Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Axis vs Allies => Topic started by: Mister Fork on September 08, 2007, 01:46:56 PM
-
a) Historical match-ups that do not take into account the Main Arena style gameplay. Meaning, you don't care about field captures - it's all about World War II.
b) Gameplay that is based on historical match-ups that enhance the style of play outside of the main arenas. Meaning, you enjoy the arena that offers Main Arena gamplay but based on historical World War II settings and periods.
Please discuss.
-
Hiya FORK!
Been away from AH for some time now. What I really enjoyed about it mostly was the historically accurate plane sets. This allowed for less lopsided fights. However, my biggest complaint about the arena is the low volume of usage. IMO, arena style :O , historical style:cool:, or drunken monkey style:rolleyes: , neither is as much fun as it can be without large number of combatants.(number somewhere in the range of 50 players) Mr.:noid
Okay, you probably are thinking well you just want another Main Arena. I disagree with that sentiment. Having large numbers of players will have both positive and negative impact on whatever design of the arena. But, the positve impact on gaming will far outweigh the negative. Eventually, the majority of players will police the arena themselves.
My suggesstion, lighten up. Keep putting up those amazing maps that we enjoy so much in AvA. Once the word gets around on what an awesome job that you all are doing, a lot more of the hard core historical minded players will be as hooked as I was on the arena.
Answer to your question: Stick with the plane set and historical map scenario concept. Just make sure that you have enough targets (be it opponent or bases) to keep the casual visitor occupied long enough to build up the numbers and momentum in making for a GREAT battle.
Chilli - good topic
-
Hi Fork!
I must confess that both options are very much alike to me. I may have interpretation problems due to natural difficulties in interpretating reasonings in a foreign language...
My opinion about AvA has been expressed before. I feel that AvA should keep the historical match-ups and planesets in the most historically correct maps available, wich, by no accident, happen to have been developed for AvA by the Map Team...
I once suggested that AvA maps should have very few airfields available and operational. I keep that suggestion. Two closer fighter bases (but not too close), two fighter bases further back in the map (but not very far away), a couple of bomber bases even further back (just enough to let them to climb to altitude without beeing ripped apart). Six bases to each country. All other airfields available for emergency landings, eventually rearming and refuelling, but no spawning. Not even ack enabled. No capturable bases at all, this would be a "land grabbing-free" arena. Same concept applied to Vehicle Bases.
I also would like to see the RPS in the maps and a sequential rotation of historical theatres of operations. Something like inverting the logic of the map rotation and making it with a RPS, but defining that each week or two weeks would represent a year in the conflict. Something like starting in 1939, Battle of France, then Dunkerque, then BoB, then Barbarossa, Mediterranean ops, Far East, back to Europe , Russia - lost track of time here, we must put Winter War around here - then Early Pacific, and so on, until we would reach Defense of the Reich and the Bombings of Japan...
If we set it by year, we would choose a close series of aerial battles in different TO's, sequentially, and the RPS would be natural...I am aware of the planeset gaps, of the map availability, et all. This is just an idea.
Also, as I stated in other threads, I wish that AvA had no enemy dot dar, only sector Dar Bar. I also wish that wind and clouds was set up the closest possible to the historical conditions of the place and time of event.
Also, I would like icon range reduced to minimum, about 2k or less. I also would like to see all aircraft topped up at 100% fuel by default. Also no Ch1 or Ch200 enabled in flight.
I believe that this would bring AvA to assume itself to be what it really is: a arena for people that wants to fight mainly in aircrafts, be it fighters or bombers, in an historical environment, with an above the average difficulty. Some GV'ers could also take advantege of the setups and have fun shooting themselves into oblivium. In the end, everyone would be happy and numbers would grow if enough advertisement was made in the forums.
Communication is the key to attract new players to AvA. They must arrive here in full knowledge of what they are going to find: it is important that they arrive here because they want a different experience, more demanding, less crowded, more relaxed in some ways, more deadly in others...
Cheers,
-
never cared about base capture, its all about the a2a for me.
I like close bases and even planeset even it if means having the same planes on both sides. That is the attraction of EW and MW arenas.
-
Although I've only flown AvA once before I think that if the suggestions that sparrow gave were implemented that I, as well as other people, would be there more often.
-
Originally posted by sparow
Hi Fork!
I must confess that both options are very much alike to me. I may have interpretation problems due to natural difficulties in interpretating reasonings in a foreign language...
My opinion about AvA has been expressed before. I feel that AvA should keep the historical match-ups and planesets in the most historically correct maps available, wich, by no accident, happen to have been developed for AvA by the Map Team...
I once suggested that AvA maps should have very few airfields available and operational. I keep that suggestion. Two closer fighter bases (but not too close), two fighter bases further back in the map (but not very far away), a couple of bomber bases even further back (just enough to let them to climb to altitude without beeing ripped apart). Six bases to each country. All other airfields available for emergency landings, eventually rearming and refuelling, but no spawning. Not even ack enabled. No capturable bases at all, this would be a "land grabbing-free" arena. Same concept applied to Vehicle Bases.
I also would like to see the RPS in the maps and a sequential rotation of historical theatres of operations. Something like inverting the logic of the map rotation and making it with a RPS, but defining that each week or two weeks would represent a year in the conflict. Something like starting in 1939, Battle of France, then Dunkerque, then BoB, then Barbarossa, Mediterranean ops, Far East, back to Europe , Russia - lost track of time here, we must put Winter War around here - then Early Pacific, and so on, until we would reach Defense of the Reich and the Bombings of Japan...
If we set it by year, we would choose a close series of aerial battles in different TO's, sequentially, and the RPS would be natural...I am aware of the planeset gaps, of the map availability, et all. This is just an idea.
Also, as I stated in other threads, I wish that AvA had no enemy dot dar, only sector Dar Bar. I also wish that wind and clouds was set up the closest possible to the historical conditions of the place and time of event.
Also, I would like icon range reduced to minimum, about 2k or less. I also would like to see all aircraft topped up at 100% fuel by default. Also no Ch1 or Ch200 enabled in flight.
