Aces High Bulletin Board

General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: jimson on December 14, 2009, 12:28:46 PM

Title: Would this change the game dynamic? for better or worse?
Post by: jimson on December 14, 2009, 12:28:46 PM
This idea got buried in the end of another thread, so I thought I'd give it it's own to see if anyone thought it had merit.

What if we made some bases more valuable than others? ie: heavy bombers can only up from large airfields.

Might create some ferocious battles for those particular bases.

There's been a lot of complaints about noe hordes dumping bases, and moving on without even trying to defend them.

That won't stop, but maybe a flashing large airfield would then draw a hell of a lot of defenders quick, and maybe the base takers might be more compelled to defend them from counter-attack.
Title: Re: Would this change the game dynamic? for better or worse?
Post by: gyrene81 on December 14, 2009, 12:49:57 PM
+1  :aok

Personally, I've always thought the long range B-17s, B-25s and Lancs should not be available to "front line" (i.e. within 2 grid squares of an enemy base) bases...instead make them ony available to large rear bases. Could dampen the number of Lancstuka attacks since not many would want to cross a lot of grid squares at low level in a heavy bomber when they have the time to climb to higher alt.

Title: Re: Would this change the game dynamic? for better or worse?
Post by: gyrene81 on December 14, 2009, 12:53:31 PM
Poop...double post...sorry.
Title: Re: Would this change the game dynamic? for better or worse?
Post by: Lusche on December 14, 2009, 12:55:57 PM
Could dampen the number of Lancstuka attacks since not many would want to cross a lot of grid squares at low level in a heavy bomber when they have the time to climb to higher alt.

And lead to a vast increase of complaints about all those 30k bombers ;)
Title: Re: Would this change the game dynamic? for better or worse?
Post by: gyrene81 on December 14, 2009, 12:58:51 PM
And lead to a vast increase of complaints about all those 30k bombers ;)
:rofl Oh my that would be horrendous...you mean they would take the time to do something besides brag about how big their cyber testicles are?

It would give me a better hunting ground when I go buff hunting...  :neener:
Title: Re: Would this change the game dynamic? for better or worse?
Post by: Strip on December 14, 2009, 01:08:58 PM
At 30,000? They piss and moan when you go 22k in Ki-67's.......

I still laugh about the time I had to come down because I was above the poor 190's max ceiling of 36,000 feet.

He pissed and moaned for hours about that one!

Strip
Title: Re: Would this change the game dynamic? for better or worse?
Post by: gyrene81 on December 14, 2009, 01:13:18 PM
Dude!  :O  You took a bomber above 36k? That's 3 beers and a potty break...  :huh 
Title: Re: Would this change the game dynamic? for better or worse?
Post by: BaldEagl on December 14, 2009, 01:40:56 PM
I like this idea for heavy bombers. 

How about restricting heavy bombers to large airfields, medium bombers to large and medium airfields and light bombers being available everywhere?
Title: Re: Would this change the game dynamic? for better or worse?
Post by: Knite on December 14, 2009, 01:46:23 PM
I like the strategy this would add beyond just Ports being special. Problem is... if a team is getting steamrolled, how badly will this restrict their ability to bomb the attacking enemy in retaliation?

Just wondering how that dynamic would play out.
Title: Re: Would this change the game dynamic? for better or worse?
Post by: 5PointOh on December 14, 2009, 01:53:30 PM
+1  :aok

Personally, I've always thought the long range B-17s, B-25s and Lancs should not be available to "front line" (i.e. within 2 grid squares of an enemy base) bases...instead make them ony available to large rear bases. Could dampen the number of Lancstuka attacks since not many would want to cross a lot of grid squares at low level in a heavy bomber when they have the time to climb to higher alt.



I like this idea. I'm assuming you meant B-24s.  Leave the Attack planes at the front line. Perhaps have a blue frame around the airfields with heavy bombers.
Title: Re: Would this change the game dynamic? for better or worse?
Post by: gyrene81 on December 14, 2009, 02:04:56 PM
I'm assuming you meant B-24s. 
LOL...good catch, didn't see that typo. B-24s for sure.

There would be a lot of whining to start out with...it would sure change some of the dynamics. I don't think bases would get steamrolled by low level heavy bombers...instead we would probably see more medium and light bombers that don't have the capacity to carry 2 ton bombs dropping hangars in one pass...probably more fighter/bomber activity...just have to wonder if there would be an increase in high alt large bomber formations making long range bomb runs to put the finishing touches on a base that's almost ready to go down.

