Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: BuckP on November 02, 2011, 04:55:59 AM
-
My wish for the week would be the return of the old strat system, having them sprinkled throughout each individual country like before, instead of lumped into the huge city. There was always someone attacking them which brought on more fights. More bombers were in the air working on their points and or perks, but again creating some fun bomber hunts in the process. The flak train would occasionally really screw you if you weren't paying attention (noe raid for example) while flying low, but was a fun touch to the game in my opinion. Slow nights and the late crowd had more options for attack; and what a good time for just that with the 410 soon to be our new attack toy.
The cities are never attacked by a single plane, say a jug as an example, these days as the flight is too long to reach it and into too much enemy territory. Routing a raid around a strat changed tactics for the attackers so as to not get the strat flashing. On the other hand the noe raid might have sent one guy into the strat so as to not get the enemy riled up...."oh it's just a strat hor", and wham, 10 guys pop up.
To sum up - the old strats created more options for everyone (attack them, hunt the attackers of them, tactics on and around them, etc.), allowed some ground attacking other than bases, was an easy way to gain perks for those who wanted more (to cover losses of perk planes, gaining perks for a certain plane, etc.), the flak train (was just cool I thought), and just brought another fight to the game overall. I am certain that plenty of you disagree with me, but that is my wish - the old strat system back.
Buck
-
The current strat system is a joke so I would love to see this.
-
+1
-
+1
I agree, I'd like to go back to seeing more Strat's added per side, instead of the typical 1 strat, why not add another and make it 2 for each.
If we double the factories and replace them (2 of every factory) then if one gets bombed the other still has out put, with both strat's being vast apart it would take both countries hitting the strats to do any real damage to one country's strat. Spaced apart enough that one person would have a hell of a time trying to bomb one strat, then fly across the entire country to bomb the other - which would invite interceptors, or simply fly so high the damage wouldn't be to much.
So overall, that's 10 factories per country on large maps while the HQ is still a single - and guarded by the Me163s. Also for future references to map building, a Large AF with some Alt could be placed near the factories to invite interceptors for those lovely astronaut bombers, as well as a launching point for bombers.
-
Yep, factories once again sprinkled across the terrain would be nice. Supply lines that mean something - to attack and to defend - would be nice.
By the way, we still have trains...but since there's only one mega-city-strat, there's only one train.
-
If memory serves the new strat situation was brought on in an attempt to make them a more viable target, the problem as I see it is that with in the confines of the "win the war" group the city and other strategic targets have no direct connection, or at least no perceived benefit to the accomplishment of their goals.
For a while there we had "zone bases" that were airfields that had a direct impact on the resupply and thus rebuild times of the other airfields within their zone of influence.
I wonder what would happen we went back to a zone system but other than an airfield to be captures we instead had a factory or city complex that either would affect the rebuild times of the surround airfields, or even had to be reduced to a certain percentage before the affected fields could be captured?
Going to have to ponder this one for awhile.
-
That sounds right about the new system being an attempt to make a more viable target, but it really hasn't. I believe that having the factories affect a zone again would be a great touch. Again, brings us players more options in the game, which is more fun to be had. Strats are not an option anymore, it was a loss to us going to the big city.
-
I think the answer might be the old zone system but with the new city complex. I hate to see them wasted!
-
I've outlined a couple wishlist items before that integrated zones with the old individual strats, and the "mega strat" being tied into the zones for resupply.
That way we could have both, and both would be important for different reasons (i.e. a zone or front you want to bomb to help your team, or an overall bombing effort to harm the enemy production).
I think that would be best, a mix of both.
-
I reckon bring back the old zone system, and add the new city with the factories. this would add an extra layer to the strat/supply system (and give us lots more trains!)
edit: rereading your post krusty I think we probably have the same thing in mind.
-
I would like to see something like whole strat city we have now for each separate strat. They could be spread out over the country like they used to and the whole city could be destructable and count towards the strat %. Can you imagine the huge B29 raids that would come to take them down?
-
Some good ideas here, I would love to see something change.
I have no plans to re-subscribe until something is done about the strat system.
-
+1
-
Where is that damn button.... Screw it ... +1. I think its time to admit the single super
Strat didnt work.
Tokenjo
-
Was just thinking the same thing the other day. +1 :aok
-
I can't say that I'd like to see the old strat system back, but I would like to see a new strat system that made strategic bombing operations worth something.
