I have no idea how the "country resource" system works, but if it puts more of a strategic value on the heavy bombing of the enemy industrial heartland then you'll get a big +1 from me!
I am considering scraping the zone strat system and going back to country resources.
Thoughts?
HiTech
So far I like it.
I can envision a map where all country strats are located in a "rear" area, close to the uncapturable bases and far away from the initial front line. Combined with increased importance of those factories, it may result in seeing a few more "strategic" missions and high-altitude fights in the MA
I am considering scraping the zone strat system and going back to country resources.
Thoughts?
HiTech
It's been years since I tried it, but does player resupply of the factories and the City still work? I'm basing my position on having player resupply.
I am not sure something like this would work on a 512 by 512 map since designers would then want to concentrate strats near the countries capital only. Which would could result in them being say 8 to 10 sectors (200 to 250 miles) from the front initial front lines. Making bombing of them basically non existent in the MA. Who would want to fly 1 hour to target and back from target. So until the font lines got closer I don't think you would have strategic bombing on new maps.
What if the resources were capturable :aok
This way a country could increase its resourses over the initial maximum, not just only decrease enemies' resources.
The strats would (might) become more valued, bombing would mean more and defending them would mean more. Even nice furballs and GV fights might develope around the strats.
There could be several strat clusters around, but maybe 1/3 or 1/2 of them should be closer to rear areas?
Resources are capturable now via capturing there controlling air field. Hence the zone concept.
I wonder why you can't resupply the City? IMO it should be just like the factories.GP500 explosive got you down? Shrapnel indigestion? Have some ACME supplies bring you right up in 15min or your money back! :D
Hitech?
I wonder why you can't resupply the City? IMO it should be just like the factories.
Hitech?
Gets my vote :aok
Consider BlauK recommendation of allowing each strat to be captured (map room), removes the ability of "milk runs" as friendly line moves forward.
Vehicle field or Air fields could be placed close or spawn points set to help protect strat.
I liked the old system before the switch to the current zone system. With the old country resource system, the factories/depots actually had some strategic value which was lost in the switch to the zone system.
With the country resource system, it also helped create fights that the zone system didn't 'encourage'. What I mean by that, players were more likely to up fighters to defend the factories/depots against the bombers and in turn the bombers were also more likely to bring escorts for defense. In addition, it also encouraged players to attack the supply trucks/trains/barges and others to defend their supply lines.
In short, the old country resource system helped encourage fights on all levels and that was a very good thing.
ack-ack
I assume that this would also make convoys, trains, and barges very strategic targets?
For the MA I would hazard that this might be an issue and would discourage bombing of strats. When we had the zone less system previously I believe it was on the smaller 256x256 maps, so designers could not place strats to far away from the initial battle fronts (before people started capturing bases).A possible solution to the large maps problem would be to still have 2 or 3 of each type of strat object (say 2 relatively close to the front and one further back), that would have a cumulative effect on supply -- i.e. take one of the factories down to zero, your map status would show 33%, and supply would be 2/3rds as effective. It still has an impact, but not crippling to a country that is pushed back well behind the initial map start.
On a 512x512 map you could easily end up with a situation with strats placed:
1) Strats being placed by the terrain designer to far away from the battle front resulting in an hour or more flight to the target and then another X amount time back to a friendly field. How many players in the MA do we know willing to fly an hour to get to a target and bomb it?
2) Strats being place to close to the front and being over runned and then being deep behind enemy lines. Resulting in the enemy country being able to hit them at will unopposed and degrade your countries supply while your country might have to fly say X amount minutes or more to fly to the strat target and defend it. Even if players do this they only have a certain amount of time over target defending it. Which again might produce the affect of the supply for one country simply being continually depressed with them not able to do anything about it. Say if strats were 100 miles to 125 miles (4 - 5 sectors behind enemy lines).
As stated I don't see this being an issue with special events (scenarios, FSO, snapshots, etc.) where people are used to and required to fly long distances. I do think this could be an issue in the various MAs.
