Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: AKcurly on June 22, 2004, 10:23:05 PM
-
I'm not sure I understand how some of the changes in AH2 enhance gameplay. I'm not saying they're wrong, but I don't understand.
For example, take one country which is persistently outnumbered (and one country has been persistently outnumbered 90% of the time since AH has been here.)
How does that country fight? Well, in AH1, you killed fuel around the perimeter of your country and killed troops at least two fields deep around the same perimeter.
In AH2, we cannot pork fuel, so we kill troops. However, with the gross imbalance of numbers, that has little effect. They simply hang around, vulch the fields and eventually a goon arrives. It's very difficult to find the goons since a) your DAR is gone and b) you can't descend to look, otherwise the hoarde falls on you.
I would have guessed that HTC would have made changes in the strat model which makes it easier for the outnumbered country to defend itself. Instead, it's harder now. I just don't understand the logic. OTOH, HTC doesn't pay me to think. ;)
I have watched the Rooks and Bishops all occupy the position of being short on numbers for periods exceeding one year. I have watched Rooks, Bishops and Knights all occupy the position of being long on numbers for periods exceeding one year.
I'm tired of the current game play model (because of the built-in unfairness) and when HTC makes changes which exacerbate the problem, well, it's difficult to understand the reasoning.
Some of the gaming participants appear to have a country loyalty. That's goofy. I do have a sense of loyalty to the guys/gals that I game with, but not to the country.
So, why not do this? Every day at a fixed time, move all rooks to knights, all knights to bishops and all bishops to rooks. In that manner, we would still be flying with the same guys, but we would all gain an immediate understanding that our loyalty lies with the game and not with our current country.
This is a serious problem for HTC. Last year, I watched a number of rooks quit the game because a) they refused to fly for anyone but rooks and b) the rooks were badly outnumbered for over a year. It became such a big problem that many of the squads (AKs included) switched to Rook for a period of time. I'm seeing the same thing occur with Bishops now.
This is not good business and what's worse, our fun is minimized rather than maximized.
curly
-
exactly what my whine was about....how is the outnumberd side suppose to stop a horde now?:confused:
-
IMO the porking of fuel was one of the worst aspects of AH game play.
I am more then glad to see it a thing of the past. I gave up flying in the main all together in AH because 90% of the time I logged in the fuel at all the front line fields was porked.
It was porked not as some grand strategy to slow down the mission hordes but by 1 or 2 suicide tards.
It then took far too many re-supply sorties and it was just easier to log.
The whole "land grab" aspect of AH is the real problem. At least that is how I see it.
Even crappy FA2.XX had a better strat and “land grab" system then AH.
I am not saying that HT should eliminate the land grab. I am saying shift the focus off the land grand and place it else where.
Land grabbing could be a tool used to aid in the "real" victory condition but not the main objective.
Right now 90% of what goes on in the main is up with 50 guys fly to the closest field and set up gang bang. Repeat over and over. Why…? Because this is the easiest way to win a reset.
The just roll up on 1 field after another. The suicide horde doesn’t care how many times they die as long as they "get the capture" or "get those fuel tanks" or "get those fhs" etc...
I never will think it’s a good idea for the objective to be to "stop the other side from flying". I mean after all that’s why most of us started in these games was to enjoy air combat against other human players.
Fuel porking was major tool not just to "stop the horde" but to stop players in general from flying.
I am glad it’s gone. Folks can still suicide the FHs to stop the horde, and they do.
I for one would prefer the whole game play concept be reworked to take the focus away from "stopping the other guy from playing" to anything else. There are a sizeable number of players that don’t care anything at all about base capture or "start" or any of that. They just want to pop in for a few hours of fun. When all the close fields are in effect closed by a handful of suicide fuel porkers then they don’t even have an opportunity to play.
There have been many other threads that had good suggestion on how to adjust game play so there is no need to rehash it here.
-
Kurly, I respect your opinion and believe you are trying to come up with a solution to an ongoing problem. Some of us though don`t go along with the country change thingy. My squad will fly for one country only simply because of total immersion in the game. I don`t believe your idea is the best solution.
I for one would be gone like a wild goose in winter if forced country change were to come about. Silly? Maybe, it`s just what trips my trigger plus it has been policy for my squad since AW.
-
Originally posted by Wotan
It was porked not as some grand strategy to slow down the mission hordes but by 1 or 2 suicide tards.
Well, I never suicided and most of the time I escaped. Once in a while, someone would get lucky from a field gun. And, for the last 6-8 months, that's all I've done - pork fuel. Flying Bishop, that's all the choice you have at night -- try to control the larger numbers. And, it worked too.
I said, "that's all the choice you have." It isn't really. Lots of guys prefer to furball and that's cool, no problem with that. There's no point in killing fuel *if* you can muster the numbers to defend the base.
curly
-
ummm I played alot of FA, they had alot of strat ideal items in the gameplay. This change on the other hand goes the other direction.
The chance of stopping a gain bang WAS alot better here then in FA anyday.
IMO this was a bad change for those players looking for a real strat sim. Takes away a true strat ideal from a strat game and helps increase the furball ideals.
-
Originally posted by Wotan
...The whole "land grab" aspect of AH is the real problem....
I agree, but also to a point. The taking of land needs to shift focus away from the AF's to some 3rd point, like numerous large cities with opposing forces on arrayed on either side of them.
-
Will there ever be just TWO sides? I hate to sound naive about it but what is the point of having three sides and if ever, there was just two sides thought about?
-
Originally posted by AKcurly
Well, I never suicided and most of the time I escaped. Once in a while, someone would get lucky from a field gun. And, for the last 6-8 months, that's all I've done - pork fuel. Flying Bishop, that's all the choice you have at night -- try to control the larger numbers. And, it worked too.
I said, "that's all the choice you have." It isn't really. Lots of guys prefer to furball and that's cool, no problem with that. There's no point in killing fuel *if* you can muster the numbers to defend the base.
curly
Of course not every one suicided but many did. Of course not all fuel porkers were just doing to it because the fuel tanks were there but many did.
