Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: Fariz on November 21, 2004, 03:12:37 AM
-
Trinity is a good example of strat gameplay changing to the worse. It is 3rd day of a total steelmate, usual procedure is: one side hordes a field, capture it, then other side kills troops then fighter hangars, then gets field back. Because attacker has no troops to move ahead, they stuck, and eventually lose what they gained before.
IMHO problems here are:
1) Troops barracks. When you get the field, and 1 fighter over it can at once strafe barracks -- it is wrong. Barracks shall be tougher and there shall be more barracks at the field. Killing troops at the field shall require work of at least 1 heavy loaded jabo. Other way it is way too easy and way too fast.
2) Bigger towns, which were supposed to bring more buffs, and create a better teamplay, turned a game into a hordes-oriented. For many people it is hard to get more than 5-7 people in a mission, and now such missions has a low chances for success (buffs are easy to be lost at defended fields, and jabo can't make the work themselve). As a result, missions are extincting. In AH1 you could hear 5-7 different people asking for people for their missions every day, now it is sometimes a whole days without a single mission posted.
Increase of the number of fields for reset helps strat on small fields still be dinamic, but large maps are a problem.
-
I agree on the barracks..Make them toughere to pork.
Disagree on making towns larger...Would like different size towns on different size feilds though.
-
That solves nothing.
We've had the horde problem since the latter days of Aces High 1. AH1 bases had both porkable fuels and multiple barracks - two objects which some people treat as one of the factors behind the horde mentality, which in reality is only superficial.
We've asked HT for a lot of things.
People hated fuel porking. They hated it because it was a strat object which could slow down advance with its destruction by limiting field access. So they wanted something else that effects strat but not the ability to up and fight in planes.
So in turn, now we have the barracks. People can still up planes, but the barracks have become objects which could substantially halt all enemy advance at the entire front.
Now, we hate the barracks for what they are able to do when its destroyed, too.
So what's it gonna be next? After another few months we'll start hating the fact that a defensive side with local numbers disadvantage have no way to stop the enemy horde from taking fields at all. What then? Someone gonna start a new request to make ord bunkers tougher and more numerous? And then somebody else will come a year later and start asking the ord bunkers be returned to as it was.
It's the same vicious cycle again and again. Exactly the same thing which happened with the side balancing mechanism. One or two individual implementations cannot stop this.
Toying around individual objects have absolutely no effect in stopping the steamroller horde. The horde phenomenon is something that comes from a fault within the entire AH strat system itself. The current method of strat just cannot cope with player numbers as it is.
Back when we had only about 200 people in the arena, it was roughly 70 people for each three countries. Assuming equal fights at all fronts that's about 30~40 planes of each sides fighting at a front. In a 25 mile stretch of the 'border lines' there'd be roughly around 10 planes at best.
The simple, small-scale strat which revolves around individual fields and its objects were effective back then. When a certain side masses its players, it was about 10~15 planes at best.
The situation has totally collapsed since then. There are more than twice the average numbers of planes which used to be in the same 25 mile stretch of a border line. Base distances are the same while the total gamer numbers grew more than two-fold.
The fights are harder, since there's at least twice as much enemies around, as well as twice as much friendlies around, with twice as much faster enemy reinforcements arriving at the fight(the guys who got shot down reupping)... which means you have to be twice as faster in shooting down the enemy, if you want to stay alive. Often individual skills means nothing in such hectic environment.
Why do you think people create the 'horde' in the first place? It's because people figure that they'll actually get more enemy kills that way, despite the huge number of competition in the horde.
Fighting and tussling for scraps of leftovers, often yields better results for most people, since in a "fair fight" with equal amount of large numbers of people on both sides clashing they'd not even survive for 10 minutes.
Let's face it.
The horde is here because everybody is selfish.
In the old days the numbers weren't too large, so the 'grouping' of players on a certain spot meant nothing but a medium sized fight with good fighting opportunities.
Now, when people "group" at a front, it's like some 30~40 people at a 25 mile radius area, doing nothing but milk runs , hitting empty, deserted fields... and then ten guys chasing a single enemy plane when it passes by.
Let's face it.
The MA was a classic experiment of the Laissez-faire - the "invisible hand" - economics which is going miserably. No intervention, no restrictions, no rules, just leave the arena free and it will balance itself, right? Wrong.
Let's face it.
The only thing that will ever spread the numbers apart, dismantle the horde, make people try and practice flying/bombing/jabo skills, plan missions, learn cooperation, bring back individual fights and duels, and bring the fun back in the MA..
