Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: ridley1 on February 20, 2008, 05:48:15 PM
-
How can aces high move forward as a game?
I remember when they changed the graphics so that town buildings became shells, and didn't just dissappear. "wow", I thought How are you going to to be able to see if the towns destroyed..and we all adjusted...It didn't take long.
Then, 85 billion field guns were added to the base and the town...plus a city of barracks to each field..."wow", thought...how the heck are ya gonna get near a base now?
the answer was simple...we all had to change our strategy, the challange level when up...In the old version, looking back, a base capture would be unbeleivably easy..
I'm sorry to say...but that linear capture experiment was a dismal failure.
But let's analyse this...how can AH continue to evolve, as we all wait breathlessly for combat tour.
I think that the easiest way to evolve the stratagy in this game is to make use of all those strat targets out there. Think about it...the last time I went after one of them, was because a V base spawned into an ammo factory and I had nothing better to do, because wife ack was asking me stupid questions, yadda, yadda, and if had to get called away again, nothing would happen to me in my osti because, theres no strat defense..and nobody cares.
I think that Cities and factories have to take a more important, significant part
of the game. But how you can imcorporate it into the game now...well I'm kinda hoping that this thread will further the discussion
-
Can't please them all
-
Originally posted by Raptor
Can't please them all
amen
-
I'm disappointed in you two. Ridley brings up a valid point.
The strat side of the game is EXTREMELY weak. The only strategic target in the game of any real value right now is the HQ, which "Value" is a bit of a stretch.
-
Maybe the new CV TGs will be escorting supply/troops convoys.
Hey, a guy can dream can't he? :(
-
Ridley does bring up a valid point. The game play is stale. Really stale. Aces High has been reduced to quake with wings. You don't even have to know how to take off and land anymore. You log in, look for the group of green squares tangling with the red squares, spawn at the nearest field, auto take off, auto climb and your off.
Then you spend the next few minutes in the middle of furball latched on to the tail of an La-7 that is already being chased by 12 other players, in hopes of scoring that lucky shot and getting the credit for the kill..more times than not you end up with a assist. You head back to base, crash land, spawn again and repeat.
The game play is stale. The higher fuel burn started this trend. Followed by the ability to pork a bases fuel down to 25% being changed to only being able to take a base down to 75%. Finally there was the change that you could switch sides instantly now, rather than staying loyal to one country.
Strat targets are pointless to hit now, as they have very little effect on a countries fuel, ammo and town supply. HQ raids are few and far between because before when you could take off in a fuel heavy B-17 and fly two hours across the map to hit a target, it is nothing more than a nice wish now. So bombers are mid alt flak wagons or they are used to dive/carpet bomb GVs back to the stone age.
Aces high can add all the eye candy in the world. It might boost subscriber numbers for a month or two, but at the end of the day the game play is still the same as it has been. The old Aces High had something for everyone, the new Aces High is more like an FPS, hence the influx of kiddies lately.
Aces High has not been like it was in a long time. How often do you log in and see 600-700 people logged in? Now you have two MA servers with maybe 200 in each. That is a long shot from what it use to be with one big server. I have some theories as to why we have multiple smaller servers instead of one big server, however to express those theories would be silly, since it would draw out the fanboys who think that Hitech Creations could never do them wrong.
Ridley1, you pay your 15 bucks a month, if you feel like venting or expressing your displeasure with how this game is being currently manages, I feel it is your right to do so. There are many like you, who agree fully with what you have said. :aok
-
Originally posted by BBBB
Strat targets are pointless to hit now, as they have very little effect on a countries fuel, ammo and town supply.
It makes an hour and 15 minutes of effect. When the Lankstukas can't get their bombwagons for two hours instead of 45 minutes, I'm happy. When you can't get the troops to throw your frontline past my HQ for two hours instead of 45 minutes, I'm happy.
Then, when the city's busted up and the factory stays down even longer, well...
-
Strat targets are pointless to hit now, as they have very little effect on a countries fuel, ammo and town supply.
Strat Targets must be taken below 50% before they begin affecting Airfield
targets. Once below 50%, the down time of the Airfield target is affected.
All Strat Targets must funnel through the City Strat before resupplying their respective Airfield target, thus, if you take the City Strat below 50%, and then whichever other Strat Target you wish below 50%, you compound the downtime of the Airfield Target by creating a choke point at the City Strat.
You probably already knew this, but I thought i would post it for those who mayn't know.
-
In my opinion getting rid of porking fuel down to 25% fuel was a blessing. Hording is bad enough, but when a single tiffie could reduce a field's fuel to 25%, a side would often find it had no field with more than 25% along the front up to 2 fields deep. That was just rediculous.
As to having to compete for kills, this isn't a problem if you do not participate in the horde, nor is getting assists. It's pretty rare for me to get an assist.
However, i do agree with some points on strategic targets. I'm unsure why few people attack them. Are the incentives too low? Or perhaps there a lack of understanding or awareness of how they work? I must admit i enjoy escorting and attacking large formations of bombers.
-
Originally posted by thrila
perhaps there a lack of understanding or awareness of how they work? I must admit i enjoy escorting and attacking large formations of bombers.
I would say its mainly that. Only time I see people hitting them is when they are close to friendly fields, rarely do i see people up a bomber mission of some sort to go behind enemy lines to hit them. Maybe its different US prime time when more people are on.
-
I'm not breathlessly waiting for CT. I don't have the time to devote to a long mission, and I'm afraid thats what your going to get in CT. I'm very happy to look for quick fights in the Mains.
On the other hand I think the game play has really gone down hill for awhile now. Making strat more important I think would help in promoting a more "tactical" war. I think that resuppling strat target should be made more rewarding. If taking out the target is going to dictate more of how the game is played, rewarding those who take the time to resupply should be even more important.
-
Originally posted by The Fugitive
I'm not breathlessly waiting for CT. I don't have the time to devote to a long mission, and I'm afraid thats what your going to get in CT. I'm very happy to look for quick fights in the Mains.
On the other hand I think the game play has really gone down hill for awhile now. Making strat more important I think would help in promoting a more "tactical" war. I think that resuppling strat target should be made more rewarding. If taking out the target is going to dictate more of how the game is played, rewarding those who take the time to resupply should be even more important.
I wholeheartedly agree with the resupply being more rewarding Fugitive. I can't count the times that I hear someone complain that this or that is down at such and such base. I usually up a goon or an M3 to resupply at least two-three times per AH session, sometimes more.
-
I was afraid that after I saw the first two replies that this thread was going to go nowhere. Thank you Saxman and BBB.
I wanted to bring up constructive discussions because BBBB has put into words very simply that AH is becoming stale.
You've all seen the threads of people saying "I'm packing it in" And I think this staleness Is probably one of the reasons. It's not the newbies leaving...it's the veterans.
The recent announcements of new vehicles and graphic updates are great...don't get me wrong. We all know how good this game is, and we all know that this company is responding to the wants of it's customers.
No matter when you first sign up to play this game, you have to learn the strategy and it's great, one of the challanges of this game. But after a while...well, we all know the drill
It needs to continually evolve, at the game level....changes in strategy, or tactics, or objectives,( not just new cockpits) to keep the game "fresh"
Some have responded and feel the way I do...some have fluffed me off. That's fine. But I'm hoping that with intelligent discussion, someone out here can come up with a little nugget of an idea that will increase player satisfaction of this game.
-
Originally posted by waystin2
I wholeheartedly agree with the resupply being more rewarding Fugitive. I can't count the times that I hear someone complain that this or that is down at such and such base. I usually up a goon or an M3 to resupply at least two-three times per AH session, sometimes more.
What do you get for your efforts, other than that warm fuzzy feeling? That is the problem, there is no incentive to do anything in the current version of Aces High, other than land kills.
Thrila, porking fuel sucked, but it was part of a strategy. HTC could have easily made the fuel tanks harder, that would have made those fuel runs in the Tiffy a little tougher. Even though it was frustrating at times, at least it presented a challenge. You had to fight your way out of a hole some times. It made the victories all the more rewarding.
The old style of game play had objectives. The maps were big enough for someone to find just the type of game play they were looking for. On Trinity I recall massive furballs over A1. So if you wanted to furball that is where you hung out. If you wanted to raid you looked at the map and found the group raiding the other countries front line. Me, I liked flying CAP missions over tank town. I would stay over tank town for an hour or so hunting jabo's and buffs.
In the new and "improved" version of Aces High, these types of things are rarities and novelties. The bottom line is the game play is stale. The eye candy is nice, new planes...great, they are always a welcome sight. However, the game play really needs help. It has gotten stale and no amount of new ships, planes, tanks, trees or graphics are going to change that. IMO.
-
Game play is great.. nothing stale about it. Great furballs most any night can be found. For those that like to drop a quarter in a game for instant gratification it may not suffice or for those that want to captain a ship or drive a gv. But this is Aces High...... and the planes are great.
-
I think it is time to make football fields bigger longer and wider, also I think all football fields should be at 12,000 feet, this would add a lot more training strategy to the old stale game. The rules of football have become very stale.
HiTech
-
Originally posted by Shuffler
Game play is great.. nothing stale about it. Great furballs most any night can be found. For those that like to drop a quarter in a game for instant gratification it may not suffice or for those that want to captain a ship or drive a gv. But this is Aces High...... and the planes are great.
I was about to say, "To each his own", because that is what this post, and the one below,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ridley does bring up a valid point. The game play is stale. Really stale. Aces High has been reduced to quake with wings. You don't even have to know how to take off and land anymore. You log in, look for the group of green squares tangling with the red squares, spawn at the nearest field, auto take off, auto climb and your off.
Then you spend the next few minutes in the middle of furball latched on to the tail of an La-7 that is already being chased by 12 other players, in hopes of scoring that lucky shot and getting the credit for the kill..more times than not you end up with a assist. You head back to base, crash land, spawn again and repeat.
The game play is stale. The higher fuel burn started this trend. Followed by the ability to pork a bases fuel down to 25% being changed to only being able to take a base down to 75%. Finally there was the change that you could switch sides instantly now, rather than staying loyal to one country.
Strat targets are pointless to hit now, as they have very little effect on a countries fuel, ammo and town supply. HQ raids are few and far between because before when you could take off in a fuel heavy B-17 and fly two hours across the map to hit a target, it is nothing more than a nice wish now. So bombers are mid alt flak wagons or they are used to dive/carpet bomb GVs back to the stone age.
Aces high can add all the eye candy in the world. It might boost subscriber numbers for a month or two, but at the end of the day the game play is still the same as it has been. The old Aces High had something for everyone, the new Aces High is more like an FPS, hence the influx of kiddies lately.
Aces High has not been like it was in a long time. How often do you log in and see 600-700 people logged in? Now you have two MA servers with maybe 200 in each. That is a long shot from what it use to be with one big server. I have some theories as to why we have multiple smaller servers instead of one big server, however to express those theories would be silly, since it would draw out the fanboys who think that Hitech Creations could never do them wrong.
Ridley1, you pay your 15 bucks a month, if you feel like venting or expressing your displeasure with how this game is being currently manages, I feel it is your right to do so. There are many like you, who agree fully with what you have said.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Illustrate. Some people don't give a Rat's bellybutton if fields' are captured, the war is one, or not. They just wanna sling tracers, to best someone else's skill with their own.
However, a lot of people look at the strat game as a test of their intelect. Taking key fields' in the same way that chessplayers' use pawns' and other peices to put the opposing king in checkmate.
Now, with this said, what comes' next may be a suprise for some of you.
There is nothing that HTC can do to fix the gameplay.
Because he can't recode the player base's mentality.
We are the one's who ruin gameplay. We are the source of the problem.
This thread illustrates the growing fracture in the community. It's only getting worse.
Maybe HTC can come up with a completely different Strat/war system. Although I feel that even if he does, The player base will shortly find a way to exploit or work-around it. They seem to have a knack for it.
It would be better, though, if the player base were to try to work together.
But when that happens, I'm sure we'll see flying sheep.
-
Originally posted by BBBB
Ridley does bring up a valid point. The game play is stale. Really stale. Aces High has been reduced to quake with wings. You don't even have to know how to take off and land anymore. You log in, look for the group of green squares tangling with the red squares, spawn at the nearest field, auto take off, auto climb and your off.
Then you spend the next few minutes in the middle of furball latched on to the tail of an La-7 that is already being chased by 12 other players, in hopes of scoring that lucky shot and getting the credit for the kill..more times than not you end up with a assist. You head back to base, crash land, spawn again and repeat.
The game play is stale. The higher fuel burn started this trend. Followed by the ability to pork a bases fuel down to 25% being changed to only being able to take a base down to 75%. Finally there was the change that you could switch sides instantly now, rather than staying loyal to one country.
Strat targets are pointless to hit now, as they have very little effect on a countries fuel, ammo and town supply. HQ raids are few and far between because before when you could take off in a fuel heavy B-17 and fly two hours across the map to hit a target, it is nothing more than a nice wish now. So bombers are mid alt flak wagons or they are used to dive/carpet bomb GVs back to the stone age.
Aces high can add all the eye candy in the world. It might boost subscriber numbers for a month or two, but at the end of the day the game play is still the same as it has been. The old Aces High had something for everyone, the new Aces High is more like an FPS, hence the influx of kiddies lately.
There's so much with which I agree here. I spoke to Skuzzy on the phone a month or two ago. I asked him if porking a country's strat infrastructure produces a proportional result at the base level. He said it does. I don't see it. Does anyone see the affects at the base level?
But in all fairness, despite Allied bombing, Germany produced still more war machines at the end of the at then they did at the beginning.
HTC changing the field fuel porking maximum to 75% allows the fur to fly constantly at the front line. If someone wants that for their $15, I'm not against it. The ability to change countries (every hour is it?) without a 24 limit, produces something. I don't know what to call it. It's tough to measure the results. At least it is for me. To say, this causes that to happen. Maybe it's because my favorite part of the game has been minimized by increasing airfield barracks, no fuel porking (an N model jug can fly how long on 75% gas?), and increasing the number of Vhangars to 3 from 1 on Vbases.
I've flow much less over the past several years.
I do miss the old game. The one to which our currently Help Files refer as "Playing the Game." Up front an center the 1st sentence reads Capturing territory through the use of air, land and sea power is the objective in Aces High II.[/b]. How I wish it were!
Those of us who have been here to see things evolve over years (before Trinity, Pizza Big Isles), followed by the next set of maps by Fester that favored a different sort of gameplay, through the change in base strat (fuel and barracks), and Vbase changes I don't think form a consensus of opinion. Some dig it. Some do not. Given the little expense AH requires, and the ease of getting started, Quake with Wings[/b] does not hit too wide of the mark comparing the state of affairs today with lets say Pizza.
If internals of the game presets things towards fur, then the map, strat, buffs, vbases, any and all of that simply do not matter. Eye candy. Nice to look at. Bang bang, We're dead or not and taking off or landing/rearming again. Were HTC to revise the "Playing the Game" portion of AH's Help File, and were they to write Shooting down enemy planes is the objective in Aces High II.[/b] I would say that statement describes the game I played yesterday.
In all fairness, I think what we have today makes more money for HTC than what we had formerly. Mom and Dad will part with $15 for Junior to occupy himself for hours. Babysitter in a box. The under 35 or 40 year old crowd dig it enough too. Especially those in their 20's to mid-30's who get a thrill out of not only besting another guy in a plane but besting him verbally on 200 or on the BBS.
AH is the #1 online WW2 flight simulator, is it not? AH as it stands today bested the competition. One could say It's what people want[/i].
Is it the best it could be? Depends on what constitute best. Most money for HTC? Most fun for a 15 year old? Most fun for guys who want to become a very good online fighter pilot? I'd say, it's just about as good as it can be in answer to those 3 questions.
The part missing existed somewhat in AH's older setup. A game tilted towards group versus individual achievements that is still reflected in the 1st sentence of "Playing the Game."
What strikes me as very odd is the presence of the vaunted Horde[/b]. I'm referring to whatever it was that constituted "unhealthy gameplay" which drove the need for the changes in the first place. Over the past week, I flew in a few missions where a base or two was taken by overwhelming force. Was boring as watching paint dry. I thought the changes made that sort of thing more difficult to achieve. Break up big squads, add ack, and protect a base's fuel.
The capture aspect of the game is ill. Frankly, if captures were turned off, what would change?
Point and Shoot[/b] laughs at geography. It's there. It's pretty. So what? I played many hours yesterday. Was no big deal. Best part were the people I fly with. Had a band practice to attend from 6 to 7PM Mountain Time. Came back. I had expected to play for a few hours. Logged off in less then an hour. Watched a video. Read a book. There was nothing going on in the game that needed doing. Nothing that piqued my imagination and got my mind working along the lines of Now how can we achieve goal XY or Z?.
For virtual pilots to defend something, like a base, it has to be made worth their while. All the stuff that motivates one in real life doesn't exist in our game. It's mocked by many on the BBS. Rightfully so. Maybe Combat Tour will provide some players like myself with what they find lacking AH as it stands today. I hope so.
There's only a few left on the BBS that made up the vocal majority of BBS posters -- unmannerly amplitude won that day -- who lobbied for the changes that we've come to see. To our joy or dissatisfaction.
My 1 cent:
Change the "Playing the Game" Help File. Or, change the game to reflect what it says.
Create Manufacturing Plants that churn out planes that account for the top few tier # of kills each tour.
Ditch ENY. Lose it completely. The Manufacturing Centers, their protection and lure of gains by destroying them would match WW2 goals and objectives and would allow for the same results as our handicapping system of ENY.
Reinstall 1 country change every 24 hours.
-
Originally posted by hitech
I think it is time to make football fields bigger longer and wider, also I think all football fields should be at 12,000 feet, this would add a lot more training strategy to the old stale game. The rules of football have become very stale.
HiTech
Don't you see? Part of what makes this game great is the interaction that exists between the consumer and supplier. Would Bill Gates answer into this discussion? Hell no...or we wouldn't have Vista. There is a community here that wants this game to stay strong but also grow and improve.
Mr. Hitech, by the tone of your reply, it appears that I may have offended you. If I have I offer my deepest apologies. But at the same time, I'm not suggesting that the basis of the game be changed, but I am attempting to elicit ideas from this community as to where the game can go. As I said before, the introduction of large amounts of field ack and town ack significantly changed how the game was played. The football field was the same size. Just bigger linebackers. Then we all adjusted.
What's the next little tweak that can be put in to make us all have to adjust?
-
Game play is stale but even so I still paied up for another year because I still love the game... BUT
The strat is messed up. Ok let me see... On the fuel porking issue what I feel happened was HTC went from one extream to the other.. First the fuel would get porked so bad that many would whine about it and now it doesn't matter if you pork it or not because only drop tankes are disabled.. Seems like it should have been set to a middle ground of 50% so we would have half a tank, still enough to defend bases and on many rides enough to get to an NME front line base for a quick fight or pork run as long as ya watch your fuel a bit more closely.
HQ, same issue. Used to have multipul levels of porking but unless it was killed all the way it could not be fixed and you get whines and I can understand this.. No country should have their dar porked for half or sometimes all day.
Again though HTC went to the other extream.. Now you can't even hurt HQ unless you bring enough to take it all the way down. This makes it hard to even get enough guys in a mission to fly that far for the chance to pork it. On top of that if you manage to get the dar down then the NME country just drops a few goon loads of sups on it and has dar back up befor the bombers even get out of NME territory. Is that even worth the flight? No lasting reward in that what so ever...
