Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: JUGgler on December 02, 2011, 08:43:12 PM
-
A system that encourages "great deeds", struggle, victory or defeat I believe is within grasp using the current system of capture and war winning.
Lets face it a very large percentage of folks here enjoy capturing bases. I believe the war and capturing bases is critical to the health of this game. There are also a fair # of dedicated (albeit in far less quantity) of folks who try to defend and disrupt base captures. Let me 1st give my thoughts for both sides.
The capturers: These folks are motivated by success, by winning, by coming together for a common goal. As many folks here would say ( they are horders and bottom feeders who will not improve themselves). I do not believe these folks are the bottom of the AH barrel who refuse to learn how to get better, they are playing the game within the parameters of the "current game system" In some ways they're approach to the game is healthier than those who relentlessly try to spoil their goals (incidently of which I am one) :D They are not sheeple, they have been drawn together by one individual who has a goal, an agenda to alter the "war map" in some fashion. These base takers in total create more fights than any defenders ever will. Defenders do not cause a shift in the winds, they try to stop it. Now these fights they create are quite often heavily, overwhelmingly one sided because that is how the current system supports it. Ironically the change to the radar alt has created the necessity of larger #s of folks to capture these bases. Unfortunately for these folks, gone are the days of the "sneak attack" 6 sectors away, gone are the days when 4-5 guys can get together and say "lets try to take that base" then off they go. Gone is some of the "freedom of choice" for these folks who enjoy capturing bases.
The defenders: These folks (including myself) are motivated by "spoiling" the goals of the capturers, sometimes we revial and detest the capturers, griefing them on 200 and openly laughing as if we are superior to them. The truth is, we (the defenders) would have very little to do without them (the capturers). The defenders thrive on finding that one goon or killing one of those drunks before he gets in the maproom, relishing in the sense of failure we think we've put on the capturers, we hold ourselves up high as the ones "fighting the good fight" against all odds we shall try to spoil the goals of the capturer. We the defenders will suffer being vulched/ picked time and time again for that one chance to spoil the goal. We know for a fact "most of the time" upping from another base just takes too long so we relentlessly up at the target field trying to spoil the action. Like moths to a flame we are drawn in.
Now with that said there are a few things for both sides that just don't sit well and we both think are silly and lame.
#1- being able to kill the goon or m3 and spoil a 40 man attack is purely silly. I cannot count the # of times I've been in a jet and crushed a capture with overwhelming odds by merely hunting down undefensible goons. This is one thing that should be changed it really is silly and stupid one guy could have such a affect on the many!
#2- The capturers having to suffer the same couple guys upping over and over and over again is truely silly
#3- The defenders being relentlessly vulched/picked trying to prevent the capture is also mind bendingly silly
#4- the defenders having no way to realistically respond in a cohesive fashion to the attackers is also silly, and very very one sided.
#5- the fact all town ack pops upon the tenth drunk staggering into the maproom is silly
#6- the fact the base changes hands the instant #10 enters is silly and stupid
With all of this said I have a few ideas to put some freedom of choice back in the game and instill in the capturers and defenders a sense of "the thrill of victory and the agony of defeat" Lets face it everything about this game is a competition, and when competition is done correctly someone wins and someone loses. But they both had the chance to do either.
#1- A delay of 20-30 minutes from the time the 10h drunk enters untill the base changes hands would encourage "follow on" conflict and encourage defenders to try a counter offensive
#2- the town ack and buildings stay down for this time period, this will further encourage a defensive response as no effort will be needed to destroy these targets again
#3- during this time period the base is unusable to any country. This makes everyone fly from adjacent bases so the fight is spread over a larger area and includes many many different aspects of "advantage and disadvantage"
#4- any country who can cook 10 troops in the maproom for the 20-30 minutes will at that moment be rewarded with a fully fuctional and fully rebuilt base and town. rewards of perks could even be given to the victorious
Pros and cons as I see them
Pro- this will force the original attackers IF they choose to defend their potential gain or lose it back to the original owners
Pro- defenders would feel they had some time to respond and not have to suffer the vulch/pick to try and make a difference
Pro- the actual struggle for the base would be spread over a much larger area than the space between base and town
Pro- this would set up epic GV struggles where all GVs would be approaching from adjacent bases, trying to defent the town and/or force their way into the town.
Pro- jabos and bombers would have to come from adjacent bases giving the coutrymen of the GVers time to interdict and harrass these bombers and jabos
Pro- there would be squads that would specialize in counter attack, interdiction, base capture etc.
Pro- mission planners would have to get more creative, they would have to account for the potential counter attack by land, sea or air. counter attackers would have to plan for interdicters by land, sea or air
Pro- there would be less vulching by planes or GVs
Pro- the minimum radar alt could be raised back to 200' allowing creative sneak captures( these sneakers would still have to find a way to defend it) :aok
Con- there would be less vulching by planes or GVs
Con- no more storming a base and moving on to the next target without securing the 1st, I'm sure there would be squads to specialize in defending for the time alloted also freeing up the stormers
Con- the struggle for a base may last longer than some have time to spend online
As you can see in my mind the Pros out weigh the Cons significantly
I will now adress some concerns some may have
-The original attackers had to take down the town, so should the counter attackers. To this I say the original attackers had it much easier than the counter attacks will, as the attackers are already there and prepared climbing to meet the threat or already inderdicting the threat. The counter attackers still need to cook 10 troops in the face of a prepared enemy!
- What if a 3rd country got involved? the same rules apply whoever cooks 10 troops for the alloted time OWNS
- Concerns it will create larger hordes. Who cares, the horde for either side could now be responded to.
-raising the radar will encourage "unchallenged NOE raids" like old times. So, now you'd have the time to challenge it! Give the attackers back some of their choices
Anyway I think Lusche has some good ideas as well as Grizz, but they both would take some map changes and fundamental alterations. I think mine would be easy to accomodate untill a whole new system "if needed" could be planned and put forth!
These are just some thoughts, discuss :salute :salute :salute :salute :cheers:
JUGgler
-
I wouldn't mind this at all. Any reason to start a fight is good with me. If this was implemented and the strats moved to a "area control" format It could create some epic fights. Although area control starts would doom a country that loses a good portion of its bases, but it would counterbalance the fact that the longer it takes to flip bases the longer we gotta stick with crappy maps.
-
I like it for the most part. But how would you suggest doing away with the silly 'one drunk dead=no capture" system? Really like the delay between 10th troop entering and capture of the base (why is the controll of the heavily armed and defended military facility tied to ownership of the village of civilian buildings anyway?).
And liked how you defined the defenders, hit that nail on the head. IMO, the sweetest moment in the game is when you kill their goon/M3/troops and claim your well-earned right of making any would-be capturers listening to CH200 stir with undying rage toward you.
"Capture a base? he... hehehe... hehehHAHAH!!!!! you guys actually thought you could capture our base? Oh thats funny!" :aok
-
would be a pretty good change of allowing the base to be up for grabs for a few minutes after capture. this is how it was in aw and was always funny taken a base destroyed by another country.
but I have some questions:
#1- being able to kill the goon or m3 and spoil a 40 man attack is purely silly. I cannot count the # of times I've been in a jet and crushed a capture with overwhelming odds by merely hunting down undefensible goons. This is one thing that should be changed it really is silly and stupid one guy could have such a affect on the many!
so does this mean m3's/goons cannot longer be killed?
#4- any country who can cook 10 troops in the maproom for the 20-30 minutes will at that moment be rewarded with a fully fuctional and fully rebuilt base and town. rewards of perks could even be given to the victorious
confused about what "cook" means. does it mean bring them in m3 or goon? and does this change from somebody just killing the goon/me as indicated above? why should the defenders have a full functional base if they retake it. why not just leave it down for the full 20 (or whatever) minutes and the last country to bring troops in the map gets it. makes for more fights.