.. is a forced application of certain basic organizational structure, at least loosely based on military operations.
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
That solves nothing.
Let's face it.
Ok, lets face the facts.
Trinity could be reset (and was reset many times), now it is a complete draw. Map have not changed, so obviously strat have changed.
Number of missions felt considerably with AH2. It has nothing to do with a number of people online. In AH1 number of missions increased with number of people online, with AH2 missions are very rare. Missions efforts now are less effective, and successes are easily denied by extremely easy field porking. It is numerous time when field captured by team efforts at once lost its troops to 1 fighters up at it just before the capture.
I am not asking for a revolution. I am asking to fix what is broken from a strat point of view. It is all a game ballance issue. When strat efforts are not rewarded, strat players lose their interest for a game. Is not it obvious?
-
Originally posted by SirLoin
Disagree on making towns larger...Would like different size towns on different size feilds though.
Good idea.
-
i think each base should have a small army base with it, similar to a Vbase. Would have the vehicle hanger there, and could have a much larger barracks.
-
Make a lot more towns than airfields of diffrent size, requiring 5, 10, 15, 20 troops. When taking a town the frontline moves... maybe a drawn frontline on clipboard.
Have anti air guns spread across the frontline that make low alt crossings dangerous, maybe have the frontline "hardned" on flat terain and on places with lots of enemy activity but no progress, the troops dig in there kind of. Have anti tank guns spread out after a while with no move in the front.
Airfields fall in enemy hands once the frontline is moved considerable past them.
Apart from that, introduce factories, sektor headquarters for every 10 to 20 airfields and troop camps.
Airfields should have light vehicles enabled (M series, lvts) but no tanks. Maybe big bases can spawn tanks. Vehicle bases spawn all kind of vehicles. Bases can spawn vehicles to all nearby friendly towns, in the hangar and to the frontline.
This way fights would be moved away from airfields, small groups can take small towns and big raids large towns.
Maybe not all of the ideas are praktikal, but there are some ideas that might give a more diverse gameplay.
ciao schutt
-
For as big as Trinity is it's amazing that only 3-4 bases can be used without flying for 40 minutes.
Nice map but the bottle-neck creates Hordes on all 3 sides.
-
main reason troop/ammo/hanger porkage is so easy, is
the whimp ack we have. its so poor that it allows
a single fighters 3 to 5 passes through fully acked
base. a lone fighter should never make it to the field to pork anything, muchless 5 passes.
porking a field should require multiple jabo planes in on field @ 1 time so ack fire is divided up , or have to use Buffs.
deack of a airfield is still way way too easy for a single plane.
as for stalemates, most the big maps have 200+ bases?
and they ALL usually end up with fights at 6 to 10 bases
for the entire week. they are just huge furball maps with wasted
bases never used. the only big map that got regularly reset was pizza(akdesert).
whels
Originally posted by Fariz
Trinity is a good example of strat gameplay changing to the worse. It is 3rd day of a total steelmate, usual procedure is: one side hordes a field, capture it, then other side kills troops then fighter hangars, then gets field back. Because attacker has no troops to move ahead, they stuck, and eventually lose what they gained before.
IMHO problems here are:
1) Troops barracks. When you get the field, and 1 fighter over it can at once strafe barracks -- it is wrong. Barracks shall be tougher and there shall be more barracks at the field. Killing troops at the field shall require work of at least 1 heavy loaded jabo. Other way it is way too easy and way too fast.
2) Bigger towns, which were supposed to bring more buffs, and create a better teamplay, turned a game into a hordes-oriented. For many people it is hard to get more than 5-7 people in a mission, and now such missions has a low chances for success (buffs are easy to be lost at defended fields, and jabo can't make the work themselve). As a result, missions are extincting. In AH1 you could hear 5-7 different people asking for people for their missions every day, now it is sometimes a whole days without a single mission posted.
Increase of the number of fields for reset helps strat on small fields still be dinamic, but large maps are a problem.
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
Let's face it.
The horde is here because everybody is selfish.
In the old days the numbers weren't too large, so the 'grouping' of players on a certain spot meant nothing but a medium sized fight with good fighting opportunities.
Now, when people "group" at a front, it's like some 30~40 people at a 25 mile radius area, doing nothing but milk runs , hitting empty, deserted fields... and then ten guys chasing a single enemy plane when it passes by.
Let's face it.
The MA was a classic experiment of the Laissez-faire - the "invisible hand" - economics which is going miserably. No intervention, no restrictions, no rules, just leave the arena free and it will balance itself, right? Wrong.
