Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: BaldEagl on September 18, 2007, 01:07:01 PM
-
Make strats and HQ unable to be resupplied by players so only field level strat can be re-supplied.
Bring back the staged loss of radar from HQ destruction.
Bring back the 25 and 50% fuel levels at fields when the fuels been porked.
Make it so when VB ord is down no HE rounds are available (analogus to losing bombs for planes) in addition to the loss of rockets and torps for PT's.
Create 2 strat zones per country. One on each side.
These changes might help bring the importance of strats back into the game and, with the exception of VB ord, have already been programmed.
-
We have the same general post going on in several different threads. For the record I support your opinion 100%. I think without question that this game would be awesome if it leaned more towards a strat war. And it wouldnt be just bombers that would benefit as Jabos can raise all kinds of heck with strats,and, I never met a fighter stick that didn't like attacking bombers.
Even if the game turned over a couple times a day due to a team fighting an organized war with strategic vision? So what? Reset the game and lets go again.
I also think AH should look at this entire dar bar situation too. Theres no reason dar bars should be going off, as well as targets lights, that show the progression of 260 mph heavies towards a strat. If a sector doesn't have a target then why would it have dar bars? And the targets shouldn't light until the attacking planes are closer. That way bombers wont be setting off target lights even when they aren't going to attack that particular target.
-
Do whatever ya want ... just leave the fuel alone.
-
I too miss the old strat system.
-
Originally posted by BaldEagl
Bring back the 25 and 50% fuel levels at fields when the fuels been porked.
no people will start crying again.
-
Could someone please explain the two strat zones? Thank you.
-
Originally posted by DoNKeY
Could someone please explain the two strat zones? Thank you.
When we still had the big maps there were several strat zones per country. Each included a full set of strats (city, ammo factory, radar factory, troop training, fuel refinery and ack factory) which supported a specific group of bases included in the strat zone.
Taking out the strats in a specific zone only affected the bases in that zone. The bases in other zones were unaffected. What this meant in terms of gameplay was that people attempting base captures in a specific zone would often try to reduce the strats in that zone first making the captures easier.
The way it is now, if any strat goes down it affects the entire country, therefore, you may actually be helping the other (3rd) country win the war if you go after a specific countries strats. Under the proposed 2 zone system, the war on the other side wouldn't be affected.
-
I like the old strat system. I like the old big maps with miltiple zones. Need both back. Personally i feel if the fuel gets porked 25-50% is adequate since that is what most take anyway. Of course I see the largest wines probably coming from the La7 weenies.
-
Originally posted by DaddyAck
Personally i feel if the fuel gets porked 25-50% is adequate since that is what most take anyway. Of course I see the largest wines probably coming from the La7 weenies.
Ding Ding Ding, we have a winner
-
Whatever the system in place it should respect the fact that during the war it was very effective to bomb one component of an enemies war machine. For instance the last two nights Ive been attacking Radars. Radar factories and radar sights. Another option would be to go after the fuel supply, as has been mentioned.
Thus an organized strategy of crippling one vital aspect of an enemies war machine should be allowed to have impact in the game.
-
A lot of good Ideas and I do remember the old strat maps of 2001 2002 but there was the problem of fuel. Fuel is the most important thing any base needs and poking it caused a lot of frustration. 25% fuel in any other plane except bombers is almost intolerable. The reasons for HTC removing fuel degradation was called for getting rid of Strat almost entirely was not. I do remember how easy it was to roll base after base using Strat tho. Basically, the squad i flew with then could take a undefended to lightly defended base in one pass. I used to kill a whole town by myself with a hvy F-6 in 4-5 passes with ammo left to make a kill or 2.
-
It would be interesting to see Strats and HQ have more importance, but I'm doubtful such ever come to pass. Have plane factories too. I can see it now, the LA7 factory would be a permanent heap of fire LOL :rofl
-
Originally posted by DaddyAck
Personally i feel if the fuel gets porked 25-50% is adequate since that is what most take anyway.
That depends a lot on what planes one likes to fly. E.g. Spits and 109s will not fly too far with 25% or 50%.
IMO it is unreasonable that a damaged base will give percentages of fuel instead of gallons or litres. If the fuel is limited, every fighter should receive a same amount regardless of the size of its fuel tank. Bombers could have some larger amounts.
Maybe the amounts could be calculated from the max of the largest fighter fuel tank and largest bomber fuel tank for each category... or define the categories according to amount of engines.
This amount of fuel given to each plane should also affect the refueling planes, not only the new plane taken from that base.
-
Another way to impact the fuel issue would be to bump the burn modifiers down in the arenas to maybe 1.5 or something instead of 2 or to leave it as it is but leave drop tanks enabled for additional fuel (filled at the lower percentage of course).
-
Originally posted by DaddyAck
Personally i feel if the fuel gets porked 25-50% is adequate since that is what most take anyway.
I always take 75% percent ... 25%-50% will get you nowhere ... unless you have a habit of dieing fast.
-
Originally posted by Rich46yo
Whatever the system in place it should respect the fact that during the war it was very effective to bomb one component of an enemies war machine. For instance the last two nights Ive been attacking Radars. Radar factories and radar sights. Another option would be to go after the fuel supply, as has been mentioned.
Thus an organized strategy of crippling one vital aspect of an enemies war machine should be allowed to have impact in the game.
Going the fuel route is a waste... worse case scenario you drop them to 75%, whoop-tee-doo.