Title: Re: Would this change the game dynamic? for better or worse?
Post by: 5PointOh on December 14, 2009, 02:11:15 PM
And it might also decrease the 5k Lanc doing the Carpet Bomb shuffle across airfields!
Title: Re: Would this change the game dynamic? for better or worse?
Post by: Spikes on December 14, 2009, 02:22:04 PM
This idea has floated around the boards before and I support it.
Would you make it so just big buffs could up from large airfields? Or have the bases fluctuate when the enemy takes bases IE the new cities. Say the big buff airfield is 2 or 3 sectors in from the front, be it a small or large airfield. If the enemy takes a base closer to it, the airfield that once allows them now does not.
Title: Re: Would this change the game dynamic? for better or worse?
Post by: Templar on December 14, 2009, 03:43:14 PM
+1 for the idea  :aok. Leave the map as it is, right now you usually have big bases mixed in with smaller bases pretty well anyway, so it will make for more strategic levels of play with the fight over front line big bases taking attention from smaller fighter bases.  :cheers:
Title: Re: Would this change the game dynamic? for better or worse?
Post by: Beefcake on December 14, 2009, 04:26:28 PM
-1

As a buff pilot I do not want my play ability to be limited anymore than it already is. Making it so that I can only fly my B17s out of a certain field means I could be out of action for a night, or it means I might have to fly an hour or more just to hit an airfield. No, if you're going to restrict bombers then figthers should be restricted to certain airbases as well.
Title: Re: Would this change the game dynamic? for better or worse?
Post by: gyrene81 on December 14, 2009, 04:43:34 PM
Good idea Beefcake...disable the fighters at any base where the heavy bombers are enabled so there is zero chance of saving the base if it gets attacked by fighters and bombers.  :neener:

Medium and light bombers would still be available everywhere...we're just talking the heavies, especially the Lancs. You do fly medium bombers as well as heavies don't you?
Title: Re: Would this change the game dynamic? for better or worse?
Post by: jimson on December 14, 2009, 04:45:38 PM
-1

As a buff pilot I do not want my play ability to be limited anymore than it already is. Making it so that I can only fly my B17s out of a certain field means I could be out of action for a night, or it means I might have to fly an hour or more just to hit an airfield. No, if you're going to restrict bombers then figthers should be restricted to certain airbases as well.

More and more I see how tough a job HTC has, balancing the playability of this game for all.
Title: Re: Would this change the game dynamic? for better or worse?
Post by: hitech on December 14, 2009, 04:46:19 PM
Do the buffs then get to start at 30k from the rear base?

HiTech
Title: Re: Would this change the game dynamic? for better or worse?
Post by: gyrene81 on December 14, 2009, 04:50:41 PM
Do the buffs then get to start at 30k from the rear base?

HiTech
Errr... :confused:...why would the need to? Starting from a rear base gives the heavy bombers time to climb to a higher alt than the current 5-6k they achieve now when flying to a base 1 grid square away.
Title: Re: Would this change the game dynamic? for better or worse?
Post by: Ack-Ack on December 14, 2009, 04:53:55 PM
Do the buffs then get to start at 30k from the rear base?

HiTech


Doesn't have to be a rear base, just restrict the heavy bombers to the large bases.  


ack-ack
Title: Re: Would this change the game dynamic? for better or worse?
Post by: jdbecks on December 14, 2009, 05:03:22 PM
maybe even give the heavy bombers airstart if they are a few bases behind the front lines, enable it so the heavy bomber airfields move up and down with the front line,
Title: Re: Would this change the game dynamic? for better or worse?
Post by: Beefcake on December 14, 2009, 05:07:35 PM
Errr... :confused:...why would the need to? Starting from a rear base gives the heavy bombers time to climb to a higher alt than the current 5-6k they achieve now when flying to a base 1 grid square away.

You do realize that if a change like that was made, most heavy bombers would be  attacking from 25+K?

I say this because many people complain about those "dweeby" alt monkey buff pilots that come in at 30k and can't be hit by most fighters. You guys complain about it yet you want the game to be changed which would almost force that style of game play?

Yeah....

I'm glad Hitech has far more sense than spelling ability.  :D



And yes Hitech, buffs get a 30K air start for 30 perk points.  :D
Title: Re: Would this change the game dynamic? for better or worse?
Post by: gyrene81 on December 14, 2009, 05:12:15 PM
You do realize that if a change like that was made, most heavy bombers would be  attacking from 25+K?

