Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Axis vs Allies => Topic started by: Trukk on August 28, 2008, 07:07:33 AM
-
*** Warning, random long winded post follows ***
General Observations
1. When the bases are the focus of the map, the action naturally gravitates to a base and often turns into a vulch fest (because they are also the spawn points).
2. The AvA doesn't have the player numbers to support tasks that require more than a few guys to coordinate well together.
3. One thing the BoA did well was move the focus away from the fields (ie spawn points), making for "en route", moving engagements.
4. One thing the BoA didn't do well was restrict the valid targets so that too much time was spent doing the "whack a mole" thing, chasing guys all over the map.
5. Although we are tying to simulate a war, in reality it is a game/competition and because of this the side losing round 1, shouldn't be penalized in round two. All this does is further imbalance the game/competition, driving players away. It'd be like the loser of the first game of the World Series being forced to use inferior bats on the second game, or having fewer outs, etc.
Bombers
I'm not into furballing or land grabbing so I won't comment on what arena/campaign settings work or don't work for that but what I do like to do is fly realistic missions (mostly escorting bombers). Right now the setup does not promote level bombing. We had a couple of guys in bombers last night and really the only thing we could do that would affect the war was to bomb a single V-Base radar that was close to our front line field.
What I'd like to see is an expanded role for level bombers. Something where they could fly their missions, have a decent chance of getting at least one bomber home and have an affect on the war (but not a disproportionate one).
Proposal (I've no idea if the arena settings will support this)
Harden a base object so that it takes ~2000lbs of bombs to take it down and add a long rebuild time (fuel for example). Then pick three bases where destroying these objects counts towards winning the war (and announce it in the MOTD). The three bases chosen should be close enough together that the defender has a good chance of intercepting the bombers before they drop, but the bombers also have a good chance of at least getting to target.
The three bases should be chosen by the campaign designer to reflect the relative capabilities of the opposing sides. So if one side has B-17s and the other Ju-88s, the targets for the B-17 would be further back and either close together or very separated. Their placement would change on a weekly basis depending on frontline movements and introduction of more capable aircraft.
At some time on a daily basis check the targets and tally the points. The points would count towards winning the campaign, but no more so (and probably less) than the land grab component.
-
I think we need do try and "recruit" more numbers into the AVA.
-
Hard to recruit if you don't have something that attracts them.
-
Hard to recruit if you don't have something that attracts them.
Like Spixteens, Nikis and P-51s? :rolleyes:
-
No, like good gameplay that caters to a broad audience. What does "Like Spixteens, Nikis and P-51s?" have to do with this thread? :rolleyes:
-
You mentioned attracting more players. The most effective way to do that would be to add the Spixteen, Niki and P-51. The base capture and strategy differences between the MA and AvA only partially accounts for the small numbers in the AvA arena.
-
At the same time, flying the LW rdes does have the most appeal. More than anything else it is the limited plane sets that have pushed people away from the AvA.
The AvA is like being stuck in the same FSO event for a month at a time. The FSO's are tolerable because you're only stuck in a plane or situation you don't really want to be in for a few hours on a single night of the week. More than anything people want to do what THEY want to do, and when THEY want to do it. The AvA doesn't allow this which is why no one is in here.
For every restriction we put in that is one more type of player that turns away.
-
You mentioned attracting more players.
Where exactly do I say that?
-
For every restriction we put in that is one more type of player that turns away.
That's what the MAs a for, anything you do to try to add some more depth is by definition going to add some sort of restriction. Otherwise it's just a small MA.
-
Where exactly do I say that?
Hard to recruit if you don't have something that attracts them.
My jab about Spixteens wasn't aimed at you trukk.
-
I agree. The point of a separate arena from the MA's would be so that it is different in some way shape or form. The are obviously some problems right now but obviously is going to get better. Each week the planesets change thereby negating the boredom of only one planeset per "month". Which, according to this thread is the reason numbers are down in the AvA. And last but not least, you have to remember that it was one of us, the players that came up with this very in-depth idea. So give him a little leeway. Just give him suggestions instead of bashing the arena. I know someone is going to say "I didn't say that". just read this thread and you'll realize the tone it's taken...or I have had too many beers for lunch. :uhoh
A big :aok to TheBug!!
-
For every restriction we put in that is one more type of player that turns away.
This is actually a very true statement. But as Trukk mentions, if we fully follow this edict we might as well just pull the plug on the AvA and head to the MA. The AvA does not need 300 players to succeed. A good goal would be to achieve a 70-100 active player base. The secret is to find the recipe of "restrictions" that attracts enough people, but does not force the AvA to lose it's historical based nature. In what other arena has the player input been placed in such high regard?? SEA for sure, but that is not a 24/7 arena. In no other arena is there the opportunity for players to build something of their own. I am positive that there are enough players out their that would much prefer an AvA over the MA. We have to keep advertising and keep working on the good points. If we build it they will come. :)
Of course there are issues with this setup, I would of been a liar if I said I wouldn't of anticipated such. But I'm observing, learning and trying to make changes. So let's be patient, keep discussing and keep thinking our way to a better arena. First and foremost though, let's make them jealous of our community. :aok
-
let's make them jealous of our community.
:rock
-
Which, according to this thread is the reason numbers are down in the AvA.
This thread is about giving bomber pilots something to do where they can fly realistic missions that contribute in some small way to the campaign.
-
I apologize Trukk. I must have misread what you were saying in the first post.
-
Like Spixteens, Nikis and P-51s? :rolleyes:
No, like fights
-
No, like fights
Someone has to start them. If everyone has the mindset that they will only play once a fight is already going, then it's impossible.
-
Someone has to start them. If everyone has the mindset that they will only play once a fight is already going, then it's impossible.
:rofl New here? Put it back the way it was before this war BS and maybe the people that were kicked out in favor of the milk runners will come back?
-
The arena, before the war (and when the war is not running) never has had more than 10-15 people in it, if anyone at all, except on rare occasions... I'm sure it was fun for those 10-15 people to have their own personal arena, but the war does actually appeal to a larger player base.
This of course is based on the year and a half I've been around... if 5 years ago the AvA was packed with the old kind of set up, that's great, but quite honestly it's wholly irrelevant.
-
:rofl New here? Put it back the way it was before this war BS and maybe the people that were kicked out in favor of the milk runners will come back?
<uses his willpower not to post a reply> :aok
-
The arena, before the war (and when the war is not running) never has had more than 10-15 people in it, if anyone at all, except on rare occasions... I'm sure it was fun for those 10-15 people to have their own personal arena, but the war does actually appeal to a larger player base.
This of course is based on the year and a half I've been around... if 5 years ago the AvA was packed with the old kind of set up, that's great, but quite honestly it's wholly irrelevant.
Ditto!!!!!!!
The AvA is not a dueling arena.
-
The arena, before the war (and when the war is not running) never has had more than 10-15 people in it, if anyone at all, except on rare occasions... I'm sure it was fun for those 10-15 people to have their own personal arena, but the war does actually appeal to a larger player base.
This of course is based on the year and a half I've been around... if 5 years ago the AvA was packed with the old kind of set up, that's great, but quite honestly it's wholly irrelevant.
ok this is a long one...
