It sound good, but I don't like the percent idea. I'd rather have it to amount of gallons. This would not really effect you since you can fly half way across the map with 50% fuel in that P-47, but Spitfires for example would be virtually grounded.
Or we can keep it at percent as you said, but make it 75% = no drop tank, 25% = 75% fuel, 0% = 50% fuel.
BTW why can't we have new vehicles and new war system?
ENY has no claim on grounding "draw" aircraft? Cummon you gotta do better than that.
How about the games just fine, other than too many folks complaining. :aokyou have the wrong attitude waystin, too positive. :lol not allowed.
you have the wrong attitude waystin, too positive. :lol not allowed.
You know Gyrene, after 4 plus years in game I now know that it is up to the players and not the developers to make it fun. It's the truth and I am sticking to it Sir. :aok:salute absolutely agree sir.
How about a new "war system" that includes "usefull and critical" strats "that actually matter to the game" ie: fuel strats that in total make up 100% of a countries fuel, bring them to 50% and available fuel would be 50%, bring them down to zero and a country would have only 25% to work with. How about troop strats? ammunition strats. Radar strats that degrade with damage, not just are destroyed when totaly Fd up. Oil strats that have a great affect on boats. ENY strats? these would make low ENY birds cost more when damaged, shipyards that when damaged make boats take longer to spawn?
While I'm at it how about a system that encourages folks to defend against hordes, either a warning system or a "delayed capture" idea?
How about anything that improves the general interaction other than vehicles and maps? The graphics and vehicles and terains and maps have all improved over and over and over and over again, no how about some idea that changes the "same ol, same ol" "status quo" that this game has become?
Please give me something that will make me desire to stay!!!!!!
:salute
JUGgler
you are so awesome that you hardly get killed in bombers. perhaps u should try to bomb anything that has a couple of fighters over it.
semp
You know Gyrene, after 4 plus years in game I now know that it is up to the players and not the developers to make it fun. It's the truth and I am sticking to it Sir. :aok
you are so awesome that you hardly get killed in bombers. perhaps u should try to bomb anything that has a couple of fighters over it.
semp
WTF does this mean? please be more direct!!!! or take your typing hand out of your pants!!
BTW I would PWN you as the "Boston Strangler" :rock
JUGgler
Grounding Spitfires and Bf109s, two aircraft with larger draws for players, seems unwise to me.
Player bring this about but looking to have fun. I think players could be "guided" by game mechanics to do those things they don't want to do. Give them more perks to resupply HQ. Give them more perk/points to defend against the horde. Tie the acks strength to the number of enemy in a Dar circle, the bigger the horde, the more ack to give defenders time to up and defend. The smaller the horde, the less ack so small squads can still hit a base and have a chance.
Lol, no one has suggested grounding certian aircraft.
Why does it always come down to 'EZ mode blahblahblah'? Regardless of how easy or not they may be to fly, it's to do with limiting options. 109s and Spits are among the most popular planes in the game, they're also deeply penalized by limiting fuel. The same can be said for the LAs, the I-16, and a bunch of other planes. With only 25% fuel available, it renders a bunch of the planeset useless.
The vast majority of people don't like their choices being limited. People barely put up with hangars getting bombed. Giving the other side yet another way to make people unable to fly what they want is deeply unpopular.
Wiley.
If we threaten with the inability to fly their dweeb planes, they'll either defend, fly something other than the %*#$fire 16, or just log off, leaving us with a less over-croweded arena. The fights can aford to lose the dead-wood anyway.
If we threaten with the inability to fly their dweeb planes, they'll either defend, fly something other than the %*#$fire 16, or just log off, leaving us with a less over-croweded arena. The fights can aford to lose the dead-wood anyway.
EXACTLY! It is also far easier to bomb fighter hangers, fuel, ord, troops, and so on than it it is to protect them. So people gravitate to those easy/fun things and avoid the tougher more boring things that need to be done to slow them down like cap fields, do fighter sweeps, run supplies, recon missions and so on. The war has become very one sided with everyone on the attack. So the Bish grab 10 fields from the Rooks in 8 hours, the Rooks grab 10 from the Knights, and the Knights only get 8 from the Bish (we all know the Knights suck :D ) in the same 8 hours. So maps last forever.
What we need is people who want to defend. The trick is dangling the right carrot in front of them to get them to do it.
The war has become very one sided with everyone on the attack.
The problem with mounting a defense against a horde is, the "cap" that is achieved by design of the horde. When done properly, aircraft and vehicles are not allowed to leave their hangars at that base. Okay so you say, what is stopping them from coming from another base. The answer is, in the time that it takes to organize a defense and make it to the field under horde control, a well planned mission will have troops going into the maproom.
Kvuo,
The problem with mounting a defense against a horde is, the "cap" that is achieved by design of the horde. When done properly, aircraft and vehicles are not allowed to leave their hangars at that base. Okay so you say, what is stopping them from coming from another base. The answer is, in the time that it takes to organize a defense and make it to the field under horde control, a well planned mission will have troops going into the maproom.