I believe that this would bring AvA to assume itself to be what it really is: a arena for people that wants to fight mainly in aircrafts, be it fighters or bombers, in an historical environment, with an above the average difficulty. Some GV'ers could also take advantege of the setups and have fun shooting themselves into oblivium. In the end, everyone would be happy and numbers would grow if enough advertisement was made in the forums.
Communication is the key to attract new players to AvA. They must arrive here in full knowledge of what they are going to find: it is important that they arrive here because they want a different experience, more demanding, less crowded, more relaxed in some ways, more deadly in others...
Cheers,
:aok :aok :aok
-
a
-
Originally posted by evenhaim
a
interesting
-
I like it the way it is...
-
I am sorry evenheim your are full of it.
b
-
I'm not sure why it is or should be an either-or proposition.
The fact that a few of the more regular players mostly choose "a" does not surprise me in the least bit. It also shouldn't surprise anyone that no one who doesn't already occasionally show up in the AvA has posted.
The question should be, what will attract more new players to the arena?
I'm not going to claim that making the AvA more "MA-like" would do it, because it might be just as likely to drive away the regulars without attracting replacements. But in all seriousness, "a" is what we have now, and people still gripe about low numbers.
-
Originally posted by ergRTC
I am sorry evenheim your are full of it.
b
well because your so rash,
the reason i choose a because i dont care about base captures, i dont like ma play as much but base captures are the lowest on my list.
-
Originally posted by E25280
I'm not sure why it is or should be an either-or proposition.
The fact that a few of the more regular players mostly choose "a" does not surprise me in the least bit. It also shouldn't surprise anyone that no one who doesn't already occasionally show up in the AvA has posted.
The question should be, what will attract more new players to the arena?
I'm not going to claim that making the AvA more "MA-like" would do it, because it might be just as likely to drive away the regulars without attracting replacements. But in all seriousness, "a" is what we have now, and people still gripe about low numbers.
Agreed this is what i want:aok
-
To me the CT and now the AvA was and is about individual plane match ups, particularly fighters, bombers are included to allow players to run missions and have little mini-events but to me base capture causes more problems than it's worth in the AvA. Plane match ups are historically based but tweaked with game play in mind, plane with similar flight characteristics and strengths are more interesting than dissimilar planes. I used to include N1K's in my PTO setups when I was on the staff even if I was shooting for a time period earlier than the N1k historically saw much deployment because I felt the N1k offered a better encounter against the allied planes than the zero or even the tony did.
As much as I loved PTO environments a group of P38, P47's and F4U corsairs against a bunch of zekes makes for a bored group of axis players.
-
Valid points Soulyss - its something you know personally that all admins struggle with: working with a very limited Axis planeset. For Germany, no problemo - more 109's and 190 variants than a bingo hall. (G-14, G-2, D-9 etc). For Japanese, we are really really short on aircraft.
We're missing aircraft like the K-43, J2M, G4M, and the D4Y to help fill time-line gaps. Most would be MA hangar queens, but operationally in the CT, SEA, and AvA, gems.
That being said, I think I'm hearing that historical match-ups are what the AvA is about. Gameplay can be a gem, especially for Squads with set objectives. But field capture is not important to keeping and attracting new players - or bringing back veterans. Increasing numbers is something I think I'm hearing and is a goal of all the AvA admins and staff.
All of the admins have been watch this discussion with great interest. I've also asked my fellow admins what they want out of each other and the arena. Making exciting setups that last longer we think could increase #'s in the arena. I also think we need to step-up our advertising: something we haven't been doing much lately.
Thanks to all who have contributed to this discussion. The admins are committed into bringing you all exciting historical experiences in the arena. It's you guys, the players, who we are ultimately serving. Without you, we wouldn't have the AvA. Give us a while to work out our strategy. If you have any more ideas and comments, please don't hesitate to contact us, especially if you're interested in volunteering.
-
I have a question for the AvA crowd.
On the subject of base capture, is it the act of taking territory that isn't supported, or is it the Way the territory usually get's taken, by a swarm of land grabbing showing up while no ones looking that seems to be the problem.
Would taking territory or meeting objectives that progressively opened up new planes or pushed planes back from the front lines, depending on the territory that was taken, be of interest if the settings were such that it had to be a real effort to take the territory? Not simply dropping some buildings and a load of troops, but to have the rebuild rate so that you had to run an aggressive and coordinated mission to take out the objects and drop Several sets of troops, within a shortened window of time.
If that actually provided a strategic element that could be expanded on, instead of simply using a large map for a large furball in the middle, would that be something to consider?
-
In the past for me its always been about the aircraft matchups weather historical or not. I've never gotten into the 'the is how it was in this year at this time' thingy.
Its a limited plane set and its always about the air to air fights.
Personally I see no need or use for GV's in the areana other than to just piss people off, you want to make this different than the other areanas I'd say get rid of the GV's, you can still capture bases but you'll have to do it as part of Aces High not the Aces Low crowd. Some of the maps like bOb are really fun when you can capture a base on England or France and up without having to fly 10 minutes across the channel.
I'd like to see some special 1 on 1 matchups vs. our current we gotta have x number of planes to choose. I'm not sure we'll ever see a balanced plane set, I'd say it'll always be acklies heavy biased.
Also is there any way to limit 1 type or all types percentage wise based on numbers in the areana? Say we have 6 people flying acklies and our current setup has the uber woobiecan IIc, is it possible to limit the woobiecan to say only 20% available at any one time so that I'm not fighting a whole squadron of woobiecans? I mean some of these setups are redickerous in that most of the plane set isn't even touched other than a couple in the line up.
-
The way you describe it is really good ROC. Land aquisition actually opening up another plane or pushing certain planes back from the front lines is good. Also, making it more difficult to take a base where it would actually take coordination and well planned/supported attacks.
This all sounds great. I think the limited plane sets would keep it from turning into the MA. There could still be good fights along with some strategy thrown in without a mad crowd furballing in 100 different kinds of planes.