Pro/con- there would be less vulching by planes or GVs
how is it gonna make people vulch less? most vulching is done while not taking a base.
also how would a country know if all 10 troops made it into the maproom alive? will the flag change? perhaps system message base taken/but not up?
Pro- this would set up epic GV struggles where all GVs would be approaching from adjacent bases, trying to defent the town and/or force their way into the town.
most bases only have 1 spawn will more spawns be created?
some good ideas juggler to make for some interesting changes. I dont think it will encourage more hording than what it already has.
semp
-
semp, I think he means that the attacking country has to get 10 troops into the maproom, and make sure that no enemy troops enter, otherwise the base goes back to the most recent owner.
As for the less vulching, I think he means that, since the defenders will be basicly guaranteed another 30mins ontop of whatever the first line of defense troop killers can buy them. So they won't be franticly upping from capped fields, and will instead arrive at alt and en mass.
And expanding on the capture idea proposed by Juggler:
Perhaps have it so if the defenders manage to get 10 troops into the maproom before the base pops and becomes the attacker's base, they only have to wait 5-10 minutes untill they can use it (since the troops just represent reinforcments comming up to help finnish off the attacking troops). But if the attackers get another 10 troops in before the base pops, the still have to wait the full 30 minutes.
-
Upon further thinking, I've decided this is actually a rather bad idea. If you think the current base capture system with the instant-capture system produces a lot of hordes, what do you think this proposed system will do? 30-40 man hordes as the norm, instead of these 17-20 man hordes?
I can just see fewer attack aircraft, but then everyone else ups a P-38 with DT's so they have defense fighters with usable loiter-time already on station when the troops reach the maproom.
To truely improve the overall 'health' of the fights and the arena in general, we need to make captures easier instead of harder. We need those good old 4-man captures back.
I say reduce radar range, and raise the altitude to 100'!
-
Dear Juggler,
I read the first 3 paragraphs and figured ya lost your mind. I'll have to come back and read the rest later. :uhoh
-
Upon further thinking, I've decided this is actually a rather bad idea. If you think the current base capture system with the instant-capture system produces a lot of hordes, what do you think this proposed system will do? 30-40 man hordes as the norm, instead of these 17-20 man hordes?
I can just see fewer attack aircraft, but then everyone else ups a P-38 with DT's so they have defense fighters with usable loiter-time already on station when the troops reach the maproom.
To truely improve the overall 'health' of the fights and the arena in general, we need to make captures easier instead of harder. We need those good old 4-man captures back.
I say reduce radar range, and raise the altitude to 100'!
I like the premise that defenders help to drive the action, but it must not do so at the cost of making attacks fruitless. You are on to something JUGler, we just need to figure out what kind of incentives can be offered to the poor troop carriers, and other offense minded individuals. You know something like allowing Goons to spawn drones in a formation, or giving them name in lights for successful deliveries of supplies or troops.
Here is an idea. After troops successfully capture the maproom, it automatically opens up two vehicle spawns on opposing sides of town. One spawn belongs to the captor and the other to the defender. While the base is in limbo, any country's aircraft or vehicles may land there, but none can spawn from it, only the two town spawns are active for that base. << This would make every town a possible Tank Town Battle arena!!! :aok Defending country's troops would have to be brought in from another base in order to recapture the maproom and end the special vehicle spawns. This will activate any base operations to the point they were when the maproom was first taken.
-
I'm all for keeping any changes as simple as possible. More complexity breeds confusion.
My question. Wouldn't it be sufficient if there was just a single change:
All damage done to a base (including town) will not be undone by the capture
?
-
KISS
-
remove ack from towns altogether.
it WAS like that for a week or two when new towns first came out. after a capture, you had to watch town until a building popped, lest someone just roll an M3 or goon right up in there and recapture.
not only easier to capture in the first place, but easier to retake.
-
I'm all for keeping any changes as simple as possible. More complexity breeds confusion.
My question. Wouldn't it be sufficient if there was just a single change:
All damage done to a base (including town) will not be undone by the capture
?
Achieve the same goal if you ask me. You'd still have to defend your take until stuff start to pop back up without needing a lot of change to the mecanics of the game. May allow for 10-15 min for the defender to try and muster a counter-offensive.
-
would be a pretty good change of allowing the base to be up for grabs for a few minutes after capture. this is how it was in aw and was always funny taken a base destroyed by another country.
but I have some questions:
#1- being able to kill the goon or m3 and spoil a 40 man attack is purely silly. I cannot count the # of times I've been in a jet and crushed a capture with overwhelming odds by merely hunting down undefensible goons. This is one thing that should be changed it really is silly and stupid one guy could have such a affect on the many!
so does this mean m3's/goons cannot longer be killed?
No the goons and M3s and troops would still be as vulnerable. My thinking is that if you MUST defend the base after you get your troops in, your planning ahead and SHOULD have a defensive CAP in place. These cappers can also cover your troops better. On top of that having a number of troop carriers bringing troops is a good adition to ANY plan for taking a base as any who has ever tried to take a base can tell you, the whole thing just falls apart if your troops get picked.
#4- any country who can cook 10 troops in the maproom for the 20-30 minutes will at that moment be rewarded with a fully fuctional and fully rebuilt base and town. rewards of perks could even be given to the victorious
confused about what "cook" means. does it mean bring them in m3 or goon? and does this change from somebody just killing the goon/me as indicated above? why should the defenders have a full functional base if they retake it. why not just leave it down for the full 20 (or whatever) minutes and the last country to bring troops in the map gets it. makes for more fights.
By "cook" he means that once the troops enter the map room that team MUST defend the map room and not allow any other troops into it for the allotted time so that the capture can be completed.
Pro/con- there would be less vulching by planes or GVs
how is it gonna make people vulch less? most vulching is done while not taking a base.
also how would a country know if all 10 troops made it into the maproom alive? will the flag change? perhaps system message base taken/but not up?
In his version, the planes and vehicles would NOT be available to either team at the field under attack until one team or the other held it with troops in the map room for the full time period. During this time there would be no vulching as nobody could up. This would make the fights happen out and around the base/town as both teams bring in people from other bases to either defend or retake the base.
I think something like a system announcement when the troops go in "A35 in under attack!" and after the 20-30 minute time period an system announcement "A35 captured by XXXX"
Pro- this would set up epic GV struggles where all GVs would be approaching from adjacent bases, trying to defend the town and/or force their way into the town.
most bases only have 1 spawn will more spawns be created?
some good ideas juggler to make for some interesting changes. I dont think it will encourage more hording than what it already has.
semp
I'm all for keeping any changes as simple as possible. More complexity breeds confusion.
My question. Wouldn't it be sufficient if there was just a single change:
All damage done to a base (including town) will not be undone by the capture
?
I like this addition. If the attacking force leaves the hangers up in anticipation of using them once they complete the capture it gives the defenders more time to up and defend before the troops get in (most attacks start by dropping hangers then work the town over then bring in troops.) which make the attackers work for it more. On the other hand should they drop the hangers to make it easy on themselves, they won't have the use of them until the 15 minutes to rebuild goes by AFTER the complete capture happens.
remove ack from towns altogether.
it WAS like that for a week or two when new towns first came out. after a capture, you had to watch town until a building popped, lest someone just roll an M3 or goon right up in there and recapture.
not only easier to capture in the first place, but easier to retake.
I like this as well. Either no ack, or only ack at the map room. It would make for a lot of GV battles in amongst the buildings.
-
A system that encourages "great deeds", struggle, victory or defeat I believe is within grasp using the current system of capture and war winning.