Yea but lets not forget what happened the last time the land grab set up was put in place, which was very similar to this. The first week or so it was pretty good fighting, then some of the MA squads ended up having squad nights in the AvA. Unfortunately those squads tended to be big on the milk running rather than fighting for bases.
The natural balance between milk running and fighting was lost and the arena quickly turned into milk running bases for the capture points. I remember one night the Axis ran a crap load of JU88's up the coast line followed up by goons and captured about 5 Allies bases. The Allies turned right around and recaptured every single one of the bases, one of them was within 5 mins because the Axis didn't defend them at all.
Reason? They got points for new captured bases and if they lost the base 5 mins later it didn't really matter, because as long as the had that captured base screen shot it was all good. The arena slowly started moving to that kind of milking along with NOE raids and that's about the time I stopped showing up. AvA slowly died again after that, because the balance between fighters and milk run hoarders was lost.
Now, I'm not saying this set up will lead to the same thing, but IMO the focus of this game should be about fighting. Winning the war and capturing bases should be used to help shape the fight and the war, however it shouldn't over take the fighting as the primary focus. If it does it will then it will turn into typical MA milk hoards and NOE missions. In short the land grabbers will find what ever way they can, to fight as little as possible because it's all about "winning the war" and the arena will end up dieing once again because of a loss of ballence.
This doesn't mean there can't be room for both groups, but we need to find a way balance out the need for both groups. With that said, there is a natural tension between both groups of players when the focus is about capturing bases. The furballers get a good fight going and they will get ticked off in some milk runner comes in and drops the FH's. On the flip side, the Win the war guys always get ticked off at the furballers because they drop the FH's and wonder why the furballers won't shoot town buildings.
So these two totally different types of players end up getting forced to play one or the others game play at various time and it always ended us making one group or the other not happy. The thing we need to do is figure out a way to make each group useful but not force one group into some sort of game play they don't want to do. The problem is, with what we have to work with, it's a tall order and a very hard task.
With that said the original poster does have some valid points. and I'll add base capturing tends to lead to a lot of the dweebism that goes on in the MA's. The bigger side always pushes the smaller side back to the point the fights tends to turn into what we had last night. A big hoard of aircraft hovering close to a base praying on easy kills in the typical pulling the wings off flies because they can type MA flying. The focus on fighting turns into "lets see how many easy kills I can get" rather than hey I'd love to fight a great fight.
This ends up killing the fight because the team with no chance stops upping, the fighter guys don't give a crap about the base capture, so the win the war guys get pissed off at that as well. With this map the bases are so far away in many situations, that the guys getting hoarded don't bother to fly from another base and just end up logging off.
The other side of the coin, is the base capture system always ends up leading to capture the base any way we can with as little fighting as possible. It always ends up the very thing meant to spur the fight, ends up killing the fight. This leads to the Whack a mole syndrome that we saw in the last AvA land grab set up and what we often see in the MA's.
I don't really know the answer to solve the problem, If I did there would be a hell of a lot of happy players for about 5 days before they figured out some way to game the game. :lol
I do know this.. historically fighters and bombers were not used to capture bases they were used to hit strategic targets or defend things. So why do we focus on capturing bases to win a war? This is just some random thoughts off the top of my head, but maybe it's something to work with.
Why not harden base ack and FH's so they can't be killed. Take the focus away from actually capturing a base but still leave the ability to target things like fuel, troops & ords. We then make all the strat targets like troop factories and ammo factories the main objectives for winning the war. The front lines could then be moved around by damage done to strat targets or another option would be to move the front lines by a historical timeline.
You would have to harden the strats up and make them tough to kill, so a lone guy couldn't go around easily porking all the bases or strats by him self, the key would be figuring out a set up that encouraged team play for he win the war guys, while letting the furballers do their thing and not be affected too much by the win the war types. A set up like this could allow each group of players to have fun but also not affect each other too much.
Now the cons to a system like this, is it would take much more time for the CM's if winning the war was calculated by damage points so that is a major draw back. Another problem is if the win the war guys are just off bombing and attacking strat targets, there wouldn't be a lot of players who would be willing to defend against them.
Like I said those ideas are just off the top of my head, but I do know there are problems with them. On the flip side I always know the focusing of winning the war based off capturing bases allways leads to head butting between the furballers and landgrabbers, besides that as I said about the base captures always tend to cause a lot of dweebery. The solution has to be somewhere in that mix around the base captures IMHO.
-
Welcom Back Arlo lol JK
-
Strafing, that is a very good analysis of the AvA's dynamics and what is needed to make it fun for everyone. The closest we came to your idea was BoA, where strategic targets mattered a lot and base capture was disabled (I think). The problem then was that bombing strats decreased the amount of money the targeted side had to purchase aircraft for the next round, and hence the allies had c-hogs and tempests by the end while the axis had G-14s, D9's, etc. I think a similar idea would be very worthwhile to test in the future, but without the purchasing of aircraft...more like your idea where bombing strats simply equals points or gains bases for the next round.
-
Strafing, that is a very good analysis of the AvA's dynamics and what is needed to make it fun for everyone. The closest we came to your idea was BoA, where strategic targets mattered a lot and base capture was disabled (I think). The problem then was that bombing strats decreased the amount of money the targeted side had to purchase aircraft for the next round, and hence the allies had c-hogs and tempests by the end while the axis had G-14s, D9's, etc. I think a similar idea would be very worthwhile to test in the future, but without the purchasing of aircraft...more like your idea where bombing strats simply equals points or gains bases for the next round.
Yea that's why I'm really not a fan of plane set limitations in that fashion, because it just compounds the advantage one side has over the other. I've played games since Pong so I've played a lot of games over the years and played a lot of multi-player games and played on countless servers. The one key thing I've noticed is that both with games and servers for specific games, they are only popular if it's evenly matched.
Look at Battlefield 2. The Iraqi tanks wouldn't hold a match to a US tank in real life but in the game they are both equally matched. With a good game server, they are never popular if one team is always stacked and better than the other, the players just move on to another server.
This game isn't like BF2, because each aircraft is different and the Allies for the most part on average have much better aircraft and are much easier to fly. We can't change that and keep things somewhat realistic. Yet this unballence will naturally tend to push more players to fly the easier aircraft because they know it will be easier to get more kills. Going into this we already have a unbalanced plane set so the deck is already stacked against us on making things fair for both teams.
Luckily we have guys that are willing to take up the challenge of flying harder aircraft but even those players get tired of it if it's just too unbalanced. The problem is you definitely can't keep giving one side better aircraft because they are doing better in the war, that will totally make things lopsided and will never allow a player base to be built up.
This is IMHO the only thing that is going to draw more players into AvA is a bigger plane set. I know the entire idea you guys are trying to do is to make things as historically accurate as possible, but history isn't really that much fun specially when wars are involved because the sides are never even. To be perfectly honest I hate the two 109's we have on Axis and I don't like C202's. Only reason I'm willing to fly them is because I'd like to see an arena that puts the focus on fighting so I'm willing give it a try and fly them at a total disadvantage for that reason alone.
This is my personal opinion on what I think would make for better game play.. To put it simply I think we need to open up the plane sets from early to late war, because it's the only way to really balance things out. If it were me, I'd set it up like this..
Small Abases should be restricted to early war aircraft and limited GV's.