I think that there is a large group who would welcome additions like these and who still would want to keep the fights on a higher level then the constant HO's and vulching common in the MA.
:aok
-
Originally posted by 1cajun
There could still be good fights along with some strategy thrown in without a mad crowd furballing in 100 different kinds of planes.
Will see, but I don't think so. The people doing the strategy thingie will be focusing on that. You cannot get them to fight because that is not part of strategy. You cannot be trying to take a base for example and at the same time looking for a fight. It gets in the way and messes up the timing of things. So, IMO, strategic play eliminates fighting because the right way to do it is to come in high, blow something up and run, and then cap the field which means vulchig.
This is not meant as an insult. I am just saying that if your goal is to capture something as a team, the right way to do it is to avoid all possibilities of conflict including drop eggs and auger to save time.
-
Originally posted by ROC
Would taking territory or meeting objectives that progressively opened up new planes or pushed planes back from the front lines, depending on the territory that was taken, be of interest if the settings were such that it had to be a real effort to take the territory?
Hi ROC!
My first instinct was to say a BIG YES to this concept, then number problem stroke me...
Let's say that for six months until one year, we would forget about base capture or strategical issues. That we would increase our player base, we would work on the consolidation of a hard-core enlarged group of AvA fans. Contrary to some opinions, I am all for letting the GV's in AvA. Make them use their tracks, sweat for a kill, not put them away. The same for the bomber chaps, let them fight their way to some strats.
VWE mentioned something very similar to a mix between perk and ENY sistems implemented...That might be interestint to test. As you know very well, I am mostly a ackllied-untalented-spittard and I must admit that woobiecanes have a bit too powerful punch, very much like the FM2's that transvestite like Brewster Buffalos...
I am aware of the gaps in the Japanese, Italian and Russian planesets. There's nothing we can do about it. All that can be done is avoid matchups that include the absents.
So, I think that we should drop the base capture all together for a while. Concentrate on the matchups, follow historical chronology as close as possible and have fun!
And, Fork, you're right: increase advertising of AvA is of the utmost importance. But, like everyone in advertising world knows, we must create expectations and we must fullfill them entirely or even go beyond their expectations. And that, we will only obtain through two simple things:
One: what we say AvA is, it is and it's even more...More demanding, more balanced, more technical, more relaxed, more historically correct, more guts, more hands, more brains. More pilot, less machine.
Second: AvA must be radically different of ANY of the MAs, as different as water and wine. Diferentiation is the key note for AvA growth and development. AvA will be the kindergarten of all the SEA future pilots and the rest home of all veterans looking for a good fight in a prop plane.
Cheers,
-
Originally posted by dedalos
Will see, but I don't think so. The people doing the strategy thingie will be focusing on that. You cannot get them to fight because that is not part of strategy. You cannot be trying to take a base for example and at the same time looking for a fight. It gets in the way and messes up the timing of things. So, IMO, strategic play eliminates fighting because the right way to do it is to come in high, blow something up and run, and then cap the field which means vulchig.
This is not meant as an insult. I am just saying that if your goal is to capture something as a team, the right way to do it is to avoid all possibilities of conflict including drop eggs and auger to save time.
we have a winner
-
Originally posted by dedalos
I am just saying that if your goal is to capture something as a team, the right way to do it is to avoid all possibilities of conflict including drop eggs and auger to save time.
With respect, you are equating a capture with MA "milkrunning." Not every MA base capture is a milkrun, and in the AvA I don't think it would have to be either.
If there is a structure (something like ROC suggests) that lets both sides know what the objective is, then the fight is guaranteed. The side that wants it will have to beat down the defenders -- the defenders will be struggling to keep it from happening.
-
Originally posted by sparow
So, I think that we should drop the base capture all together for a while. Concentrate on the matchups, follow historical chronology as close as possible and have fun!
This is basically what we have now. So you are saying, change nothing.
-
Originally posted by E25280
This is basically what we have now. So you are saying, change nothing.
Sorry mate, but I mean abandon entirely the base capture concept. And, as stated above, make it harder in some ways, change other things a bit.
It's not a revolution, it's more like stretching this concept further in the direction of air-to-air combat, focusing it clearly in this area, while still allowing bomber pilots and GV'ers to find something in it for them.
Cheers,
-
Originally posted by ROC
I have a question for the AvA crowd.
On the subject of base capture, is it the act of taking territory that isn't supported, or is it the Way the territory usually get's taken, by a swarm of land grabbing showing up while no ones looking that seems to be the problem.
Would taking territory or meeting objectives that progressively opened up new planes or pushed planes back from the front lines, depending on the territory that was taken, be of interest if the settings were such that it had to be a real effort to take the territory? Not simply dropping some buildings and a load of troops, but to have the rebuild rate so that you had to run an aggressive and coordinated mission to take out the objects and drop Several sets of troops, within a shortened window of time.
If that actually provided a strategic element that could be expanded on, instead of simply using a large map for a large furball in the middle, would that be something to consider?
This is a very interesting idea, if the playing could be tweaked to offer strategically important targets, it would be great.
However, that must be balanced by some severe penalties for hording and gangbanging.
If a large squad came in and joined a single side with the aim of running an "aggressive and coordinated" mission to knock down HQ, that would be counterproductive to the goal of bringing in more players. With 20 vs 5 odds and the team of 5 without any radar, they would probably just log.
And dedalos makes an excellent point....
-
What I'd like to see are smaller maps, or disabled fields beyond a certain "active" front.
-
(A) It'd be so great to have an arena where the focus was on flying a realistic mission, like the ones you read about.
-
I'm in disagreement with most of you. I'm tired of the scenario's (Finland, Pacific, BoB, etc....) I've brought this up before, so I'll bring it up again. I envision Axis Vs Allies as complete usage of all the planes, vehicles, and Fleet. For example, British and Americans = Rooks, Germans, Japan=Knits, and the Russians and Italians=bish. The Russians and Italians both switched alliances during the war, so in this set up they can either play with the allies or against them.