Lets face it a very large percentage of folks here enjoy capturing bases. I believe the war and capturing bases is critical to the health of this game. There are also a fair # of dedicated (albeit in far less quantity) of folks who try to defend and disrupt base captures. Let me 1st give my thoughts for both sides.
The capturers: These folks are motivated by success, by winning, by coming together for a common goal. As many folks here would say ( they are horders and bottom feeders who will not improve themselves). I do not believe these folks are the bottom of the AH barrel who refuse to learn how to get better, they are playing the game within the parameters of the "current game system" In some ways they're approach to the game is healthier than those who relentlessly try to spoil their goals (incidently of which I am one) :D They are not sheeple, they have been drawn together by one individual who has a goal, an agenda to alter the "war map" in some fashion. These base takers in total create more fights than any defenders ever will. Defenders do not cause a shift in the winds, they try to stop it. Now these fights they create are quite often heavily, overwhelmingly one sided because that is how the current system supports it. Ironically the change to the radar alt has created the necessity of larger #s of folks to capture these bases. Unfortunately for these folks, gone are the days of the "sneak attack" 6 sectors away, gone are the days when 4-5 guys can get together and say "lets try to take that base" then off they go. Gone is some of the "freedom of choice" for these folks who enjoy capturing bases.
The defenders: These folks (including myself) are motivated by "spoiling" the goals of the capturers, sometimes we revial and detest the capturers, griefing them on 200 and openly laughing as if we are superior to them. The truth is, we (the defenders) would have very little to do without them (the capturers). The defenders thrive on finding that one goon or killing one of those drunks before he gets in the maproom, relishing in the sense of failure we think we've put on the capturers, we hold ourselves up high as the ones "fighting the good fight" against all odds we shall try to spoil the goals of the capturer. We the defenders will suffer being vulched/ picked time and time again for that one chance to spoil the goal. We know for a fact "most of the time" upping from another base just takes too long so we relentlessly up at the target field trying to spoil the action. Like moths to a flame we are drawn in.
Now with that said there are a few things for both sides that just don't sit well and we both think are silly and lame.
#1- being able to kill the goon or m3 and spoil a 40 man attack is purely silly. I cannot count the # of times I've been in a jet and crushed a capture with overwhelming odds by merely hunting down undefensible goons. This is one thing that should be changed it really is silly and stupid one guy could have such a affect on the many!
#2- The capturers having to suffer the same couple guys upping over and over and over again is truely silly
#3- The defenders being relentlessly vulched/picked trying to prevent the capture is also mind bendingly silly
#4- the defenders having no way to realistically respond in a cohesive fashion to the attackers is also silly, and very very one sided.
#5- the fact all town ack pops upon the tenth drunk staggering into the maproom is silly
#6- the fact the base changes hands the instant #10 enters is silly and stupid
With all of this said I have a few ideas to put some freedom of choice back in the game and instill in the capturers and defenders a sense of "the thrill of victory and the agony of defeat" Lets face it everything about this game is a competition, and when competition is done correctly someone wins and someone loses. But they both had the chance to do either.
#1- A delay of 20-30 minutes from the time the 10h drunk enters untill the base changes hands would encourage "follow on" conflict and encourage defenders to try a counter offensive
#2- the town ack and buildings stay down for this time period, this will further encourage a defensive response as no effort will be needed to destroy these targets again
#3- during this time period the base is unusable to any country. This makes everyone fly from adjacent bases so the fight is spread over a larger area and includes many many different aspects of "advantage and disadvantage"
#4- any country who can cook 10 troops in the maproom for the 20-30 minutes will at that moment be rewarded with a fully fuctional and fully rebuilt base and town. rewards of perks could even be given to the victorious
Pros and cons as I see them
Pro- this will force the original attackers IF they choose to defend their potential gain or lose it back to the original owners
Pro- defenders would feel they had some time to respond and not have to suffer the vulch/pick to try and make a difference
Pro- the actual struggle for the base would be spread over a much larger area than the space between base and town
Pro- this would set up epic GV struggles where all GVs would be approaching from adjacent bases, trying to defent the town and/or force their way into the town.
Pro- jabos and bombers would have to come from adjacent bases giving the coutrymen of the GVers time to interdict and harrass these bombers and jabos
Pro- there would be squads that would specialize in counter attack, interdiction, base capture etc.
Pro- mission planners would have to get more creative, they would have to account for the potential counter attack by land, sea or air. counter attackers would have to plan for interdicters by land, sea or air
Pro- there would be less vulching by planes or GVs
Pro- the minimum radar alt could be raised back to 200' allowing creative sneak captures( these sneakers would still have to find a way to defend it) :aok
Con- there would be less vulching by planes or GVs
Con- no more storming a base and moving on to the next target without securing the 1st, I'm sure there would be squads to specialize in defending for the time alloted also freeing up the stormers
Con- the struggle for a base may last longer than some have time to spend online
As you can see in my mind the Pros out weigh the Cons significantly
I will now adress some concerns some may have
-The original attackers had to take down the town, so should the counter attackers. To this I say the original attackers had it much easier than the counter attacks will, as the attackers are already there and prepared climbing to meet the threat or already inderdicting the threat. The counter attackers still need to cook 10 troops in the face of a prepared enemy!
- What if a 3rd country got involved? the same rules apply whoever cooks 10 troops for the alloted time OWNS
- Concerns it will create larger hordes. Who cares, the horde for either side could now be responded to.
-raising the radar will encourage "unchallenged NOE raids" like old times. So, now you'd have the time to challenge it! Give the attackers back some of their choices
Anyway I think Lusche has some good ideas as well as Grizz, but they both would take some map changes and fundamental alterations. I think mine would be easy to accomodate untill a whole new system "if needed" could be planned and put forth!
These are just some thoughts, discuss :salute :salute :salute :salute :cheers:
JUGgler
gv spawns to the town from all the bases.
-
No the goons and M3s and troops would still be as vulnerable. My thinking is that if you MUST defend the base after you get your troops in, your planning ahead and SHOULD have a defensive CAP in place. These cappers can also cover your troops better. On top of that having a number of troop carriers bringing troops is a good adition to ANY plan for taking a base as any who has ever tried to take a base can tell you, the whole thing just falls apart if your troops get picked.
By "cook" he means that once the troops enter the map room that team MUST defend the map room and not allow any other troops into it for the allotted time so that the capture can be completed.
In his version, the planes and vehicles would NOT be available to either team at the field under attack until one team or the other held it with troops in the map room for the full time period. During this time there would be no vulching as nobody could up. This would make the fights happen out and around the base/town as both teams bring in people from other bases to either defend or retake the base.
I think something like a system announcement when the troops go in "A35 in under attack!" and after the 20-30 minute time period an system announcement "A35 captured by XXXX"
I like this addition. If the attacking force leaves the hangers up in anticipation of using them once they complete the capture it gives the defenders more time to up and defend before the troops get in (most attacks start by dropping hangers then work the town over then bring in troops.) which make the attackers work for it more. On the other hand should they drop the hangers to make it easy on themselves, they won't have the use of them until the 15 minutes to rebuild goes by AFTER the complete capture happens.
I like this as well. Either no ack, or only ack at the map room. It would make for a lot of GV battles in amongst the buildings.
Thanks Fugi, I think you completely understand what my intention is with all its perfect imperfections :aok
:salute
JUGgler
-
thanks fugitive.
I still say that once the troops go into the maproom then it technically doesnt belong to anybody so nobody should be able to spawn planes/gvs out of it until the 20 min timer has expired and whoever got the last troops in wins it.
also in order for a "captured" base to be recapture before the timer expires then 10 troops must go into the map-room if less than 10 then no "recapture".
semp
-
I love the concept, as stated before, but I will add what I see as flaws, and allow others to comment on possible fixes.
