Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: Skyguns MKII on November 20, 2011, 02:05:49 PM
-
I think we ALL want a new strat system, this is what i had thought out.
trains are back! from the source, trains will make runs to all Fields on the same land mass and to ports on the same land mass.
(http://i41.tinypic.com/6svxvs.jpg)
Ships! Now here is the difference between the two vessels you see. one is a cargo ship and will make runs to other ports where the trains on that landmass will distribute the supplies. The other vessel you see is a LST (landing ship tank) it will make runs to land masses without ports and will appear at shore (most likely too a little outpost) near a base on the coast. From there supply trucks will roll out the LSTs and go on there supply line from base to base
(http://i40.tinypic.com/34eotfl.jpg)
again, land masses with ports will obtain there supplies from cargo ships arriving to port and then railways will distribute supplies to base to base. not supply tucks, only landmasses without ports rely on supply trucks.
(http://i39.tinypic.com/13z1m40.jpg)
-
I think you've said enough.
:bolt:
-
armored trains? not a bad idea...but they had alot of draw backs
-
Hey OP, spam much? :rofl
-
Hey OP, spam much? :rofl
i had not done this intentionaly. It had glitched on me
-
OK i had just added two more little graph things..
-
+1
-
armored trains? not a bad idea...but they had alot of draw backs
educate me
-
How about when the train spawns and gets going a mission is auto generated to get it from the 2 opposing teams and a defense mission gets posted for it? Maybe the same for the barges and trucks? Maybe after that the strats as far as the different factories until they retreat to the rear. I like the idea of bringing the trains back too.
-
How about when the train spawns and gets going a mission is auto generated to get it from the 2 opposing teams and a defense mission gets posted for it? Maybe the same for the barges and trucks? Maybe after that the strats as far as the different factories until they retreat to the rear. I like the idea of bringing the trains back too.
none of that retreating to the rear crap, well may be i have to think hard.
-
really like this.
-
I was sold at the sight of the pictures alone... :O :x
A few things though...
Now you just have to work out how often they need to spawn in order to maintain the supply of a base. Isn't it every 15 minutes for a untouched base right now? Or is it 45? I keep forgetting. :o If they have to spawn every 15 minutes, I see a potential problem on the server, but 45 may prove to be a problem as well (which the server is rumored to be no where near suffering strain from current setup. Only HTC staff can comment on whether their servers are doing a-okay). It will have to generate and maintain the objects, not to mention the % of supplies based on the status of the strat associated to the convoy launched, as well as the convoy's status itself. What is a possible solution to this issue?
Will the status of a port or depot affect the supplies being brought in or just the time it takes for the depot to spawn a convoy?
Will CV's receive convoys at all?
How many ships and trucks per convoy?
Will ship convoys use evasive action when being attacked?
(This one is a hope to see rail yards implemented)
In the map you used as an example, rail yards wouldn't be too effective in distribution of supplies, but on other maps, Trinity as an example, rail yards could be an effective way to distribute supplies (though you could probably use one on the main island on the map used in your example).
I didn't want to ask those questions, but they are just a few things that would need to be addressed (some really simple, others, not so much). However, I really like where you are going with it. :aok
-
so if you have 3 enemy bases wehre the train line connects in a linear way and you capture a base that is between the other 2 it would stop the last base to get supplies? could be a strategic thing
-
so if you have 3 enemy bases where the train line connects in a linear way and you capture a base that is between the other 2 it would stop the last base to get supplies? could be a strategic thing
yes and no, what if there is a switch track way up north that leads the train in a different route and away from the enemy base but still able to loop around and supply the bases behind the enemy base. Depends but yes it would be strategic if it does. I would also like to see bridges that can be bombed.
-
(This one is a hope to see rail yards implemented)
In the map you used as an example, rail yards wouldn't be too effective in distribution of supplies, but on other maps, Trinity as an example, rail yards could be an effective way to distribute supplies (though you could probably use one on the main island on the map used in your example).
railyards will only be at two key points, ports and strats. airfields would most likely be given a simple station in town perhaps. landmasses with no port will obtain there supplies by a road convoy coming from a LST source.
-
I like this idea.
Also, with the addition of trains/ships. Could be a good opportunity to update the current cv groups, and add different types of ships. IE: Allen M. Sumner Class destroyers, Battleships, Japanese Aircraft Carriers and British CV's (Mainly for special events). Just my thoughts.
+1 anyways. :aok
-
This is a great idea +1
-
+1 :aok
-
My question is, if given serious thought, can HTC server's handle it? :headscratch:
-
Trains were always cool I thought. They just needed to have one run through both the middle of town. and alongside the feilds as well as to the factories themselves.
Imagine trying to camp a base or get troops in and then suddenly a train comes rolling in
-
+1
-
I think we ALL want a new strat system
you have dale and doug on board, eh?
-
I think this idea has some merit, would love to see something like this instituted.
-
How about adding Liberty ships and Higgins boats?
-
Taken from another thread. I replied to Krusty in the 1st half, HiTech in the 2nd. Rail yards could be quite useful. Makes this idea even more juicy... :x
I believe 25% is too high. 20% would be a better choice, or even lower. Mind you, this is coming from someone who LOVES to hit strategic targets. I want my run to make an impact, but I don't want it to be too easy for me to inflict serious damage to the enemy's industry. Don't take it to a Capital's difficulty, but definitely not have it as easy as the old strategic system was.
A Complex Version:
What if the delay is based on the condition of the rail yard? At 90%-70%, there is a 2% delay. At 69%-40%, 5%. At 39%-21%, 7% delay. At 20% or less, you have a full 10% delay.
Rail Yards could cover the spawn times of a convoy. From what I can tell, there is currently no way to delay the spawn time of convoy's. The Convoys always spawn at the same time (they spawn more often if a base is damaged), regardless of the status of strategic target's they are tied to. This would add another aspect to the strategic war effort. You can inflict damage to the supplies produced and/or the time it takes for them to reach their destination.
Slightly off topic but; Any word about your idea of a Concrete Factory? I remember you mentioning the possibility of adding a factory that affects the down times of towns. Maybe it could also be tied into the down time of the Rail Yards? That may make that bit complicated, (EDIT) having the factory for town times tied to the rail yards... :headscratch:
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,323871.0.html
-
How about adding Liberty ships and Higgins boats?
LSTs are the ones most needed
-
How about adding Liberty ships and Higgins boats?
Higgins eventually, Liberty ships is pretty much what you see going from port to port...
-
+100
-
+1
All for an update to the strat system. :aok
-
:aok +++++1 :rock
<S>
HP
-
My question is, if given serious thought, can HTC server's handle it? :headscratch:
you would think so...
-
Trains were always cool I thought. They just needed to have one run through both the middle of town. and alongside the feilds as well as to the factories themselves.
Imagine trying to camp a base or get troops in and then suddenly a train comes rolling in
my thoughts exactly
-
none of that retreating to the rear crap, well may be i have to think hard.
Exactly! No retreating strats. If you dont defend your strats they get taken, that was my thought about them.
-
Exactly! No retreating strats. If you dont defend your strats they get taken, that was my thought about them.
What do you guys think about stuff staying down longer until resupped.
-
What do you guys think about stuff staying down longer until resupped.
I believe that when strats are down it must cost perks to up "strat supplies" to repair and when destroyed it will be down for a full hour unless given "strat supplies." this will make it essential to defend. How can something that creates a supply line be destroyed and then be able to supply itself back up? never made sense to me and that's another reason why "strat supplies" should cost.
-
Playing in SEA i had found out we already had what seemed to be LST's which would make it that much easier to implement into the strat system.
