to up planes on a capped field, or launch more at one time than the field's 'ready launch' capacity, you won't notice a difference. And if you bring your plane back and land, you'll be able to take off in it again, regardless of whether supply of that plane was disrupted. But if you persist in taking off every 30 seconds or so in a plane whose supply is disrupted so you can make contributions to some enemy's vulch streak, then you're going to run out of ready-launch planes of that type, and will have to wait for the next one to be delivered.

So the strategic effect is only going to affect you if you a) insist on trying to get off the ground at a heavily-capped field, or b) try to launch a large-roster mission from a field, and the plane you pick is one whose supply has been disrupted -- neither of which you, by your own admission, are interested in. If all you want to do is play "WWII Deathmatch", you're going to have to be a really inept dweeb to get shot down fast enough after takeoff to be affected by this. Of course, if you are willing to admit here on the board that you're so incompetent a fighter pilot that you do get shot down that fast every time in a furball, then we'll all have a cheap laugh at your expense.

Shiva · « **Reply #63 on:** November 24, 2002, 02:10:45 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by lazs2
It all boils down to.... fluffers want to affect the availability of fighters. They know, or feel they know, that they are nothing if they can't affect fighters.

Okay, lazs, let's carve it down to its bare core. Bombers exist in AH; they will be used against targets. Bomber pilots aren't going to bother spending half an hour to an hour or more flying across the arena to attack a target if their bombing doesn't affect their country's progress toward winning.

You've got a choice. Either you're going to have to accept the implementation of some mechanism that imposes a more realistic/historical strategic effect on the 'rest of the war' from bombing strategic targets, or the bomber pilots are going to continue flying 'dab here, dab there, dab over there' field-pork runs, which affects your furballing immediately and catastrophically. Setting up some abstract 'destroy these strat targets, reset the map' mechanism isn't going to work; that just screws over the fighter pilots in each country who enjoyed the process of capturing fields to win the war by making everything they enjoyed pointless. Why bother having two hundred fighter pilots on your side capturing fields when ten buff drivers and thirty escorts can reset the map?

So make up your mind. If you can't accept an indirect impairment of your ability to fly any plane anywhere any way you want because of strategic bombing, you will get bomber pilots porking fields directly so that you can't fly the way you want. You want nobody to be able to affect your ability to play the way you want to, no matter how many other people object to having to play within how you want to restrict their behavior. Well, there are more of them than there are of you; you're going to get shafted; your choice is getting it as ten feet of curare-dipped wrought-iron fence wrapped in razor wire, or using lubricant and something less... intrusive.

lazs2 · « **Reply #64 on:** November 24, 2002, 09:26:05 AM »

no shiva... it is you who is not looking at this fairly... first off..

spending a talentless hour doing nothing (you could do it with atopilot) should be worth... about that... nothing.

next.. you claim that it wouldn't effect me unless I wanted to launch from a vultched field in a plane that just happened to to be the one that the wheel-o-plane availability ball stopped on? basicly... you have zero effect on fighters or the game 90% of the time... You are advocating that you become worthless. How would the unavailability of say a -4 corsair affect people upping from a vultched field? How are you "contributing"? Why would anyuone care to do anything but ignore you if they knew that there was only a 1 in 50 or so chance that you would make the plane they liked unavailable?

OTOH... my idea of large cities that need to be carpet bombed allows you to have historic targets. It allows you to contribute by "winning the war" in fact... it makes you essential to winning the war as the complete destruction of the city is the criteria for the 'win" and only fluffs could accomplish that. Fighters could still take bases to move closer... Strat potatos and building battlers who lusted for that huge "win the war" payoff of 25 whole perk points would be "forced" to both attack enemy fluff formations and escort friendly fluffs...

Now, you read that and tell me which of us is being more fair and realistic. In fact... which idea gives fluffers the more important role? which idea causes less friction between fluffers and fighters and promotes more teamwork (for those so inclined)?
lazs
Public Relations Officer for the BK's

muckmaw · « **Reply #65 on:** November 24, 2002, 10:18:42 AM »

No matter how you slice it, Shiva, Lazs is a great stick. I've watched him, studied his moves, and learned alot. My ride of coice is the FM2 because of Lazs.

Personally, I think he is offensive, and obnoxious, but that's simply because we butt heads contantly. I know we don't see eye to eye, but I do respect his abilities.

That said, his idea is not half bad. Adding in cities that would be required to be destroyed and invaded, while not attached to a field would be more historically accurate than the system we have now. harden the buildings, and make them large enough so only bombers and tanks could do the job.

I still like Shiva's idea Lazs, too. They can both be implimented. You always said you would like to see more early war planes used (I think that was you).

If you look at my stats, I've logged more time in fighters than anything else for the first time.

As I stated, my ride is the FM2. If we implimented SHiva's idea, and I lost the FM2 availability, I'll go for the F4F, then the F6F, then the NIki.

