Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: Pepe on July 10, 2001, 10:35:00 AM
-
The ideal (in my opinion) settings for hangar destruction and field capture would be if an individual hangar could launch a limited number of planes per minute. Let's say 20 planes per minute, so a small field will be able to launch 60 planes per minute ,that is, 1 plane per second. Damage to the hangar slow the output and destruction stop it completely. Say you destroy 2 hangars. Defenders can still take off at a rate of 1 plane each 8.5 seconds, if the remaining FH is still intact.
Is it restrictive with regards to the actual situation?
Cheers,
Pepe
-
Why do you want restrictions placed in the first place?
If you take down all the FH, no fighters can launch. I fail to see why coding in a few extra lines restricting how many can take off makes it any better.
-SW
-
Because It would (IMHO) better simulate damage as it actually happens in real life.
Cheers,
Pepe
-
I do not understand why do you want to limit a number of planes upping from the field in MA? I find it fun to have enemies around me, this way I don't have to fly long flights just to find one single enemy.
mx22
-
We aren't simulating real life at all.
We are simulating air combat, in a fake world with faked airfields and what they mean.
Would taking down hangars in real life do anything? Sure, they would destroy the hangars, but most aircraft were stored outside during the day.
Therefore, aircraft would still be able to launch.
That's why runways were the targets in real life, not hangars. Or the planes lined up along the sides of the airfield. Hangars were a target only after the runway and aircraft in the dispersal huts were destroyed to prevent defenders from taking off.
-SW
-
Originally posted by Pepe:
Because It would (IMHO) better simulate damage as it actually happens in real life.
Cheers,
Pepe
No it won't. In RL planes were stored in hangars only on airfields far way from the combat area. Most of the time planes were disperced (sp??) around the airfield.
mx22
-
Exactly, mx22. Since they are dispersed, they are not blown all and everyone at once. It was never an all or nothing issue.
So, attackers now has the dicotomy: either they flatten the base and risk a sudden respawn of hangars, or they have a permanent, unlimited flow of respawners. I think It would be better that an attack that achieves half of its destruction goals limit the airfield capacities proportionally, and hamper defenders accordingly. Current situation means that unless you have a 100% successful bomb attack on hangars, the practical results (in terms of actual damage to defenders) are nil.
Runways/aifields were not destroyed by the last golden bomb, It was a matter of progressive damage. And repairing time is a direct function of damage inflicted.
That's the reason beyond.
Cheers,
Pepe
-
You bet all available fighters will be scrambled if enemy is found near the airfield. Without any delays... Again we getting to a question, why to have this system in MA? To prevent people from furballing? I thought that was the whole point of MA.
mx22
-
I see what he's getting at. He wants to see some results from hitting individual hangars, and not just when hitting all of the hangars (of the same type.)
This one isn't too bad of an idea. Why? It's not much different from taking out the FH altogether.
MX, the reason you want to limit fighters upping from a field is to take the field. That's what happens when you take out ALL the fighter hangars at a field. No fighters at all can up from it. All Pepe is suggesting is extending it so that taking out some of the hangars has an immediate effect.
SW, in a way you argued for Pepe. You're right, taking down hangars in real life had little effect, they weren't the targets. You're also right in that we're using the hangars instead, since this is a simulation game. IRL, if you took out 25% of the planes parked on a field, that's 25% that immediately couldn't come up. If you took out 100%, 100% couldn't come up. With the current AH setup, taking 25% of the FH out does nothing immediately. Taking out 100% of the FH does have an immediate impact.
The general concept behind the idea is a good one. The proposed implementation, I'm not too sure about.
-
I like the idea of each hangar causing some kind of aircraft loss... but not restricting the number of aircraft that can spawn.
I think something in line with restricting by ENY value would be better. 1 FH means nothing with an ENY less than 10 can take off... 2 FH... nothing with an ENY less than 20 can take off... and so forth.
If you go by a planes/time scenario... you bump into way too many problems.
