Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: TalonX on December 20, 2004, 09:58:06 AM
-
Even if this has been discussed before, Iwant to bring it up again now, since I feel there is a swing in how the game is going, versus where it should be.
The fine art of porking troops has taken on new meaning. As a Rook, we don't do a lot of that. Last night, the Knits were doing it three bases back from the front lines.
A single fighter plane, ON WHAT IS OFTEN A SUICIDE RUN, can pork troops at a given field, and isn't going to be stopped. (Please, no bs about capping your field, intercepting them, etc. No one is going to sit at 20K looking for a porker, and they shouldn't have to)
Frankly, it models nothing real...and should be made far harder. A single fighter strike shouldn't devastate a fields ability to attack and capture.
I would like to see troops un-porkable, unless the grunt training facility is down. That would require some strategic bombing, as well as the tactical of hitting the base to pork troops there. Also, I'd like to see at least 4 barracks at each field, if not more.
Please consider this toughening. The game has morphed to where the porking of troops has become unrealistic.
Thanks.
-
You may find the reason the Knits were doing it was because you had 220+ players on.
Porking troops/ord has become the way to slow down the hoard.
I would like to see troops un-porkable, unless the grunt training facility is down
Well geez we have almost constant DAR, minimum of 75% fuel how much 'easier' does this game need to get for people? Next it will troops/ord can't be porked, fields 25YRDS apart all at 20k so you don't have to bother to climb.
WHERE DOES IT END?
As a Rook, we don't do a lot of that
Maybe you don't, but strange how Bish troops always end up porked on the Rook front.
-
Originally posted by TalonX
Even if this has been discussed before, Iwant to bring it up again now, since I feel there is a swing in how the game is going, versus where it should be.
The fine art of porking troops has taken on new meaning. As a Rook, we don't do a lot of that. Last night, the Knits were doing it three bases back from the front lines.
A single fighter plane, ON WHAT IS OFTEN A SUICIDE RUN, can pork troops at a given field, and isn't going to be stopped. (Please, no bs about capping your field, intercepting them, etc. No one is going to sit at 20K looking for a porker, and they shouldn't have to)
Frankly, it models nothing real...and should be made far harder. A single fighter strike shouldn't devastate a fields ability to attack and capture.
I would like to see troops un-porkable, unless the grunt training facility is down. That would require some strategic bombing, as well as the tactical of hitting the base to pork troops there. Also, I'd like to see at least 4 barracks at each field, if not more.
Please consider this toughening. The game has morphed to where the porking of troops has become unrealistic.
Thanks.
maybe not as hard as you have described but they do need to be toughened up some, just last week Knits was down to 9 to 12 fields and was almost out of troops and or supplys for long periods of time, with maybe 1 or 2 fields having capabilitys ( Trinity Map) and it was coming from both directions Bish and Rooks...........
everyone knows, you take out Troops/Supplys/Ord/Gvs it will be a long battle for the underdog! even then the underdog ( field wise ) gets stuck with the most people and can't fly particular planes.......
someone come up with one of them excellent ideas that HTC likes and maybe some of this will change.........
or better yet, can always go to the CT ;)
-
The fine art of porking troops has taken on new meaning. As a Rook, we don't do a lot of that. Last night, the Knits were doing it three bases back from the front lines.
Last night the Rooks were porking troops at
12,19,20,21,22,64,66,67,68,79,80,81,240
of course "we" don't do it, it wasn't me it was them.
I grant that some of those are "frontline" but some aren't considering the front line at that time was (in that particular corner of Trinity) 77,61,52,43
I'm not saying that these single suicide raids aren't a pain but ALL countries do it so I reckon things are even.
Maybe reduced barracks down time to say 45-60 mins with a full training facility with additional time added for the damage to the zone grunt training, although I'm sure that's been aired as a possible solution.
I know we can't go on about capping but what about re-supply :P
-
If porking troops was made more difficult, last night we'd have seen Knights get completely overrun in fairly short order and the night's battles wouldn't have been nearly as much fun as they were.
BTW - Knights - was one helluva good fight last night :D
Cheers,
asw
-
I think as it stands the more damage to the sectors city/troop training facility the longer troops stay down at fields.
I could be wrong though.
-
For what it's worth......
We (Rooks) certainly concentrated last night in the 42, 52, 51, 61, 63, 77, 78, 65, etc corner..... we were running ops...... I am not talking about front line bases getting porked (of course, as Rooks, we can't help ourselves but pork troops at the very base we are taking). I was more talking about deeper into the lines.
Anyway, it's a discussion point. I am not looking for the game to be easier, but by the same token, I am not really in the Air Force in WWII so my time isn't unlimited....
-
I suggested the same thing a few months ago and was accused of "wanted to take all the strat out of the game."
Porking barracks can either slow down the horde or make it impossible for the underdog to retake their bases. It cuts both ways and favors no one.
It also makes the game stagnate and promotes the worst kind of flying - right on par with B17 flights at 100 feet.
The rationalization I was handed a few months ago by the "experts" here was that it should be easy to shoot up a tent or hut or whatever that thing is. Well ... duh ... yeah. But what if the paratroopers - operating in an area with a lot of enemy air activity - built, like, slit trenches and bunkers so that they wouldn't be shredded by the first passing fighter as they sat around playing poker.
-
Dok I agree up to a certain point -
Maybe not make them harder but make it they can only be affected by rockets or eggs, NOT strafing.
