Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: Waffle on November 15, 2006, 11:19:15 PM
-
Only allow bases to be captured in a zone once all infrastructure (strat for that zone) has been destroyed past a certain point.
This could be a moving percentage - tied to the numbers of players in the arena and maybe the ENY..if a country is outnumbered severely - then a greater percentage of strat would have to be destroyed.
So for a team to actually gain ground - they'd have to hit the enemy's zones infrastructure - weaken them to the point of attack. For a team to defend, they just have to prevent their strat from getting knocked down.
It delays the "pork" factor, and focuses fights in protecting / attacking strat.
Basically it adds a step before, rather than adding steps after..in a how to capture and win the war...
Kinda like real war - destroy the infrastructure, which reduces then enemy's "war-machine" - once the country is weak - then you advance.
-
Not sure that all the zones work properly in the current set up. I'd like to see strat targets play a larger part in the over all war/game. currently I'm not sure that on all the maps the strat targets exists in all the zones. They should , but I don't recall if they really do exist in all the zones on all the maps. but it's an interesting idea, I doubt that you would get much support from the furballers. they get very unhappy when they have to fly for more then 30 seconds to get in a fight. and it the strat targets actually had an effect on the aircraft or aircraft performance, the furballers would fight you tooth and nail on anything that may hinder performance of their aircraft. do you remember when you could actually effect the amount of fuel available at an airfield all they way down to 25%. They didn't like that at all. And it was changed.
-
I don't think it would affect any furballing at all - as there are still front-line bases.
As far as the Zone things - I guess that would just apply to larger maps. On smaller maps with single zones - then it would just be the strat.
Off hand I was thinking you'd have to destroy %15 -20 of each strat area (city / troop training / ammo factory / ect..)
Of course, once one of the strats pops up above that percentage...you cant capture a base.
One thing is for sure - it would give bombers and bomber missions to hit strat a boost. I think lot of people would like the importance that it would give bombers. Bombers now have a critical role in the game, other than "hanger banging".
Bombers would have importance to the land grab - so chances are langrabbers are gonna want to escort the bomber so they get more bombs on target - which prolongs the base capture time. And where theres bombers and enemy fighters that can open a door to your country loosing ground...I guarantee there's going to be opposition, as the easiest way to prevent your country from loosing ground - it to stop attacks on your strat.
another thought - would be to have it only apply to airfields...let vbases still be capturable regardless of the "strat" situation. That will at least give the gv'rs something to do. Maybe consider v-bases "capturable outpost"
-
This really sounds like an exelent idea... Might give bombers a more important role in the game rather than the secondary role they seem to currently have.
-
Another plus - is that it would be very hard to milk run bases in the wee hours of the morning. During the low hours - there could be some raging battles over vbases, since those would still be able to be capturable.
-
This sounds like a good idea. Write up some pros/cons. Then we can all figure out how to fix the negative affects of this idea.
You would possibly create large furballs or hordes going after strats in lancasters NOE.
Actually, just 1 lancaster could effectively do this. I can bring down the city factory from 100% to 30% in 1 sortie with a lancaster at 25k. Maybe have it surrounded by AAA that is worse than the CV AAA, or maybe have trains circle them and shoot everyone down!
It will force people to climb to at least 8k AGL. Maybe we should have a manned 5" or two to help defend these bases.
Then again, if the MAIN arenas get too good, why would you play CT?
-
:aok
Regards,
hap
-
Originally posted by Waffle BAS
Only allow bases to be captured in a zone once all infrastructure (strat for that zone) has been destroyed past a certain point.
This could be a moving percentage - tied to the numbers of players in the arena and maybe the ENY..if a country is outnumbered severely - then a greater percentage of strat would have to be destroyed.
So for a team to actually gain ground - they'd have to hit the enemy's zones infrastructure - weaken them to the point of attack. For a team to defend, they just have to prevent their strat from getting knocked down.
It delays the "pork" factor, and focuses fights in protecting / attacking strat.
Basically it adds a step before, rather than adding steps after..in a how to capture and win the war...
Kinda like real war - destroy the infrastructure, which reduces then enemy's "war-machine" - once the country is weak - then you advance.
great idea.....and it will give the buff a propper target so its not used to carpet bomb bases.
-
I like the theory, but now that we have been reduced to all small maps I don't think it could work out. The way it stands now most of the time It's just one sector for each country and the strats are tucked waay back in there near HQ where it would be rather unpleasant to have to fly many sectors through enemy territory just to get poped by 163s before you get there. However if we got the old maps back :) I think it would be great.