I like the idea of capturing strats (equipped with maprooms). Make the strats bigger as suggested and add some of these for protection:
(http://i343.photobucket.com/albums/o460/caldera_08/augarten_01.jpg)
I am considering scraping the zone strat system and going back to country resources.
Thoughts?
HiTech
+1 :aok
High altitude bombing is fun to play and intercept.
I am considering scraping the zone strat system and going back to country resources.go for it
Thoughts?
HiTech
Resources are capturable now via capturing there controlling air field. Hence the zone concept.
With fields now that can not be captured, the problem of strat being in enemy territory can easily be fixed simply by moving the strat objects .
The main thing this will effect is that strat will again be more of a value when hit, because it will always effect the entire country.
HiTech
+1 HT
Aside: It would be kind of neat to see some fields that you couldn't capture unless you took down the associated strat objects associated with it, like local bridges.
Last year, someone suggested bridge bases you could capture. That would be cool too.
I don't see a huge impact. However, I'd like to see factories and the City increased in size to at least double their current building count while keeping the existing factories and City for backward compatibility.
Is that a possibility?
Two guys in B-17s shouldn't be able to disable a countries strat in two passes as they can now on some terrains.
Or at the least make the bridges destroyable to disrupt the supply lines.
ack-ack
Two guys in B-17s shouldn't be able to disable a countries strat in two passes as they can now on some terrains.
If the factories are much further back and much easier to supply, then there accrues no great advantage to hitting them. There would then be little incentive to hit factories at all. Better to use the bombs at the front line. The score guys would still be heading there at the start of each month (probably in another arena anyway), but I can't see an increase in activity high over the factories from this, just a decrease.
A possible solution to the large maps problem would be to still have 2 or 3 of each type of strat object (say 2 relatively close to the front and one further back), that would have a cumulative effect on supply -- i.e. take one of the factories down to zero, your map status would show 33%, and supply would be 2/3rds as effective. It still has an impact, but not crippling to a country that is pushed back well behind the initial map start.
One issue with the straight distributed effectiveness model (lose a front line factory - resupply reduced 33% etc) is that it will have an immediate detrimental effect on the country that is the target of the day. When that country is down to a third of its bases and getting ganged from both sides, having a less effective resupply will just be another nail in the coffin and make it that much harder to defend / recover. That, I would think, would need to be accounted for somewhere.
Gents, capture-able strat in the sense you wish will not happen. If you think that capturing strat would then permanently make the other counties rebuilds 75% less or what ever, you have just set up a steam roll condition.
I.E. Each capture makes it harder and harder for a country to defend. While this is how the world works, it does not make for good game play.
HiTech
I was debating between this, and putting them all in the back / HQ area of the country.
HiTech
Gents, capture-able strat in the sense you wish will not happen. If you think that capturing strat would then permanently make the other counties rebuilds 75% less or what ever, you have just set up a steam roll condition.
I.E. Each capture makes it harder and harder for a country to defend. While this is how the world works, it does not make for good game play.
HiTech
HiTech,
I respectfully disagree on this being only a negative thing, and actually think it has the capability to make defending more palatable at times (and will concede it will also make it tougher, it's a give/take relationship). Here's my thinking... (again using my 4/40 example).
If bish lose 5 fields, but keep their 4 strats, each strat would resupply at GREATER than 100% (in this case : 114% efficiency). The attacking country would resupply at a SLOWER pace (88% efficiency) because of their lower strat/field ratio. Therefore attacks by the defending country would actually be MORE effective than standard. If the attacking country took a strat, that still leaves the defending country at 86% efficiency, while the attacking country now with 5 strats and 45 fields would be at 112% effeciency. Yes, it would make the attacker have the advantage at this point, but as it stands with zone supplies, wouldn't the zone fields be more affected than 86% efficiency? Plus, the option would still exist to fly supplies in from other airfields, as we do now, as well as likely that strategic target is still surrounded by the defender's airbases, making re-taking it easier than defending it.
My actual math equation is as follows... very simple :
#Strats x 10 (or 15 or whatever you want to use) / #airfields.
Just wanted to throw the concept out there to think about, that's all. :salute
We really can't have it both ways.