IMO the same should also be applied to CV groups.
-
Barracks, radar masts, hangars, large city buildings, and capital ships should all be immune to small calibre gunfire.
This won't, of course, stop the tactic. It'll just make it a little more difficult. Expect to see a rise in the number of lawn-dart incidents. Ho ho ho.
-
I actually don't agree with taking out the porking of troops. It doesn't really affect "my game" either way, since I rarely participate in the land grab.
However, I think porking troops removes the "offensive" capability from a team, but not the defensive ability. Porking ammo is the same way. Porking fuel inhibits the teams ability to defend itself, so I think stopping fuel porkage at 75% is reasonable.
I think a team should always be able to defend what it already holds, but not nescesarily have a free pass to expand at will. If a team wants to take bases, they need people willing to defend those assests, or fly supply goons to get them back up.
-
This is a problem that has gone on for 15 years. It started with the old "Radar Runners" in AW. One person could lawn dart himself and nuke radar at a field - and radar was a lot more important in AW back then.
It was almost unstoppable. And many a night that's all you saw. You'd take off - radar runner coming in - nail him as he tried to get away - then another - then re-arm - then another. It was soooo boring.
Same here in AH. A Tiffy at 15K is pretty impossible to stop unless you're at 20K and see him coming in soon enough. And even if you do, odds are he'll die in the AAA or auger or something else stoopidly. So why chase him? And why burn the altitude you just spent time grabbing on a target that's gonna get swarmed by people just taking off anyway?
As long as one person with minimal skill is provided with an opportunity to disrupt the play of many other people - you can bet they'll take it every damn night.
-
Would it be possible to make disabling troops in a certain area be directly related to the troop factory? Troop factory destroyed = troops destroyed(for that area).
This might increase large scale bombing raids to disable the factories.
-
Originally posted by DoKGonZo
As long as one person with minimal skill is provided with an opportunity to disrupt the play of many other people - you can bet they'll take it every damn night.
Pretty much agree with you here DoK, but if any part of the strat system is made tougher, it should all be made tougher. Had Knights not been able to disable troops (or Rooks not done it for them :D ) they'd have been walked over last night. Of course if killing field strat targets and towns was tougher to accomplish, it would have slowed down the Rook offensive quite a bit and the high intensity of fighting would have lasted longer and likely been more fun for everyone. Though it was still a good time (at least for me).
Cheers,
asw
-
the bases layouts need some refinement that might solve this problem and few others.
1. put more barracks on the fields. Something like 1-2-3 barracks (small-medium-large).
2. spread out the FH so they can't all be hit in one bombing run.
3. for cod sake, put the lavatory on the OTHER side of the rearm pad, away from the runway side...
I know we all have to go wee while the crew refuels the plane, but it can be done with our backs to the runway.
Bozon
-
Killing barracks IMO are the only way the underdog has to slow down an enemy advance. The night TalonX was talking about the Rooks had 6 full dar bars of fighters hitting Knights very close to HQ.
Yes barracks are easy to kill but it is not impossible to stop it. Killing strats for most people is a boring job, so is resupplying a base, not many people do it.
I hope the way barracks are now is not changed. It is the only real way to stop a land grab
Stogey
-
Originally posted by TalonX
Frankly, it models nothing real...and should be made far harder. A single fighter strike shouldn't devastate a fields ability to attack and capture.
A single goon load of drunks shouldnt be able to take an entire town/field either.
I like it the way it is.
-
If one plane can straff down the troops - could we make it so one resupply will bring them back up? This seems fair to me.
Woof!
-
Originally posted by Jnuk
A single goon load of drunks shouldnt be able to take an entire town/field either.
I like it the way it is.
Ok, so you mean to tell me that you don't think its right that you have to get ALL 10 troops in, after you destroy the town, by carrying them in the slowest, most unmaneuverable plane in the game, not to mention the fact that it is unarmed? At what point would you like to make this harder?
I am for making the barracks harder, or more of them. Right now 1 250lb. bomb can take down the barracks for a field. Really what I have been seeing is one lone tiffy coming in at 10k, using bombs and cannons to take out the troops at 4+ fields, then crashing after he/she is out of gas. Its fine that they are porkable, its actually part of the game, but I think they should have the strength of a hangar. The consolation could be that the building size could be made larger to be equal to that of a hangar. That way they would be easier to find, easier to hit, but harder to destroy.
-
Can't be bothered to pork troops myself. Takes too much time away from vulching and cherry-picking.
-
The porkers are on every side. It is hard enough to get anyone to do it sometimes.
It is a great way to stop a steam roller so I am in favor of being able to pork troops. What goes around come around. We suffer from lack of troops just as often as the other 2 teams.
How does this effect game play other than to shift the fronts occasionally.
There have been times it seems like we are fighting all out on 2 fronts while the other 2 teams seem to be teaming up. If you can shut an enemy front down with troop denial you can get the other 2 teams going at it many times.
-
Instead of making it harder to kill troops, perk the ultra uber C-47 and the M-3! Make it expensive to fly the buggers, you wont see so many troops then I bet! :aok
-
Originally posted by StarOfAfrica2
Instead of making it harder to kill troops, perk the ultra uber C-47 and the M-3! Make it expensive to fly the buggers, you wont see so many troops then I bet! :aok
Uhhhhh ... how many times a night do you hear "Who's got a goon? Anyone?" ... imagine what perking troop carriers would do to that situation.
