Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: 68DevilM on May 11, 2006, 12:03:08 PM
-
whats the purpose of the cities, flack factories, fuel, and ammo depoes in the MA anyways?
other than to give the tool shed killers someting to do?
-
They used to affect the respawn time for the buildings on the airfields, I'm not sure if they still do.
-
Aces High Gameplay: Strategy Guide (http://www.hitechcreations.com/ahhelp/map.html#ss).
-
Originally posted by Urchin
They used to affect the respawn time for the buildings on the airfields, I'm not sure if they still do.
hmm i see a game request forming here, mabey go with limiting a countrys resources for real and abilty to wage war...ie realistic......well if were gonna have them in the map, might as well be there for a reason....HTC where ya at onn this one?
heck i we drop a countries fuel to 25% then all bases attached to the fuel refinery, max fuel is limited too, same for ammo and whatever.
-
Originally posted by Panzzer
Aces High Gameplay: Strategy Guide (http://www.hitechcreations.com/ahhelp/map.html#ss).
ok didnt think this still had effect.
-
Originally posted by Panzzer
Aces High Gameplay: Strategy Guide (http://www.hitechcreations.com/ahhelp/map.html#ss).
What I need is the AH Wife ACK Strategy Guide. :aok
-
Originally posted by BBQ_Bob
What I need is the AH Wife ACK Strategy Guide. :aok
lol...ur not gonna like that guide book.......
not sure about the spelling but it goes sumting like this.....
D.I.O.V.O.R.C.E
and then my all time favirote
child support..........:cry
-
Originally posted by 68DevilM
ok didnt think this still had effect.
Problem is that most don't know this ... and the ones that do ... it's too much work for them to try and take advantage of it. It's much easier to have an effect on people to take out FHs than it is too cripple a whole country.
-
Originally posted by BBQ_Bob
What I need is the AH Wife ACK Strategy Guide. :aok
Here is what ya do.
Get a nice warm bath going for her .
Put candles, and rose petals all around the tub.
Get the potpourri going.
Nice soothing music in the background.
Let her slip into the tub then make sure she is nice and comfortable.
Then
Rush out and nail gun the door shut. It'll work until the neighbors call the cops anyway.
:t :t :t
Bronk
-
Lifetime TV
or the one that works at my house,
Gilmore Girls DVD from Netflix. One of those comes, and my son and I know we have a whole evening of uninterrupted computer time while the wimmenfolk relax!
-
This is my take on it. The game will likely not go in the direction where a team can be effectively reduced to a point where they cant fly. There are too many in here who prefer just going up and finding a fight rather than patroling a city sector to protect it every mission. Although thats why there were bombers, and therefore fighters to stop them in WW2. In a game like this with so many freelancers and lone wolves who play their own way, I dont think it would go over big.
Imagine one team fielding a really effective bomber squad that constantly shut down a teams strats. Having the opposing team field a large intercept force to constantly thwart them is rather unlikely.
-
I think it's likely. When I see bombers I report them. Repeatedly. Often folks will muster a defense. I would like to think that's not only because their field is at risk. Taking down bombers can be fun. I used to like it a lot (kind of a phase I went through), and to some extent I still do.
I lose a little respect for some folks that say "Oh, I don't go after bombers. Too much effort, I can get 2-3 fighter kills in the time it takes me to hit those bombers". I don't think bombers are perfect (usually flying upwards of 100-150mph too fast for historical comparison), but I think they are still easily destroyed. I think some folks like hunting bombers, too, because it's a different kind of attack. They're on course, you have to fly around them, no give-and-take like dogfighting.
If (hypothetically) you got big missions hitting strat all the time, you'd get big missions intercepting them. Why? Because it's action! It's getting kills! It's having fun!
Then again, most of this is my opinion (lol), and may not apply to the greater MA.
-
Originally posted by FiLtH
This is my take on it. The game will likely not go in the direction where a team can be effectively reduced to a point where they cant fly. There are too many in here who prefer just going up and finding a fight rather than patroling a city sector to protect it every mission. Although thats why there were bombers, and therefore fighters to stop them in WW2. In a game like this with so many freelancers and lone wolves who play their own way, I dont think it would go over big.
Imagine one team fielding a really effective bomber squad that constantly shut down a teams strats. Having the opposing team field a large intercept force to constantly thwart them is rather unlikely.
Actually the game has gone the other direction. We USE to be able to drop field resources to affect game play. dropping fuel down to 25% was the biggie. Now, you get 100% no matter what. I don't know why it changed, but it did.
-
It changed because HT made it impossible to drop fuel below 75%.
It was a concession to the furballers who'd been screaming bloody murder for years.
So now its pork ord & troops at individual bases.
The problem with the strat objects is that if a country is really on a roll. By the time you can get a strike of bombers & escorts together to do something about it. All the strats are ussually so far behind the lines that getting in is virtually impossible.
So we have strat objects sitting there doing nothing. With the exception of a couple of maps, where they'll be hit ruthlessly for the first 3 days of a new tour as people run their rank down.
IMO we need to change a couple of things to make strats viable.
Put a 20 mile "no mans land" with no airfields between the fronts.
Put flack, ammo, radar, city strats there for both sides. Cluster them, like the Ruhr valley in Germany. Line air & vehicle fields down the sides for defense.
Put the zone base for the front line strats WELL back.
Put the HQ, city, fuel in the rear near a 5k field where it can be defended.
-
Originally posted by Ghosth
IMO we need to change a couple of things to make strats viable.