Medium Abases should be limited to early and mid war aircraft.
Large Abases should not be limited on aircraft other than Allied bombers.. Lets face it Axis just can't compete with the allies bombers so we gotta even them out. (would likely need to perk some rides if too many LW aircraft were getting used)
This set up would require the maps get changed and that's the downfall of the idea.. I think a good ratio would be for every 5 small Abases you would have 2 Medium and 1 Large A base added in. The problem is you would have to straightly set up the maps ahead of time to fit this kind of game style. The deal is that's something that could be done in the AvA because we don't use the MA maps here.
Overall I love the idea behind being historically accurate and I'd like to see that work out, but reality tells me that looking at the plane sets we have, things will always be unbalanced for the Axis because in the real war the aircraft for each side was designed to do very different things.
A set up like this might not make the history buffs as happy, but it would at least allow for a more open plane set that could help balance out the game play and likely draw in a larger player base. Overall it doesn't matter what restrictions you put on things, if the game play isn't balanced the arena will never be popular and that's something that will be hard to do given the diffrences in Allied and Axis aircraft.
-
I heard something about people need to switch countries to balance sides . Total BS
-
Going into this we already have a unbalanced plane set so the deck is already stacked against us on making things fair for both teams.
Unbalanced??? :huh Grab a P-40 fly against JG-11, or teh tard whackers in any 109 and then come tell us how stacked the deck is.
Overall I love the idea behind being historically accurate and I'd like to see that work out, but reality tells me that looking at the plane sets we have, things will always be unbalanced for the Axis because in the real war the aircraft for each side was designed to do very different things.
You've been flying steady in here for what one week?
The P-40E, and HurriI are sure not uber. The difference this setup has over other recent ones with these same aircraft is the exclusion of the FW-190A5.
When it's in this planeset it rules, so saying the Axis will always be at a disadvantage is rubbish. What you're asking for is all planes enabled making this another MA? If that's what you want why are you flying in here?
Give it more than a week, see what happens when other planes are introduced. As far as the SpitV being a unbalancing factor... It never has before, however usually the 190 is in here at the same time, and people can pick and run. They can't do that now, so they have to adapt. I guess it's easier to whine. I saw guys landing way more kills in P-40s tonight than anything else. Next week the whole situation could be reversed. Personally when you're at a disadvantage for a few weeks, yes then it's time to say something. Being challenged for a few days and demanding change when change is scheduled in a few days anyway... That's a whine.
A set up like this might not make the history buffs as happy, but it would at least allow for a more open plane set that could help balance out the game play and likely draw in a larger player base. Overall it doesn't matter what restrictions you put on things, if the game play isn't balanced the arena will never be popular and that's something that will be hard to do given the diffrences in Allied and Axis aircraft.
Again if you don't want Axis vs Allied setups, there are four other arenas were you can fly mixed. Heck 5 others if you count the DA. I'm not saying don't fly here at all Crockett. I am saying this is the only Axis vs Allied arena we have and has been since way back when it was CT. Why come in here and suggest turning it into anything else when what you're looking for is in five other arenas? Don't give me that elitest crap "I'm looking for a fight." If somebody shoots at you it's damn fight. If you cannot find a fight in all these arenas, you're not looking very hard for one.
<S>
-
Hmmm, so if it is better now, what is the problem? Enjoy it. It should have 100s of people in it in no time
-
Going into this we already have a unbalanced plane set so the deck is already stacked against us on making things fair for both teams.
Unbalanced??? :huh Grab a P-40 fly against JG-11, or teh tard whackers in any 109 and then come tell us how stacked the deck is.
P40E is a awesome little aircraft.. I'll fly it against anything in the game in a actual dog fight. Granted it's not going to do much vs a BnZ aircraft but Axis don't really have any good BnZ aircraft right now. (I've flown many sorties in the P40E) Not trying to brag, but I was the only guy to get 5 kills in the first frame of Rangoon.. I did it in a P40E and they weren't all bomber kills. That aircraft is one of my favorite early war planes to fly and I know exactly what it's capable of doing.
Overall I love the idea behind being historically accurate and I'd like to see that work out, but reality tells me that looking at the plane sets we have, things will always be unbalanced for the Axis because in the real war the aircraft for each side was designed to do very different things.
You've been flying steady in here for what one week?
The P-40E, and HurriI are sure not uber. The difference this setup has over other recent ones with these same aircraft is the exclusion of the FW-190A5.
When it's in this planeset it rules, so saying the Axis will always be at a disadvantage is rubbish. What you're asking for is all planes enabled making this another MA? If that's what you want why are you flying in here?
I've also put many hours into flying the Huri 1.. IMO it's one of the best aircraft in the game once you know how to fly it. I'll fly the Huri 1 against any plane in the game in a dog fight. The Huri 1 is the best turning aircraft in the game and can easily out fight even the Huri 2. Not to mention the fact you guys have Huri 2 's as well.
Both of those aircraft can out turn anything and are very tough aircraft to boot. Axis don't really have anything that can compete with either of those aircraft in a actual dog fight. Only option Axis aircraft have is to BnZ those two planes. Yet we have nothing that can get a easy one shot kill on them such as a tatter plane. The single 20mm requires several hits to kill either of the Huri's. That requires you either get real lucky or you have to straddle up to try and get the kill, which is the exact fight the Huri wants.
The P40E is the only semi-hard to fly aircraft the Allies have and in reality, the P40e is only hard to fly if you get it slow, simply because it will quickly stall and fall out from under you if you are not careful. If it's kept fast it's a awesome fighter and very capable fighter.
Give it more than a week, see what happens when other planes are introduced. As far as the SpitV being a unbalancing factor... It never has before, however usually the 190 is in here at the same time, and people can pick and run. They can't do that now, so they have to adapt. I guess it's easier to whine. I saw guys landing way more kills in P-40s tonight than anything else. Next week the whole situation could be reversed. Personally when you're at a disadvantage for a few weeks, yes then it's time to say something. Being challenged for a few days and demanding change when change is scheduled in a few days anyway... That's a whine.
A set up like this might not make the history buffs as happy, but it would at least allow for a more open plane set that could help balance out the game play and likely draw in a larger player base. Overall it doesn't matter what restrictions you put on things, if the game play isn't balanced the arena will never be popular and that's something that will be hard to do given the diffrences in Allied and Axis aircraft.
Again if you don't want Axis vs Allied setups, there are four other arenas were you can fly mixed. Heck 5 others if you count the DA. I'm not saying don't fly here at all Crockett. I am saying this is the only Axis vs Allied arena we have and has been since way back when it was CT. Why come in here and suggest turning it into anything else when what you're looking for is in five other arenas? Don't give me that elitest crap "I'm looking for a fight." If somebody shoots at you it's damn fight. If you cannot find a fight in all these arenas, you're not looking very hard for one.
<S>
So in other words trying to trying to balance out the plane set is a whine? Why don't you do the same thing you suggested to me? Why don't you come over to Axis side and try to fight against the so called evenly balanced aircraft. BTW I flew Allies the last time AvA was set up for the win the war deal, and I saw the same so called "whines" about spits then. The Axis had some of the better 109's & even 190's then, but it was still far too easy to fly the Spit9 against the Axis aircraft. Their aircraft didn't have much chance in a 1 on 1 unless it was a really good pilot which is the same deal here with the Spit 5's.
