Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Axis vs Allies => Topic started by: eskimo2 on November 10, 2003, 07:57:06 PM
-
What makes particular CT set-ups better than others?
Cite things like; plane choice, historical match-up, historical map, any set-up with blue planes, even arena balance, early war, close base proximity, GVs, bombers, etc.
Feel free to also state what set-up features drive you away from the CT (anything with Spits, low numbers, non-WWII set-ups, etc.).
For me, the two things that really make a set-up fun are a historical match-up within a close-base map.
I fly in the CT because I like to use a plane’s historical strengths against its historical opponents. I enjoy the opportunity to relive history.
The other side of me likes quick action. Almost always, I’ll look for the nearest fight. A map with close base proximity is a sure winner for me.
I like all planes and theaters of operations. GVs and bombers are cool. I have fun whatever the numbers.
I hate flying over 15 miles. I guess I’m impatient. I really get bored with maps where all bases are 30+ miles apart.
I’m seldom crazy about non-WWII set-ups.
eskimo
-
I love in the CT:
1) Historical realism: I want it more for ex. putting Kill Shooter Off.
2) Good historical WW II maps: Current France, BoB, Slot etc.
3) European Theater because I'm an European. I like the Pacific and Africa setups sometimes too, but as you quess, the FinRus setups are nearest our Finnish hearts!:D
4) The great people and friends there!;)
I don't like in the CT:
1) Non WW II maps
2) Sometimes too low player numbers (30 - 50 is best)
3) Couple of non good maps to CT: For ex. Philippines, Perdonia and Big Week. They are very good in the SEA, but not in the CT.
3) Too long distances between terrain's fields. I'm like Eskimo: straight to fight! :cool:
-
Lack of CVs or any sort of ships is as good start.
-
I'am one of those who likes just about all the setups I'll fly in any set up don't matter to me the plane setup or the map,but one thong I would like to see is the planes skinned correctly for each set up.
Take that soccer war we did a few weeks ago I thought is was fun got to fly a P51 all week somthing I hardly ever fly and fly it aginst the f4u4 somthing I hardly ever fight aginst, if those planes had been skinned correctly would have been even better.
So as for me doesnt matter what you throw in there I'll fly it.
-
The skins belongs to current map so there can be only one skin set / map. That's the one reason I have done three different versions from FinRus: There are summer and winter skins and different skin variations in the autumn map.
Also Okinawa map has skins which were used there in spring 1945.
-
Hmm.. my opinion is:
1. Well matched planes in performance.
2. If not matched in performance, at least a historical justification in difference of performance.
3. Neatly customized terrains(Okinawa and Finrus, are great examples!)
4. Custom skins
5. Absence of loud-mouths
-
hard (well matched), long fights with limited planeset, and planes you don't usually see. (%&#)cough152%*(&#cough
-
Originally posted by eskimo2
What makes particular CT set-ups better than others?
Axis v. Allies is first for me. I flew the soccer war and the Suez war, but I wasn't particularly enamored of either, for that reason.
Well-matched performance is very nice, and makes setups like Battle of Britain so enjoyable. However, given the original Axis v. Allies selection, usually the matches won't be equal, and I'm happy to live with that. With one caveat: I find that setups with the spit 9 are very unpleasant, and these have been among the few things that do drive me out of the CT.
Early war is a special treat, perhaps because the planes are slow like me. But early war is something the CT offers that you simply can't get in the MA.
Close base proximity is also a good thing, especially now that we have (am I wrong?) more landgrabbers regularly attending the CT. On some maps, loss of a base means a very long flight to the fight, and this is one of the other things that occasionally drives me out of the CT.
I have to say, though, that there hasn't yet been a CT setup that I thought was atrocious, or even really bad.
- oldman
-
I like close bases. If all I have time for is a quick jaunt in a fiter looking for some trouble, I don't want to have to fly a sector and a half to find it.
The second thing is a competitive setup. I think some planes are taken out of setups based on some misperception that certain planes are too uber to be included. A good example is the F4U-1 vs the N1k's.