Here's TigerGuy's list of effective strategic warfare given the current MA setup:
1) Always keep the enemy City flattened, it does you little good to hit anything else if their city is up
2) Radar, darbars can be misleading, a full dar bar can be 8 fighters or 80. Dropping the radar factory then killing bases radars will leave them dot blind for a few hours.
3) AAA, Taking the AAA factory down drops the respawn rate of AAA at bases. This is more of a target of opportunity if the AAA factory is easily reachable. It's not difficult for 1 or 2 people to deack a field, but by taking out their AAA factory, it will make the respawn times for those AAA's very long. ****Sample: If you have AAA factory down, send 2 or 3 guys to deack, then leave the field alone for about 5-10 mins. Enemy will think you gave up on the field after they don't see anymore action there. Since you won;t have to worry about AAA respawning very fast, now launch your assault to take the base. Your attackers can work on the town and setup the CAP without having to deal with deacking.
4) [This one is the most advanced and will take alot of coordiantion and time, but if you can pull it off, the whines on 200 and the BBS will be worth is.]
Step 1 - Be sure City is down.
Step 2 - Take out troop training facility
Step 3 - Tactical strike on all barracks at all bases near HQ
Step 4 - Level the HQ.
This wil take alot of co-ordiated effort from many people. But the results will be the country will be completely blind, they will not be able to launch C-47's to resupply HQ from any nearby bases.
-
Originally posted by DaddyAck
Personally i feel if the fuel gets porked 25-50% is adequate since that is what most take anyway. Of course I see the largest wines probably coming from the La7 weenies.
Let the f***ers whine. Personally I'm tired of all the eL gAy-7's. That plane has over-ballanced the game on so many levels(I WISH IT WAS PERKED). If they want to defend their fuel let them get something with legs and fight away from the base, that is what I say. Finally something that will lay low the all powerful La-7.
-
Originally posted by Iron_Cross
Let the f***ers whine. Personally I'm tired of all the eL gAy-7's. That plane has over-ballanced the game on so many levels(I WISH IT WAS PERKED).
Speaking about whining...
The impact of the La-7 on game has often been grossly overestimated. Neither the pure numbers, nor it's impact (K/D) justifies a perk status.
That being said, I would like to see fuel more porkable, but not under current fuel management.
Porked fuel down to, let's say 25 or 50%, should result in actual less fuel being distributed to the individual planes on a gallons per plane base. In current system, planes with small tanks do suffer more than large gas-guzzlers. Pork fuel down to 50% and not only the 1800HP La7 but also the the 1030HP Hurricane I or the 1400HP Spitfire V have to stay in hangar, while a 2800 HP P47N (or a N1K, Ki-84, etc) can still fly & fight.
-
How about front line bases being affected by a systematic and concentrated strat war? If gas supplies are attacked successfully why not limit the gas available at all bases on the front line?
It would leave the rear bases fully gassed and would allow a team to launch Jabos and Bombers to target the other teams supplies and strats, thus evening out the war.
-
The strat system is just old IMO...........
Its fundamenatally the same system as was used 10 years ago in AW with tweaks. I would not change it drastically now unless part of a review relating to the whole methodology of creating gameplay through land grab.
The fuel situation really goes back to the use of a 2x fuel burn multiplier in the arenas. When fuel was attritted it had a drastic impact on game play particularly with respect to shorter range aircraft..........the situation was addressed by limiting the level of fuel attrition possible. This is still the case.
My view is that the % of tank methodology is wrong. If fuel is scarce then it is rationed and its the gas guzzlers that have their effective endurance reduced not those that have little tanks in the 1st place. I am with Lusche.... fuel should be rationed by volume not % to make it equitable I would ratio it out on a volume per engine basis to stop porkers taking bombers out by fuel porking.
I fly the La7 ...alot........... but I dont see so many others agin me that I see any game inbalance .............its just urban myth IMO popularised by a strong case of NIH.
I believe that when it is remodeled the La7 could still enjoy meeting all the historical performance curves it does now
Speed, climb rate, roll rate, turn rate, stall characturistic all seem pretty accurate............
However more realistic use of pure drag modelling may effect its present acceleration and dive characturistics. The La7 achieved top speed under WEP by also feathering its engine cooling (as well as increasing rpm). Feathering alone contributed to the top 15km/hr yet at slower speeds would have caused more rapid temperature increases for example during climb or when trying to accelerate away from combat low and slow.
Equally WEP @ 2500 rpm was locked out during the 2nd stage of boost (above 14000ft) as its use would almost instantly destroy the engine.
AH has a simple on off WEP button however I believe that when in WEP the AH LA7 (and even more so the La5FN) could heat up quicker below a chosen IAS. (ideally inverse proportionally) Above circa 14K WEP should not function. Pure drag could be increased from that of the present model (equivilent to the 15km/hr figure) whilst balancing other stuff to still hit the speed and climb rate data already met.
The result of this is that the La7 would quickly run out of WEP in tight combat below 250IAS. It would not accelerate quite as well as it does now with no WEP. It would not be the uber diver it is now. It would have a little less zoom when not in WEP. It would however be able to scrub e quickly to lessen overshoot. It will still have all the top speed, climb rate, turn rate etc as the present model.
Of course when HTC are able to perk ordinance loadouts the 3 cannon option would be an obvious candidate.
-
Originally posted by Rich46yo
How about front line bases being affected by a systematic and concentrated strat war? If gas supplies are attacked successfully why not limit the gas available at all bases on the front line?
It would leave the rear bases fully gassed and would allow a team to launch Jabos and Bombers to target the other teams supplies and strats, thus evening out the war.
This was basically what the old tactical system was. You pork the front line bases down to 25% and they can still up fully fulled from the rear bases.