AKDejaVu
-
Lol Deja,
I can see a beaten up country with 2-3 half damaged fields left fighting for its life in biplanes against late war monsters.
mx22
Originally posted by AKDejaVu:
I like the idea of each hangar causing some kind of aircraft loss... but not restricting the number of aircraft that can spawn.
I think something in line with restricting by ENY value would be better. 1 FH means nothing with an ENY less than 10 can take off... 2 FH... nothing with an ENY less than 20 can take off... and so forth.
If you go by a planes/time scenario... you bump into way too many problems.
AKDejaVu
-
Originally posted by mx22:
I can see a beaten up country with 2-3 half damaged fields left fighting for its life in biplanes against late war monsters.
Just like Poland during the Blitzkrieg!
-SW
-
Originally posted by AKDejaVu:
I like the idea of each hangar causing some kind of aircraft loss... but not restricting the number of aircraft that can spawn.
I think something in line with restricting by ENY value would be better. 1 FH means nothing with an ENY less than 10 can take off... 2 FH... nothing with an ENY less than 20 can take off... and so forth.
If you go by a planes/time scenario... you bump into way too many problems.
AKDejaVu
Deja!! you could kill two birds with one stone! You get an effect from hitting some of the hangars, PLUS you give the George whiners a way to limit the amount of the "UFO's" they see! ;)
Seriously, this sounds like a good implementation. :)
-
I can see a beaten up country with 2-3 half damaged fields left fighting for its life in biplanes against late war monsters.
Depends on what you are talking about...
If this thread is simply about spawning at a vulched field.. then you are correct. If it is actually about doing some kind of strategic damage to a field via partially taking FHs then its not.
Basically.. the "I AM TIRED OF PEOPLE SPAWNING AT A BASE FASTER THAN I CAN VULCH THEM" consideration is minimal for me. The strategy side is actually being considered.
AKDejaVu
-
Ahh the strategy and MA, two things that would never go together:-D Limiting number of planes or type of planes that spawn from the field might be a sounding strategic proposition, but then who will want to fly for loosing side?
mx22
Originally posted by AKDejaVu:
Depends on what you are talking about...
If this thread is simply about spawning at a vulched field.. then you are correct. If it is actually about doing some kind of strategic damage to a field via partially taking FHs then its not.
Basically.. the "I AM TIRED OF PEOPLE SPAWNING AT A BASE FASTER THAN I CAN VULCH THEM" consideration is minimal for me. The strategy side is actually being considered.
AKDejaVu
-
I like DejaVu's idea. :)
anRky
-
I'm not sure about PPM(planes per minute),but restristing the # of planes in air from any one airbase is a great idea..It would spread things out and reduce the horde vs horde we are used to having..But I have to say thses last two maps are great at that so maybe we don't need it?..Lol..<S!>
-
SirLoin... are you in a squad?
How does the game decide who does and doesn't get to launch from a certain base?
Do you want the game to decide this?
These are just a few of the problems <just scratching the surface> of any kind of limmiting plane spawn rates at a field. And that's just with about 15 seconds of thought.
Who said they want to spread the map out? Do you want to be that guy that's forced to launch three bases back from enemy lines because you didn't press ".fly" as fast as someone else?
:rolleyes:
AKDejaVu
-
Deja,
I think we touch common ground when we talk about strategy. I also think that you would agree that this would be some kind of step towards having factories and supply lines and infrastructure that would be the ultimate factors in respawning (planes / fuel / ammo = resources availavility) ;).
I see your point about ENY value. Admitting that the result es very similar to limiting numbers of respawning planes (hurt the defender's strenght on a progressive way) I think It would be better my approach, for the following reasons:
a) Limiting models of plane available would promote vulching big time, not base capture. Imagine the face in some of the vulching characters around here in a (say) C-Hawg over an endless stream of respawning C.202. Geez, bearing in mind how U.S. lawsuits work, you could be be tried as indirect responsible of heart conditions :D
b) Limiting planes in number would promote base capture, and make mindless vulching useless. As destruction mounts in the base, fewer planes would be available to be vulched. So no reward for having a base deacked with only one hangar up, and harder times for "score hungry" vulchers.
c) I think limiting models available is not different (in terms of restriction & potential whines) to numbers. It will p**s some people off both ways. Even perk points do it, anyway ;)
Cheers,
Pepe
-
a) Limiting models of plane available would promote vulching big time, not base capture. Imagine the face in some of the vulching characters around here in a (say) C-Hawg over an endless stream of respawning C.202. Geez, bearing in mind how U.S. lawsuits work, you could be be tried as indirect responsible of heart conditions
Not really. Half the planes you see coming up are Zekes anyways. Or IL2s. Use the one aircraft with only 2 .50's to prove your point if you want... its a minor point.