Either bombing strat is more effective, and (somewhat) cripples a country until they resupply, OR it's a non issue that doesn't attract bombing missions. I see the problem of putting a country in a hole, but I don't see a way around it.
Oop, I'm not advocating strat capture.
I think the real problem with strats is there is no perceived advantage to hitting them. In the MA as it currently stands, there is no tangible result gained by utilizing the long term effects that the current strat system has. Most of the base takers will move on to a different base if resistance is too heavy at their first target. Their goal is to take bases as quickly as possible. A slightly longer down time for the hangars or the ack has no real effect for the attacker whose main tactic is the blitz, particularly when the same result can be accomplished more easily by a couple of people with cannon armed fighters hitting resources at the target itself.What about and ENY 5 Factory?? <ducks> I love your idea Hammer!
If you want strat targets to be attacked and defended, they have to be worth attacking and defending. The results of the attack has to be valuable to the attacker. A successful attack has to be detrimental to the defender. In other words, the outcome has to important to both sides. And all of this has to be done in a way that doesn't unbalance game play for the arena. A bit of extra time on a commodity has little to no value in the current game play dynamics. The only thing that comes close is the HQ and its dar. Take out the HQ, dar is gone. The effects are immediate and felt by all. What I propose is a change to what commodities are produced at the factories and what happens when they go down. For example:
1) 1000 lb bombs. A factory should produce 1000 lb bombs. Destroy the factory, 1000 lb bombs are not available to that country until the factory is restored. Now, the loss of 1000 lb bombs is an inconvenience. It means a single plane can't take down a fighter hangar. Heavy bombers have to be a bit more accurate to ensure hard targets are destroyed. It does not, however, take away any capability from any side. Game play should remain nearly as balanced as it was before the factory was destroyed, yet I believe most would consider this a target worthy of spending some time in the air to attack and defend.
2) Cruisers. A factory producing the 8 inch guns for cruisers is destroyed. Task Groups no longer spawn with cruisers. It would change the dynamics of how that task group is used, but it wouldn't really take much away in overall game play. Again, though, I believe most would consider that a target worth the effort to attack and defend.
3) Troop Training Facility. Destroy it, troops aren't trained as well, it takes 15 or 20 to capture a town vs 10 well trained troops. This one comes close to upsetting balance, but is really more of an inconvenience.
That's the general idea - a commodity based system vs a time based one. Just a beginning of a thought, but the main point once again is that strat targets have to be worth hitting and worth defending.
Regards,
Hammer
Lots of valuable points and view points :aok
In any case, I'd vote for anything that promotes fights and action in regard to starts, against molesting isolated undefended "offline" strat targets.
If the wish is to make them more attractive tagets, they should also be made as more attractive property to defend. How to accomplish that, without the negative steam roller, is the million dollar answer :)
For some reason the defence is so often unattractive. Many people rather join large attacking forces than defend own property as underdogs. Then again some few (pun unintended ;) ) prefer the underdog situation in a more target rich environment and closer to home base. How to balance this whole issue? :)
just throw it in there and see how it goes.What he said.
anything to spice up the stale old MA gameplay :aok
I think the real problem with strats is there is no perceived advantage to hitting them.
Simplifying the strat model.
Get rid of all strat except HQ and cities.
In the rear uncapturable zone make the HQ and some cities uncapturable. (choose the quantity of such cities carefully)
Make the rest of the cities capturable.
Choose resupply maths that reflect the ratio of cities to fields (that any side has) and bias it by the % health of the cities owned.
Moot, AckAck and the CM guys (and a few others) have all put it pretty well I believe.
If you want to use the factories and supply generally to create activity, then like anything else in life you have to provide a tangible incentive for a person to make that effort. They have put forward a number of interesting ideas that would provide incentives and opportunities to attack/defend strat objects.
The old system brought forward attacks on factories only after one side was practically demolished. Whilst the drama of the desperate fight to defend the last few bases was underway, there was always the strange sight of many of the attackers winging their way to the factories. It possibly was their chance to get easy bombing points without much investment in time or risk. Bombing in tactical terms always involves both of those investments. Removing the factories from the tactical area and providing no further incentive in terms of increased impact on play means that there will be few, if any, willing to make those investments.