(http://i43.tinypic.com/90wzzs.jpg)
(http://i43.tinypic.com/wluhc0.jpg)
-
I believe that when strats are down it must cost perks to up "strat supplies" to repair and when destroyed it will be down for a full hour unless given "strat supplies." this will make it essential to defend. How can something that creates a supply line be destroyed and then be able to supply itself back up? never made sense to me and that's another reason why "strat supplies" should cost.
you mean like when our cartoon pilot dies and we are able to respawn immediately?
semp
-
you mean like when our cartoon pilot dies and we are able to respawn immediately?
semp
Thats a bit different dont you think....
-
Here's my vision, I like a hierarchy system:
Level 1 - A large "capital" city like we have now with the HQ in the center. There is only one located in the center of each country and it cannot retreat. Destroying the HQ will prevent that country from viewing any form of radar like we have now, but would also disable the ability to post missions. This would be like "cutting the head of the snake" in order to break the line of communication between the commanders and the troops thus stopping any large-scale operations from being formed. The city itself would be separated into 5 sections that produce aircraft and land vehicles to be shipped to friendly bases. Each section represents the types of vehicles we have (e.g. heavy level bombers, medium attack bombers, dive bombers, fighters and ground vehicles). This cannot be resupplied by players, but will be on a timer to 'rebuild' itself when it is damaged. Obviously, the rate at which the city can produce vehicles to replace lost ones at the airfields is a funciton of the city's health.
level 2 - Five medium sized cities like we used to have each containing one of the five factories (ords, fuel, troops, radar, and field guns). These are spread out at an equal distance from the front line offering the enemy a relative even opportunity to hit any one of them. The factories can be resupplied by players, but not the cities. A city will rebuild its particular factory at a rate that is affected by its health. If a city is damaged it will "pop" after a certain amount of time similar to the field towns. A railway system will link all five factories and capital city together. Trains will carry supplies to depots, where truck convoys will fan out and deliver the goods to airfields and vehicle bases. If a map has an ocean, the trains will carry the supplies to a port which will spawn out merchant fleets to carry supplies to other ports on other islands to be distributed. The merchant fleets, unlike the carrier groups, cannot have their courses altered by the players, but the guns of the escort destroyers can be manned to defend against enemy planes and naval blockades.
Level 3 - The third tier is comprised of all of the airfields and GV bases. Fields would have a finite amount of equipment available for players to use based on the base size. A player could earn perk points by simply ferrying aircraft from a healthy base to a beleaguered base low on that particular aircraft. This would be "first come, first serve" any player could operate a vehicle as long as there is one available at a field.
Small Airfield- 3 FH's * 5 planes per FH = 15 available fighters maximum
Medium- 4 FH's * 5 planes per FH = 20 available fighters maximum
Large- 8 FH's * 5 planes per FH = 40 available fighters maximum
The maximum number of available fighters is a function of the number of operational FH's. A fighter that ups from a particular field and does not return to land the sortie at that field is considered "lost", which subtracts from the remaining number of available fighters. An immigrating fighter from another field that lands its sortie at a different field from the one it began at will contribute to the number of available fighters at its final destination (and effectively, detract from the number of available fighters at its starting base). I like to call this the "redbox" format Lol.
So for example, when a player enters the tower of a field they may see---
Fighters: 12/15 (means that 12 fighter sorties out of a max of 15 are available to be upped)
bombers: 4/10 (means that 4 bomber sorties out of a max of 10 are available to be upped)
vehicles: 16/16 (means that all 16 available vehicle sorties can be upped)
-
Thats a bit different dont you think....
how? and why should people spend perks to resupply? not like it will stop people from resupplying anyway. most of the people i see resupplying have the perks anyway.
semp
-
Here's my vision, I like a hierarchy system:
Level 3 - The third tier is comprised of all of the airfields and GV bases. Fields would have a finite amount of equipment available for players to use based on the base size. A player could earn perk points by simply ferrying aircraft from a healthy base to a beleaguered base low on that particular aircraft. This would be "first come, first serve" any player could operate a vehicle as long as there is one available at a field.
Small Airfield- 3 FH's * 5 planes per FH = 15 available fighters maximum
Medium- 4 FH's * 5 planes per FH = 20 available fighters maximum
Large- 8 FH's * 5 planes per FH = 40 available fighters maximum
The maximum number of available fighters is a function of the number of operational FH's. A fighter that ups from a particular field and does not return to land the sortie at that field is considered "lost", which subtracts from the remaining number of available fighters. An immigrating fighter from another field that lands its sortie at a different field from the one it began at will contribute to the number of available fighters at its final destination (and effectively, detract from the number of available fighters at its starting base). I like to call this the "redbox" format Lol.
So for example, when a player enters the tower of a field they may see---
Fighters: 12/15 (means that 12 fighter sorties out of a max of 15 are available to be upped)
bombers: 4/10 (means that 4 bomber sorties out of a max of 10 are available to be upped)
vehicles: 16/16 (means that all 16 available vehicle sorties can be upped)
let's say you have a furball just outside of a small base. no base taking just a small furball. how long do you think it will take for 15 fighters from that base to be "lost" and effectively shutting down the base? about what 2 or 3 minutes? during large furballs like we have been having lately where there's 20 or 30 players per side. in just a few minutes most bases around a sector will run out of fighters and then what? bring another from a field a little further out. it is quite possible to eventually shut down every base on a country front just by furballing and not due to bombers taking out the fh.
and then what do you do? spend 1/2 the time resupplying? how long do you think it will before people say the hell with it and log for the night and eventually quit the game?
semp
-
Well, in the MA's, that 3rd option is horribly bad. But for something like a Scenario? It MAY have a little merit.
-
you mean like when our cartoon pilot dies and we are able to respawn immediately?
semp
Semp,
The pilots are different in the fact that if they don't let us reup then there is no game. I thnk you were trying to be funny there but it fell short.
-
Don't write it off of the numbers are low, I just made them up to show proportion of available aircraft would be affected by field size. I know, this would conflict with the playing styles of a lot of people so this would be a bust. I'm just trying to come up with a system that would affect the use of a type of aircraft based on the manufacturers health. Perhaps raise the ENY slightly for a particular vehicle type if the corresponding city section is destroyed?
-
how? and why should people spend perks to resupply? not like it will stop people from resupplying anyway. most of the people i see resupplying have the perks anyway.
semp
The main thing is strats should be very difficult to get back up under an hour. doing this will make it a major objective for both sides. achieving this could be done a number of ways. Perk the supplies needed to get your strat up or make it take A LOT more supplies to get back up. I agree with you and thinking about it, it would be more appopiate to make the supplies repair less when dropped on a strat. Make it only do a small fraction of what they do now but only on strats.
-
Here's my vision, I like a hierarchy system:
level 2 - Five medium sized cities like we used to have each containing one of the five factories (ords, fuel, troops, radar, and field guns). These are spread out at an equal distance from the front line offering the enemy a relative even opportunity to hit any one of them. The factories can be resupplied by players, but not the cities. A city will rebuild its particular factory at a rate that is affected by its health. If a city is damaged it will "pop" after a certain amount of time similar to the field towns. A railway system will link all five factories and capital city together. Trains will carry supplies to depots, where truck convoys will fan out and deliver the goods to airfields and vehicle bases. If a map has an ocean, the trains will carry the supplies to a port which will spawn out merchant fleets to carry supplies to other ports on other islands to be distributed. The merchant fleets, unlike the carrier groups, cannot have their courses altered by the players, but the guns of the escort destroyers can be manned to defend against enemy planes and naval blockades.
what about the railroads on other landmasses? otherwise it would be pretty rare to see on the maps we have...