Let's face it.
The only thing that will ever spread the numbers apart, dismantle the horde, make people try and practice flying/bombing/jabo skills, plan missions, learn cooperation, bring back individual fights and duels, and bring the fun back in the MA..
.. is a forced application of certain basic organizational structure, at least loosely based on military operations.
DING!
Totally agree, Kweassa. I'd make it sig. material, but for the HTC mandated length limit.
In particular, "The only thing that will ever spread the numbers apart, dismantle the horde, make people try and practice flying/bombing/jabo skills, plan missions, learn cooperation, bring back individual fights and duels, and bring the fun back in the MA .. is a forced application of certain basic organizational structure, at least loosely based on military operations." Indeed, indeed. You are so right. I shouted this from the rooftops, but nothing changed because of attitudes like - it's MY $14.95
- I hate you little napoleon types - the worst thing in the game
- I fly for me, not for you.
- OK, so give me your CC details.
- generalissimo/strateegery [sp]
- I only have 34 minutes to play each day
- My subscription entitles me to fly the plane of my choice
People think that any kind of restriction to the available planeset "limits choices". I disagree entirely. If the planeset were regulated, the early war/mid war planes would be chosen more. Maybe the hangar dust would be blown off the 109E even. But, as things stand, you have to fly something that stands a chance against an arenaful of 1945 uberplanes. There IS a choice: Hobson's Choice (http://dictionary.reference.com/wordoftheday/archive/2000/01/31.html).
-
Originally posted by beet1e
DING!
Totally agree, Kweassa. I'd make it sig. material, but for the HTC mandated length limit.
In particular, "The only thing that will ever spread the numbers apart, dismantle the horde, make people try and practice flying/bombing/jabo skills, plan missions, learn cooperation, bring back individual fights and duels, and bring the fun back in the MA .. is a forced application of certain basic organizational structure, at least loosely based on military operations." Indeed, indeed. You are so right. I shouted this from the rooftops, but nothing changed because of attitudes like - it's MY $14.95
- I hate you little napoleon types - the worst thing in the game
- I fly for me, not for you.
- OK, so give me your CC details.
- generalissimo/strateegery [sp]
- I only have 34 minutes to play each day
- My subscription entitles me to fly the plane of my choice
People think that any kind of restriction to the available planeset "limits choices". I disagree entirely. If the planeset were regulated, the early war/mid war planes would be chosen more. Maybe the hangar dust would be blown off the 109E even. But, as things stand, you have to fly something that stands a chance against an arenaful of 1945 uberplanes. There IS a choice: Hobson's Choice (http://dictionary.reference.com/wordoftheday/archive/2000/01/31.html). [/B]
Hmmm, and why you guys are so agressive? You love to fly some other way? Fly it, play the way you want. Just do not forget that your understanding of fun is not the only fun in the universe. Here some people playing for strat, and strat playing has problems which are pointed. It is HTC vision if it is problem or not (it may by design), and it is HTC choice if to change something or not to change it (if it is not the way they suppose it to be), I am just giving them my feedback on the gameplay, from my personal point of view.
-
I don't like large map and old maps.
It makes the tedium when logging to AH MA.
AH2 needs a Devolution...
-
What about increasing country?
-
If you don't actually Subscribe to AH, doesn't that make any/all of your ideas/opinions moot?
The idea of structuring the MA in some military/rank type fashion is the BEST way to make sure HT goes out of business. The CT is for structured planesets, the MA is for flying/doing what you want.
The MA is working itself out. Not only are the sides more or less balanced now, but you also see tons of high alt buffs.
As far as the late war/uber plane whine, I have never understood it. La7's are only good under 8k, and a threat only if you are horribly out of position. If you furball on the deck, then try and run with a couple of (insert turn/burn plane here) chasing you, that la7 sure is pesky. He'll make you have to turn and fight the others. Happens to me sure. And you know what? It was my fault I was IN that position. I blew my hardeck, or lost my E, or whatever, and this is the price you pay for it. La7's are fodder over 10k. (under 10k imho) with many, many planes. Nothing late war really scares me, unless I'M out of position, and in that instance, ANY plane scares me. I'm much, MUCH more afraid of a well flown early war plane, than any dweeb in a (insert late model ride here).
If you have limited time to fly, then you should be able to fly and enjoy yourself. Period. I fly 100hours a month ish usually, (some more, some less) and most of it is in quick, 20-40 min hops all through my day. It's rare to find me flying for hours and hours.