And what would someone have to do to get it down to the most inept planes? They'd actually have to destroy fighter hangars. They'd have to have only 1 fighter hangar left. Sure they could vulch... but they sure as hell couldn't squeak that people were spawning and that sucks... afterall... there was only one more hangar that needed to go down.
In one case, you argue that spawning is too rampant. Then you argue that vulching would be too easy. Think about this.
b) Limiting planes in number would promote base capture, and make mindless vulching useless. As destruction mounts in the base, fewer planes would be available to be vulched. So no reward for having a base deacked with only one hangar up, and harder times for "score hungry" vulchers.
Promote base capture? Um.. what game have you been playing? 75% of what goes on in the arena right now is an attempt at base capture. All you are really talking about is an attempt to make base capture easier. Once again... why do you think more hangars were added recently? It was not to make base capture easier.
As for limiting planes... I'm trying to think what would be easier... vulching a field where I knew a plane could only spawn every X seconds... or where as many planes could spawn as the enemy was willing to sacrifice. One I could vulch easier than the other... and I don't think its the one you are thinking.
c) I think limiting models available is not different (in terms of restriction & potential whines) to numbers. It will p**s some people off both ways. Even perk points do it, anyway
Anyone will be able to fly from the base.. not a random few. If you are willing to sacrifice yourself to defend a base... its not going to matter much what you do it in. It will matter that you are not allowed to try.
Once again.. the limiting of type would not really help much in a vulching scenario. It would only help in more of a strategic sense arena wide. A hit on a hangar nearby a field you are planning to take means no Perkies could fly from that field for 15 mins... or no N1Ks or La-7.
AKDejaVu
-
After reading this entire thread, I've come to one question and one question only:
Why does it matter so much to you that someone else is vulching some baffoon that insists on taking off?
If someone insists on taking off from a field under attack, he WILL get vulched. If someone insists on keeping planes from taking off from a field he is attacking, he WILL vulch the planes taking off.
It's a moot point, something I don't understand why you are so concerned with. Padding scores? Are you honestly THAT concerned with why and how someone got so many kills?
I'm stumped, I really don't get the logic behind this one.
-SW
-
So long as we have unrealistic bombers and so long as the only targets in The game are (LOL) airfields and so long as the (LOL) fighter hangers are what determines if fighters can take off from said fields or not....
No... You have a long way to go in the realism department before you can limit fighters at fields. I think all you want to do is get a field on the ropes so that you can vultch risk free with huge superior numbers.
Put in revetments and have 100-400 planes at an airbase.... Planes can take off so long as there are revetments left...Allow planes to be ferried in to the field (you land there from somwhere else you can take off from there). Make the fighter hangers meaningless like they were in the real fields. Make it so it took weeks or months to take an airfield by air just like in WWII.
You don't want realism you want more gimics to aid the anal "strat" gamers. U want an "edge" that has nothing to do with skill.. What you suggest would make things even more hashed up and unrealistic.
lazs
-
This ENY restricting would bring a whole new strategic side to base damaging.
Anyway, we have the fuel thing already, but why arent the furballers whining about that? 25% or 50% max fuel already makes it impossible to go furballing, but the brainless n1k respawn is still possible. Id like to see some options for restricting that.
100% FH:s, all planes can up
75% FH:s, only non-perked planes can up
50% FH:s, only over 20 ENY can up
25% FH:s, only over 30 ENY can up
0% FH:s, no planes can up.
(same goes with BH:s)
This would also promote people to fly other planes, than Spits and n1ks without MAKING them to do that (theres always other close fields to up).