1. I wish to game the new system so I grab my troops from the defending field and hide close by, have my teamates to defend and instantly recapture the field before it changes hands - this becomes the norm for any base defense and the map becomes STAGNANT.
2. I have many friends that wish to take a base, so we know to run missions every 5 minutes or so to keep the maproom capped after capture. Sure it gives defenders more time to get there but how many will for a lost cause (when no troops can make it to the maproom)?
3. #2 above has reinforced that I need a horde to capture a base.
4. #3 above a horde is a horde whether or not is has a purpose.
5. #1 -4 above has done nothing to give small groups of players incentives to spread across the map to give a variety of alternatives for game play.
-
+1 chilli, hordes need to go. Or at the very least disperse to smaller, more managable hordes.
-
+1 chilli, hordes need to go. Or at the very least disperse to smaller, more managable hordes.
If that was the sole and true intention, I would massively oppose it.
-
Why? Asside from the fact that they generate fights, they're either useless, or actively harmfull to the overall health of the arena.
If we can generate fights through other means, I think those other means would be the best way HTC could invest their time and resources at the moment.
-
Why? Asside from the fact that they generate fights, they're either useless, or actively harmfull to the overall health of the arena.
If we can generate fights through other means, I think those other means would be the best way HTC could invest their time and resources at the moment.
"Aside from the fact they generate fight..." I think that tells it all.
Useless? They provide ample targets and a dynamic gameplay. I really think a lot of you want to "balance" the arena until it's a sterile and utterly boring environment. I support all measures to provide a rich gameplay environment, where strategy, surprise, prolonged battles, noe's, sneaks and "hordes" (=numerical superiority.... ever heard of "Schwerpunkt"?) have all their place.
I don't ever want to play in a AH many "horde" opponents seem to envision.
-
Lusche, theres a difference between a large fight or use of strategy and tactics and the hordes we see in game.
Most of the hordes are nothing more than everyone flocking to the largest darbar they see, with none of the strategy and tactics you seem to think are being used. At best its usually just some armchair generals yelling out orders with most people ignoring them.
Very few missions out there that don't just try to round up as many people as possible, and then throw them against a base, and trying to shut it down so as to avoid combat.
You wanna talk about strategy? Try capturing a defended base with only 7 guys, by knocking out the radar, having someone fly in the overlapping radar from another base, while making use of a large dar-bar a sector adjacent to the base you're trying to take to draw attention. I had to taxi my goon a full 4 miles along the beach to the town so I wouldn't be spotted.
A horde is (by my defenition) a large mass of players that attempt to do through weight of numbers what could be done through use of tactics, strategy, or a liberal application of skill. And thats 99% of what you saw back in September.
If the game play has changed that drasticly since then, please let me know, but I'm not holding my breath.
-
Lusche,
As Tank Ace elaborated " a more manageable" horde I would think should be the target. What JUGler is targeting is a way to deplete the effects of the horde on the map. What he, and possibly you, are not considering are the effects of the horde on the loss of variety of game play left on a map.
For example a large horde rolls bases and changes the physical number of bases of operation for their opponent(s). A large number of defenders are drawn in to unsuccessfully stop the hemmorhagic effects on their resources. Whatever is left in terms of players on the "ropes" either are:
1. Not interested in capture or defense
2. More interested in finding / instigating single dogfights
3. Liable to change sides in hopes of a different fight
4. Content in jumping into bombers and climbing to an altitude where they will have almost nil enemy contact
5. Reluctantly dismayed and log off
Anything other than something that allows smaller groups of players to impact the outcome of the action on the map, will fall short of giving AH2 the balance in gaming experience that it should offer.
Lusche, theres a difference between a large fight or use of strategy and tactics and the hordes we see in game.
:aok +1000
-
Lusche,
. What JUGler is targeting is a way to deplete the effects of the horde on the map. What he, and possibly you, are not considering are the effects of the horde on the loss of variety of game play left on a map.
This is not accurate, I agree with Lusche trying to limit horde thru some kind of game change is not good.
We want more horde, or "large fights where all manner of AH diversity can flourish!
This is how I see the capture system: as it is now all the cards are in the attacking mission hands, they have suprise, organization, momentum and a goal. The defenders have none of these cause the system allows NO counter to the mission.
Just like in real war, say an army lost a bridge or town that was strategically important. It is imperative that the leaders of the vanquished army find a way to immediately counter attack. The very sound logic for this is the new owners have not yet consolidated or reinforced their gains so hence even though they just won this real estate they are technically at their weakest and most vulnerable at this moment. So any army that could muster a reasonable force is compelled to try , hell history shows the counter attacking force doesn't even have to be equal to their foe it is merely the best opportunity to gain back what you have lost. If they wait then they will never get it back! Take Stalingrad in WW2 If paulus had immediately counter attacked to the west ( even though his army had suffered a great defeat and was surounded), it is widely believed he could have broke out and saved his army hence turning a potential tragedy into a victory.
like Ah these counter attacks were against territory that was already destroyed If the counter attack was attempted quick enough then virtually no rebuilding could have taken place. This is where I believe the AH system of capture fails miserably, as soon as the tenth drunk gets in, the town ack and base ack comes up fully, and the base is immediately usable (IF the hangars) are left up which usualy the BH is) and if not some hangar is sure to pop within a few minutes
The other goal I think I was trying to get was get the fight for the base spread out a bit instead of just the patch of air and ground between base and town!
And I also think IF a few folks want to fly 6 sectors NOE to try and gallantly capture a base then they should be able to. Changing the radar alt was a mistake IMHO for one very imprtant reason. Anytime you take freadom of choice from folks things get worse! even in a silly game :salute
My ultimate goal is to try and create desperate situations where the battles feed on themselves drawing heroic warriors in to try and make a difference! <--- this is a good thing
JUGgler
-
I like your reasoning Juggler. No need for big change. Like Luschs suggested. Just that small change could greatly affect gameplay dynamic.
We cannot and dont want to "control" hordes. Just to shift the odds a bit back to the defenders. Leaving the destroyed building down until they'd pop back up "naturally" sound like it could accomplish that goal. Worth some thoughts IMO.
:salute
-
Juggler, I'll say say it again: Hordes = bad
However: big fights = good
If a fight starts out small, and slowly builds into a large fight, yes, that's good. If 2 missions happen to stumble across eachother, yes, that's good. If one side decides to get 30 planes and then bludgeon the other side who's already bogged down in heavy fighting on their other flank, no that's terrible with a capitol "T".
We want to promote fights. What we DON'T want to promote, however, is massive groups of people flying against the side that is weakest in a spot where they're unable to effectively defend themselves. Do you know why? Because the primary goal of that style of attack is to AVOID combat as entirely as possible.
That's the entire goal of a horde, to make the fighting as one sided as possible, so that theres an absolute minimum of combat.
This is where you and lusche fail. You're not making the distinction between a big fight, which is fun, and a horde. The two are worlds apart as far as the gameplay they create is concerned.
-
Juggler, I'll say say it again: Hordes = bad
However: big fights = good
If a fight starts out small, and slowly builds into a large fight, yes, that's good. If 2 missions happen to stumble across eachother, yes, that's good. If one side decides to get 30 planes and then bludgeon the other side who's already bogged down in heavy fighting on their other flank, no that's terrible with a capitol "T".
We want to promote fights. What we DON'T want to promote, however, is massive groups of people flying against the side that is weakest in a spot where they're unable to effectively defend themselves. Do you know why? Because the primary goal of that style of attack is to AVOID combat as entirely as possible.That's the entire goal of a horde, to make the fighting as one sided as possible, so that theres an absolute minimum of combat.
This is where you and lusche fail. You're not making the distinction between a big fight, which is fun, and a horde. The two are worlds apart as far as the gameplay they create is concerned.