You know... that might actually be interesting.
AI Battle for town... It initially is assaulted and 'deacked' allowing troops to enter town, at which point the arena states:
SYSTEM: Battle for A231 Commencing
There can then be set damage amounts per side, w/ possible 'garrisons' or soemthign similar GV's could help assult with. These are strengthened through dropping of supplies, and weakened through attrition and friendly GV/air assault on certain targets. Once the set damage amount has been reached, the game would anounce:
SYSTEM: Field 231 has been Caputred by the Bishops
At this point, field ack would come back up, and the town timer would go into the 'rebuilding' side of things for buildings to start popping.
So the original 'defenders' would need to get 20 troops in to take it back?
It sounds to me like an interesting idea. What would happen if the second group of 10 didn't make it in within the time limit, but the first one did?
Wiley.
Hmm... So once it's got 10 from each side into it, the only way to make it uncontested is to get 10 more troops into it from either side.
It would certainly slow down rolling bases...
Where does country 3 fit into this? If they get 10 in, free base?
It could be good. It could also stagnate the map completely. I guarantee it would be hugely unpopular with the 'roll bases repetitively with as much speed as possible' crowd, which is the only way mud seems to move.
Wiley.
The # of troops required for the ultimate capture is insignificant, the 20-30 minutes of 'contested" status is the "meat" of the idea.
As far as the "mud movers" are concerned, they could still move the mud however they desire they could even move on if they like, I'm sure "as we have now" squads that specialize in captures, we would have squads specialize in defending the potential capture as well as squads that specialize in 'counter attack" as well as "interdiction", GV defence/attack all brought on by the "timeout". You see the timeout gives TIME for a vast amount of diversity in gameplay to potentialy happen!
In RL the moment an attacker wins a possesion is the same moment he is the most vulnerable, <-- this is where all 'counter attack" theories are derived!
JUGgler
Right, I'm on the same page. I just wanted to understand how it would work.
Horde comes in, smashes base, drops 10 troops. Base is now contested.
Counterhorde comes in, smashes CAP, drops 20 troops. Base is now theirs again.
Maybe some kind of setup where if a base hasn't changed hands in the last hour, it's contested for 40 minutes. If it's retaken by the original defenders, it's contested for 20 minutes. If the original attackers take it back, it's contested for 10 minutes, or something along those lines.
Would the hangars be available when a base is contested? The more I think about this, it looks to me like it's possibly overbalanced in favor of the original defenders.
Wiley.
You are overthinking it!
A simple "timeout" for a base that is "contested", "contested" being--> 10 troops have entered the maproom unmolested. 30 minutes later IF 10 opposing troops have not entered then the base changes hands. If 10 "counter troops" successfully enter the maproom then the next set, whomever gets them in takes the base, and it immediately becomes fully operational.
The idea for the "timeout" is simply in response to how missions work and how the general play of AH peeps is.
The average capture goes like this--> Horde assembles in mission then launches, defending country sees a bit of dar but most folks are off doing something else and do no wish to auger (for whatever reason) to respond in a timely manner. Defending country does produce a few "diehards" but they are waaaay to few. The mission arrives and pummels all before it and set up cap. A few defenders up from nearby bases trying to get there, those that come in low trying to be intime are poored over by the horde, those that grab alt are too late!
A "timeout" for 20-30 minutes will allow a response, it is still no guaranteed and the responders still need to get troops in (still very much against the odds) but doable if there is enough commited. The original attackers now have become the defenders for 20-30 minutes and maybe the attackers again if their defense sux. The "back and forth struggles" would be epic. Not all captures would be fought over, I suspect most would still be easy with little defence required, but a few of them would be "mindbendingly" intense and chaotic :rock
My idea does NOTHING to discourage the original "capture mission". Infact the same strategy could apply, they will just have to defend their troops for a time frame to ultimately be successfull :aok
JUGgler
There is a HUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUGE difference tween smashing a base where limited #s of peeps are trying to up and defend and smashing an already inplace cap that is established and has alt! :aok
Not that big. A good number of them are going to have to land and reup. I'd say between the people who started out from the next base over when the attack was first sighted, and the people who are reupping after being shot down, it's going to be about equal, plus the original defenders don't have to put down the town again, they just need to sweep the sky.
Wiley.
You are still looking at it thru narrow glasses. You see when a "mission General" posts a capture mission do you think it might be possible that he or even "random folks" might realize that counter attacks will be coming from nearby bases and actually go interdict the rout of those counter attackers? I think yes. It would not be like you're thinking that 1 horde poors over the base then goes away while the counter attack horde has their turn.
The whole battle would be immensly intertwined and complex in all its facets, bringing far more elements of diversity in actual warfair ( if you will).
The whole battle would be immensly intertwined and complex in all its facets, bringing far more elements of diversity in actual warfair ( if you will).