I think I probably see the "problem" a little different. What really seems to suck most is the endless semi-vultch fests over a field. Where the defender is outnumbered badly, mostly in GV's or Sturmi's. With troops porked this situation becomes semi-permanent. The only thing keeping people dug in/over the field is the fact that troops are porked for 7 sectors out so there's no way to end the siege.
I like the idea of bigger fields needing more troops. As long as those troops can't be porked easy like they are now. If a major field needed 3 loads of troops - and given the current level of "proficiency" in the MA - you wouldn't NEED to pork barracks anywhere.
-
Originally posted by Kev367th
You may find the reason the Knits were doing it was because you had 220+ players on.
Porking troops/ord has become the way to slow down the hoard.
Well geez we have almost constant DAR, minimum of 75% fuel how much 'easier' does this game need to get for people? Next it will troops/ord can't be porked, fields 25YRDS apart all at 20k so you don't have to bother to climb.
WHERE DOES IT END?
Maybe you don't, but strange how Bish troops always end up porked on the Rook front.
I agree TalonX just as soon as they make Bombers more realistic LOL
-
One workaround would be to limit barracks down time to 20 min,or maybe have that kick in when the eny get involved.
-
If they make barracks harder, then downtime should be increased not decreased.
-
The idea that a single typhoon can apparantly wipe out all infantry within 20 miles of a base by straffing a few nissen huts does not strike right with me.
Same applies for supplies.
The idea that destroying a group of town buildings allows a single goon to drop 10 drunks to capture a town/village and an adjacent air field does not strike right by me.
For me barracks would be better if greater in number . A fields associated infantry regiment would be of significant size (as big as the field). Failing this make them harder or better still make troops and supplies always available or a function of the relevant strat object only (eg grunt training)
Now capture............
Seems to me that capture is a function of one sides infantry over coming another sides infantry by some margin.
And that history records that towns did not have to be flattened to their last building to make it happen.
So introducing the concept of one sides troops out numbering (out gunning) another sides troops (by a fixed margin/ratio )at the zone of conflict (the town) allows lots of options re how would/could HTC model capture conditions to allow ac and gv's to support a server driven (but player fueled) local infantry battle.
Further if any resource were to be distroyed to aid in that battle then it would be the (extensive)local barracks and not the dwellings of the local civilian population.
Just one option
Lets say a typical garrison has 200 troops who "live" in 20 nissen huts.
Lets say to capture a town you have to have successfully landed 20 more troops into the map room than the garrison number in existance.
May be you have to hold that advantage for a period of time........ lets say 2 minutes.
Lets say that you can defend and lower the attacking enemy count by running your own troops to your map room. As opposing defending troops enter they cancel attacking troops out.
The + / - count would be continuously running but the defenders would not be able to "bank" up a defence at the town.
Troops would be supplied via M3's or Goons as now. Which are not subject to VH or BH health limitations.
Later HTC could add the always available truck to deliver troops.
Later HTC could develop to drop the maproom race and make troops occupy town buildings the destruction of which reduces the troop quantities of whichever sides troops occupy it.
-
Originally posted by DoKGonZo
This is a problem that has gone on for 15 years. It started with the old "Radar Runners" in AW. One person could lawn dart himself and nuke radar at a field - and radar was a lot more important in AW back then.
It was almost unstoppable. And many a night that's all you saw. You'd take off - radar runner coming in - nail him as he tried to get away - then another - then re-arm - then another. It was soooo boring.
Same here in AH. A Tiffy at 15K is pretty impossible to stop unless you're at 20K and see him coming in soon enough. And even if you do, odds are he'll die in the AAA or auger or something else stoopidly. So why chase him? And why burn the altitude you just spent time grabbing on a target that's gonna get swarmed by people just taking off anyway?
As long as one person with minimal skill is provided with an opportunity to disrupt the play of many other people - you can bet they'll take it every damn night.
and so what if they do Doc? Isnt this game for them also and not just for the skilled players? Cant we ALL have fun here? Each in our OWN way ?:aok
-
Originally posted by Tilt
The idea that a single typhoon can apparantly wipe out all infantry within 20 miles of a base by straffing a few nissen huts does not strike right with me.
Same applies for supplies.
The idea that destroying a group of town buildings allows a single goon to drop 10 drunks to capture a town/village and an adjacent air field does not strike right by me.
For me barracks would be better if greater in number . A fields associated infantry regiment would be of significant size (as big as the field). Failing this make them harder or better still make troops and supplies always available or a function of the relevant strat object only (eg grunt training)
Now capture............
Seems to me that capture is a function of one sides infantry over coming another sides infantry by some margin.
And that history records that towns did not have to be flattened to their last building to make it happen.
So introducing the concept of one sides troops out numbering (out gunning) another sides troops (by a fixed margin/ratio )at the zone of conflict (the town) allows lots of options re how would/could HTC model capture conditions to allow ac and gv's to support a server driven (but player fueled) local infantry battle.
Further if any resource were to be distroyed to aid in that battle then it would be the (extensive)local barracks and not the dwellings of the local civilian population.
Just one option
Lets say a typical garrison has 200 troops who "live" in 20 nissen huts.
Lets say to capture a town you have to have successfully landed 20 more troops into the map room than the garrison number in existance.