Well whether you like it or not, there IS a strategic (lets say WAR aspect) of the game. The very nature of war is to attack where your enemy is not, where he is weak, make him react to you. My idea would allow the opportunity to react! horde or no horde!
Hordes are here to stay in ALL of their silly glory! better to find a way to incorporate them without restricting them.
I actually believe, most captures would still go for the most part "UNCHALLENGED" but those that were contested---> wow could be truely epic in scale and action!
I disagree, I think the primary goal of hordes is to achieve a goal, usually to capture a field. I believe folks get a sense of (TEAM) and unity that humans crave, why restrict them from this? You could choose NOT to fight the horde and avoid it. You cannot make people play the way you see fit, but you can alter things to bring the different styles of play together in a slightly more balanced (CHOICE FILLED) endeavor!
The game would be much more dull and boring, much more robotic without the ability for folks to CHOOSE to horde if they like!
I mean what would you do to restrict it, demand only 10-15 slots available in any mission? you would have no missions then!
I have already agreed that the radar alt should be raised, thereby allowing smaller groups to try and capture fields by their lonesome if they desire, this alone will help spread out the horde as some squads would go back to doing their own type of captures for themselves!
JUGgler
-
I simply see why HTC has done nothing to correct it. The answer is clear and already tried and tested. 50% town = easier base capture. I was there. Where the heck were all of you horde protectors, when every map had many multiple fights, some large and some not so large, and maps were even reset during the off hours servers. Yet, too many prophets have told the impending doom of the game system if base capture was again tilted slightly less in favor of the defenders.
Really Lusche?
If only we had a reliable stat that told of the average # of players involved in base capture, the number of active fights, the variety in targets per hour, a pie chart would show without prejudice how successful the easier base capture system was for generating ACTION. So, if you don't think AH2 should be providing action, then continue with your claim that large hordes rolling maps is good for game play.
Talk about SIMPLE. More bases captured with lesser number of players needed. It is insane to say we have that now, those that respond in that way truly are not in touch with the base capture or purely just feed off the few kills it generates for them.
HTC, good luck with trying to please everyone. Sometimes you have to do what is right and not worry about the fallout from decisions. As it is now, I appreciate the growth and development in the way the game looks and the addition of new items. That along with my sense of loyalty to this unique community will have me hooked on my subscription off and on. But a system that is so frustrating that it brings out the absolute worst in manners, I have to give pause to every once in a while.
-
Lusche, theres a difference between a large fight or use of strategy and tactics and the hordes we see in game.
Most of the hordes are nothing more than everyone flocking to the largest darbar they see, with none of the strategy and tactics you seem to think are being used. At best its usually just some armchair generals yelling out orders with most people ignoring them.
Very few missions out there that don't just try to round up as many people as possible, and then throw them against a base, and trying to shut it down so as to avoid combat.
You wanna talk about strategy? Try capturing a defended base with only 7 guys, by knocking out the radar, having someone fly in the overlapping radar from another base, while making use of a large dar-bar a sector adjacent to the base you're trying to take to draw attention. I had to taxi my goon a full 4 miles along the beach to the town so I wouldn't be spotted.
A horde is (by my defenition) a large mass of players that attempt to do through weight of numbers what could be done through use of tactics, strategy, or a liberal application of skill. And thats 99% of what you saw back in September.
If the game play has changed that drasticly since then, please let me know, but I'm not holding my breath.
but that is the exception not the rule. may of us have taken bases with just a handful of people. and before the new 75% town rule it wasnt uncommon for 1 or 2 people to take a base.
semp
-
but that is the exception not the rule. may of us have taken bases with just a handful of people. and before the new 75% town rule it wasnt uncommon for 1 or 2 people to take a base.
semp
Face Palm
-
Juggler, by "make the fighting as one-sided as possibly" I mean "make the fighting (over whatever their goal is) as one-sided as possible". Kind of implyed..... but whatever.
And you're missing the point. Its VERY difficult to capture a base with only a few people. Usually you're spotted and you become outnumbered. However, if capturing bases is your goal, the current system actually REWARDS hording, rather than skill. Your system would only further encourage hording, since it would be nearly impossible to capture a base with just a few people, since 3 people can re-capture it easier than you did.
However, making the bases EASIER to capture, to the point where 3-4 man captures instead of being very uncommon and hard to do, are just a challenge, would give people that OPTION you are talking about.
They could CHOOSE to horde, but it wouldn't give them any real benefit over being smart and skilled.
Your suggestion: hording encouraged, choice is still there, but 3-4 man captures are INCREDIBLY difficult
My suggestion: Hording/3-4 man captures equally encouraged, choice left to the players
-
Wow! I'm glad I came back to this. This is interesting stuff and could probably work. But what makes you think HTC will completely change the game play?
Not trying to burst ur bubble...just saying. :salute
-
but that is the exception not the rule. may of us have taken bases with just a handful of people. and before the new 75% town rule it wasnt uncommon for 1 or 2 people to take a base.
semp
Face Palm
chili relax before you go on making something out of nothing. it's the same as saying many of us have killed xxx player 1v1.
and if you are worried about the spelling error, well thank the auto correction :salute.
semp
-
Unless you were being sarcastic (I hope ;) ), why say it? Just noticed the spelling, see how the eye relays incorrect information to the beholder.
I am relaxed, but the constant misinformation about how a couple of folks capture bases all the time, is adding to the do nothing approach taken by the designers. More folks should be standing up and relaying to HTC the reallity that the scope of the hordes has gone to a new level. Hordes have been discussed since the onset of AH2 at least. The real truth of the matter is, that today's hordes cannot be reigned in without the intervention of the game designers. Whereas hordes from pre - new town make over, were balanced by the ease of capture for smaller groups.
Check the date on this post below. Ten years ago Hangtime pretty well covers the reasons why the hordes exist.
The other night I had an opportunity to run a variety of attack profiles under varying conditions and those; compiled with dozens of others run over the course of the past few weeks have lead me to an inescapable conclusion… The bish truly are ravening dogs that attack with ferocity and tenacity.. but without much disposition towards little details like goon support or attack element survival.
Typical Bish Assault: Everybody follows everybody else “over dis way..” ..some have ords; most don’t; none have much of a plan in mind other than ‘gonna kill them knits’ or ‘wait till them ugly assed rooks see THIS’. When critical mass over the target area is reached (approx ¼ to 1/3 of total bish population) and after about half of those have been shot down (and come back twice) the announcement goes out “send goon”. Of course; by this time 6 goon drivers have already met their makers and are understandably less than enthusiastic about another useless attempt in that madhouse…
Enter FAST ATTACK. An organized plan of assault whereby the Mission Planner is employed, pilots are briefed as to targets; routes; the order of battle, ordnance to be employed and individual areas of responsibility.
Now normally; FAST ATTACK relies on overlapping areas of responsibility and mutual support across the various elements of the attack force. It’s usually comprised of Med buffs; C47’s and their JABO fighter escorts and whenever possible, a ‘light’ fighter sweep is dispatched in advance to clear the airspace over the target area.
Basically, the plan calls for the JABO/Escorts to move into the contested airspace over the target and force down or destroy any aircraft at altitudes that represent a threat to the buffs, which arrive shortly after the JABO Escorts do. The JABO Escorts are NOT expected to attack ANYTHING ground based till the buffs have closed the hangers and popped the acks down. (This takes less than 3 minutes for 4 B26’s) Once the Buffs have knocked down the acks and hopefully the hangers; THEN the Escort/JABO’s are brought in to deal with any armor on the field or run cleanup on hangers missed due to losses in the buff force. It goes without saying that the buffs first target on that field is the VH. A JABO destroyed by ack while he downs a hanger a buff will nail anyway within 2 minutes is a wasted death. That pilot accomplised nothing that the buff assets dispatched to that field would not obtain.. and in dying the JABO pilot has added to the risk of failure of the attack via weakening of the combat cap OVER the field.