The factors that made Corsairs and Hellcats have such good K/D's in real life against IJ aircraft are largely absent from the arenas. Bad pilots, unreliability and being outnumbered being cheif among them.
-
For me, it's anything early war. I'm not much of a fan of the late-war setups. Just personal preference.
I'll also second the "close bases" preference ... but it's not a deal-killer for me unless extreme (like Big Week). For example, I really like the current version of the France map.
Speaking of which (at the risk of hijacking the thread) if you guys re-do asw's France map in segments with new skins, I hope you'll give the 109G2 a German paintjob. Sorry, I know you're Finns and all ... but it's a real emersion-killer for me unless it's in an appropriate setup.
Splash1
oh yeah .. one more thing. Very limited planesets are a big plus with me. Some think it's boring, but I don't. In fact, I usually stick with the same plane all week in any setup. So 1 or 2 historically-matched fighters per side is :aok with me.
-
I like Fin Russ best by far.
I think its because the allied bombers are capped at the Boston.
(should be so in any non defence of the Reich scenario in my opinion)
The fighters are different but not dominant.
The little fields are very cool
The terrains looks great
The only imediate way I can see to improve it is to remove base capture.(although fin Russ weeks are so busy that milk runing is way more rare)
I think they should add the Buffalo, P39 and Pe2 to AH just for the Fin Russ map. They would get more use then many of the planes that have been added.
-
Speaking of which (at the risk of hijacking the thread) if you guys re-do asw's France map in segments with new skins, I hope you'll give the 109G2 a German paintjob. Sorry, I know you're Finns and all ... but it's a real emersion-killer for me unless it's in an appropriate setup.
We are planning to make right skins to the different CT-maps after AH II Terrain Editor releasing. I have think about that Finnish signed Bf 109 G2, too, and you're just right!;)
-
What Oldman said is my sentiment exactly... particularly regarding land-grab tolerant terrains and that nasty spit9..
Sqrl
Originally posted by Oldman731
Well-matched performance is very nice, and makes setups like Battle of Britain so enjoyable. However, given the original Axis v. Allies selection, usually the matches won't be equal, and I'm happy to live with that. With one caveat: I find that setups with the spit 9 are very unpleasant, and these have been among the few things that do drive me out of the CT.
Early war is a special treat, perhaps because the planes are slow like me. But early war is something the CT offers that you simply can't get in the MA.
Close base proximity is also a good thing, especially now that we have (am I wrong?) more landgrabbers regularly attending the CT. On some maps, loss of a base means a very long flight to the fight, and this is one of the other things that occasionally drives me out of the CT.
I have to say, though, that there hasn't yet been a CT setup that I thought was atrocious, or even really bad.
- oldman
-
Agree with Oldman and especially his comment on the spit.
Try to include it less often, pls!
-
Two things
1. Ability to find a fight. A lot of factors go into this, with numbers probably being most important. Radar settings and plane matchups are also involved. I don’t really care how close the bases are as I don’t mind flying for a bit as long as I can get a fight once I get there.
2. Whine potential of the particular setup. Of course killing chutes, vultching, and HOs work on any map. But some setups are much better than others at inducing whines related to which planes people fly and how they fly them, base captures, gangbanging, fleet ack, etc.
After a hard, stressful day at work, there’s nothing that puts a smile on my face like watching someone whimper and bellyache about something like this. I just get tingly all over.
-
- Matching up aircraft performance isn't much of an issue as far as I'm concerned as long as the setups are historically based WWII setups. I have no interest in fantasy or "what if" setups or setups based on small wars around the globe.
- Historically based terrains I like.
- I don't like setups where people have the option of parking multiple cv groups near the same field. Where CV's are in integral part of the setup like Okinawa that's fine, but where they aren't disable them altogether or limit them to 1 per side.
- I'd like to see a regular rotation between ETO, Eastern Front, MTO and PTO setups. Right now there isn't a great deal to choose from for MTO setups, but over time that will get fixed. It seems like the CT runs PTO for awhile and then runs ETO for awhile - the trigger for changing seems to be CM boredom with a plane set.
- I like to see a semi-regular rotation of early, mid and late war setups too.