Honestly though in a 1 on 1 I actually rather fight against the spit 5 than either of the Hurricanes.. Too bad there is never a chance of that happening with out 3 other cons jumping in. End the end, if you think the plane set are even remotely balanced you then you must never step out side those Allies aircraft. I've flown the Huri 1 & P40E a lot and I know for a fact what they are capable of.
-
If you think the plane set are even remotely balanced you then you must never step out side those Allies aircraft. I've flown the Huri 1 & P40E a lot and I know for a fact what they are capable of.
I flew Axis the first war, and I flew Luftwaffe exclusively for many years I was one of the founders of JG-3, JG-54 and the old 27th Sentai. In fact I probably still have more Axis time than Allied time. I do go and fly Axis on non squad nights. I know what a 109E and F are capable of so what's your point? It is Axis and Allied in this arena and it will never be 100% balanced unless you make it something else. In fact part of the lure for most is the fact that they will fight against the odds at times. My biggest question is why do you come to the only Axis vs Allied arena and lobby to make it like all the others?
-
It is Axis and Allied in this arena and it will never be 100% balanced unless you make it something else.
Then it will never have more than a handful of players just like the last few years.
In fact part of the lure for most is the fact that they will fight against the odds at times. My biggest question is why do you come to the only Axis vs Allied arena and lobby to make it like all the others?
I'm hoping that AvA could be turned into what it once was or something like AH used to be.. a place to find some good fights with some good sticks. Right now it's exactly what the MA is just with limited plane sets. The gang-bangs are the same as the MA, only difference is the limited plane sets. At least if I had access to some more capable aircraft I could do something about the constant gang banging.
Two nights of flying and I've yet to get a single fight with out getting ganged by 4 cons. How much closer to the MA could you get?
Example tonight, I see the Axis base is over run by Allies once again when I logged in.. So I say the heck with it I'll fly a 110 2 sectors and get some high alt cap going on. I fly 15 mins to get to the fight, find 2 lone P40's try to fight them but next thing you know it's a Spit 5 & a Huricane heading that way to set up the gang.
I separate and climb out to pick another fight.. The two P40's are alone again so I once again try to set up a fight soon as I get involved in the fight, what happens? Two more P40's jump in to make it a good ole fashioned MA style gang bang. Not much I can do once I'm committed to the fight and now it's against 4 guys. It has nothing to do with SA because I made quite sure no other cons within icon range, yet as always soon as there is a easy kill to gang everyone seems to come running.
The best part is they salute me say oh you did good in the vert with a 110.. After getting ganged by 4 cons that's the same to me as saying hey man you squirm pretty well before you die. WTG!! Nothing against the guys that did it, but that is the exact type of things that is the MA.. So trying to pretend this is anything different than the MA is a joke. The only difference is the plane set.
So you ask why I'm here trying to make it like the MA? LOL I want nothing to do with the MA, I want a place to fight some good fight with pilots that have a bit of love for the fight and have enough sportsmanship to let two guys fight it out with out jumping in for the good ole MA classic gang bang. Plane Sets don't make it like the MA, the people flying make it like the MA.. I would just like to have some aircraft capable of dealing with the constant gang bangs to at least have a chance of trying to make it a fight vs a turkey shoot.
-
maybe challenge someone to meet you at an isolated part of the map for some one on one.
-
maybe challenge someone to meet you at an isolated part of the map for some one on one.
Na that can be done in the DA.. it's not so much about always getting a 1 on 1 fight. It's about getting random fights where the other guys actually respect the fight, it used to be that way in the AH that's long gone. I don't mind 2 on 1 or even 3 on 1, sometimes that's fun along as I think I may have a chance. I mean heck flying the Huri 1 it doesn't even get fun until it's 2 or 3 guys on your six.
It's more about players having respect for the fight if they see a 1 on 1 or 2 on 1 in progress why do 2 more need to jump in every time? It's easy to deal with a few cons on your six in a Spit5 or one of the Hurricanes. Try to see how much fun it is when you are in a less capable aircraft like the 109E, especially when it's against great TnB aircraft like the Huri's or the Spit.
The problem is there is little respect for those situations, so the only alternative is to have a aircraft that capable of having a chance, other wise there just isn't much fun constantly being in that situation of having bunch of hurricanes & spits on your six and regardless to what some may want.. people having "fun" is the only thing that will make this arena grow.
-
If AH was really such a chivalrous place a few years back, then I must have really missed out on the golden age of online flight sims. I flew wb for a couple years before AH came out and it was just like AH is today: same ganging, same running, etc.
I don't expect my fights to be treated with respect in the ava, not when the opposition needs to fly the Spit5 against 109E's, and that's why I bnz the Spit hoards mercilessly with the 109F-4. :devil Despite the weak firepower, it's really not so hard to get kills on target-fixated Spits that only know how to get kills by latching onto the 6 of a bandit for an extended period of time. What really shocks me is that the allies haven't been more effective with the Spit5, which is mostly explained by the fact that they aren't using its best strengths against the 109E. I'm not talking about turn rate; I'm talking about speed, climbing and diving. I'm yet to see one Spit5 pilot use these attributes effectively in this ava setup; every single one I've seen follows bandits down low instead of letting the bandits disengage for now in order to keep their energy advantage for future engagements.
-
I don't expect my fights to be treated with respect in the ava, not when the opposition needs to fly the Spit5 against 109E's, and that's why I bnz the Spit hoards mercilessly with the 109F-4. :devil
Yea it's unfortunate but that's the way I look at it as well, but I'd add the Hurricanes in there as well, the two most annoying aircraft to fight in the MA's are the Zeeks and Hurricanes. :lol
I honestly don't mind fighting the 109E vs the Spit 5 in a 1 on 1 and I think the P40E vs the 109E is a great match up but there are never any 1 on 1's, it's just like the MA gang bang or nothing.
-
Then it will never have more than a handful of players just like the last few years.
I'm hoping that AvA could be turned into what it once was or something like AH used to be.. a place to find some good fights with some good sticks. Right now it's exactly what the MA is just with limited plane sets. The gang-bangs are the same as the MA, only difference is the limited plane sets. At least if I had access to some more capable aircraft I could do something about the constant gang banging.
Two nights of flying and I've yet to get a single fight with out getting ganged by 4 cons. How much closer to the MA could you get?
Well I agree with you there. I wish we could bring it back to they way was way back when it was the CT. Back then we had numbers similar to what we had the past few nights. Everybody did a lot more fighting and a lot less b***hing. As far as having three or more bad guys come at you. That happens on both sides believe me.
-
Well I agree with you there. I wish we could bring it back to they way was way back when it was the CT. Back then we had numbers similar to what we had the past few nights. Everybody did a lot more fighting and a lot less b***hing. As far as having three or more bad guys come at you. That happens on both sides believe me.
We will get there. Stay positive on the bbs. Promote the fight. Recruit those who want to fight, on cool maps, in historic plane sets, with only 2 sides. Encourage those around you to ask before engaging, frown on behavior that is damaging, and glorify, and applaud the gameplay you want to see. I think the current set up is close, closer than we have come to achieving something good and lasting. It is basically set up for Air to Air, but also allows an opportunity and reason for all types of players to join in. These types of set ups draw a larger crowd than the standard ones. Now we need to build on it, tweek, and recruit more guys who are looking to play in a more historical situation, on cool maps, and with good people.