This problem also applies to strat factories and cities. I got a friend to go with me on a 20K run in some KI-67's to kill a city and after a couple flights we had it down to 40% I think, and befor we could even land it was back to 100% On another ocation Thndregg and I made a 25K B-17 run from the west side of baltic map to the east to pork the city and troop factory, we hit them and made a good dent, got chased by a couple guys but befor we were half way back all the damage we had done and that took so long to do was back to 100%...
Other wise I think how strat factories and cities work is ok, just no reason to hit em if the damage you took so long to deal is not lasting damage...
PROBLEM: Strat factories, Cities and HQ are not important to many because they have so little affect especially when they can be resuped in so short a time unless the NME has a field next door to the factory, city or HQ to keep it porked.
SOLUTION: Stat objects need to be made more meaningfull to the country they belong to. Make them matter enough that there is actually some fear if they get bombed, just as there is some fear when people see several flights of bombers going over a base and knowing that your FH's and VH are going to die and make it that much harder to defend your base. Of course this might be more of an Aww crap type feeling than actuall fear but you get the idea :)
One way I see to acomplish this is Factories and HQ need to be non resupliable by players. If your country doesn't defend them you lose them for the set time that the game will take to fix the damage. Just like hangers..
Same with HQ, bring back the multipul levels of dar damage and make the damage last how ever long the trains take to fix the damage.
Bases should remain as they are other than if it were me fuel should be porkable to 50% to make the fuel factory actually have some type of effect, as it stands now that particular factory is nothing more than a place for people to work on score...
Only other issue is porking fields... To make the factory damage mean someting the fields must be porked but this is a player side issue and nothing that HTC should really have to worry about other than making sure that the strat rules are up to date and available to players so they know what to hit to accomplish what ever the goal may be.
-
Originally posted by hitech
I think it is time to make football fields bigger longer and wider, also I think all football fields should be at 12,000 feet, this would add a lot more training strategy to the old stale game. The rules of football have become very stale.
HiTech
Baseball would be a better analogy. Juiced ball and lower pitcher's mound.
Football though may not be quite wide of the mark come to think about it. What constitutes a penalty has changed over my lifetime.
-
Originally posted by hitech
I think it is time to make football fields bigger longer and wider, also I think all football fields should be at 12,000 feet, this would add a lot more training strategy to the old stale game. The rules of football have become very stale.
HiTech
HiTech I usually don't have any problems with posts you make but I do find this one a bit disturbing and a bit abrasive to someone that I really believe has a good point and was trying to make a constructive thread..
There really are a few strat problems that need some attention and have needed it for a while and from what your post seems to imply is that you took the origianal post as an attack on you or this game that many of us love.. When in reality we are just trying to discuss ideas that we hope would help improve some aspects of game play. weather or not these ideas can be used or implemented is totally up to you and your crew but please you don't need to come off so sarcastic. I'm sorry to say that it was a bit sad to see that post. :(
-
Sarcasm is overrated.
-
and doesn't come through well in text messaging....
I appreciate your comments Flayed. I do want this to be constructive.
-
Originally posted by Flayed1
HiTech I usually don't have any problems with posts you make but I do find this one a bit disturbing and a bit abrasive to someone that I really believe has a good point and was trying to make a constructive thread..
Gotta agree. I felt 4B's had some valid points. Constructive criticism is good thing at this stage.
-
The point of my post was about some one trying to state the game play has become stale because they have played it so long. And they believe that by changing the strategic system of game play, they will once again have fun.
This is a false assumption. And has nothing to do with suggestions on how to improve things.
ridley1: I saw nothing bad in your post at all.
HiTech
-
You know, one thing that might be relevant here...And might open quite a few old wounds, I know...http://forums.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=187156&highlight=Main+Arena+Split
There was once a time I enjoyed the strat part of the game, because it made all kinds' of different fights' possible. However...Not anymore.
Now it only seems' like you have fewer, more limited choices. I do enjoy the fact that we are getting new stuff, however...Fighting for an objective, an achievement, was much better than just looking for a furball. Hell, some of the best fights are 1vs. 1.
-
The arena split (I beleive) was a technical issue and I don't think part of the discussion I wanted to bring up.
Hitech, I'm glad that there was nothing wrong with my post. No offence intended, none taken.
Old subscribers have, and new subscribers bring in their style of game play and there's no way that one can tell them how to spend their $15. We're gonna have HO's and Hoards...that's really not going to change. It's useless to beat the dead horse of how johnny should fly his LaLa. (apologies to La fans)
I'm not sure if we're talking about changing the overall strategic system of the game play, but I believe that we are looking at altering variables within the present system.
Several posts in this thread have addressed the effect (or lack of ) strat targets in the game. Maybe that could be looked at. Maybe not today, or in the next two weeks (there's that term), but 6 mth down the road.
But one hope I have is that someone out there pops up with a "simple" idea that stirs things up, adds a new dimension,produces a new challange, within the present system..As I said earlier, the huge increase in ack at fields and towns changed the game; didn't change the system, but changed the methods we had to use. It was refreshing.
At least we know you're reading. Maybe we can come up with something.
-
My opinion is not so much change the strat system but maybe the maps built around it.
Example:
Small maps all have one zone per side. you can pork the strat but you can't pork all fields and really make this effecting.
Large maps may have more than one zone but really don't have that many. 2-3,3-4, I'm not sure.
Why not have more zones. Each zone supplies say 9-12 bases. If you have a small map with 128 bases a side that woulld be around 10 zones. Each zone has a city and each supporting factory.
IMO and it's just MO this would allow players to focus on a particular area of the map. Drop the strat and then focus on the bases.
From a defensive standpoint if you see the other side focusing on a particular zone you know the bases they are trying to capture. It gives you patrol area to better defend.
I tnink (again just MO) that this would focus combat in a smaller area. It could be done without any recoading of the game or arena settings it would just mean resetting up some of the maps by adding in more cities and factories and re-zoning bases.
Lastly, the reason folks don't attack strat is there is no "instant gratification" like there is droping VHs and FHs. Plus I agree that there is a general lack of understanding on how the system works.
-
We need Croduhs map in MA.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=umSoZFIJZm4
U RUL3 Cr0Duh!:aok
-
The strategic system should work the same as base captures. With captures, country A attacks and country B defends. Country A has to take the whole town down before thy can capture. Once the base is captured the roles are reversed with country B attacking to get their base back and country A defending. But there is a difference. Country B only has to take the town acks down because the building will stay down for 45 minuets. Once town buildings start popping, "Squatters' Rights" kick in and the base now fully belongs to country A. Country B would be starting from scratch if they want the base back. The same applies to vehicles bases except the time is only 15 minutes if all the VH are taken down. The point is the conflict has the potential of continuing after the capture.
With the strategic system, again, country A attacks and country B defends. If country A is successful in destroying a factory, country A leaves the factory for B to re-supply. In essence, the conflict is over with country A and B going their separate ways. The same thing happens with porking a field. All that can be done is increasing the number of supplies needed so re-supply so opposing the raid is preferable to just running a few goons when the raid is over. So how do you continue the conflict?
The real challenge to this game is designing in "caring." If people don’t care if they live or die in the game, how are you going to get them to care about the fuel factory or a field? The reason the mass base capture is boring is because country B didn't care to defend. If some one enters an arena and sees that their HQ is down, they can: live with it, re-supply it, switch countries, go to a different arena, or log off. The same thing would happen if it was fuel or Spits that wasn't available. You can't force them to care.
There might not be an answer to the strategic system other than a point of pride. The pride in bombing a strategic target and porking a field; and the pride in not letting it happen and seeing your bases at 100%. All you can do is up your raid and see if there is anyone on the other side willing to oppose you.
-
I think I more or less agree with BBBB.
I'm coming up on a year online here soon. I wouldn't say the novelty has completely worn off; there's alot to do in AH2.
But, truthfully, this game feels like Quake with wings to me. I don't see how you could really view it terribly differently. The bomb and bail pilots are my favorite part, just behind the suicide radar attack guys.
I'm not sure changing the system is the answer, and I haven't been playing long enough to even know what changes to make.
The problem lies with the player base mentality. HTC gives us the sandbox, it's up to us to figure out what to do in it.
-
i have only been back playing for a few days,but i haven't really missed the game play as it stands.
I like to furball some times i like to defend sometimes and i like to pork and bomb.
But at the moment there isn't much point in bombing or porking.
someone mentioned resuply and defence.
Resupply should be made a bit harder so defence is more inportant but also strat targets at bases should be toughened so that one guy canot fallatern everything in one run.
Untell the time comes when the players change how they play and make the game evolve then things will carry on the same.
maybe changing the maps and amount of targets will help but unless no ones going to use it it won't make much diference.
-
I too would like strat to really make a difference. But the trouble with that is if you get a big bomb run together, the enemy enjoys the few minutes of intercept, but then has to deal with the effects of the mission. Maybe they can only carry 25% fuel, or maybe no ord for a longer time. No troops for a long time, no ack at their base to defend them.
Now it becomes less a cool part of the game, and more of an irritant.
Personnally I'd like to see certin planes become unavailable, or an ENY effect applied through strat bombing. That way you feel like the time you spent mattered for something, but only effect a few plane types, for awhile rather than everyone.
-
Originally posted by ridley1
The arena split (I beleive) was a technical issue and I don't think part of the discussion I wanted to bring up.
Hitech, I'm glad that there was nothing wrong with my post. No offence intended, none taken.
Old subscribers have, and new subscribers bring in their style of game play and there's no way that one can tell them how to spend their $15. We're gonna have HO's and Hoards...that's really not going to change. It's useless to beat the dead horse of how johnny should fly his LaLa. (apologies to La fans)
I'm not sure if we're talking about changing the overall strategic system of the game play, but I believe that we are looking at altering variables within the present system.
Several posts in this thread have addressed the effect (or lack of ) strat targets in the game. Maybe that could be looked at. Maybe not today, or in the next two weeks (there's that term), but 6 mth down the road.
But one hope I have is that someone out there pops up with a "simple" idea that stirs things up, adds a new dimension,produces a new challange, within the present system..As I said earlier, the huge increase in ack at fields and towns changed the game; didn't change the system, but changed the methods we had to use. It was refreshing.
At least we know you're reading. Maybe we can come up with something.
Ridley, I thought long and hard before I brought up the subject of the Arena split. However, it has pertinence to the present subject. Because nothing's really changed since 9/13. We still have all of the gameplay problems' that were alledgedly the cause of the split in the first place. Only now, they are spread across 4 arena's instead of 1. You still have Milkrunning. You still have Hording. You still have a fractured community. I was quiet on the day of the split, because I wanted to adopt a 'wait and see' attitude. Well, I've waited. You know what I've noticed in the last Year and almost a half? Nothing, as far as the community and gameplay are concerned. All the problems' that were evident before the split, are still here almost 17 months' later. I'll also add, that creating an EW and MW arena was premature, without a complete planeset for those. The current ones' we have barely scratch the surface.
I do believe that HTC was trying to make a positive modification on the community's behaviour. However, what I believe should be done here, would result in quite a bit of recoding. Namely, SCRAPPING THE ENTIRE CAPTURE SYSTEM.
All the current strategies' (Hording, NOE's, etc.) are there because of the current capture system. It need's to be changed so that the desired form of gameplay is achieved for both sides (i.e., furballer, and toolshedder).
-
Because nothing's really changed since 9/13. We still have all of the gameplay problems' that were alledgedly the cause of the split in the first place. Only now, they are spread across 4 arena's instead of 1.
And we now cross 1000 players online at the same time on busy nights.
HiTech
-
Originally posted by hitech
And we now cross 1000 players online at the same time on busy nights.
HiTech
LOL you're loving that problem I bet. ;)
-
Frode:
I went back and read the thread on the arena split. From what I read, hoarding and big squads were one (possible) reason for the split. But whether or not we share the same opinion on why the split occured....it's here. And by now...it looks like its here to stay. I don't think that discussing the split is going to be productive.
In you last post you talk about scrapping the entire capture system. Well, that's where Hitech came up with the re-inventing football analogy....we both know that's not going to happen. But then...you'd have to come up with a whole new set of objectives for side 'A' to be considered victorious. But this is a combat sim..so how else would you dole out victory, other than controlling your enemy's territory?
Capture is the basis of the game, I can't in any way see that changing; just adding dimensions as to how one team achieves it.
A quick example off the top of my head in regard to bringing strats into the mix..
troop training bases......wipe out the training base; you're troops aren't as good....you need 15 troops to capture now.
you wipe out an ammo factory...you can only equip aircraft with smaller gun packages in the hangar
-
Originally posted by ridley1
Capture is the basis of the game, I can't in any way see that changing; just adding dimensions as to how one team achieves it.
No it's not. Combat is the basis of the game, capture just promotes combat.
-
I think that if AH is attracting a steady growth in its player base, then from a HTC point of view the present product aint broke and does not need fixing.
We are getting some new toys .............. indeed quite a few by comparison to past updates............ plus we may get some changes to the perk system (I speculate)
The rules of football do change with time ............
I too would like to see a landgrab system that did not hinge so totally on the capture of air fields and vehicle bases. I would like to see a system that mimiced the methods of territorial gains made in WWII if only biased to the role of those ac and Gv rides we have "in game". Where the air war was fought over objectives other than airfields.
Its a big ask however. The arena concept of sides atritting and capturing air fields supported by strat systems predates AH going back into AW. Seriously re modelling this affects the arena/terrain set up and build systems at multiple levels.
Its not just a "tweak". Further its makes a hit directly upon game play and HTC have to be very sure that modifications to game play actually enhance what the bulk of players (not just the vociferous ones) want.
Because getting it wrong can switch large numbers of players off almost overnight.
Hence this stuff has always happened very slowly tweaking what can be tweaked testing the reaction and then moving on (or not as the case may be)
and if the player base "demographics" are saying that its Ok as it is then why fix it?
-
Originally posted by ridley1
Frode:
Capture is the basis of the game, I can't in any way see that changing; just adding dimensions as to how one team achieves it.
Accepting that territorial gain acts as a method of focussing combat , there are still a myriad of gaming mechanisms that could be used instead of or as well as the capture of airfields thru landing troops into a map room
-
Originally posted by Bronk
No it's not. Combat is the basis of the game, capture just promotes combat.
The problem I see here Bronk is your seeing it as... COMBAT: Only air to air, air to ground or ground to gound, Planes GV's or what have you killing each other... That is what you see as combat being the goal of the game and primary..
I think COMBAT: Take your land or harm your land using the tools provided while you try to stop me using same said tools and my virsion of combat is more of a stratiegic one rather than the blatent Air to air stuff, though it is fun...
Really though no matter how you think of it the two types of thinking need each other or those that like the style your thinking about whould just need 3 bases or less shut in a room and have at it, and the rest of us would just go find another game...
The problem is that the strat system needs some tweeks to make it more usable to those of us on the other side of the coin from you. While HTC may be getting more new customers those of us that really want to hang onto the game need a lil love too.
And no HiTech I don't think this because I've been playing several years, I started thinking this back after I started really trying to play the strat side of things in AH1 and found it lacking and made worse when the overly drastic HQ and fuel changes were made..
-
Flayed you bombing my stuff is to entice me to up and shoot you down.
So it still goes back to combat.
-
I can understand the concept of "if it ani't broke, don't fix it", Tilt. Sure the player base is growing, and that's good for HTC, and good for the game.
But I've noticed through this thread, and even in your post, that you'd like to see changes, or maybe I should say other options available within the concept of this game.
Sure, the demographics are looking good, but then again, most of the responses to this thread are coming from longer term players. And there's a theme (even from yourself, Tilt) of "mmm, there's something missing" But, more importantly, how can it be improved
Sure, it's the older players speaking up right now, but it really wasn't that long ago that we were the new guys. (Please, let me fantasize that it wasn't that long ago)
-
Originally posted by hitech
And we now cross 1000 players online at the same time on busy nights.
HiTech
You do??? I must be missing something big time then. Is there another secret server I do not know about? :noid
Bravo on the football analogy. I expected nothing less. People are here expressing a displeasure with a game that at one time was great and you spin that into a football analogy that totally contradicts what you have done at HTC with the game play.
The point is you have made so many changes to the game play it is boring and repetitive to some. In short you DID make the fields 12,000 feet, you just made the field shorter and narrower too. :aok
-
Agin you shooting me is your virsion of combat... What I'm trying to get at is combat has many different faces your just looking at the most blatent one.
Hmm how can I put this.. More of a meantal combat? Statagy, long ranging goals against others with similar goals... Your virsion of combat is meant to interfear with my virsion and vice versa.... While I do participate in the most visible form of combat I'm constantly thinking of what my next move will be in the not so visible form... I just get to play the shoot each other down virsion while working on the other :)
So while more toys are great for general combat som fixes for the strat combat would be nice.
This got me thinking does anyone have a game of (http://members.aol.com/gamestersgames/3mploy.jpg) they want to sell :) loved that game.
-
Originally posted by Flayed1
Agin you shooting me is your virsion of combat... What I'm trying to get at is combat has many different faces your just looking at the most blatent one.
Hmm how can I put this.. More of a meantal combat? Statagy, long ranging goals against others with similar goals... Your virsion of combat is meant to interfear with my virsion and vice versa.... While I do participate in the most visible form of combat I'm constantly thinking of what my next move will be in the not so visible form... I just get to play the shoot each other down virsion while working on the other :)
So while more toys are great for general combat som fixes for the strat combat would be nice.
This got me thinking does anyone have a game of (http://members.aol.com/gamestersgames/3mploy.jpg) they want to sell :) loved that game.
So your saying you'd be happy bombing off line? Because you can do that without the fear of seing combat.
-
Originally posted by BBBB
You do??? I must be missing something big time then. Is there another secret server I do not know about? :noid
Bravo on the football analogy. I expected nothing less. People are here expressing a displeasure with a game that at one time was great and you spin that into a football analogy that totally contradicts what you have done at HTC with the game play.
The point is you have made so many changes to the game play it is boring and repetitive to some. In short you DID make the fields 12,000 feet, you just made the field shorter and narrower too. :aok
The Combat-Tour Alpha test server?:cool:
I dunno, BBBB. Myself, I partly blame the players; But after enough years, they know how to game anything in AH.
You gave me an epiphany with the 12k field thing though. Maybe a total change to the Strat system isn't really feasible. Maps, however, are.
Most of our maps' our really pretty simple variations' on one theme or another. We have Historical (Think AvA and scenario) maps. We have our TA and DA maps, which are mainly simple layouts' of fields' at different alts.
And lastly, we have our MA maps. Not to defile the efforts' of our mapmakers like Fester, for instance, but it occured to me that our maps' really determine alot of our gameplay. They all have one thing in common, though. An airfield, controlled by a town with a bunker that has to have 10 troops in it. Now, if that can't be changed, Why don't we change the access to the field/town?
HTC, since you've been following this, I mean to ask; What limit's in current mapmaking would you be willing to bend/break? I once heard someone mention a max. field alt of 5 or 10k. What about one higher? Or maybe 2 or 3 for each side higher? Maybe change the radar settings. Move it down to 50 ft., instead of 500? I haven't ever cracked into the map editor, but I might have a try at making some fields' that are only accesible by, say, a bridge for GV's. Would there be a way to put Auto-ack on the bridges' that would shoot at an attacking force? Make the bridge into town something for an attacking force to have to hold and take?
What about Lines' of supply? The only problem with the current Strat system, is that one country can take any field on the map it wants, even right next to the nme HQ, and the field gets' supplied. Make it so that the fields' have to have either a continous line of friendly fields' behind it, or be steadily supplied by players' (ala the Hump, in the CBI in WWII.) Something like these might diffuse the 'horde' problem.