Fuel porking was a reason some didn’t even play AH1 any more. It was hard just to pop in for some quick fun if the fuel was porked across the front. Now with the updated fuel consumption 75% isn’t very much for some of the most popular planes (La-7).
You can still stop the horde by killing their fhs. It just takes a larger effort then 1 guy.
All I can say is that from my perspective things have gotten better for me since fuel porking was limited. I have flown more in the past 3 days then in the past couple years.
Country loyalty etc... doesn’t mean much to me but for what ever reason I have spent most of my main time as knights. It goes way back when most lw guys flew as knights. The only thing about random country rotation that I wouldn’t like is if it would split up squads. Wouldn't folks folks just switch back to their country preference anyway?
-
Originally posted by Jackal1
Kurly, I respect your opinion and believe you are trying to come up with a solution to an ongoing problem. Some of us though don`t go along with the country change thingy. My squad will fly for one country only simply because of total immersion in the game. I don`t believe your idea is the best solution.
I for one would be gone like a wild goose in winter if forced country change were to come about. Silly? Maybe, it`s just what trips my trigger plus it has been policy for my squad since AW.
Think about it Jackal. Suppose htc used the names "1", "2" & "3" instead of chess piece names. Would you be loyal to a number? Nah, your loyalty lies with the guys that you game with on a regular basis - your squad mates and country mates. The name doesn't matter.
I fly bishop not because of loyalty to the name bishop, rather to the guys to who fly bishop. I don't care if they're called bishop, "2" or nothing at all.
curly
-
You can still stop the horde by killing their fhs. It just takes a larger effort then 1 guy.
Actually, it's very easy to kill all FHs at a small field now. It takes one buff. The 3 FHs are are in one row.
The problem with FHs/Buffs is one of speed. It takes time to get a buff in position. By the time you get "Fluffy" to the field with some altitude, they've captured your base and are currently attacking the next one.
From a stat pov, AH2 is hopeless ... well, that's a bit strong I guess. It's appears hopeless since I haven't found the solution. ;)
curly
-
Originally posted by Furious
I agree, but also to a point. The taking of land needs to shift focus away from the AF's to some 3rd point, like numerous large cities with opposing forces on arrayed on either side of them.
That idea has some potential, but sadly, in the end, wouldn't airfield destruction make that 'neutral' city just that much easier to take?
In what ways can HTC encourage group combat? Bonus "points" for some 'score'? Perk points aren't applicable... not everyone wants to take the uber ride. Is there anything out there that gives incentive for non-horde activities? An alternative is needed - the landgrab can stay, but an alternative(s) for 'winning the war' should also be discussed.
An "escape route" you could say. If porking fuel/troops doesn't work or isn't allowed, a different method should be there for the 'weak' country to get back in "the fight."
not that i care about "the war" or anything ;) I can find fun, but I don't like seeing others finding logging off easier than playing the game
-
Of course the land grab would stay but it would be a tool used to help facilitate a larger victory condition.
Here's an example. It’s very general and not offered as an alternative but its enough to get a discussion started.
Lets say at the start of each map each side is given something I will call "resource points".
Each strat facility in each strat zone produces x amount of resource points per lets say an hour. By bombing and destroying the strat you deny that side those resource points.
By capturing the main zone "city" or let's call it the zones Capital would mean not only is one side denied that zones resource points but the side that captured that zone gets them.
Airfields would still be alterable to gain closer bases to attack and or capture resource points.
You can take this idea and run with it and get as complicated as you wish. Each aircraft or vehicle destroyed costs your side resource points etc...
Once one side achieves a given advantage in resource points over the country with the least then the country with the most wins the reset and we start again. Or you can just say once one country drops below a given amount of resource points then the reset occurs with "victory" going to the country with the most.
Strat objects such as the factories, cities HQ etc... could all be alterable...
Resource points are just something that determines the reset trigger. They aren’t used to determine what plane you can fly or what equip you have available. There's no need to stop the other guy from flying.
The strat and mission generals could set there missions up to destroy and capture the other guys points, the furballers could fight it out between airfields and the vulchers could deack and vulch anyone stupid enough to up.
As I said there has been many "strat suggestions" and I am sure there will be more. My example above is just that; an example to demonstrate what I meant by moving the focus away from airfield capture.
-
The inability to take the fuel down seems to lead to bigger hordes on both sides and changes the strategy too much.
Taking the hangers down is a good idea but they only stay down 15 minutes.
I'd rather see them add 2 more fuel bunkers to each field and let them all be taken out. It would make fuel harder to pork but the game play would be roughly the same as it was before.
-
So, if me and 25 of my P-38 Jabbo buddies all gangbang all the resource centers on both sides, then horde the zone cities we win. Right? Pork the Resource Centers instead of fuel supplies. Capture a few zone cities and win the reset. That would be the outcome. Good idea, but I think you are just changing the target from airfields to resource points.
That would make things easier rather than harder IMO.
When it comes right down to it, land grab is what wars are about. The porking of supplies is a very valid tactic, though be it very irritating as well.
I feel that one thing that might help that aspect of the game is an increased number of defensive field weapons. Three 40mm field guns are not enough. There need to be more. I am only going by what I have seen and read, but I have never seen an airfield in WWII that didn't have multiple .30 and .50 caliber mounts as well as medium and large AA guns. They should all be manable, and AI controlled when not manned.
As it is now, lone fighters (fuel Porkers), have little to fear from Ack. Just fly in, strafe the field ack, and then have your way with the rest of the field. Vulch any would-be defenders and away they go. But if they were only able to kill one, maybe two field guns before getting ripped up that might change the direction. Of course it might also encourage more horde attacks as well. Pros and cons to each I guess.
Anyhow, that is my thought.
LTARsqrl
:aok
-
why all this prolonging the inevitable?
Make it so that as soon as one country has 25% more players than anyone else...
they "win" the war.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
why all this prolonging the inevitable?