We can even use one of the MA maps. Large Fields can hold all airplanes and vehicles, Medium Fields can hold Medium bombers and all airplanes, Small AirField- single engined bombers, and only early and mid-war airplanes, VH- no bombers and early fighters only.
I still need to work on it more, but that's the gist of the idea. I'd like to participate in design of it, but I'm not advanced in computer graphics.
-
Originally posted by Trukk
(A) It'd be so great to have an arena where the focus was on flying a realistic mission, like the ones you read about.
Special events and (cough cough) CT cover that like an open format disorganized free-for-all arena never could.
-
Yeah, except I'm not in the right timezone for the first (and in the course of a month only adds up to a few hours playing time) and the second is still vapourware. :(
-
Why are some so stuck on that strategy and historical play? That only makes sense if you have numbers. Planning for 100s of participants is silly.
AvA numbers are low. How can you run all those 'missions' with 4-5 players? Makes no sense.
Fix AvA in the way it'll accommodate LOW numbers. Forget the fancy stuff.
If it ever gets more popular, go to next step and enhance the setups with strats and stuff if needed.
-
b) Gameplay that is based on historical match-ups that enhance the style of play outside of the main arenas. Meaning, you enjoy the arena that offers Main Arena gamplay but based on historical World War II settings and periods.
B for me. Something along the lines of the old "Warbirds" WW2 arenas.
Cavalry
-
Why are some so stuck on that strategy and historical play?
That's sorta a big part of the reason to fly historical aircraft. AH has enough furball arenas, it'd be nice to have one with a different focus.
That only makes sense if you have numbers. Planning for 100s of participants is silly.
No, you can fly fun realistic missions with much as little as 24 guys (even less actually).
AvA numbers are low.
Yeah, because the current setup does not offer much more than the other arenas.
What's there to lose trying something different?
-
Originally posted by Trukk
That's sorta a big part of the reason to fly historical aircraft. AH has enough furball arenas, it'd be nice to have one with a different focus.
CT is coming out soon.
Originally posted by Trukk
No, you can fly fun realistic missions with much as little as 24 guys (even less actually).
What about opposition? What happens to air to air combat?
Realistically, if you run mission to hit ground target you wanna come in quickly, undetected, hit the target and haul yourself out before enemy's fighters can scramble.
Doesn't sounds like much fun for anybody but those few in the mission.
Originally posted by Trukk
Yeah, because the current setup does not offer much more than the other arenas.
And how would emphasis on strategy play bring in something what isn't already in other arenas?
I think it's not so much in setup (apart from few little things) but change in the mentality what AvA really needs.
Originally posted by Trukk
What's there to lose trying something different?
Nothing. There's just difference in opinion what 'something different' might be.
-
Originally posted by XAKL
I've brought this up before, so I'll bring it up again. I envision Axis Vs Allies as complete usage of all the planes, vehicles, and Fleet. For example, British and Americans = Rooks, Germans, Japan=Knits, and the Russians and Italians=bish. The Russians and Italians both switched alliances during the war, so in this set up they can either play with the allies or against them.
We can even use one of the MA maps. Large Fields can hold all airplanes and vehicles, Medium Fields can hold Medium bombers and all airplanes, Small AirField- single engined bombers, and only early and mid-war airplanes, VH- no bombers and early fighters only.
There's alot of merit to this idea.
-
B for me. Something along the lines of the old "Warbirds" WW2 arenas. Cavalry
Yeah with strats and a rps from early to late,how about adjust the downtime to the number of players at a given time(more players= less downtime)
..just a thought
-
Originally posted by Cav
Something along the lines of the old "Warbirds" WW2 arenas.
As an old WWII arena flyer I have to say you're right on. Start with a “main arena” format then substitute historical terrain, theatre specific plane sets with an RPS, reduced icons, more realistic radar settings and field capture tied to a moving “front”. For example: Base capture would be by GV only and an enemy base could only be captured if it was bordered by at least one friendly base. Targets behind the lines could be bombed and their damage or closure would impact efforts at the front. Down times for bases in rear areas would be shorter than for front line bases. A TOD would last two weeks. For this to work the arena reset issue would have to be addressed. Frankly, I’m surprised HTC would go live with an arena that has this type of bug in the first place. In some respects we are very close to this set up right now, but yet in others, so far away.
-
As a former (hopefully not forever) participant and a short time CT staff type, I always imagined it to be a weekly 24/7 event (a battle where players could both immerse in an enviroment that's more akin to participating in a virtual persona of a WWII pilot and a tactical/strategy game where they can effect changes on the map and complete goals to win the battle).
What was the question again? :D
-
Originally posted by trap2000
Originally posted by Cav
As an old WWII arena flyer I have to say you're right on. Start with a “main arena” format then substitute historical terrain, theatre specific plane sets with an RPS, reduced icons, more realistic radar settings and field capture tied to a moving “front”. For example: Base capture would be by GV only and an enemy base could only be captured if it was bordered by at least one friendly base. Targets behind the lines could be bombed and their damage or closure would impact efforts at the front. Down times for bases in rear areas would be shorter than for front line bases. A TOD would last two weeks. For this to work the arena reset issue would have to be addressed. Frankly, I’m surprised HTC would go live with an arena that has this type of bug in the first place. In some respects we are very close to this set up right now, but yet in others, so far away.
Finally some ideas that don't try to eliminate game play but enhance it or make it different. I don't know how hard or easy that would be or if it conflicts with TOD that will be here in 2 weeks, but it is a good idea :aok
-
Originally posted by Mister Fork
a) Historical match-ups that do not take into account the Main Arena style gameplay. Meaning, you don't care about field captures - it's all about World War II.
b) Gameplay that is based on historical match-ups that enhance the style of play outside of the main arenas. Meaning, you enjoy the arena that offers Main Arena gamplay but based on historical World War II settings and periods.
Please discuss.
Clearly the first alternative.
What I'd love to see is one AvA arena for Europe US/GE/SU and one for the Pacific US/JP. Rotating maps is fine, it's a good thing, but continually changing between the PTO and ETO is bad since squads who prefer either JP, SU or GE iron are forced back into the MA to fly their preferred rides and so the arena dies.