Tha chances of losing every plane I am comfortable in is next to nill. The same goes for the much more accomplished pilots.

I simply think Shiva's idea will add challenge to the game, some depth, and force pilots to try somehting new.

lazs2 · « **Reply #66 on:** November 24, 2002, 10:55:19 AM »

muck... thank you but I am at best mediocre... My lack of skill is a joke in our squad.. You can't imagine the insensitive and hurtful thintgs my squaddies say about me! The only thing I do well is attract cons and land badly damaged planes... I have no idea why someone as nice as me would cause the former but the latter is due to me having the most experiance in AH at landing badly damaged ac.

as to the idea... it started as an idea but then.... when I questioned it, it became a non idea... sounds good but has no substance... a 1-50 chance that your plane might be inconvienced for a short time at one field? why would anyone bother to prevent that? If you make it so that highly used planes are being screwed over.... It is unworkable... can you imagine the arguements that would insue? make me look like a popsiclecat. The idea is nonsensical when delved into a little deeper... I'm just pointing it out.
lazs

Shiva · « **Reply #67 on:** November 24, 2002, 12:16:40 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by lazs2
next.. you claim that it wouldn't effect me unless I wanted to launch from a vultched field in a plane that just happened to to be the one that the wheel-o-plane availability ball stopped on? basicly... you have zero effect on fighters or the game 90% of the time... You are advocating that you become worthless. How would the unavailability of say a -4 corsair affect people upping from a vultched field? How are you "contributing"? Why would anyuone care to do anything but ignore you if they knew that there was only a 1 in 50 or so chance that you would make the plane they liked unavailable?

Look at the actual bombing offensive in WWII. It was rare that the crews of the 8th AF could see a direct effect from their missions. And Germany's aircraft production continued to rise through the progress of the war. That's why I came up with the strategic mechanism I did -- by bombing aircraft factories, you can have an effect on the front line, but it's going to be a crapshoot, and you're likely not going to see much difference.

But aircraft production and deliver is only one of the strategic targets. You want to get bent out of shape, let's look at the effects of bombing POL (Petroleum/Oil/Lubrication) facilities. While Germany's aircraft production continued to rise throughout the war, once Allied bombing efforts shifted to destroying their fuel supplies, they rapidly started losing the ability to fuel those aircraft.

Quote

OTOH... my idea of large cities that need to be carpet bombed allows you to have historic targets. It allows you to contribute by "winning the war" in fact... it makes you essential to winning the war as the complete destruction of the city is the criteria for the 'win" and only fluffs could accomplish that. Fighters could still take bases to move closer... Strat potatos and building battlers who lusted for that huge "win the war" payoff of 25 whole perk points would be "forced" to both attack enemy fluff formations and escort friendly fluffs...

It's the ideal solution for you -- it guarantees that anyone who's not interested in 'furball über alles" is going to have to go off chasing bombers, leaving you to furball to your heart's content, because a country that has been rolling up the map taking field after field can lose by having a small number of bomber pilots destroy their cities. So the people who are both interested in winning the war and in taking fields get to have their fun ruined by being forced to go off and chase bombers, because their taking fields is completely irrelevant to winning. Everybody who doesn't want to just furball goes off with the bombers, leaving you to furball to your heart's content. At that point, why not just have a separate 'Furball Arena', where the fields are close enough to get into a fight quickly, and bombers, ordnance, and ground vehicles are disabled so you won't have to worry about someone ruining your ability to furball to your heart's content? You get your eternal furball without interference, and we get to stop hearing your eternal whine about "no-talent mouse clickers" ruining your fun.

Quote

Now, you read that and tell me which of us is being more fair and realistic. In fact... which idea gives fluffers the more important role? which idea causes less friction between fluffers and fighters and promotes more teamwork (for those so inclined)?

Less friction? The bombers can end the game for everyone, you're forcing everyone in a fighter who isn't just interested in furballing to either escort or attack them. The first time that a country forces a reset against an enemy with a superior field position by using a small number of bombers to flatten cities, you're going to alienate all the fighter pilots who were attacking and defending the fields. It will turn the average fighter engagement into a [insert plane here] vs. P-51 duel, because picking another plane for an escort won't give you the range you need to protect the bombers. In one fell swoop you functionally eliminate choice of ride for half the fighter pilots. Oh, yes.... much less friction.

lazs2 · « **Reply #68 on:** November 25, 2002, 12:20:34 PM »

Ok..If realism is your goal then you wouldn't be having aircraft factories except in large cities. you also would not stop production on specific aircraft. And it wouldn't be random..you also would not be singlehandedly piloting 3 aircraft... standing in for 30 people. bombers killed cities in WWII they also killed refineries. They didnt kill aircraft production... the real value of bombers, for the allies at least, was the slowing of fuel production and the forcing of LW fighters to come up to get slaughtered... basicly the oppossite of what you want and what I have advocated..