May be you have to hold that advantage for a period of time........ lets say 2 minutes.
Lets say that you can defend and lower the attacking enemy count by running your own troops to your map room. As opposing defending troops enter they cancel attacking troops out.
The + / - count would be continuously running but the defenders would not be able to "bank" up a defence at the town.
Troops would be supplied via M3's or Goons as now. Which are not subject to VH or BH health limitations.
Later HTC could add the always available truck to deliver troops.
Later HTC could develop to drop the maproom race and make troops occupy town buildings the destruction of which reduces the troop quantities of whichever sides troops occupy it.
OK, to apply my lack of time in service in Aces High but also my opinion, again this is a game about having fun, is it a game about actual WW2? I dont think that was ever the intent, nor IMHO should it be. Granted there should be an arena with that scenerio set up but in that case then the weapons of war aka planes would be side specific as well,and you would never have a spit run over by a Tempest, or even a P38. Nor would you have 109 V 190 etc. But what you would have is WW2 Online and thats been done already :D
-
Java - heard of the CT? Perhaps before forming opinions on the best directions to take it would be wise to see the lay of the land.
asw
-
Originally posted by java45
and so what if they do Doc? Isnt this game for them also and not just for the skilled players? Cant we ALL have fun here? Each in our OWN way ?:aok
Where's Urchin when I need him?
The problem is that the more activity starts to focus on these sorts of "tactics" and require such a low level of skill, the more the game will ... suck. You don't learn squat strafing barracks - certainly not after the first dozen times you've done it. So if all you do night after night is strafe non-moving targets you will continue to suck at the game for all eternity.
I'll give you an example. A couple months ago a lot of people were reallty sick of folks bringing in heavy bomber flights on the deck to take out hangars (well, we still are sick of it). A couple of the practitioners of this technique came back with the question of: "What other way is there?" They meant it. With all the planes and options in this game, they couldn't think of any other way to destroy targets.
-
Dok,
Last night I caught myself grumbling because the bomber flights were at 15k+ and mass porking my feild. I've noticed lately I have to climb up to 20k to take on bombers. Guess the world turned with the easier bomb site.:)
-
Originally posted by bustr
Dok,
Last night I caught myself grumbling because the bomber flights were at 15k+ and mass porking my feild. I've noticed lately I have to climb up to 20k to take on bombers. Guess the world turned with the easier bomb site.:)
I always climbed to 15k and sometimes 20k (especially on trinity)
even in AH1. You may grumble but it isn't really an excessive height to be at in Bombers. You're just gonna have to pedal harder to get up to them :).
For me all the fun has gone out of bombing lately, as the new bomb site calibration has made it so even my aged grandmother can pop a radar from 30k+ (literaly tried and tested).
Troops unless they're unporkable at fields they will get porked even if you have a couple of hundred little tents to hit.
Even if troops became unporkable I would just switch to taking out the ordanance instead, lets see how people like machine gunning down towns. Watch out for the 110 hoardes.
-
I haven't seen nearly the number of cow-catcher heavy bombers lately. Mostly they're up between 6K and 12K it seems. Which is a reasonable altitude. Maybe the new sight is "too easy" - but switching to it has had the desired effect in the MA. When I ran Rangoon I had the bombing mode back in the old "hard" mode - and for the SEA, CT, or anyplace but the MA it makes sense.
The real problem of troop porking, as I see it anyway, is that it stalls the front. Yes, you can "stop the Horde" .... or you can make sure that a country pinned in the corner can't improve their position. So I guess that could count as "strategy" ... for a 3rd grader. But what you end up with is maps that never move. You spend 3 or 4 hours fighting over a field (that you can't take due to troop porkage) and the next night - guess what - it's still going on.
That 3 or 4 people can effectively stall the game like this for 300 or 400 is an imbalance in the setup.
The secondary problem is that it perpetuates an activity which reduces the level of gameplay.
-
Originally posted by bustr
Dok,
Last night I caught myself grumbling because the bomber flights were at 15k+ and mass porking my feild. I've noticed lately I have to climb up to 20k to take on bombers. Guess the world turned with the easier bomb site.:)
15-20k is where the bombers belong. It's nice to see them there instead of diving on the fields from 5k or bombing from 300 feet with F3 view.
Also, this gives them some protection from fighters as only few climb over 20k so they are being attacked by one at a time.
If people claim they can hit the radar / barrracks from 20k with one bomb (can they really?), then perhaps the new bomb sight is a little too accurate.
anyway, troops are porked almost always by fast fighters - typhoons, 190s, P51s, that die 30 sec later of various causes. That's at least what I see.
Bozon
-
Originally posted by detch01
Java - heard of the CT? Perhaps before forming opinions on the best directions to take it would be wise to see the lay of the land.
asw
Of course Ive "heard" of the CT and I am "aware" of the "lay-of-the-land" I understand, for example, that the stated intent of the CT is to provide just that atmosphere that the poster to whom my reply was directed seems to be looking for,
Perhaps it would also be in everyones best interest if you could direct your CT comments to him....He seems unawre of that arena and wants MA to be more WW2 like.
Again, with all due respect, the MA is NOT meant to be a simulation of WW2 but rather a game( I believe HiTech said that himself once )/So just let everyone have fun their OWN way, and if they dont take this game as seriouisly as you or others, so what ? Its their dime after all.
