Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: oboe on July 13, 2021, 08:39:36 AM
-
What if, at the beginning of a new map, bases were randomly assigned (similar to the random start variation in the game "Risk"). A country retains its primary large airbases near its own strats, but for all other fields, initial ownership is randomly assigned. I did a BB search to see if this idea had been proposed before (it probably has) but didn't find any threads discussing it.
I think this might encourage a free-for-all phase at the beginning of each new map, with teams frantically trying to consolidate a buffer zone of bases around their strats for protection, while simultaneously trying to exploit advantageous positions near other countries' starts. This might create a bunch of small fights all across the map. There would be dozens of fronts all across the map, rather than just 3.
It might also counter the disadvantage of large maps when the arena population is small.
Thoughts?
-
As a auto switcher most the time I'd find this interesting, maybe more targets in strange places and the panic of some on country channel.
-
I think as an idea that has not been tried yet, it should be.
I think bases haphazardly assigned at the start would definitely increase the fights and might help the larger maps
Eagler
-
interesting
It is
-
"There would be dozens of fronts all across the map, rather than just 3."
Given the current state of gameplay, this would probably just facilitate multiple attacks on undefended fields, rather than fights.
-
What if, at the beginning of a new map, bases were randomly assigned (similar to the random start variation in the game "Risk"). A country retains its primary large airbases near its own strats, but for all other fields, initial ownership is randomly assigned. I did a BB search to see if this idea had been proposed before (it probably has) but didn't find any threads discussing it.
I think this might encourage a free-for-all phase at the beginning of each new map, with teams frantically trying to consolidate a buffer zone of bases around their strats for protection, while simultaneously trying to exploit advantageous positions near other countries' starts. This might create a bunch of small fights all across the map. There would be dozens of fronts all across the map, rather than just 3.
It might also counter the disadvantage of large maps when the arena population is small.
Thoughts?
At one time Hitech had told me that he didn't want initial state fragmentation.
At the time, he said that each countries initial base ownership should form a contiguous mass as if it were it's national borders.
Maybe that's changed. I dunno.
$0.02.
-
-1
Wouldn't work. The current practice of double teaming a country, would make it impossible.
-
-1
Wouldn't work. The current practice of double teaming a country, would make it impossible.
Many Knights and Rooks think that both taking (sometimes up to) 35% of Bish bases is entertainment and punishment for Bishops rolling maps in the early morning when the #’s are quite lopsided. I’ve heard it said by many players that want to continue taking Bish bases well after 25%.
Problem is the early morning Bishops have logged off...
It would be interesting to see how this idea plays out. Why not? It can always be changed back if it’s rather disliked by the majority.
-
At one time Hitech had told me that he didn't want initial state fragmentation.
At the time, he said that each countries initial base ownership should form a contiguous mass as if it were it's national borders.
Maybe that's changed. I dunno.
$0.02.
You are correct, CptTrips...that is dang near exactly how hitech explained/ said it
But it is still an interesting idea to consider and ponder over to see what might shake out in this day and age
Just saying
<S> cheers
TC
-
I like this idea...Will it be implemented... no
-
worth a crack I reckon... I logged on last night to a map that had change 4 hours prior... 9 players 153 bases ..only action was a couple of Gvers taking all the gv bases and Not worth even upping as I die before i can even see these two ... oh there were bombers floating about prepping for the morning crews... ened up watching Youtube for an hour till some real base take attempts were happening
-
It would create more opportunities for 3 country furballs....
-
this was proposed many years ago. hitech just made away that people would just take the bases closest to their base and pretty soon the lines would be like they are now when map resets.
semp
-
Also you are not considering strat and hq.
HiTech
-
Those objectives would just simplify what bases needed to be taken 1st
Eagler
-
It's great in theory. And I think Atlau makes a great point. However I don't think much would change as base distance and map size would still effect most of the fights.
Plus Hitech is right about the Hq and strats.
worth a crack I reckon... I logged on last night to a map that had change 4 hours prior... 9 players 153 bases ..only action was a couple of Gvers taking all the gv bases and Not worth even upping as I die before i can even see these two ... oh there were bombers floating about prepping for the morning crews... ened up watching Youtube for an hour till some real base take attempts were happening
This is the real issue. IMO.
The goal should be to condense action. Not give players more of a chance to spread out.
-
It's great in theory. And I think Atlau makes a great point. However I don't think much would change as base distance and map size would still effect most of the fights.
Plus Hitech is right about the Hq and strats.
This is the real issue. IMO.
The goal should be to condense action. Not give players more of a chance to spread out.
Yes, I can see HQ and Strats could be vulnerable, especially to nearby VBases with spawns directly to the strats.
No doubt I'm an odd duck, but for me, condensed action is not what I look for. I'd much rather log in and find a map with multiple small groups engaged in action across the map - maybe a ground assault in one area, a naval attack in another, a fighter sweep or bombing mission forming in a third, etc. I like the ability to chose to go where I might be needed. Especially I like small fighter v fighter engagements - 2-4 vs 2-4, rather than being an area saturated with planes and new planes constantly arriving overhead while you're committed to a fight. I'll fly with the horde if I don't see alternatives, but I'd much rather be a part of smaller engagements. Sometimes I'll strap a bomb to a P-39 and head to a VBase on my own, just to see if I can stir something up. My most memorable moments have been in small engagements.
-
My most memorable moments have been in small engagements.
This!
Eagler
-
I think it could be an interesting experiment.. but if he did it can you imagine the whining?
-
True, you can't please all of the people all of the time. There was some whining when Hitech changed the clipboard map radar coverage display to the cleaner look of the shaded circles below, from the mass of overlaid colored rings shown at right:
(https://i.imgur.com/JZsMD0x.jpg)
<shrug>. Not every idea is sound, so it's good to kick them around here. Hitech pointed out the vulnerability of HQ/Strats to random base assignments in the map's initial state. If one country is initially disadvantage in this way, say by having one or two enemy bases near its Strats at the start of the map, it could be crippled very early on.
It depends on what your goals are, also. My goal was a change to promote more fights across the map, but Violator pointed out his goal would be to concentrate the action in one area of the map. So a change like this this wouldn't fit well for his style of play.
-
Just tossing this out there I would like to see some random manned guns at the strats as another form of defense for strats.
-
Just tossing this out there I would like to see some random manned guns at the strats as another form of defense for strats.
+1