Personally, I've been of the opinion that if your team is horribly outnumbered, the Strat should adjust itself so your "stuff" ups faster. Makes sense that if you have overwhelming #'s, your stuff should up slower. THAT is what I think HT shoulda tweaked.
I wouldn't mind adding more barraks to a field, or increasing their hardness. BUT if the other team is porking all your strat, then organize some guys and do some resupply runs. I've done it numerous times w/ my squad.
just my rambling 2 cents.
-
Trinity is a map of funnels. You have 200 bases, but only 3 or so per side are worth flying from at any given time. It also creates a situation where ONLY a hoard can get a big enough 'beachhead' to hold onto captured bases outside of their initial zone.
Typically, you can capture a base or two, but the defenders have so many bases to counter attack from that its nearly impossible to hold those hard won bases as it takes just a few determined pilots to kill the FH at the newly capture bases, and there is no way for the attackers to funnel enough fighters in to defend in most cases.
So base capturing is a bit on the pointless side unless you can mount a well organized attack force to capture 4-6 bases very quickly and defend them from an immediate re-capture.
This organized force is know as the 'HOARD' be those that cant stand the idea of being beaten by folks who organize :D
-
Kweassa, you shouldn't talk so much about fighting. Your style of fighting, means this...
"If I think i'll lose the fight, I'll run away, or out climb the guy and wait for him to get bored and fly away, and that will be when i attack."
And you will repeat that process.
BORING
Why don't you just try and do something other than bnz the guy.
If I'm fighting a guy and losing angles, I'll try a different approach.
If I lose, oh well, the other guy beat me.
Some may say that your way is a smart way of fight, but your way makes it boring for others (if you care about others and not just yourself). Besides, you won't get any better at fighting if you continue to do what you do.
Learn to fight you PU$$.
-
Awww Kermit, stop being the little man who holds an arena grudge inside himself. Only a headcase would still be mad of losing a single fight in the MA, and then involving the grudge into everything he sees on a discussion board, sheesh.
Get a life dude.
Hmmm, and why you guys are so agressive?
The idea of structuring the MA in some military/rank type fashion is the BEST way to make sure HT goes out of business. The CT is for structured planesets, the MA is for flying/doing what you want.
Lute, Fariz, we're not being aggressive about anything. Thinking that the current MA has no 'structuring' at all is a big sham, a fantasy.
For instance, the perk system is a form of basic structuring in terms of gameplay balance. HTC doesn't want some planes flying too much in the MA, so they slap perks on it. It's a basic means of limitation.
What about your suggestions of increasing a few objects or toughening some things up, and etc?
It's also another form of limiting some actions and tendencies in the game - albeit indirectly. You hope to make some actions difficult or easier, hoping that people will stop acting in certain ways, and start acting another way. That's also a form of "structuring".
What we're aggressive about is acknowledging what the reality is.
The phenomenon behind the current problems in the MA is simply that people don't want "fun" in the first place. They react to the environment they're given, and find the most profittable, easiest way to do certain things, and that is creating the horde.
The 'hordeness' is inherent in the system. Unless there is some direct means of intervention to limit the size of hordes no small change will ever influence this mainstream.
It's not I object to your suggestions. I'm only saying it will not achieve the intended effect, and remain just another small experiment.. like the ones we had with towns, fuels, field layouts.. and etc etc. Remember those previous experiments. People came up with each of those ideas in hopes to change the gameplay to the better, stop the hording, make people practice better coordination for captures, etc etc.
None of them worked.
And I'm aggressive about acknowledging the fact that none of them ever will.
-
I Love the MA...
IT is DAM FUN...
I love bomn CVs
I love Furballn....
I dotn like purse swingn
I love Killn GVS with planes
Its Dam FUN...Thank you HTC ...I enjoy the way this game plays in MA...So do many many many more who dotn ever visit this BB
BTW..the rest of you guys...TOD TOD!!!!...I will love to fly msiions on a 24hour basis in there..sweeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeett
beetle..shut ur whole..u dont even play the game..Dont talk about limiting what i fly..screw that..
It is my money..and its CALLED THE MAIN ARENA....FREE FIRE ZONE!!!...and it is Fing GREAT...
Furballs....misssions..Duels. ...Jabo...Defense..It has it ALL!!!! 24 hours aday...
-
Originally posted by GreenCloud
beetle..shut ur whole..u dont even play the game..Dont talk about limiting what i fly..screw that..
Oh! But aren't I even allowed to join discussions in which I talk about WHY I don't play the game?