-
I've outlined a couple wishlist items before that integrated zones with the old individual strats, and the "mega strat" being tied into the zones for resupply.
That way we could have both, and both would be important for different reasons (i.e. a zone or front you want to bomb to help your team, or an overall bombing effort to harm the enemy production).
I think that would be best, a mix of both.
yep! I said this as well before,,never understood why it got changed in the first place? and the spawns to know where are no fun!
both the new and the old would be great but we need something, the new mega city is a no fun trip and not worth anything when you get there!, you can go around bombing city centers for a lot more damage points, this should not be!
-
We lost a dynamic of the game with the current system in my opinion. The furball can be fun sometimes. Long bomber runs can be fun sometimes. Bomber hunting can be fun sometimes. GVing can be fun at times. But I miss the late night (can't sleep) get in a plane and go beat up some strat. No squaddies are online, there are maybe 2 or 3 total furballs happening in different places, and I just want a leisure ride to dull the senses which the old strats offered. Get some flying in, get some perks, maybe get bounced (part of the fun), all on a very low key run. Late night really takes the hit I believe, as this was such a popular thing to do for people.
Take right now for instance, as I am writing this; It's almost 1am my time but I'd really love to make a strat run. Work lurks in a handful of hours but I am not quite ready to sleep. I'd love a low key run with a hint of the possibility of getting caught. There was something to the strat runs of long ago.
-
I've outlined a couple wishlist items before that integrated zones with the old individual strats, and the "mega strat" being tied into the zones for resupply.
That way we could have both, and both would be important for different reasons (i.e. a zone or front you want to bomb to help your team, or an overall bombing effort to harm the enemy production).
I think that would be best, a mix of both.
Agreed. I would LOVE to see a mix of both.
-
+1 for sure on this thread,
All the years I enjoyed the old strats went poof :O
I remember taking attack,fighters,GVs and just going for it knowing it would draw someone onto you :cool:
Now don't get me wrong because when the new strat system came on line I first thru a fit,even called them but I gave it a go and took a tiger to a few of them and rather enjoyed it.Fighters buzzing above looking for bombers and from time to time they would find me but it was worth the trip.Lots of bridges that could be choke points if GVs could engage,Roads and buildings to move around and a retarded amount of Flak towers...Was fun but the novelty wore off and I don't bother with them because for me they are the biggest hanger qween of the game now. :joystick:
A combination of the old with new would be a good idea if accessable form all because it would be more engaging for all!.Hell I don't remember what the trains look like anymore :O
AH,...I think you could creat something very engaging with what is now in the game and introduce a touch of old and see what kind of activity springs up from the ashes :rock
Anyhow I made my post of the year,.. :old:
See ya all on the game side
bro06562(bro)
-
The current strat system is a joke so I would love to see this.
I couldn't agree more. There's so little to "do" if you're in bombers these days, that you're
basically relegated to dropping only FHs and towns or the always gamey "sink teh CV with
lancs", all of which I do. It's boring and it's mindless.
It's time we got an operational or strategic aspect re-injected into the game. :D
-
Some good ideas here, I would love to see something change.
I have no plans to re-subscribe until something is done about the strat system.
I agree, Jay. The current strats do not have vitality enough to be attacked in force, unlike going after fighter hangars, bomber hangars, vehicle hangars- as in when they are ALL down, the effect is an immediate loss of the ability to launch from that location- something highly valuable for the other side to defend against happening. Strats do not possess that immediate need to attack or defend in force that cultivates a fight.
Even the HQ has somewhat more value as a target (to be attacked & defended) because of the immediate result/threat of country-wide radar shutdown when it is destroyed.
-
I agree, Jay. The current strats do not have vitality enough to be attacked in force, unlike going after fighter hangars, bomber hangars, vehicle hangars- as in when they are ALL down, the effect is an immediate loss of the ability to launch from that location- something highly valuable for the other side to defend against happening. Strats do not possess that immediate need to attack or defend in force that cultivates a fight.
Even the HQ has somewhat more value as a target (to be attacked & defended) because of the immediate result/threat of country-wide radar shutdown when it is destroyed.
I miss flying in your missions. :( They were a blast.
-
I miss flying in your missions. :( They were a blast.
I'm hoping to be back sometime in late January.