-
We will get there. Stay positive on the bbs. Promote the fight. Recruit those who want to fight, on cool maps, in historic plane sets, with only 2 sides. Encourage those around you to ask before engaging, frown on behavior that is damaging, and glorify, and applaud the gameplay you want to see. I think the current set up is close, closer than we have come to achieving something good and lasting. It is basically set up for Air to Air, but also allows an opportunity and reason for all types of players to join in. These types of set ups draw a larger crowd than the standard ones. Now we need to build on it, tweek, and recruit more guys who are looking to play in a more historical situation, on cool maps, and with good people.
:aok
-
and now for my 2 cents. flew AVA last night. numbers not too bad. ganging is a problem but i think thats because they dont know any better. if you see 2 planes going at it, dont just jump in, ask if the fellow needs help. he'll tell you if he's in trouble or not.
i was in a 1V1 last night with chemdawg and some else picked me while i wasnt looking. oh well, no biggy. but it wouldve been nice if i could've smoked chemdawg (wishful thinking) rather then have to worry about a 2nd enemy.
the map is awesome but the distances are very long. im not going to try to take a base if i have to drive for 30 minutes. with the 50 troop capture, which i think is great, it will take a co-ordinated effort to take a base. all im saying is you might want to make the spawns a little closer.
otherwise so far, so good. dweebishness at a minimum so far. its been fun!
-
I am having fun with map also. But I think that there should be no side balancing at all. I see that a lot of people jumped on the Luft bandwagon for the speed and the cannons and left us allies with the ol P40. And I am not complaining at all about the 40. It is just funny that the past two nights we have been giving the Axis a pretty good fight and now we hear some calls for side balancing. I seen it on the "200" channel last night.
-
We will get there. Stay positive on the bbs. Promote the fight. Recruit those who want to fight, on cool maps, in historic plane sets, with only 2 sides. Encourage those around you to ask before engaging, frown on behavior that is damaging, and glorify, and applaud the gameplay you want to see. I think the current set up is close, closer than we have come to achieving something good and lasting. It is basically set up for Air to Air, but also allows an opportunity and reason for all types of players to join in. These types of set ups draw a larger crowd than the standard ones. Now we need to build on it, tweek, and recruit more guys who are looking to play in a more historical situation, on cool maps, and with good people.
Yea I could agree with that for the most part. If there wasn't so much MA type ganging, it wouldn't be too bad. It would be nice if Axis didn't have to fly 15 mins to get to the fight just to fly the 109F or 110. The allies flying the Spit5's all the time wouldn't bug me so much if I didn't have to fight 3 or 4 of them at a time. In fact I'd prefer they were in the spit5's vs noobacaines. :lol
I'm not ready to give up on it yet, but we really need to figure out something with the constant hoarding.
-
Yea I could agree with that for the most part. If there wasn't so much MA type ganging, it wouldn't be too bad. It would be nice if Axis didn't have to fly 15 mins to get to the fight just to fly the 109F or 110. The allies flying the Spit5's all the time wouldn't bug me so much if I didn't have to fight 3 or 4 of them at a time. In fact I'd prefer they were in the spit5's vs noobacaines. :lol
I'm not ready to give up on it yet, but we really need to figure out something with the constant hoarding.
Yep, some set up tweeks are needed, and we have been tweeking along. Next weeks additions should be better yet.
Stick with us Strafing. I hear you loud and clear about Hoarding. In fact, when my friends on the allied side starting calling us "gangers" etc,...I knew it was time for a break. And that's what we did. Went MA a couple weeks, talked about AvA tactics while blowing off steam and working more small plane engagements. What I posted above is what we now practice, (not perfect), and I again encourage all on both sides to do the same. That is...communicate!!!
4 planes flying in icon range of eachother but not caring enough to even co ordinate are all gonna jump right on the closest red target. 4 planes fighting together, can split, with 2 or 3 flying on to the next, inevitable red target, etc... Of course, capture attempts, missions, etc...those are different battle circumstances and guys are gonna defend/attack accordingly. In short, the answer is within us, not in set ups, settings, or rules.
-
As an AvA noob, I will give a few of my observations and thoughts...
First, a little history. I've popped into the AvA on many occasions through the years. Never saw any reason to stay. I invariably found a squad on one side or the other picking anybody who dared up on the other side. Came in a few times a few months ago when the "war" was going on (on allied side) and generally found a good furball going but found the plane choices / restrictions / imbalance to make it not much more than an occasional diversion... not a new home. I've recently joined JG11 and have spent a few squad nights and even a few non-squad nights in there and exactly twice since Bug's War started.
I see many threads, including this one, with lots of ideas on how to "fix" the AvA arena. What is lacking from these discussions is a definition of what needs to be fixed and an acknowledgement that what any one person or group might like to see in the AvA is not necessarily what would make the AvA attract enough players to make the arena a viable, at least during peak hours.
Now some observations. These will be from my perspective, which I consider to be one of the typical MA furballer who would really like to fly in AvA but just never seems to see the fun in it...
First, as a typical MA player who ventures into the AvA, I am interested in seeing (and participating in) fights between the historical adversaries. That part, at least, is always found! :aok
The second thing I (the typical MA player) am going to look for is a fair fight or at least a fighting chance. This is the single biggest thing that is going to turn away a MA player who comes to the AvA looking to expand his horizons. With all other things being equal, if I came to this current setup wanting to fly axis planes, I would look at the field where the fights have been (A13?), see that only the 109E4 is available, see that I am fighting against equal or higher numbers of Spit 5's, and then I'd go back to the MA. It's not that I wouldn't fight a Spit5 with an E4, but it's not going to work all that well for the axis in a many-on-many fight. I'm not all that interested in flying 2 or 3 sectors from the base where the F4 is available so off to the MA for me. My point is this might be a good setup from a historical perspective and might work well for specific events, but the guy who has a few extra minutes for a quick sortie or two is not going to pick AvA over the MA with this type of setup. As long as that is the case, it will be difficult at best to keep a large enough player base to keep the arena fun. From my perspective (again, the MA player looking for a fight), I'd like to see an even match up available at any place the fight is. Otherwise, an imbalance has been created.
The third thing I am wanting to see when I look into the arena is the chance to find a decent fight. If either side is severely outnumbering the other, I'm probably heading to the MA. If there is a big milk-run fest going on, I'm probably heading to the MA. Not that these things can't work themselves out in the course of an evening, but my flying time is my flying time and I want to maximize fun.
Now, for me personally, these 3 things would make the AvA an attractive alternative to the MA. Bonus things might be rolling plane sets (I'm all in favor of flying 109Es and Spit Is) and maybe even some occasional non-historic match-ups (Germany vs Japan anyone?) but the 3 things above are what I look for in any arena. They are not, however, what everybody looks for in an arena. With these 3 things in place, we'd likely have a nice AvA furball setup (which I wouldn't mind) but not the full-spectrum arena I sense most people would like to see.