Fariz - my "aggressive" comments were not directed at you. When I flew Bish, I remember you as a good tactician/strategist, although you tended to use the numerical supremacy smashdown/horde option.
I still think of Rod367 as the master strategist. :aok
-
to be honest beetle, MA is sometimes alot of fun, and you're not giving any possitive view, so i agree with BGB. SHUT YA HOLE
:)
batfink
-
Whoa there, BGB/Mechanic. I spoke to agree with something Kweassa posted, and then to recall past posts. I could see nothing in Pyro's list of BBS rules (http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/announcement.php?s=&forumid=11) preventing me as a retired player from doing this.
However, I should draw your attention to Rule 6, which states 6- Members are asked to not act as "back seat moderators". Issues with any breach of rules should be brought to HTC's attention via email at support@hitechcreations.com.
:)
-
I am not sure whether or not it would change horde stuff but I would like the field strat objects to be either more numerous or harder............
presently........
A single Typhoon with cannon can
kill all the infantry
destroy all the supplies
destroy all the ordinance
reduce fuel to 75%
on any field (large or small)
With the new bombing model and the B24J a single formation can kill all fighter hangers and the VH on a small base................
Whilst this is so easy we stop the land grab by entering into pork wars............. its a matter of balance IMO.
Whilst the land grab focusses on field v field attrition and capture, pork will always be a feature........... hence its balance is critical.
The only horde limiter I have ever seen work (to any extent) is a field player limit........... AW's zone limit.
-
If we agree that horde=bad, we have to find another way to capture bases. As it is, the only way to get a base down and hold the area down long enough to keep it safe for goons is with persistantly overwhelming numbers. Anything less is furballing with a target, likely to go on for hours. Unless you have swarms overhead, it is simply too hard to get the FHs down, the VH down, clear previously upped enemies, protect from neighboring base ingresses, and sneak the goon in before hangars are up again. So, you have either the horde or the undefended sneak.
Strat targets are one approach, but our current system evolved for specific reasons, treating specific problems. I find it very unlikely that HTC will go back to older systems, because we'll just be trading current problems for old ones.
I suspect that simpler interventions would make smaller attack units workable. Why not just add 5 or 10 minutes to hangar down time?
-
Originally posted by Simaril
If we agree that horde=bad, we have to find another way to capture bases. As it is, the only way to get a base down and hold the area down long enough to keep it safe for goons is with persistantly overwhelming numbers. Anything less is furballing with a target, likely to go on for hours. Unless you have swarms overhead, it is simply too hard to get the FHs down, the VH down, clear previously upped enemies, protect from neighboring base ingresses, and sneak the goon in before hangars are up again. So, you have either the horde or the undefended sneak.
Sim - the undefended sneaks won't always work because there are so many warning systems in AH that give the game away before it's started. More than two years ago, I suggested that bardar should be turned off (to give sneaks a better chance) and for the mission editor to be turned off (to steer the game away from the horde mentality). Of course, both of my suggestions were ignored, as I predicted in the thread (http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=52208) in which I suggested these changes. What you see now (viz. the hordes) is the result.
-
Let a base get resupply with troops on one troop load
Have the field cargo resupply trips for bases count for more perks
Have another field ack (m16 .50 cal?) at each troop station to simulate the troops return fire
have mini towns around main bases... they too would have to come down before base capture.. this would spread out the furball some.
Any other suggestions?
-
its all symptomatic of the broken strat system.
changing the strat system back to the way it was before zone bases and resupply will solve this.
changing barracks will only be a bandaid
-
Base supply with one load - No thanks.
How easy do guys want this game to get?
We have double HQ hardness to keep DAR basically up all the time, minimum fuel of 75% etc.
Make it 1 load to resupply a base you effectively negate the point of having jabos in the game apart from hitting GVs.
Buffs already have a diminished role since the strats and HQ were changed, doing this would diminish the role of jabos.
More perks for resupply - Yup why not.
Field acks - More should be mannable, and add some mannable with proxy fuses.
Few changes I would like to see -
NOE - Should not be visible to friendlies. This would stop the 'must have a spy' accusations that always start if they are intercepted.
CVs - If you have just switched countries should not be visible and you should not be able to control them. This stops the change sides to see where CV is. More importantly as happened recently (captured CV) it stops someone with a high GV rank from switching sides taking control of it and running it into an enemy base to get sunk.
-
The problem is that when one has a few option limmiting strategic objects one creates a single point of whinage.
People will whine about that single issue that limmits game play because it gets frustrating and repetetive. Its always the same issue that pisses them off.
