Strat Guys

[beet1e]

I abhor certain game-the-game methodologies, especially suicide runs. But I strongly agree with the sentiments expressed by my CO, Revvin. Seems to me that whenever someone sees a particular incident they don't like, they want HTC to program it away. I have seen calls for fields to be "moved closer together", for "night to be abolished", and even for "jabo/bombs to be perked" - all demands made to satisfy the needs of Mr. Quickfix. Hehe, AH2 is going to "program away" a whole raft of gamey crap - can't wait!

But let's consider the suicide fuel porker problem logistically. In a real war situation in which fuel porkage was occurring, the porkees would learn to better defend their resources against the tactics of the porkor in order to limit porkage. (I was always greatly amused in WB to observe that the fuel tanks were adjacent to the ammunition bunker for middle fields - bit of a safety hazard - lol.) Instead of asking HTC to program the problem away, perhaps we could ask instead for defences to be rearranged - mannable ack/field gun next to the fuel tanks. I'm not in favour of "hardening" the fuel tanks, or for automatic ack to make fuel porkage impossible, as I believe that fuel porkage should be a legitimate tactic.

People often whine about the other sides' bombs damaging their hangars, damaging their fuel/radar etc., and "reducing their choices". Let me tell you that bombs are designed to destroy ground targets! That's the whole bleedin' point!!!:rolleyes:

[lazs2]

I know some of you strat guys have trouble grasping complex ideas but... here it is..

The way MA strat works is... the country with the most numbers is the steamroller... they country with the least numbers is steamrolled... the remaining country is along for the ride.... the steamroller "wins the war" and all that "winning the war" entails.   Hope I didn't spoil the wonder of it all for you.
lazs

[Toad]

Suicide runs are gaming the game?

Didn't you guys see all the war movies where the heroes are briefed by the CO that many if not all of the heroes "won't be coming back from this one" but the "it's a job that has to be done"?

I look forward to AH2 and I hope HT makes it as real as possible. MAXIMUM realism. And I hope all you guys that pine for that enjoy it and play it exclusively.

[lazs2]

Yep... they will all be waiting patiently in the tower for the general to give his orders... uncomplaining and filled with the zeal of teamwork and the "missun".....   They will all subdue their own enormous egos for the good of missun and country... no stife shall exist in the "missun arena" since they all agree on what makes for a good time.

I won't miss em.
lazs

[beet1e]

Originally posted by lazs2
I know some of you strat guys have trouble grasping complex ideas but... here it is..

The way MA strat works is... the country with the most numbers is the steamroller... they country with the least numbers is steamrolled... the remaining country is along for the ride.... the steamroller "wins the war" and all that "winning the war" entails.   Hope I didn't spoil the wonder of it all for you.
lazs

You missed something. The side that gets all its fighter hangars destroyed is the one that gets its wings clipped as far as launching fighters goes. The side that does not defend its (fuel) resources is the one that flies locally for the next half hour. Just thought you might need reminding about that. Oh wait, you don't. You've been whining about it for the last two years...

[beet1e]

Originally posted by Toad
Suicide runs are gaming the game?

Didn't you guys see all the war movies where the heroes are briefed by the CO that many if not all of the heroes "won't be coming back from this one" but the "it's a job that has to be done"?

Doh!  My mistake, Bufo Marinus. I was forgetting - until your lapdog reminded me - that suicides are not what ruins the game. The only things that ruin the game are Buffs/Fluffs, and a funny thing called Organisation. LOL! Organisation - what a concept!

Classic whine to be found - Organisation "ruining" the game. ROFL!

[Toad]

Coleoptera Chrysomelidae, the jury will soon rule on your interpretation of what makes this game "good" for the majority.

AH2 is not far off. Let's see what develops. I believe in AH2 you will get all those strateegery things you vocally pine for on a routine basis. "Life" will have meaning, targets must be hit, MISSIONS of GREAT IMPORTANCE and all that tripe.

Maybe it will be a great hit. Maybe it will be interesting to perhaps 5-10% of the people as the CT appears to be. The CT was going to be a smash hit too, if you listened to the proponents that kept telling HT he didn't know what made good gameplay and just give them a chance to show us all how to do it.

As I said, your views will be given a chance to show validation. I suspect, however, that once again we'll see it's a fringe minority that's been raising all the ruckus once the "new" wears off the Missions of Great Importance.

[muckmaw]

Originally posted by Toad
Coleoptera Chrysomelidae, the jury will soon rule on your interpretation of what makes this game "good" for the majority.

AH2 is not far off. Let's see what develops. I believe in AH2 you will get all those strateegery things you vocally pine for on a routine basis. "Life" will have meaning, targets must be hit, MISSIONS of GREAT IMPORTANCE and all that tripe.

Maybe it will be a great hit. Maybe it will be interesting to perhaps 5-10% of the people as the CT appears to be. The CT was going to be a smash hit too, if you listened to the proponents that kept telling HT he didn't know what made good gameplay and just give them a chance to show us all how to do it.

As I said, your views will be given a chance to show validation. I suspect, however, that once again we'll see it's a fringe minority that's been raising all the ruckus once the "new" wears off the Missions of Great Importance.