:aok +1
I'd gladly take some 17s deep into enemy territory if it's actually got some purpose. I smell an egg mission. Sweet.
With the AI that has been developed, would it be possible to have drone supply flights in addition to the current drone supply system? To prevent people using the drone flights to pad their score, make it so they don't count towards kills or score / rank.
ack-ack
go for it HT. :aok+1 :aok
Fighter Factories: One per country. Main Strat. Responsible for fighter availability (As their %destroyed goes up, low ENY fighters (0-10?) become unavailable.)
Bomber Factories: One per country. Main Strat. Responsible for bomber availability (As their %destroyed goes up, low ENY bombers (0-10?) become unavailable.)
Vehicle Factories: One per country. Main Strat. Responsible for vehicle availability (As their %destroyed goes up, low ENY vehicles (0-10?) become unavailable.)
ANY strat system that effects anything based on ENY will completely negate the ENY purpose
Considering the country with High ENY will be the country doing the steamrolling and destroying the strats...... if they have the ability to knock out your 0-10 ENY planes then what they have the ability to do is give the lowest numbered country an ENY of 10.1 for hours regardless of numbers
ANY strat system that effects anything based on ENY will completely negate the ENY purpose
Considering the country with High ENY will be the country doing the steamrolling and destroying the strats...... if they have the ability to knock out your 0-10 ENY planes then what they have the ability to do is give the lowest numbered country an ENY of 10.1 for hours regardless of numbers
Sorry shoulda been more clear on this... it was late.
I don't actually mean to involve the ENY system with the Strat system, but the ENY system is the only guage of 'fighter quality' that I could come up with that everyone would understand.Addendum to Earlier Suggestion: Strat DefenseAs I alluded to, these strat targets should be extremely difficult to do actual catastrophic damage to, and even more difficult to keep down permanently. I was envisioning factories that were a little more hardened (and possibly larger) than the collection of ammo bunkers and townbuildings we have now. I would also say these factories should have a good umbrella of CV-like puffy ack. The goal is to capture the essence of the strategic bombing campaigns of WWII, but not force that aspect of the game down the throats of those do not enjoy it. While the effects of a successful attack on these targets should be noticeable, they should by no means completely shut down a country, much as taking out fuel at an airfield currently only limits the planes there to 75% vs making them completely useless.
Maybe rebuild times could be inversly proportional to the size of a country's territory? This would make a steam rolling country more vulnerable, and wouldn't necessarily require more than one set of strats, as HT seems to prefer.
...
Gaining terrain? Ok, pay the price: longer supply lines, slower rebuilds.
...
Overall I have felt the game does not have enough reward for attacking strategic targets. It takes away from the old real world tactics.
For example train yards and bridges would be an awesome addition.
I like the idea of having much stronger buildings for the factories. Make the strats much larger, with more trains, heavy ack.
I also think they should be capturable. There are ways to avoid the steamroller effect:
Require say 50 troops for the opposing country to capture, but only 10 troops for the original country to recapture. For the bad guys to capture, maybe they have to get guys in each of 5 maprooms while original guys only have to get 10 guys in any of the maprooms. This will make it more a tactical thing, since it isn't easy taking such targets intact etc.
Don't allow the enemy's ack to immediately work upon capture, but let the original teams ack work immediately.
Let original team have trains that resupply the factories to rebuild them, so it rebuilds faster for original owners than enemies.
Scatter a few uncapturable bases around the map, and surround each with factories which are fairly nearby. Having the factories too far behind lines makes it too much work to damage / capture them.
Give original owners GV spawns in the factories. Consider making uncapturable base VH indestructable.
Near HQ have an uncapturable factory of each type so they are never 0% rebuild.
If you don't make them capturable there will just be factories behind enemy lines getting annihilated. I think its important for them to be capturable just make it very difficult to do.
Gents, capture-able strat in the sense you wish will not happen. If you think that capturing strat would then permanently make the other counties rebuilds 75% less or what ever, you have just set up a steam roll condition.
I.E. Each capture makes it harder and harder for a country to defend. While this is how the world works, it does not make for good game play.