I'm gonna try my hand at the editor, and see if I can make an example of what I mean. I'll get back to y'all in due time.
-
I've tried thinking about this from both sides of the fence. HTC and crew are busy chaps. Can't pander to every ones wants. Hence the Billy Connolly sketch. If recoding is involved ........well need I say more!
As a player like you the strat system is still the same as it's always been. However in my AH history certain targets have become virtually worthless hitting. The system as it was still is but the game play, it is not. HQ, fuel and to a large degree the troop training have very little effect in today's Strat bombing campaign (game play). Almost 1/3 of the strat targets are negated because it's deemed as pointless. I refer to both parties here. Those that the strat belongs to and those that would destroy it.
With the advent of more acks, more barracks, changes in the minimum fuel load outs, hardening of HQ plus it's ease of resupply we also witness a by product. The neutering of the strat system. The tackle still works but some aspects of it are firing blanks. Granted we no longer see just 1 or 2 guys porking all the fuel or troops and or ordnance along an entire front. Neither do we see enemies overly concerned if your bombing the fuel factory into the stone age. That's to say if anyone wanted to waist 40 plus minutes of their life bombing for no reward.... cause and effect.
The only thing I can think of is a compromise if your to get HTC into your camp. After all the way the strat system works, it works fine. If I'm correct I believe certain hardness's can be set and certain down times can be altered. I confess I don't know if one setting sets all or if each and every base has to be set but how about making factory buildings twice as hard IE 500lb as apposed to 250lb and make field strat down times 2 or 3 times as long. Perhaps alter the resupply amount by double......something along these lines.
Would the idea enhance game play with regard to strats? Would it bring back the high alt fighter patrols or near panic scramble when a factory flashes? Or would it just promote an abundance of quake type noe suiciding lancasters?
Good luck.
-
imop, the game needs few changes to push players in more organized massive raids/fights , more realistic at high alt :ecouraje players to attack and defend the most valuable strategic target: the HQ:
--bring back the 4 steps progressive damage model for HQ, like in AH1, even if is not total destroyed, the bomber pilot gets something, not only 30mm shells, for the long flight and bombing skills, maybe more perks also
---HQ downtime, at least 30 min without resup option, now the HQ is resuped before the bombers get back to base
-- i would go to a formula , shortcut to Victory,where even the war is lost and map reset if the HQ and City is destroyed, like in chess, atack the king,you can have all the toys on the table but still get checkmate: If Hitler would have been killed , i'm sure WW2 would have finished early: This 40% of the both enemy bases win/reset model, makes the game inactive and boring with same map for weeks.
-
Originally posted by Bronk
So your saying you'd be happy bombing off line? Because you can do that without the fear of seing combat.
Not at all, and again your only seeing the most visible and brutish form of combat....
But if I must make it simple for you.... If you want my bombers to fly to an objective so that you may undertake the most basic of combat then the strat system needs to be fixed to make my bomber flight mean something... Other wise my strategic and more complex version of combat is meaningless and you get left with the general meaningless furball at base AXX and nothing beyond that..
For you the basic combat of the furball may be enough but for me I like to think about the strategic combat effect I have on the war rather than, I shot down so and so... That is just a bonus to the overall strategic combat of the game.
I'm just trying to get you to understand that there are different levels of combat, some are working well in the current game setup and others need fixed. If you can't understand this then welll.....
-
:rolleyes:
com·bat
–verb (used with object)
1. to fight or contend against; oppose vigorously: to combat crime.
–verb (used without object)
2. to battle; contend: to combat with disease.
–noun
3. Military. active, armed fighting with enemy forces.
4. a fight, struggle, or controversy, as between two persons, teams, or ideas.
-
New toys!!! But......
no buts!
only an'deeeeeeeeeens
an'den!
-
well Bronk...
you say that us bombing your stuff is enough of an enticement for combat.
So, you'll defend everything? At all times? Or will you allocate your resources to where they're most effective? We have bases...we have strats....strats do nothing...therefore you defend bases.
Combat- Noun...to combat crime
The police say there is a burglar in the area. So you defend yourself against him.
You have a two story house. You can't afford to put bars on the windows on all stories to protect yourself. But the burglar can't get up to the second floor. So, It's a no brainer. You bar up the first floor.
But...Home depot has a sale on ladders. Now the burglar CAN reach the second floor. Now, you have to think about allocation of resources.
Same game, Strategy has changed. One little thing makes a big difference.
-
Originally posted by Flayed1
SNIP
SOLUTION: Stat objects need to be made more meaningfull to the country they belong to. Make them matter enough that there is actually some fear if they get bombed, just as there is some fear when people see several flights of bombers going over a base and knowing that your FH's and VH are going to die and make it that much harder to defend your base. Of course this might be more of an Aww crap type feeling than actuall fear but you get the idea :)
One way I see to acomplish this is Factories and HQ need to be non resupliable by players. If your country doesn't defend them you lose them for the set time that the game will take to fix the damage. Just like hangers..
Same with HQ, bring back the multipul levels of dar damage and make the damage last how ever long the trains take to fix the damage.
Bases should remain as they are other than if it were me fuel should be porkable to 50% to make the fuel factory actually have some type of effect, as it stands now that particular factory is nothing more than a place for people to work on score...
Only other issue is porking fields... To make the factory damage mean someting the fields must be porked but this is a player side issue and nothing that HTC should really have to worry about other than making sure that the strat rules are up to date and available to players so they know what to hit to accomplish what ever the goal may be.
Firstly ignore Bronx's troll like babble or lack of forethought to see beyond the gunsite.
I believe there is a problem with HQ multi level damage system and that's one reason they are not using it. If you partly hit HQ enough to disable dar bars it can't be fixed with resupply. It's either broken or not coded one of the two. Where as if you destroyed HQ it can be resupplied. The other reason it's not used and was hardened was because Knights were without Radar for 3 days straight. No sooner was their HQ up but within 30 min or so it was bombed again. This went on for 3 whole days. Not being a knight I don't know if they even bothered to up for the HQ raiders. Nore do I know if they actually ran any supply...... Hence the change to HQ.
In ye olde days of AH there would be a cry "HQ raiders" followed swiftly by a general scramble to protect HQ. Now-er days we look at the size of the dar bar and if it's small we carry on with what we were doing. A "so what" shrug of the shoulders. After all 1 set of bombers can't hurt HQ. This sentiment also applies to many of the factories.
Was it realistic that just 1 set of bombers could effect a whole sides radar....No .... but it did promote "combat":rolleyes: If anything went near HQ folk would up likes flies around the proverbial. So... with regard to HQ I would say leave the damage to full or nothing until a "fix" for multi level damage is found. Make HQ weaker so's 1 set of Lancs 14k's worth can knock it out. Leave the resupply effect as is IE 8 boxes.
As for the rest of the strat system I feel the same as most strat players in that parts of it ain't worth hitting or defending. If I'm near a city and it's being bombed I'll go kill the attacker. If fuel factory is being hit I won't bother upping to defend it. Whats the point ? The bomber isn't going to effect my teams ability to push forward. Even a Lgay can run on 75% fuel to an enemy base 1 sector away and home again.
Perhaps hardness's, cause and effect could be looked at with a view to putting some "combat" back into the strat system.
Prolonging the down time of damaged Strat at fields. Radar, ammo, auto ack, barracks and lastly fuel. Fuel to say 50% max if all fuel cells are destroyed. Or perhaps double the amount of supplies needed to bring stuff up. Make factories buildings a little harder for the sake of "fairness". Say 500Lbs per building.
As an attacker I would view taking 40 plus minutes in bombers meaningful if I could stop or prolong the enemies ability to use certain planes, restricted by fuel, to anything other than base defence. "now try an fly ya lgay, spit16, pork auguring P47's for 2 sectors after I bomb all ya front line small fields fuel" ....< demonic grin rubbing hands like studmuffingin>
As a defender I would get ticked off a tad if it looked like I couldn't go much beyond a sector in my Spit16. Ide be up to kill the fuel factory attacker because you know that once he gets that factory below the 50% threshold that we hold so dear. He'll be over your front line fields pork bombing every fuel cell he could get his grubby little cross hair on.....the tosser!
Would Imposing variations of this theme on other strats promote combat or would folk just shrug shoulders and adjust to the given situation. Ammo down for 2 hrs, "so what" type of thing. Or having to run 16 boxes of sups to rebuild?
As much as we try to enhance our strat game play we are always going to be undermined by other players......namely the Nintendo suicider gamers.
Good luck getting things reviewed.
-
HT
You guys are my best time wasting distraction I have these days :)
-
Originally posted by Flayed1
This got me thinking does anyone have a game of (http://members.aol.com/gamestersgames/3mploy.jpg) they want to sell :) loved that game.
Ebay (http://search.ebay.com/search/search.dll?from=R40&_trksid=m37&satitle=ploy+game&category0=)
-
I'm glad a few of you don't work for HTC. This game would really suck if you did.
-
could you expand on that statement hubs?
-
There's not much more to it than that. People are campaigning to have the gameplay fundamentally altered simply because they think it should be. They don't care about how successful the game is, or what has or hasn't worked in the past. They aren't concerned with it from the perspective of a business owner and service provider, and they cite reasons for past changes which are completely false. You wouldn't actually improve the game, you would just change the game because you're bored with it.
Ergo, it would really suck to have some of you making HT's decisions. You would take the unstructured MA environment, and turn it into "defend the factories or lose radar/fuel/ord/planetypeX/troops". You would make the game unbearably dull and repetitive.
-
See rule #4
-
BBBB Can you say how the old days' gameplay was so much better than nowadays'? Without breaking rule #4?
It seems to me that AH is simply suffering from its own popularity with a large number of new players that just don't apreciate air combat like the purists do. It's a catch-22 between enough success to pay for continued development - including keeping up with the competition - and developing a part of the game to cater to the more realism inclined players, which also relieves anti-arcade pressure on the MA side of the game.
-
I have a few ideas.
First, I think base fuel should be able to be reduced to 25% again, although at the same time i think the burn ratio should go back to 1:1, not the 2:1 that it is now. That would be an effective 50% in todays AH.
Strat targets should create a progressive (maybe exponential) effect starting at say 10% damage. Having to reduce them to 50% before the damage even starts to have an effect seems to be too much. Also, I think that the effect should be felt at least minimally (maybe at the 50% strat damage level) even if the corresponding strat targets at the fields are not damaged. As an example my thinking is that planes are taking off using fuel that's barely being re-supplied by the strat. This should have an effect. So, there would be two ways to reduce field supplys, hit the strats or hit the field with max effect hitting both.
I think that down times for strat targets should be increased (maybe even doubled) with greater rewards for re-supplying them. As to the re-supply portion of this, maybe adding re-supply as a vehicle or bomber scoring category would encourage more re-supply attempts (and fighting via the counter-attempts to stop it), as would the effect of the ideas in the last paragraph.
The progressive radar reduction should be added back into the game through HQ damage and, I think there should be another level added to the strat system. That is the buildings at the HQ. They should be destryable and control down-time of the cities as well as a portion of the country's radar system with the hardened building causing the final blow to radar (dar bars). Dropping the surrounding city without taking the hardened building would still give 100% strat effect.
Finally, I think that there should be more strats supplying fewer fields, that the strats should have both auto and manned acks, and that the zone strat system should be implemented on the small maps.
If you read all that, thanks for listening.
[EDIT] For the record, I don't think gameplay is stale in the least but I do think the strat system could be better.
-
response to hubs post.
Have you read the whole thread to this point?
First off...one reason that this thread is here is, judging by some of the posts, it's becoming,"unbearably dull and repetitive" (that's an extreme..forgive me). Explain the difference between "defend the factories and lose radar, etc" vs. defend the A, V and P bases or lose the war.
I disagree that anyone is advocating to fundamentally change the game. I'm seeing people constructively looking at elements within the present game to increase the diversity of actions available to everyone in terms of strategy and gameplay. Nobody's tallking rewrite the code.
"they cite reasons for past changes which are completely false"
I'd like to respond...please be more specific.
And as to not being concerned from an owner's perspective...Well, I brought the thread up...many have responded on both sides, (veterans that I respect included). And as an owner running a service...Well, we're getting one hell of a customer response, aren't we?
-
You all are reading to much int to my posts.
I was simply disagreeing with this statement.
Originally posted by ridley1
Capture is the basis of the game,
I disagree with this statement. I believe combat or more simply put "the fight" is the basis of the game.
You can take any other aspect of this game away and still the fight remains. Not that I would want other aspects removed. I never stated trying to change or improve on those aspects should not be done.
I do however disagree with anybody who thinks an unmolested bombing run is combat.
Edit: From another thread where someone made a similar statement about base capture.
Originally posted by hitech
This is a false assumption.
The game was designed to have fun at different types of combat. Conquering bases is just a means to promote combat and hence fun. But by no means is it more or less justified than going out and just mixing it up.
HiTech
From this thread.
http://forums.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=193315&highlight=Fight
-
Lol..see rule 4? lol... I didn't flame anyone or say anything out of line. I just said that Dale is a business man and he cares more about profit margins than he does about what a number of his customers want. I will re-post my post on my website and link you guys. Just send a PM.
-
Wow, where to start... we've had these discussions before... Strat vs Fighters...
On one side you have Strat guys... like to bomb stuff...think that strategic resources should affect resources available at bases... disrupt resources at a base and it affects the offensive nature of the enemy... reduce fuel, bombs, troop mostly... these 3 resource have the most impact on an enemy's offense. Reduce Ack, bombs, and to a lesser extent fuel affects the enemy's defense. The want to capture bases, they want to win the map.
On the other side you have the Fighters... like to engage in air combat, could careless about capture or strats... they just like to fly and fight...
In the middle of this are those of us that do both... Rooks, Knights, and Bishops all have groups that either what to play capture the map or play fighter, or do both. No one will probably ever be able to satisfy everybody 100%.
So how to make strat more effective in the game and a positive influence the offensive/defensive nature of combat without excerting undue influence and negative impact on the Fighter side of the game.
I remember the days of a single tiffie porking bases to 25% fuel in just a few minutes... it was annoying and difficult to defend against.
I wonder if this would work...
Each Zone has a City, Ack, Training, Fuel, and Ammo. As each strat is bombed/damaged that resource at each zone base is reduced by an equal percentage, ie: Fuel strat bombed to 50%, available fuel at all zone bases 50%. Now to keep from getting to lopsided, maybe increase the size of the total strat target to 4X its current size/area or increase the value of damage needed to bring that strat down so it requires more than a couple of bombers, (similar to the HQ)
-
Originally posted by ridley1
Don't you see? Part of what makes this game great is the interaction that exists between the consumer and supplier. Would Bill Gates answer into this discussion? Hell no...or we wouldn't have Vista. There is a community here that wants this game to stay strong but also grow and improve.
Mr. Hitech, by the tone of your reply, it appears that I may have offended you. If I have I offer my deepest apologies. But at the same time, I'm not suggesting that the basis of the game be changed, but I am attempting to elicit ideas from this community as to where the game can go. As I said before, the introduction of large amounts of field ack and town ack significantly changed how the game was played. The football field was the same size. Just bigger linebackers. Then we all adjusted.
What's the next little tweak that can be put in to make us all have to adjust?
You guys forget that we are the customer and we pay this guy's salary. I've seen repeated short and snippy comments out of this guy and most of you take it and treat him with some kind of reverence. Ridley, you brought up some very good points and I believe they are value adding comments. This guy was sarcastic and detracted from the thread. It should be him apologizing, not you.
I really hope that this guy is not representing HTC cause I have known much better customer interaction from HTC than the comments I observed out of this guy in this and several other threads lately.
HighGTrn
-
high turn, he puts up with more crap than you can imagine. He's earned a little bit of aloofness.
He's been asked for these things a million times already and probably has already covered them several times.
The search button is your friend!
P.S. he doesn't represent them, he IS them. The "HT" in "HTC" stands for Hitech. He's also worked on Warbirds as well, as have a number of HTC employees. He's seen what works and what generally doesn't through over 10 years of online WW2 flight simming.
He doesn't have to bow to every person that creates a profile on the forums. If you actually want to engage in conversation, try e-mailing or calling and doing so directly. He's much more accomodating that way, from what I hear.
-
Originally posted by HighGTrn
You guys forget that we are the customer and we pay this guy's salary. I've seen repeated short and snippy comments out of this guy and most of you take it and treat him with some kind of reverence. Ridley, you brought up some very good points and I believe they are value adding comments. This guy was sarcastic and detracted from the thread. It should be him apologizing, not you.
I really hope that this guy is not representing HTC cause I have known much better customer interaction from HTC than the comments I observed out of this guy in this and several other threads lately.
HighGTrn
Buh bye
-
Originally posted by HighGTrn
You guys forget that we are the customer and we pay this guy's salary. I've seen repeated short and snippy comments out of this guy and most of you take it and treat him with some kind of reverence. Ridley, you brought up some very good points and I believe they are value adding comments. This guy was sarcastic and detracted from the thread. It should be him apologizing, not you.
I really hope that this guy is not representing HTC cause I have known much better customer interaction from HTC than the comments I observed out of this guy in this and several other threads lately.
HighGTrn
You may wish to read all my post where I state very clearly that I took no offense from ridley1. My only point in all this is specifically that just because BBBB thinks things are getting stale , does not mean they are.
My post have all been ,until now , very on topic. Yours is one of the first true off topic post. All you do is attack me, show me where I attacked anyone in any way, all I did was to point out that because game play has not changed, does not mean things are getting stale. If you also noticed I have not discussed any other idea, nor have I critisized any other idea in this entire topic.
I moderated BBBB's post, normally I would also mod his secound post because he also broke the rules in it, specifically any questions regarding moderation should be emailed to HTC.
His post was moderated simply because he choose to personally attack with insults anyone who agreed with my point of view.
He now wishes to play the wounded duck, and still tries to paint me in a bad light. How about rephrasing what BBBB said. I am a business man, and I care most about what the majority of my customers want.
And if you wish to learn a little of my experience in this industry try google "Dale Addink"
HiTech
-
Oh, dammit.
Well, I thought we had a pretty decent discussion going here...
Is it worth going on?
-
Originally posted by hitech
You may wish to read all my post where I state very clearly that I took no offense from ridley1. My only point in all this is specifically that just because BBBB thinks things are getting stale , does not mean they are.
My post have all been ,until now , very on topic. Yours is one of the first true off topic post. All you do is attack me, show me where I attacked anyone in any way, all I did was to point out that because game play has not changed, does not mean things are getting stale. If you also noticed I have not discussed any other idea, nor have I critisized any other idea in this entire topic.
I moderated BBBB's post, normally I would also mod his secound post because he also broke the rules in it, specifically any questions regarding moderation should be emailed to HTC.
His post was moderated simply because he choose to personally attack with insults anyone who agreed with my point of view.
He now wishes to play the wounded duck, and still tries to paint me in a bad light. How about rephrasing what BBBB said. I am a business man, and I care most about what the majority of my customers want.
And if you wish to learn a little of my experience in this industry try google "Dale Addink"
HiTech
I'm sure you get bombarded with every whine and request under the sun. I did not say you attacked anyone, I said you make "short and snippy" comments. For someone who IS the company behind this game, I think its poor judgement in customer relations. Your posts (especially the one in question) are usually short, contains an aura of sarcasm and leaves the reader guessing context. I'm not sure who BBBB is or what he posted, I was specifically talking about what you said to Ridley.
Hub, I'm not impressed that he IS HTC. Like I said, as far as I'm concerned, we pay his salary.