-
The main thing is strats should be very difficult to get back up under an hour. doing this will make it a major objective for both sides. achieving this could be done a number of ways. Perk the supplies needed to get your strat up or make it take A LOT more supplies to get back up. I agree with you and thinking about it, it would be more appopiate to make the supplies repair less when dropped on a strat. Make it only do a small fraction of what they do now but only on strats.
ok food for thought then i am out of here:
what would happen if let's say aircraft factories in strats get destroyed and you:
a : cant up a plane
b . cant resupply it
choices left would be:
a. fly bombers
b. switch countries
c. logoff and if frustrated because it happens too often you quit.
or even if only hq gets destroyed for 1 hour. how many people will stick around because they cant see where the fights are? to be honest with you, most of the country will be either deserted by switching or logoff.
this is worst as when we had the so called "night".
leave the strats the way the are now. a fun thing for bombers to do and for some other pilots that like going after the bombers. perhaps move them closer or add more if you wish to bomb more but that's it.
semp
-
leave the strats the way the are now. a fun thing for bombers to do and for some other pilots that like going after the bombers. perhaps move them closer or add more if you wish to bomb more but that's it.
semp
but that's the problem! People don't go for strats as much as they used to because of the way they are now. My ideas are only a basis for change. It doesn't need to be a full hour, but the major thing is that we make it a bigger objective than it is now and have it more elaborate (elaborate being the supply lines i had posted)
-
but that's the problem! People don't go for strats as much as they used to because of the way they are now. My ideas are only a basis for change. It doesn't need to be a full hour, but the major thing is that we make it a bigger objective than it is now and have it more elaborate (elaborate being the supply lines i had posted)
I understand what you are saying, but seriously lots of people dont have the time for a 2 or 3 hour mission like the strats require. you cant force people to do what they dont want to do.
some people love bombing but most people dont. now I am not against taking away the fun from the bombers, hell they make sometimes life interesting around abase. but you are talking about forcing people to go defend strats taking time to go up to 25 or 30k so we can keep using fighters. me personally will not climb that high, it's not my idea of fun and based on how most people fly they have no interest either. and if you force people to do what they dont want to do, they will logoff. it's just that simple.
put a cap on the altitude of the bombers to 10k and then we talking about something else :D
semp
-
I understand what you are saying, but seriously lots of people don't have the time for a 2 or 3 hour mission like the strats require. you cant force people to do what they don't want to do.
some people love bombing but most people don't. now I am not against taking away the fun from the bombers, hell they make sometimes life interesting around abase. but you are talking about forcing people to go defend strats taking time to go up to 25 or 30k so we can keep using fighters. me personally will not climb that high, it's not my idea of fun and based on how most people fly they have no interest either. and if you force people to do what they don't want to do, they will logoff. it's just that simple.
put a cap on the altitude of the bombers to 10k and then we talking about something else :D
semp
its not forcing, its encouraging. People would be willing to make runs like that if they knew it would be for a better effect and I'm sure a lot of people miss bomber hunting. HQ and strats would be near noncapturable bases as they usually are. The main thing about this wish is more toward the supply roots than the strats themselves although they do indeed need a makeover as many would agree.
-
I understand what you are saying, but seriously lots of people dont have the time for a 2 or 3 hour mission like the strats require. you cant force people to do what they dont want to do.
semp
So break up the "one strat to rule them all" or put more strats on the map(depots and dumps and smaller factories)
-
So break up the "one strat to rule them all" or put more strats on the map(depots and dumps and smaller factories)
another great idea
-
So break up the "one strat to rule them all" or put more strats on the map(depots and dumps and smaller factories)
well hammie since strats are not gonna affect anything other than score or risk losing players. why have lots of little strats when we already have lots of little towns to bomb? plus add the bases and cvs. there's already plenty of stuff to bomb. just ask the dick weeds who organized a big mission to knightland last night, with I am pretty sure more than a few bombers with escorts and managed to kill the dar at one base :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl. :bolt: :bolt: :bolt: :bolt:
semp
-
well hammie since strats are not gonna affect anything other than score or risk losing players. why have lots of little strats when we already have lots of little towns to bomb? plus add the bases and cvs. there's already plenty of stuff to bomb. just ask the dick weeds who organized a big mission to knightland last night, with I am pretty sure more than a few bombers with escorts and managed to kill the dar at one base :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl. :bolt: :bolt: :bolt: :bolt:
semp
Well, Who says the spread out factory/zone strats has to be worthless? Also had they been bombing strats in multiple locations I'm surre they woulda done alot of damage
-
Well, Who says the spread out factory/zone strats has to be worthless?
Well, more or less HTC does. I'm not in the mood to look up a direct quote, but the gist of what I've read on the forums is, HTC does not like the idea of strats limiting the enemy's ability to fight beyond what it already does.
You never see a post in the wishlist forum saying, 'Gee, y'know what would be swell? If my rides of choice could be limited by the other side bombing factories in our territory. I feel this would greatly enhance my gameplay experience.'
Nobody wants it to be done to them, some people want to be able to do it to the other side. The ability to drain their ability to fight extends only as far as porking ords/hangars/troops/fuel. This is where HTC has apparently chosen to draw the line.
Wiley.
-
as long as people don't accept that they can't up their prefered ride all the time, the strat system will not change.
HTC doesn't seem to give a **** anyway.
-
Well, more or less HTC does. I'm not in the mood to look up a direct quote, but the gist of what I've read on the forums is, HTC does not like the idea of strats limiting the enemy's ability to fight beyond what it already does.
You never see a post in the wishlist forum saying, 'Gee, y'know what would be swell? If my rides of choice could be limited by the other side bombing factories in our territory. I feel this would greatly enhance my gameplay experience.'
Nobody wants it to be done to them, some people want to be able to do it to the other side. The ability to drain their ability to fight extends only as far as porking ords/hangars/troops/fuel. This is where HTC has apparently chosen to draw the line.
Wiley.
Well, the rides avail need not necissarily be limited, but the fuel and such should be and the time it takes for these things to come back up at base. Say the fuel gets porked you can't take more than 25% until base is resupped by player or by truck convoy however that fuel convoy comes from a depot that is damaged, the more damage the depot/refinery has the less often the convoys go out and the slower a base's fuels sups are avail. Just batting around suggestions as it stands now with the hording AH plays what I would expect World of Planes to be like, just with lesser graphics and better flight modleing.
-
Well, more or less HTC does. I'm not in the mood to look up a direct quote, but the gist of what I've read on the forums is, HTC does not like the idea of strats limiting the enemy's ability to fight beyond what it already does.
I think we have to differentiate a bit. High(er) impact doesn't necessarily mean limiting the opponents ability to fight
All what I have read by HT seems top indicate he is mainly very much opposed against ideas like aircraft factories, which do indeed very much limit one sides ability to fight, particularly when it's being hammered upon and outnumbered in the first place. Such things are very unbalancing and totally opposite in effect to balancers like ENY. And in this case I happen to find myself on the very same side as him.
However, the strats could still be significantly increased in importance without taking away the country with the short end of the sticks ability to actually grab a plane and fight. Many ways are thinkable: Simply increasing downtimes of the strats (which would make long range raids on them more effective), and/or increasing their score rating (making them more attractive), reintroducing a zone strat system (for more immediate effect as well as giving the medium bomber something to go for instead of the "drop town centers" routine), or assigning them a significant role in determining the war victory (my own fav). I'm sure there are many more.
-
Well, the rides avail need not necissarily be limited, but the fuel and such should be and the time it takes for these things to come back up at base. Say the fuel gets porked you can't take more than 25%
...which would effectively ground a good number of plane types such as the 109s, russian stuff, spits to a certain degree, among others.
Why do you consider ferrying supplies gameplay? I'm here to shoot stuff down and blow stuff up, not cart parts and fuel around to different air bases.
Lusche- The confusion I run into is, what problem are people actually trying to solve by proposing different systems? About the only quasi-coherent point I seem to see out of these threads is to give people something worthwhile to fight over.