The idea here is to have the JABO Escorts keep as much of the attack force (and it’s c47’s) alive as possible, for as long as possible. It must be mentioned that killing any enemy fighters or GV’s prior to destruction of the hangers is a guarantee that that freshly dead defending pilot does 2 things.. ONE.. Holler fer help on his country channel (BISH HITTING A24!! HELP!!) and TWO: immediately Re-Up from the field… from which vantage point he will no doubt immediately spot the low dots on the horizon… the GOONS. Of course.. we have all seen how that attack goes… the first wave of goons die, and even though the field is eventually closed; by the time the goons get back; the enemy has brought in help from neighboring fields, has caught the attackers low strafing the fuel tanks, ammo bins and various other field infrastructure that we should really keep intact for our own use after its (hopefully) eventual capture. Even worse, since the attackers are now low; they are unable to cap or screen for the low goons that are just then making their low runs in to drop troops. Results are usually the same.. one or two arriving defenders from another field drop down on the goons; kill them and then pick off the attackers that remain while more reinforcements arrive to help mop up the shattered remnants of the original attack force. The fields a ‘bust’, no soap, no capture.
Ok; now, so that you might get a little better understanding of where the biggest problems lie; consider first the job of the escort JABO fighters associated with the main attack force. Their job in NO WAY entails any attack upon the field assets until the Buffs have finished the hangers and the acks. Let the buffs deal with the main field assets and defenses. ONLY AFTER the hangers and acks are down should the JABO’s go to work.. up to that point they should be at intermediate altitude providing coverage and defense of the airspace needed by the buffs or dealing with any threat to the goon force.. Again.. attack NOTHING unless it’s a threat; an IMMEDIATE threat to the buffs or goons. Remember WHAT that pilot will do if you shoot him down too soon… he’ll re-up AFTER he hollers fer help; advertise the goons location and come right back on the deck to kill it. Better you keep him interested.. but don’t attack him till you have to. Once the acks and hangers are down; the JABO’s go in and clean up any low defending air assetts THEN the defending armor forces, THEN RE-GRAB AND SET COMBAT AIR PATROL OVER THAT BASE!! Screen toward the closest enemy field.. where the defenders are likely scrambling to bust up the attack.. intercept them well BEFORE they get to the contested field.. DO NOT MINDLESSLEY CIRCLE OVER THE FIELD AT 1000 FEET AFTER YER ORDNANCE IS GONE.. if you have only .50 cal ammo left you ain’t gonna kill any armor.. SWEEP TOWARDS THE NEXT CLOESET ENEMY FIELD!
The Goons.. all too often; our brave and intrepid goon driver suffers an attack of impatientius, and dashes into the attacked field while it still has live on site defenders thus attracting the immediate and deadly attention of every enemy fighter in three girds around. Hold yer horses.. and the drunks, up short of dot range on the field. I can’t stress this strongly enuff… if you can see their dots THEY CAN SEE YOURS! Stay outta dot range, wait till you receive the call to come in. Remember, one maxim known instinctively by every pilot with guns in this sim. LOW DOT = GOON = EASY KILL = FIELD SECUITY. Stay smart.. stay alive.. don’t be where they are gonna look for you.
Now that you know what goes wrong.. here's how we do it RIGHT. Two B26's or JU88's are detailed and armed for acks, two more are detailed and armed for hangers. The JABO force consistis of heavy fighters armed with 1k eggs and rockets. The goon force is 2 or more C47's; and they are dispatched on a diffrent course with a final IP that is NOT on the target field. The JABO's transit ahead of the buffs; and once over the target field they DO NOT attack it; but instead, CAP it. The buffs arrive within 2 minutes of the JABO's and proceed to take down the acks and hangers.. this takes two passes, at most three.. 3 to 4 1/2 minutes tops. Once acks and hangers are down; JABO's are free to engage low assetts and enemy armor. B26's re-route to the GOONS IP, descened and proceed with goons back toward the target. By this time; the JABO's will have dispatched any remaining armor on the field, sounded the all clear for the goons to approach and be RE-GRABBING to establish hi-cap over the field; with some elements from the JABO force sweeping towards the next closest enemy field for intercept of interlopers.
Simple, enh?? It should be.. and when we do it like this it goes fast and easy.. the field is overwhelmed before it can muster adequite defensive assets, the goons approach unopposed, the capture goes down without a hiccup.
Sadly; merely because most guys flying the JABO section don't understand the concept of "HOLD, CAP; COVER THE BUFFS AND GOONS" they instead see a low no-threat defender attempting to grab up towards the out-of-reach buffs, they ALL go in and attack it, or worse; die gloriously but uselessly attacking hangers or acks that would be destroyed in a few minutes anyway without risk.
The FAST ATTACK mission profile is intended to gain the strategic target being attacked WITH MINIMUM RISK AND LOSSES to the attacking force while delivering OVERWHELMING DAMAGE TO THE TARGET. If any elemet fails to do it's job; the enitire force is weakened unneccesairly and all elements are put at extreme risk.
In essence.. do it smart; get kills, get the objective; do not die. Screw up; all are at risk; most die; no objective obtained.. and mayhem ensues..
Comments??
Hang
1st/AG "Bishlanders"
-
Unless you were being sarcastic (I hope ;) ), why say it? Just noticed the spelling, see how the eye relays incorrect information to the beholder.
I am relaxed, but the constant misinformation about how a couple of folks capture bases all the time, is adding to the do nothing approach taken by the designers. More folks should be standing up and relaying to HTC the reallity that the scope of the hordes has gone to a new level. Hordes have been discussed since the onset of AH2 at least. The real truth of the matter is, that today's hordes cannot be reigned in without the intervention of the game designers. Whereas hordes from pre - new town make over, were balanced by the ease of capture for smaller groups.
Check the date on this post below. Ten years ago Hangtime pretty well covers the reasons why the hordes exist.
nobody said that a couple of guys capture bases all the time. i was just replying to tank ace who indicated that him and 7 guys captured a base. I mentioned that it has been done many times but capturing bases with only a handful of players is the exception, not the rule.
but to be honest I started playing about 5 years ago. I started as a rook and there was a rook who would call out mission and we would just take base after base. I remember the ltars rolling bases the same way quite often and many other squads did the same thing. hordes the way we have today are not really any different that last year or 5 years ago, the only thing that has changed is who organizes them.
it seems everybody mentions the vtards more often now and they dont really bring any more players than what we used 5 years ago when I was a rook. the only change to the game play I have never seen in the years playing here is a horde crash diving into the hangars over and over like the vtards do. that is the only thing I see different today than it was 5 years ago.
semp
-
Thanks Semp for clearing that up for me. :salute I am pretty certain that you and I have both taken bases together and opposing each other. Game recognizes game. I can slip a goon right to the back steps of a town that is swarmed by defenders and have many times, I have seen you be just as slick, and sometimes we are the ones that either foil the other's attempt or sometimes we are there to help git r dun. So, yes we all can agree that bases can still be taken against overwhelming odds. The problem is that in the time it takes, a horde has already taken 3 or 4 bases easily. This is where I agree with the OP that changing the game has merit.
The rolling of bases is not as much of a concern, as the loss in alternatives.
HERE IS THE BIG POINT: The total number of players 5 years ago was greater. Compounding the smaller number of available online players as a whole, is the disproportionate loss in Euro / Off Hours players. What we have left is players logging on to find something interesting to do, and not able to find a manageable sized fight, they either join in or log off. The more folks that have active subscriptions that log off, the more that will eventually log off... this is the leming effect that Lusche has referred to. I wouldn't mind this as much if they logged into other areas such as custom arenas, WW1, etc. But no, after 10 years the shine has worn off the horde, errrr.... I mean fast base take.