I do admit this is the best online combat flight simulator out there. I think its the best not because of what HTC has created. It is the best because so many people play it and that is the real secret to HTC's success. If people started leaving AH for some other past time or game, I don't think this game would be as much fun.
HighGTrn
-
Sorry, I meant Krusty not Hub.
-
The only thing I said to ridly1 was
ridley1: I saw nothing bad in your post at all.
I am really having a hard time seeing how this was a bad thing?
HiTech
-
I do admit this is the best online combat flight simulator out there. I think its the best not because of what HTC has created. It is the best because so many people play it and that is the real secret to HTC's success. If people started leaving AH for some other past time or game, I don't think this game would be as much fun.
Aces High has a lot of players, mostly because we put a lot of work into creating this game, and we do not cater to the whims of the vocal minority nor the whims of old timers who have grown tired of playing. We have a lot of players because we do listen to players, we just only take the ideas we view a good for the continued growth of Aces High.
HiTech
-
Yaknow I just left the most pathetic attack Ive ever seen a CV make. It started out OK, the town was taken down, we had cap. But then 4/5'th of the Rook people flew up and down the runway clubbing baby seals, running up their scores, and turning the attack into a glorified game of pinball. We never took the base and I couldnt stand being part of it so I left.
Yeah I know its just a game and it aint all so important to me if the base was taken. But something is broken here. Something with the rules of the game, the importance of the targets, and the way people are given rank. I notice many of the ones who look down on missions and those that fly them participate in this baby seal clubbing. Well running missions is far more challenging then flying up and down a runway shooting poor schmucks trying to up.
Maybe I'll try the Axis arena. But every-time I check there is no one in there. And I cannot help but think that rukes can be changed to promote more actual combat flying and teamwork rather then scorewhoring electronic pinball.
Originally posted by Airscrew
Wow, where to start... we've had these discussions before... Strat vs Fighters...
On one side you have Strat guys... like to bomb stuff...think that strategic resources should affect resources available at bases... disrupt resources at a base and it affects the offensive nature of the enemy... reduce fuel, bombs, troop mostly... these 3 resource have the most impact on an enemy's offense. Reduce Ack, bombs, and to a lesser extent fuel affects the enemy's defense. The want to capture bases, they want to win the map.
On the other side you have the Fighters... like to engage in air combat, could careless about capture or strats... they just like to fly and fight...
In the middle of this are those of us that do both... Rooks, Knights, and Bishops all have groups that either what to play capture the map or play fighter, or do both. No one will probably ever be able to satisfy everybody 100%.
So how to make strat more effective in the game and a positive influence the offensive/defensive nature of combat without excerting undue influence and negative impact on the Fighter side of the game.
I remember the days of a single tiffie porking bases to 25% fuel in just a few minutes... it was annoying and difficult to defend against.
I wonder if this would work...
Each Zone has a City, Ack, Training, Fuel, and Ammo. As each strat is bombed/damaged that resource at each zone base is reduced by an equal percentage, ie: Fuel strat bombed to 50%, available fuel at all zone bases 50%. Now to keep from getting to lopsided, maybe increase the size of the total strat target to 4X its current size/area or increase the value of damage needed to bring that strat down so it requires more than a couple of bombers, (similar to the HQ)
-
Originally posted by Rich46yo
Yaknow I just left the most pathetic attack Ive ever seen a CV make. It started out OK, the town was taken down, we had cap. But then 4/5'th of the Rook people flew up and down the runway clubbing baby seals, running up their scores, and turning the attack into a glorified game of pinball. We never took the base and I couldnt stand being part of it so I left.
Yeah I know its just a game and it aint all so important to me if the base was taken. But something is broken here. Something with the rules of the game, the importance of the targets, and the way people are given rank. I notice many of the ones who look down on missions and those that fly them participate in this baby seal clubbing. Well running missions is far more challenging then flying up and down a runway shooting poor schmucks trying to up.
Maybe I'll try the Axis arena. But every-time I check there is no one in there. And I cannot help but think that rukes can be changed to promote more actual combat flying and teamwork rather then scorewhoring electronic pinball.
Try AvA rich, whole different ball game.... Low Vis range, realism damage settings, squad/tactice/mission oriented. You'll love it sir, another different ball game from the standard quake style MA gameplay. Also try checking there at night 8-10pm. That's when the late nighters come on and it gets crowded.
-
Damage settings? There's no way to change that in the AvA without a code re-write. Unless you're playing with lethality settings (highly doubt it)
Might want to be careful with the hype there... it's straying into dangerous territory...
-
Any question about moderation, email HTC.
-
Originally posted by MjTalon
Try AvA rich, whole different ball game.... Low Vis range, realism damage settings, squad/tactice/mission oriented. You'll love it sir, another different ball game from the standard quake style MA gameplay. Also try checking there at night 8-10pm. That's when the late nighters come on and it gets crowded.
I will, and I dont mean to sound negative. Its a wonderful game and I'm never going to leave it. But that doesnt mean it cant be adjusted a bit and made a bit more strategic.
Even thinking outside the box could work. For instance rewarding perks to people participating in base captures. Or missions that end up capturing a base. Maybe even make a certain % off perk points for bombing strats transferable to use as fighter perks.
Theres a lot of little changes that can be made to benefit the game. Tho I must say Im glad Im not on the hot seat like HiTech who has to make these decisions.
-
That's like saying "I've not insulted you at all, you villinous pile of dung. I've only pointed out what is true, that you're a businessman, and you run off the teeth of babies. But I haven't done anything wrong, you evil filth-pile."
Your entire tone, post, and language are insulting, and no, you don't have the facts right in your little rant.
-
Hubs...you had a huge post on here for a bit...Did you delete it? You had some points.
high G, If you think I have a value added concern...comment on it.
as far as I'm concerned Hitech and I have kissed and made up.
-
Originally posted by Krusty
Damage settings? There's no way to change that in the AvA without a code re-write. Unless you're playing with lethality settings (highly doubt it)
Both lethality and damage (hardness) can be adjusted in an arena.
SEA and AvA are set within HTC guide lines to avoid dumb stuff happening but it may involve some adjustment to those settings.
There are no secrets to these settings they are all reproducable off line or over lan play.
-
Yeah Ridley, but my supper was burning and I was in the middle of editing it so I just deleted it. It probably wasn't going to go over well anyway, and most of the points have already been made with far fewer words.
Suffice to say everyone has their interests, and their opinion of what would be a "better" game. But, what appeals to one may not appeal to another, and in this particular case, I don't think that's grounds for a pretty serious alteration of the strat system. With the practically guaranteed imbalances in numbers, a strat system that enables one side to deny the other(s) sufficient fuel, ord, troops, or plane types, or radar of any sort across an entire map is going to have far more negative repercussions with regards to gameplay in general.
Also, with regards to the past changes, there are those who insist that, despite what HT and company have said to the contrary, the changes occured "only because of whining" in the case of all of the strat, ENY, and changes to the reset parameters, and server capacity in the case of the arena split, and that the changes weren't necessary, and haven't helped.
All of those topics got beat to death on the forums, in game, and presumably via emails and phonecalls for HTC, yet people still insist that HT isn't being honest about his reasons.
That's pretty much it, minus some examples.
-
Originally posted by ridley1
Explain the difference between "defend the factories and lose radar, etc" vs. defend the A, V and P bases or lose the war.
HiTech once said that the goal of this game is not to recreate World War II or World War II battles but rather to simulate aerial combat using World War II planes. Ground vehicles, bombers, CVs, base captures, etc. were all added to help facilitate that goal. Winning or losing the war is not the goal of this game, though it may be a personal goal of individual players or squadrons.
Personally, I don't give a rat's arse about who wins or loses the war, I get more perks probably per sortie that I would from a reset. I usually end up laughing at those that do, since they're arm chair leadership can be quite entertaining like 3Kilo was the other night in the MW arena.
ack-ack
-
Hubs...The dreaded addiction to this game! I've learned not to start cooking anything until I've logged off.
Yeah AH is great, that's pretty well agreed.
Halo (so I've heard) was great..but then came Halo 2. Then Halo 3. Is Doom still out there? I don't know. But those guys had to come out with new products to stay in business. And the new products are improvements on the old.
I really wasn't trying to get a thread started about the old toolshedders vs. furballers going. But when I started it, well, strats seemed like a logical example because all the basics are already here. Don't forget, strats are supply, and when you're being pushed, your supply lines shorten and strengthen, while the aggressor's lenghthens and weakens. It can be used offensively and defensively.
-
Originally posted by BBBB
Lol..see rule 4? lol... I didn't flame anyone or say anything out of line. I just said that Dale is a business man and he cares more about profit margins than he does about what a number of his customers want. I will re-post my post on my website and link you guys. Just send a PM.
Nah, your post was plenty condescending and mis-informed/misleading.
WrgTrn, paying 15 bucks doesn't buy you a spot on the design comitee.
Rich46yo
"Yeah I know its just a game and it aint all so important to me if the base was taken. But something is broken here. Something with the rules of the game, the importance of the targets, and the way people are given rank. I notice many of the ones who look down on missions and those that fly them participate in this baby seal clubbing. Well running missions is far more challenging then flying up and down a runway shooting poor schmucks trying to up."
That's the path of least resistence for you. It's why the MA's gameplay has had to be foolproofed rather than merely improved.
-
See rule 4
-
Originally posted by hitech
You may wish to read all my post where I state very clearly that I took no offense from ridley1. My only point in all this is specifically that just because BBBB thinks things are getting stale , does not mean they are.
My post have all been ,until now , very on topic. Yours is one of the first true off topic post. All you do is attack me, show me where I attacked anyone in any way, all I did was to point out that because game play has not changed, does not mean things are getting stale. If you also noticed I have not discussed any other idea, nor have I critisized any other idea in this entire topic.
I moderated BBBB's post, normally I would also mod his secound post because he also broke the rules in it, specifically any questions regarding moderation should be emailed to HTC.
His post was moderated simply because he choose to personally attack with insults anyone who agreed with my point of view.
He now wishes to play the wounded duck, and still tries to paint me in a bad light. How about rephrasing what BBBB said. I am a business man, and I care most about what the majority of my customers want.
And if you wish to learn a little of my experience in this industry try google "Dale Addink"
HiTech
He does it better than anyone on these boards Dale.
-
LOL
-
quick recap of this whole thread.
Hey man the strat system is hardly worth hitting. Any chance of a change ?
you might want change but we don't
Aww come on man it'll add to the other dimension of the game. Give you another reason to come and kill me.
no it won't. It'll stop me from killing you
Dude! by your own reasoning why wouldn't you kill me before I tuck your toys of you. I mean if my actions were about to restrict your teams ability to do certain things wouldn't you wanna stop me before I accomplished my goal. Namely come up and kill me or do unto me as I would do unto you but do it first :D
na man, That's not what the games about. The games about aerial combat. It's about killing not restricting play.
but! but isn't coming up and killing my bombers combat?
didn't say i wouldn't kill your bombers. I was saying you would restrict my ability to kill your bombers.
yer but that would only happen if you didn't protect your strat system in the first place.
Enough... strat system is ok. Nothing wrong with it and it's not invasive to game play. You sure your not the problem. Perhaps you're needing another challenge having been around along time.
yer i understand what your saying but
There ain't no "but". It's like this....come up with something everyone likes and doesn't scare new players off
was just thinking it would add rather than detract. Hows this gonna scare players off I mean......oh forget it. Back to the drawing board.
-
Just thoughts...using strats as an example....
what if taking out strats doesn't deny they country of what it produces...but reduces the quality? Ords, for example....instead of having ord down and out of action for increasing lengths of time as there is more damage...the size of bombs that are produced become smaller as strat damage is increased. (we can't make 500 pounder...but we can still make 250's) The ammo factory's been hit...can't put the big gun package on in the hangar.. Training's been hit...you need more troops for capture......
Supply is in this game, isn't it? we have road convoys, barges, trains......seems the only time I interact with a road convoy is when I get my panzer flipped by one.
-
I'm thinking that a much longer rebuild time for the strategic targets along with harsher defenses around them would make a pretty decent difference for the strategic groups, and still not impact the furball group that much. You don't often see many groups attacking the strats, yet there is little reward (other than the sheer fun and immersion of it all) for those that do.
I don't know that there is a way to attach a damage threshold to this all, whereas it would take a certain amount of damage, say 50% or more, at once to enable the longer rebuild time. This would encourage and support larger groups of bombers at alt , as well as interceptors which could be awarded a larger point count for destroying bombers.
Just thinking out loud. There must be a way to adjust the settings to enhance both experiences without detracting from valuable development time with code reworking for this. Its all good, we'll still be doing strat runs here just the same. :)
-
Strat targets will never be defended. Defenders fly fighters, and fighters like to FIGHT, not climb for 20 minutes, and circle a strat target untill buffs come into sight, or they run low on fuel. Thats why you have the big debate between the "strat" guys and the "fighter" guys.
So Lynx you may think that providing targets going to a strat is going to be nice to fighter jocks, but it is never going to work. Yes the fighter jocks look at as you are taking away from their game play in stead of suppling game play. Fighter jocks can up and kill/die bunches of time to your one lone trip.
I don't have a problem with the strat bombing, not that I'm going to take the time to defend (I don't have that kind of time to "play" a game), but I think resupply should be made more appealing. If resuppling was more appealing, through points/perks/rank more people would be willing to spend the time to do it. I suppose a "strat" guy would complain about that seeing as if enough people got together to resupply the target could be back up before they could RTB, but what were you thinking would happen? You would hit strat enough that you could neuter the entire country for a long enough time that you could roll a few bases?
-
Originally posted by The Fugitive
but what were you thinking would happen? You would hit strat enough that you could neuter the entire country for a long enough time that you could roll a few bases?
That's exactly what some folks are thinking. It would alter the game to give one group a disproportionately greater effect on gameplay for the others. For some, it is because that's what they think the point of the game is, and for others it's simply about control over how others play the game. Either way, it's not about making more customers happy- it's not about improving gameplay at all.
-
Originally posted by hubsonfire
That's exactly what some folks are thinking. It would alter the game to give one group a disproportionately greater effect on gameplay for the others. For some, it is because that's what they think the point of the game is, and for others it's simply about control over how others play the game. Either way, it's not about making more customers happy- it's not about improving gameplay at all.
Beat me to it hub. Good posts Fugi and you. Echoes my sentiments as well.
-
The Fugitive
The treads about chucking ideas in to enhance the worth of actually bombing the strat. Which in my "opinion" some of it is worth bombing and some of it ain't. I would and do bomb cities, ack and ammo factories. Where as I wouldn't dream of bombing HQ. Absolute waist of time other than the "fun" factor for obvious reasons. Wouldn't go out me way to bomb the fuel or training factories other than to use the few bombs left on board. Wouldn't specifically make a mission priority of those 3 strats.
what were you thinking would happen? You would hit strat enough that you could neuter the entire country for a long enough time that you could roll a few bases?
This statement is backwards thinking . The point of a strat system or bombing an enemies strat system is to hinder the enemies ability to "roll a few" of my bases and making it harder to defend their bases. No one is talking, implying or even suggesting "stopping the enemies ability outright. To disable the enemies resources FULL STOP". It's about HINDERING as opposed to stopping. It's all very well me getting me jollies off bombing strat but it ain't worth a "tomtit" if the specific strat on enemy fields isn't hit. It's a 2 stage affair. One isn't good without the other. Even if the 2 stage affair went to plan the enemy still has an abundance of other fields that won't have been hit.
Strat targets will never be defended. Defenders fly fighters, and fighters like to FIGHT, not climb for 20 minutes, and circle a strat target until buffs come into sight, or they run low on fuel. That's why you have the big debate between the "strat" guys and the "fighter" guys.
To some extent I agree with you especially with today's strat system but isn't this what this thread is debating. Making the strat system worth fighting over ? I used the fuel strat as an example further back in the thread...just an idea. Didn't say stop fuel period but hinder the ability of certain planes through fuel restriction to be able to fly to and fight over an enemies base. I for one would be up to defend the fuel factory if I thought me Spits we're gong to be restricted to base defence.
Anyways we're just yakking for the sake of it. Although HTC hasn't said anything outright in this thread reading through the lines he's happy as it is........nuff said.
-
I said earlier.....Strats can be used in a defensive strategy as well....
Ever been hooked up into a mission for base capture then had it cancelled because the ords just got knocked out? At a tactical level, you've slowed them down, before you've had to play ronco vulchamatic at the base they're attacking
If a country is rolling bases,,,here's one further way to slow them down.
-
My 2c.. The most efficient way to reach a solution is to use the sort of problem solving heuristics from engineering classes in early college.. This is definitely a complex problem.
A table where we list all the alternative solutions (strat types) to strat in the MA, with their flaws/problems on the other side (i.e. strat types at top, problems on the side, or vice versa). At each box (in the table) that corresponds to a "solution" and "problem", would be listed the possible fixes.
Eventualy you'd have to see one or more patterns that'd best satisfy everyone's idea of fun strat in the MA. It's a clear way to give everyone who looks at it a clear picture of the whole problem, rather than argue some detail or fraction of the problem for a long while, only to see that solving it was in vain because it doesn't fit with any possible/feasible arrangement of the rest of the strat system.
To really harness the whole volume of ideas floating in the players' heads though, there'd need to be some moderating of input to this problem/solution matrix. Otherwise it'd fill up with redundant submissions, random spam, whines, etc.
-
Originally posted by hubsonfire
That's exactly what some folks are thinking. It would alter the game to give one group a disproportionately greater effect on gameplay for the others. For some, it is because that's what they think the point of the game is, and for others it's simply about control over how others play the game. Either way, it's not about making more customers happy- it's not about improving gameplay at all.
I could really buy into this load of :noid if someone asked for a hanger factory to be added. Then all u had to do was bomb it below 50% then bomb 1 fields hangers down which by default would disable all their fields in one swoop muhahaha :t
-
Originally posted by moot
Nah, your post was plenty condescending and mis-informed/misleading.
WrgTrn, paying 15 bucks doesn't buy you a spot on the design comitee.
Rich46yo
"Yeah I know its just a game and it aint all so important to me if the base was taken. But something is broken here. Something with the rules of the game, the importance of the targets, and the way people are given rank. I notice many of the ones who look down on missions and those that fly them participate in this baby seal clubbing. Well running missions is far more challenging then flying up and down a runway shooting poor schmucks trying to up."
That's the path of least resistence for you. It's why the MA's gameplay has had to be foolproofed rather than merely improved.
Dude you aint all that easy to understand. The most I can gather from this is somehow you, who Ive never seen in the game, has somehow decided I "take the path of least resistance" by either flying missions or clubbing baby seals on runways. Which is it?
I think Ive been insulted but your grammar and use of quotes makes it impossible to fully understand. I suggest you learn the Kings English before you insult someone. And learn to spell.
-
Honestly Rich...
I'm not sure that your point in your original post was very clearly defined.
I mean...were you a vulcher...or vulchee?
-
Create Manufacturing Plants that churn out planes that account for the top few tier # of kills each tour.
Personnally I'd like to see certin planes become unavailable, or an ENY effect applied through strat bombing.
Originally posted by LYNX
I could really buy into this load of :noid if someone asked for a hanger factory to be added.
It's been suggested twice already in this thread. You were saying?
-
Rich46yo,
What Moot is saying is that the other players, not you, were taking the path of least resistance.
While one can put up missions and do things the 'hard way' the majority of players would just prefer to club baby seals and do things the 'easy way'. Therefore, until clubbing baby seals isn't possible or profitable, there's little incentive for some folks to change this type of behavior.
I think you took this the wrong way, and this is how I perceived his response. It wasn't an insult directed at you.