With a ETO arena GE squads can go there on a regular basis. I'm a member of one of these squads and clearly feel the lack of a historical European arena.
-
Originally posted by Mister Fork
a) Historical match-ups that do not take into account the Main Arena style gameplay. Meaning, you don't care about field captures - it's all about World War II.
b) Gameplay that is based on historical match-ups that enhance the style of play outside of the main arenas. Meaning, you enjoy the arena that offers Main Arena gamplay but based on historical World War II settings and periods.
Definately b. On a strategic and tactical level (which AH simulates) capturing fields, towns, ports, etc. was what World War II was all about and should drive game play in a historical arena. Labeling this type of game play "main arena style" doesn't make sense. What seperates the two are an Axis/Allied split, historical terrains, limited plane sets, more realistic icon, radar and other arena settings. These are the hallmarks of a World War II style arena and are what make it much more challenging than the main. The fact that the main mirrors the concept of field capture means little in the overall scheme of things. Typically a noobie starts in the main with its' easier arena settings and unlimited plane set. When (and if) he decides to transition into the next level of game play he moves over to the historical arena.
-
Originally posted by trap2000
On a strategic and tactical level (which AH simulates) capturing fields, towns, ports, etc. was what World War II was all about and should drive game play in a historical arena.
Your right, just got through reading a story from WWII. It was about 2 guys who flew a Spitfire and a C-47 behind enemy lines and single handedly captured an entire base. The Germans couldn't get it back because one of them was smart enough to hide in a little mound of dirt on the base, and the other guy teleported to a nearby base and in 5 minutes destroyed every bomb they had.
-
WW2 was all about the soldier on the ground, it was he who did all the dirty work and died in droves. The air war was about controlling the skies over the battlefield in order to bomb the poor sods on the ground. If you make the low populated AvA arena into a landgrab you can be sure that will be exploited during the low hrs. Some people will spend a few hrs alone on one side and completely ruin the map for the next day. I've seen it happen in another online flight sim.
From a historical perspective the air battles had a significant weight in deciding the outcome of the ground war, but the air war was not the deciding factor. To fly missions in support of ground troops yes, to gimp the whole arena by making bases capturable... no.
The kindergarten is in the MA ok, don't make AvA into that, please. Reserve the AvA for the people who want a little more realism and the immersion of flying a historical matchup. We don't need people crashing, bailing out or generally just doing the one-way trip, those people fly the MA.
-
Originally posted by KONG1
Your right, just got through reading a story from WWII. It was about 2 guys who flew a Spitfire and a C-47 behind enemy lines and single handedly captured an entire base. The Germans couldn't get it back because one of them was smart enough to hide in a little mound of dirt on the base, and the other guy teleported to a nearby base and in 5 minutes destroyed every bomb they had.
:rofl
-
Originally posted by sparow
AvA maps should have few airfields available and operational. All other airfields available for emergency landings, eventually rearming and refuelling, but no spawning. No enemy dot dar for countries that had no such tecnology, only sector Dar Bar. dot dar only available to countries that used the tecnology, at the time they started using it. Wind and cloud set up the closest possible to the historical conditions of the place and time event. Icon range reduced to minimum, about 2k or less. All aircraft topped up at 100% fuel by default. No Ch1 or Ch200 enabled in flight.
I would like to see the RPS in the maps and a sequential rotation of historical theatres of operations. If we set it by year, we would choose a close series of aerial battles in different TO's, sequentially, and the RPS would be natural...
To these ideas, I would add the many interesting ideas that came up from so many players like the moving front, long downtimes for field ack and no rebuild for buildings and ships. I would add also the need for greater numbers of troops needed for capture - between 40 and 100, depending on size of target and number of map rooms - and double, triple or quadruple towns to simulate large cities. I would give names to towns and bases and make trains ackless, too. Basically, destroying refineries, ammo factories, trains, trucks or barges would have some impact in the course of the battle!
After some thought, I realised that AvA could really be the best of two worlds...Not a scenario and not MA. But a place where Propnuts, GVers and Couch-Admirals could have fun, in a good historical environment...And the key is in the dinamic rotation of maps along WW2 timeline and in a new approach to AH: pre-defined objectives, and a Side scoring sistem.
To understand this think with me: we're not here for the score, right? But it's a game that revolves about organized military campaigns, right? So, why not decide that the objectives are the same that in the past? And that the resources are similar and try to reproduce each side's resources at the time? Why not give a Side 3 points for a victory, 1 point for a draw and 0 points for a defeat? We know this sistem, works fine. In the end of the "conflict" we would have Side A with 33 points, Side B with 10 points and the stats would read like this: Side A destroyed 333 aircrafts, 755 tanks, 55 ships, 999 AAA guns, 150 trains, 10 truck convoys, 5 supply barges, and lost 250 aircraft, 622 tanks, 10 ships, and so on...The same for the other side...
And AvA - read maps and setups - could even follow WW2 Timeline (forgive the gaps and possible mistakes, source was Wikipedia) to the day, like this example for 1942 (may send 1939, 40, 41, 43, 44 and 45 separately if you wish):
1942
January
2: Manila is captured by Japanese forces.
7: Siege of the Bataan Peninsula begins.
11: Japanese troops capture Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia; Japan declares war on the Netherlands and invades the Netherlands East Indies.
19: Japanese forces invade Burma.
23: The Battle of Rabaul begins.
25: Japanese troops invade the Solomon Islands.
31: The last organized Allied forces leave Malaya, ending the 54-day battle.
February
11: Operation Cerberus - Flotilla of Kriegsmarine ships dash from Brest through the English Channel to northern ports; British fail to sink any one of them
15: Singapore surrenders to Japanese forces.
19: Japanese warplanes attack Darwin, Australia;
27: Battle of the Java Sea begins; The USS Langley, the first United States aircraft carrier, is sunk by Japanese warplanes off Java.
28: Japanese land forces invade Java.