Maybe the answer lies in the creation of a WW2 arena where acxtual WW2 battles are re-enacted, setup and run by those most involved, the members themselves.
Until then we will just have to deal with ganging, vulching, low bombing runs, etc etc etc etc etc>>>>>I can only shrug my novice shoulders and say " I am having fun !! Are you ? "
-
Originally posted by DoKGonZo
Where's Urchin when I need him?
The problem is that the more activity starts to focus on these sorts of "tactics" and require such a low level of skill, the more the game will ... suck. You don't learn squat strafing barracks - certainly not after the first dozen times you've done it. So if all you do night after night is strafe non-moving targets you will continue to suck at the game for all eternity.
I'll give you an example. A couple months ago a lot of people were reallty sick of folks bringing in heavy bomber flights on the deck to take out hangars (well, we still are sick of it). A couple of the practitioners of this technique came back with the question of: "What other way is there?" They meant it. With all the planes and options in this game, they couldn't think of any other way to destroy targets.
YES Dok they will indeed "continue to suck at the game for all eternity" but again I must say "so what", if thats what "they" wish to do and "they" arent as serious as yourself and others ? Is that a crime? Or just an obnoxious by-product of our culture of freedom.
-
Originally posted by java45
YES Dok they will indeed "continue to suck at the game for all eternity" but again I must say "so what", if thats what "they" wish to do and "they" arent as serious as yourself and others ? Is that a crime? Or just an obnoxious by-product of our culture of freedom.
Having a large number of people who really suck and can still prosper in the game affects everyone.
OK ... let me explain it this way. We have a subculture already of folks who just go around porking barracks and radar. They grab their Tiffy or Pony or whatever and head off to make their 2.0000000 passes on as many fields as they can before running out of ammo, dieing to AAA, lawn-darting, or maybe actually get shot down by someone.
The response you hear a lot in the BBS is: "Well, if you don't want your barracks blown up: defend it."
So now, because someone can profit by really weak gameplay, someone ELSE has to NOT play the way they want. Someone else has to waste the time they spent climbing for an offensive sweep, escort, whatever - to chase down someone who will deliberately auger before allowing themselves to be engaged in combat.
This has been a syndrome of the genre for 15 years.
Oh, and as for "... a WW2 arena where acxtual WW2 battles are re-enacted, setup and run by those most involved, the members themselves" ... uh ... check this out - we been there, done that (http://www.gonzoville.com/scenarios).
-
Originally posted by bozon
If people claim they can hit the radar / barrracks from 20k with one bomb (can they really?), then perhaps the new bomb sight is a little too accurate.
Level out, get a steady cruise speed w/ doors open. Go to calibrate mode, open your E6B. Calibrate until your calibrated speed = E6B true speed. When you're within' +- 1mph, you're not going to miss. Only takes about 5 seconds of holding down "Y". Bombs away. Extreme accuracy everytime. Paveway LGB's didn't use to be this accurate. Hell, you can even turn in calibration to fix your lines w/o costing you much, if any, speed.
A squaddie & I upped 2 sets of Lanc's 2 Saturday nights ago. Loaded with 6x2000s & 3x500s. Climbed to 25k. No interceptors showed up. Salvo 3, delay 0.05. I dropped my 18 2ks & he dropped 9. All perfect hits. HQ went pop. We turned for home & porked hangars the entire way with our leftovers. We were in the same room & I had to stop him from calibrating the "old" way and showed him how the new setup works. Bastard got the HQ & 4 hangars that sortie.
A good crosswind would make it a challenge. Right now, it's not. But then again, when you go back to inaccurate bombing, you go back to an MA for 300 ft lanc's in F3 mode.
-
Originally posted by DoKGonZo
Having a large number of people who really suck and can still prosper in the game affects everyone.
OK ... let me explain it this way. We have a subculture already of folks who just go around porking barracks and radar. They grab their Tiffy or Pony or whatever and head off to make their 2.0000000 passes on as many fields as they can before running out of ammo, dieing to AAA, lawn-darting, or maybe actually get shot down by someone.
The response you hear a lot in the BBS is: "Well, if you don't want your barracks blown up: defend it."
So now, because someone can profit by really weak gameplay, someone ELSE has to NOT play the way they want. Someone else has to waste the time they spent climbing for an offensive sweep, escort, whatever - to chase down someone who will deliberately auger before allowing themselves to be engaged in combat.
This has been a syndrome of the genre for 15 years.
Oh, and as for "... a WW2 arena where acxtual WW2 battles are re-enacted, setup and run by those most involved, the members themselves" ... uh ... check this out - we been there, done that (http://www.gonzoville.com/scenarios).
NOW that I have "seen" the realality of the time and amount of effort you and others have put into this "game" I must, in all honesty ( and intellegence ) retract most of my statements with a bow and humble appology.:aok
-
Originally posted by bozon
If people claim they can hit the radar / barrracks from 20k with one bomb (can they really?), then perhaps the new bomb sight is a little too accurate.
Bozon
My Grandmother can :)
Mind you she then went on to blitz through a couple of levels of Doom 3 (vet level).
She has now been banned from the PC (due to the humiliation factor).:o
-
Originally posted by Urchin
I actually don't agree with taking out the porking of troops. It doesn't really affect "my game" either way, since I rarely participate in the land grab.