AH has developed lots of things to improve furballing i think now it should be time to improve strategic sides of this game.
-
Deja,
In one case, you argue that spawning is too rampant. Then you argue that vulching would be too easy. Think about this
That's the point, spawning would be difficult, PLUS vulching would be senseless. And I mean vulching without the purpose of base capture. I do find vulching as a natural thing when it comes to base capture. As natural as the desire of defenders to spawn with no limit. It's only that I find incorrect the current situation. I find it stupid when vulching only serves as a score tool. Especially when in this last case, the vulcher will be chewing newbies. No veteran will (wont't he?) spawn at an attacked field when he realizes there is no capture in process.
[ 07-11-2001: Message edited by: Pepe ]
-
Deja,
Promote base capture? Um.. what game have you been playing? 75% of what goes on in the arena right now is an attempt at base capture. All you are really talking about is an attempt to make base capture easier. Once again... why do you think more hangars were added recently? It was not to make base capture easier.
Hehehe, I think the same as you, but at a different time zone ;) I wold say in my timezone it's better to talk about 25% lone buff porking fuel/ammo in random bases, 25% actual field capture attempts and 50% vulching/furballing. Maybe I'm wrong, this is my subjective perception. :)
As for limiting planes... I'm trying to think what would be easier... vulching a field where I knew a plane could only spawn every X seconds... or where as many planes could spawn as the enemy was willing to sacrifice. One I could vulch easier than the other... and I don't think its the one you are thinking.
Hmmmmm....first question: What would wou find easier to vulch, 5 C.202 respawners at a time, or one single N1K2 respawning each X seconds (let's assume you have a 4 fighter-strong CAP, and all but one hangar has been destroyed)? Second question: What would be closer to a simulation, a no limit, no order, free-for-all instant respawn, or a regular cadency, one by one, respawn, in relation to damage taken by the airfield? (on a side note, I would let spawning only at intact hangars ;))
Anyone will be able to fly from the base.. not a random few. If you are willing to sacrifice yourself to defend a base... its not going to matter much what you do it in. It will matter that you are not allowed to try.
Once again.. the limiting of type would not really help much in a vulching scenario. It would only help in more of a strategic sense arena wide. A hit on a hangar nearby a field you are planning to take means no Perkies could fly from that field for 15 mins... or no N1Ks or La-7.
I slightly disagree with this one. From my point of view, plane type does makes a difference. Let's use an example, you are limited to 1 plane each 3 seconds, no type limitation. You respawn in a cannon armed bird, you have one small possibility to kill on a HO shot a poorly set attack, attacker that is definitely farther than 3 seconds. It's a small possibility, but still it is one. On the other side, you are limited to an unlimit C.202 flow. 3 attackers can (again, in my opinion) quite easily keep this respawners low and, basically, dead. Besides that, the occasional ;) Goon would face worse odds against a cannon bird, in snapshot terms.
We are arguing here on different approaches to the same concepts: base damage should be progressive, base capture should be difficcult, and a well timed, coordinated effort should be rewarded against a bad executed one. I think yours is valid and an improvement over what we currently have, although I think a plane number limitation will be less restrictive and closer to a real situation.
Cheers,
Pepe
-
Pepe wrote:
"What would be closer to a simulation, a no limit, no order, free-for-all instant respawn, or a regular cadency, one by one, respawn"
And the answer is unquestionably the former, be it the Battle of Britain,Pearl Harbour or the defense of Berlin the response to attack was always the same:
Scramble!
ATC did not apply in these cases....
-
Originally posted by SWulfe:
After reading this entire thread, I've come to one question and one question only:
Why does it matter so much to you that someone else is vulching some baffoon that insists on taking off?
If someone insists on taking off from a field under attack, he WILL get vulched. If someone insists on keeping planes from taking off from a field he is attacking, he WILL vulch the planes taking off.
It's a moot point, something I don't understand why you are so concerned with. Padding scores? Are you honestly THAT concerned with why and how someone got so many kills?
I'm stumped, I really don't get the logic behind this one.