-
I am hoping for a deeper strategic system with some railyards and a factory that affects town down times, by x-mas. :D I remember in another thread, HiTech mentioned that he was thinking about putting in a Concrete Factory that would affect the towns in a zone, down times. For me, it's another target to hit. :devil
-
I do recall the rail yards being brought up in the past and it is a great idea. Some combination of the new and the old would be great, especially if some fun extras came to be as well. By x-mas would be outstanding, but my dinars aren't in that bucket. I don't think the strat system is on the front burner, although I would surely love to be surprised! :pray
-
If you have lots of little strats everywhere then when the front line moves past a strat score obsessed players start upping from the local airfield to bomb it with no risk of opposition.
The problem with the mega strat is that there is no reason to bomb it. HTC should either increase the effect it has on the field capture war or make it worth a lot more points for the score motivated players. A city defended by puffy AA and maybe 163s way behind enemy lines should score better in terms of points/time than a probably not defended front line airfield. A score system that does not reward difficult things over easy things is broken imo.
If you have all the strat in one place AND there is a reason for people to attack it, then players can up there to defend it with a reasonable prospect of seeing some action. If you spread it all out it only benefits milk runners.
-
If you have lots of little strats everywhere then when the front line moves past a strat score obsessed players start upping from the local airfield to bomb it with no risk of opposition.
The problem with the mega strat is that there is no reason to bomb it. HTC should either increase the effect it has on the field capture war or make it worth a lot more points for the score motivated players. A city defended by puffy AA and maybe 163s way behind enemy lines should score better in terms of points/time than a probably not defended front line airfield. A score system that does not reward difficult things over easy things is broken imo.
If you have all the strat in one place AND there is a reason for people to attack it, then players can up there to defend it with a reasonable prospect of seeing some action. If you spread it all out it only benefits milk runners.
agree that it should be worth more to hit the big strats, a lot more!!
I and many others also got a good bit of use out of restoring those strats via M3 or goon, some of the best perk runs in an M3 were over 100 perks for restoring them with field supplies, the same guys that hit them for perks and fun,, run the M3's to them to get perks and have fun. if a strat only feeds bases in front of it, it would be the last thing to fall behind enemy lines and bombing it would harm the enemy bases in front of it, kind of a catch 22 , then it would change to an enemy strat as well and a role reversal, those that were bombing it would now need to rebuild, while those that were protecting it now need it destroyed, I thought it worked a lot like that before,, other than it only supplying certain bases regardless of affiliation?
or ,,,simplified,, a front line strat would supply a set of bases, no matter who controlled the bases it supplied, once one side had a greater percentage of the bases supplied, the strat would belong to the side holding the greater percentage, giving both sides reasons to protect it, as well as destroy it!
we need a vehicle spawn into each big strat city as well though to resupply,, with all the new tanks out,, there is a GV perk point shortage, at least in my hanger! :furious
-
If you have lots of little strats everywhere then when the front line moves past a strat score obsessed players start upping from the local airfield to bomb it with no risk of opposition.
...
If you spread it all out it only benefits milk runners.
imo spreading the strats out with a zone system benefits everyone (unless you like just having 3 big furballs). it gives the bomber guys lots more stuff to bomb, and therefore fighters also get more to do. the zone bases are much more important than the others unlike now where all the bases are pretty much equally important.
-
Here was my idea from earlier this year: http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,291464.msg3707954.html#msg3707954
Largely a mix of the old and new system, like many here have already proposed.
-
I also see more benefits that just to milk runners. Fighters would up to kill the score hor, which in turn might start a larger fight. Maybe each strat should have more defense and/or each one have a VH attached (or a friendly VH spawn into each strat). Spreading it out can work on many levels...and yes the milkers surely will get to score, but that's ok too. Part of their fun is to make those runs, and we have all done it at some point whether anyone will admit it or not.
Greebo is right about there being zero incentive to bomb/attack the mega strats now as it is. Unless you catch it early and know how to fly at high altitudes with the right planes then it isn't even really worth defending. A few squaddies and I love to catch the high alt bombers making those runs now, but it's fairly rare to see more than a couple per night. Conversely, it is rare that we make a high alt bombing run to the other countries strats because of several things including the time involved for the run and it will have no impact on the country. So fingers crossed for a change soon!
-
+1
:salute
HP
-
Here was my proposal for a change to make strategic targets more valuable:
Proposal for the implementation of meaningful strategic bombing in Aces High (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,312329.0.html)
As far as the commonly suggested plane factories, the problem with that is the fact that it works directly against ENY if there is a factory for the P-51D, Spitfire Mk XVI and La-7 because the side with larger numbers will have an easier time denying those airplanes to the side with lower numbers.