-
And you're missing the point. Its VERY difficult to capture a base with only a few people. Usually you're spotted and you become outnumbered. However, if capturing bases isonly further encourage hording, since it would be nearly impossible to capture a base with just a few people, since 3 people can re-capture it easier than you did.
Well I disagree with your premis that the retake would be easier simply cause the town and base remain impotent with my idea. Give this a bit more thought please. You see the retake still requires the retakers to get 10 troops in the maproom in the face of folks who just got 10 troops in themselves. This is sure to be faaaar more difficult than you think IMHO.
Look, I'll try to explain how a mission may look with my idea.
say I post a mission to take a base, the target base has 2 enemy bases within 1 sector of it. Now when I fill my mission with vehicles I will have to take into account the potential counter attackers from these two other bases, so when choosing my vehicles I will prepare for this. I might choose 20 ponies with 75% and drops to do nothing more than interdict the air space between the target base and these 2 adjacent bases. I would bet some squads would be all over these opportunities to inderdict incoming counter attackers, I bet the pigs for one would be all over this. I would choose bombers to crush the base and town, a couple goons ( maybe a reserve goon) just in case a counter attack succeeds at getting troops in the maproom my mission is about to own, heavy fighters to finish off town and perform local cap, vehicles (if possible) to support by land the attack and to defend against incoming enemy vehicles. The initial take would be little different than it is now with compitent folks who have experience in base captures, but it is at this moment that all hell breaks loose and the fight heats up drawing more and more resources and interested folks to the party.
With all this going on, just how easy do you think the counter attackers will have it? It will be very difficult for them unless the original attackers just go away after they get troops in and if this happens they don't deserve the base in the 1st plase.
Now on the other side, they will see the attack and prepare, some would still up at the target base suffering vulch and pick hell, others would up fromadjacent (maybe even create a counter mission) bases for the counter strike, this is where things really would start to heat up as everyone involved would be aware of the timetable involved and would be pressing for the "common" objective.
I actually agree with you that the original attackers should enjoy a slightly easier time, that is why I suggested returning the radar alt to 200' allowing some covert/sneaky stuff to happen once again.
I would actually support maybe less % of town to be destroyed and maybe even less troop requirement for the initial attackers, I would hold the line for the counter attackers at 10 troops.
JUGgler
-
Wow! I'm glad I came back to this. This is interesting stuff and could probably work. But what makes you think HTC will completely change the game play?
Not trying to burst ur bubble...just saying. :salute
I don't expect them to do anything, this is just a suggestion although I will say HTC has proven itself to make changes in gameplay before. I'm sure they pay close attention to the wishlist, what business owner who owns such a product wouldn't?
I will tell you a recent story that falls along these lines.
My wife and I frequent a local sushi restaurant a couple times a month, their product is excellent, service is great and it is entertaining and clean. They did have one problem for us and that is their fountain coke, you see my wife enjoys a coke now and then and usualy with sushi, I enjoy the green tea and beer. Now she has always been disappointed about it yet too nice to say anything about it. So we were there a couple weeks ago and for some reason I decided I wanted a coke, and when recieved I also thought it was flat. We finished and were leaving so I took the owner asside and explained to him I thought his coke sucked and didn't have the same hi standard of the rest of his restaurant. We left I really didn't think anything would come of it. We went back a couple nights ago, the waitress asked drinks? I said beer and tea, the wife said coke, she replied in return fountain or can? FIXED and happy!
A simple unrelated example of businesses altering their service to make customers happier and willing to return and spend more $ a win win in my book!
:salute
JUGgler
-
Again, you miss what I'm saying. Hording will be INCREASED, because without a large CAP in place, you have no means of preventing those 10 troops from going into the maproom.
So what you will see in missions with your idea is:
Strike force, current size, perhaps larger emphasis on strike-aircraft, as the fighters designated to defend can also act as escort
Defense force, primarily mid-long-ish ranged fighters with 50%, or short-mid ranged fighters with 100% fuel and DT.
I was simply saying that WITHOUT the EXTRA mass to the horde, the base will be incredibly easy to re-take.
-
Again, you miss what I'm saying. Hording will be INCREASED, because without a large CAP in place, you have no means of preventing those 10 troops from going into the maproom.
So what you will see in missions with your idea is:
Strike force, current size, perhaps larger emphasis on strike-aircraft, as the fighters designated to defend can also act as escort
Defense force, primarily mid-long-ish ranged fighters with 50%, or short-mid ranged fighters with 100% fuel and DT.
I was simply saying that WITHOUT the EXTRA mass to the horde, the base will be incredibly easy to re-take.
I'm trying to understand you here, so let me say YOU think the "retakers" will merely respond with a large horde and simply slide the troops in cause "with my idea" they won't have to drop the town! Is this correct?
I'll assume I'm correct and respond: Assuming the retake goes as easy as the initial capture then I would agree with you BUT the initial capture should have planned to defend their potential prize and thus they should be defending it if they want to keep it!
My idea of keeping all ack and buildings down is a way to encourage folks to try and retake it. I believe currently the reason you never see anyone try to immediately counter attack a captured base is cause there is no organization to the defenders and they would have to destroy all ack and fight thru the new defenders who are upping at the base they just captured.With my idea the counter attackers would think they might actually "with some effort" be able to retake the base. Now mind you just cause the counter attackers "might" be able to get 10 troops back in the map room to reset it doesn't mean they own it, the timer is still in effect and their troops now have to cook in the maproom! You see it could become a back and forth struggle until someone finally gives in! Then you'd have an actual winner and loser, not as it is now the "winners" almost always win cause no-one realy wants to be vulched time and again just to try and defend something you can't defend by taking off from the base that is being horded!
I would be fine with letting the buildings pop "at their normal rate" in effect forcing the counter attackers to take in to account some destruction may be required but I am adiment at leaving all base and town ack down and having the base unusable to anyone until someones troops have cooked for the alloted time, this is the only way to encourage the possibility of a counter attack! which would create the fight most in here say they want!
IMHO
:salute :cheers:
JUGgler
-
No one would EEEEVERRRR hide in or near the town ready to release there troops.
HiTech
-
My question is, what incentive do the 'retakers' have to attempt to retake a base versus hording another, undefended base elsewhere?
Wiley.
-
No one would EEEEVERRRR hide in or near the town ready to release there troops.
HiTech
Sorry Boss,
I have to disagree, that no one would. Especially, since I have personally seen this done with the vehicle bases now. Furthermore, I have seen this sort of thing have some success with vehicle bases because all that has to be done is to knock out ack and deliver troops into the maproom. The probability of this happening with towns is less at the moment due to the need to kill town ack that immediately pops. The flaw in not having ack popping is that any troops nearby can run in immediately.
My fix to that would be to create 2 new spawns from each side attacker and defender, then allow only troops brought in from another base.
-
Sorry Boss,
I have to disagree, that no one would. Especially, since I have personally seen this done with the vehicle bases now. Furthermore, I have seen this sort of thing have some success with vehicle bases because all that has to be done is to knock out ack and deliver troops into the maproom. The probability of this happening with towns is less at the moment due to the need to kill town ack that immediately pops. The flaw in not having ack popping is that any troops nearby can run in immediately.
My fix to that would be to create 2 new spawns from each side attacker and defender, then allow only troops brought in from another base.
Sarcasm, duh :lol.
-
Sarcasm, duh :lol.
Vrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr............. ................rrrrrrrrrrrrr eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeemmmmmmm mmmmmmmmmmmmmm :rofl Right over my head Tank ... thanks for the wake up :o
-
Juggler, you are correct, but the second half of it is either hording is increased, or succesfull captures become excedingly rare.