HiTech
Hammer Wrote,
I agree, and hence why I am talking about the change. I want to get back to less complexity.
HiTech
Jayhawk, most of RoughWood's suggestions are single items, not a complex system. Some of them could be hand picked to make the right combination.
Why should i have intentions to capture it ,if the maps have 200+ bases and it's almost impossible with present MA set up, needs 40% of both teams. Map reset more often would make the game more dynamic, more hot fights and suspense situations to win or avoid lossing,and less complains about boring maps stalled for weeks.:aok
Why should i waste 1 hour to bomb HQ ,City, factories if doesn't get involved in nothing,and gets resuped in 2 min. There's nothing left to fight for, unless you want to have your name on front page.:aok :aok
bring back the old 4 steps damage set up for HQ, longer downtime to encourage players use long range bombers/missions and use the bombers for their strategic role. What for are all this long range bomber with formation option? bomb CV/gvs?sounds great!
Remember those huge HQ raids having 2 teams involved in a big fight, ... that's what makes memories, but unfortunately with this MA set up, they don't happen anymore.
Before, when i used to log in and was a new map my Q was: Who won last map?
It's like many peoples reading the sport news every day, watching their favorite team results. I like furballing but it's boring without some strategy involved, i can't play for score, we can't all 1000s of players become fighter aces, i can't play just to improve fighter skills like many are suggesting here. How can you promote fights/furballs without attacking enemy bases? Why would i attack enemy bases without capture intentions? Why should i have intentions to capture it ,if the maps have 200+ bases and it's almost impossible with present MA set up, needs 40% of both teams. Map reset more often would make the game more dynamic, more hot fights and suspense situations to win or avoid lossing,and less complains about boring maps stalled for weeks.Why should i waste 1 hour to bomb HQ ,City, factories if doesn't get involved in nothing,and gets resuped in 2 min. There's nothing left to fight for, unless you want to have your name on front page.
I wish the map reset % would drop to 15-20% and have HQ damaged/destroyed involved in map reset,:bring back the old 4 steps damage set up for HQ, longer downtime to encourage players use long range bombers/missions and use the bombers for their strategic role. What for are all this long range bomber with formation option? bomb CV/gvs? Remember those huge HQ raids having 2 teams involved in a big fight, ... that's what makes memories, but unfortunately with this MA set up, they don't happen anymore.
This game is a great invention, has a huge potential , but after the changes in last years, the game is like my toolsheder brain: it's using only small % of its capacity......... to offer entertainment for all the consumers, all style of players; the toolsheders lost the war.
I generally agree. I would like more of a purpose, reward, and fight to ensue behind going deep after core resources. I would like to see core resources actually valuable enough that it promotes fights in defending against attackers going after them. Too many do not, or choose not to understand the current system, right down to the basic understanding of what a barracks represents at a base.
Just a bit of brainstorming...
One problem is to balance the importance of strat targets right. Making them too important can easily affect gameplay in a negative way, particularly when one side is already beaten to the ground (=few fields, low numbers). When not important enough, nobody really will care to attack them, unless the bases around them are overrun and it's safe to do a few milkruns.But will we also add the math for resupplying a smaller stock of fields?
As a country losses more and more bases, will it take a shorter time for the kept bases to be resupplied........ More resources for fewer bases..........
The large country now has so many bases to resupply that it may take an 1.4 hours for the dar to pop instead of 45 min.
One idea I do have now (and it's still a rather vague one), is to have the effect destroyed strats target do have on a country being tied to the numbers of fields this country has.
Example: Country starts with 60 bases (=100%) on a large map. Strat Effect Modifier = 1.0. When this country is beaten down to 30 bases (=50%), Strat Effect Modifier =0.5). At 120 bases, Strat Effect Modifier = 2.0.
In other words: When a country is very successful, it's strat targets are much more vulnerable but usually far more away from the enemy at the same time. On the other hand the country being reduced to only 4-5 bases hasn't to worry that much about the strat targets anymore.