Hub, I enjoy reading your points.
Toonces, out.
-
Ah well, if it wasnt aimed at me then I apologize. These Liberals in the open forum have me all worked up.
Now I can go back to vulching, spawn camping, and baby seal clubbing.:lol Sorry Moot.
-
Originally posted by hubsonfire
It's been suggested twice already in this thread. You were saying?
No such thing has been mentioned in this thread. Go re-read Haps post. He's "suggesting" a whole new system. Although I never played Air Warrior I believe reading from other posts that that game had a similar system.
What I was saying was as disproportionate as
For some, it is because that's what they think the point of the game is, and for others it's simply about control over how others play the game
Aside from the handbag slinging the thread has fallen into a couple of factions with regard to enhancing strategical game play. Those that wish for a whole new strat system and or involving mass recoding. Then those that advocate tweaking of the present system. In my opinion the former is unreasonable where as the later is do-able. In measures of cause and effect.
In either case the desire was to put an importance into strat. Make it worth fighting for and defending. Bringing that fight up into the air (yer I know it's a filthy suggestion what with all those skilled acm field vulcher, runway divers and massed Noe HO attackers, we so longingly look up to). As for my brief input with regards to the fuel strat it's less of an effect to game play than our present day 5% ENY. That's about as disproportionate to game play as I would want to get and I'm not advocating removing ENY.
Reading through the lines nothings up for consideration anyways. Perhaps I'm just an "old timer" looking for another challenge :( but the fuel and troop factories are little more than score point opportunities at the moment. As for HQ......... I'll be polite and stop now.
-
I think good maps are the true building blocks of "strategy," if that is your goal. Good, small maps with 250 players seem like the perfect recipe to cook up action, which is what everyone wants - furballers, mission guys, bomber guys, bomber killers, vehicle guys, toolshedders, vulchers, vulchees, pickers and pickees...
I'd like to see 2 capped late-war Main Arenas with small maps, one with an ETO feeling (land based, no or limited cvs) and the other with a PTO atmosphere (cvs and islands galore). And a 3rd one opened during peak times, with maybe new "medium-sized" maps. I think the large maps promote timidity and less massive, multi-player fun.
I also think these threads go away when new patches and new maps come out. ;) The boxed-game people have to constantly create new games with new goals and strategies. The concept remains the same here, so that is why I think maps create a freshness, along with the new models and textures.
-
See rule 4
-
Originally posted by Rolex
I think good maps are the true building blocks of "strategy," if that is your goal. Good, small maps with 250 players seem like the perfect recipe to cook up action, which is what everyone wants - furballers, mission guys, bomber guys, bomber killers, vehicle guys, toolshedders, vulchers, vulchees, pickers and pickees...
I'd like to see 2 capped late-war Main Arenas with small maps, one with an ETO feeling (land based, no or limited cvs) and the other with a PTO atmosphere (cvs and islands galore). And a 3rd one opened during peak times, with maybe new "medium-sized" maps. I think the large maps promote timidity and less massive, multi-player fun.
Agree in full. Excellent ideas Rolex.
-
Rolex, those are good ideas...and your comment about how these threads go away when a new patch comes along are correct. "They create a freshness", is how you put it. But these effects are only short term. Billions will up the p-39 to try it out...then it'll become just another plane to fly.
I Just came across another thread about HQ raids....I'll post just after this to link to it....
Ghastly (?) brought up the problem that HQ raids basically get brought up against the team already getting beat the baddest, and maybe that's where a lot of this "you toolshedders want to dictate how the game is played" comments are coming from. I agree that it sucks....you're getting beat bad...and then they start blinding you...that's not fun...for anyone.
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Hitech try to even out unbalanced fights? I mean, the ENY thing and all?
Earlier I said, one thing about being pushed back...is your strats, and supply become stronger......as you advance and expand, your logistics become weaker.
So, an unbalanced fight in the arena......ENY starts to kick in (insert arguements about how that is implented and imposed here)
Could there be an ENY for strat effects? Say A's down to 20% of the map....you need to nook HQ to take effect.......B has 70% of the map....peeing on an ammo factory will disable their ords....
-
there we go......
http://forums.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=226517 (http://forums.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=226517)
-
Just did a deep mission in lancs from A32 to the ammo factory and two cities in the SW corner of the map.
I returneed intact to 32 earning 9.6 perks with a perk multiplier of about 1.16.
The mission took well over an hour.
I was able to get in and out virtually unchallenged even though I knocked cites down to 39% and the ammo factory down to 49%.
But then my return alt was at 30K.
I think if we want to get stuff focussed more in this area we have to make the rewards and the consequences higher plus players should be more aware of the consequences.
The rammifications of strat attrition are very vague to most players and as Lynx points out some strat is less than vital even if totally lost.
So tweaks to what we have
Increase the perk earning potential of strat attrition.
Make strat objects worth more perk points
Integrate this with using bomber perks to buy formations and bombsi.e greater "currency" earning and more stuff to spend it on
Increase the consequenses of strat attrition.
Defending countries should be worried about their strat health it could be that they do not defend it because it make little difference to them. Increasing down times may make a difference. Provided it is properly communicated(see below)
Communicate a countries strat health in a more meaningfull way.
There are several ways of achieving this.
We could express strat factory health not as a % but as a number representing the time to rebuild the relevant air field objects.
We could express strat city health not as a % but as a number representing the time to rebuild factory objects.
We could add audible warnings when strat health falls below certain levels.
We could change the strat colour when its low.
This may spread combat away from the sole focus of combat via the capture of airfields and vehicle fields by mass attrition.
I would also wish (and probably should do so in wishlist) for the return of depots.
They could be introduced in several ways.
Simply one would be at the road origin point feeding each airfield. Ownership of the depot would be essential for that field to recieve supplies. The airfields would be conciderably hardened and have normal resupply of defences made quicker (ack down times reduced). But with the depot lost the airfield gradually dies as nothing is resupplied.
The depot would then be the focus for primary capture, both sides able to access the air over the area of combat, both sides having spawns points for their GV's toward nieghbouring depots. Even when a depot is lost there is a chance for recapture..prolonging the battle. But if a depot is lost for too long then eventually its air field is not able to recover from such attacks as it recieves.
-
Originally posted by Rolex
I think good maps are the true building blocks of "strategy," if that is your goal. Good, small maps with 250 players seem like the perfect recipe to cook up action, which is what everyone wants - furballers, mission guys, bomber guys, bomber killers, vehicle guys, toolshedders, vulchers, vulchees, pickers and pickees...
I'd like to see 2 capped late-war Main Arenas with small maps, one with an ETO feeling (land based, no or limited cvs) and the other with a PTO atmosphere (cvs and islands galore). And a 3rd one opened during peak times, with maybe new "medium-sized" maps. I think the large maps promote timidity and less massive, multi-player fun.
I also think these threads go away when new patches and new maps come out. ;) The boxed-game people have to constantly create new games with new goals and strategies. The concept remains the same here, so that is why I think maps create a freshness, along with the new models and textures.
I've kinda been thinking the same thing, Rolex. But the way I see it, looking at all the maps' we have, we can only do minor Variations' on a basic theme.
I'm all for HTC loosening up the restrictions' on placing/re-arranging field objects.
If he can see through to allowing this, we can set up fields' and strat that have more going for them than just a 30 building knock-down, then 10 troops.
You could put 3 different town's around an airfield, close, to confuse attackers' as to which one to take. You could make a bridge over a river or to an island, defended by Auto-guns' at the ends, which GV's would have to seize, to get to the town. You could put an Airfield with either 15k or more alt, or an airstart over a strat target, so people might just up to defend them. But to do these things', Like I said, Hitechs' gotta loosen the current restriction's.
-
Originally posted by Saxman
I'm disappointed in you two. Ridley brings up a valid point.
The strat side of the game is EXTREMELY weak. The only strategic target in the game of any real value right now is the HQ, which "Value" is a bit of a stretch.
I strongly agree.
I'd like to see the start targets have more impact thus giving people more of a reason to both attack them (to build up ranking) and to defend them.
Now the only reason people bonb the strat targets is because they are there and because they can. and because it helps them gain rank.
Nobody has any real incentive to stop them.
-
Very good Stuff Tilt.
-
ok my 2 pennies!!!!!!
ill use fuel as an example in this one but can be used for all factories.
fuel factory supplies fuel, it has NO effect on fuel at a base.
factory can supply fuel at 1,000,000 gallons an hour.
each field can hold 100,000 gallons
spit holds 40 gallons of fuel with DT.
when spit takes off 40 gallons are deducted from the base store so it comes down to 999,960 gallons
a b-17 takes off after the spit which holds 100 gallons so the base store drops down to 998,860 gallons so on and so on.
run a fuel convoy every 10-20 mins to re-supply the base fuel store to 100% available fuel.
if you take out a fuel dump at a base ( assume there's 4 ) then base fuel store drops to 75%, now this doesn't mean planes can only have a 75% fuel load out but the base store only has 750,000 of fuel available. if all 4 dumps are destroyed the nothing can up till base is resupplied (max 10-20 mins). possibly a small "reserve" of around 10,000 so at least some planes can up for a while.
if the fuel factory is down to 50% capacity then it can only supply 500,000 gallons of fuel an hour instead of 1,000,000
the way i see it this will have 3 different ways to hamper fuel.
hit the factories
hit convoys (adds a new dimension to game play)
hit fuel dumps
most fuel dumps in fixed bases where hardened or under ground so strafing them will have no effect, would need 2,000 lbs of ords to destroy them.
the fuel figures i pulled out of thin air to give an example.
-
For simplicity, let's say there are only two types of players: Furballers and War Fighters. The Furballers don't care about capturing bases or wining the war; they just want some quick action in fighters or GVs. War Fighters are the opposite. They care about capturing bases and wining the war.
Now let's look at the strategic targets and see who is impacted by it:
F = Firballers
W = War Fighters
X = Major impact
x = Minor impact
- = No impact
F W Strategic Element
X X HQ (Loss of Dar Bar keeps people from locating the fights or attacks.)
x X City (Reduces ability for other strategic elements to repair.)
x x Radar (Localized loss of Dots but Dar Bar and base flashing still work.)
x x Ack (Takes longer for field ack to repair?)
- - Fuel (Used to limit fighters to defense-only roles, but I don't think it has any impact now.)
- X Ammo (Loss of bombs/rockets and use of bombers which reduces ability to attack.)
- X Training (Loss of ability to capture.)
Ammo and Training clearly fall under the War Fighter category. Making changes to these elements should have no impact on the way Furballers play the game. So let's focus on those two elements. How would you change them to make them more important? Remember it just War Fighter to War Fighter.
There are base-level elements – ammo bunkers and barracks. Should it be an all or nothing? Take all the bunker or barracks down to eliminate the use of bombs and troops. Or a scaled impact where the size or number is decreased as bunkers or barracks get destroyed?
There are factory-level elements – ammo factory and training facilities. As these get destroyed, should it impact base-level elements such as the size of bombes available? I would certainly like it to impact the quantity/quality of supplies being delivered (both automatically and manually) to repair base-level elements.
Now Cities impact both Furballers and War Fighters with the greatest impact on the War Fighter. I think cities should remain as they are – increase time/supplies need to repair factories based on the percentage of the city destroyed; and not repairable manually.
Resupply. The basic element seems to be a crate that knocks off something like 15 minuets of repair time. A jeep should carry one crate, an M3 carry 2 crates, and a C-47 carry 4 or 6 crates. What I'm really after is a C-47 carrying enough supplies to get awarded an "average" number of bomber points for resupplying a base – or capturing a field for that mater. A player should not be penalized in their bombers scores by resupplying. The number or crates/boxes carried and needed to repair an element can hopefully be adjusted to make the numbers work.
Should you be able to pick the type or mix of supplies you carry?
HT has probably been over all this before and knows all the pros and cons.
Do we already have what we need?
---
I see hyster's post about fuel just before posting. At first read, I like the idea. (I have similar thoughts about propeller blades when I see someone take a perfectly good airplane and land wheels up.) But fuel impacts the Furballers and I really don't want to force them into the War Fighter category. Forgeting about the coding needed, can the idea be applied to bombs and rockets?
-
Ah yes, the age old gripe of "wah, I can't ruin the entire arena by my
lonesome" thing. With the expected group of professional toolshed
artists decrying any opposition to their plans to make "world domination"
easier.
Playability means nothing to those people, it's all about "winning the
war!" Who cares if anyone else has fun, it's me that's important! The
fact that bombing has been "easy moded" to the point of idiocy isn't
enough, now there must be tickertape parades and perks galore!
Guys, just once consider that your suggestions to have an effect all
out of porportion to your effort may negatively impact others.
-
But it's ok, to make the strat side useless?
That's right! I want world domination. Go back 9 posts. I suggested when a country is down, strats could be used to rebalance the fight.
It's not me. It appears to be (by the fact that there are over 100 posts in this trhread, and many other similar topics) that there is a significant amount of other me's who have taken the time to write down their considered thoughts.
One theme is that how do we get a more balanced game that keeps everybody happy....yet can somhow move the game forward? Radical change ain't gonna happen.
Bombing furballers into oblivion would bore the snot out of me. Trying to up from a vulched field bores the snot out of me. Running headlong into the same base all night.......Make bombing tougher? why not?
Explore options to diversify and improve, and keep everybody happy. I tactical bomb, I furball, I strafe.....but bombing strats is only good for putting her on auto pilot and grabbing a beer.
People throw up the
"I don't want to play the game the way you guys want to!!" But I guess it's alright for me to play the way you want to.
-
myself and the squad love the game and we try to pork strat target's but didn't really know if it was effecting down time or not. been try to put timer on things but a little diffcult as cant b 2 place's at the same time but any way we'll keep giving em he!! I like the bribe link HITECH u can come over and have some-o-my R&R
sacarism is just a free service..........o2b1ace
-
How would the outnumbered country be able to mount effective long range strikes against factories and HQ, if the problem is that they're greatly outnumbered, and likely don't have hangars or ordnance to begin with?
-
Originally posted by hubsonfire
How would the outnumbered country be able to mount effective long range strikes against factories and HQ, if the problem is that they're greatly outnumbered, and likely don't have hangars or ordnance to begin with?
I think he is saying that the perk modifier works for you or against... IE a 1.50 modifier raises your base scores by 50% and a .50 is a 50% decrease. Essentially if you have a big numbers advantage which gives you a mod of .5 then your stuff is twice as easy to take down. It could even be biased further where a .5 mod would make your stuff 60% easier to take down.
-
Hubs...quick answer...haven't thought that out , ideas welcome
Of the top of my head....more strat targets, supplying more zones.. Long range strike not required to affect front lines. Pushed country doesn't have to do as much damage to produce results...Pushing country needs to make much more damage to produce results (call it strat ENY)
Front line strats mangled, forcing aggressor to launch attacks from farther back, buying defender time.
Referencing the first paragraph, Badly pushed countries (as example) , don't lose all ord, but the most production intensive weapons first...i.e you'd lose 500 lb bombs but would still have 250's. You don't get neutered. But you don't get viagra.
Now, in the present system, if you're outnumbered, your toast, anyway. right?
-
Do you think any of those supporting a revamped, improved, or greatly expanded strat system are going to be tolerant of the idea that they can't take ord down at fields? Their main gripe is that they can't cripple the other guy severely enough at present- they want more of a direct effect on the enemy, not less.
Yes, if the numbers are like they were last night (60/70/110), whether the 60 have bombs or not, they are pretty much cornered- how hard or soft the strat targets might be is irrelevant if they can't get there. In AH, it is quantity, not quality, and smaller bombs for the horde isn't going to make a great deal of difference. A few more bomber formations when you've got twice as many players as the other country? Not a big hinderance.
-
Originally posted by Rino
Ah yes, the age old gripe of "wah, I can't ruin the entire arena by my
lonesome" thing. With the expected group of professional toolshed
artists decrying any opposition to their plans to make "world domination"
easier.
Playability means nothing to those people, it's all about "winning the
war!" Who cares if anyone else has fun, it's me that's important! The
fact that bombing has been "easy moded" to the point of idiocy isn't
enough, now there must be tickertape parades and perks galore!
Guys, just once consider that your suggestions to have an effect all
out of porportion to your effort may negatively impact others.
I offered some suggetions here and I'm not a "win the war" guy. Sure it's fun to take a base now and then but I could care less about winning the war.
I do however like to play every aspect of the game and as such, I think there are changes that could be made to the strat system to make strats more valuable, and therefore, a strategicaly more important part of the game. If they become more impotant to hit, and to defend, that only increases the likelyhood of a fight and to me at least, that's a good thing. It may actually spread the fights out over broader areas reducing the hoards that we see today, and bringing more evenly balanced fights to the arenas.
-
Maybe that's another thing that can be looked at Hub....Quality vs. quantity. Or is that already here when ENY kicks in as a balancing measure? The debate on that can (has) kicked off a whole slew of topics.
And I was using an example of a country already crippled for the ords. If all parties are near equal, then sure...wiping out ords at the base is still there. Or link strat effects to arena numbers, instead of territory. But then....refer back to ENY comment in first paragraph.
But inequalities in arena numbers, that is a problem in and of itself.
-
Take the Ammo Factory down to <30% and all ord is disabled.
Radar Factory, not HQ, affects radar. Percentage of damage affects the 4 radar attributes directly.
Barracks Factory disables troops. Number of troops loaded in M3 or C-47 is reduced directly in proportion to Barracks Factory damage. Drop factory to 79% and only 9 troops get loaded in hanger, 69% and 8 troops, 59% for 7 troops, etc. Troops are never completely disabled, so resupply can be done, but capture requires more than 1 goon or M3.
Ack guns are disabled in proportion to AAA Factory damage.
Fuel reduces fuel, again.
You want to win the war? You have to destroy the HQ along with the field count requirements.
I think these changes would promote attacks of, and spirited defense of, the strat targets.
The fairness of numbers is always a problem. I can't think of a system that would work any better than the ENY/perk multiplier system we have now. Many people are simply not going to change countries, so you need a carrot/stick mechanism.
Anyway, I'm sure HTC has thought about all this many times and in more depth than I could. There are reasons for why things are the way they are. They aren't arbitrary.
-
Originally posted by hubsonfire
How would the outnumbered country be able to mount effective long range strikes against factories and HQ, if the problem is that they're greatly outnumbered, and likely don't have hangars or ordnance to begin with?
You make a very valid point if the whole game was to change. I have the opinion, not being condescending here, that folk are looking for a tweak or to add another dimension. Personally I'm happy with the present capture system but aspects of the strat system are virtually meaningless.
To answer your question .....just lower the ENY values on bombers. ENY kicks in ....no Lancaster's or B17's or B24's and so on down the line. Same principle as we have right now. You could even perk bombers or bomber ordnance. Or the bombers could only take the lesser load IE Lancaster's couldn't take the full 14x1k'ers..... there's an easy work around to balancing play here.
Besides all that if one overly numbered side was rolling the weakest I don't think the stronger side would be to bothered about the weaker sides strat. Just as it is today.
Bombing an enemies strat stystem is more of a defensive measure than an offensive tactic which you kind of acknowledge here how hard or soft the strat targets might be is irrelevant if they can't get there. In AH, it is quantity, not quality, and smaller bombs for the horde isn't going to make a great deal of difference.
If your being rolled your just plain being rolled.....sorry an all that.
-
Originally posted by hubsonfire
How would the outnumbered country be able to mount effective long range strikes against factories and HQ, if the problem is that they're greatly outnumbered, and likely don't have hangars or ordnance to begin with?
Well of course fundamentally the weaker side "loses"......
However.......
If the territory was evenly divided then the side with less numbers can still hit its opponentrs strat it just cannot do all the things a greater populated side can do at the same time............. hence it is thrown on the defensive or requires a higher level of "organisation".
If both territory and numbers are diminished then the sides access to its opponents strat is a function of terrain and if (and how) the strat is zoned or not.
It is important that under all circumstances that both sides have access to combat.
However if a side is being rolled over (due to inferior numbers or poor organisation) then both sides do have access to combat............. one is very much on the defensive the other very much on the offensive.
Equal access to combat unless a side is able to massively CAP it opponents fields during its offensive. (Hording)
It is in this respect that I would like to move the mechanism for territorial gain (and hence the battle/conflict for it) at least partly away from air fields.
-
Originally posted by Tilt
............If the territory was evenly divided then the side with less numbers can still hit its opponentrs strat it just cannot do all the things a greater populated side can do at the same time............. hence it is thrown on the defensive or requires a higher level of "organisation".
So by doing this your forcing me to play a certain way. Now being on the "defensive" team I have to either hit strat to slow the enemy, or fight against buffs to slow the attack on our start which is taking away our ability to fight.
I don't mind helping take a base, but my squad doesn't have organized missions for land grab, and I like it that way. We wing up and go look for fights. That means other fighters willing to fight, not chasing buffs across sectors, or dive/pork/ and auger dweebs. By limiting what some of us like to do you taking us out of game play, and eventually out of HTC subscription base.
-
The Fugitive I think you missed the point mate. Tilt was answering Hubs question to some ideas forwarded. Hub asked in short, if one side was way outnumbered what then? A few answered with... ENY already takes care of that or submitted other ideas to "take care" of that. Tilt just politely said if your sides being shagged then it's being shagged.
He's reminding you how it is. Which is.... you can either fight the fight or go kill some field strat. When your side is outnumbered most opt to fight but some actually go kill field strat ....ammo mostly and troops sometimes. The outnumbered side by that very virtue lacks manpower to kill FACTORY strats to keep those porked field strats down longer. No one is telling you how to play he's just saying how it is already.:aok
-
"you're limiting us as to what we can do!" "You're taking us out of the fight" "you're forcing us to play a certain way"
These are not objective comments. All quotes can be used by both sides.
Here....have a quick boo at this link, from the thread entitled, "Aces HighII, last of a dying breed?"
http://www.simhq.com/_air11/air_337a.html
Doesn't matter what your product is, you either figure out ways to improve it, or competition comes along and buries you.
Here's one suggestion...simple to implement. Slow the bombers down.
-
but by taking away strat, hes taking away my ability to play the way I want. No more drop tanks, or ord. By making strat more important, he's taking away the ability of some to just furball. Thats why I don't see how its possible to tweak strat to make it more effective. There is a "balance point" that HTC has to maintain to keep as many folk a possible happy.
I'm not a strait "furballer", nor am I a strait "land grab/win the war" type either, I like to play all of the game, but I'd be lieing if I didn't say the most fun for me is "the fight" A couple of planes duking it out at 5k is the reason I send my $15 in every month.
All I'm trying to point out is that "people" can't push for one thing with out thinking of the consequences of how it would effect other things. Tilt and many other like the strategic elements in the game, and as it's their $15 I say have at it, but HTC has to look at the big picture and weight it all out. I'm just playing the "devils advocate" here and pointing one reason why making strat bombing more important won't work.
-
Originally posted by The Fugitive
but by taking away strat, hes taking away my ability to play the way I want.
The primary concern (IMO) must be to always allow players access to combat....... indeed the ability to "furball" is the minimum basic requirement (IMO).
The furball is the result of the meeting of offensive and defensive fighters/attackers in battle.
The fact that one side is attacking anothers strat or field is the focus for such a meeting.
If a side does not defend then there is no furball.
If a side does not attack there is no furball.
Strat should never be removed to an extent where this is not possible.
However the availability of strat does decide how many options (beyond this) are available to each side....... how much fuel, how much ordinance, supplies or troops...........
It has ever been thus...........
Its a basic gameplay mechanism that simply incurrs a consequence, where by one side can put itself at an advantage over an other.
It also allows a roll for heavy bombers where by their efforts are also fed into the gameplay mix. Whilst this should reward such bomber pilots/players it should also make defence against such incursions possible, probable and equally rewarding whether at a micro level vis a vis the individual player or at a macro level re the "war balance".
Is this dictating that players should play a certain way? Well yes in some respects.. but only in the most simple of logics..............
If I were to play Quake but wished to do so with only a knife then I could complain that where my opponents are armed with machine guns gameplay was dictating the way I should play.
If I were to play Everquest but wished to wield mighty spells but found I had to learn over many months first I might complain that the gameplay was dictating the way I should play.
The attrition of Strat (factories) is equally a game play consequence if only a temporary one.
One thing bombers can do now is kill hangers. I would wish that whilst we make the interaction of factories and field logistics more "vital" that we indeed make hangers indestructable (or change their purpose in this respect)and limited stuff in other ways.........
We should always give defenders access to battle. Strat should decide the range and quality of tools they have to fight with...... within limits that preserve the broadest element of enjoyment.
-
A few thoughts.
First do not confuse the words guard, and defend. People do not mind defending once they are attacked. But most people do not wish to stand guard duty. So when you make a blanket statement
"This will force a country to defend the factories"
It will not happen , unless you make sure there is a way it can be defend with out standing guard.
2nd , notice all items damaged in strat , only lower a countries offensive ability. We do not lower fuel octain, because this gives an advantage in a fight. That is complete different than giving and advantage in the war.
The same would go for eliminating some plane types it would give one side an advantage in the actual fight , not the war game.
Any strat design must not have a steam roller effect that once a threshold is crossed , the defending side becomes hopeless.
-
You know, I wonder how much it would impact game play to just simply eliminate the Mission Editor? Any ideas?
-
Earlier it had been brought up that a "strat ENY" or perk modifiers or damage modifier gets involved so that the defender on their hells is spared strat damage somehow.
I don't think that standing guard to remove people from the front line combat is necessary. Or wanted...that'd bore the hell out of me. But we do have radar. Strat ack defenses can become extremely lethal below x altitude to make the dreaded NOE run unfeasible.
-
Frode, you'd still have squad tower missions.
-
Originally posted by hitech
A few thoughts.
First do not confuse the words guard, and defend. People do not mind defending once they are attacked. But most people do not wish to stand guard duty. So when you make a blanket statement
"This will force a country to defend the factories"
It will not happen , unless you make sure there is a way it can be defend with out standing guard.
2nd , notice all items damaged in strat , only lower a countries offensive ability. We do not lower fuel octain, because this gives an advantage in a fight. That is complete different than giving and advantage in the war.
The same would go for eliminating some plane types it would give one side an advantage in the actual fight , not the war game.
Any strat design must not have a steam roller effect that once a threshold is crossed , the defending side becomes hopeless.
HTC sorry for being a pain but could you clarify this part for me
We do not lower fuel octane, because this gives an advantage in a fight. That is complete different than giving and advantage in the war.
I was wondering if you meant fuel percentage rather than quality.
-
No, he means octane. As in, a real war would bomb 100 octane fuel reserves and all that is left is 87 octane. He's saying that AH does *not* do this type of thing.
-
Thanks Kristy. That makes sense now...went a bit blond there didn't I:o
-
Originally posted by hitech
A few thoughts.
First do not confuse the words guard, and defend. People do not mind defending once they are attacked.
It will not happen , unless you make sure there is a way it can be defend with out standing guard.
Must absolutely concurr with this............
Folk are not going to hang around at 25k in the hope that an inbound might come that way to attack strat.
Hence such notice as is required to make defence possible, probable and rewarding should be considered..........
Re the fuel thing I would still advocate that fuel be rationed (or at least have its rationing biased) by actual measured quantity rather than % tank capacity.
Then possibly a longer/smoother sliding scale of rationing could be implemented as a field has its fuel reserves depleted.
A minor point but I do believe that attritting an AA factory does affect a defencive logistic.
-
Here's an idea that won't require you to "guard" anything, but will help in defenses for sure.
Historically with radar ranges and advance ground spotters, NO big bombing raid would go unnoticed. Defensive fighters could have more than enough notice to scramble, climb, and meet the bombers at alt in force.
Both sides could tell when large missions were forming.
In this game we barely have 5 minutes' warning (the time it takes for a bomber to cross a sector).
I would suggest the gameplay would change if ALL enemy bombers show up on dar if they pass 15k alt. Unlimited dot dar ANYwhere on the map, for bomber formations above 15k.
That would give us enough ready-alert time to scramble and climb out to meet them.
Otherwise, bombers fly too high, too fast, and too undetected. They are the stealth bombers of the modern era, only without the miniscule bombload.
-
Originally posted by Krusty
Here's an idea that won't require you to "guard" anything, but will help in defenses for sure.
Historically with radar ranges and advance ground spotters, NO big bombing raid would go unnoticed. Defensive fighters could have more than enough notice to scramble, climb, and meet the bombers at alt in force.
Both sides could tell when large missions were forming.
In this game we barely have 5 minutes' warning (the time it takes for a bomber to cross a sector).
I would suggest the gameplay would change if ALL enemy bombers show up on dar if they pass 15k alt. Unlimited dot dar ANYwhere on the map, for bomber formations above 15k.
That would give us enough ready-alert time to scramble and climb out to meet them.
Otherwise, bombers fly too high, too fast, and too undetected. They are the stealth bombers of the modern era, only without the miniscule bombload.
And how would you know the dots were bombers and not just a couple of fighters? Not to mention that most bombers I see are below 15K
-
Originally posted by Krusty
Here's an idea that won't require you to "guard" anything, but will help in defenses for sure.
"Chain high" spotted large formations at greater ranges
If the radar dot colour changed with alt and higher alt was spotted at longer range defensive ac could scramble in time.
-
Originally posted by dedalos
And how would you know the dots were bombers and not just a couple of fighters? Not to mention that most bombers I see are below 15K
It would only kick in for bombers, I mean. You wouldn't see fighters. That means there could be a full dar bar, but that could be 6 bombers unescorted, or 6 bombers with 70+ escorts. You'd only see the 6 dots, and only when they break 15k. Before that threshold, you'd see normal dar bar.
-
Whats the down side of showing high fighters earlier to?
radar shaped as an inverted cone.with some indication of the height of the incoming?
-
Fighter sweeps weren't as easy to detect as bombers.
Also, it's the bombers that steamroll the map. It's the bombers that "sneak" into an area with no advance warning, and no interceptor can climb up to them and stop them before they drop their bombs.
Fighters can be dealt with. Bombers at alt cannot. You see a dot at the edge of your dar and nothing save a me163 can get to 20k in the time it takes for that bomber to drop its load (guessing 12mi dar radius, with bomber speeds near 300mph at 20k, comes to 2.4 minutes (5 miles per minute, 12 miles)).
I'm only guessing a 163 can climb that fast, but it doesn't matter because they're limited in availability.
-
Originally posted by Tilt
Whats the down side of showing high fighters earlier to?
radar shaped as an inverted cone.with some indication of the height of the incoming?
It would increase the risk of them getting in to a fight. As we all know that is a dangerous thing. I think we will get a lot of whining about that from both bombers and fighters. Fighters because if these guys are coming in heavy, they are not looking for a fight to begin with. Bombers because if a single formation kept finding a couple of 262s waiting for them it would be pretty annoying.
I am all for it since it will help me find things to shoot at, but I don;t think the majority will like it.
-
I wonder if Hitech would entertain the idea of enabling full dot dar for all cons over 5k, no matter where they are on the map?
I wonder if that would change gameplay a little? Change the way folks steamroll across a map and whatnot.
-
Originally posted by Krusty
I wonder if Hitech would entertain the idea of enabling full dot dar for all cons over 5k, no matter where they are on the map?
I wonder if that would change gameplay a little? Change the way folks steamroll across a map and whatnot.
:lol now we are talking
-
Originally posted by Tilt
....... indeed the ability to "furball" is the minimum basic requirement (IMO).
This is where your theory falls apart. My opinion is just as important in this game as your. Your "style" of play does NOT out weigh my "style" of play.
Most furballs are made due to a big darbar. It is not necessarily due to "defending" a base, more often than not you won't find any more than a few planes loaded with bombs for an attack. Its just a bunch of folk duking it out and having a good time with it.
-
Originally posted by hitech
A few thoughts.
First do not confuse the words guard, and defend. People do not mind defending once they are attacked. But most people do not wish to stand guard duty. So when you make a blanket statement
"This will force a country to defend the factories"
It will not happen , unless you make sure there is a way it can be defend with out standing guard.
2nd , notice all items damaged in strat , only lower a countries offensive ability. We do not lower fuel octain, because this gives an advantage in a fight. That is complete different than giving and advantage in the war.
The same would go for eliminating some plane types it would give one side an advantage in the actual fight , not the war game.
Any strat design must not have a steam roller effect that once a threshold is crossed , the defending side becomes hopeless.
If I understand you correctly, the goals are:
To promote a fight and provide some buffer to outnumbered sides.
A more meaningful use of strat will help promote a fight and give more purpose to a MA that is essentially a "quake" air fight as per the common complaint.
To make things more "defensible" why not put factories nearer the HQ and a few higher alt bases to allow a more reasonable prop plane climb to intercept? No one wants to climb for 20 mins to intercept on short notice and relying just on 163's incite complaints as well.
Rolex has a decent idea on how strats can be more valuable and thus worth defending. If they are worth defending and more defendable you are promoting a fight and giving greater purpose to teamwork.
You could reduce the "steamroller" effect by having the perk modifier affect strats. For example; if you are at 1.5 then hitting strats only has half the effect as 1.0.
What people are saying with "stale" is the system is lacking purpose and does little to enhance the game in its current state. It's not about changing the rules on something that works its about maturing something that by consensus never did work particularly well.
-
If you read the thread below posted by MjTalon, with his bombing raid, it's easy to understand that are lots of players , not very noisy on this BB,that enjoy this kind of partialy organized , historic more realistic,strategic fights in MA format, and i don't understand how they interfere with the 'Furballer" type of player, disturbing his fun??!!
That's what makes memories on this game, a huge raid,or shooting them down, scramble all resources to defend the country assets . Does this promote the aircombat? imop, yes and in the right more realistic way, But unfortunatly this doesn't happen very often, because the tactic/strategic value of those assets(specialy HQ) is reduced to zero , are just uselless spots on the map,
You guys modeled 8 great bombers with formation option wich are used 90% of the flights to bomb bases, CVs , Is that what they were mainly used for in WW2?
-
Thanks Ghi :aok .
Heres what my opinion is to try and bring back the popularity of bombing strats.
Introduce a new strat system, or currently fix the current one. Bombing refineries have no affect anymore, since HTC reduced the amount of gas at the airfields to be porked too. Back in the day, porking the fuel depots on the base reduced the gas allowed to take off from the field all the way to 25%.
Well, with those La7 pilot whined hard and long about not being to stay airborne for more than 5mins. So HTC made it to be porked to 75%. At least switch the % to 50, that way they'll still have time to fly, and we will have a strat worth bombing. I only nailed the City, the radar, and AAA factory because they DO have a major impact on the corresponding country.
Limit the amount of 163s that can be in flight at one time. Sure it's a long shot, but 163s are what discourages alot of bomber pilots from trying to take them down. I still run raids to the HQ regardless of the current system, because i love to have fun, and i love to make bomber raids.
Or at least make it so the HQ cannot be resupplied. If it goes down, it stays down for 2 hours, period. Now trying to take down a HQ and it can be resupplied within 3 minutes? What's the point of doing a 1-2hr HQ run, if we know that the thing will be up and running within 3 minutes of it going down.
-
If one side *CAN* pull off a HQ raid on the other, and bring the HQ down, it usually ONLY happens when the side that just lost HQ is already being steamrolled on both fronts, and is the underdog.
Further reducing the gameplay of that team by removing all radar for hours on end leads only to players logging off.
Asking for a HQ that cannot resupply is like asking for hangars that never re-up. You get that wish, and the folks it affects stop playing when it happens.
-
Originally posted by Krusty
If one side *CAN* pull off a HQ raid on the other, and bring the HQ down, it usually ONLY happens when the side that just lost HQ is already being steamrolled on both fronts, and is the underdog.
Further reducing the gameplay of that team by removing all radar for hours on end leads only to players logging off.
Asking for a HQ that cannot resupply is like asking for hangars that never re-up. You get that wish, and the folks it affects stop playing when it happens.
Seriously though krusty, you have a point sir. But honestly, what's the point of doing a 1-2 hour hq run, if the thing can be re supplied within 3mins? At least alter the re supply time.
-
I've not seen it resupplied that fast, but yes I agree in the current system it's pointless. I guess you could have a hard-coded down time like FHs, say 20 minutes? That's enough time that (if coordinated right) missions could be launched to take bases as soon as the dar is down.
EDIT: But again, if the side losing its HQ is the underdog, there's nothing to stop the others from just rolling mission after mission to keep the HQ down.
-
Originally posted by Krusty
Here's an idea that won't require you to "guard" anything, but will help in defenses for sure.
Historically with radar ranges and advance ground spotters, NO big bombing raid would go unnoticed. Defensive fighters could have more than enough notice to scramble, climb, and meet the bombers at alt in force.
Both sides could tell when large missions were forming.
In this game we barely have 5 minutes' warning (the time it takes for a bomber to cross a sector).
I would suggest the gameplay would change if ALL enemy bombers show up on dar if they pass 15k alt. Unlimited dot dar ANYwhere on the map, for bomber formations above 15k.
That would give us enough ready-alert time to scramble and climb out to meet them.
Otherwise, bombers fly too high, too fast, and too undetected. They are the stealth bombers of the modern era, only without the miniscule bombload.
How about just doubling the size of the current dar rings. There would still be a lot of overlap and decent coverage as long as they are up. It might also encourage base re-supply to get them back up if they are down, something I rarely see now.
-
Doubling the size of radar rings would only give you 5 minutes' warning, and very few craft can get to 20k in 5 minutes, let alone up to 20k, up to 300mph speed, engage and attack bombers before they drop. A few (spits, 109s) might barely get to 20k in 5 minutes, but would need to then accelerate to the speed of the bombers (and faster) to attack them.
It still wouldn't solve much, IMO. Might negatively affect "furball" type fights though.
-
Originally posted by Krusty
Doubling the size of radar rings would only give you 5 minutes' warning, and very few craft can get to 20k in 5 minutes, let alone up to 20k, up to 300mph speed, engage and attack bombers before they drop. A few (spits, 109s) might barely get to 20k in 5 minutes, but would need to then accelerate to the speed of the bombers (and faster) to attack them.
It still wouldn't solve much, IMO. Might negatively affect "furball" type fights though.
But the part you are missing as that most strats aren't on the front lines. They are somwhere further back. This leaves several fields of overlapping dar circles before the strats are reached. It also pretty much eliminates the no radar coverage areas buffs use to try to sneak into a target now (that is as long as the local radars are up).
-
Perhaps, but that doesn't warn you about anything within 1 sector of an enemy base. It only warns you of deep runs into your territory. Not all maps are the same. Many have strat and other items close to the front.
-
I suppose if strat had its own peculiar radar?
-
Or if the bases near the strat were at higher alt...> or both.
-
Originally posted by Tilt
I suppose if strat had its own peculiar radar?
now THAT is an interesting idea!
-
Not wishing to cause months of recoding I think the strat system could be tweaked with the arena settings thingymajig....guys! please read the whole post before jumping off at the deep end.
Leave field strat hardness as is with the exception of troop and fuel cells. Make them harder to a minimum of 500Lbs worth of damage. Leave resupply amounts as is IE 8 boxes of sups for a fully porked field. Lengthen strat down time by a 1/4 to a 1/3 again. However, make strat factories and Cities harder. Instead of each building being destroyed by a 250 Lb bomb make it 500Lb. Remember bombing strat factories alone won't accomplish anything down time wise without actually destroying the corresponding target at the field level.
This has a 2 fold effect. The defender knows he's in for a hard time and may wish to defend against it. Either killing the strat destroyer or field porkers. Elements of combat either way. The attacker gets something for their effort.
My own sense of fair play would implement hardening of factories for a fully functioning strat system. Using my own abilities in bombers as a guide line, above average on a good day. I can take any strat factory below 50% easily with 3 passes and Cities are even easier. However, using HTC's guidelines, without coding there is no way to meet this criteria other than hardening.
unless you make sure there is a way it can be defend with out standing guard
Now the dreaded "fuel" strat topic. I'll jump straight in at the deep end. You can guess whats coming I bet. That's right folks........50%. Once those fuel cells are destroyed there's no drop tanks and only 50% fuel. Once the fuel factory is severely damaged it's even longer to regain unless manually resupplied. Blown ya stack at the very thought? Calm down a bit lads...think about it a minute. It wouldn't be and the fuel burn isn't as bad as AH1. Even LA7's could still function as base defence within this remit.
The same would go for eliminating some plane types it would give one side an advantage in the actual fight , not the war game.
Look at this fuel proposition objectively. Large fields have 8 fuel cells. medium have 5 and small have 4. The vulnerable fields to fuel porking are only the small fields. Hence suggesting hardening of that particular strat to 500Lbs worth of damage. Even a small field is going to take a considerable amount of effort to disable fuel wise. As a defender it virtually eliminates the straffer suicider. Fuel porkers would have to bring ords or a pack of friends or be good in bombers. However they do it isn't going to stop the defending team using an adjacent field which may well be a medium or large field. A field impractical to be fuel porked.
The other side to that coin is if the fuel is porked and the field captured the new owners would have to resupply before they could roll either the hoard or co-ordinated attack depending how you view it:D Those that were evicted would get breathing space so's to speak. Which I feel fits this guideline.
Any strat design must not have a steam roller effect that once a threshold is crossed , the defending side becomes hopeless.
HQ is an easy one. I would leave damage effect and resupply criteria as is but make it weaker. Make it that 1 set of Lancaster's could knock out HQ with 14 big ones....42k's worth.
Anyways lads my idea isn't about killing the fight at the hanger banging level. Neither is it about beating the watermelon outta ya just for the giggle. It's about bring the fight up into the air over strat factories. Hopefully adding another area of conflict for those that want to participate.
As for actually recoding the strat system .....the skies the limit if the man wants to go that far.
Here endeth my dissertation for an Aces High diploma :D
-
I don't like the idea of hardening strat to 500lbs because 500lbs is a HUGE bomb. sure we have 1k but that's the extraodinarily large bomb. 500lbs is a massive blast. In fact it's TOO large nowadays and modern attack jets are carrying smaller bombs in places like Iraq and Afghanistan because the 500lb bombs pack too much destructive power to take out a single target, destroying buildings around it as well. The emphasis is shifting to 250lb bombs, and more of them.
I don't think it's logical to assume that a basic unhardeneld building (house or warehouse) would stand up to a 250lb, let alone 500lb.
Building off of your idea, I like 500lbs for certain items on the field. I don't think fuel should be 50% because several planes that will last you until your WEP runs out then you're done. I do like the idea of using this on ord and troops and fuel, though. I'd like to see troops reduced to previous levels, but require 500lbs to take out.
THAT would be interesting. No more single-plane porking. Requires specific jabo activity to kill.
-
Nicely reasoned, Lynx. Makes sense, and it might work the way we'd hope -- to increase the value of strat work.
It's such a complicated issue, though, that at least for me it's going to take some time to think things through some more. The AH community is big enough, devious enough, and communicates well enough that you can guarantee any weak spot in the system will be found and exploited in short order.
I don't have strong feelings about fuel porkage, as long as it doesnt prevent good combat. At first blush I'm a little concerned that the 50% idea might deprive overwhelmed defenders of the La7 and Spit XVI. They're hated, but they are the best hope at equalizing stuations where the enemy are swarming and you need acceleration, firepower, and the best survivability you can get. But that's just my first reaction.
Krusty:
Don't fall into the trap of confusing game balancing with simulation accuracy. Strats on bases and in their own "factories" are NOT simulated airfield objects, they are icons for game functions. What size bomb it takes to kill a hangar in real life is completely irrelevant in this setting -- all that matters is that game effects are balanced
-
Krusty I get what your saying about factory building hardness but without recoding there's no way of warning that the factory is about to be attacked, other than what we already have. The suggestion of making buildings harder was to make it so that 1 sets of bombers needed 2 trips. Which would stagger the damage effect and shorten overall down time. Or 2 sets of bombers were needed per factory. That would maybe increase the dar bar in that sector or as it passed behinds the lines. I think the community would soon adapt to the bar signal creating the guard HTC wrote about.
My example was just using the present day arena settings. Saving HTC and co months of work.
-
quick thought on the Bomber radar.....bombers (or maybe formations) are shown as x's
-
If fuel rationing was measured by gallons per engine instead of % per tank then the fuel attrition could be used right down the scale from
125% = 1000 gallons per engine
100% = 500 gallons per engine
75% = 375 gallons per engine
50% = 250 gallons per engine
25% = 125 gallons per engine
0% = 62 gallons per engine
if you do the maths you will note that besides being sensible rationing it makes sense re ac ranges.
-
Originally posted by Krusty
I wonder if Hitech would entertain the idea of enabling full dot dar for all cons over 5k, no matter where they are on the map?
I wonder if that would change gameplay a little? Change the way folks steamroll across a map and whatnot.
Warbirds did that with their MA. Now it has about 30 regulars a night.
I like some of your ideas of bomber detection, and would agree with some of them as long as they either limit the 163's/262's or double or triple the perks for them. As it is now , the nearest airfield near the HQ looks like Laguardia at rush hour with 163's when bombers are near, and they are almost indefensible.
WE dont mind being flying targets,ita part of the job I guess. I just dont see the need to spoon feed bomber kils to fighter pilots seeing how there is 3 kinds of radar( radar, bardar, and flashing fields) already in the game.
-
Originally posted by ghi
imop, the game needs few changes to push players in more organized massive raids/fights , more realistic at high alt :ecouraje players to attack and defend the most valuable strategic target: the HQ:
--bring back the 4 steps progressive damage model for HQ, like in AH1, even if is not total destroyed, the bomber pilot gets something, not only 30mm shells, for the long flight and bombing skills, maybe more perks also
---HQ downtime, at least 30 min without resup option, now the HQ is resuped before the bombers get back to base
-- i would go to a formula , shortcut to Victory,where even the war is lost and map reset if the HQ and City is destroyed, like in chess, atack the king,you can have all the toys on the table but still get checkmate: If Hitler would have been killed , i'm sure WW2 would have finished early: This 40% of the both enemy bases win/reset model, makes the game inactive and boring with same map for weeks.
I agree.
We all play the game for different reasons. We have the furballers, base capturers, gv'ers, and milkers. We have all these different ways to play the same game. It is almost impossible to keep everyone happy. These different parts of the game have created various 'sub-cultures' within AH.
-
Originally posted by blkmgc
I like some of your ideas of bomber detection, and would agree with some of them as long as they either limit the 163's/262's or double or triple the perks for them. As it is now , the nearest airfield near the HQ looks like Laguardia at rush hour with 163's when bombers are near, and they are almost indefensible.
Only consitent successful way of taking down HQ in MA these days are NOE Lancs.
-
If triggered warning ranges could be set to identify the type of warning.....
Bomber/fighter/gv/boat
Perhaps a letter B or and F or and V at the flashing base / factory /city
I suppose base flash warning could be extended for bombers well beyond the radar range. This would give early warning allowing ac to scramble for alt even if they did not know the actual direction of ingress until the bombers crossed the radar boundry.
Adding radar to strat seems to make sense to..it would have happened.
Then the defence mechanism is in place rather than a guard mechanism.
Then the effectiveness of strat can be brought more intrinsically into gameplay.
-
Originally posted by hitech
A few thoughts.
First do not confuse the words guard, and defend. People do not mind defending once they are attacked. But most people do not wish to stand guard duty.
Yep, this is proved every night in the v-base shuffle. People will spawn camp for hours but give back a v-base in 10 minutes.
-
I see a few posts of people thinking porking to 50% fuel would be bad for LA defenders ata base and I really dont see why. I up LA-5's on ocation with 50% gas to defend a base and can usually get several kills befor my fuel is close to being out... I cant speak for LA-7's because I usually don't fly them but I can't imagine them being a lot different.....
I think 50% porkage is a nice middle ground compaierd to what it was and what it is now. (utterly useless strat object in game)
-
I use La's with 25% for base defence quite a bit since
a) I'll never be far away from the field anyway,
b) they grab alt quicker and turn faster, as long as you keep off the WEP they last long enough to do the job, and
c) In a base defence vulch-fest I'm usually dead well before I've burned through 1/4 of the tank :lol
The other thing about base defence is that the fighter hangars are usually down after the 3rd or 4th sortie so Il2's are the go and they last for ages on 25% fuel.
So, sorry but I don't buy the base defence argument for a second.
The buff guys won't bat an eyelid since most of them will fly around the map on 25% fuel so the only whines I can see would be from furballers who don't want to fly from the next base across.
Pork to 25% and set fuel burn to 1:1 and level the strat playing field.:aok
-
Originally posted by Simaril
Nicely reasoned, Lynx. Makes sense, and it might work the way we'd hope -- to increase the value of strat work.
It's such a complicated issue, though, that at least for me it's going to take some time to think things through some more. The AH community is big enough, devious enough, and communicates well enough that you can guarantee any weak spot in the system will be found and exploited in short order.
I don't have strong feelings about fuel porkage, as long as it doesn't prevent good combat. At first blush I'm a little concerned that the 50% idea might deprive overwhelmed defenders of the La7 and Spit XVI. They're hated, but they are the best hope at equalizing situations where the enemy are swarming and you need acceleration, firepower, and the best survivability you can get. But that's just my first reaction.
HTC wouldn't implement fuel porking if it eroded game play. I agree it's a complicated issue and he's the man with the stats, experience and knowledge to think it through....objectively.
As for the deviousness of the community or just plain mean spiritedness of certain individuals I fully understand the complexity of re-introducing fuel porking. Worse case scenario would be a co-ordinated bomber attack by like minded individuals on field fuels cells along an entire front. I'm 100% sure this would happen in the first week of fuel porking being re-introduced. Folk want to experiment to see if it actually works and what effect it has. Once the complexity of this is realised by players, fuel porking would probable become localised to the conflict area. Namely 2 or 3 fields on given parts of the map....................
gggrrrr it's at this point I realised it's not going to work
I was going to argue the point for fuel pork to 50%. Thinking that hardened cells would go some way towards stopping the gamey suicider straffer porker.
All it's going to take is 1 mean spirited expert bomber pilot at a gazillion feet to pork the fight in a localized area. The 2 or 3 fields I started to write about then realisation dawned. We are infested with "tossers". One individual would make it his life time ambission to pork pork pork fuel. Either through mean spiritedness or or the deluded idea he was helping to "win the war"....... tosser.
Guess I've been a little naive really. Bet HTC is going :rofl ..."welcome to my world bastige".
Last word on fuel strats and 50% porking in my defence would have to be to make the fuel cells as hard as hangers......sorry for waisting folks time.
-
Originally posted by hitech
2nd , notice all items damaged in strat , only lower a countries offensive ability. We do not lower fuel octain, because this gives an advantage in a fight. That is complete different than giving and advantage in the war.
The same would go for eliminating some plane types it would give one side an advantage in the actual fight , not the war game.
Any strat design must not have a steam roller effect that once a threshold is crossed , the defending side becomes hopeless.
Like hitech said, ya can't reduce somebody's ability to fight
-
If it affects in any way shape or form my ability to up from a field fly a fighter and kill someone else in a fighter its wrong as two boys doing it in church.
HTC has done a fine job making a game that playable and lets face it ladies.. its the only one in town that does 10 shows a night.
Log off the forums and play the game every so often it might help some.
-
Originally posted by skyctpn
.........snip.........
Log off the forums and play the game every so often it might help some.
Hope with do respect this isn't referring to me.
-
Lynx I don't think anyone can question your hours logged in game :t
Bruv
~S~
-
Originally posted by skyctpn
Log off the forums and play the game every so often it might help some.
:rofl Coming from a guy with a grand total of 80 hours in the game vs years for most of us (est. 4000 hours myself... ouch!... and I don't play as much as a lot of others.).
-
Hitting the HQ is attractive because you get instant feedback when it is down. You also get instant feedback when you bring it back up so it is attractive to resupply. If you want to do the HQ right, think about porking troops around the HQ first so the resupply has farther to fly. Think about what it would take to increase the HQ's downtime and increase the number of crates needed to bring the HQ back up. (Can you reduce the value of each crate by hitting the radar factory or some other facility?) I’m sure there will still be room for complaint. It could take 2 or 3 hours to prep the battlefield before going after the HQ and they could still have it back up in less then an hour. Which gives you time to land and bring back another load of bombs. :)
-
But hitting HQ really detracts from the game when you are the team that's back on it's heels.
Trying to maintain a decent defence when you're really pushed...and then you lose your radar? That's not enjoyable.
-
I've been meaning to say something since yesterday but you guys are on such a roll I hated throw this thread under the bus... but ....
What is the problem? when ever you are doing problem solving the first thing you do is identify the problem. Whats broke, what needs to be fixed?
And then is it related to gameplay? Maps?
-
Originally posted by Airscrew
I've been meaning to say something since yesterday but you guys are on such a roll I hated throw this thread under the bus... but ....
What is the problem? when ever you are doing problem solving the first thing you do is identify the problem. Whats broke, what needs to be fixed?
And then is it related to gameplay? Maps?
As I understand it, Airscrew, the problem people are talking about has to do with the relative pointlessness of the strategic component of the game. (Note: not talking about tactics, like taking down hangars -- real strategy, where distant actions have indirect but meaningful effects on local conditions.)
In short, the effort it takes to hammer the strat system is far greater than the effects that effort produces. One example described in this thread: long flights to kill HQ, with high probability of devastating interceptions -- and even if the HQ goes down, resuppliers can get it up again within a few minutes.
Ideally, it would be great to have a system that didn't stop the air to air guys from furballing; let the GVers play their game; allowed straight line capture people to still have fun; but also gave strategically minded capture guys something that changed fight conditions enough that they would want to attack or defend it.
-
Originally posted by Simaril
...but also gave strategically minded capture guys something that changed foght conditions enough that they would want to attack or defend it.
This is what I hope to see, and emphasis on the attack/defend part.
-
Originally posted by ridley1
But hitting HQ really detracts from the game when you are the team that's back on it's heels.
Trying to maintain a decent defence when you're really pushed...and then you lose your radar? That's not enjoyable.
I was only illustrating that hitting HQ gives immediate results and there was a way to keep it down for more than 5 minuets. It is also a strategic target that impacts all players that has the potential of generating a defense. The idea is to come up with a strategic system where a target is worth attacking with mass bomber formations and worth defending. BUT does not force furballers or anyone else to drop what they are doing to defend it if they don't want to. It is hoped that the furballer will want to go against some bombers for a change of pace. So it looks like we have the extremes. HQ impacts everyone. Fuel impacts no one. So what is in the middle that only impacts the strat guys?
As far a enjoy-ability goes, it is not much fun getting vulched at your last remaining bases on both fronts even if the radar is up. I think the new capture system of needing a percentage of both countries address this.
-
Originally posted by Simaril
As I understand it, Airscrew, the problem people are talking about has to do with the relative pointlessness of the strategic component of the game. (Note: not talking about tactics, like taking down hangars -- real strategy, where distant actions have indirect but meaningful effects on local conditions.)
In short, the effort it takes to hammer the strat system is far greater than the effects that effort produces. One example described in this thread: long flights to kill HQ, with high probability of devastating interceptions -- and even if the HQ goes down, resuppliers can get it up again within a few minutes.
Ideally, it would be great to have a system that didn't stop the air to air guys from furballing; let the GVers play their game; allowed straight line capture people to still have fun; but also gave strategically minded capture guys something that changed fight conditions enough that they would want to attack or defend it.
Ok, so currently strategic bombing seems to have no appreciable effect in the overall prosecution of the "war". As it stands now, most only hit strat targets so they can get "points" for their score. A few of you like the bomber missions with escorts but no one really takes the time to engage because strats dont seem to be important enough to protect. Because its not just about bombing a target, you also want to fight your way in and fight your way out.
(I havent played for a year so my memory maybe be inaccurate.)
I load up a Lancaster with 9,000lbs of bombs and go in search of a target. Depending on distance and altitude I could spend anywhere from 30 minutes to an hour or more to hit a strat target. Depending on my skill I could cause about 30 - 50% damage on the strat. How this damage affects the resources at the enemy bases depends on long that strat stays damaged. If I hit the City strat then that increases the downtime for all the other strats; if I dont hit the City then that strat could be back to 100% in about 15 minutes; hardly worth the effort.
Now the more people I have in the missions the more damage we can cause and this relates to more impact on the resources at the enemy bases. But there's a problem with this. There is a limited pool of manpower I can draw from for the strat side of the game. Lets say you have 100 players in your country, a percentage of those players are:
A. fighters/furballers (they go where ever the fight is and dont care about the strat/capture)
B. Base Capture player go for the "capture the base" game but dont particular like bombers, or its just not fun for them. They grab a fighter with some bombs and fly off in mini hordes and attack/swarm a base until they capture it or get run off and try somewhere else.
C. And finally there are the Strat/Capture guys. They see a challenge in wearing the enemy down, its not about brut strength and overwhelming numbers, they play the game like its chess, moving pieces and using tactics to defeat the enemy and win the map.
Now if the countries were perfectly balanced with the same number of people and percentage of player types this probably wouldnt be an issue but the reality is the countries are inbalanced and with in those countries there might be more or less Type A, B, and C players. If a country has a higher percentage of Type A players then the Type C players will get discouraged because they cant play their game. If one of the opposing countries have a higher percentage of Type C players then the other Type C players could feel overwhelmed because they will spend more time defending/guarding their bases rather than attacking. Type C players may also get aggravated with the Type B players because they sometimes do not appear to use any logic when selecting a base to attack/capture.
Now I'm not saying this is absolute. Some people move back and forth between these types of play daily and some never change. Some people thrive on strive and being the underdog and some people dont.
The Type A player is happy as long as there are fights
The Type B player is happy as long as he has the means to attack/capture and defend bases
The Type C player is happy as long as he can have meaningful missions and accomplishments with a team.
Currently it would appear that Type A and B players are finding their style of play, but the Type C player has to work harder at it and sometimes cant find their style of play.
So the trick would be, how to get "more" game for the Type C guy without hurting A and B's fun.
We already know that fuel is directly linked to A's fun and B's fun. So maybe we dont touch fuel.
We know that Bombs are not important to A players, somewhat important to B players and very important to C players. Ammo Strat.
We know that Troops are not important to A players, but very important to B and C players. Training Strat.
Now I'm hungry and forgot where I was going with all this....