I would tend to think HT knows his customer base. At least, I should hope so. Why would they spend all this effort, effectively ending further development on AH if they did not think AHII would attract a large portion of the community?

Do you think HTC is wasting resources by even develping AHII?

Personally, AHII will be my new home. But thats my style.

Have there been other threads that give an indication as to who plans on playing AHII exclusively?

[gofaster]

Originally posted by AKcurly
When one country has two countries gang up on it or when a country is seriously outnumbered, taking down strat objects is the only way you can slow the onslaught down.

With a map like Trinity, killing troops & fuel can bring things to a crashing halt.  It's less serious with AKDesert and the smaller maps.

So, what you are suggesting makes it easier for one country to be overwhelmed.  I don't think that's good.

curly

Curly, for all of his faults, is right.  Killing troops will stop offensive base capture missions.  Killing fuel will stop offensive jabo raids (sometimes) and will limit the amount of time a guy can vulch a runway.  Killing both will put a lot of guys in Mustangs, Panzers, and level bombers.

[Toad]

Muck,

Tell me which you think would be more time consuming:

1. Programming an automatic "mission generator" and some AI

or

2. An entirely new graphics engine, new art for all the aircraft, game objects and terrains?

I think there's a misconception on what's really taking up all the time here.

[straffo]

Well depending of what you want  ... I would say both

The difference is 1st must be made in house ,but the 2nd can be  bought.

[muckmaw]

Originally posted by Toad
Muck,

Tell me which you think would be more time consuming:

1. Programming an automatic "mission generator" and some AI

or

2. An entirely new graphics engine, new art for all the aircraft, game objects and terrains?

I think there's a misconception on what's really taking up all the time here.

Toad-

You have to consider 2 thing here.

1- We really have only the vaguest of ideas as to what AHII will really be in the final product
2- I have no knowlege of any type of computer programming aside from Basic in high school.

10 Print "Lisa is a potato"
20 Goto 10

hehe.

I would guess from your syntax your saying the bulk of the time is spent on the option 2.

Another question:

At peak, we have about 500 players online. (Correct?)

Tour of Duty, (The weekly event, not AHII) attracts anywhere from 100-150 players. This is at an off peak time, for me anyway. So your looking at 20% at least, who are interested in a very VERY structured, organized, mission oriented event.

If I had to guess, and I am really guessing here, If the AHII is done right, and delivers what was promised so far, you may see up to 200 players in there at peak times.

TO arrive at this number, I simply took the number that attend TOD, and added 50-100 players to account for the fact that TOD has a set cut off time, which is not always convenient. You also have to consider the fact that weekly TOD only allows squads, with no Walk ons allowed.

[Replicant]

Fuel was probably just as easy to take down in WW2 as it is in AH, apart from that in WW2 the ack wasn't as good as AH and in WW2 they were probably more interested in damaging aircraft which would have been a more viable target - planes take time to be repaired/replaced whereas bunkers are easily replaced.

So, in AH the fuel on a small and large base are easy to take down.  The medium field fuel bunkers are well placed and very difficult to hit for a single Jabo.

To try and make AH a little more realistic, keep the existing fuel bunkers but introduce mobile fuel bowsers scattered around the airfield - these would have been at Bulk Fuel Installations or dispersals in WW2.  How many?  Not sure! 3 or 4?  Perhaps even introduce a fuel bowser that you can spawn from a V base and refuel aircraft that are sitting on the runway only?

Also since in WW2 there would be several aircraft scattered around the airfield on dispersals.  These aircraft would already have fuel in them.  So, how about even if the fuel goes down to 25%, you can still up a set limit of aircraft with 100% fuel to represent the aircraft that would have been on the dispersal?  How many aircraft?  Say 3 aircraft per aircraft hangar type - i.e. field with two FHs then 6 fighters can up; field with 4 BHs then 12 buffs can up.

Any thoughts?  I'll repost this on the feedback forum!

[Revvin]

Originally posted by Sixpence
Lol, that is easier said than done. I'm just giving the other sides arguement. They make a good point. I don't care if it stays the same, but I hate to see people not having fun over it and leave the game. I just think some fields should take more than one plane to reduce the fuel to nill. I'm not talking every field.


Lol, rolleyes, the peanut gallery has spoken.

Easier said than done?? click on a button and you're on the runway ready to take off, how much easier do you want it? So is this really about individuals taking down fuel or missions? If we're still talking about individuals then with the uber ack and the fact that the enemy plane will be heavy with bombs or rockets you really should have much trouble at all shooting him down and his effect not really that great on anything but a small field. If you're allowing him to do that at a medium field you're giving the guy far too much time to circle and kill ack to aid him in killing all the fuel. Your argument centre's around laziness at not getting up and doing something about it and wanting HTC to program away your problem. If making snide comments about the use of a roll eyes smiley (how cute you're following the current trend of doing that BTW) then it only shows how weak your argument is.

[Revvin]

Perhaps I'm being unfair on you, just fed up of the way certain players whine for HTC to program away their problems.