There is even some kind of "historical" explanation to this gameplay modification: Your resources are very strained if you have conquered so much territory & bases. Also a country like Germany was very ingenious in decentralizing production in the last months of the war, when the country was being overrun and the major factories were bombed to smithereens.
Just a bit of brainstorming...
One problem is to balance the importance of strat targets right. Making them too important can easily affect gameplay in a negative way, particularly when one side is already beaten to the ground (=few fields, low numbers). When not important enough, nobody really will care to attack them, unless the bases around them are overrun and it's safe to do a few milkruns.
One idea I do have now (and it's still a rather vague one), is to have the effect destroyed strats target do have on a country being tied to the numbers of fields this country has.
Example: Country starts with 60 bases (=100%) on a large map. Strat Effect Modifier = 1.0. When this country is beaten down to 30 bases (=50%), Strat Effect Modifier =0.5). At 120 bases, Strat Effect Modifier = 2.0.
In other words: When a country is very successful, it's strat targets are much more vulnerable but usually far more away from the enemy at the same time. On the other hand the country being reduced to only 4-5 bases hasn't to worry that much about the strat targets anymore.
There is even some kind of "historical" explanation to this gameplay modification: Your resources are very strained if you have conquered so much territory & bases. Also a country like Germany was very ingenious in decentralizing production in the last months of the war, when the country was being overrun and the major factories were bombed to smithereens.
I couldn't make sense of that.
By Effect Modifier are you saying the buildings are more easily damaged? And is it some sort of inverse proportion?
at least 1 huge city
It's time you let us use the CT city objects HT! :aok
(http://img168.imageshack.us/img168/7226/city2xg6.jpg) (http://imageshack.us)
Yeah to put some of the factories in the large cities would be very cool.
We'd need maps of the cities on the clipboard tho. But that's not a huge thing, I'd assume.
When could we expect the change??? :pray
Just curious hitech, any rough developments or thoughts from you and the gang at HTC??
Yes, don't want to let this one die.
How exactly is it currently set up in the small maps where you only have one zone per country? Does it have the same affect as it would if it were set up as a country system? The set of strats that are placed in the small maps are all located around the HQ and supply the whole country, so it would appear we already have a working model of what we want to see changed.
:rock HTC
Before, when i used to log in and was a new map my Q was: Who won last map?
It's like many peoples reading the sport news every day, watching their favorite team results. I like furballing but it's boring without some strategy involved, i can't play for score, we can't all 1000s of players become fighter aces, i can't play just to improve fighter skills like many are suggesting here. How can you promote fights/furballs without attacking enemy bases? Why would i attack enemy bases without capture intentions? Why should i have intentions to capture it ,if the maps have 200+ bases and it's almost impossible with present MA set up, needs 40% of both teams. Map reset more often would make the game more dynamic, more hot fights and suspense situations to win or avoid lossing,and less complains about boring maps stalled for weeks.Why should i waste 1 hour to bomb HQ ,City, factories if doesn't get involved in nothing,and gets resuped in 2 min. There's nothing left to fight for, unless you want to have your name on front page.
I wish the map reset % would drop to 15-20% and have HQ damaged/destroyed involved in map reset,:bring back the old 4 steps damage set up for HQ, longer downtime to encourage players use long range bombers/missions and use the bombers for their strategic role. What for are all this long range bomber with formation option? bomb CV/gvs? Remember those huge HQ raids having 2 teams involved in a big fight, ... that's what makes memories, but unfortunately with this MA set up, they don't happen anymore.
This game is a great invention, has a huge potential , but after the changes in last years, the game is like my toolsheder brain: it's using only small % of its capacity......... to offer entertainment for all the consumers, all style of players; the toolsheders lost the war.
Was messing around a bit. So instead of this sizeIt looks like you just put 4 pics togehter. :lol
(http://www9.picfront.org/picture/IsE3FihD/img/city.JPG) (http://www.picfront.org/d/IsE3FihD/city.JPG)
should be this size
(http://www9.picfront.org/picture/pBuHAMlp69F/img/ncity.JPG) (http://www.picfront.org/d/pBuHAMlp69F/ncity.JPG)
This is why they don't tell us what they're developing. lol
...with out fighting the game is not fun.