if gameplay is what you are after then... with your idea gameplay changes not one wit... What player, fuirballer or otherwise, would even care about your wheel-o-planeavailability? as you say... it has no effect on anyone... maybe 2% of the time has it's gamey dumb effect on a few people... and if you make it so that specific planes are targeted you will get those advocates screaming bloody murder. you either affect gameplay in a negligable manner or... you ruin it... no other way with your method.

with mine... everything stays the same except that fluffs have historical and important targets to hit... people will still hit bases to get closer to the action... that will still be an advantage for the (cough) "strat" guys... those who wish to stop the bombers will defend bases close to their cities and attack or escort fluffs attacking cities.. Those who like to furball and think the strat is silly will simply go where the best fight is.. No one will be "forced" to do anything. No one will log on and see that the plane they like to fly is not available at any field they want to fly out of...

no matter how you slice it... you want to fly a fluff but you want to be in the fighter war. You seem to feel that without the fighter guys you are nothing. No one will play with you unless they are forced to... no one will notice you unless you ruin their game. as in "whaaa... why can't I fly a spit 9 out of this base again?" "you mean because some fluffer milkran a factory an hour before i got on?" yeah... that'l make you real popular.... they won't be able to ignore you then eh?
lazs
Public Relations Officer for the BK's

vorticon · « **Reply #69 on:** November 25, 2002, 01:27:45 PM »

it wasnt my idea to have the 3 plane control for bombers...i actualyl find its the worst thing to ever happen to AH...i never use them except when hitting a mildly defended base...mroe targets mean less hits on you

and if you dont like the idea tell me how to make it as good as it can that way a maximum amount of players will be happy.

muckmaw · « **Reply #70 on:** November 25, 2002, 02:08:02 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by lazs2

No one will play with you unless they are forced to... no one will notice you unless you ruin their game.

I don't know Lazs. I've had plenty of fighters crawling up my six when I'm on a bomb run, that I wish would just ignore me.

I even tried flying with a banner on my plane that says "Please ignore me, I don't want to fight."

Yet they still keep shooting!

What about a turn on your idea, Lazs.

Add some large cities, and a reset happens when a countries cities are detroyed and occupied, AND the country is down to...I don't know, 5 fields.

Would that work?

THis way, the Jabo's do their thing, the fighters mix it up with the jabos and escorts, and the heavies will actually have something meaningful to do in this game.

And for God's sake, thoughen up the damn buildings! I mean, can you really destroy a damned bunker with 50 cals?

Shiva · « **Reply #71 on:** November 25, 2002, 04:02:55 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by lazs2
no matter how you slice it... you want to fly a fluff but you want to be in the fighter war. You seem to feel that without the fighter guys you are nothing.

Well, let's see. If Hitler hadn't been a knee-jerk idiot in 1940 after two He111s got lost, bombed London, and the RAF bombed Berlin in retaliation, the Luftwaffe would have continued their bombing campaign against the RAF fighter bases, they would have been able to destroy Fighter Command's ability to put up an effective defense against the German bombers. But wait -- you wouldn't want to let something as inconvenient as a historical example of bomber attacks causing damage to disrupt fighter operations, so we'll just take the historical effect of the Luftwaffe bombing campaign on RAF Fighter command and ignore it. After all, if reality doesn't fit our preconceived prejudices, then reality is wrong, isn't it?

Then there's the Allied bombing offensive against the German POL production, which caused fuel shortages that, by January 1945, had virtually grounded the Luftwaffe. But that's the same problem as we had before -- the ugly reality that intrudes into your carfully constructed prejudices.

Well, I suppose I have to agree with you, Lazs -- once you ignore the Luftwaffe's effect on Fighter command during the Battle of Britain, and the 8 AF's effect on Luftwaffe fuel supplies (and therefore its fighter ops), it's clear that bombing operations didn't have any effect on fighter operations during WWII.

How unfortunate, then, that the presence of these historical counterexamples to your premise refute it utterly.

lazs2 · « **Reply #72 on:** November 25, 2002, 04:29:15 PM »

muck... i believe you are on the right track.. I have allways said that the "reset" should happen before the country is down to one field... I likes at least 2 but... close enough...

shiva... the LW never did stop fighter operations for the brits... it never happened. You can say coulda woulda but.... it never happened.. others have said that it couldn't happen. Anyhow... it didn't and the LW never stopped production of any fighter aircraft that I know of. The fuel shortages are true. they never stopped fighter operations tho... what made the LW obsolete and what killed every airforce was.... they got shot down by fighters. bombers were dead meat without escort. bombers main contribution to destroying the LW was the fact that fighters were killed by other fighters when they went up to attack the bomber streams. In any case.... bombers and strategic, much less carpet, bombing were not to stop fighter production. Why not have tank or gv factories for the bombers to hit... oh wait... the LW didn't slow tank production...

what the bombing did was slow the INCREASE in aircraft production..
lazs