Make it so that as soon as one country has 25% more players than anyone else...
they "win" the war.
LOL! That cheered me up! Very good - don't be surprised if you see that in my sig! :lol
The way I feel about it is that I want there to be a reason or a motive for engaging in combat. Just upping fighters to go against other fighters is OK for duelling, but doesn't hold my interest for long. I want there to be a particular outcome that we're fighting for, otherwise I would just spend my time in the DA.
The piss-poor gameplay is worst on the small maps, IMO. And when the fields are so close together that when someone dies he can be right back where he was just before he died, two minutes later and with a full clip, it's not hard to see why some folks are so cavalier about their own survival.
It has been suggested that when someone dies, he stays dead for a period of time - (2 mins., 5 mins. or some similar time) but that would be commercial suicide.
As this thread was started by an AK, I'll say it here: The AK-Desert/pizza map, despised by a vociferous minority, offers a solution to the woes described in this thread. The fields are further apart, so dead pilots take longer to get back to where they were just before they died, and tend to be more careful. The front line is more spread out, so you don't see hording on anything like the scale that it is seen on the small maps.
-
I'm tired of the current game play model (because of the built-in unfairness) and when HTC makes changes which exacerbate the problem, well, it's difficult to understand the reasoning.
This is dissapointing to read.
One, if not the, reason I cancelled my AH account many moons ago was the strat model. Logging on you had (have) the choice of taking part in the eternal furball or trying to organize a a few players to take a base or two. Usually the bases targeted were well away from the furball and uncontested unless one country was down to a base or two and then it was just a vulchfest until the goon arrived.
While flight models and graphics have come a long way since I first flew in .xx WB and AH the strat model has lagged behind. Pilot scores and perk points are fine but they have steered the game towards the individual fragfest style of gameplay. Vulch field for perk points to get uber plane = frag until you can get the bfg9000 planet vaporizer. Player scores need to be be balanced with some type of country score system possibly tied to technology and supply.
-Apeboy
-
spin it any way you like beetle but all types of strat depend on numbers. pretending that one style of strat or another will affect the outcome over numbers is silly... pretending that the size or shape of the maps will do anything but prolong the inevitable is silly.
close fields allow for variety and action even when there is no chance of "winning".. further fields prolong the inevitable but make that extra time... frustrating and less fun. Look how rooks are attacking fields with 30 players.. these are abandoned or nearly abandoned fields... it doesn't cause players to up to defend... it causes most to look for a better place to fight.
lazs
-
The only thing I can think of that might cause people to switch numbers to even the odds is if different aircraft became available. I think if we incorporated Kweassa's new perk setup this could help immensely. Firstly, there wouldn't be all the massed P-51 or P-38 missions that can wipe out a field in seconds. People would have to use bombers and dedicated jabo type aircraft to achieve the same quick kill of an airfield, but these type or raids would be easier for the defenders to intercept and fight back against. Secondly, we could incorporate a trigger so that should one side reach a critical numerical disadvantage (say 50% disadvantage or whatever), all the cheap perk planes (say those under 10 perk points etc.) become free. I would bet that a lot of people would start feeling a noble urge to fight for the underdog if free La-7s or P-51Ds were included in the deal.
Ideally I would like to see a more complicated strat system where we had a ground battle fought by AI controlled GVs and soldiers that would stalemate if there was no player involvement. Players could aid their forces in the battle by bombing GVs, or by attacking strat targets (like rail stations, truck convoys, factories, tanker ships). Some of the strat targets would still affect airfields, but most would affect the ground battle. This way a country would win the war by bombing strat targets (off airfield) and ground forces or just by launching enough player controlled vehicles to defeat the other guys ... not by vulching and porking fields.
-
AH strategic system is not the strongest aspect of the game, without argument
The most "gamey" feature ever is the HQ strat. The third country, already getting ganged everywhere, then gets to play without radar too. HQ is just not needed in this capacity and takes away from the game. Leave radar control where it actually is, on the fields.
The balance problem comes back to individual players. The very last thing many players want is an even fight. I don't know what Hitech can do about that, especially as long as there is a "winning the war" feature in the game.
One solution put forward, and I apologize for not remebering who, is have a reset long before the beat-up team gets to 1 base. That way some fun can be had by all.
-
Well said Lazerus. Bish were relegated to gv duty last night. Most gave up on flying...bish rolled pretty easy due to numbers and I cant say I blame them. I upped a few times just for a challenge trying to get three vulchers to miss and weave my way to city looking for goons. On the few occasions I took off from a further field I was jumped immediately upon engagement (not really a BnZ'er) Anyway it's gettin tuffer to find a "good " fight. Still had a blast fighting up to 5 guys in a zeke though...got my fix that way.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
spin it any way you like beetle but all types of strat depend on numbers. pretending that one style of strat or another will affect the outcome over numbers is silly... pretending that the size or shape of the maps will do anything but prolong the inevitable is silly.
Think back to how it was in WB. We never had this kind of discussion back then. I never knew the kind of hording in WB2 when you and I were there that we have in AH. This is partly due to the mentality of the gottawin hordes of AH, but also due in part, I believe, to the Missun Editor and bardar. How many of those hordes arise out of Missunz? I bet it's a lot. :mad:
I don't agree that the land grab is wholly dependent on numbers. My WB squad was a jabo squad - IAF Borg (=varg=, crtch=, -dawg-, -rod--, --jh--, joness - remember any of those guys?) and we could capture fields with just three or four of us working together. The key was organisation, not numbers. Still, in a game where the mantra for so many is "it's MY $14.95", forget about organisation. So yes, you are right. In AH, the watchword is "numbers". But it needn't be that way.
-
Originally posted by AKcurly
Think about it Jackal. Suppose htc used the names "1", "2" & "3" instead of chess piece names. Would you be loyal to a number? Nah
curly
Weeellllllll........in that land of time past it was A,B,C. We were loyal to one letter so to speak.