-
Yeah but thats the fun of bomber runs.... Attempting to get your ord to the target through their fighter defence... Dedicated buff pilots would have a reason for those long flights.. I have taken down 3 163's befor on an HQ raid while only loseing 1 of my 17's.. It might force people to actually learn how to hit bomber groups so it's harder for us to shoot them down.
-
Originally posted by Waffle BAS
So for a team to actually gain ground - they'd have to hit the enemy's zones infrastructure - weaken them to the point of attack. For a team to defend, they just have to prevent their strat from getting knocked down.
Kinda like real war - destroy the infrastructure, which reduces then enemy's "war-machine" - once the country is weak - then you advance.
<--- Drools at the idea of meaningful bomber/escort missions met with heavy resistance. I haven't run a bomber mission like that in ages. :(
I've also been on the receiving end. Intercept missions are a blast.:aok
-
Interesting idea, but I fear it would focus 1 horde per side attacking 1 zone. Figure out the path of least resistance here. I'm thinking NOE lancs, salvo 14, enter enter enter enter enter enter enter enter enter, rinse, repeat.
-
There's invariably going to be people (vet or newbie) figuring out the path of least resisistance, or more aptly put, where the enemy's weaknesses are no matter what kind of capture format is employed. That to me is the nature of it all. Someone, somewhere, sometime will choose that path no matter what, so long as the game has the capture element in in it's basic design.
-
The strat idea described is very similar to the way WB 2.77 was set up. and it was excellent. in that game destroying the strat target gave you "strat time" and the more strats you destroyed the more strat time you had. fields could only be captured while strat time was available. i've been wishing that AH would adpot a system similar to this. AH has even greater potential for this sytem because of the trains. These could probably be worked to effect strat time in some way.
-
Originally posted by Kermit de frog
Actually, just 1 lancaster could effectively do this. I can bring down the city factory from 100% to 30% in 1 sortie with a lancaster at 25k.
Then Maybe make it where each strat object had to be destroyed past 50 % to initiate base captures in that zone. That would be challenging. Having to keep each strat object below 50%, with the rebuild time. Also - players could resupply strat areas. If train / convoys ran backward and resupllied the start once it's damaged - they would become valuable targets. So while bombers are overhead destroying the start - you have some low level attacks sniffing out trains / convoys in the areas.
I don't think NOE lancs would be an issue - as NOE bombers would tend to get chewed up by ohhh lets say -110s. Remember - the strat objects are towards the rear of the maps... So there is going to have to be a good - 50-75 mile flight / fight to get there.
-
Good to see consructive ideas on the boards....
This idea has it's possibilities :aok
-
Originally posted by Waffle BAS
I don't think it would affect any furballing at all - as there are still front-line bases.
I like this idea.
It would require a great deal of coordination and teamwork to effectively capture territory.
Wait a minute, that might also require a lot of people working together toward a common goal. This might lead to guys hanging out more often and "teaming up"....ZomG!!!!!!!! This might lead to formations of teh evil mega skwads!!!!!! :t
-
least the ideas not getting all torn to hell by the furballers or the strat / land grab types yet..... :) I'm trying to figure out cons to the ideas, other than a big one.."it can't be coaded with a huge overhaul of our system"
-
cool idea. :aok
-
Originally posted by Waffle BAS
least the ideas not getting all torn to hell by the furballers or the strat / land grab types yet..... :) I'm trying to figure out cons to the ideas, other than a big one.."it can't be coaded with a huge overhaul of our system"
Anything that will promote fights is cool.
-
I REALLY like it too.
Gives buffers something meaningful to do
Adds real strategic component to game. (Currently what some call strategy is really tactics.)
Gives guys who like buff interception a meaningful reason to do what they like, and gives them fewer targets to cover....so more likely that interceptions will happen.
That means buffers are more likely to need escort...which means more likely to have a real reason to run missions...and when the missions are intercepted, the escorts will have to learn the difference between "flying around in a group" and ORGANIZING a defense.....which means more interceptors wil lbe drawn in as flight numbers and skill increase.
Its a great way to draw all kinds of players into fighting each other, and still have a strategic motivation for those who dont like "meaningless" flighting. I'm not sure I can see a downside.