The possible alternative I have mentioned is to have the factories be not for the top end rides, but rather for the useful rides that are used once ENY denies access to the top end rides. That way you might be able to deny the side with numbers their F6F-5s and Mosquito Mk VIs. Being denied those aircraft wouldn't hurt the side with low numbers very much because they would still have their P-51Ds and P-38Ls, but for the side with high numbers failure to defend those factories could push them into even poorer aircraft. It would also be more of a challenge for the outnumbered side to pull off a successful raid on the factories than it would be for the larger side.
-
Old is good, but i don't think we need the old, i think we need it revised.
-
Here was my proposal for a change to make strategic targets more valuable:
Proposal for the implementation of meaningful strategic bombing in Aces High (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,312329.0.html)
As far as the commonly suggested plane factories, the problem with that is the fact that it works directly against ENY if there is a factory for the P-51D, Spitfire Mk XVI and La-7 because the side with larger numbers will have an easier time denying those airplanes to the side with lower numbers.
The possible alternative I have mentioned is to have the factories be not for the top end rides, but rather for the useful rides that are used once ENY denies access to the top end rides. That way you might be able to deny the side with numbers their F6F-5s and Mosquito Mk VIs. Being denied those aircraft wouldn't hurt the side with low numbers very much because they would still have their P-51Ds and P-38Ls, but for the side with high numbers failure to defend those factories could push them into even poorer aircraft. It would also be more of a challenge for the outnumbered side to pull off a successful raid on the factories than it would be for the larger side.
Interesting idea, but a side fighting desperately their fields against a superior number of enemies will have a hard time to muster enough pilots and get to the strats which are at that point usually very far away (Even with relatively high ENY limits there are still many very capable interceptors available) . This may be a interesting challenge, but for this very reasons it would probably rarely happen at all. Taking away 30 pilots from a total force of 80 for 2h might mean many additional bases lost if you are already getting pounded.
I would like to see a reason for the dominating side to divert a part of their force to attack the strats instead of just smash&grab base after base. Either by a simple additional requirement to win the war "40% of enemy bases + city down to X%". Or by a point system like I once proposed (captured bases as well as destroyed strats are worth a certain amount of points, reach X points in any way and you win). Or another mechanism, as long as the side with the initiative has a major motivation to fly large strategical missions, while not crippling the outnumbered side's ability to defend.
-
A refinement of my previously stated idea. Make the factories produce "ENY" and damaging or destroying them would raise the ENY limit for that side. The production modifier would be cumulative with the balancing modifier. For example, a side that is heavily outnumbered might have all of its ENY factories destroyed giving it a +15 ENY modifier, but getting -20 ENY due to being outnumbered and thus not being affected while at the same time the largest side is sitting at 20 ENY due to a +15 ENY balance modifier. A successful raid then damages the larger side's ENY factories giving them an additional +6 ENY and they are now limited to ENY 26 and higher units.
I will say that I don't actually like this idea as it would limit plane choices and I don't like that as a rule. It would be entirely possible in this system for three sides to be pretty much even and all have damaged ENY factories thus blocking P-51D fans from being able to fly the P-51D no matter which side they were on.
-
Still, the numerical superior side, which has enough numbers to being able to "afford" to divert a sizeable portion of their players to a strat raid would much less interest to do so, while the underdogs can't pull it off due to the horrid tactical situation without hurting their own defense.
(Just like real life... thing of the desperate & puny tries of the Luftwaffe to mount offensive bombing missions as late as 1944 instead of fully concentrating on the defense)
It would be entirely possible in this system for three sides to be pretty much even and all have damaged ENY factories thus blocking P-51D fans from being able to fly the P-51D no matter which side they were on.
That's the problem with ENY: It's floating quickly. It may take 1 hour, often even more if you take everything into account, until a big raid will finally bomb the strats. Meanwhile the overall numbers can be very much different and the effect is either zero, or may have a contrary effect on balancing. And any effect resulting from bombing the strats should last for a long time no matter what, and not just the ~45 minutes it has now, or again player will find it worthless to attack targets that are back up before they have even returned to base.