If instead of limmiting critical strategical objects in game one would expand them the players would face different situations more often. Even if these would limmit the ability to play the game the way the pilot wants to it would be in a different way all the time. Meaning not always would it hurt him and sometimes more and sometmes less.
For example if each nation had a factory for each plane then there would be strategical targets to bomb that had effect on the game world but would not always affect the same players.
For example if a nation was on the offence then it would be a good idea to down the factories that produce good base defense planes.
If a nation was beeing massivly bombed it would be a good idea to do strike missions to take out bomber factories.
This would also move pilots from the front line fields to the strategic targets as it would be really important to defend them.
Today all attacks are focused on fields and hence everyone is around the frontline fields.
The way to decrease the hoards is to make attacking other objects then fields meaningfull.
Tex.
-
The strat layout on this map is very poor, they are for all intents and purposes inaccessible. It is a dozen sectors (and more!)round trip to reach the strats (at least on the right side of the map). Strats play an important role in the movement of a front. With such distances is it any surprise that we have this result? I really dont think it is any more complicated than a poor strat layout.
-
Originally posted by Citabria
its all symptomatic of the broken strat system.
changing the strat system back to the way it was before zone bases and resupply will solve this.
changing barracks will only be a bandaid
-
As long as the main goal of the game is to 'win the war/reset" the problems will remain.
The glory seems to be in doing this as fast as possible so folks can say 'we're great-you suck"
Limit capturable fields, give the bomber guys strat targets that mean something so they can bomb all day long, and start swinging the emphasis back on the air war not the tac war.
Dan/Slack
-
As long as the main goal of the game is to 'win the war/reset" the problems will remain.
Very true. I'd like to add/emphasize again that this goal will not change. Nothing's gonna make AH go back to the old days. People wanted a virtual war, and now they got it.
The glory seems to be in doing this as fast as possible so folks can say 'we're great-you suck"
I wouldn't think so. The process is backwards. People just use the most effective strategy they can think of, which in turn leads to the one-sided steamrolling "blitzkrieg". I doubt they particularly aim for a fast reset. It's just that the methods each countries use are often so very effective and devastating.
Limit capturable fields, give the bomber guys strat targets that mean something so they can bomb all day long, and start swinging the emphasis back on the air war not the tac war.
The air war you may want is gone, and its not coming back Guppy. It's gone.
AH MA is total war - people fight to win. The very reason that the horde persist, is because people want to win, and they think winning is more important and fun, than having a good A2A combat.
We have to acknowledge that fact. The only viable option left to us(to HTC actually), is to overhaul the entire strat system so this total war at least makes sense.
The total war concept does not necessarily have to be more dull and hordish than the old AH MA. Along with it comes as much new implications as those that have been lost with the change.
The real question is, when will HTC start admitting this fact, and think of an entirely different strat system?
-
Originally posted by Guppy35
As long as the main goal of the game is to 'win the war/reset" the problems will remain.
The glory seems to be in doing this as fast as possible so folks can say 'we're great-you suck"
Limit capturable fields, give the bomber guys strat targets that mean something so they can bomb all day long, and start swinging the emphasis back on the air war not the tac war.
Dan/Slack
Not sure this would work anyway Dan, from my POV most
strat buffers are the kind of folks that like peeing in others
pools. If they can't have a direct effect on limiting other's fun,
they get frustrated.
-
The typical strategy in MA derives from a very basic military strategy - "gather your forces, and hit where the enemy is the most weakest".
It is logical and effective.
But without any kind of structural system in the game, this effectively mans all three countries can push this principle upto the extreme point where each side mutually cancels all possibilities of strategical, tactical innovation and/or stimulation.
In simpler words, people create hordes. They don't use this horde to bust enemy horde in force. Hitting a horde with a horde may be fun, but speaking in pure tatcical/strategical terms, its a stupid move, wildly high in attrition rates and casualties.
And the MA folk know that. So, they use their horde to hit where there aren't any enemies around. The enemy horde does the same.
Suddenly, the arena becomes a "chicken game" - who can ignore the advance of the enemy horde longer, and who can push deeper into the enemy territory with its horde, before turning back to defend? The classic "vulch or be vulched" scenario that plagues the MA.
Virtually every problem in the MA comes from the formation of hordes which refuse to fight other hordes - everything.
Apparently, the strategical thinking in the MA is correct, except it has no limitations or boundaries. Since fighting to defend a large enemy force is so unprofittable, people will "abandon posts" and give up defense all together, and go join the friendly horde offensive.