I like the idea of them affecting the victory somehow, but that would open up a can of worms because the vast majority of players on all sides are not all that interested in going deep with bombers. For those who enjoy bombing, it would be swell, but I think they are relatively few, and unevenly divided between countries. If hitting the strats were necessary for a win, I think it might cause frustration, and/or a shift where more of the people who like to bomb deep would switch to the country that does it more.
It really seems to me the game is painted into a corner. People are attracted to the open-ended gameplay, but paradoxically given the ability to do whatever they want, the majority chooses to find the path of least resistance, which generally means they do the same thing over and over and over to achieve whatever goal it is they're trying to achieve.
Wiley.
-
Lusche- The confusion I run into is, what problem are people actually trying to solve by proposing different systems?
In my case: Enhancing gameplay (and long term attractiveness... yes, I'm being selfish) by improving (restoring?) the variety of (combat) options. Strats and strat raids used to play a larger role. I would like to see that back, or even being of more importance than ever. Not to kill the tactical combat element of AH, but to provide another level of gameplay on top of it.
the vast majority of players on all sides are not all that interested in going deep with bombers.
How many don't do deep raids because there is no reason to do so? ;)
When we got the new strats, players were still mounting many more raids on them, but that petered out quickly after they found out there was little point in them, both from the "war" as well as "score" point of view.
For a bomber guy, there are basically two targets left: Bombing random town centers for score, or killing bases (=tactical bombing) for the "war".
The problem with many proposals is that they want to fundamentally change the MA, very often at expense of one play style over another ("play my way"). I can say for myself that I try to add things instead of removing others and try to provide incentives instead of creating limits.
----
A personal note on the "diversity" thing: Thing's I personally did with the old strats
Milking: Rolling a vehicle to them or flying a B-25H from a nearby field.
Standard "regular" attacks at medium altitude on strats to support my country's operations on that front.
Long range lone NOE missions: Taking a Ki-67 or B-26 on the deck to an enemy strat behind the frontlines. I was very much into this, as it was in a way recreating the daytime raids of KG2 on England
Hunting milkers I: When a factory of my own side ended up in their territory, I did fly a fighter on the deck to surprise the inevitable herd of enemy milkers. Boy, the angry PM's I got! :rofl
Hunting milkers II: When a horde appeared at our own Vbase that had a spawn to one of our friendly factories, I would quickly spawn a tank there before the VHs went down. :devil
-
...which would effectively ground a good number of plane types such as the 109s, russian stuff, spits to a certain degree, among others.
Why do you consider ferrying supplies gameplay? I'm here to shoot stuff down and blow stuff up, not cart parts and fuel around to different air bases.
You would still have your furballs dont worry actually you would end up with a CHOICE of furballs that you up to fly into with 25-50% fuel anyway. Not every base is ging to have fuel issues and plenty of others willsee no problem in runnig supplies. As it is now you have a choice of 1-2 massive horde fests on each front. Even taking bases to 25% wont stop most players from hordeballing at two close bases, and the pickers will still be able to up from bases further back and come in abve the hordeball. This idea take nothing away from anybody it adds to options avail to players.
-
In my case: Enhancing gameplay (and long term attractiveness... yes, I'm being selfish) by improving (restoring?) the variety of (combat) options. Strats and strat raids used to play a larger role. I would like to see that back, or even being of more importance than ever. Not to kill the tactical combat element of AH, but to provide another level of gameplay on top of it.
I can't argue with that. The problem is...
How many don't do deep raids because there is no reason to do so? ;)
What's the appropriate carrot though? A lot of people seem to be locked into the spitfire factory mentality of AW, wanting their bombing to sap the enemy's capability. It seems to me a lot of the bomber guys can't see past that.
If you use points as the carrot, and make the points value too good, you'll get wall to wall milkrunners flying in off hours to pad their scores, while people who care about score but only fly in primetime won't be able to compete with the ease of the unopposed milkruns. That'll result in disgruntlement.
I agree, it needs to be an incentive, not a requirement.
I personally believe part of the problem is, bombing is simply not compelling gameplay. In my mind, bombing consists of taking off, climbing, and pushing a button. To be honest I don't understand how anybody finds that entertaining. Gunnery if bandits appear is fun for me, but I really just don't see the attraction otherwise. It doesn't matter if you're hitting tactical targets or strats, at the end of the day, you took off, climbed for a while, and pushed a button at the appropriate time.
It seems to me that might be why bombers are often looking for their contributions to mean something. It seems to me that on some level, possibly without realizing it, they are 'doing a job' and expecting a reward for doing it, be it points or an effect on the enemy or whatever.
When I fly a fighter, I am doing it for the pure joy of flying a fighter in an open arena. Regardless of what I find in the sky, the fact that I've got enemies out there and am hunting them is fun. It doesn't matter if it was a heavy fighter inbound to a field with the intent of porking it, or a new guy in a spixteen that took off on autoclimb and headed in my direction. I get to interact with them, and that's fun for me. The reason he is there, and the benefit my side got from killing him is secondary in most cases (guys hitting dar and sometimes ord being the exception).
Wiley.
-
You would still have your furballs dont worry actually you would end up with a CHOICE of furballs that you up to fly into with 25-50% fuel anyway. Not every base is ging to have fuel issues and plenty of others willsee no problem in runnig supplies.
So the backbone of your idea is, you're depending on these 'others' always being around to run supplies? Again, why should they have to? How is carting in supplies compelling gameplay?
As it is now you have a choice of 1-2 massive horde fests on each front. Even taking bases to 25% wont stop most players from hordeballing at two close bases, and the pickers will still be able to up from bases further back and come in abve the hordeball. This idea take nothing away from anybody it adds to options avail to players.
It adds the option of running supplies to the base? That's already an option, it restores dar and ords faster. Take a look at how often that happens in the main.
The funny thing is, porking to 25% would probably impact players like me almost the least possible out of all people, other than GVers. Most planes I fly are of the high fuel capacity variety, it would impact my gameplay negligibly. It would, however, force a lot of other people to change their gameplay habits.
Wiley.
-
So the backbone of your idea is, you're depending on these 'others' always being around to run supplies? Again, why should they have to? How is carting in supplies compelling gameplay?
It adds the option of running supplies to the base? That's already an option, it restores dar and ords faster. Take a look at how often that happens in the main.
The funny thing is, porking to 25% would probably impact players like me almost the least possible out of all people, other than GVers. Most planes I fly are of the high fuel capacity variety, it would impact my gameplay negligibly. It would, however, force a lot of other people to change their gameplay habits.
Wiley.
Stop beating the whole "but you have to run sups thing" the backbbone of my idea is to give peoplle who want to bomb, targets that matter. No, nobody has to run sups, at all its just gonna take a lil longer for fuel, ords, troops the aa guns dar fh/Bh,cv, sb to reup if you don't.The reason people don't do it in the mains now is because its a pointless act. You can just wait 5 mins and the base is back up so its pointless to resup a base. I dont want to fight in a horde all the time and I dont want to bomb something like the fuel on a base only to have it repop by the time I've made 2 runs over said base. Also, seperating the strats will give people options of bombing somehting of value and not having to take 2 hours to do it. Why keep things down longer? So that more people up to defend something being bombed and its not so boring for the bomber guy, also actually achieving something in a bomber other than milk running towns is something worth working towards.
-
Stop beating the whole "but you have to run sups thing"
Why? It's a pretty sizable downside to your suggestion.
Why keep things down longer? So that more people up to defend something being bombed
Most of the time in the MA, people consider a base under attack lost if the attacking force is sufficiently large. Why will that change if the stuff stays down longer?
It used to be possible to pork fuel to 25% and it was changed specifically because it was unpopular.
Wiley.
-
What's the appropriate carrot though? A lot of people seem to be locked into the spitfire factory mentality of AW, wanting their bombing to sap the enemy's capability. It seems to me a lot of the bomber guys can't see past that.
That's a generalization I do not agree with. A few players have asked for Spitfire factories, that's all.