I say this because many people complain about those "dweeby" alt monkey buff pilots that come in at 30k and can't be hit by most fighters. You guys complain about it yet you want the game to be changed which would almost force that style of game play?

Yeah....

I'm glad Hitech has far more sense than spelling ability.  :D



And yes Hitech, buffs get a 30K air start for 30 perk points.  :D
I would never complain about buffs attacking from 25k+...if there were more of them that's where you would find me most often.  :D   But alas, they're usually found below 10k.

How about for airstart 100 perk points per 1000 feet up to 10,000 feet max?

Or,
Doesn't have to be a rear base, just restrict the heavy bombers to the large bases

ack-ack
Title: Re: Would this change the game dynamic? for better or worse?
Post by: Strip on December 14, 2009, 06:28:29 PM
Dude!  :O  You took a bomber above 36k? That's 3 beers and a potty break...  :huh 

She quit climbing at 39,000 feet, was one of those afk for an hour pointed at a distant HQ deal.

Came back at 38,000 and said what the hell lets go for 40,000, didnt make it tho.

Strip
Title: Re: Would this change the game dynamic? for better or worse?
Post by: Strip on December 14, 2009, 06:32:48 PM
I would never complain about buffs attacking from 25k+...if there were more of them that's where you would find me most often.  :D   But alas, they're usually found below 10k.

How about for airstart 100 perk points per 1000 feet up to 10,000 feet max?

Or,

100 perks to save you a little over a minute per thousand feet?

No thanks......maybe one or two perks per thousand feet.

Strip
Title: Re: Would this change the game dynamic? for better or worse?
Post by: Kurtank on December 14, 2009, 06:57:48 PM
No, Id prefer about 25-50 perks per 1000 feet. 100 seems about right. Most guys have MOUNTAINS of bomber perks anyways. If you set it to one-two perks per thousand, you will instantly see HUGE rises in quick bombing raids where they start around 20-25K alt and just trade that alt for speed. WOuld be hilarioust to watch the scrub pilots bust the wings off from pointing the nose down too far too long.  :lol
Title: Re: Would this change the game dynamic? for better or worse?
Post by: bustr on December 15, 2009, 06:38:29 AM
Shift heavy bomber bases in the same way the strat gets shifted as the front changes. Medium and light bombers flew from forward feilds.
Title: Re: Would this change the game dynamic? for better or worse?
Post by: 5PointOh on December 15, 2009, 08:00:00 AM
NO Airstarts!! Although I could just fly around the airspawn collecting proxies as bombers tumble to thier deaths! :x
Title: Re: Would this change the game dynamic? for better or worse?
Post by: thndregg on December 15, 2009, 08:07:48 AM
I'd be willing to partake in an experiment with this concept. 91st Bomb Group takes off on realistic missions up to respectable altitudes anyway. Would be nothing new. Maybe it would work, maybe not. I'm open to both possible results.
Title: Re: Would this change the game dynamic? for better or worse?
Post by: bustr on December 15, 2009, 06:00:25 PM
I still think VBases should have short dirt strips, no rearm pad with One fighter hanger. Fin-Rus Russian front style dirt strips to help defend it and perform nieusance raids. Say HurriC or 109E-F or spit5 or La5. As the heavy bomber bases shift back with the strat, there will always be at least one isolated VBase overlooked by the other sides push. Yes and the fighter hanger will probably get camped from a hill and be the first thing downed by jabbo and bombers. But, the way we forget our back feilds in this game. You suddenly get a call out over country that 30 HurriC with bombs have torn up one of your bases and the M3 is in the town..........

George...ahhh...did the CO ask you or me to flaten V-Oopsies fighter hanger this time? CO to George - this mission you get to deack the feild with a C47......
Title: Re: Would this change the game dynamic? for better or worse?
Post by: Scherf on December 15, 2009, 06:13:23 PM
+1. I could see this fitting in to "new strat" nicely.

That and bridges.


Oh, and having bases "in supply" or "out of supply" for purposes of being open / shut / able to be captured.















And parachuting dogs.
Title: Re: Would this change the game dynamic? for better or worse?
Post by: b4o2s9s on December 16, 2009, 01:50:55 AM
I think it would be a good idea to try, having heavy bombers enabled at large fields only.  :rock