Just imagine this, I would set up a base capture mission ( :rofl). With my idea I would take in to account the real potential of counter attackers coming from nearby bases, so I would maybe ask for a few "air superiority" ponies or jets to go deal with the potential incoming counter attack untill the base is captured, many planes will easily have fuel and ammo enough to stay aloft 45 minutes or better.
The shear possibility that some of these contests would turn out to epic in all facets of the game would be exciting for all but the very few who need to be absolutely sure of the outcome before they commit to anything!
JUGgler
whole battle would be immensly intertwined and complex in all its facets, bringing far more elements of diversity in actual warfair ( if you will).
:huh <img src='notsureifserious.jpg>
It would stagnate the arena, in horrible fashion.
Wiley.
it will be one epic battle, dozens of planes against dozens of planes. then 10 minutes later he will post threads telling how the game is going down due to horde against horde battles.
semp
Well maybe I just can't see the superior awesomeness of the current system!
The problem is, people don't log into the MA to be told where to go, what to fly, or which role to fulfill. They want to get in and do their thing. Making the ground battle so it requires actual skilled coordination on multiple levels in multiple roles is a recipe for failure. I think HTC sees that, which is why the ground war is the way it is.
It needs to be simple so that casual players can make a difference.
Wiley.
I agree, changes to the strategic system need not make game play more "complicated" which forces players to use a lot more energy to do what they want. However, I think there are plenty of simple changes that can be made that will make things much better without really affecting the difficulty of the game. I'm getting tired of listing them but:
1) Increase strategic value of strats. Provide player base with readily accessible information/intel in regards to the value of objects in the strats via clipboard map
2) Eliminate acks from auto upping when a base is captured. Provide a necessity to defend said base or run supplies to it to get it back online.
3) Add bridges to be fought over that control either supply lines or unlock additional spawns based on who controls it.
4) Add central zone city/hub where ownership of affects supply lines to corresponding zone bases. Place in central location of affected zone bases.
5) Add historical war statistics in game to show which sides have been winning the most wars, which squads have been capturing the most bases, which players are running the most troops, etc. Like a "Heroes of the Last War" section.
6) Add health counter above friendly towns to show the current state of town. If it is down show it to be red, heavily damaged yellow, light damage to no damage green.
Don't have to agree with all of the above but this is just the hamster turning. Plenty of ideas to work with if there is an actual effort on HTC's part to make it better.
Wouldn't 5 result in an unbalancing effect because 'Oh hey, Bish got more map rolls, they must be the bestest side to be on!' and the horde rolls on...
Do you think the player base is that shallow?
My crew would be on the side that loses the most often, and I presume a large number of players like being the underdog as well. If the game is populated by a majority of fair weather front runners then it wouldn't be good I guess. Not like it'd be hard to remove though if the player base proved they really were that lame.
I'm trying to figure out if this question is rhetorical in favor of my standpoint, or rhetorical in favor of yours. ;) Forum board posters are not a representative sample of the playerbase. There's lots of guys on here that would pipe up and say they'd go to the underdog side. Most of them might even actually do it. If that mindset was a majority thing though, don't you think we would see less hordes in game now?
Sure. There are always some who enjoy being on the pressed side. Hey, at least you'd never have to worry about ENY again. ;)
The problem I see with the game is, dogpiling on an undefended or poorly defended location works, and works well. You get points, you get perks, you get attaboys. Your side advances on the map. You get maybe 1 or 2 grumbles from the usual suspects about 'way to go, those buildings sure put up a helluva fight!' and you move on to your next base.
There is no ingame reward for defending a base as it stands now. That's a major problem. The only thing you do by defending is momentarily slow down the other side's offense. Somebody possibly gives an attaboy if your side completely crushes an oncoming horde, but apparently that isn't as motivating as something that says SYSTEM: in front of it. :rolleyes:
I don't know what kind of a carrot to offer people for defense. Perks? 'SYSTEM: Rooks successfully repelled a Bishop attack on A34'? That's the tricky part, is to provide people with a motivation to do the stuff that's good for the game. I think that's part of the problem across the board.
Wiley.
I'd like to see a timer on a base. Once the first object is destroyed...other than radar, two timers start. A 30 minute one that logs all those who rise to the challenge and work at defending the base. The second is a 60 minute timers for the attackers. If they don't capture the base in the 60 minutes those that made it onto the logs in the first 30 minutes and are still inside the dar area for the base win "Saving the base" points/perks.
I agree that something should be done as will to make the new owners of a base defend it for a certain amount of time. No auto ack, and maybe something like the "Save the base" idea above, log the defenders who just took the base and if it is still theirs 30 minutes later give those people points/perks.
I knew you were sitting at your screen hoping against hope to see me post again. Although your attraction to me is flattering it is also gross, please find a new idol!
JUGgler
Use my idea plus give perks to everyone on that country everytime a base is succesfully captured!
Maybe even take equal perks from the country that lost it!
"fighter perks" :aok
JUGgler