Two carrots would be score and effect.
Score is actually the lesser carrot, as players tend to play much less for score as universally assumed. And of course, if the only score factor would be increased players would "milk" them during off hours - but that is already happening all the time! It's just not the strats that are being milked, but town centers. Much easier, less predictable for the defender and so on. People will always "milk" to some extend, and I would actually prefer them trying to boost their score on the strats. Because I do think the most distant and best protected target should yield the best harvest.
And you will see, milkers converging on a single target will also result in more defenders. A 25k bomber dropping town after town is rarely hunted down because of the erratic nature of his flight path. Bombers regularly going for a single target 5 sectors deep in the enemy territory is a different thing. I speak from experience.
But for me, the effect is far more important. Right now, if you judge the effort necessary to really make an impact by bombing the strats and then you take the same effort and apply it to the smash'n'grab routine... well, the math is pretty simple. The imbalance is so great it's a no brainer. The only "reasonable" target are bases.
I just want more diversity, more options. More valid target for bombers, not only in form of a single main strat center, but also by some kind of zonal targets like smaller cities or railyards, to give medium bombers too a target different from bases.
-
Why? It's a pretty sizable downside to your suggestion.
Most of the time in the MA, people consider a base under attack lost if the attacking force is sufficiently large. Why will that change if the stuff stays down longer?
It used to be possible to pork fuel to 25% and it was changed specifically because it was unpopular.
Wiley.
Its a downside for who? The furballers that won't be effected as much as you're thinking,your 2nd point has already been answered, If stuff stays down the bombers have hit and destroyed a VIABLE non milkrun target and then have actually accomplished somehting. As to why this is good? It gives people who like fighters but dis-like the hordefests something to do. Moveing the strats from one centralised point further back from the lines to a zone format closer to more bases means that you dont have to up lancs or a b17 on 2 hour missions. You up a b26 maybe with a friend in a pony escort climb to about 10k (Since the strat isnt 8 sectors away) hit a factory that isnt going to be "repaired " by the time you get back, land then re up a heavy jug and pork ord at a feild and feilds around the area until someone ups to stop you. Beats the hell out of up a pony, climb to 15k pick somebody thats in fight in the middle of a hordeball, rinse wash and repeat. You want to keep all the planes viable at a feild , defend it. Not all feilds are going to get porked and once again you will still have you 1 sector furball you talking about taking away something. This doesnt do that at all , it give more people more options.
-
Lusche, expressing this much, much better than I am maybe a few differencees but just getting a ground work on some kind of a new/old system would be a ood thing I think. Possibly working in Jugglers Idea about delayiinga flip or atleast delaying how fast AA guns and such repop after a flip.
-
That's a generalization I do not agree with. A few players have asked for Spitfire factories, that's all.
Aircraft factories, ability to take fuel down to 25%, increased ENY for the enemy. The actual mechanism takes on several different forms. What I meant by the 'spitfire factory mentality' is basically wanting the ability to lower the enemy's capabilities because they feel it will be a motivator for defense.
Two carrots would be score and effect.
Score is actually the lesser carrot, as players tend to play much less for score as universally assumed. And of course, if the only score factor would be increased players would "milk" them during off hours - but that is already happening all the time! It's just not the strats that are being milked, but town centers. Much easier, less predictable for the defender and so on. People will always "milk" to some extend, and I would actually prefer them trying to boost their score on the strats. Because I do think the most distant and best protected target should yield the best harvest.
And you will see, milkers converging on a single target will also result in more defenders. A 25k bomber dropping town after town is rarely hunted down because of the erratic nature of his flight path. Bombers regularly going for a single target 5 sectors deep in the enemy territory is a different thing. I speak from experience.
Reasonable.
But for me, the effect is far more important. Right now, if you judge the effort necessary to really make an impact by bombing the strats and then you take the same effort and apply it to the smash'n'grab routine... well, the math is pretty simple. The imbalance is so great it's a no brainer. The only "reasonable" target are bases.
I completely agree.
I just want more diversity, more options. More valid target for bombers, not only in form of a single main strat center, but also by some kind of zonal targets like smaller cities or railyards, to give medium bombers too a target different from bases.
What would bombing these strats do exactly though? Affect rebuild times? Give you something different looking to drop bombs on?
Wiley.
-
up a heavy jug and pork ord at a feild and feilds around the area until someone ups to stop you.
What is stopping you from doing this now again?
Wiley.
-
What is stopping you from doing this now again?
Wiley.
People do but nobody ups to stop you because they know, just about the time your hitting the next base over, the 1st base you hit has already repopped,and so its a pointless endevour but I think you know that. Keeping things down longer isnt going to kill the hordes since a good many people like to horde, but a system with more things for the non horders to do wont take away from anybody the way you think it will as there will just not be enough people porking, and some people do run sups and some people do leave the horde to go pounce on a 4 plane jug raid approchinga base at 10 k.
-
Whens the last time you upped and flew to 25 k to fight some bombers, or sat near an enemy base and did racetracks until somebody upped to fight you? I am horrible at this and should hide in a horde but I do those things because I am sick of only fighting horde on horde.
-
Aircraft factories, ability to take fuel down to 25%, increased ENY for the enemy. The actual mechanism takes on several different forms. What I meant by the 'spitfire factory mentality' is basically wanting the ability to lower the enemy's capabilities because they feel it will be a motivator for defense.
the thing is, "aircraft factories" and so in just the first thing that comes to the mind of many players. Imagination is somewhat limited, especially when it comes to considering all the effects of any proposed change/addition.
However, I do see these requests just as a expression of the desire to have something "meaningful" to bomb. That deeper wish could be granted without adapting the actual proposals of aircraft factories or any similar "overkill" ;)
What would bombing these strats do exactly though? Affect rebuild times? Give you something different looking to drop bombs on?
Similar to the central strats, I can think of many possible options, ranging from being simply the zone factories of old to being railyards that act as an additional supply modifier for a given zone (I'd prefer the latter).
I can imagine and would actually favor even totally different roles for strats, as THE main target to capture or keep down for some defined time to win the war. Capturing bases would be the means to get there. But unfortunately I don't see that as an option at all, as it would require a massive restructuring of the MA.
-
Whens the last time you upped and flew to 25 k to fight some bombers, or sat near an enemy base and did racetracks until somebody upped to fight you? I am horrible at this and should hide in a horde but I do those things because I am sick of only fighting horde on horde.
Every day I've flown in the last month or two. My primary role is as an altmonkey seeking other altmonkeys to destroy. I am looking for either incoming buffs or enemy fighters hanging out over the furball looking for a pick so I can give them an even fight, or at least drive them down into the furball when they split-s under me because our E states are even. That is how I get my fun.
Similar to the central strats, I can think of many possible options, ranging from being simply the zone factories of old to being railyards that act as an additional supply modifier for a given zone (I'd prefer the latter).
I can imagine and would actually favor even totally different roles for strats, as THE main target to capture or keep down for some defined time to win the war. Capturing bases would be the means to get there. But unfortunately I don't see that as an option at all, as it would require a massive restructuring of the MA.
And that's part of what I mean when I say they're painted into a corner. I guess the core of my point is, I believe the strat situation as it stands now can't be altered meaningfully without a complete rework, and a complete rework has the potential to have drastic consequences if it's not well received and executed.
Wiley.
-
And that's part of what I mean when I say they're painted into a corner. I guess the core of my point is, I believe the strat situation as it stands now can't be altered meaningfully without a complete rework
I disagree. Only my last "vision" of am entirely new role would need such an (unlikely) complete rework. Changing down times of factories, or their impact on field item downtimes for example would be just a matter of turning a few knobs, nothing more.
-
I disagree. Only my last "vision" of am entirely new role would need such an (unlikely) complete rework. Changing down times of factories, or their impact on field item downtimes for example would be just a matter of turning a few knobs, nothing more.