March
10: Fall of Rangoon.
April
3: Japanese forces begin an all-out assault on the United States and Filipino troops on the Bataan Peninsula. Bataan fell on April 9 and the Bataan Death March began.
5: The Japanese Navy attacks Colombo in Ceylon (Sri Lanka). Royal Navy cruisers HMS Cornwall and HMS Dorsetshire are sunk southwest of the island.
9: The Japanese Navy launches air raid on Trincomalee in Ceylon (Sri Lanka); Royal Navy aircraft carrier HMS Hermes and Royal Australian Navy destroyer HMAS Vampire are sunk off the country's East Coast.
18: Doolittle Raid on Nagoya, Tokyo and Yokohama.
23: Beginning of so-called Baedeker Blitz on English provincial towns; attacks continue sporadically until June 6.
May
4: The Battle of the Coral Sea starts.
5: British forces begin "Operation Ironclad": the invasion of Madagascar to keep the Vichy French territory from falling to a possible Japanese invasion.
6: On Corregidor, the last American forces in the Philippines surrender to the Japanese.
8: The Battle of the Coral Sea comes to an end. This is the first time in the naval history where two enemy fleets fought without seeing each other's fleets.
12: Second Battle of Kharkov - In the eastern Ukraine, the Soviet Army initiates a major offensive. During the battle the Soviets will capture the city of Kharkov from the German Army, only to be encircled and destroyed.
June
4: The Battle of Midway;
7: Japanese forces invade the Aleutian Islands. This is the first invasion of American soil in 128 years.
21: Afrika Korps recaptures Tobruk.
28: Operation Blue, the German plan to capture Stalingrad and the Russian oil fields in the Caucasus, begins.
July
1: First Battle of El Alamein begins.
3: Guadalcanal falls to the Japanese.
21: Japanese establish beachhead on the north coast of New Guinea in the Buna-Gona area; small Australian force begins rearguard action on the Kokoda Track Campaign.
27: First Battle of El Alamein ends.
August
7: Operation Watchtower begins the Battle of Guadalcanal as American forces invade Gavutu, Guadalcanal, Tulagi and Tanambogo in the Solomon Islands.
15: Operation Pedestal arrives at the island fortress of Malta.
19: Operation Jubilee, a raid by British and Canadian forces on Dieppe, France, ends in disaster.
26: Battle of Milne Bay begins: Japanese forces launch full-scale assault on Australian base near the eastern tip of New Guinea.
September
1: Stalingrad is now completely encircled by German forces.
3: Australian and U.S. forces defeat Japanese forces at Milne Bay, the first outright defeat for Japanese land forces during the Pacific War;
October
11: Battle of Cape Esperance - On the northwest coast of Guadalcanal, United States Navy ships intercept and defeat a Japanese fleet on their way to reinforce troops on the island.
23: Second Battle of El Alamein begins with massive Allied bombardment of German positions.
November
1: Operation Supercharge, the Allied breakout at El Alamein, begins.
3: Second Battle of El Alamein ends - German forces under Erwin Rommel are forced to retreat during the night.
8: Operation Torch, the Allied invasion of Vichy-controlled Morocco and Algeria, begins;
12: Battle of Guadalcanal begins - A naval battle near Guadalcanal starts between Japanese and American forces.
13: British Eighth Army recaptures Tobruk; Battle of Guadalcanal - Aviators from the USS Enterprise sink the Japanese battleship Hiei.
15: Battle of Guadalcanal ends - Although the United States Navy suffered heavy losses, it was able to retain control of Guadalcanal.
19: Battle of Stalingrad - Soviet Union forces under General Georgy Zhukov launch the Operation Uranus counterattacks at Stalingrad, turning the tide of the battle in the USSR's favor.
22: Battle of Stalingrad - The situation for the German attackers of Stalingrad seems desperate during the Soviet counter-attack Operation Uranus and General Friedrich Paulus sends Adolf Hitler a telegram saying that the German 6th Army is surrounded.
Well, I would like to follow this plot, wouldn't you?
Cheers,
Sparrow
-
And you think the place is empty now? lol
Here is an idea. Leave it alone. There are not many people there because they don't want to be there. Thats a good thing. It means it is different. Don't destroy it trying to make it the same as the MAs and don't destroy it just so you can bring more people in.
What kind of goal is that? To get more people in you have to make it more appealing to them. As all changes so far have shown, the only thing that appeals to people is the MA set up and we have that.
If you guys need something even different don't destroy the AvA. Take one of the 4 MAs and change that one.
Destroying something just so we can have more people in it is silly. It will never succeed because when you make enough changes to bring people in, the original thing is gone. If you think those ideas are so great and will appeal to a lot of people, why not make the MA like that?
-
All I'm asking for is separate Europe and Pacific AvAs, all other settings can be left as is. Having separate Eu/Pac arenas will give players a reliable arena setup which they can go to. Now it's "gah, it's a pacific map again" then go elsewhere. This is the single reason the AvA in its current form sux, imho.
:p
-
Originally posted by 33Vortex
All I'm asking for is separate Europe and Pacific AvAs, all other settings can be left as is. Having separate Eu/Pac arenas will give players a reliable arena setup which they can go to. Now it's "gah, it's a pacific map again" then go elsewhere. This is the single reason the AvA in its current form sux, imho.
:p
Who goes gah, its pacific map again? Are you speaking for 100, 200, 1000 people or just you? If it is only you, I don't think I have ever seen you in there. Even when the European set ups are on.
-
Originally posted by dedalos
I don't think I have ever seen you in there. Even when the European set ups are on.
I saw him in there once, last BOB, he was gang flying with JG11, I remember because his communication devolved to obscenity, the f bomb I believe.
-
Originally posted by KONG1
I saw him in there once, last BOB, he was gang flying with JG11, I remember because his communication devolved to obscenity, the f bomb I believe.
:rofl Funny how the people that want the change, are the people that are not using the arena. I think if they don't like the MA, they should change the MA.