-
Having two countries instead of three would alleviate the problem of being outnumbered. We've all been in the situation where our country was outnumbered by the other two countries who would not be fighting each other but would be concentrating on "us." Having to split one's forces to defend two fronts makes it almost impossible to put up a sustainable defense of any kind. Those pilots flying to defend their bases cannot engage in anything resembling a fair fight or one-on-one because as soon as they try they are jumped by two or three other enemy fighters.
Two countries.
Regards, Shuckins
-
I've been playing on the Bishops side because in the evening US hours they have been really outnumbered.
I came into AH in 00 or 01 as Rook. Couldn't consider a switch for a couple years because this was when the rooks were always low in numbers. I remember how rooks complained and when the AKs and a couple squads attempted to play rooks to even the numbers. Anyway, having experienced that long campaign on the short-sided team, when I see it happening to knights or bishop I change teams for the sake of fair play.
As for what has occurred the last few days to the outnumbered Bishops, from what I have seen almost no one cares or is willing to work together to destroy barracks. With over 100 people on line, I could not get anyone to help, and so I killed barracks at 3 fields then said to hell with it. Good skilled veteran bishops demonstrate no leadership for others. a lot of the mouthy good sticks never seem give up 15 minutes to help to improve the over all fighting position of their side.
If a half dozen players had given up 15 mins of their time to work together, a 3 sector goon flight would have been required. The openmindedness and willingness to do it was just not there.
Barracks are much easier to destroy than in AH1. Field ack is less effective and I have yet lost a plane on a barracks busting strike to field ack. haven't lost a plane to being jumpt by an nme fighter either. I fly in at 10 to 15k, kill the barracks and then dogfight until nme fighters drag me through their base ack enough for the ack to kill me.
I am not convinced the new strat modeling is the problem, with all due respect to my friend Curly. Bishop common purpose, team work, pride, and a little cooperation might go a long way. Too few have shown an interest.
Basically the same in each team when it gets outnumbered. teams dont have the same character that I remember seeing from time to time on the old rooks. something drove us to put up a tenatious defense. Course I remember when each team would scramble in the face of an incoming horde, and that isnt done anymore either.
good hunting
rthus
-
I think Wotan is on the right path. As is the current limit to the effect of fuel porking.
There should be at least one alternate victory condition that can be met without seriously impacting gameplay for those who just want to fly and fight.
Knocking out resource "points" is a great idea, so long as those resource points aren't directly tied to the ability to up planes on the front and fight.
Or maybe just designating three or four fileds in each country as strategic command centers. If those fields are captured and held for two hours of gametime, a victory is awarded. Thems that care about the war can all gang bang around those fields - those that want to fight can play elsewhere along the front.
-
Since I can offer no solution to the problem how about we just declare WWII over, the rooks the winners, and move on to Korea? I really like the F-86. ;)
-
You could use a sliding scale making HQ harder to kill for the outnumbered country, or regenerate faster, just as we have with perks.
Removing the perk tag if a country is a certian % low would make the perk plane more effective as well, I for one would be more inclined to enter a hord in a perk plane if I knew that everyone in the hord would not immediatly start HOing or othewise suiciding to kill the obvious perk plane.
shamus
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
Having two countries instead of three would alleviate the problem of being outnumbered. We've all been in the situation where our country was outnumbered by the other two countries who would not be fighting each other but would be concentrating on "us." Having to split one's forces to defend two fronts makes it almost impossible to put up a sustainable defense of any kind. Those pilots flying to defend their bases cannot engage in anything resembling a fair fight or one-on-one because as soon as they try they are jumped by two or three other enemy fighters.
Two countries.
Regards, Shuckins
Sorry, but this will not work
Unfortunitly there will always be a large number of players who will flock to the side with the numbers,resulting in a even more unbalanced fight
-
Let's not forget that fuel porking is no longer available to stop the enemy because of the ridiculous 2.0 fuel burn multiplier.
-
Originally posted by MadSquirrel
Good idea, but I think you are just changing the target from airfields to resource points.
Well, I think thats half the point :) Instead of limiting one's ability to fly (pork), other alternative solutions are offered in conjunction with the current landgrab setup, to help facilitate
Think of it as this silly analogy: The current fight is limited to, say, a firefight on a bridge. You have two ways: forwards and backwards. Like a Soviet horde, regardless of which tactics you employ in this very limited area of the bridge, numbers will win (ie, gangbang). With alternatives, one can think of different tactics not requiring hording or porking. Why not make it a double deck bridge? Bypass the fighting below and achieve the same result. Why not jump off the bridge and swim to achieve hte same result?
I think you get the jist.
I do like Wotan's idea though. More or larger 'country strat targets' would be needed and I would imagine these points would be a huge number - to prevent a small group of players from reseting the damn thing in two hours time. Any of the multiple routes would be equal in overall difficulty.
-
beetle... no... you never had the problem when fields were close and easy to capture like in WB's.. I agree the "missunz" is a lot of the problem tho. If the fields are easy to take and retake... the battle over them is fierce. If the fields are far away and difficult to capture it encourages (cough) "teamwork" ....a polite term for ovewhelming large numbers or.... gangbang.
as for two countries... only makes it worse IMO.. 4 isn't good either as we have seen.. so far, 3 is about the best.
lazs
-
Laz is right. Its just an attrition model but the only thing that gets attritited is the enemies moral.
Take away the fun of them playing and they do something else with their leisure time. No need to imply there is any real complexity to it.
-
Rooks in my opinion have always been the best organized with or without numbers. It's probably the reason the numbers are staying rook.
As for the fuel porking, I didn't mind it in AH1, just upped from one base back. Probably accounts for the entire Rook alt monkey whines. Ya it took an extra 5 minutes, but you could never guarantee you'd see a fight from a close base anyway and you could grab a little extra alt. Don't see anyone complaining about the lack of suicide porkers that usually targeted fuel... Does this happen in AHII? Was a good way to stop a hoard.
