Author Topic: An alternative to the base capture thingy... (Read 1226 times)

Arlo · « **Reply #30 on:** November 24, 2001, 08:24:00 PM »

"I am not so sure about bringing politics into it +) I just envision more flamewars

" *chuckle*

But think about it. If there were 4 sides (or more, 6 may not be bad .... more than that might, though) then the R&D and production aspects you bring up would take on even more significance if each side could determine whether they can "officially align" with another side. Players could decide whether to sign treaties (and set them for a specific time limit), form alliances or even break them and declare war. If you shoot an ally, you suffer the same consequences as if you shot a fellow "countryman".

It would also give the side which is getting trounced a chance if there are some players on there with diplomatic skill ("We may not have alot to offer but maybe we could help tip the scales in the deadlock your side is having with the so-n-sos."). For the players who want a game with more depth, how much deeper can it get than that? And for those who don't, it'd be no skin off their noses to let the strat/diplomacy guys do their thing.

And when you think about it, how can there be more "chesspiece flamewars" than there already are? Oh, which reminds me. With more than three sides the chesspiece thing kinda goes out the window, eh? I suppose if the 4 sided arena was adopted then using card suits would be right up Ace's High's alley (Clubs, Hearts, Spades, Diamonds).

*ShruG* Oh well ... just a thought anyhow.

SKurj · « **Reply #31 on:** November 24, 2001, 08:26:00 PM »

We could call the 4th side Queens, I can think of several flyin AH these days already

+)

SKurj

Arlo · « **Reply #32 on:** November 24, 2001, 08:35:00 PM »

Ok ... you're right. Why take this seriously?

Jebo44 · « **Reply #33 on:** November 25, 2001, 01:10:00 AM »

Skurj,

Not sure if this was mentioned (I read most of the posts

) but I remember reading in an interview with HT that he wanted to create a First Person shooter at the bases....... How would this effect your idea??? If this were to tie in with HT's ideas in the future it might be an easier sale.

[ 11-25-2001: Message edited by: Jebo44 ]

SKurj · « **Reply #34 on:** November 25, 2001, 02:05:00 PM »

Easily Jebo, the base/facility in question, would class as "contended" until the FPS side of the game was dealt with. So if a base has been caught on or surrounded by the front, the 3dshooter element would have to be won by the attacker before posession took place.

I apologize arlo, I don't mean to make light of your suggestions.
I am just not so sure we need "leaders"

SKurj

Arlo · « **Reply #35 on:** November 25, 2001, 03:20:00 PM »

No biggie, twas open for debate and I'm aware of the proposals flaws.

Still, I'm looking forward to advanced, detailed strat -as long as it doesn't adversely affect the game in other areas. Cutting off supplies to cities, factories and bases should have long term effects causing loss of morale (in the cities), reduced production in the factories (eventually bringing it to a standstill) and limited parts and fuel at bases would eventually halt operations from there - without any damage done to them. Damage would serve to accelerate the depletion. Of course players could still elect to fly in supplies but it would be nice if the results from such runs weren't so miraculous(from what I gather). It should be quite a dedicated large air operation (ala the Berlin airdrop)to reverse the effects of a siege. Single runs should do no more than slowing down the depletion and even a small scale air convoys should do no more than keep things from getting any worse yet once the shipments stop the depletion proceeds at the level it was before the assistance.

R&D should be tied to specific rear echelon research centers for specific pieces of equipment(again the possibility of player choices).

Ranking players making or overiding decisions is nothing new to AH from what I hear. Players take command of task forces and change their courses on a fairly regular basis, sometimes resulting in it getting sunk a bit easier, sometimes hiding it altogether. Maybe the arena needs to automate such things and leave player controlled "higher command" decisions to scenarios only. *ShruG*

Just brainstorming with yas

SKurj · « **Reply #36 on:** April 19, 2002, 09:35:17 AM »

SKurj · « **Reply #37 on:** April 19, 2002, 09:50:01 AM »

Can't believe I actually typed all this...

Anyways I brought it back when I noticed someone mention communications huts. The more I read it the more I like the rest of what I wrote....

SKurj

Wutz · « **Reply #38 on:** April 29, 2002, 03:05:44 PM »

Great Idea 5 of 5 stars possible

devious · « **Reply #39 on:** May 03, 2002, 03:56:14 AM »

Great Ideas.

How about implementing Computer-controlled GVs and Infantry that spawn at VH's and Enlistment Centers, then travel to the front and shoot it out among themselves (with the player-controlled GVs spearheading attacks etc). Kills of these vehicles would not affect the front, their fighting only "displaying" the front line. The units would go home, or simply vanish when coming too close to an enemy installation without the front moving over that installation.....

again, great Ideas. Makes you wonder where online games will head in the next years.

Sky Viper · « **Reply #40 on:** May 22, 2002, 10:24:30 PM »

SKurj,
I like most of this idea, though I doubt that it would/could work.

While there are some great strategic minds (most of which frequent these bbs) within our community, I don't think there are enough "Team" players to make it happen.
People are more prone to group mass vulching than they are to strategic attack.

I think HTC made a huge move toward supporting that vulch mentality when they created the "Take the Town" method of capture.
That move lowered the value of strategic bombing and increased the value of mass fighter support.

Viper

SKurj · « **Reply #41 on:** May 22, 2002, 10:51:10 PM »

just ideas i tossed out SKVP

I think somewhere in that mass of text might be a method to help the teams being overrun.. not sure tho its been awhile since i wrote it...

Best idea i have atm for that goal...

bases resupply slower the further from HQ they are... each sector distance from hq = 5 mins longer to supply
if minimum is 10 mins for bases closest to HQ a base 6 sectors from hq would take 40 mins for AI supplies. possibly multiple trips required to fully rebuild. this would force the team charging hard on the advance to fly supplies or sit and wait.

The team in the 'bucket' would be aided by short supply lines and rapid rebuilds...

Just a thot +)

SKurj

Reckless54 · « **Reply #42 on:** July 10, 2002, 11:07:50 PM »

I like the idea

Cheers,

2Late4U · « **Reply #43 on:** July 10, 2002, 11:26:05 PM »

Could we try and not pull up threads from 10 months ago???

SKurj · « **Reply #44 on:** July 12, 2002, 01:47:27 PM »

10 months old or 10 years I still think there are some good ideas in here +)

SKurj