-SW
SW,
First, you question would merit another thread, as I think we are pretty focused on the particular matter, keeping quite civilized, and it is irrelevant to the thread itself anyway. I will answer anyway, and let me ellaborate a bit.
On one hand, I like the sim nature of this game. I like the sense of "being there". I like having an experience where the environment is as close to the real thing as it can be. I am ready to accept gameplay concessions, as I know mine is a very "elitist" (if you want to use that word) approach, and first concern is to achieve critical mass (both in terms of enjoyment and population, and in terms of Htc.'s survivability).
What I don't really want is unrealistic behaviours that ruin realistic ones for the sake of it. I am just proposing for an open debate some way of tuning an unrealistic approach to field damage.
On the other hand, I don't care the vulching for itself, I find it logical if you have to clean an airbase previous to its capture. I dislike the free vulching thingy. I well maybe wrong, but, as I said previously, you will hardly find a veteran taking off from a capped field if it's not an ongoing capture attack. So the so-called "mindless" vulchers are (mostly) people who will abuse from newbies who do not know where to take off and usually do it from a capped . I know this is a quite risky assumption, but I honestly think this is the general case. Don't come here with the "Each one flies how and when each ones want" because newbies don't have a clue on this game, at least from some weeks.
From my point of view, each tweak added to give some strategic depth, and each point enforcing the "sim" aspect has my vote as its an improvement from my point of view. On my side, I will post whatever I think could work this way. Again, Htc. will sort them out (mostly discard them all :D)
If you want to discuss this any further, please start another thread ;)
Oh, and no, I don't really care about scores, mine or others'. Check mine and see why. One thing is certain, I am not an "elite" pilot. I'm glad enough I randomly make a difficult target. :D
Cheers,
Pepe
-
Originally posted by Seeker:
And the answer is unquestionably the former, be it the Battle of Britain,Pearl Harbour or the defense of Berlin the response to attack was always the same:
Scramble!
ATC did not apply in these cases....
I beg to disagree. Of course It was scramble! and the sooner, the better. Yet there are aifield limitations, and I am talking about nr. and measures of rnwys. This for the beginning. After some bombs fall, the intrinsic limitations of each airbase will increase, progressively. So it's not a permanent unlimited Scramble!. You could do it (to certain extent) from an undamaged airfield. Certainly not at the same rate if half of the runways are damaged/disabled.
Cheers,
Pepe
-
You invited me to comment on the vulcher issue when you brought this point up:
"Limiting planes in number would promote base capture, and make mindless vulching useless. As destruction mounts in the base, fewer planes would be available to be vulched. So no reward for having a base deacked with only one hangar up, and harder times for "score hungry" vulchers."
Why would you mention this if for no other reason than to throw in your opinion of "vulching", then not want anyone to comment on it or question it.
After-all, as HTC is making AH, this game is not supposed to recreate or simulate any form of experience of being there except for in scenarios. The MA is supposed to be a "mindless" place to just throw down and have fun without worrying about "will I be able to take off or have too many people already taken off from this field?"
If you don't want someone remarking on one of your points, then why would you use that as a "pro" for your idea?
Selective use of the pros and cons, so long as they work for you and not against you?
Did this thread somehow become uncivilized since I commented on your comment about vulching?
I don't see how.
EDIT: "I know this is a quite risky assumption, but I honestly think this is the general case. Don't come here with the "Each one flies how and when each ones want" because newbies don't have a clue on this game, at least from some weeks."
And this is just pure speculation based on trying to get your idea across as a good one. Newbies aren't the only ones taking off from fields under attack. Many "vets" do it to keep their field from being captured.
Do you classify BigMax of the Assassins a newbie? Please, do not bring newbies into this as a pro for your argument to limit spawning from damaged fields because it isn't just newbies taking off from fields under attack.
-SW
[ 07-11-2001: Message edited by: SWulfe ]
-
Originally posted by lazs1:
U want an "edge" that has nothing to do with skill.. [/QB]
And yo have one that is definitely related to skull....the harder, the better :D
Cheers,
Pepe
-
SW,
Why would you mention this if for no other reason than to throw in your opinion of "vulching", then not want anyone to comment on it or question it.