-
Where did all the bishops go...?
-
How about this? Posted a few moons ago..
--------------------------------------------------
The problem with strat, I've come to think, is that if strats effect gameplay too quickly and directly, people come to hate it because it becomes a limiting factor all too quick.
However, if strats effect gameplay too indirectly and slowly, it's existence is hardly worthwhile.
I think, that in the MA, both of these problems exist side-by-side.
1. Field strats, are very few in numbers opposed to typically numerous people going after it. The field layout was designed in the early days of AH.
An airfield is immediately rendered useless for a time when a handful of fuel bunkers are destroyed. Frontline advances are immediately stopped when two~three barracks are down. A handful of suicidal people can delay many things.
2. On the contrary, country-level strats, are basically useless as a target. They act much too slowly. The only target of worth is the city and the HQ.
The problem with country strat, is that it is designed to effect strat capabilities only when a certain 'sequence' is reached. First kill all the city buildings(halt factory rebuild), then kill all the factory buildings(halt field strat rebuild), then kill the field strat - only by this sequence, the strat factor kicks into action. If any of the 'sequence' goes wrong, all the effort put into it before goes to waste. Since, typically country strats are placed at the deepest of fields, there's hardly ever a chance to initiate the 'sequence' so the strat factor goes into action.
...
In this case, logically, I think a 'middle point' has to be reached.
Many suggestions have come to pass that the only way a really profound strat factor can be applied to the game is by introducing attrition - but immediate attrition, hurts game play. Porking fuels, IMO, can be viewed as an example of immediate attrition.
On the contrary almost no attritional value at all, is what can be said of the strats - as it is almost impossible to destory so many things at so short limited time in the MA - considering the unorganized nature of players.
...
Would it be possible, that attritional values of strat objects be designed to work slowly, but steadily?
It's still the early stages of thinking, so I find it hard to describe what I have in mind, but it's something like this;
* If the 'official' policy is to switch maps every one-week term, then the strat values are updated by every real-time, one-day, 24hour length. In the MA, this will be referred to as "Day1", "Day2", "Day3" and etc.
* Field strats, will reup as fast as within 5 minutes when country strat effecting its rebuild time is at 100% efficiency.
* Field strats, will reup as slow as 2 hours, when country strat effecting its rebuild time is at 0% efficiency.
* "Country strat", takes on the form of accumulated damage.
* The visual objects of country strats, such as factory buildings or HQ, will of course, can be destroyed and rebuilt. But the strategic "value point" it holds, does not replenish.
* Every one-day term, the total damage done to a certain country strat objects are calculated. If the total damage exceeds a certain set point, then 30% of country strat efficiency goes down.
* Every one-day term, country strat replenishes 10% of its strategic efficiency.
* Therefore, when a certain side has extensively done enough damge to country strats in a certain day term, the country strat efficiency will go down 20% ({30% down in strat efficiency due to total damage exceeding the set limit} - {10% replenished strategic efficiency})
* For example, if Rooks attack Knit country strat of radar facility, constantly pounding it at Day1, and succeeding to exceed the set damage point: at Day2, the Knit radar facility efficiency will be at 80%.
* This means, rebuild time of destroyed field objects will be slowing down. In the example above, ALL Knit radar at ALL Knit fields, will be effected in rebuild time if destroyd, at Day2. Knit radar facility, will be at 80% efficiency
*The effect of strat efficiency - rebuild time is suggested as follows;
100% - 5 minutes
90% - 7 minutes
80% - 10 minutes
70% - 15 minutes
60% - 25 minutes
50% - 40 minutes
40% - 60 minutes
30% - 1 hour 10 minutes
20% - 1 hour 30 minutes
10% - 1 hour 50 minutes
0% - 2 hours
* So, in the example, in Day2, Knit radar facility efficiency will be down to 80%. If a radar on Knit base is destroyed, it will take 10 minutes to rebuild, as opposed to Day1, where all country's strat efficiency is at 100%, it will take only 5 minute to rebuild.
* This strat efficiency will be allowed to be resupplied/recovered by player supplies, but it should be fairly difficult to recover. Someting like 20 goon drops = 1% replenished value. To recover 10% manually, without waiting for automatic replenished values the next day, it will take 200 goon supply drops.
* The "total damage value" set for a country strat, which determines if a country can successfully bust 30% of the top efficiency the next one-day term, should be fairly high. Something like two Lancaster formations reaching enemy country strat once every hour, for 24 hours -> 48 Lancaster formations -> 144 Lancaster bombers in a 24hour term -> 2 million 16 thousand pounds of bombs.
* The city, will effect how fast a town reups.
* If this works, I view that MA gameplay can become something like this:
1. one week term of a certain map starts.
2. at Day1, every strat object rebuilds within 5 minutes. Including town.
3. so at Day1, field capture is extreme difficult. There will be a lot of furball fights. with almost nothing effecting the fuels. If one side wishes to capture a field, they will have to get a goon standing by, CAP the field completely, and precisely time the goon drop to advance.
4. so at Day1, the advancement in frontlines will be pretty much stagnant. But lot of furball fights will happen.
5. if, a certain side, is compelled to look further out than just Day1, they will start strat attacks.
6. Ideally, by Day 4~5, if a certain country has planned its long=term strategy well, some of enemy country strats will be effected and downed to 50~60%.
7. by Day6~7, reset phase becoming imminent, the losing country will have its strats down to 10, 20%, or even 0%.
...
The strengths of this strat system, is that there's literally everything for everyone. At Day1, it's furballer's paradise. Field porkage almost doesn't work. Everything reups in 5 minutes.
If, strat players look ahead of that, they will start hitting enemy country strats massively - but this, will not effect the gameplay profoundly in the first 2~3 days of a new map.
If the strat players succeed in the difficult task of hitting country strats for all week, then at the last few days of the map, it becomes strat paradise. If strat players fail to do that, it will be furballer's paradise for whole week.