-
Lusche,
Did you read the thread I linked to about my earlier idea for a strategic system? I definitely agree that the effect of bombing strats needs to last longer. I would say that it should not be possible to resupply the strats using cargo carriers. Rather stats should be automatically supplied from other resources on the map by trains. For example, towns for the barracks strat, oil fields for the fuel strats, mines for the hangars and ordnance strats.
-
Lusche,
Did you read the thread I linked to about my earlier idea for a strategic system?
Yes, I have now. I think that's going in the right direction... but in my opinion the way it is proposed there it might be unbalancing, as the side having lost a big portion of their territory can hardly reach the enemy strats and now would have huge problems ever getting some bases back. Not entirely unrealistic, and could maybe speed up map changes... but perhaps quite frustrating for players as there is less hope for a comeback? :headscratch:
There more I think about it I come to think that a strat system indeed should attract the attention of the superior side and a impact on war & scores, but no crippling effect on a side's ability to fight (after all that's also why the max fuel porkage level was changed long time ago)
-
Scores are easy. The hard part is finding a way to meaningfully impact the war while not crippling the low numbers or losing side.
-
Interesting idea, but a side fighting desperately their fields against a superior number of enemies will have a hard time to muster enough pilots and get to the strats which are at that point usually very far away (Even with relatively high ENY limits there are still many very capable interceptors available) . This may be a interesting challenge, but for this very reasons it would probably rarely happen at all. Taking away 30 pilots from a total force of 80 for 2h might mean many additional bases lost if you are already getting pounded.
I would like to see a reason for the dominating side to divert a part of their force to attack the strats instead of just smash&grab base after base. Either by a simple additional requirement to win the war "40% of enemy bases + city down to X%". Or by a point system like I once proposed (captured bases as well as destroyed strats are worth a certain amount of points, reach X points in any way and you win). Or another mechanism, as long as the side with the initiative has a major motivation to fly large strategical missions, while not crippling the outnumbered side's ability to defend.
current perks are 25 across the board for a map win,,, increase that score with a percentage of factories/city destroyed at the time of map win,, if all factories and cities are down to 0, then pay 50 perks maybe? it would give the bombers better motivation to go hit strats, taking away from the base rolling machine for a period of time is an up side and I see no downside other than losing some defenders to kill strat bombers!
-
I don't know what the solution is - the call for a real strat system has been going out for years now. We have strategic bombers, but nothing strategic to do with them - so we spend our time flattening bases with them.
Give us something better to bomb! Give us a reason to get 30 people together in huge buff missions that will give you some incredible aerial footage for your next commercial.
-
I don't know what the solution is - the call for a real strat system has been going out for years now. We have strategic bombers, but nothing strategic to do with them - so we spend our time flattening bases with them.
Give us something better to bomb! Give us a reason to get 30 people together in huge buff missions that will give you some incredible aerial footage for your next commercial.
:aok
-
There isn't any one answer to all of our wants with the strats, I am sure that Hitech has gone over and over this through the years as well. However, it can definitely be changed from its current state to allow us more use of them as well as our planes/gv's.
My point in starting this thread was to bring the subject back into light because the game suffers with this current strat situation. I am not bashing anything here, we have tried this strat setup and it doesn't work, so lets move on to the next ideas. With the 410 coming into the game I thought this would be a great time to spark up the ideas with the intention of an eventual change soon.
Good ideas bouncing around, lets keep the topic going so a change is made.
-
I'm toying around with a simple point system again right now...
What about if AH would make the state of the strats as the major component of the war winning requirements (similar to what Chris3 had proposed a few times)? Capturing individual bases would then truly be a tactical objective as means to get better access to the enemy strats.
This could also result in more concentrated battles / frontlines, as there would be a natural inclination of exploiting already established footholds and continuing thrusts into enemy territoy instead of grabbing just more bases here and there to increase base count?
(This is what the old field capture order failed at because it was too ridid). Long range high altitude bombing missions would have much more of a point without degrading tactical combat and real strategy would play a much larger part.
Maybe I will put up a new proposal/discussion thread later... :headscratch:
-
I'm toying around with a simple point system again right now...
Maybe I will put up a new proposal/discussion thread later... :headscratch:
We will only pay attention if you bring some of your (in-) famous pies. :D
-
We will only pay attention if you bring some of your (in-) famous pies. :D
:lol Unfortunately you can't quantify everything :(
-
I'm toying around with a simple point system again right now...
What about if AH would make the state of the strats as the major component of the war winning requirements (similar to what Chris3 had proposed a few times)? Capturing individual bases would then truly be a tactical objective as means to get better access to the enemy strats.