I'm still having trouble understanding what it is about more downtime that improves gameplay. With the short downtimes we have now, people don't resupply or specifically wait for them to come back, they move to another area of the map. How would this change that?
Wiley.
-
I'm still having trouble understanding what it is about more downtime that improves gameplay. With the short downtimes we have now, people don't resupply or specifically wait for them to come back, they move to another area of the map. How would this change that?
Wiley.
That's the effect factor. Longer downtime means a bigger effect for the same effort. And if you tweak it so that the status of the main strats will have a noticable impact, they will be a more attractive target. Thus increasing gameplay options and diversity.
-
I didn't see this referenced anywhere in the discussion so I thought it should be brought up.
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,273567.0.html (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,273567.0.html)
The problem will always be about balance for everyone and avoiding the situation where, as Hitech put it, "people can't fight".
I personally believe that part of the problem, is that the force needed to capture the current bases is too similar. Here's a hypothetical situation it illustrate my point, a small group can take a small undefended airfield or a large undefended airfield in the same time. The mechanics of the current strat system don't provide and differentiation of bases. Now if there was a requirement for percentage of strat damage to allow for a medium or larger field to be captured that would change player behavior and NOT impact anyone's ability to fight.
-
That's the effect factor. Longer downtime means a bigger effect for the same effort. And if you tweak it so that the status of the main strats will have a noticable impact, they will be a more attractive target. Thus increasing gameplay options and diversity.
But what is that effect? People don't wait for the buildings to come back now, they move to another base. Why would a longer amount of downtime change anything about that behavior?
Wiley.
-
But what is that effect? People don't wait for the buildings to come back now, they move to another base. Why would a longer amount of downtime change anything about that behavior?
Wiley.
I think I have trouble to follow you... :headscratch:
When the central factory stays down for a much longer time, (so that it's not popping up before you even get your B-29 home)... what "other base" are players moving to?
-
I think I have trouble to follow you... :headscratch:
When the central factory stays down for a much longer time, (so that it's not popping up before you even get your B-29 home)... what "other base" are players moving to?
Ah, ok. I misunderstood, I thought you were talking about tactical rebuild, like at airbases taking longer. You're talking about the downtime of the strats themselves.
So you're proposing to give players the ability to take out the other country's radar for what, around an hour? Is that counting if they resupply?
Wiley.
-
So you're proposing to give players the ability to take out the other country's radar for what, around an hour? Is that counting if they resupply?
No, I'm not. I haven't made any concrete proposals, and I haven't written anything about the HQ at all. ;)
-
No, I'm not. I haven't made any concrete proposals, and I haven't written anything about the HQ at all. ;)
Ok... Sorry, I was lumping the HQ in with the rest of it because the short downtime applies to them both.
You're still taking about hobbling the country in some fashion for longer than some people log in for in an evening, aren't you?
Wiley.
-
You're still taking about hobbling the country in some fashion for longer than some people log in for in an evening, aren't you?
I can't do much with that question. Who and how many are "some", and how long do they log in? What are you trying to say?
-
I can't do much with that question. Who and how many are "some", and how long do they log in? What are you trying to say?
You're proposing the strat detrimental effects last until your plane lands. That, to me, would indicate they'd last for around an hour minimum. That's a helluva long time for some.
Wiley.
-
You're proposing the strat detrimental effects last until your plane lands. That, to me, would indicate they'd last for around an hour minimum. That's a helluva long time for some.
Wiley.
For others it would be just a fraction.. you could make the same argument for porked ords on a base, which currently stay down almost an hour if not manually resupplied.
What is the point?
-
You're proposing the strat detrimental effects last until your plane lands. That, to me, would indicate they'd last for around an hour minimum. That's a helluva long time for some.
Wiley.
Unless the strats were decentralised and spread out in a more "zone" system and not a 2 hour flight as was stated at the start. If your logged in for an hour there is basically only one thing you can do , go find the horde and fight in the hordeball.
-
Unless the strats were decentralised and spread out in a more "zone" system as was stated at the start.
Just to clarify, I'm all for the big strats myself. I just wish for making them more significant. Some additional zone targets would be fine, but that's only on top of it.
-
For others it would be just a fraction.. you could make the same argument for porked ords on a base, which currently stay down almost an hour if not manually resupplied.
What is the point?
Country-wide debilitation is significantly different from porking ords on a base.
Wiley.
-
Country-wide debilitation is significantly different from porking ords on a base.
Wiley.
Depends on the level of "debilitation". It almost seems a bit to me as if you are trying to read something into my postings which isn't there. :headscratch:
Could you please make clear what your objection is?
-
Depends on the level of "debilitation". It almost seems a bit to me as if you are trying to read something into my postings which isn't there. :headscratch:
Could you please make clear what your objection is?
Well, you're proposing to make the effects of bombing the strats last some nebulous 'long time'. This means that people logging into a country, through no fault of their own, have their options limited for that nebulous 'long time'. As it stands now, the strats are down for a while, but for most, only a sortie or two's worth of time. Does that make more sense?
Wiley.
-
Well, you're proposing to make the effects of bombing the strats last some nebulous 'long time'. This means that people logging into a country, through no fault of their own, have their options limited for that nebulous 'long time'. As it stands now, the strats are down for a while, but for most, only a sortie or two's worth of time. Does that make more sense?
Wiley.
Not much.
First, it's already happening. When I log in I have options taken away by no fault of my own - ENY, captured CVs, porked bases and so on. It's always a game in progress.
Second, I see no reason why it should NOT have any impact for more than 45 minutes. Especially as I'm wondering what those "limited options" are that you are talking about? It seems you are just assuming things in a way that would be not following with the principles I have very clearly stated in this thread.
-
Not much.
First, it's already happening. When I log in I have options taken away by no fault of my own - ENY, captured CVs, porked bases and so on. It's always a game in progress.
Second, I see no reason why it should NOT have any impact for more than 45 minutes. Especially as I'm wondering what those "limited options" are that you are talking about? It seems you are just assuming things in a way that would be not following with the principles I have very clearly stated in this thread.
Of the things you listed, how many are country-wide, affecting you no matter where you go, and in the control of other players? Only ENY, and that's debatable.
Reading back, I just realized I had attributed something Nathan said to you. My apologies. I can't argue with anything you've said in this thread.
Wiley.
-
Of the things you listed, how many are country-wide, affecting you no matter where you go, and in the control of other players? Only ENY, and that's debatable.
Reading back, I just realized I had attributed something Nathan said to you. My apologies. I can't argue with anything you've said in this thread.
Wiley.
And what was that? I'm sure Lusche probably already explained what I was trying to say just much more intelligently.
-
The fact that you want your strat runs to have the effects last til after you land. Country-wide debilitating effects for what, an hour and change? Not a good thing to put in the hands of players.
Wiley.
-
The fact that you want your strat runs to have the effects last til after you land. Country-wide debilitating effects for what, an hour and change? Not a good thing to put in the hands of players.
Wiley.
You are forgetting the fact that I said decentralize the strats and move them in to a zone system so they are more spread out and and closer to more bases. I think this is the old system that was discussed in some other threads. Yes and as for an hour and change yes, possible or the strats can be kept down unsupped but then make the depots stay down a little longer and the bases a little longer. Convoys and sups start at strats move to area depots then to bases, if thats totally unfeasible so be it, but that's where counterpoints and further discussion can form the basis of a possible system that would work for everyone.. You could increase the rewards or whatever for resuping the strats, just a idea maybe a bad one, but this is where you come in an tell us why in your opinion its a bad idea. Yes having all the strats in one area affecting he entire country is bad but having strats spread out in zones that effcet that zone and the country as a whole in a lesser extent to me isn't that bad of an idea.