So, it's a sort of a no-negotiations, fight to get what you want, style of strat with delayed attrition. If strat players organize large missions and hit strats continuously for days, in the final phases of the map they will have almost total victory - many field objects, and even towns, staying down for max 2 hours! But that will be a difficult thing to do.
If furballers sense the potential danger of that, they will divide their time to cooperative defense, and stop strat players from porking things for days, and reaching their objective.
In the first few days, furballers will be dominant, with lot of plane fights with fuels uneffected. So the only way of field advancement will be total vulch and swarm tactics - strat players will have to divide their time to strat planning/action and, local defense.
So ideally, if it works, it will naturally compell both sides of the different groups of players to participate in various actions, in a cooperative manner without anyone yelling at anyone.
So, for the strat guys:
*Pros: The attritional power of strat is immense, very powerful. If continuously succeeding in large-scale strat attacks, in the last days of the week, the enemy will be almost totally helpless.
*Cons: Objective is very slow to reach. Very high standards of success. Lot of organization and many people required in a week-long effort.
For the furball guys:
*Pros: Games starts in a position where furballing fun is extreme. If successfully defend important strats, they can practically furball for whole week.
*Cons: If everybody indulges in to too much of near-sighted fighting, the last few days of the one-week term, will be incredibly difficult.
For everyone:
*Suicidal porkers are largely neutered for almost whole week(as long as country strat efficiency stays over 70~80%). Short-term, immediate suicidal action rarely effects anything. Besides, nobody would be pissed if a deluded suicidal dweeb goes kamikazeing in some corner of the map, all by himself, doing pitiful damage to strat targets which is of no use.
*The fun for the whole week - strat players may not achieve their objectives, but they'll get the chance to try a worthy challenge which lasts for the whole week. Furballers, will not see things getting worse - if country strat efficiency is down to 40~50%, it's still about the same as now. Only when it is totally down to 10~0%, will it become significantly worse for them.
-
What I wanna know is why are the three FHs all in a tight ROW? One lone bomber with average aim can close a base down completely.
-
Hmmm. It's a double edged sword. "IF" you make airfields harder to capture , they would ALSO be harder for the undermanned team to recapture.
Unless, as the numbers get unbalanced the HARDNESS of the objects increases. Or you can use an idea where like the HQ ( or something simular, far within the enemies country) that needs to be taken down before airfield "X" can even be captured ( also with an automatic rebuild time). Just a few thoughts, But like AKCurly said, it's HiTechs call.
NUTTZ
-
how bout the country with the highest k/d ratio at map reset gets the perks? or most kills, something not obvious to the people playing the map. just something different. i understand if it is k/d, might have a bunch of scared alt monkies afraid to lower the k/d, but... i guess ya nvr know.
~S~
-
Originally posted by killnu
how bout the country with the highest k/d ratio at map reset gets the perks? or most kills, something not obvious to the people playing the map. just something different. i understand if it is k/d, might have a bunch of scared alt monkies afraid to lower the k/d, but... i guess ya nvr know.
~S~
to this point I always thought HTC should designate one country a winner per camp and the criteria should be stat based.
The winning team should hold the largest population of folks playing the right way, whether it be in fighters, bombers or gvs. It would be pure skill based and the numbers equation becomes irrelevant.
I think this would also break down a lot of the fighter/strat rivalry as both camps will realize that pilots fully developing 1 skillset or the other helps their country win camps.
-
See below Quote from 1999 wish list and tell me how many items on it got used. Time will always tell.
See thread: Ideas for Improved Strategy - Thread
Due to other commitments, ive been away from AH for a while but may return after Xmass.
Dog out.
Ideas for Improved Strategy - Thread
Let it come out if you have any ideas of what good strategy is in online simulation.
Here's a few that comes to my mind. IMO these would be great for gameplay and increase the variety of possible targets. When there's a lot of more than plain field capture in the game it would definitely discourage vulching IMHO
If Aces High is to introduce cities, factories, ports, bridges etc. A nice feature would be to give them different strategic outcomes.
Destroy an ammo train: Less API available. Destroy several trains no API available at all. Must use less lethal ammunition type.
Destroy Aircraft Factory: Certain plane usage limited. eg. Fw190 factory destoyed, Fw190's cannot exceed 20% of country's force.
Destroy City: Slightly Hindered overall rebuild times.
Destroy gun factory: Rebuild times of AAA guns severely hindered.
And maybe a special target randomly set by host. Not too often though, maybe once in about every 5 hours.
ie. on map screen:
"There's 30 minutes time to destroy Factory X. All destroyed elements in the Factory X will have the double impact on enemy activities compared to normal"
Now a well organized country would hastily put up a well escorted buff raid to take the factory out.
Something like that
Am I only dreaming or could these be implemented (in more throughly designed package of course )
Let us hear your ideas on Strategy!
Bug
-
Originally posted by AKcurly
Actually, it's very easy to kill all FHs at a small field now. It takes one buff. The 3 FHs are are in one row.
The problem with FHs/Buffs is one of speed. It takes time to get a buff in position. By the time you get "Fluffy" to the field with some altitude, they've captured your base and are currently attacking the next one.
From a stat pov, AH2 is hopeless ... well, that's a bit strong I guess. It's appears hopeless since I haven't found the solution. ;)
curly
I predicted this would happen when I first heard of the change to the fuel situation.
This does nothing but play into the hands of the hoard warriors
And unless you have a hoard of your own following you to maintain a cap Killing the FH's at a base does less then a speedbump and does next to nothing to slow the hoard down inasmuch as the FH's only stay down 15 min if you hit a base just after the first wave has lifted off they are nearly back up again by the time that wave has reached its target
Killing barracks will only be effective if you can kill all the barracks at bases 2 and 3 deep and that in itself will take a small hoard to accomplish
I still say the true pork and auger types were far far less numerous then what they are made out to be.