Now in real life, the basic strategical principle would persist, but it would never happen that way. Two struggling sides always have a limited amount of force to wield. Limited amount of human resources means the quality, organization, and basic planning becomes the deciding factor in battles.
Not so in the MA - only the numbers determine the outcome of the battle, and since it is always "vulch or be vulched", basically nobody fights the other side - there is no 'fight' at all. There is only the 'push'.
Now, some might come up and say the MA is not real life. That is true. However, all the basic stuff that we crave in the MA that is not present, and all the basic stuff that we complain about the MA which refuses to go away, comes from the fact that our MA is a total war which totally lacks any kind of resemblence to the usage of armed forces.
In a real war, soldiers and pilots were placed at their posts, and each theater of operations had limited resources to use. In the MA, people use up resources any where they want and voluntarily create huge hordes which are largely allergic to another hordes.
Unless something forces people to spread apart, and forces each "fronts" to use only their share of the pilots assigned there, the "horde" problem will never, ever go away. Nothing can change this problem unless some basic organization is forcibly implied on.
And I must ask to the people with allergic reactions to any suggestions that involve "limitation of freedom" in the game, that, would such minimum constraints be so worse as to tolerate the current style of MA play indefinately? Is being assigned to certain place, having to fight equally spread numbers, having to use limited resources to defeat the other side, so worse than meeting the same steamroller again and again and again?
-
WW2 as played in AH.
The German army abandons any captured territory to the west for an all out attack on Russia. Meanwhile, the Russians are unavailable to meet this attack due to the fact that their entire armed forces are on the march to Manchuria in order to attack the Japanese. The Japanes will not be there to defend as they have sent every man they have off to California to kill Americans.
....but, they are not there either. The Americans are all on the way to Germany, which appears to be empty.
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
Unless something forces people to spread apart, and forces each "fronts" to use only their share of the pilots assigned there, the "horde" problem will never, ever go away. Nothing can change this problem unless some basic organization is forcibly implied on.
Correct again, Kwe. That "something", as far as I was concerned, was the pizza map. Not an ideal solution, perhaps, but the best that we had, and provided far better gameplay than the small maps hordefest.
-
For some people the strat system is broken. Kweassa, Cit, myself and others have posted long-winded and less long-winded solutions that in many cases would require a complete reworking of how the war is won. To somebody who likes a realistic, deep strat model these changes would be worth the effort. Imagine if you actually had to lead a group of escorted heavy bombers, at high altitude, deep into enemy territority to attack a target that was critical to the war effort. Sounds like a winner to me. But, what about HTC and everybody else?
What we have now is basically the same strat model that was found in AW, and as far as I know Warbirds. The proven model. Kill some local defenses/ resources, cap a base, do some vulching and wait for the goon - rinse and repeat. Strat targets apparently can have an impact now, but why bother since the basics require a lot less effort and get the job done just well. 400-500 paying customers seem to agree each night at prime time.
Does HT think strat is broken? I've asked a couple of time but no response. Without hearing otherwise, I would suspect that HT thinks strat is largely fine, at least for now. TOD is the next big project (no doubt an exciting new programming challenge as well as potential new-busines opportunity), and he's got his own real plane to fly now for fun vs. those virtual ones in the MA. And HTC gets plenty of people to fill the arena each day, who are apparently having fun doing the steamroller thing.
If strat were an issue to HT, I suspect he would be interested in doing something more than short term band-aid types of fixes. It is kind of odd that he added trucks and trains but that they are more eye candy than intergal to gameplay. Remember the excitement throughout the combat flightsim community at large when they were announced? What real impact do they have today?
Personally, I think we're going to have to play AH for whatever individual value we get out of it today and not have higher aspirations for an MA the delivers the "WW2OL dream" (which WW2OL apparently fails to deliver as well) or "Civ3 meets AH" or even the exceptional layered FPS/RTS/Strat complexity of BattleZone (the modern remake).
It is what it is and it puts gas in the tank of the RV8.
Charon
[edit: People will often say "You'll get your strat when TOD arrives"... but frankly that's apples and oranges. First of all, it's more role playing than strat. You attack an assigned target to advance in rank, not to win the map war. The whole regimented TOD mission structure will not appeal to many MA types who can't do what they want, when they want with what they want to fly. It's hard to see this as being a viable solution to MA players who like the MA model but want something more.]
-
I think the MA is a great place..Fly what you want ..when you want..At certain times ..a HUG evariety of styles you can do...other tiems..only a few styles to fly/ride..
TOD...is going to be kik azzzzz
I LOVE THE MA!!!
-
Originally posted by Furious
WW2 as played in AH.