- I don't mind setups with the spit9. I generally fly the side with the lower numbers so I don't get much chance to fly it. The 109F will turn with it, run with it and zoom with it. The fw's out roll it, out dive it and out run it. It's got a reputation in this game is just doesn't have the performance to earn. I am truly amazed so many people are intimidated by a moderately fast turn fighter. Use it more, maybe the lustre will wear off.
- I'd like to see more variety in the way existing terrains are used. I don't think that the "third country" has been used as effectively as it could be to define the area of battle in setups. There are large areas of finrus that almost never get used - the north side of the map I've only ever seen offline. Large areas of the france terrain the same - almost never get to fight down in the Vosge or the Saar regions, Normandy, the Pas de Calais or the channel.
- The SpitXIV - love it. It's a hoot to fly something I won't spend the perks on in the MA. Use it more too. I'd like to see more late war setups using more of the late war aircraft - all except the kerosene jobs- jets in the CT means a week in the MA for me.
- Final point - I hate perked rides in the CT. Perking the "hot rides" means that the better pilots in the arena get to earn a technical advantage over the other players. I can see the perk system in the MA but not the CT. A setup with perked airplanes will mean I fly the MA for that week also.
Cheers,
-
Like
- Later war planeset - 109G10, 190D, P51D, P47D30 etc.
- Historical Maps
- Balanced Planeset
- Ability to choose 1 from 2-3 good planes
- BoB
Do not like
- Early planeset
- Pacific theatrer - early. Later is good
- Non historical maps - if you want historical planeset build relevant map, relevant skins, if you do not habe one - build them or ask someone ;) - if you going to run 1956 Kadesh or 1948 Independence War on CT I'll rebuild Israel terrain.
- Rear bases planes - is is very manual way to make setup balanced - low perks is better IMHO.
- Non historical addons to balance gameplay - do not have relevant bomber plane use historical attacers.
- Low numbers ;)
-
Okinawa map is probably the best map in CT as PTO and I really like it. :aok
-
I like...
1) Fields around 25 miles apart
2) Minimal GV spawns
3) Hardened AAA (luv those AAA on Okinawa)
4) Maps that include the Hellcat, YAK, and dare I say it... the Spitfire. Axis planeset is almost always the same anyway.
5) Sets with a perk fighter, vehicle and bomber <-- subtle hint
6) Airstarts for bombers <-- another subtle hint
7) Italian planes available for LW setups
-
More opinions to here! Terrain Team needs them when planning the AH II updates and new maps! Give us fresh ideas, too!;)
-
Topless Polynesian girls added to the Pac terrains.
-
We have not "girl"-object in AH, Arlo, but maybe I can skin the "snowman"-object to older polynesian woman. I have heard that they gain weight when growing adult!:D
-
More opinions to here! Terrain Team needs them
OK, with AH2, the Towns are the size of Cities so it would be possible to create a Britian or Germany map with two or three huge City/Factory complexes by using a checkerboard pattern with alternating empty tiles to encourage accuracy. I'm not sure about the empty tiles for game play but it would also make the complex bigger.
The Tuesday night action would focus around bombing or defending this limited number of targets. These maps could also be used for snapshots, with points taken off if town buildings instead of factories are bombed. And of course you could add city names to the clipboard map. ;)
-
The single biggest factor is a varied and competative planeset. I think thats what makes the mid-war russkie/finland/germany setup almost universally appealing. I don't think any of thesetups are "awful" but sometimes the nature of the planeset creates issues for gameplay...for me the "zeke" only setups come to mind. I think burma is best example...if I remember it was p-40 and hurricane (8 x .303) vs zeke...might be accurate but so was little bighorn and fredricksburg.
I'd also second comments regarding map sizes and distance. Personally I'd like to either see capture turned off altogeather or really limited to a couple specific objectives in the CT....let the candyass landgrabbers go play with the rest of the quaketards in the MA.
I'd also like to try a setup with killshooter off.
azhacker
-
For me, it's historical setups that combine air matchups, sea elements, or ground tactics to balance out the gameplay.
Great info guys. Please keep posting.