But its like anything else. If you keep saying something often enough eventualy people will start to beleive it
but now it doesnt matter cause Now the name of the game is hoard or be hoarded
-
Interesting night, tonight. Both Rooks and Knights outnumbered Bishops during prime time USA. They scrimaged (since they were close in field count) a bit which permitted 3 of us to kill all rook troops bordering Bishop territory. So, under those circumstances, HTCs changes to the strat model worked out ok for the outnumbered country.
curly
-
Originally posted by lazs
as for two countries... only makes it worse IMO.. 4 isn't good either as we have seen.. so far, 3 is about the best.
The two country thing was tried in WB and at first we all thought we were going to like it. But part of the deal was the Axis/Allies split. When the latest aeronef du jour came out on its allotted RPS entry date, folks would switch sides to get the best ride. It was crap, and played no small part in my decision to quit. I never EVER saw a reset once the WW2 arena got started...
...Comparing that with how WB used to be - with FOUR sides - and then looking at AH where there has always been three, I'd have to say I like the four country set up best of all. But even with four, the war was won when one country lost its last field. The country with the most fields at that point (not necessarily the same country that made that last capture) won the war.
Having four countries kept the balance nicely while all countries had approximately the same number of bases. But when one side started losing, it tended to get victimised by the two adjacent countries. (The country diagonally opposite was too far away) What the dorks of the lesser of those two adjacent countries often overlooked was that by victimising the underdog, they helped the country with the most bases to win the war.
Back to AH2 - I feel that given the level of cooperation that exists between the average set of players (ie. none), the current strat is way too complicated, what with factories dependent on cities, cities dependent on HQ - or however it goes. I'd say get rid of all that HQ/city/fuel/factory nonsense and just have targets at the bases - at least in the MA that's what I'd suggest. Those targets would include acks, radar, barracks and the town. Fuel porkage has been done to death, and needs a rest.
-
hasn't this just been thrown out to keep you happy until TOD is released?
But I am bias as I am ZERO into the strat, could care less who is "winning" as AH is an air to air combat sim to me
-
I think having less airfields and other objectives would increase the defenses of these objects. This would decrease the effectiveness of the "Hoards" and allow all the countries a more level playing field. I also think the sliding scale for perk points needs to be adjusted more allowing the undermanned side more of a technical advantage.
-
any feature that makes field capture difficult to do but allows a simple way to make the field useless ruins gameplay for all who like action or only play for an hor or two at a time.
If, for instance fuel can be porked or fighter hangers taken down but the field remains uncaptured for 20-40 minutes... you have a large stagnant part spot on the map... if there are only a couple of good places for decent action...
kweas idea is also complex and unfair to those who wish to have fun fighting and not land grabbing. you have a decent fight opportuniy for a few days but when you log on... you may be without resources like radar for the whole time you play. for maybe a couple of days in a row... there will be useless fields everywhere. unless you wish to just join rook and go on missunz with 20 other guys and fight over scraps over nearlyt deserted fields.
closer fields with easier capture make it so there is action and participation with no unusable fields. landing the plane to capture worked as would dropping troops but only if the fields were closer together. too far apart like now and it would still be a timid steamroller.
even with the convoluted strat we have now we see that the closer fields are pockets of action till the strat guys ruin em.
the more complex the strat and the farther the fields the more "missunz" and the more time spent in the tower looking for a decent fight. the more long flights to nowhere to do nothing.
lazs
-
Well here we go again:rolleyes:
What I've been saying since day one & now things are starting to catch up. Just read ALL the posts, same ol story IMO.
I will say it again, if you make the game a "PERK", "POINTS", "STRAT", "KILLS", "NUMBERS" game it will be played that way! End of story. {with the exception of a few that dont}
HTC is either going to take AH and make it the ultimate WWII online game {maybe sim} or it will be a Quake3 with planes/GV's with a WWII theme.
-
Originally posted by Flit
Sorry, but this will not work
Unfortunitly there will always be a large number of players who will flock to the side with the numbers,resulting in a even more unbalanced fight
And you think it "works" now??
I dont agree I think it wouldnt take long at all for the arenas to balance themselves out for the simple reason is people want people to fight.
A bunch will also gravitate to the side with the smaller numbers simply for the challange.
In theory the 3 country idea is a great one.
It just never seems ot work the way its intended in practice.
Instead of the two smaller countries ganging up on the larger one. the two larger countries tend to gang up on the smallest while barely skirmishing each other just enough to keep each other at bay while each places the most attention on the smallest country.
And we end up with a situation exactly as you discribe
That being the case we might as well just have two countries.
-
Originally posted by AKcurly
Interesting night, tonight. Both Rooks and Knights outnumbered Bishops during prime time USA. They scrimaged (since they were close in field count) a bit which permitted 3 of us to kill all rook troops bordering Bishop territory. So, under those circumstances, HTCs changes to the strat model worked out ok for the outnumbered country.
curly
LOL ya got lucky, Cause I know i've seen some very dedicated rooks travel 2 and 3 sectors with goons to take bases
-
Originally posted by lazs2
Look how rooks are attacking fields with 30 players.. these are abandoned or nearly abandoned fields... it doesn't cause players to up to defend... it causes most to look for a better place to fight.
lazs
Thats a good point but a good reason why you dont see more up to defend is they simply dont have the numbers to spare against the hordes because they often are desperately defending against superior numbers at a different feild.
Yea Rooks (and others sometimes) come in with 30+ players to hit a feild but often when they do it they have such numbers that even if those 30 werent online at all they would STILL outnumber their opponents by a significant number.
There have been several times where Ive seen rooks outnumber knits and bish combined. Now if half the knits are fighting bish and other half are fighting rooks and vise versa with the bish. that still leaves a hell of alot of rooks free to do as they please and horde at will.
Used to be a few pilots with a well timed counter attack on the base the hordes wee comming from could bring their attack in that area anyway to a screaching halt. But with the changes now you cant do that anymore.
the onlyother option would be to have some sort of limit as to how many people can be in a country at a time and The powers that be will never go for that
So the 30+ hoards are now going to be able to do as they please pretty much with perfect imputity. All that needs to be done is come in and kill the ack. Let a bunch vulch while the rest kill the town and goon the city.