Put a 20 mile "no mans land" with no airfields between the fronts.
Put flack, ammo, radar, city strats there for both sides. Cluster them, like the Ruhr valley in Germany. Line air & vehicle fields down the sides for defense.
Put the zone base for the front line strats WELL back.
Put the HQ, city, fuel in the rear near a 5k field where it can be defended.
Ghosth...
The problem is that there are two diametrically opposed forces at work in the game. One side is "I want to pop in and have a little fun", the other is "I want to win the war". HT is attempting to balance them in the MA.
One can only be made more viable at the expense of the other. So, the question for HT becomes, who do you alienate....and to what extent? Since I only rarely drive bombers, I would vote for the low impact strat we have now. With the setup the game has now, it is simply to easy for a small group to negatively impact a large segment of players.
It might be that the "zone" concept should be expanded. Make more, smaller zones. Instead of having an easily visible factory complex that just needs to be flattened to destroy its strategic usefulness, have multiple cities where the factories are not easily identifiable.
I believe the only balanced way to make strat targets move viable is to make them less easy to find and destroy. I also believe the problem is more than simply redesigning maps.
-
Originally posted by NoBaddy
Ghosth...
The problem is that there are two diametrically opposed forces at work in the game. One side is "I want to pop in and have a little fun", the other is "I want to win the war". HT is attempting to balance them in the MA.
One can only be made more viable at the expense of the other. So, the question for HT becomes, who do you alienate....and to what extent? Since I only rarely drive bombers, I would vote for the low impact strat we have now. With the setup the game has now, it is simply to easy for a small group to negatively impact a large segment of players.
It might be that the "zone" concept should be expanded. Make more, smaller zones. Instead of having an easily visible factory complex that just needs to be flattened to destroy its strategic usefulness, have multiple cities where the factories are not easily identifiable.
I believe the only balanced way to make strat targets move viable is to make them less easy to find and destroy. I also believe the problem is more than simply redesigning maps.
Hmm, combine most of these two ideas and you've given me an idea for a new map!
To the TE Batman! :)
-
Originally posted by Ghosth
It changed because HT made it impossible to drop fuel below 75%.
It was a concession to the furballers who'd been screaming bloody murder for years.
I am surprised at this for someone who keeps their ear very close to the ground. You are so very wrong to single out 1 faction of the game.
Everybody was pissin' and moanin' about how fuel was constantly being porked in the latter stage of AH I leading up to AH II. It was after AH II was introduced and the new fuel burn multiplier that they decided to stop the fuel porking ... else no one would have gone anywhere.
-
I think it should take a group working together to effect another countries strat. Like a bomber group hitting cities or factories.
A single person should not be able to stop the progress of another country. If a bomber group is headed to a stat target, the country needs to work together to stop it.
If a single person wants to find a fight, or wants to drop some bombs on a field, this is good, but they should not be able to shut down a country.
I think it works well with the exception of the lone porker who can shut down troops in a large area single handed. Maybe soft targets like troops should be harder to kill at airfields. Maybe they shouldn't be sleeping in the barracks all day waiting for a bomb to drop on them.
Gunner
-
Originally posted by Ghosth
It changed because HT made it impossible to drop fuel below 75%.
It was a concession to the furballers who'd been screaming bloody murder for years.
So now its pork ord & troops at individual bases.
In a sense that's true, but not completely. HT also implemented the x2 burn rate on fuel, which IMO evens out the dropping of the fuel ord issue. Old system, drop fuel to 25% with normal burn rate. New system, drop fuel to 75% with x2 burn rate and it's probably almost the same flying time if it was dropped to 25% like in the old system.
-
Originally posted by Goth
In a sense that's true, but not completely. HT also implemented the x2 burn rate on fuel, which IMO evens out the dropping of the fuel ord issue. Old system, drop fuel to 25% with normal burn rate. New system, drop fuel to 75% with x2 burn rate and it's probably almost the same flying time if it was dropped to 25% like in the old system.
WOW :O ... somebody who actually gets it.
-
Originally posted by FiLtH
Imagine one team fielding a really effective bomber squad that constantly shut down a teams strats. Having the opposing team field a large intercept force to constantly thwart them is rather unlikely.
yeah but it sure sounds fun.......:aok
-
Originally posted by Goth
In a sense that's true, but not completely. HT also implemented the x2 burn rate on fuel, which IMO evens out the dropping of the fuel ord issue. Old system, drop fuel to 25% with normal burn rate. New system, drop fuel to 75% with x2 burn rate and it's probably almost the same flying time if it was dropped to 25% like in the old system.
Oh, dang, its a math thing, . . . powerless . . . to . . . resist . . .
X2 fuel burn means flight time is 50% of historic. 75% fuel load of half historic flight time is 37.5% of historic flight time.
Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't the old model X1.5 burn rate? If so, flight time was 66.7% of historic. 25% fuel load of would then be 16.7% of historic flight time. Current system more than doubled the minimum.
If I am wrong and burn was set at X1, then 25% fuel is (Captain Obvious to the rescue) 25% of historic flight time. Current system is still 50% more flight time.
So, no, it isn't the same as the old system. Maximum flight times definitely got shorter, but minimums became much longer.
-
Don't overlook the fact that dropping fuel by percentage affected the various planes in very different ways.
25% in a P-51 is much, much more flying time than 25% in most early war birds.
In effect 25% with even the OLD fuel burn eliminated quite a bit of the planeset due to minimal flight time.
It'd be a greater problem with the new fuel burn.