The German army abandons any captured territory to the west for an all out attack on Russia. Meanwhile, the Russians are unavailable to meet this attack due to the fact that their entire armed forces are on the march to Manchuria in order to attack the Japanese. The Japanes will not be there to defend as they have sent every man they have off to California to kill Americans.
....but, they are not there either. The Americans are all on the way to Germany, which appears to be empty.
:lol :rofl :lol
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
Awww Kermit, stop being the little man who holds an arena grudge inside himself. Only a headcase would still be mad of losing a single fight in the MA, and then involving the grudge into everything he sees on a discussion board, sheesh.
Get a life dude.
Kweassa
You didn't even hit me in the fight. You ran away you PU$$.
I had to break off because I used ALL my fuel on you. Everytime you dove in on me, I'd move and eventually get on your six. Then you just ran away.
Like I said earlier....LEARN TO FIGHT YOU PU$$.
Otherwise, keep your mouth shut.
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
Now in real life, the basic strategical principle would persist, but it would never happen that way.
MA is not a real life. MA will never get a complexity of a good board wargame with a 100kb of rules, because complex rules are good for few, and borring for many. MA shall be addictive to keep people playing it. MA is not a structured environment, here people can't give orders to other people (well, some try to do it :) ). In MA you can only ask for a help and cooperate with others.
What I am asking for is a better ballance of what we have, the ballance, which will make strat playing more interesting. What I want to see is the situation, when to deny a skillful and time consuming efforts (for example squad NOE or a country mission to get a base), you will need a skillful jabo or a few. It is a ballance issue, nothing else.
If you want to hear my opinion about current realization of a strat model as a whole, I do not find it satisfactory. Too many things do not work as they were intended to work. Factories are bombed by scoremongers, not the strat players; trains, barges and trucks are being killed by chance, not be the plan, 163s are a bomber raids plague, etc. Actually there are many possible simple strat models, which will be better than what we have now. Just seems strat model is neither the strongest skill of HTC, nor their main interest. It looks like in this field they use the aproach of a UNIX system administrator ("It works? Nothing is broken? Please, KEEP YOUR HANDS AWAY FROM IT") :D
-
Originally posted by Fariz
MA is not a real life.
True, but there are quite a few in here who, when they see something in the game they don't like, will cry "Waaaaaah, that could not have happened in real life" as a justification for a change to be made.
Selective Realism™ ! :aok
-
Figure i will put this here for the archieve.
Alot of the strat/gameplay issues that we are seeing and experencing right now is the direct result in how aces high 2 was implimented and how the new gameplay styles were introduced. Instead of slowly introducing new gameplay styles and seeing if they would work, HTC decided to include everthing in one huge basket. Major problem with this approach of putting all your eggs into one basket, is that, you cannot see how the changes either directly or indirectly effecting the game play of the product. Until acouple days later or months later than the original release date.
I do agree with fariz :) he has alot of valid points about aces high 2, and the main reason why some players have quit. Not everyone want to get into a furball every day of the week.
How to fix the current system? Well thats hitech job not mine, the strat system right now is broken. Mabe it would be a good idea to revert it back to the old system, then slowly introduce changes from the original model, instead of trying to adapt this new model to the old one.
-
Why do most players ignore the strat part of the game? At the most basic level, because their gameplay impact is too indirect. If your goal is to keep troops down, it's more effective, safer, and faster to send a solo 110 across the entire front NOE than it is to send buffs on deep penetration at altitude. Those missions are long and often thankless -- and in AH, boring is gameplay death. Hitting strats CAN impact play, but in the flow of the MA it jst isnt worth it.
Which is why a map can have disconnected strats that nobody notices. They just dont care, because it doesnt impact gameplay.
So here's a thought.
One: Since base fuel cant go lower than 75%, the fuel strats are especially meaningless.
Two: The major impediment to effective base capture with non-horde numbers is difficulty getting and keeping the base safe for M3/goon.
Three: FH and VH down times are just a bit short to allow attackers to clear the defenders adn bring int he goon. This cycle is where most stalemate attacks stall.
Suggestion: Why not convert the currently useless Refinery strats to Manufacturing strats, that affect the hangars' down times? Terminal damage to the strats could cause hangars' down time to extend from current roughly 15 mintes to maybe 30 of 40 minutes, with incremental effects for partial damage.
This change alone would radically change the way that the capture crew approached a base. I suspect we'd see less of the horde, actual concerted defense of a strat target, and a breakdown of the stalemate seen in so many maps.
Simaril