I'm not saying that each little island gets a complete strat complex but you can have a ord factory there that effects the local area. Someone suggested a convoy system that while may be too ambitious looks fun to me. I'm just saying the current strat system is lame IMO, and is discussion worthy. The big strat system Lusche talked about last page id fine with me aswell, but as it stands the strats really are un attactive as he pointed out
That's the effect factor. Longer downtime means a bigger effect for the same effort. And if you tweak it so that the status of the main strats will have a noticable impact, they will be a more attractive target. Thus increasing gameplay options and diversity.
If the main strats are damaged they could resup the zone strats at a slower pace which in turns slows down how quickly ords and other things come back up at bases in that zone. Further damage to the Zone stats slow process to resupping the bases. What happends now if someone was to up take the ords factories down to 0 how long does it take ord as a base 10 sectors away to repop?
-
The fact that you want your strat runs to have the effects last til after you land. Country-wide debilitating effects for what, an hour and change? Not a good thing to put in the hands of players.
Wiley.
The fact that you want your strat runs to have the effects last til after you land. Country-wide debilitating effects for what, an hour and change? Not a good thing to put in the hands of players.
IMHO having a well defended target that takes a 2 hour mission to bomb it but has only a negligible impact isn't a good thing either. This is exactly the very reason why the balance between tactical and strategic missions is so extremely tilted towards the tactical side. There is little motivation for a bomber pilot to do a sortie which's results are already gone before you even landed. Without a logner lasting effect, start runs do not make sens, because that is what strategic attacks are all about.
And things don't have to be black or white either. Increasing the significance of strategic targets doesn't have to be all or nothing. It's not that it absolute has to have a nuke-like effect on a country, this would indeed create another imbalance. It's just a matter of being reasonable in the amount of tweak involved.
-
IMHO having a well defended target that takes a 2 hour mission to bomb it but has only a negligible impact isn't a good thing either. This is exactly the very reason why the balance between tactical and strategic missions is so extremely tilted towards the tactical side. There is little motivation for a bomber pilot to do a sortie which's results are already gone before you even landed. Without a logner lasting effect, start runs do not make sens, because that is what strategic attacks are all about.
And things don't have to be black or white either. Increasing the significance of strategic targets doesn't have to be all or nothing. It's not that it absolute has to have a nuke-like effect on a country, this would indeed create another imbalance. It's just a matter of being reasonable in the amount of tweak involved.
If you put in a mechanism where a relatively few players can affect the entire other side's gameplay and keep that effect going constantly, there's going to be a few groups of players that do exactly that. If it's a strong enough effect to make it uncomfortable for the defending side, they're going to get discouraged. If it's not a strong enough effect to make it uncomfortable, we're back to the 'why bother?' situation for the bombers.
I've seen how you fly, Lusche. It's somewhat similar to how I fly a lot of the time. How many guys spend their evening doing that? I bet during primetime we'd be doing good to have 20 or 30 people in the air over the entire game that are flying like that, high in position and ready to intercept bombers, the rest being down in the weeds fighting among themselves.
People who are committed over a relatively long term to bomb something til it's down are unstoppable. Whatever effect the strats being down will have on the defending country will pretty much become 'normal' for one or two of the countries.
That's my concern. Too few people would be willing to up to defend repeatedly against something like that.
Wiley.
-
If you put in a mechanism where a relatively few players can affect the entire other side's gameplay and keep that effect going constantly, there's going to be a few groups of players that do exactly that.
Now that would be great and exactly what I'm aiming for! :rock
If it's a strong enough effect to make it uncomfortable for the defending side, they're going to get discouraged. If it's not a strong enough effect to make it uncomfortable, we're back to the 'why bother?' situation for the bombers.
People who are committed over a relatively long term to bomb something til it's down are unstoppable.
So are field porkers and CV killers. Yet the game is still going on.
Whatever effect the strats being down will have on the defending country will pretty much become 'normal' for one or two of the countries.
It still reads to me as if you are somewhat stuck with the "all or nothing" effect, of attacked strats will totally cripple a side's operations. And this is exactly the kind unbalance I do not have in mind at all. They should be more significant and atrractive to increase gameplay diversity (and, depending on implementation, maybe even add a true layer of 'strategy'), but they should be that significant as to create another imbalance.
Think about just extending the downtime of factories and/or the city. The effect on fields would be still rather subtle, but it would last longer. Factories wouldn't get back to 100% when the buff pilot has landed. The strats would be a more attractive target, and probably being attacked more often.
BUT - a steady stream of attackers results in more defenders. And on top of that, it's in most cases still a very long mission, so it's not that suddenly the strats would be 100% down all the time.
That's my concern. Too few people would be willing to up to defend repeatedly against something like that.
My experience showed otherwise. We had a lot more of regularly strat raids, and they all met resistance.
People do not bother to defend something for various reasons. The biggest one is the same as for attackers: Why do so if it isn't worth the effort?
-
So are field porkers and CV killers. Yet the game is still going on.
Again, those effects still aren't country-wide.
Think about just extending the downtime of factories and/or the city. The effect on fields would be still rather subtle, but it would last longer. Factories wouldn't get back to 100% when the buff pilot has landed. The strats would be a more attractive target, and probably being attacked more often.
BUT - a steady stream of attackers results in more defenders. And on top of that, it's in most cases still a very long mission, so it's not that suddenly the strats would be 100% down all the time.
If it's a worthwhile effect, why wouldn't they just keep coming back to keep it down? Repetetive actions to accomplish a goal is the standard of play in the MA. If it's not attractive enough to keep them coming back, aren't we once again back to the 'why bother?' stage?
My experience showed otherwise. We had a lot more of regularly strat raids, and they all met resistance.
People do not bother to defend something for various reasons. The biggest one is the same as for attackers: Why do so if it isn't worth the effort?
I'm guessing the time when the strats had major effects and raids were more common is longer ago than 2 years. That probably skews my perspective, as the majority of the strat runs I've seen haven't bred a lot of resistance. Since I've been here, they've been rare and mostly relatively unopposed. I'll take your word for it that when they are common, more people show up to fight.
Perhaps that's what skews my perception. From my experience, smallish bomber missions quite often meet enough resistance to make it interesting. Large ones with escort rarely meet enough opposition to be effective against them from what I've seen, and that's what I fear would become the new norm.
If more people did show up to defend, I agree it would be swell. I like high-alt fights, I like escorting and intercepting. It just doesn't seem to me to be a particularly popular playstyle.
Sorry, I just have trouble accepting stuff I haven't seen. I guess based on that, I'll let it go because at this point it all hinges on whether enough people would show up to make it work.
Wiley.
-
Again, those effects still aren't country-wide.
And again: "Country-wide" doesn't have to mean "crippling". I'm not asking for things like "airplane factories" or "killing ammo factory will kill all ords everywhere". I'm asking for "more effect" not "total effect".
If it's a worthwhile effect, why wouldn't they just keep coming back to keep it down? Repetetive actions to accomplish a goal is the standard of play in the MA.
Yes! And this is what I strive for- the targets SHOULD attract attackers. That's why they are there in the first place!
If it's not attractive enough to keep them coming back, aren't we once again back to the 'why bother?' stage?
Exactly the problem as it is today.
I'm guessing the time when the strats had major effects and raids were more common is longer ago than 2 years. That probably skews my perspective, as the majority of the strat runs I've seen haven't bred a lot of resistance. Since I've been here, they've been rare and mostly relatively unopposed. I'll take your word for it that when they are common, more people show up to fight.
Some went through almost unmolested, most were attacked being time, some never even reached the target
If more people did show up to defend, I agree it would be swell. I like high-alt fights, I like escorting and intercepting. It just doesn't seem to me to be a particularly popular playstyle.
And it will never be, nor do I want to force people into it. Such missions take a lot of time But there are alot more players that would do this kind of stuff if there was an incentive to it (one may complain about why this is even necessary, but that's how people are).