This could also result in more concentrated battles / frontlines, as there would be a natural inclination of exploiting already established footholds and continuing thrusts into enemy territoy instead of grabbing just more bases here and there to increase base count?
(This is what the old field capture order failed at because it was too ridid). Long range high altitude bombing missions would have much more of a point without degrading tactical combat and real strategy would play a much larger part.
Maybe I will put up a new proposal/discussion thread later... :headscratch:
maybe the percentage of bases needed to win the map could be influenced by the amount of damage to the strats?
-
maybe the percentage of bases needed to win the map could be influenced by the amount of damage to the strats?
That would be one way, and a relatively easy to implement one.
-
I'm toying around with a simple point system again right now...
What about if AH would make the state of the strats as the major component of the war winning requirements (similar to what Chris3 had proposed a few times)? Capturing individual bases would then truly be a tactical objective as means to get better access to the enemy strats.
This could also result in more concentrated battles / frontlines, as there would be a natural inclination of exploiting already established footholds and continuing thrusts into enemy territoy instead of grabbing just more bases here and there to increase base count?
(This is what the old field capture order failed at because it was too ridid). Long range high altitude bombing missions would have much more of a point without degrading tactical combat and real strategy would play a much larger part.
Maybe I will put up a new proposal/discussion thread later... :headscratch:
+1
We have tried to do something like this in some AvA set ups. Make the destruction of strat targets the main objective and base capture is relegated to tactical positioning, just to create a game distinctively different from the MA
Of course we don't have the right tools to have the map automatically roll at completion of these objectives, and had to manually tally the results, but it would be nice to see something like this enabled with some sort of point system.
-
FRIGGIN +1!
-
I'm toying around with a simple point system again right now...
What about if AH would make the state of the strats as the major component of the war winning requirements (similar to what Chris3 had proposed a few times)? Capturing individual bases would then truly be a tactical objective as means to get better access to the enemy strats.
This could also result in more concentrated battles / frontlines, as there would be a natural inclination of exploiting already established footholds and continuing thrusts into enemy territoy instead of grabbing just more bases here and there to increase base count?
(This is what the old field capture order failed at because it was too ridid). Long range high altitude bombing missions would have much more of a point without degrading tactical combat and real strategy would play a much larger part.
Maybe I will put up a new proposal/discussion thread later... :headscratch:
+1 to the idea of making base capture tactical and strats...well strategic.
-
(http://i302.photobucket.com/albums/nn105/walkseva/bump.jpg)
Really would give a more robust and immersive aspect to the game.
-
Bumping this thread will do nothing for this wish.
And actually the chances of going back are... well, "very small" would be an euphemism ;)
AH almost never goes back, particularly as it's not just a simple setting and after all the work involved.
The best chance you have getting something "better", is to present an idea that is fully fleshed out, easy to implement (just change of a few variables instead of having to do major artwork and the likes) and no negative impact on game balance.
-
I'm toying around with a simple point system again right now...
What about if AH would make the state of the strats as the major component of the war winning requirements (similar to what Chris3 had proposed a few times)? Capturing individual bases would then truly be a tactical objective as means to get better access to the enemy strats.
This could also result in more concentrated battles / frontlines, as there would be a natural inclination of exploiting already established footholds and continuing thrusts into enemy territoy instead of grabbing just more bases here and there to increase base count?
(This is what the old field capture order failed at because it was too ridid). Long range high altitude bombing missions would have much more of a point without degrading tactical combat and real strategy would play a much larger part.
Maybe I will put up a new proposal/discussion thread later... :headscratch:
Good thoughts, Lusche.
-
Good thoughts, Lusche.
Thank you :)
But impractical so far. Every setup I have imagined in the last few days had several severe flaws. :headscratch:
-
Take the old BLUE arena and put all axis on one side open plane set and all allied on the other open plane set, keep the radar as is, put the old strat system in there. Put the tanks and GV's in there as well. The axis have the jet, but the allies have the c47. This would be at least worth a try to see if people like it no?
-
As a start, how about just making the HQ not be resupplyable? That ALONE will create some big HQ missions as it will suddenly be worth spending an hour to deny another country radar for two. It should also make it worthwhile to intercept those big buff raids if you know your HQ is going to be down for 2 hours if they get through.