-
Originally posted by Dedalos
If you think those ideas are so great and will appeal to a lot of people, why not make the MA like that?
Right there's the answer. Why not create a new arena? This thread basically comes down to the issue of how much field capture should drive arena play. You have a group who wants the AvA left as is and another group who wants varying degrees of change. The changes range from minor to a complete re-thinking of how the arena works. Now the guys running HTC know all about the WWII arena. I'll bet they realize it had and still has a very loyal following of mature players....and that it kicks prettythang. It's quite possible that the same type of arena here would equal or surpass the number of players / night that the EW, MW or AvA average. Not only that, but it would provide the oppurtunity to tap into that WWII arena player base who aren't over here already because they're not interested in fantasy main game play. It would solve the arena reset issue of the AvA because we wouldn't use that arena, we'd leave it "just as it is". If a group of players could get together and pitch the idea to HTC, they just might go for it. What would there be to lose in trying. It beats arguing in circles on a BBS.
-
Think u hit the nail on the head there trap2000. :)
And Kong, you're so full of it.
Dedalos I may not be the most active AvA player but if there's a good map I'll fly it and no, not the pacific maps only european. Currently you are the only player ranked higher than me in the fighter category in there, out of sheer weight of # of kills. I flew the BoB map then as AvA changed to a Pacific map I'm no longer interested. My rank is not my work alone but we (JG11) fly together, which only further the level of historical accuracy, and some certain people don't like us for that. I fail to see why team tactics is a bad thing in the AvA, or the MA for that matter. If you can't cope with other players teaming up maybe you are playing the wrong game is my opinion on the subject. What's the purpose of being in a squad anyway?
Lack of respect only leads to more, lack of respect, which is counterproductive. Dedalos do I really need to tell you about this?
-
Originally posted by 33Vortex
Think u hit the nail on the head there trap2000. :)
And Kong, you're so full of it.
Dedalos I may not be the most active AvA player but if there's a good map I'll fly it and no, not the pacific maps only european. Currently you are the only player ranked higher than me in the fighter category in there, out of sheer weight of # of kills. I flew the BoB map then as AvA changed to a Pacific map I'm no longer interested. My rank is not my work alone but we (JG11) fly together, which only further the level of historical accuracy, and some certain people don't like us for that. I fail to see why team tactics is a bad thing in the AvA, or the MA for that matter. If you can't cope with other players teaming up maybe you are playing the wrong game is my opinion on the subject. What's the purpose of being in a squad anyway?
Lack of respect only leads to more, lack of respect, which is counterproductive. Dedalos do I really need to tell you about this?
What does any of this have to do with my post or changing the AvA. If you don't like the MA don't try to change the AvA to suit your needs. Ask for a new arena or ask to change the MA.
As far as team tactics go, you tell me. Do you think there is anything wrong with 5 guys beating on 1 guy> Is that fun for you?
As for your rank :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl something tells me that 1 vs 1 you could not fight your way out of a paper bag. (See team tactics, lol)
-
Oh, another genius. I see what level you operate at, and you're not dragging me down to where you are.
Edit: Oh, and let me quote your brilliance, in order to preserve it for future reference and/or case studies.
Originally posted by dedalos
What does any of this have to do with my post or changing the AvA. If you don't like the MA don't try to change the AvA to suit your needs. Ask for a new arena or ask to change the MA.
As far as team tactics go, you tell me. Do you think there is anything wrong with 5 guys beating on 1 guy> Is that fun for you?
As for your rank :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl something tells me that 1 vs 1 you could not fight your way out of a paper bag. (See team tactics, lol)
-
Originally posted by 33Vortex
Oh, another genius. I see what level you operate at, and you're not dragging me down to where you are.
You brought your rank in to a discussion about arena changes and you want me to take you seriously?
Really, take a guess, what do you think everyone that read your post thinks now? :rofl
-
Originally posted by KONG1
I saw him in there once, last BOB, he was gang flying with JG11, I remember because his communication devolved to obscenity, the f bomb I believe.
Originally posted by 33Vortex
And Kong, you're so full of it.
(http://ahgreenhearts.org/images/ac2.jpg)
Who's full off what? :rofl
-
Dude, what is your problem? Rank is not significant and I never said it was, it only serve as a pointer toward what that player is capable of. Since you treated me like a idiot I pointed out my rank to you since it is indisputable fact.
How am I to take you seriously when all you do is :rofl, and at what? All you do with your posts is show how much of a (http://hem.bredband.net/turnik/icons/icon_baby.gif) you are.
-
:rofl
OMG you guys are unbelievable. Kong, whatever makes you happy man. :D
-
And so the thread goes as always. There are a number of players with some great ideas and then the few who don't want their private DA sandbox toyed with.
Sad thing is that these threads always start productive and end up with the personal attacks.
-
Kong, what I mean is, it's irrelevant. Of course you know what preceded that line as well, you're just leaving that out very conveniently. But I'm not interested in that. It's why you are doing it that puzzles me, what's your purpose in bringing that up at all, why are you trashtalking me and JG11?
Basically, what is your problem?
Can you help me figure that out, please, I'd be very grateful. :)
-
Originally posted by 1cajun
And so the thread goes as always. There are a number of players with some great ideas and then the few who don't want their private DA sandbox toyed with.
Sad thing is that these threads always start productive and end up with the personal attacks.
yep
-
It's easy to tell the difference between the guys who are trolling for a reaction from the folks trying to have a constructive discussion on improving historical game play. So once again, it falls upon the latter to attempt to raise this thread out of the toilet. Good luck. I've said my peace.
Later
-
Originally posted by 1cajun
There are a number of players with some great ideas and then the few who don't want their private DA sandbox toyed with.
So ideas you like are great ideas and ideas you don't like are bad ideas?
Originally posted by trap2000
It's easy to tell the difference between the guys who are trolling for a reaction from the folks trying to have a constructive discussion on improving historical game play.
So discussing ideas you like is a constructive discussion and ideas you don't like are trolling for a reaction?
Originally posted by 33Vortex
So pick your side. Do you want to be constructive, or destructive?