However, I think porking troops removes the "offensive" capability from a team, but not the defensive ability. Porking ammo is the same way. Porking fuel inhibits the teams ability to defend itself, so I think stopping fuel porkage at 75% is reasonable.
I think a team should always be able to defend what it already holds, but not nescesarily have a free pass to expand at will. If a team wants to take bases, they need people willing to defend those assests, or fly supply goons to get them back up.
Well said.
Originally posted by Stogey
Killing barracks IMO are the only way the underdog has to slow down an enemy advance. The night TalonX was talking about the Rooks had 6 full dar bars of fighters hitting Knights very close to HQ.
Yes barracks are easy to kill but it is not impossible to stop it. Killing strats for most people is a boring job, so is resupplying a base, not many people do it.
Stogey
Exactly. And with the Rooks having so many players online and attacking said area where the troops were being taken out. You’d think a few of them would stop vulching long enough to stop said Barracks Killers.
-
The main problem is hardly anyone supplies anymore. If some of you would get out of youre fighters and make a supply run once in a while it would not be such a big problem. I notice the ones that complain the most about not having troops or ords are the ones that I never see in a m3 or a goon suppling. At least on the knight side. Also it seems to me that the Bishops are the best about suppling a base. I might be wrong but i supply and take troops all the time. Seems like bish bases come up quicker that knights or rooks. I wish we could still take down fuel. When we could more people helped supply.
-
I know for a fact that I do not like to re-supply but if one our fields needs it I will do it. I have ran M3 and C47 re-supply missions and while I don't care for it I will do it. It burns my butt when I see a low and fast 109 coming into my field all by himself and I know exactly what his target is. The troops. I have shot down many troop porkers this tour and the majority are either 109's or Ponys. If I fail at hitting them I just go to another base and grab the M3/Goon and resupply what they just destroyed. It kinda makes what they just did useless destroying the troops because I will just resupply the base they just porked.
I do feel the barracks need to modeled like the bomber hangars as far as toughness goes. Just my humble opinon.
-
Originally posted by onions4u
The main problem is hardly anyone supplies anymore. If some of you would get out of youre fighters and make a supply run once in a while it would not be such a big problem. I notice the ones that complain the most about not having troops or ords are the ones that I never see in a m3 or a goon suppling. At least on the knight side. Also it seems to me that the Bishops are the best about suppling a base. I might be wrong but i supply and take troops all the time. Seems like bish bases come up quicker that knights or rooks. I wish we could still take down fuel. When we could more people helped supply.
And we have yet another Winner!
Re-Supplys runs involving 6 or 8 players make a short job of bringing up a field. Of course if you have 15 players you usally only have to make 1 run each. (Team Work) thats the answer.
-
Leave troops as they are
on the night in question I was one of the Knights going around and porking troops 3-4 bases back. Myself and 1-2 others.
None was an intentional suicide run. In fact I landed most of mine and I never climbed more then 10K comming or going. As did the others.
In my case I often came in on the deck.
Just as often I saw many enemy planes fly right by me more intent on being in on the steamroll then in what I might be trying to do
The only time I didnt land was the couple times I was either shot down or feild ack destroyed my controls making the plane unflyable.
Near as I remember from the radio chatter it was the same with the others
None of the barracks was taken out wiht small calibre. It was done with either Ord or Cannon rounds,sometimes both.
We were going 3-4 bases back because thats how far goons were being flown in for either resupply or feild capture. There were several times I saw 3-4 goons headed to a base for either.
Several met their demise at my hands.
Killing troops is now the only effective way to slow or stop the horde.
Barracks to NOT easily go down with small calibre guns and takes a nice chunk of ammo to do with cannon rounds.
Now if they want to do something perhaps have two types of barracks, one for troops and one for feild supplies.
Or better yet, seperate ones for the resupply of ammo,fuel,and building supply(hangars ,radar)
But either leave the troops alone or re instate the ability to pork fuel below 75%.
The greatly outnumbered need a way to defend.
To make these stronger only helps the horde as only the horde will be able to destroy them with numbers
-
Originally posted by DoKGonZo
Where's Urchin when I need him?
The problem is that the more activity starts to focus on these sorts of "tactics" and require such a low level of skill, the more the game will ... suck. You don't learn squat strafing barracks - certainly not after the first dozen times you've done it. So if all you do night after night is strafe non-moving targets you will continue to suck at the game for all eternity.
I'll give you an example. A couple months ago a lot of people were reallty sick of folks bringing in heavy bomber flights on the deck to take out hangars (well, we still are sick of it). A couple of the practitioners of this technique came back with the question of: "What other way is there?" They meant it. With all the planes and options in this game, they couldn't think of any other way to destroy targets.
Whooaah, there, big fella. Whoa.
We go through this discourse every few months, when one of the self-appointed "Most Puissant Knights and Guardians of the Purity of the AH Flame" decides that other people aren't adhering to his/her definition of HOW THE GAME SHOULD BE PLAYED.
I don't tell you how to fly your fights, or fight your flights. I have NEVER seen a "strat player" put up a post flaming the players who practice their interpretation of "pure WW2 air-to-air combat in a virtual environment".
What we do here--all of us, including you, oh uberjaeger--has absolutely NO BASIS IN ANY OBJECTIVE REALITY. It's a game. It's to have fun with. That being said, it's a fairly free-form sandbox. No rules. Second accounts are used, and accepted as a "normal" consequence. B-17s fly at treetop height, bombing and strafing until they are destroyed by Ta152s or Me262s flying at the same height. Hurricane IICs fight against Fw190D9s, and Spitfires, and other Hurricanes, at the same time. There are three sides.
I am here to have fun, not learn anything. If I want to increase my flying skills, I go to the airport, rent a plane and instructor, and have at it. Here, I talk to my friends, play a game, have some fun, and blow off a little tension.
Please stop telling me how to have fun.
-
Originally posted by rshubert
... I am here to have fun, not learn anything. ...
"Mission Accomplished"
-
DoK -looks like Voltaire's wish applicable to more than just himself :D
asw
-
I must be missing something here, but I'm sure I read somewhere..
"Aces High takes the art and science of vintage WWII air combat
and sets it in an online high intensity environment where
hundreds of players can battle it out with and against
each other. High fidelity air combat is the heart of
Aces High".
If I buy a box of Bananas, I expect a box of Bananas.
If you look through similar posts the majority who post a sensible disussion either for or against a particular idea are the ones who want to improve the general feel of the game with regards to the above statement.
It's an unfortunate aspect of games such as these (where it isn't just point and shoot) that you'll have people who for whatever reason just take the easy path and are unwilling to acept a challenge or try and get into the "spirit" of the game.
I agree with everyone who says "it's my $15 and I can play how I want", but I want to know why people pay $15 to play on a WWII simulation but won't accept the challenge of playing the game as intended and always look for cheesy easy options instead.
-
Originally posted by DoKGonZo
"Mission Accomplished"
Well, DUH.
-
Originally posted by rshubert
Well, DUH.
Indeed.
-
Troops should be one set of bldgs and supplies another!
-
There's really no excuse for not making it tougher to take down troops.
The current set up is in no way realistic, is too easy for one suicide jockey to affect the wide outcome of events for one evening and is really pretty silly when you think about it (as is the idea of a 110 strafing down a carrier.)
If were basing this on RL, I would think taking out troops would be the toughest of all porking missions, since anybody with half a brain would head for the slit trenches the minute that sultry voice started intoning "Base Under Attack."
For people who say those who don't like the current setup should hover over all their frontline bases to intercept porkers I respond: What's wrong with defenders upping from rear bases and then hunting the goonies to prevent base capture. That would seem the more realistic option in this situation.
Can you imagine how long World War II would have taken if the Japs could have stopped the invasions of Iwo Jima, Saipan and the Philippines by crashing a single plane into a tentload of troops?
-
If we're not gonna harden barracks, how about making resupplying 'em worth 10 perks - 5 fighter plus 5 bomber/vehicle - depending on what was used to deliver 'em.
Then it only makes sense to destroy barracks at a field you plan to take or which is direct threat. Otherwise you're handing perks to flyers on the other side.
-
Originally posted by DoKGonZo
If we're not gonna harden barracks, how about making resupplying 'em worth 10 perks - 5 fighter plus 5 bomber/vehicle - depending on what was used to deliver 'em.
Then it only makes sense to destroy barracks at a field you plan to take or which is direct threat. Otherwise you're handing perks to flyers on the other side.
Or you could simply learn that having troops and supplies is a good thing, and resupply them when they go down. That's what we do. And we do get perks for it. Not 10, but then I don't do it for the perks. I do it because I am a team player.
-
Originally posted by rshubert
Or you could simply learn that having troops and supplies is a good thing, and resupply them when they go down. That's what we do. And we do get perks for it. Not 10, but then I don't do it for the perks. I do it because I am a team player.
My freakin' hero.
What makes you think I don't run resupplies from time to time?
What makes you think?
And I can pretty much guarantee that I have far less to learn about AH than you do.
-
Originally posted by Baine
There's really no excuse for not making it tougher to take down troops.
The current set up is in no way realistic,
Other then the flight modeling and look of the aircraft.(and I've seen even that debated about)
What part of this game is in any way "realistic"?
-
Originally posted by DoKGonZo
My freakin' hero.
What makes you think I don't run resupplies from time to time?
What makes you think?
And I can pretty much guarantee that I have far less to learn about AH than you do.
Done with the urination competition yet, putz? The problem with you, you see, is that you want it to be your way or the highway. I strongly suggest you take your ball and go home. Maybe mommy will make it all better for you. Or you can just play with yourself.
-
Originally posted by rshubert
... The problem with you, you see, is that you want it to be your way or the highway. ...
Your lack of comprehension is indeed quite staggering. I'd accuse you of using Intardnet 101 flaming techniques, but you aren't even that sophistacated.
Your last message is ripe with homoerotic references. You may want to take that shiny silver thing out of your backside, it could be cutting off circulation to your brain.
-
Originally posted by DoKGonZo
Your lack of comprehension is indeed quite staggering. I'd accuse you of using Intardnet 101 flaming techniques, but you aren't even that sophistacated.
Your last message is ripe with homoerotic references. You may want to take that shiny silver thing out of your backside, it could be cutting off circulation to your brain.
That would be "autoerotic". I didn't make any inference to any activity involving more than one inDUHvidual. And, by the way, the word is spelled "sophisticated", with only one A.
-
Originally posted by rshubert
... And, by the way, the word is spelled "sophisticated", with only one A.
The spelling flame. Last refuge for the lame.
And I don't type too goodly in the morning anyway.