-
Originally posted by Simaril
Gives guys who like buff interception a meaningful reason to do what they like, and gives them fewer targets to cover
Bomber interception in this game is a joke. It will continue to be until bombers are forced to run at less than full throttle. Ask anybody that flew the last BOB and they'll testify that it's nearly impossible to catch bombers in a fighter. You get one pass if you set up properly then you get a prolonged tail chase that ends 200 miles later as you close at a miserable rate. Historically these bombers flew under 200mph their entire sortie [EDIT: 150 to 160 average cruise speed]. Now you never see them drop below 250, unless they're climbing to 25k.
-
i think you getting the two speeds mixed up.
because i can never get over 250mph IAS, so i thinking you must mean TAS...(i cruise at around 240-260TAS, 290TAS once bombs have gone). but if you mean TAS i dont know of any bomber that can fly at 150-160mph TAS at 20k
yes, drones should be made so we cant run max all the time.
but the real issue here is we never really get formations (u call 3 bombers a formation?)
my squad the 303rd bomber group run cruise (155-180IAS) settings all day to keep a tight 6-12bomber formation, but if we are on our own, we need our speed much like the lone bomber in WWII going max power to catch up with formation, or to get away from target once hes lost formation.
-
plus, if bombers "can't" run full throttle, then fighters shouldn't be able to either.... :)
but enough of that hijack :)
-
Originally posted by Waffle BAS
plus, if bombers "can't" run full throttle, then fighters shouldn't be able to either.... :)
but enough of that hijack :)
yup....
-
Originally posted by Krusty
Bomber interception in this game is a joke. It will continue to be until bombers are forced to run at less than full throttle. Ask anybody that flew the last BOB and they'll testify that it's nearly impossible to catch bombers in a fighter. You get one pass if you set up properly then you get a prolonged tail chase that ends 200 miles later as you close at a miserable rate. Historically these bombers flew under 200mph their entire sortie [EDIT: 150 to 160 average cruise speed]. Now you never see them drop below 250, unless they're climbing to 25k.
Krusty,
BoB will not be a fair test as long as Ju88s face 1939 aircraft. It's an irrelevant example, unfortunately.
I think you're also overlooking the fact that fighters can run at max power for as long as THEY want, too.
I've honestly never felt climb-to-intercepts were unreasonable. In arena combat, I expect to get 2-3 passes in before I need to rebuild E and reset the attack. I guess I just dont see the problem.
-
It gets a :aok from me!
-
Sounds interesting. Might work great on the multi-zone maps. Not so good for the old single-zone. (The single-zone smaller maps were supposed to be pulled a while back anyway I thought.)
-
Here's a semi-camouflaged punt....to keep at least a non whining discussion on the subject open.
One thing I have noticed, is that more ack has resulted in a larger horde showing up....once they find out a field is deacked... a whole country shows up at the deacked base....lmao! :)
and now.... back to your regularly scheduled broadcast.....
-
So who creates the maps?
Would it be facelift of current maps or new ones?
-
That is a great idea Waffle!
That will give the strats some real strategic importance in the game. It would really force a side to work together to take ground, plus give the bomer pilots a real reason to climb to 20k+ to complete a mission into enemy territory.
NICE!!!
-
i'd love to see a very large radar cover for the intorceptors too . just covering air over 12K . Cos i HATE trying to bring down bombers while still trying to climb to their alt. In WWII they had 40mins uptime to intercept, or they were already at that alt . At the moment your a sitting duck for the buffs as your on your lonesome. that aint fun . 15 mins to climb and shot down in 2 mins.
So not only do buffs need help but interceptors too. BUT i love this plan.. real depth.
-
I agree with the concept of introducing a meaningful bomber role in the game. I really like the idea of bomber missions and close fighter support. And bomber missions that having more effect on the game. I am not sure about the base capture part being linked to the strat, but I do like the idea of increasing the usefulness of strats and the importance of defending and attacking them.
Good Suggestion!
:aok :aok
-
It might be pretty drastic, but enable a few plane types (say, hurri2D and il2) at vbases. Leave the V bases as being independent of the strats. Lots of choo choos steaming around shooting people and resupplying. More convoys, more resupply barges, etc.
Now, theoretically, everything has a dedicated role aside from flattening hangars or vulching. Ground attack to deal with convoys, trains, barges, in addition to GVs and toolshedding. Bombers for the strat targets, goons/M3s/Jeeps to resupply all strat, not just HQ. If stuff has to get blown up in large quantities, that means bombers. If bombers need to get blown up in large quantities, that means heavily armed interceptors. If interceptors need to be blown up in large quantities, that means... furballing for the war effort!
That sounds kinda nutty.