Author Topic: Think outside the box (Read 1137 times)

J_A_B · « **on:** January 26, 2003, 04:39:02 AM »

Every now and then it's nice too see something different. The CT staff knows this and occasionally throws out a unique setup. While I'm not a "CT regular", I DO fly in it when I like the setup

Next time the CT staffers want to try something "different, here's one thing that might be fun as a diversion for a week:

"Army vs Navy grudge match".

The USAAF and USN planesets look like they're pretty evenly-matched, and both have a lot of fans.

USN fighters=FM2, F6F, F4U-1, F4U-1D
USAAF fighters= P-38L, P-47's, P-51's

Both sides would need the use pf the C-47 and GV's

That's a pretty even matchup. It could make for a fun "for bragging rights" match.

But what about bombers? Well, the A-20G and B-26 both carry 4K worth of bombs, and the USN DID possess a few A-20's under the designation "BD-2" (A-20C's used as target tugs, but hey they had 'em), so it's not completely wrong to permit the USN use of the A-20. The B-26 would be alotted to the USAAF forces. While the B-26 is capable of level-bombing and is better defended, the speed and maneuverability of the A-20 cannot be dismissed. If the B-26 proved to be too tough for the USN to shoot down, the F4U-1C could be made available as a counter, perhaps as a perk, or perhaps as land-based only, or something.

The USN as a natural advantage in the fact that their planes can, for the most part, take off of carriers (A-20's and C-47's would have to be land-based). If this was too much of an advantage, there is the fact that razorback P-47D's did at times fly off of carriers into combat, so making them available from CV's wouldn't be too oddball. Or the terrain could simply limit the carriers, or planes available on carriiers. One good idea could be to treat carriers like they were escort CV's--give them FM2's and TBM's only, if having all the USN planes operational from CV's proved to be too troublesome.

I think a USN vs USAAF grudge match would be fun

J_A_B

Odee · « **Reply #1 on:** January 26, 2003, 10:21:31 AM »

...RED FLAG FORTY-THREE..!

And let the Army/Navy fights for topgun status begin..!:cool:

Oh wait, but we already have a KOTH... could this be incorporated to replace that? [/color]

don't care how people take my posts anymore... at least I will always know what I really meant....

hazed- · « **Reply #2 on:** January 26, 2003, 10:31:35 AM »

I quite categorically could not think of a worse setup than having nothing but US planes to fly.The CT is either aimed at a more realistic matchup or its not.Setting up total fantasy setups will alienate those who go to CT for exactly this reason.I used to fly in CT because i wanted the axis -allies type of fight.MA was becoming dull because no matter what you flew you always eneded up fighting either the same aircraft or some totally unrealistic match.When the CT drifted toward weird setups which it did for a while I lost interest very quickly, only regaining it when i saw setups like BOB where it was more real again.

JAB surely you cant seriously think this will appeal to the masses?

. I think theres a time and a place for these types of 'fun' matchups and it isnt the CT.
It would more suit a wild wednesday or something similar.

CT needs to establish a character.It needs to make a name for itself as a 'type' of arena.Introducing a fantasy element to an arena that is essentially billed as a realistic arena will, imo only discourage your playerbase.

Taiaha · « **Reply #3 on:** January 26, 2003, 10:51:15 AM »

It's an interesting idea, but I take Hazed's point, and this wouldn't be something I myself would be that interested in. But the CT setups now don't appeal to everyone--a lot of people bowed out during the BOB last week, for example.

Maybe a compromise would be possible. It's not written in stone that CT events have to last a week. Maybe we could have a "regular" CT event, and then for one night during the week have this grudge match.

One suggestion, though. If you are going to run this, I think it's a must that it be run as either a late-war or early/mid war variant. Otherwise it's going to turn out like that terrible Kuril scenario a couple of weeks back, everyone flying Niki's and LaLas and the rest of the planeset completely unused (and thereby looking sickeningly like the MA). As outlined there's absolutely no reason for flying the FM2, for example.

Dennis · « **Reply #4 on:** January 26, 2003, 01:32:58 PM »

what hazed- said.

Splash1

J_A_B · « **Reply #5 on:** January 26, 2003, 08:49:02 PM »

Well Hazed, as far as appealing to the "masses", where are these "masses" you speak of?

Certainly not in the current CT, which is empty as often as not.

"Masses" might not be the correct term to use, which is part of my actual point (see below).

And no, I don't seriously think the current CT staff would ever run a setup like that. That's why I posted it.

The CT staff needs to realize that you need to attract some more players. If you guys continue sticking solely to strict historical setups, you're going to fast become redundant once the Mission Arena is available (since it'd actually have a population thanks to AI--it's essentially "do the CT better than the CT does"). I agree completely that the CT needs to develop some sort of character--but that character needs to be something unique enough to survive. Wouldn't it be a shame to lose the only player-run arena available to AH players?

Hence the title of this thread--Think outside the box. You DO need to come up with something unique. The hypothetical setup I posted is a mere example of something that would be unique--not available elsewhere in either the MA -or-in a hypothetical Mission Arena. There's a LOT of other things you guys could do. Think about it.

J_A_B

VOR · « **Reply #6 on:** January 26, 2003, 08:55:30 PM »

Strictly historical setups is why I fly in the CT instead of the MA. Call me strange, but I also enjoy the smaller population. To each his own.

~~VOR~~

eskimo2 · « **Reply #7 on:** January 26, 2003, 09:11:39 PM »

I like being in the "Box".

Can't get my mind off it sometimes.

eskimo

J_A_B · « **Reply #8 on:** January 27, 2003, 12:13:12 AM »

But will you continue flying in an under-populated CT if there's a fully-populated Mission Arena available?

Come that time, if the CT staff wants the CT to remain viable, they might have to re-consider their rigid adherence to history. Now is the time to develop a contingency plan.

J_A_B

Miska · « **Reply #9 on:** January 27, 2003, 07:08:24 AM »

err...no.

daddog · « **Reply #10 on:** January 27, 2003, 01:40:02 PM »

JAB

Would not be my cup of tea and I doubt I would fly in it, but that is just me.

Dennis · « **Reply #11 on:** January 27, 2003, 02:24:42 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by J_A_B
But will you continue flying in an under-populated CT if there's a fully-populated Mission Arena available?
J_A_B

Yes. Absolutely. Without a doubt.
Based on HiTech's early sketch of the Mission Arena, it sounds like a different animal altogether. Much more structured. I intend to fly both if the CT is retained -- as I hope it will be -- as part of Aces High Classic along with the MA, DA and TA.

And as VOR noted, the smaller population is not necessarily a negative.

Splash1

Eagler · « **Reply #12 on:** January 27, 2003, 02:33:40 PM »

limited lives

restricted dar settings

no tags

not all at once but try em for a few hours like we did last week

and stick with the ETO the Pacific bores me to death

Jester · « **Reply #13 on:** January 27, 2003, 03:51:25 PM »

One of the Arab vs Israeli Conflicts?

Slash27 · « **Reply #14 on:** January 27, 2003, 11:58:52 PM »

I'd fly it. Why the hell not.

Aces High Bulletin Board