-
And again: "Country-wide" doesn't have to mean "crippling". I'm not asking for things like "airplane factories" or "killing ammo factory will kill all ords everywhere". I'm asking for "more effect" not "total effect".
That is the single most important part about the setup though, what effect can it possibly have that is noticable but not crippling, yet is worthwhile for the attacker? Other than when my country's radar HQ gets hit, I don't think I've ever noticed a strat hit have an effect on me. Probably due to playstyle and the way it's set up. I think we'd both agree the radar strat staying down for an hour and change even with resupply would be a game killer, but what is an effect that people would feel is both worth defending and actually worthwhile attacking?
Yes! And this is what I strive for- the targets SHOULD attract attackers. That's why they are there in the first place!
So when it's a constant series of horde missions at 35k in B24s with massive jug escort, you're expecting there will be enough people willing to climb up there to keep it interesting? Or is it not far, far more likely that there will be you, me, and maybe a dozen other scattered alt monkeys that get pushed down or killed, and people just eventually don't bother because that kind of radar blob is indefensible in their mind, the same as most horde defense goes now? Lose fight in arena, start whinefest in forums.
Exactly the problem as it is today.
If it's a change that ultimately winds up back in the 'why bother?' stage, why bother making the change?
And it will never be, nor do I want to force people into it. Such missions take a lot of time But there are alot more players that would do this kind of stuff if there was an incentive to it (one may complain about why this is even necessary, but that's how people are).
Again, it feels to me a lot of the time like people involved with the ground war feel like they're doing a job and therefore deserve a reward, rather than having fun doing what they're doing.
Wiley.
-
So when it's a constant series of horde missions at 35k in B24s with massive jug escort
There will never ever be such a thing.
-
There will never ever be such a thing.
If the target is attractive enough, why not?
Wiley.
-
If the target is attractive enough, why not?
Wiley.
Math.
-
Math.
Care to enlighten?
Wiley.
-
Care to enlighten?
Wiley.
How do you do constant horde missions at 35k, when such a raid takes 2 hours or more? (A fully loaded B-17 takes 61 minutes to get from sea level to 30k, the B-24 you mentioned 90!)
How many players do have the time for that? Also, the time involved for a interceptor to climb to that altitude as well as the ability to fly several sorties against the very same mission (while the attackers can never get into the battle again) favors the defending side a lot
This thing will always by attractive for just a part of the playerbase online at any given moment. There is no way there will ever be "constant 35k hordes", no matter what.
-
How do you do constant horde missions at 35k, when such a raid takes 2 hours or more? (A fully loaded B-17 takes 61 minutes to get from sea level to 30k, the B-24 you mentioned 90!)
How many players do have the time for that? Also, the time involved for a interceptor to climb to that altitude as well as the ability to fly several sorties against the very same mission (while the attackers can never get into the battle again) favors the defending side a lot
This thing will always by attractive for just a part of the playerbase online at any given moment. There is no way there will ever be "constant 35k hordes", no matter what.
Okay, what about constant 20k hordes? Or constant 15k hordes? It doesn't even needs to be constant if the effect lasts long enough. How about a 15k horde at the beginning of prime time that augers when they've dropped and the strat is down and then reups to be back for it when it repops?
The effects are magnified if you're talking about decentralizing the strats and moving them closer to the front.
Wiley.
-
Okay, what about constant 20k hordes? Or constant 15k hordes?
Will not change much, the distances involved will still make it too time consuming. And the defenders can get even quicker back into the fight, while attackers still wont be able to. There is a big reason why long raids in AH, which can be tracked long before they cross the frontline, invariably tend to fly at high altitudes - that's their only chance.
(And high alt combat isn't fun for everyone anyway)
And, as my last comment on this topic: It's still no "all or nothing" in effect as well as in attractiveness of a target. There is a huge area between "nobody cares about it" and "everyone rushes to drop it". Really, there is. Things are not just 'on' or 'off'. More players are willing to fly strat raids if they don't have the feeling it's totally in vain. It doesn't mean that everybody will end up that way, nor would I even think about trying for such a thing.
-
And, as my last comment on this topic: It's still no "all or nothing" in effect as well as in attractiveness of a target. There is a huge area between "nobody cares about it" and "everyone rushes to drop it".
I'm not talking about 'everyone rushes to drop it.' I am talking about 'enough people rush to drop it that it's kept down nearly constantly over the course of a typical evening/play session for most people'.
Wiley.
-
I'm not talking about 'everyone rushes to drop it.' I am talking about 'enough people rush to drop it that it's kept down nearly constantly over the course of a typical evening/play session for most people'.
Wiley.
How long is an average play session for most people in your estimation?
-
How long is an average play session for most people in your estimation?
Probably around 2 hours or so.
Wiley.
-
What really got me to join (on the 3rd day of my 2week I may add) Aces High was the ability to go and hit strategic targets that would not only damage the enemies war effort, but also be quite rewarding. This was when we had the old zone/strat system. In fact, I had 1600 bomber perks within those 2 weeks (yep, I did a LOT of runs). Now, I will admit that I found it a little easy to do this at first. I would hit strats that were closer to the front (as did many). Because of this, the strats close to front lines were almost always below 10% while the ones deeper behind lines were fairly untouched. That's when I decided to go after the strats deeper in enemy territory. I found myself being intercepted more often, more so the farther I had to fly. That's when I started to get some regulars together to do some runs on the deeper strats. The rewards were excellet, perk and war wise, and we would almost always get intercepted. It was very hard to get any escorts (usually ended up being one of the bomber guys who didn't feel like bombing at that time), but we managed. :) When we got the new strat system implemented, with a shiney new Capital, oh the excitement. :x
But here is an example of a major problem; Just yesterday, I hit an enemy capital with B-24's. I knocked out 24% of their Industrial Center for a grand total of (at 1.10 modifier), 1.14 perks with 8.8xx damage. I can score half that damage (4.4xx) in the same plane on a town and come away with DOUBLE the perks. The rewards for hitting them are complete phooey. For me, I still do strat raids regardless, but many won't bother with them because the reward is so horrible. I still remember when I could get 3-6 squadies and/or random greenies together and go hit the strats (especially when we first got the Capital's). Once it was realized that the pay off for hitting the Capital was complete phooey, they stopped joining me for these little runs. I lost half of my "regulars" right off as they were in it for the perks, then slowly lost the rest as the effort vs gain was too broad. Now, it only seems that new guys, someone who's bored enough or people like me (a strategic bomber pilot, in-game of course :)), will even bother flying in the general direction of them. You get Jack and spit, and Jack left town...
Making it much more rewarding to hit the Capital vs hitting a bunch of towns is a very solid idea. As is, you can still inflict damage to the war effort, the problem is the effort you have to put into it. What MOST people don't seem to realize is that you have to bring the Industrial Center of an Enemy Capital, down below 10% before ANY damage to the outlying strats (dar/ords/troops/ack/fuel) will stick. Those outlying strats WILL stay down for a VERY long time, as long as the Industrial Center if I remember correctly, but only if the Industrial Center is below 10%. But in order to inflict that kind of damage, you need the numbers to do it and because the reward is completely phooey, "why bother?".
Lusche is dead on about boosting the rewards for hitting the strats. Maybe lowering the rewards for hitting towns too, both damage and perks awarded. Adding more strategic targets is a solid idea as well, ones that affect town down times (HiTech's idea was a concrete factory that did this) and railyards that would affect how often convoys would spawn. Skyguns MkII's idea of adding more variety of supply vehicles that have to do more traveling (meaning you actually stand a chance of interdicting them) brings back interdiction runs.
-
Just on railyards...
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I do believe that in a terrain editor some time ago I saw a railway station (and I dont mean where the train spawns)? But I have not seen this within the game on maps such as indisles and trinity.