So how do we attract all the types of people it would take to make the AvA full-spectrum? That is a tough one. The axis side did not have an effective strategic bomber force and even though the Germans had what might have been an effective strategic bomber (the He177?), it is not modelled in the game. This automatically puts the Axis at a severe disadvantage and makes creating a "balanced" arena very difficult. You could limit allies to B-25s and Bostons, but then you're going to lose some of your buff types who might be willing to come over or who want to fly their heavies against the Luftwaffe. To my mind, this is the single biggest sticking point in making AvA an arena that appeals to anyone besides furballers and allied buffers. Let's say we get past this issue, though, and focus on the next thing I see brought up in this forum a lot - avoiding the MA horde mentality.
First, we have to acknowledge that everybody goes where the fight is. In an arena with the population of the AvA, there is usually only one fight. If one side outnumbers the other, there is a horde. If someone decides to go somewhere besides where the one fight is, they are milk-running. If the fight is over a base, one side is going to be higher. Just about any scenario you can think of makes one side out to be the dweebs / horde / alt-monkey. The question is not really how to eliminate this behavior, but how to minimize its effect.
One idea I've always liked is making the objectives something other than capturing airfields. As was pointed out earlier in this thread, capturing territory was not normally the objective of the air forces. I've always thought a series of large towns or cities, perhaps even with multiple map rooms that have to be captured, could be placed between series of airfields. The fights would be over the cities... not the airfields. I don't know if it's even possible to do it, but having progressive rows of these strategic targets somehow tied to what airfields are available (not just capture the town = capture the field) could really make fighting over the cities something worth doing. Making them large enough that it takes bombers and not just fighters to destroy them gives the strat / buff guys something to do as well as a nice area to focus a tank battle. I rarely up anything besides fighters so I'm not really sure if those ideas would be appealling to those guys, but it seems like it would be to me!
This is probably the longest post I've made in a long time so I'm going to cut it off here. I've always thought AvA had a lot of untapped potential and would like to see it prosper. Really, though, I just want number 1 - 3 above! :D
Regards,
Hammer
-
<S> Guys...some very good fights last night. The night started for me at 8pm with even numbers at about 11-12 each and the fights were amazing, no one really gaining any ground. IMHO the allies just have to many advantages. Base placement and plane placement are the biggest, there are others, these just stand out. But I was OK with that and the fights continued to be good until about 10pm when i looked and the numbers were 18 axis and 32 allied, then it turned into...up from A13 to get horded by 2 x hurri, 2 x p40, and 2 x spit5...and that was just on me. Or, I could fly 2 sectors and get alt to B&Z the horders, because if I went to fight 1 then I was fighting all 10, no thanks. I do like the AvA setup and will continue to fly axis, but the hording has got to go, please.
-
In regards to the bunches of spit5's, one word.....C202, its more than a match for the spit flight wise, the weak guns make it a problem in a furball, just cut a spit out of the herd :lol
shamus
-
Good idea Hammer.
I've been avoiding posting on some of the subjects as I wasn't sure how to say what I wanted to say without it coing off as a knock against someone else.
I'll just simply state what I am looking for in the game.
I am a strat guy. Winning the war is what I am concerned about. I hope that the other guy is also concerned about winning the war. So when I go out to attack his base I expect him to defend it. I attack the bases that have the most strategic worth to me. I am not at all concerned with the dogfight itself. The dogfight for me is just a side effect of winning the war. I dogfight when I need to, and when I don't need to dogfight I don't. To put it simply the dogfight fight is just a means to an end.
The real fight for me is the overall fight involved in winning the war. I am not concerned about the outcomes of the individual battles. The individual dogfights that pop up. I am only interested in what that battle, what that dog fight accomplished.
The current map works ok for me. It's smaller which keeps the fighting in one general area. The big maps turn into milk running which is not what I am after. Though I'll take it when I can get it. If anything the job of a strat guy is to create a milk run. I am all about creating mis matches that can be exploited. It's the other guys job to figure out how to do the same with what he's got to make me fight on his terms.
-
In regards to the bunches of spit5's, one word.....C202, its more than a match for the spit flight wise, the weak guns make it a problem in a furball, just cut a spit out of the herd :lol
shamus
It's not just the spitfires.. it's the fact its 4 or 5 cons at a time constantally. In a 1 on 1 yea a C202 or even a 109E is a pretty good match for the Spit 5, the problem is it's always a bunch of cons not just the one. You can't cut guys out of the herd, I've tried several times and it never fails the con will either run back to his pack, or the pack will come to the fight I tried to pull away from it.
-
I joined once (Tuesday I think) and flew a couple of sorties...
I found it lame in the extreme. It was already so lop-sided in the axis favors, roster-wise, that I offered to switch to allies, being the most recent to join. The end result was a long stream of PERFECTLY placed squaddies on the axis side, spaced so that each one is outside icon range of the other from the enemy perspective (3k Icon range, remember?) and that any time any one of them makes a pass on the enemy, the one behind them is in perfect "pick" position and the one behind them, and the one behind them.
They were almost perfectly lined up like Rockettes, and I even noted this to somebody else at the time. The lead was following my dot, the others were following it (i.e. the line of dots on the map was chasing each other, not me).
On top of that, Tbarone's gimmicky game-the-game exploit of flying a 109E with less than 25% fuel, he was more than able to out turn my hurr1 with full flaps at 60mph on the deck, despite his wingman constantly peppering me from alt. I had about 25% by the time this happened. Both of them came in 15k and bounced me (again in the Rockette fashion I described above) at about 10k, and I took them all the way to the deck.
Thanks, but no thanks.
You can have that kinda crappy gameplay. I don't care so much if it's strat, furballing, I LOVE the planesets, but honestly the #1 thing that drives me away repeatedly is the lame behavior.
What I want from the AvA? What I want is less squad-based gang banging that Hammer noted. It's almost all I see anytime in the past year or so. I want to bounce a con once in a while, or get bounced, and I'm not looking for a 1v1, but I (like Hammer) want a fricking fighting chance.
-
Sure that wasn't Monday night, before the war started? The Axis planeset is much less advantageous now.
-
All I want is some sharks with frickin laser beams on their heads. :furious
(http://i239.photobucket.com/albums/ff107/tymekeepyr/shark.jpg)
(http://i239.photobucket.com/albums/ff107/tymekeepyr/laser_shark.gif)
(http://i239.photobucket.com/albums/ff107/tymekeepyr/sharks_with_laser_beams-w72pgv-d.jpg)
-
:rofl :aok
All I want is some sharks with frickin laser beams on their heads. :furious
(http://i239.photobucket.com/albums/ff107/tymekeepyr/shark.jpg)
(http://i239.photobucket.com/albums/ff107/tymekeepyr/laser_shark.gif)
(http://i239.photobucket.com/albums/ff107/tymekeepyr/sharks_with_laser_beams-w72pgv-d.jpg)
-
I've been very much enjoying it. I look forward to playing AHII again. The numbers were over 50 last night and I have not see that in a very long time, especially with early war planes. The numbers were pretty equal up to 9:45 Est when I logged. Long live "The Bug Wars"!
Venom
-
Hmmm... lot's of things to ponder there.
Regarding a different objective for the war other than capturing a base. I for one can't think of one that will work. We are limited to the maps we have, created by players like you, so although they are quite willing to work with us on some regards. It would be a bit much to ask them to restructure the maps to fit our AvA war. To achieve this someone would have to create one specifically to do this. Even if this was to be done, you would then base the war upon factors that must be hand tallied by someone. I am all for developing the war that will work, but need to hear more concrete idea and strive to keep them automated within the game.
But my observations on the war aspect of this setup is that people don't seem interested. The one big major complaint I'm hearing is the close proximity of the Spit V base to the front and the distance that the Axis must fly the 109f to the fight. But even with this air advantage, the reduction of troops needed the Allies don't seem all too interested in taking ground. Not that that is a bad thing. But it just seems to me that either the war aspect is failing or there isn't an interest in it. The nights I have been on the fight has centered mostly around furballing in the A13-A69/70/71 area. I could just enable all planes in the setup at each airfield for their respective side??
Do you think that would help quell the complaints? Other than that I need a better way to generate a war.
As for the hording, or player behavior, to expect a new map, arena setting or some "war" concept to suddenly make a "chivalrous" player base is completely ridiculous. Come on..
We have to put the time in, discuss like adults, behave like adults and develop a sense of community where people have respect for each other. That doesn't happen over night. If it is something you truly want and to give up trying to achieve it after a couple nights is a bit of a shortcoming don't ya think?
Let's hear opinions on eliminating the rare plane aspect!
Perk points is not an option, since we are tied to MA perk tables. Without bugging Skuzzy and generating more work.
Keep those brains churning!!
<S>
-
Let's hear opinions on eliminating the rare plane aspect!
Frankly, I love the idea of rare planes, it's just that they are placed at front-line bases. The furballs in my experience start when the Spit Vs up along with a few Bostons and P-40s and try to take A 13. From what I have seen the typical allied pilot is not as experienced as the typical Axis pilot (with a few exceptions obviously). That leads to the fight generally being broken up and the base take avoided, but then the furball starts. With the eventual superiority of the allied fighters over the axis planes. This is when the horde starts. After that people get disinterested and a bombing run is usually organized to break the horde over A 13. Then rinse and repeat. Overall, like I've been saying, reduce the rare planes to Second-line bases X miles from the front.
-
Let's hear opinions on eliminating the rare plane aspect!
Maybe make them less rare since the map is so large allowing a few more bases to host them would help.
Or make it a rule they cannot be at a frontline base.
Then there's the traditional approach of enabling all planes that were historically there at the period represented.
It's pretty obvious no matter what you try you cannot please everybody and there are going to be complaints.
-
Last night there were some real obvious attempts by the Axis to fight the war. While A13 was "horded" several fighters, bombers and a couple of C47's attempted to make their way south of the major furball and flew quite a distance for this attempt. I applaud those individuals for their perseverance. The Allied took two Vehicle Hangers but could not muster the airfield takeover.
The war is still on! I can't speak for every horde but I can speak for the one last night. It was present as a fighter cap so we could take the vehicle bases and subsequently the airfield. Problem was it took almost all of the Allied horde to create even the smallest of buffers so that the P40's and Bostons could even try to knock down some of the city. Which , by the way, was unsuccessful due to the persistent Luftwaffe fellers.
I believe it was the night before when the tables were quite turned on the Allies. The horde was of the Axis origin. Hordes are never going to go away. That is something that all players must come to the realization of. As long as there are plans made to take over a base, the "horde" will be assembled.
And as soon as our fellow Avenger brethren return from their summer furlow... it's on.
Jeager....just one thing... I still hold the "shot down" record. Don't push me buddy, our next merge, I might just auger to continue my reign. :lol
-
Bug one other option...
Since by nature tactical air units are nomadic, or mobile... You might go ahead and require that the rare planes are not based at the front, but give the CO's power to reposition one or two rare units not all of them every two or three days according to battle conditions. This is also an historical practice.
<S>
-
Hmmm... lot's of things to ponder there.
Regarding a different objective for the war other than capturing a base. I for one can't think of one that will work. We are limited to the maps we have, created by players like you, so although they are quite willing to work with us on some regards. It would be a bit much to ask them to restructure the maps to fit our AvA war. To achieve this someone would have to create one specifically to do this. Even if this was to be done, you would then base the war upon factors that must be hand tallied by someone. I am all for developing the war that will work, but need to hear more concrete idea and strive to keep them automated within the game.
But my observations on the war aspect of this setup is that people don't seem interested. The one big major complaint I'm hearing is the close proximity of the Spit V base to the front and the distance that the Axis must fly the 109f to the fight. But even with this air advantage, the reduction of troops needed the Allies don't seem all too interested in taking ground. Not that that is a bad thing. But it just seems to me that either the war aspect is failing or there isn't an interest in it. The nights I have been on the fight has centered mostly around furballing in the A13-A69/70/71 area. I could just enable all planes in the setup at each airfield for their respective side??
Do you think that would help quell the complaints? Other than that I need a better way to generate a war.
As for the hording, or player behavior, to expect a new map, arena setting or some "war" concept to suddenly make a "chivalrous" player base is completely ridiculous. Come on..
We have to put the time in, discuss like adults, behave like adults and develop a sense of community where people have respect for each other. That doesn't happen over night. If it is something you truly want and to give up trying to achieve it after a couple nights is a bit of a shortcoming don't ya think?
Let's hear opinions on eliminating the rare plane aspect!
Perk points is not an option, since we are tied to MA perk tables. Without bugging Skuzzy and generating more work.
Keep those brains churning!!
<S>
As Chemdawg stated, there was quite a bit of war fighting the last night. VBs changed hands. Taking an airfield is going to be very difficult with the ealry war planeset. The town is going to be tough to flatten but people are trying.
The perk fighters is a good concept. This was discussed a long time ago. The idea was to use them to help even things out a bit when one side is dominating. As they advance, they run into the better fighters and it becomes slightly more of a challenge. As implemented, they can be based anywhere. With the difficulty of taking fields in early war, there is no reason not to base them at the front and then we lose some of the early war planeset as people just fly the perked fighters too much. I think they should be limited to rear fields. I also think that refueling/rearming should be disabled so there is less incentive to fly them to distant front lines. It's already half way through the first week so perhaps this could be considered for week 2. Perhaps not a good reason, but it also gives the new people trying out the arena a plane they recognize.
As long as the numbers stay up, lets fine tune and see what happens.
Venom
-
Bug one other option...
Since by nature tactical air units are nomadic, or mobile... You might go ahead and require that the rare planes are not based at the front, but give the CO's power to reposition one or two rare units not all of them every two or three days according to battle conditions. This is also an historical practice.
<S>
I like this idea, it goes in hand with Venom's concept that it should get tougher as you penetrate the front. The moving part is a good idea, but will require a staffer's presence. Which although usually not a problem I can't guarantee it. But I think we will use this idea for the second week <S>
-
You have all already mentioned the main problem. You have warfighters and furballers competing against each other.
There is nothing wrong with the war concept, and continued improvement with it will surely bring more people into the arena.
It may not be perfect, but it is still far superior to the main arenas in my opinion.
An idea occurred to me just now. There were only a few of us on, and we were happily furballing away. I don't know if it was because other people saw that something was going on in the arena, or just as time progressed more people got their stuff done and had time to play. But as the numbers escalated, the furball degenerated and the war mentality took over. That's good for the war, bad for the furball.
I know it would be a lot of extra work, but if the war maps had a pair of uncapturable bases off by themselves to keep the furballers happy, both things could run concurrently. The furballers would have the limited plane sets without a war mentality, and the warfighters would have a larger pool of people to potentially coax back into the war effort. And the people trying to decide what arena to join would potentially see more action in AvA and show up to see what was going on.
I admit that I am a furballer. Sometimes the war can be entertaining, but most of the time I simply have a little time to burn and want to spend it getting shot down by a quality opponent. The AvA war concept has a lot of potential. This would be a way to stop (ok, at least limit some) the whining of us furballers and develop the war at the same time.
Thanks for all the hard work.
-
Actually the uncaptureable base idea was something we've already been thinking about. After the great help from the CM terrain team they were able to make 3 Vbases and one Airbase uncaptureable on the BoB04 map. These bases will be used to represent the Allied beachhead ( along with others, but that can be captured) in a future setup idea I have called Campaign Series: Breakout Normandy! :)
On this one I am thinking of making it so the Luftwaffe is pure defensive. They hold the victory points at start and the level of victory will be determined by how much the Allies can wrestle from them. Will be able to do some strat stuff with the heavies on this one too.
But I get ahead of myself..... back to the situation at hand. :D
-
This was somethign I was goign to bring up earlier.
The war fighting population is much higher than you may think. The thing is that war fighting requires a lot of people. You can't reliably start fighting the war with just 4-5 people. You need closer to a dozen to really get things moving. So when the population goes up eventually someone will organize those of like minds and start trying to win the war.
Up until that time those war fighters are just furballing to pass the time. Because you only need 2 people to get a good fight going.
I am firmly against unconquerable bases. They put a strategic hole int he map that is too easy to exploit.
I am also against requiring the rarer planes be placed in the rear. I want the ability to put the planes in the places strategically I think they'll do the most good. It is up to the side commander to put them in the right place. If he puts them in the wrong place that is not the fault of the set up, that is the fault of the commander for not taking all factors into account.
Capturing bases always gets harder as you go deeper. Flight time is a big factor.
Strategic thinking isn't just about the rules on the map. You have to take population and player mindset into account.
-
I am firmly against unconquerable bases.
Ok what do you do when the Axis kick the Allies off the continent? Makes for a boring arena. Also uncaptureable bases are a great feature to an arena that is severely effected by resets. You have to look at the situation from all angles.
-
1. This map gave the allies a big strategic advantage in the possible placement of rare planes (the triple bases).
2. Resets kill the ava.
-
I am also against requiring the rarer planes be placed in the rear. I want the ability to put the planes in the places strategically I think they'll do the most good. It is up to the side commander to put them in the right place. If he puts them in the wrong place that is not the fault of the set up, that is the fault of the commander for not taking all factors into account.
Yes but then everyone who just wants to come in for a fight and doesn't care about winning a war suffers. Just like right now, the allies have 3 bases close together that are of course the smartest place to put their better aircraft. It also just happens to be close to the front lines. Then on the flip side the Axis had to stuff their better aircraft way off in the distance because we have only one front line base.
While both choices are likely the best choices for protection of those air craft's bases, but it also forces everyone in the arena suffer with that decision no matter if it's right or wrong. Think of it from the fun perspective, the allies pretty much have choice of any aircraft in their plane set within 5 mins flight to the front lines. Axis on the other hand get stuck with the same limited aircraft unless we want to fly 15 mins.
The allies out of pure luck with the terrain set up, have a group of 3 bases close to the front lines that are pretty much uncapturable. Axis don't have that same benefit so it ends up making things unbalanced. So in short every one's game gets affected by the win the war stuff and maybe they don't care about the war.
I'm not a fan of having too many of the better aircraft active, but I'm also not a fan of having to stuff them way off behind the lines and never have them used. I think perking would be the best option, but from what Bug said that's not a option so we need to figure something else out.
-
Look at the midwar planeset. It's the Spit V and 109F. Many are already flying them in early war. Kind of defeats the purpose of early war if they are widely available.
Venom
-
Look at the midwar planeset. It's the Spit V and 109F. Many are already flying them in early war. Kind of defeats the purpose of early war if they are widely available.
Venom
Actually Venom, they probably wouldn't be so widely used this setup if it wasn't for fluke in the map, or savy placement by Drack. Whatever the case next week will have new rare aircraft on both sides and you can probably expect different placement rules. This campaign series is still in the beta stage as it were. Bug is doing a good job of asking what's working and not working, and taking ideas and noting what people are unhappy about to make changes. He never said it would be perfect right out of the box, and it would need tuning.<S>
As for people not liking the war scenarios, after each one the AVA staff runs three to four weeks of normal AVA setups. They're trying to make as many people happy as possible. Personally I like the normal setups better than the wars, but the wars do seem to bring in more people and are popular. Your turn for the regular setups comes back around in the rotation. It's not like the war is all the AVA does now.
-
Ok what do you do when the Axis kick the Allies off the continent? Makes for a boring arena. Also uncaptureable bases are a great feature to an arena that is severely effected by resets. You have to look at the situation from all angles.
If they push us off the continent then I call that a win for the axis. We reset the map and start over. Talking in pure hypothetical doesn't help much though. The maps are too large and the population too small to push one side off the map.
-
On reflection, my rambling was a bit of a hijack. Lots of my thoughts were long-term vs this particular setup. Some could be applied to this setup, though.
Another thought I had was to encourage squads to show up 1 night a week to fight the actual war. This could be the night the current setup works for, then adjust plane availability etc for the other nights. Yet another thought, and not necessarily related to or even compatible with my other ideas, would be to align the AvA setup with either this week's snapshot or the month's FSO. This would allow practice with the planesets and might encourage some who participate in those events to give AvA a try.
Regards,
Hammer
-
If they push us off the continent then I call that a win for the axis. We reset the map and start over. Talking in pure hypothetical doesn't help much though. The maps are too large and the population too small to push one side off the map.
The Allies would start with only a couple bases on the continent to represent the invasion.
To dismiss a problem that has been an issue with the AvA for many years and has been the reason for not having troop capture enabled, with a lower number of troops, seems pretty bold to me.
-
Actually Venom, they probably wouldn't be so widely used this setup if it wasn't for fluke in the map, or savy placement by Drack. Whatever the case next week will have new rare aircraft on both sides and you can probably expect different placement rules. This campaign series is still in the beta stage as it were. Bug is doing a good job of asking what's working and not working, and taking ideas and noting what people are unhappy about to make changes. He never said it would be perfect right out of the box, and it would need tuning.<S>
As for people not liking the war scenarios, after each one the AVA staff runs three to four weeks of normal AVA setups. They're trying to make as many people happy as possible. Personally I like the normal setups better than the wars, but the wars do seem to bring in more people and are popular. Your turn for the regular setups comes back around in the rotation. It's not like the war is all the AVA does now.
Not complaining, just suggesting. I love this set-up so far. I'm having a great time. Put me down for just fine tuning. I don't much care for the in-between times with no backdrop to the fight. There is opportunity for furballs and opportunity for raids with this setup. Base capture and the war impact will pick up the next two rounds with more capable aircraft. I think we will have a different style of game as we transition to late war which is great. More variety.
Venom
-
Duplicate