These changes help the pure furballers and I can understand their complaints about fuel shortages.
But it also gives the hordes some un needed help.
And hurts everyone else.
-
Originally posted by MOIL
HTC is either going to take AH and make it the ultimate WWII online game {maybe sim} or it will be a Quake3 with planes/GV's with a WWII theme.
I agree 200%.
The best times for me to play have been the afternoons, local time in Britain. But during the summer months it's hard to stay rooted next to a PC screen during the daytime. And the hording seems much worse during USPT when there are 500 people online than the off hours when there may be only ~100 online. The situation is worse on the small maps.
The added realism of the gunnery and flight model in AH2 may make the situation more competitive, and is a blow to the Quake-style play, in which case I may only agree with you 150%!
-
Originally posted by beet1e
As this thread was started by an AK, I'll say it here: The AK-Desert/pizza map, despised by a vociferous minority, offers a solution to the woes described in this thread. The fields are further apart, so dead pilots take longer to get back to where they were just before they died, and tend to be more careful.
Call me vociferous if you want but Pizza sucks (no offense to AKs, good bunch of guys). Pizza is nothing but a milkrunner map for pointpotatos.
tend to be more careful
This is the problem (with most maps and the player mindset) as I see it. Can't get ANYBODY accept the few who understand what I'm saying to engage AT ALL without at least 5k alt and 5:1 odds in their favor. Alot of times even in that situation a couple will venture down, make 1-2 passes then run like hell.
It's just BORING!
-
Well Dipstick, we mustn't agree too much - else people will start thinking we're a pair of willy-wooftas! :lol
Don't agree with your pizza assessment, but what you see and what I see could be accounted for by the different times of the 24-hour day that we play.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
Well Dipstick, we mustn't agree too much - else people will start thinking we're a pair of willy-wooftas! :lol
Don't agree with your pizza assessment, but what you see and what I see could be accounted for by the different times of the 24-hour day that we play.
Well I got a pair of willy-wooftas but that's a different thing altogether. ;) As far as Pizza goes, it's like most of the maps, an occasional good fight from CV to near base, otherwise boring as hell for someone who likes to mix it up.
-
I have always (todate) favoured a frontline approach to strat attrition.
Basically there is a battle front of sorts set between each country.
As that countries strat is atritted the battle front moves back and forth depending upon the total strat balance which decides the rate of movement. This could be zone orientated to allow local strat superiority even when down to only a few zones.
Ownership of a base would also cause a zone of occupation however if this zone its self was behind the enemy front line then it would recieve no logistics. Bases could then be captured but to hold them effectively requires them to be close enough to the front line that the new zone of occupation forms the front line.
Strat bombers then get direct feed back from their efforts (they see front line movement).
Bases can be supplied very quickly when inside their own lines but attritted and captured quite quickly when allowed to fall behind enemy lines.
The land grab pork emphasis is moved from the airfield to the strat target without denying individuals access to combat, except when the air field has become surrounded by enemy occupied territory.
Defence will not be a rapid responce to a field flashing due to a massed surprise raid. It (defence) will be able to gather to prevent a gradual incursion of the front line.
At a basic level its no more than the above...........however it could be "enhanced"
Gv spawn points could be geared to the front line such that you are spawned at the front line not directly at an enemy base. (Sort of like the LVT's spawn from carriers toward the shore now)
An AI front line with eg machine gun pits (at tile intersections?)and various GV's (supply convoys) could be added such that local hits on enemy frontline AI (via air to ground or ground to ground) moves the frontline locally.
-
dred... numbers or not... you are correct, it is local superiority, gameplay that counts. It is not that the other countries can't up enough players to defend... It is that it is no fun to do so. Why counter a boring missunz with another boring missiunz? better to just find a good fite somewhere els so... with the huge maps and far fields, a lot of players are mostly spending thjeeir time looking for some good air combat.. yes I know... hard to believe anyone would sign onto a game like this expecting good air combat but..
With closer fields that fell easily without being left fallow... guys could up one field back and stop the steamroll and at the same time have a good fite.
lazs
-
Laz is right.
The "fun" part about air combat games isnt getting kills but the fight.
Flying some stupid boring "cap" sorties over a field is just plane boring especially when the guys who are attacking the field dont care about "fighting" and go out of their way to avoid contact with the enemy just to fly into the ground to get after those pesky fuel sheds.
Chasing them about is no fun or more players would do it.
There's nothing wrong with a horde that is looking for a fight. A horde looking to suicide a field to death is what sux.
I dont agree with laz about making capture easier because the building battlers would just split up rolling up one field another. Just make "winning the war" soemthing other then just base grabbing.
-
With closer fields that fell easily without being left fallow... guys could up one field back and stop the steamroll and at the same time have a good fite.
Lazs ... The capture, be it harder or easier, has nothing to do with it.
Fuel and base spacing is where its at. If there is enough fuel, and one does not have to fly 2 sectors to find/create a fight, field capture is moot.
As a matter of fact, there could be a good furball between 2 fields and while the fight is on, if field capture were easy, the base could be taken and there goes the battle. Very similar to sinking a CV when there is a good battle/fight going on.
-
I love the fact that field captures are harder.
This, in itself, will deter the "Horde" from growing stronger and gaining momentum IMO.
Most who particiapte in the "Horde" count on things being easy.
If they get to a field and are held off, turned back, or squashed, some believe that they will come back stronger. I believe the opposite is true.
If it's not easy, then they don't want anything to do with. They will disperse and try to "horde" somewhere else and could run into the same stone wall. This keeps the "Horde" from gaining momentum.
How many of us have upped knowing that a mission is inbound and gone goon hunting ? What happens to the verocity of the mission when they realize that all their goons are dead ? You can see the change in attitude - they give up - and soon all are dead.
Same thing is happening now with tougher base captures.