Because we were talking what would be the effect of certain measures on aifield damage. I welcome your coments with regards to this, but I thing you question my motivations for/against vulching. Your question is unrelated to the thread, that is about airfield damage model. That's the only reason why I ask you to start another thread. I appreciate your oppinions, but I'd like to keep each matter on each thread, if possible. :)
--------------------------------------------
After-all, as HTC is making AH, this game is not supposed to recreate or simulate any form of experience of being there except for in scenarios. The MA is supposed to be a "mindless" place to just throw down and have fun without worrying about "will I be able to take off or have too many people already taken off from this field?"
AH claims to have (and as long you are here from beta, I think you will concur with me) the closest to the real thing FM in the whole industry. So it certainly does try to simulate the real experience in this aspect. It has gameplay concessions, but the baseline is simulation and fidelity. As long as further elements are introduced, I think the baseline is not changed, thus I try to think of a better simulation of base damage here.
--------------------------------------------
If you don't want someone remarking on one of your points, then why would you use that as a "pro" for your idea?
Selective use of the pros and cons, so long as they work for you and not against you?
Dang, how I hate negative questions. Hard to understand properly when not in your mother language ;). I think it's better to remark than not. But the reason beyond my answer was that, IMO, your question was off-track. Still I don't refuse to answer. Just asked you to start another thread titled "Why are you agaist vulching?".
I try to see the points for and against. I try to discuss the flaws when I feel there is some solid ground to do.
--------------------------------------------
Did this thread somehow become uncivilized since I commented on your comment about vulching?
I don't see how.
I did not say so. I think is still very civilized, and enlightening too :)
-------------------------------------------
And this is just pure speculation based on trying to get your idea across as a good one. Newbies aren't the only ones taking off from fields under attack. Many "vets" do it to keep their field from being captured.
Do you classify BigMax of the Assassins a newbie? Please, do not bring newbies into this as a pro for your argument to limit spawning from damaged fields because it isn't just newbies taking off from fields under attack.
Let me repeat what I posted. I think I stated it quite clearly. If you don't see it, please tell me. ;)
It is my own speculation, and I try to let it clearly stated: "I know this is a quite risky assumption, but I honestly think this is the general case."
Newbies are not the only ones: "I well maybe wrong, but, as I said previously, you will hardly find a veteran taking off from a capped field if it's not an ongoing capture attack. So the so-called "mindless" vulchers are people who will abuse from newbies who do not know where to take off and usually do it from a capped"
Cheers,
Pepe
[ 07-11-2001: Message edited by: Pepe ]
-
I just wanted to find out why you brought up vulching as a proponent for your argument to make damage to fields more effective (I guess) in terms of what gets damaged versus what can be launched.
I admit, I think the idea has merit. Unfortunately, we are all paying the same amount of money.
I would not like to be paying 30$/month to be able to fly from a field 30 minutes away from the action. That would bore me to tears.
The question is: Would you be willing to sacrifice more people than you would bring in if your idea was implemented?
Think of this scenario:
Someone who just enjoys porking fields for no other reason than to keep people from taking off from front line fields decides to take all the hangars at front line fields down to x%. This limits people to either planes at a certain ENY value or how many people can take off per minute.
You can no longer fly what you want from that field, or you can no longer fly from that field and must choose another one, further back behind the lines.
This just invites people to play the role of, please excuse my language, amazinhunk of the skies.
This is why I oppose anything that would further make it easier to limit what can be launched from a field.
-SW
-
SW,
The question is: Would you be willing to sacrifice more people than you would bring in if your idea was implemented?
No, definitely not. I think this is Htc.'s job. Taken to the limit, I would retire myself before. I'm not that kind of people ;)
With regards to the scenario you propose, you will never find that particular area of the sky unpopulated :D. Whatever Htc. could possibly think /wanted to trow into the game, some people just feel an irresistible attraction and will find ways to get there. ;) Plane type / Plane number limitation would not, in my opinion, promote that behaviour more than current fuel/ammo/drunk destruction.
Cheers,
Pepe