1) attackers horde to capture base, defenders easily 'retake' the base, because the attackers didn't plan on guarding their new base
2) attackers horde is even larger, to protect their new base, defenders let it go
3) attackers horde is even larger, defenders counter with their own horde
With your system, we could see several things happen, not nessicarilly all. Which ones we see, if we see them, and how severe they are would depend on how the group affected reacts to the preasure put on their style of play.
1) GV's nearly impossible to use in a counter-strike, attackers have planned for this, and some of their defense fighters are heavy and specificly tasked with blunting a GV counter-attack. GV camping increases to nearly 100% of all GV usage, fights become stagnant and GV use declines.
2) Smaller, more open, and flexible fights are even more rare than with our current system, as you need a larger group to defend. Options further limited, hording is increased by lack of choice.
3) CV's are valued much higher, as defending a captured port is much more difficult (due to their usual proximity to enemy bases vs that of friendly bases), hiding of captured CV's skyrockets.
4) war wins are much more difficult, as effective defense with just a small group is much more difficult. When you attack one side, the other side jumps you and takes advantage of your inability to counter-attack or even defend effectivly.
5) ability to build up momentum in an advance is impossible. To simultaneously mount a strong defense AND maintain the attack, you must strip one of your fronts bare, leaving it vulnerable.
Again, I think instead of trying to slap a bandage on the abscess and accomodating our capture-system to the horde, we should instead try to find ways to reduce hording (such as making captures by small groups easier). The option of hording still exists for those that want to, but its no longer encouraged. All options are equally effective, and choice without preasure of results is given to the players.
-
My question is, what incentive do the 'retakers' have to attempt to retake a base versus hording another, undefended base elsewhere?
Wiley.
What incentive do the current defenders have now for trying to defend a base suffering vulch after vulch after vulch?
You gonna tell me that squads like the pigs, rejects, jokers jokers etc wouldn't see a base being attacked and learn to specialize in the counter attack? I think many would revel in this new way to "make a difference"! IMHO
My idea kind of incorporates the desire for some to "fight the good fight" and fight for a recapture of what they are about to lose, and to defend what they might gain :aok
IMHO
JUGgler
-
That has nothing to do with most of the points I've raised, and is completly irrlevent to the lack of options.
If we make it easier for small man raids to capture a base, said squads could easily specialize in simultaneous capture.
Just because there's more options and ways to fight with/against the horde doesn't mean the lack of other options isn't a problem.
Thats like the government deciding where you will live, but letting you pick your house from a couple of options. Yeah, you get to pick the house... sorta.... but that doesn't mean you should be pleased you're allowed to do what should be yours by basic rights.
-
Juggler, you are correct, but the second half of it is either hording is increased, or succesfull captures become excedingly rare.
1) attackers horde to capture base, defenders easily 'retake' the base, because the attackers didn't plan on guarding their new base
2) attackers horde is even larger, to protect their new base, defenders let it go
3) attackers horde is even larger, defenders counter with their own horde
#1- this would be the consiquence of not guarding or defending their target
#2- again a consiquence of the defenders not defending
#3- Massive battle spread over a large area :O
I see no problems here!
With your system, we could see several things happen, not nessicarilly all. Which ones we see, if we see them, and how severe they are would depend on how the group affected reacts to the preasure put on their style of play.
1) GV's nearly impossible to use in a counter-strike, attackers have planned for this, and some of their defense fighters are heavy and specificly tasked with blunting a GV counter-attack. GV camping increases to nearly 100% of all GV usage, fights become stagnant and GV use declines.
2) Smaller, more open, and flexible fights are even more rare than with our current system, as you need a larger group to defend. Options further limited, hording is increased by lack of choice.
3) CV's are valued much higher, as defending a captured port is much more difficult (due to their usual proximity to enemy bases vs that of friendly bases), hiding of captured CV's skyrockets.
4) war wins are much more difficult, as effective defense with just a small group is much more difficult. When you attack one side, the other side jumps you and takes advantage of your inability to counter-attack or even defend effectivly.
5) ability to build up momentum in an advance is impossible. To simultaneously mount a strong defense AND maintain the attack, you must strip one of your fronts bare, leaving it vulnerable.
[/quote]
#1- this would show good planning by the mission leader, tI bet the counter attackers would bring jabos also :aok
#2- I bet 3 muppets in jets could stop a counter attack with no GVs present. 3 enemies in jets could keep muppets busy for goons to get past! :aok
#3- The timetable would allow time for close CVs to bring their weight to bear in an original attack, counter attack or BOTH :aok Keep one eye out to sea, there are bad guys out there :aok I think it would make "creative use of CVs" more frequent! The CV hiding issue can be fixed in other ways!
#4- why can't the country defend? why can't it counter attack? You may be out #d but I bet not as much as you are now :aok
#5- This is just speculation, there is no-one "IN CHARGE" to strip a front! evreyone still has choice and I would argue more choice with my idea! Also I would apply #2 to this also :aok
Again, I think instead of trying to slap a bandage on the abscess and accomodating our capture-system to the horde, we should instead try to find ways to reduce hording (such as making captures by small groups easier). The option of hording still exists for those that want to, but its no longer encouraged. All options are equally effective, and choice without preasure of results is given to the players.
[/quote]
I don't know how many more times I need to say that I AGREE WITH EASIER CAPTURES! Raise the radar alt to 200' and reduce the % of buildings destroyed requirement!
I think that was the 4th time I said that!
JUGgler
-
That has nothing to do with most of the points I've raised, and is completly irrlevent to the lack of options.
If we make it easier for small man raids to capture a base, said squads could easily specialize in simultaneous capture.
Just because there's more options and ways to fight with/against the horde doesn't mean the lack of other options isn't a problem.
Thats like the government deciding where you will live, but letting you pick your house from a couple of options. Yeah, you get to pick the house... sorta.... but that doesn't mean you should be pleased you're allowed to do what should be yours by basic rights.
I was answering wiley :aok
JUGgler
-
1) Results in a stagnating fight as attackers cannot take the base but stubbornly continue to attack, which is just not fun. Even if the attackers maintain air superiority, the defenders are usually able to maintain air denial so goons are unable to bring troops, and GV-borne troops are killed before entering maproom.
2) Same results as in the MA, the horde is just even larger, and the fight is even more one-sided. Still bad, as its only combat if you view it in terms of how the map is rearranged.
3) VERY rare, usually its just a massive battle spread out over the few K's of airspace where the two hordes intercept.
#1: Still bad as it could result in near-total loss of an entire way of playing
#2: I think you answered my first point twice
#3: CV's are easily sunk, and the usual close proximity of the defenders to the port in question means attackers usually can't cover the 250-50 miles before the base is retaken. Fixing the CV thing appears low on HTC's priority list. Even bugs in the terrain making CV's invincible seem ignored.
#4: Because, if you want to hold the ground on both fronts, you probably lack the strength to capture more bases. No new bases = no % increase. No % increase = no map win. no map win = boring.
#5: Doesn't mean it doesn't happen. 2 fights on one front or even just 1 BIG fight seems to result in the other front getting punched in the face and rolled back. Also completely irrelevant to #2.
-
No one would EEEEVERRRR hide in or near the town ready to release there troops.
HiTech
i agree with chili boss, we had a guy bring troops the other day to 3 different bases. we ended up not clearing up the town so he got killed after waiting for at least 1/2 an hour to drop troops. he also called us a bad word every time saying he wouldnt do it again. the 4th time he took the town on another base :rock.
semp
-
No one would EEEEVERRRR hide in or near the town ready to release there troops.
HiTech
Hey buddy I don't know who you are but how's about helping with the process and not being a troll. :uhoh
-
Seriously tho a little input from the top would help correlate, all the ideas floating around out there.