So ideas you like are constructive and ideas you don't like are destructive?
It must be nice to be the center of the universe.
-
Originally posted by 33Vortex
Kong, what I mean is, it's irrelevant. Of course you know what preceded that line as well, you're just leaving that out very conveniently.
(http://ahgreenhearts.org/images/ac3.jpg)
Just trying to save you the embarrassment.
-
Originally posted by 33Vortex
Basically, what is your problem?
Can you help me figure that out, please, I'd be very grateful. :)
I'll help you, although you will see it as a personal attack. You and some other people with ideas how to change something I, Kong, and others use, are not using it. You want to change something that you are not using. Do you see the problem there? We are using it and I don't know about the others, but I like it the way it is. I may not like the play stile of some people but that is irrelevant to the arena set up. I like the arena the way it is.
Now, if anyone has any ideas on how to make it better I'll listen. Most of the guys like you are looking to make it something completely different. Not improve it, but eliminate it and replace it with something different. To put it in your terms, you want to take away my sand box and replace it with your sand box.
It seems to me that what you really don't like is the MA. Why else would you be looking for something different. So, instead of asking to change the MA, you want to change something YOU dont use. Kind of selfish don't you think? Why not ask for your ideas to be implemented in the MA or a different arena? Why take away the AvA?
That was the nice approach to it. The reality is that you are full of chit. The only thing you want to change is the pacific set ups and only have the ones that YOU like. So, don't come in here and demand respect or talk to me about sand boxes when all you are trying to do is create your own sand box. You really think you fooled anyone into thinking you care about the AvA?
I know it is a waste of time with you but hopefully it will help others understand why they see the responses they see here. Bottom line, YOU and your squad would like to create their own sand box so you can play for their scores :rofl
-
(http://hem.bredband.net/turnik/icons/icon_doubt.gif)
Kong...
Sigh, didn't I tell you right there and then? I don't care... you don't get it do you? You're the one making a fool of yourself, and it's all over this thread too. You can save yourself a lot of trouble by just letting it be and get over it. Perhaps you need a therapist to do that I don't know, don't get me wrong it's just that you just seem to be really into it.
-
Dedalos, sand box here sand box there, who cares. This game is a sand box for all of us if you will. All I suggested was to split the AvA into a European arena and a Pacific arena, otherwise I like the AvA as it is. That's all. If you want to jump on me for that, fine, but you won't gain any points with me that's for sure, and you're making a fool of yourself at the same time. There's no reason to make it personal, we've never met. If we did, I know this might sound scary to you but heck, you might even like me. Boggles your mind now doesn't it?
Anyway, if you are going to post all over the board about how bad we are for not playing the AvA, but only the certain maps we like, and how good you are for staying in the AvA all the time. (That's pretty much how your post come across you know.) I will just give up the discussion, it's not worth my time. Some players (customers) might have a look in this thread even, then decide it's not worth to bother seeing all this crap going on. Then HTC get less quality input from their customers, they miss out on the stuff they want to know. As a result, they could miss their goal to give us the game we want, instead the loud mouths and cry babies get what they want because they scream the most, suppressing other ppls ideas. In the long run it will lead to HTC going bankrupt... no more sand box for you then!
So, do yourself a favor and look a little further than your next post. What I described above is something I've seen happen, from a customer perspective, to another online sim. A few people ruining for the majority of players.
So pick your side. Do you want to be constructive, or destructive?
Edit: Besides, the question was not for you, so your answer has no significance to me.
-
Originally posted by 33Vortex
Anyway, if you are going to post all over the board about how bad we are for not playing the AvA, but only the certain maps we like, and how good you are for staying in the AvA all the time.
So, do yourself a favor and look a little further than your next post. What I described above is something I've seen happen, from a customer perspective, to another online sim. A few people ruining for the majority of players.
So pick your side. Do you want to be constructive, or destructive?
It is you with statements like the above that made it personal. Go back and read how it started.
Maybe this is how you read it, but this is not what I said or even tried to imply.
Edit: Besides, the question was not for you, so your answer has no significance to me.
Yeah, I always type a few hundred words to respond to things I don't care about too :rofl
-
we interrupt this thread for a hot girl in a bikini
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v99/dichotomy/klemc.jpg)
and a flying pig
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v99/dichotomy/1pigflygif-1.gif)
Just felt like posting that. :D
-
Originally posted by Dichotomy
we interrupt this thread for a hot girl in a bikini
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v99/dichotomy/klemc.jpg)
What does she say if you pull her string?
-
Dedalos, I care about this game, not you or anyone's opinion about me.
-
Originally posted by Dichotomy
we interrupt this thread for a hot girl in a bikini
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v99/dichotomy/klemc.jpg)
and a flying pig
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v99/dichotomy/1pigflygif-1.gif)
Just felt like posting that. :D
best post yet:aok
-
The pig's kinda hot.
-
Originally posted by E25280
What does she say if you pull her string?
Answer #1
Who cares?
Answer #2
WhenIgetoutofcollegeI'mgonnabeaBRAAAINNNNSURGEON!!!!
:D
-
Originally posted by KONG1
The pig's kinda hot.
Hands off man. I saw it first :furious
-
AH Math:
3 Friendly Aircraft = A Mission
3 Enemy Aircraft = The Hoarde
2 on 1 in your favor = Wingman Tactics
2 on 1 in thier favor = Gang Bang
-
Originally posted by E25280
What does she say if you pull her string?
Aaaaggggghhhhh. That hurts DORK!
-
Dedalos,
That post you had to Vortex last page.
After reading the first half, I finally get your point of view.
p.s. that chick is HOT.
-
Hot chicks and flying pigs are the answer to world peace. My work here is done. ;)
-
Nahh, yer work is just startin. The chick got no wings, and the pig got no bikini. :aok
>S<
-
(!#$&!%(!*%!(%*!# :furious
I have CS and I'm not afraid to use it you know ;)
-
Hi chaps!
Ok, intermission is over, may we go back to the topic?
Thanks,
Sparrow