What if eny was tied to strat. The more people in a country the lower the threshold is for damage, the longer the downtime for certain strats; the fewer people in a country the higher the damage threshold and shorter the downtime for certain strats.
gotta eat...
-
Well if fuel can't be modified to make it actually mean something then it should just be removed from the game.. All it is now is a place for people to inflate score (factories) and more fires to drop frame rates while fighting over fields.. There that issue is done. :)
As far as the other factories and HQ go the biggest issue I find with them and reason not to bother bombing them much is the instant resup issue.. Every time I've ever seen Bish HQ actually go down there is an immidiate responce and you get what looks like 1/4 to 1/2 the bish resuping the thing and its back up in no time.. Though I can't remeber the last time anyone bothered to take it down.
I understand the thoughts of some here about porking bases around it but usually this is really not a viable option and even if you could manage it, it would still take far less time to up a few goons farther back, climb to what 6K has the best speed for goons? and have your HQ back up in not even half the time or effort that it took to get there to bomb it.
Factories have the same issue just to a lesser degree because they are not usually viewed as very important by many so they arn't repaired as redilly as the HQ that has an obviouse affect.. The worst is on maps that have GV spawns right to them and people just run 4 or 5 M3's in and poof near instant fix.
I guess the biggest problem I have with the current system is that if I spend hours in game climbing to the far reaches of Rook or Knight land to bomb the factories it would be nice if the the time I put into doing said raid wasn't a waste due to having the damage I took the time to do being fixed in 5 or 10 min. To me this is the strat virsion of how the furballers complain when the hangers get busted and ruin their fun, just reversed. But in a way even more annoying because Hangers pop in 15 min and there is usually another base not far off they can up from to get back in the fight...
Strat on the other hand is usually located far back and harder to get to so uping to get it back down after it's been resuped in such a short time is't a great option due to the time it takes to do so. I mean I like to do those raids but don't want to have to spend all my time while loged in trying to keep things down when they are insta fixed. I too like fighters and GV's :)
-
as there's 2 late war arena's 1 could be biased for the furballers and the other towards the strat guys.
i remember AW3 had 1 arena for full realism and another for limited realism so u could take ur pick of flying style.
-
Originally posted by BaldEagl
:rofl Coming from a guy with a grand total of 80 hours in the game vs years for most of us (est. 4000 hours myself... ouch!... and I don't play as much as a lot of others.).
Actually ive been here 3 years on and off with military deployments and new names almost everytime. So dont assume baldy
J
-
When did Hitech learn how to spell?:huh
-
He was probably drunk when he posted that. ;)
-
Which explains why he's trolling for more scotch, he's all out...
-
Originally posted by hitech
I think it is time to make football fields bigger longer and wider, also I think all football fields should be at 12,000 feet, this would add a lot more training strategy to the old stale game. The rules of football have become very stale.
HiTech
I can't address European Football (aka Soccer), Canadian Football or Austrailan Rules Football....but as far as American Football......the rules of football change yearly.
just look at a handful of changes......
Intentional Grounding to avoid a sack,
In The Grasp,
Two Point Conversions ...removed...now its back,
The Tuck Rule (Thank you NE).
Contact past 5 yards,
Helmet to Helmet Contact,
1 step rule hitting QBs,
2 Step Rule on carrying an interception into the endzone (it was there now its gone).
Moving the Goal Posts to the back of the endzone (yes...they used to be ON the goal line kids),
kickoffs from the 35 vs 40.
The MUFF rule.
Instant Replay...its repeal...its re-instatement.
Making a "Football Move".
Forcing a reciever out of bounds.
Increasing the penalty for calling two time outs to Ice a kicker (remember Mr. Gibbs?),
Calling Timeouts from the sideline.
The Quarterback's Radio....
The Defense Using Radios???? Could be the next rule change. (Thank you NE).
Timeouts or 10 second run-off for injuries under 2 minutes. (all defenses abused this until it became a rule)
The Holy Roller Rule (advancing a fumble within two minutes...thank you Oakland Raiders (version 1.0) ).
and many, many, many, more.
All these changes were made to 1: address a shortcoming or flaw in the current rules or field configuraton and 2: increase the competitive level of the game.
Business must be going GANG BUSTERS!
Softail.
-
Were those rules changed/added/repealed because half a dozen fans claimed the game was boring?
-
Well if you consider a group of 32 fans called owners.....yes.
The point was more that changes are made EVERY year contrary to the implicaton of the short sigthed and even less thought out response.
To answer if it was to apease the fans....YES. Most notably, The Forward Pass, the Shorter Playclock, the limited contact allowed by a DB to free up the recievers for the BIG PLAY. The rules to keep the marque QB's and Recievers upright and healthy for the season.
So where exactly did you get your statistic that says its only a handful? Personal poll? email responses? letter campaign? phone poll? or Magic 8-Ball? See ... I can be condescending too.
-
I would just like to see bomber formations taken away from the mass numbered country that has a perk thingy in affect.. Make them fly sinlges.. 8)
-
Originally posted by TheDudeDVant
I would just like to see bomber formations taken away from the mass numbered country that has a perk thingy in affect.. Make them fly sinlges.. 8)
a) Do not take away my targets
b) You wouldn't fare any better if the mass country would resort to flying Me 110's, Heavy P-47's and the like. Actually such jabos are much more efficient in taking down towns & capturing fields. They need less time to climb, less time to get to target and can HO everything in sight.
-
Originally posted by Softail
Well if you consider a group of 32 fans called owners.....yes.
The point was more that changes are made EVERY year contrary to the implicaton of the short sigthed and even less thought out response.
To answer if it was to apease the fans....YES. Most notably, The Forward Pass, the Shorter Playclock, the limited contact allowed by a DB to free up the recievers for the BIG PLAY. The rules to keep the marque QB's and Recievers upright and healthy for the season.
So where exactly did you get your statistic that says its only a handful? Personal poll? email responses? letter campaign? phone poll? or Magic 8-Ball? See ... I can be condescending too.
Owners are owners. We're the fans and players. If a small percentage (a fraction of a percent really) complained about the rules in football, nothing would change. I wasn't trying to be condescending, I was just making the point that the analogy doesn't really work well in this case.
-
Those rules where added because the cows that used too occupy the fields they use for football where more lively and entertaining than the players.
Plus as each new generation becomes desensatized to things it gets harder and harder to amuse people.
Case in point.. There are commercials on television with characters more horrific than in most of the mid 60's horror movies.
-
This is a long thread, but let me add my $.02 --
I'm in a squad that has a bomber wing, and we have a lot of guys that fly buffs (myself included). Right now, the bomber wing spends its time upping, climbing out, going to a base and flattening it so that the rest of our squad can roll in and take it.
When that happens, you hear a lot of guys whining on 200 how we've spoiled their fun (and usually a comment or two from us on whether you would like some cheese with that whine...).
It would seem to be a good idea for both the furballers and the base-takers to give the folks that like to fly all these beautifully modeled bombers some reason to bomb something other than a base. Some of the best air battles I have seen in this game have been when one side or another gets a load of buffs and escorts together and gets intercepted by a horde from the other side. If the strat and radar system was adjusted to make that happen more often, I think that would be a good thing.
Same thing goes for the Jabo wing of the party. Somewhere on these maps I hear that there are actually trains with AAA on them - might be fun to have at one if it actually made some difference in the situation. As it is now, the Jabos just come along to wack the odd hanger or base strats as preparation for the coming base-take. It would be nice to be able to bomb bridges or convoys or something that made some difference in the supply situation.
more later...
EagleDNY
$.02
-
I know what you're saying Eagle....have a chance to go after the supply lines.
HTC has a window now at start up that warns you of the train...and I've seen it , what, twice, three times?
-
i am an older vet who played many years since ah1. i have since canceled my account due to boredom and the game being stale. on occasion i will come back for a 2 week trial to check out whats new and TOD. i will also use the forums to gauge the state of the game from time to time.
i did love this game.
i agree that this game has become "quake on wings" and very stale. i remember hanging with the best of them in the sky and when i would go through a slup, i would grab a gv and hang with the best there as well. there has been changes that imho killed my fun to the point where i would rather go to work than play. given the current state of the game i couldnt see paying for it anymore.
the things that killed this game imho are as follows
*eny - i didnt like the way that i couldnt fly my favorite late war ride at times, then being locked in a squad who wouldnt change countries.
*changing countries instantly - great to defeat eny but there again i would be locked into a country loyal squad of great people who didnt want to change countries for the night. so i would leave the squad and feel lost.
*gvs seems unfair now and i couldnt figure out why. i think it has something to do with the graphics being turned down or something like that. what i know is i die more than i kill and in ah1 and the beginning of ah2 it was not like that at all.
*base capture seems alot harder. imo i had more fun when a few guys could take a base. taking bases easily meant we were not in the sky looking for a furball. we actually had a mission to accomplish and something to do other than look for a fight. something for everyone. maybe it is cause i have been away for so long i dont know.
*bombing is ridiculously easy now. i remember when calabration took a little more skill than it does now.
*2 or 3 MAs now? i enjoyed the game more when there was 600-700 players in the main arena.
*took pizza away from us. miss them beer bottles and the giant pizza. again something to do other than landing kills. those canyon fights were the best. the gv action there was also very fun.
*i missed hearing 68 doc talking on range drunk as hell. :rofl
i really miss AH1. i wish they would bring it back...who cares about the eye candy. even then i thought the graphics were subpar but it was a blast! i didnt get bored with the game in general as much as the changes made to accommodate the players who were not as good at the game. given enough time anyone could become adept at this game but i think it was the majority of the players who could not adjust that HT listened to that ruined it for me. i think the players who moaned about the horde and caused country changing instantly helped ruin it. maybe im off the mark here in my opinions due to memory degradation of time but one thing i know for sure is, its not fun anymore and i KNOW its not due to boredom from playing so long. boredom is a factor but only due to the changes that are in effect. i do disagree that playing the game for so long caused canceled accounts due to boredom. i think the rule changes drove players away.
so what am i playing now? battlefield 2142, halo 3 (playing with the kiddies sucks, so i dont play so much), diablo 2 (people still play this), rockband, guitar hero, crimson skies, WoW (again i hate playing with all the kiddies so not so much anymore) tabula rasa (waisted 40 bucks me thinks).
what would i suggest to make a better AH? bring back AH1 as a MA choice might be a start. apply ah1 rules to ah2 including the base situations and maps that are long gone. make an experiment of it. tod would be a change but when will be it out? i will come back to check out tod for sure.
-
Originally posted by ridley1
How can aces high move forward as a game?
I remember when they changed the graphics so that town buildings became shells, and didn't just dissappear. "wow", I thought How are you going to to be able to see if the towns destroyed..and we all adjusted...It didn't take long.
Then, 85 billion field guns were added to the base and the town...plus a city of barracks to each field..."wow", thought...how the heck are ya gonna get near a base now?
the answer was simple...we all had to change our strategy, the challange level when up...In the old version, looking back, a base capture would be unbeleivably easy..
I'm sorry to say...but that linear capture experiment was a dismal failure.
But let's analyse this...how can AH continue to evolve, as we all wait breathlessly for combat tour.
I think that the easiest way to evolve the stratagy in this game is to make use of all those strat targets out there. Think about it...the last time I went after one of them, was because a V base spawned into an ammo factory and I had nothing better to do, because wife ack was asking me stupid questions, yadda, yadda, and if had to get called away again, nothing would happen to me in my osti because, theres no strat defense..and nobody cares.
I think that Cities and factories have to take a more important, significant part
of the game. But how you can imcorporate it into the game now...well I'm kinda hoping that this thread will further the discussion
Personally, i think more planes need 2 b added, i relize its not easy for the Hitech crew 2 do this, but it would just b funner with more planes 2 choose from.
-BigBOBCH
-
Face it.This game will never be just right for everyone.people will always like some of it and not like the rest.Its human nature to want things "your" way but its highly unrealistic.I used to LOVE the old spit factory runs in AW with a fully gunned B 17 but theres really no comparison to that game and this one. Ive also said eliminate score and you eliminate half the problems.
-
The more then better is always better. However if you sit and look at available airplanes, that are in the hangar already, one sees there are already 5 tools for every possible job. Especially since "most" people probably tend to specialize in 1 or 2 planes for each specific application. I generally fly 2 airplanes per app. IE: 2 for fighters, 2 for Jabos, 2 heavy bombers, 2 mediums. I do this to sharpen particular skills for an aircraft.
Really, in my opinion, we need plane sets filled out more so we can fly more historically accurate missions. Most of all axis airplanes.
Originally posted by redman555
Personally, i think more planes need 2 b added, i relize its not easy for the Hitech crew 2 do this, but it would just b funner with more planes 2 choose from.
-BigBOBCH
-
Stale Game Play:
I think this is a function, partly mind you, of how long you have been playing the game. It went very stale for me a couple of years ago. But I never canceled my account so HTCreations has no reason to pay attention to the problem. Still there are some things that would make the game more interesting, or just more complicated, I'm not sure which.
I used to be very interested in the performance of the AH planes vs the real ones. So much so that I spent about a week in D.C. checking out the archives at Air and Space, and at the Air and Space restoration section at the Garber Facility. In my discussions with those folks they kind of giggled at the idea of being concerned with, say, the top speed of an FW190A1 at whatever altitude. They said that to try to nail it down to an exact "Mile Per Hour" was just silly if you are simulating a WWII environment.
That kind of blew me away so I asked why. They said that in field conditions in WWII there were so many variables involved that aircraft performance could vary from the "paper" capabilities MINUS or PLUS! 20%!!! That means that while whatever plane you pick might have a top speed of 400MPH at 20K on paper, in reality the same airplane, not just type but the very same plane, might be able to do 480 on one day and only hit 320 the NEXT!
Variables to any give machine's performance could be anything from contaminated fuel to a mechanic with a hangover. Dirt on the under side of a Cessna 150 can cost you 10 MPH off your top speed. That's an 8% drop right there. Or maybe you have a hot dog mechanic who really knows how to up the compression ratio on your engine or tweak the supercharger and suddenly your 190A type can out run a P-51.
I think it would be a very "interesting" idea to have a random setting of that goes into effect each time you change airfields that scales the performance of the next plane you fly on a percentage scale +2, +1 0 -1 -2, with +2 = 20% +1=10% etc. The fun part is you don't know exactly what you get untill you fly. This would also end a lot of the arguments about "uber" planes. Hmmm, There could be ONE way for players to effect that variable, spend perk points. 20 perks to guaranty top performance. EW this could get fun.
I think it would even be cool to have a "crew chief" who dialogs with you somehow who has mood swings that effect this variable. So you have to negotiate with your crew chief to get him/her (imagine some greezy babe giving you smack about wrecking HER plane!) to work longer hours on your ride to keep the performance up. Or, you get saddled with a doofus who cant turn a wrench. Imagine quality of your ground crew depending on the % of the missions you land. This would at least do something to emphasize survival as a game objective. (sorry I'm free associating here. Still it could be a lot of fun.)
Interesting, but oh gawd what a hilarious pain in the butt.
-
I actually played a sim game that if you bought the craft back beat up the crew chief would go nuts at you when you got out of the cockpit. It was funny watermelon :lol
-
Aces High has become arcade-like IMHO: strategy, planning and cooperative effort
have gradually vanished in lieu of the 'quick fight' and 'wash, rinse, repeat' gameplay.
I have posted this lament before but I will say it again...Aces High has become Air Attack
with better eye candy and flight physics. The game play is essentially the same...and
Air Attack was free.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b2pclK7p5B8
But that's not a problem with AHII per se.
Its actually the players fault. If the majority of players are content with
a game that is an arcade game, then thats their privilage. My chief
lament with the current AHII gameplay style is that the game only doles out rewards
to the arcade-style, furball players and seemingly treats those with other interests
as afterthoughts.
Tell me again what all those bomber perks are for?
-
Then you spend the next few minutes in the middle of furball latched on to the tail of an La-7 that is already being chased by 12 other players, in hopes of scoring that lucky shot and getting the credit for the kill..
Try going to the low number team.
Also if you don't like how AH is managed go elsewhere. No sense in wasting your money here in a boring old game. Better yet..... program your own game. Ah is built for many players with many styles. Not all will be happy, for those there are alot of other games to go play.
-
Try going to the low number team.
Also if you don't like how AH is managed go elsewhere. No sense in wasting your money here in a boring old game. Better yet..... program your own game. Ah is built for many players with many styles. Not all will be happy, for those there are alot of other games to go play.
I'd rather stay hear and argue for a more complex and comprehensive game that
more accurately reflects all of the components of an air-ground campaign
and not yield to the 'if you don't like it leave' crowd.
Nice try Shuffler but you are going to have to do better than that.
Try this, try forming a cogent and persuasive argument to the contrary.
Thats called having an intellectual dialogue...are you up to that challenge?
-
I'd rather stay hear and argue for a more complex and comprehensive game that
more accurately reflects all of the components of an air-ground campaign
and not yield to the 'if you don't like it leave' crowd.
Nice try Shuffler but you are going to have to do better than that.
Try this, try forming a cogent and persuasive argument to the contrary.
Thats called having an intellectual dialogue...are you up to that challenge?
You tell em, best start grabbing all the 2weekers again to buff up LCA numbers. ;)
-
Aces High has become arcade-like IMHO: strategy, planning and cooperative effort
have gradually vanished in lieu of the 'quick fight' and 'wash, rinse, repeat' gameplay.
I have posted this lament before but I will say it again...Aces High has become Air Attack
with better eye candy and flight physics. The game play is essentially the same...and
Air Attack was free.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b2pclK7p5B8
But that's not a problem with AHII per se.
Its actually the players fault. If the majority of players are content with
a game that is an arcade game, then thats their privilage. My chief
lament with the current AHII gameplay style is that the game only doles out rewards
to the arcade-style, furball players and seemingly treats those with other interests
as afterthoughts.
Tell me again what all those bomber perks are for?
I think what you are waiting for is what CT is supposed to provide.
What you seem to want is to be able to get everyone to fight as part of an overall campaign. Seems like the AvA is providing that right now too.
A lot of us who fly in the MA for the ACM and nothing else, have also been long time scenario players. I love taking on a job in a scenario and making it happen. In DGS my 'furballers' happily flew 2+ hour flights to protect bombers and didn't get sucked off just to fight. The guys had a great time accomplishing it.
The MA isn't built for that. Are you willing to limit heavy bombers to certain bases. Are you willing to be given a job that doesn't give you the latest and greatest plane to fly. Are you willing to do the dirty work while other guys get the 'glory' of the fight. Are you willing to fly 2-3 hour flights with a big chance you'll get blasted out of the sky before you finish your job?
You talk about a wash rinse repeat notion in the MA. Yep that's a good definition. It covers base takers, furballers, milkrunners, vulchers, pickers etc.
Not everyone can commit the same amount of time to the game. Some folks only have time to hop in for a few flights every so often. Why should they have to be committed to a campaign that some guy who lives in AH can much more easily accomplish.
Again, I think CT will be, and Scenarios, the AvA all are there to provide you with 'the war' in a more complex fashion. The MA will remain what it is because it's job is to accomidate all types of players with all types of interests and varying degrees of time and commitment to the game. To ask that all of them play it one way, is rediculous.
Oops almost forgot. FSO and Snapshots also are there to help provide that campaign type feel.
-
You tell em, best start grabbing all the 2weekers again to buff up LCA numbers. ;)
Numbers are fine and growing..but those are only the
ones on our roster. The LCA was never a rostered squad,
just an alliance. Our true strength is 'classified' :D
Thanks for your concern though. :P
-
Good post Guppy.
You make many valid points.
I have very high hopes for CT.