I would also suggest at the same time putting a wind layer at 25K - there should be something to stop the unrealistic laser accurate bombing from way high altitude. A wind layer to move those bombs a bit will make it a little tougher to get hits on the HQ.
$.02
-
They could make the train spawn buildings destroyable.........Maybe something like 4x1000 to kill one for an hour but make it that supplies dropped by M3 on train tracks nearby can bring them up faster.
Leave the ability to resupply the city by pilots and GV but reduce the amount of rebuilding from each air drop a bit.
-
Just brainstorming here:
I've always thought that the strats should become the primary targets, and the fields secondary and purely strategic targets.
Perhaps a system similar to Battlefield 2: Project Reality's "Assault and Secure" would be a good solution, which is a modified version of Battlefield's "Conquest" setup. This would help generate a battlefront while still requiring players to both attack and defend one or multiple points on the map.
For those who don't know, Battlefield 2 is a first-person shooter. To win in "Conquest," you must own enough capture points to run the opposing team's tickets to zero. The more points you own, the faster your enemy's tickets diminish. All the points in "Conquest" are open for capture at all times.
Project Reality is a mod for BF2 who's emphasis is on realism and military tactics. They modified the "Conquest" setup by making it so that you have own one or more prerequisite capture points before you can proceed to the next point. If you lose one of the prerequisite capture points to the enemy, you can not longer take the next point. You must then regain that point before you can proceed. They call this "Assault and Secure."
Thoughts?
-
I would also suggest at the same time putting a wind layer at 25K - there should be something to stop the unrealistic laser accurate bombing from way high altitude. A wind layer to move those bombs a bit will make it a little tougher to get hits on the HQ.
Wind does not affect bombs once they've been dropped...as far as I can remember. Getting rid of the auto-calibration and adding upper-level winds would be a good step though. Wind will push your bomber and alter its speed. Manual calibration will help adjust for the wind, but will also bring into play some small bit of talent and experience to calibrate properly to get bombs on target.
-
Then we would end up with bombers that never climb above 6000 feet.
As it is, it's rare to find battles at historic altitudes.
-
Would towns resupping depots , and depots resuping the Strats make any sense? You could also possibly move smaller factories to some towns and as nearby fields are capped the uncapped areas would increase their "production" but the strats would take longer to reup. Then again I'm also very tired and can quite get the idea I have to completely form. I know something like this would require a lot of numbers being crunched between how much does a train/convoy from a town resup a depot and such.
-
Supplies have many times been repurposed from thier original arrival point to where they were needed.
-
Would towns resupping depots , and depots resuping the Strats make any sense? You could also possibly move smaller factories to some towns and as nearby fields are capped the uncapped areas would increase their "production" but the strats would take longer to reup. Then again I'm also very tired and can quite get the idea I have to completely form. I know something like this would require a lot of numbers being crunched between how much does a train/convoy from a town resup a depot and such.
I like the idea's of depots for the fronts. This would also open up shipping lanes. Certain ports could act as a resupply shipping convoy home port. Then subs would definitly make sense. I also miss the train.
-
When we had this system I used to Bomb some :)
-
I've outlined a couple wishlist items before that integrated zones with the old individual strats, and the "mega strat" being tied into the zones for resupply.
That way we could have both, and both would be important for different reasons (i.e. a zone or front you want to bomb to help your team, or an overall bombing effort to harm the enemy production).
I think that would be best, a mix of both.
I'm fairly new here and don't have any experience with the old systems, but I have noticed the lack of strategic activity ... On reflection I think it may be a far reaching aspect of the game and present some challenges that I don't see considered here ...
1 - If strategic damage effects availability of assets ... HOW do players react ? I suspect that a LOT of them would just decide to switch sides and desert rather than play at a disadvantage ???
2 - This would likely encourage MORE mission planning and participation which would detract from the base grabbing and 1 on 1 activity ? I'd like that, but would everyone else?
3 - Right Now the game is like checkers, everyone can learn it and play it fairly easily. HOW MUCH strategy can be added before it turns into CHESS and complexity starts turning people off? :confused:
-
3 - Right Now the game is like checkers, everyone can learn it and play it fairly easily. HOW MUCH strategy can be added before it turns into CHESS and complexity starts turning people off? :confused:
So what you're saying is that the solution to the strat problem is chinese checkers.
-
So what you're saying is that the solution to the strat problem is chinese checkers.
Might be a little TOO complicated for SOME of the people I've seen around here ! :joystick: