Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: FiLtH on October 15, 2005, 01:39:01 AM
-
Make hangers sort of like ENY. When enough bombs are dumped on them they produce less quality machines. They never truly die, but show varying stages of damage graphically. Barracks cant be gunned by one plane. They require bombs to be effected, never truly die, and if damaged may require more than one load from that damaged barracks to capture a base.
More bombing fun for bombers, never ending supply of planes for fighters to kill. No one person can effect the game, and teamwork would increase.
The bombing/jabo effects could last longer, making bomber missions mean something.
-
Deleted
-
Though I feel I should be more friendly to you than I normally am to those who make these posts, I'll give you my generic answer;
You spend the time to comletely recode the game to work in a perfect balance with your changes and send it to HTC, because they're happy with what they have.
-
Ya OOZ I know..I just like my idea better than what they have.
-
I like the idea. Not sure I am sold out on it, but it has merit.
....oh, and fueld should be porkable below the silly 75% limit they now have :D
-
Well this is my request for AH3. Make things that can be independently adjustable such as base captures. Each base can be tailored to its own settings. Also give bases names. I could use planes that look like the letter T as long as the gameplay was fun. Although I enjoy this game, I do believe the whole strat idea could be greatly enhanced.
-
what a great idea. that would radically change the game play in the MA. I thought going the other way may also work. specifically make the hangers and strats tough to kill but once down they stay down for two hours or so.
-
For me, the gameplay issue is the survivability issue generated by not flying a late war fighter, since they are all over the sky. Especially those LA7s, that become such a wonderfull machine when flown by a half-experienced pilot. I prefer to doghfight 3 Me262s than a LA7.:cry
-
I though tof that too storch, but I thought keeping guys flying but degrading the rides thru hanger damage, would be better than shutting down the hangers for too long a time.
Frenchy Ive been flyin the P40 lately alot. Its better for base defense for me. Seems when I venture out i get whacked.
-
I seem to recall reading if you put 100,000 # of ord on the runway the base is totally out of commision for a considerable amount of time:confused:
-
Originally posted by uberhun
I seem to recall reading if you put 100,000 # of ord on the runway the base is totally out of commision for a considerable amount of time:confused:
not anymore. USED to be.
the only thing I would like to see changed about strat is in re: to ENY. When your country has high numbers, make it take longer for strat to re-up. i.e. If knits have huge numbers on, it would take 30min for fh's to reup, as opposed to 15. If you have LESS numbers, it takes less time. i.e. if knits horribly outnumbered, it would take 7.5 min for fh's to reup, as opposed to 15min.
JUST using generic numbers there. But the point would be that a country that has huge numbers would have a harder time taking a field, because town, vh, ack, etc would come back faster. And the outnumbered country could stop a hoard in it's tracks with a quick pork run. Being over run by a hoard of gv's? Go kill that fields vh, and no gv's for 45min. Hoard drops your vh? No worries, it'll be up in 10min.
And so forth. Would make a better impact on the game than restricting fighters (never liked that idea. doesn't bother me much, as I like to fly a diversity of rides, but still, never liked it). The time down would need to be tweaked, as I used drastic numbers to make a point, but I hope my point was made.
(suggested this twice now)
opinions? It already sorta works that way. Go kill the Strat for ammo, and takes longer for ammo to resupply etc. Just takin' it a step further.
-
Lute Id rather have a constant supply of planes, but degraded, rather than hangers popping so quit. Kinda takes the strat outta strats, and bombing in general.
-
another option...........
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=162364
-
5 hangars per base,
destroy 1, no 1945 planes available.
2 ... no 1944-1945
3 and more ... get lucky if u fly a 1942 flyingmachine
:lol
-
Thats just about what Im thinking frenchy. The only reason I didnt suggest a set number of hangers, is if a type of bombload on target was used instead, it would provide some mystery, and you wouldnt have bombers knocking down 3 hangers and going onto the next base.
-
It really would be nice if there were targets of real value for the bombers to hit - I seem to recall hearing that AW had factories for each of the types of planes, and if you knocked out the Spitfire factory, for example, there would be no spits available for several hours.
After all, we need soemthing of worth to bomb with the new, up-coming B-29!:)
-
Whatever situation or suggestion is surely better than actual ; but given that all the tactical and strategical part of the game has been sold off in the name of a neverending furballing whirl, I doubt this thread will have some esteem
Just wait for two weeks more....:p
-
Originally posted by SFRT - Frenchy
5 hangars per base,
destroy 1, no 1945 planes available.
2 ... no 1944-1945
3 and more ... get lucky if u fly a 1942 flyingmachine
:lol
Whine 1 - Waaaaaaaaaaa I can't up my favorite ride to defend my feild. I have to go (X) number of feilds over to up and it takes soooo long to get back. It's sniffff my $14.95 a month and I'll use how I want to!!!!!!!!!!!
Whine 2 - Those super suicide porko Flocked Fluffs and tribbling triffies are porkin 1 fighter hanger on every base for 12 sectors around. It was bad enough porkin troops. Now they porkin planes, troops and I can't up my favorite ride and it takes too long to fly and screww alll of yall it's my $14.95 a month yadda yadda yadda!!!!!!!!!!!waaaaaaaa.......
Whine 3 - Those super suicide porko carpet bombing bomber 30 plane group 25k hi B24's are hittin every feild for 10 sectors aroung like a conga line of hi alt dweebs and taking away my favorite ride for the whole night.....yaddidy yadidy yadidy.......$14.95...yadidy. And it ain't fair how much work it takes to shoot them down....waaaaaaaaaa..........
Actually would force real war in therms of having to defend your ability to make war, take enemy feilds, and just exist..............Bet no country could get organised enough to stop the bomber conga lines killing fighter hangers while capturing feilds to reset the game. The game would get really out of balance for the fun factor in a few big missions and single suicied runs pretty quick.
-
"if you knocked out the Spitfire factory, for example, there would be no spits available for several hours."
Ahhhh. The penultimate arena disruption. Where one lone pile-it can effect the gameplay of all of the other players online. That'd be better than an a-bomb!
To make this fair though how about if a pilot flying a fighter shoots you down in a bomber that you and your whole country can no longer fly that type of bomber for several hours thereafter?
-
every "solution" to gameplay seems to involve hurting fighters ability to play in the game.
If you make the fields about 25% closer together then the guys who just want to fight will go to the next good fight when the mouse weilders advance... the mouse weilders will not be able to shut down every single area where fun might sprout so.... they may just concentrate on "winning the war" and milkrunning... what they were meant to do in any case.
When one who simply can't stand the lack of attention does make his sucicidal "look at me look at me" attack on the cv or fighter hangers... the fighters will just shake their heads and move to the next great furball at two fields that are 3/4 of a sector apart.
lazs
Public Relations Officer for the BK's
-
Hmmm, interesting ideas, but I tend to agree with Lazs comment. It seems that most suggestions regarding game play are based on a way to deminish the number of fighters in the air or reduce the number of fighter-v-fighter engagements.
An idea I had: Change the objective of the game.
The current Win the War strategy is for one country to be reduced to 3 bases. This IMO has a few deficiencies.
1. It encourages 2 sides to gang up on the third. We can deny this fact all we want but we all know it happens.
2. It discourages concentration of force. We see this all the time in the MA. A "hoard" takes an undefended field and instead of using that field to mount new attacks they just go off somewhere else on the map and take another undefended field. All the while the other country is doing the same. There is no incentive for driving into the other countries territory and holding that land.
3. Once a country get below say 10 bases it really increase the boredom factor for the losing country. By this time most of the perk potatos have switched to what they believe will be the winning side and the losing side has nothing to do but fight the hoard. A lot of us at this point will usually just log and wait for the reset.
My idea on how to fix this.
Instead of the goal being to reduce the number of bases, make the object of the game to capture the countries HQ. Make it so you have to land say 30 or 50 troop in to the HQ to register a the capture. Sure this would probably cause resets to happen quicker that they do now but it does bring some better battle scenarios to the game.
1. It will encourage each country to capture and HOLD bases. Especially those that will lead towards the HQ. It will discourage the "capture the undefended field" mentality. Add additional points to squads/missions that capture adjacent fields.
2. It will encourage each side to actually mount credible defenses.
3. It will ensure force concentration. It won't be hard to find a fight because you know that the enemy will be trying to attack your HQ. It will become quite obvious where the enemy is attacking.
4. There will be more air-to-air/fighter-v-fighter engagements. Because we will know what the enemies objective is and the map will show their encroachment into our territory. It will be easier to determine where they will strike next. Thus allowing defenders to up fighters to cover those areas. It will also make bomber take escort fighters along because they will know that they will encounter fighter intercept on their missions.
5. It will require that much more strategic thought be put into porking troops and ord as you know you will need them to advance your position. Not only that but you will know you will need to protect your troops and ord for future use. Example: You know the enemy is going to go after your troops and ord in your front line bases you have just captured. Therefor fighters can up to intercept them. No searching the map for a fight. It will be quite obvious what the enemies primary targets will be.
I'm sure that there are problems with this idea I've not thought of. Feel free to express them. I just think that anything we can do to encourage what I call "concentration of force" will improve game play. Currently we have far to many players off in their own section of the map doing what ever they can to avoid the enemy. IMO, the whole point of this game is to engage the enemy, is it not?
-
This one is for Lazs,
I'd like to see it changed so that winning the war was based on the destruction/capture of strategic targets and defensive hard points. Change it so that airfields are part of the territory capatured and not capture targets themselves.
It would still be a tactic to suppress enemy fighters from lifting, but it would not be required. Move the focus off of the airfields. Fighters can fight and the strat guys can fight the war.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
This one is for Lazs,
I'd like to see it changed so that winning the war was based on the destruction/capture of strategic targets and defensive hard points. Change it so that airfields are part of the territory capatured and not capture targets themselves.
It would still be a tactic to suppress enemy fighters from lifting, but it would not be required. Move the focus off of the airfields. Fighters can fight and the strat guys can fight the war.
That don't sound too bad but throw in a Lala factory too. Getting sick of seeing 50% Lalas running every where I go. :eek: ;)
-
Let me get this straight.
You want to make the defending base unable to up decent fighters as it's being rolled by a rook hoarde?
Just bloody brilliant.
-
My point is that the furballers don't care what the object of the game is... We allready have an object.... To find a spot where there are a lot of red and green planes and to kill all the little red planes.
If the war get's "won" while this is happening that is just a minor inconvienence (no matter who wins)... we might have to switch the fight to a different area. Any "strat" that depends on fighters ability to fly except for 1 sector or 3 away from each other is bad news for a furballer.
Win the war? who cares but... make it so that to "win" you have to drop so much bombs on some huge city capital... Have to flatten everything... those who want to defend can. I wouldn't.
lazs
Public Relations Officer for the BK's
-
Originally posted by lazs2
My point is that the furballers don't care what the object of the game is... We allready have an object.... To find a spot where there are a lot of red and green planes and to kill all the little red planes.
If the war get's "won" while this is happening that is just a minor inconvienence (no matter who wins)... we might have to switch the fight to a different area. Any "strat" that depends on fighters ability to fly except for 1 sector or 3 away from each other is bad news for a furballer.
Win the war? who cares but... make it so that to "win" you have to drop so much bombs on some huge city capital... Have to flatten everything... those who want to defend can. I wouldn't.
lazs
Public Relations Officer for the BK's
I understand, Lazs. Under the current conditions I am of the same mind as you. I am much more concerned with finding a decent fight than capturing bases or winning the "war".
My thoughts were to design a way to bring the 2 aspects together in some way that would accommodate both sides without diminishing one or the other. And I am quite aware that is is by no means a perfect solution.
Note: If we can, please post any additional comments on my suggestion to the post in the Wish List forum. That way we ar enot completely hijacking Filths thread.
-
my comment was on topic.
lazs
Public Relations Officer for the BK's
-
Originally posted by lazs2
my comment was on topic.
lazs
Public Relations Officer for the BK's
Yes it was. The note was not directed specifically to you.
-
Originally posted by Clifra Jones
My idea on how to fix this.
Instead of the goal being to reduce the number of bases, make the object of the game to capture the countries HQ. Make it so you have to land say 30 or 50 troop in to the HQ to register a the capture. Sure this would probably cause resets to happen quicker that they do now but it does bring some better battle scenarios to the game.
I like this idea, Clifra, but how about this just to add a bit more to the "Win the War" effort:
Start out each side with three strategic points--one of which is the HQ. If a side loses control of all three of those strategic points, no matter who has control of them, the war is over. The winning side would be awarded the perks for winning based on how many of there own and how many enemy strategic points they held.
This would still fulfull the heart of what you were talking about while still giving the "War Winners" an attainable goal.
-
Just go to the duel arena if you want to furball (take off, shoot, die, repeat), as you don't need all the fancy stuff that the MA tries to offer.
Oh and, don't gangrape my D25 with 3 LA7s and 2 spits when I'm trying to drop my 1000lb of bomb to contribute to the war effort. :D
-
Okay...
There's this guy, see? He's a WWII vet named Earl Miller -- flew fighters later in the war. Every day, he posts his "back then" flight log book entries on a listserv. Here's the one from October 10, 1944:
1944:
The quote below is from the War Diary 345th Fighter Squadron by
Captain Allan C. Wills, S-2 Officer:
"10. Again no operations were possible because of the condition
of the taxi strip and all missions were canceled."
earl
I don't know why the taxi was damaged (coulda been lots of rain for all I know!). I guess the point it was damaged at all, and it led to the cancellation of all operations. How that relates to AH is a big for me.
Seems to me if you put a crater in a runway, MAYBE it some how affects the aircraft taking off? This can be applied across the board for air op needs. I'm not saying all air operations should cease. I would, however, like some kind of penalty for not successfully defending a base.
That being said, it sure would be nice if it was harder to PORK a base.
BTW, Earl! Thanks!
Wind
-
Yes thats what I said sailor. Guys would either excel in the early planes or up back at the next base. There would be a sense of attritting the enemy base without denying all planes to it. Those that wished to defend could, those that dgaf could up there, kill a couple and try to land or die.