-
Originally posted by DoKGonZo
The spelling flame. Last refuge for the lame.
And I don't type too goodly in the morning anyway.
I don't know, I just find it hilarious that somebody who accused someone of a lack of sophistication couldn't even spell the word. That's called irony. I immediately thought of Minnie Pearl running around in a nice hat with the price tag hanging off it.
-
Originally posted by rshubert
I don't know ...
That's the first correct thing that's oozed out of that festering hemorrhoid you call a brain.
-
I think we should have 4 barracks at each base. No one would put all their troops in a bunker that could be straffed flat, killing everyone. Heck, you'd think they'd go to an air raid shelter and survive the solo fighter suicide attack.
4 Barracks. Still porkable, but not so ridiculously easy.
-
Originally posted by DoKGonZo
That's the first correct thing that's oozed out of that festering hemorrhoid you call a brain.
A bit over the top, aren't we? Are you taking this personally? Perhaps I have pushed one of your buttons? Maybe you are a bit agitated?
That means I win, by the way.
-
Originally posted by rshubert
A bit over the top, aren't we? Are you taking this personally? Perhaps I have pushed one of your buttons? Maybe you are a bit agitated?
That means I win, by the way.
That's not even close to over the top for me.
-
Originally posted by Scaevola
Maybe reduced barracks down time to say 45-60 mins with a full training facility with additional time added for the damage to the zone grunt training, although I'm sure that's been aired as a possible solution.
That is how it is now :)
http://www.flyaceshigh.com/ahhelp/map.html#targets
Those downtimes are the maximum downtimes with no resupply (i.e. the corresponding resupplv strat dead and city dead same zone). With fully functional strat and city the downtime is much less (for some reason I am thinking 45 minutes).
People on the bishop team drive scores of M3's and c47's - this reduces downtime quite a bit more.
That being said troops (and fighter hangars too) are too easy for one player in one pass to kill.
-
Originally posted by Zanth
That is how it is now :)
http://www.flyaceshigh.com/ahhelp/map.html#targets
Those downtimes are the maximum downtimes with no resupply (i.e. the corresponding resupplv strat dead and city dead same zone). With fully functional strat and city the downtime is much less (for some reason I am thinking 45 minutes).
People on the bishop team drive scores of M3's and c47's - this reduces downtime quite a bit more.
That being said troops (and fighter hangars too) are too easy for one player in one pass to kill.
Yeh I had seen the downtimes but had assumed that they were the minimum downtimes.
I can't say if I have noticed that with full strats that the downtime has been reduced to as little as 45 mins, taking into account that each full resupply from convoys etc.. reduce downtime by 30 mins.
As a Bish also and member of Dustoff we spend quite a bit of time re-supplying if needed. We will generally re-supply a base that has just been captured so it's usable rather than just running off to find something a little more exciting. The problem is though you'd be guaranteed that five minutes later some gimp in a 190/typh/lala etc.. will barrel in at +400 on a suicide run.
Troops definately need to be made tougher to pork, hangers just need to be spread around a bit more so you can't take them all out in one pass. Have a look at the change FH placement thread if you haven't already.
-
Originally posted by DoKGonZo
That's not even close to over the top for me.
Then perhaps you should take a look at having some professional intervention with those issues of yours.
I mean, really. First you go after people's playing style. Then you make remarks about some supposed sexual orientation issue. When that fails, you feel the need to exert some sense of superiority over their BBS posting style. What's next? Are we going for poo-poo references? Are we going to compare pets? Is your girlfriend prettier than my wife?
If spelling references are the last reference of the lame, surely these recent attack postings are the last refuge of the neurotic.
-
Originally posted by rshubert
Then perhaps you should take a look at having some professional intervention with those issues of yours.
....
The psycho-babble is more Intardnet 101 flame tactics. Lord that stuff is tired. Folks have been dragging the same lame techniques across the ether now for almost 30 damn years.
Sadly, you probably think you're being clever - oblivious to the fact that you have no skills, style, or wit.
-
Originally posted by DoKGonZo
The psycho-babble is more Intardnet 101 flame tactics. Lord that stuff is tired. Folks have been dragging the same lame techniques across the ether now for almost 30 damn years.
Sadly, you probably think you're being clever - oblivious to the fact that you have no skills, style, or wit.
I love the way you use those same "intardnet" flame styles to completely ignore the substance of my posts. It shows a complete lack of validity in your argument. Remember, if you can't win on substance, go after the person! Right out of the liberal playbook!
Now I'm beginning to think you're a closet commie, too.
-
DoK, Shubie, do us a favour will you and pack it in. This "you are!" "no I'm not you are!" argument is getting stale.
asw
-
Originally posted by detch01
DoK, Shubie, do us a favour will you and pack it in. This "you are!" "no I'm not you are!" argument is getting stale.
asw
I have picked up a stalker, and his name is DoKgonzo.
-
The restraining order said "No"
His eyes said "Yes"
-
Originally posted by rshubert
I have picked up a stalker, and his name is DoKgonzo.
Don't flatter yourself, Shrubert. The only thing that may save you is just how tedious you are. Oh ... and that "Hearts of Iron 2" released last week - few games can gobble up entire weekends like HoI.
Asw ... Shrubie has stated a couple times in the last week that he deliberately likes to provoke people (to "deflate" them, was I think what he said). So as far as I'm concerned this is all intentional and there will be no quarter given.