Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: The Fugitive on December 28, 2011, 06:01:11 PM
-
For the most part EVERYONE wants to be on the attack. Part of the team to grab that next base. Part of the team to "WIN THE WAR!"
Here's the question, what would it take for you to DEFEND?
As the game is played now defenders are few and far between. Sure sometimes you get a dozen guys to up, but as soon as the numbers get overwhelming like they "sometimes" do :P most head off looking for something else to do. More often than not it's to join their local "horde" for the next attack on a base that very few will defend against.
So what would it take? We know players JOIN the hordes to be part of the "success" of the mission, the comradary of flying with their squad. So if there was a system message that said "Bishops have successfully defended against a capture attempt at A22", would that get more people to defend? Maybe points/perks for defending?
What would it take for you to defend more?
-
They need to add more ack and make the town buildings stronger so we have a chance to stop the horde.
-
Doesn't truly matter to me because I rarely get to play but when I do I frequently am in this defensive position. Smaller (say 5 member) squads may be an answer, but I really don't care how thwy all want to play it still won't change how I play. Probably not get a lot on this thread, they are hording the collision model one..... :noid
Bob
-
They need to add more ack and make the town buildings stronger so we have a chance to stop the horde.
The problem with adjusting the difficulty of capture is that the horde will just increase in size. It's already happened.
Something like zone eny or zone perks bonuses need to be looked at. Something that encourages people to equalize population in a sector.
-
Typically, I will continue to up in defense of a base up until the point that the other side is vulching and I am no longer able to actually get into the fight. Once the vulching starts, I'll up a wirble if the VH is up (it rarely is at this point). Then I'm gone.
Getting vulched isn't fun, and I won't contribute to the playstyle. Vulchers only exists because there are people who will up repeatedly when there is no real hope of getting into the fight.
Solve that problem and I'd defend until the map room falls.
I am of the opinion that the solution is a total rework of the base/town structure and how captures happen. Something along the line of a large city/town that is supported regionally by 2 airbases and 2 vehicle bases. At the city, is a runway and vh for defense (along with auto ack and manned guns). Make the town fairly difficult to take down. The support airbases and vehicle bases are close enough to support the city, with fairly short flight times and vehicle spawns into the city. Attackers would also have GV spawns within a reasonable fighting distance from the city.
when the city is captured, both supporting airfields and vehicle bases change ownership.
So, instead of a single airfield/town setup, a capture is a regional affair involving multiple runways and vehicle bases. It should be easier to defend then attack.
Just some rough thoughts.
-
As a solo flyer, I defend 99% of the time. When there are a bunch of late war monsters above me, it is time to adjourn to another field. Choosing smaller fights is preferable to futile attempts at defending and giving out an easy kill to the mob (one of them is gonna get it).
Do enjoy manning a field gun and popping vulchers, though. Enjoy that very much. :devil
Often spend time in the tower, scanning the radar for a single con approaching an inactive base. The problem is that lone con coming in is either: high buffs going for the coveted town center, or a suicide porker with no interest in a fight.
Been doing a lot of upping for nothing lately.
When they actually do come for a fight, you have to finish them quick or else three friendlies will up to help clear your twelve. This is after several minutes of dodging BnZ passes until finally gaining the advantage. The "friendly" La-7/Spit XVI/P-51D makes one pass to reap the glory of your hard fought battle. :bhead I still love this game, though and am going to keep playing my way.
Most seem to join the attack and that's OK. No way to make people play the way you want them to.
The sooner you realize that, the sooner you can relax and play the game the way you want to.
-
I have seen lots of good defense in LW lately... and hordes getting pushed back. I do think that the new 88's will make base taking a lot harder though. They are lethal... both to AC and GV attackers.
-
:noid :noid :noid :noid :noid
-
For the most part EVERYONE wants to be on the attack. Part of the team to grab that next base. Part of the team to "WIN THE WAR!"
Here's the question, what would it take for you to DEFEND?
As the game is played now defenders are few and far between. Sure sometimes you get a dozen guys to up, but as soon as the numbers get overwhelming like they "sometimes" do :P most head off looking for something else to do. More often than not it's to join their local "horde" for the next attack on a base that very few will defend against.
So what would it take? We know players JOIN the hordes to be part of the "success" of the mission, the comradary of flying with their squad. So if there was a system message that said "Bishops have successfully defended against a capture attempt at A22", would that get more people to defend? Maybe points/perks for defending?
What would it take for you to defend more?
Fugitive, I’m not seeing it to the extent that you appear to be (lack of defenders). I see the hordes roll bases but I also have seen just as many major battles develop with large numbers of players defending and holding. Mustering there own horde to defend.
But I do understand what you are trying to accomplish. Perhaps the system could be change so that bases are linked by proximity of the next closest base. If I’m at A101 and A102 is under attack I can up from A101 and select a mission type such as Base defense , fly to 102 and get additional perks for kills in proximity to base A102. Something along those lines.
I personally gave up watching score or caring about perk points many years ago. But I do understand that it has importance to many players and they enjoy tracking their score/progress.
One thing that AW had was pre canned missions, remember those. You could select one and fly the assigned mission to intercept an AI aircraft. I enjoyed those. I also remember as often as not running into real live nme fighters while flying the assigned route of the mission.
-
maybe if there was a scoreing catergory in the hangar for defence that added a % to perks and or scoreing that had a limited range say dar circle to help encourage defence of the hordes.
-
Fugitive, I’m not seeing it to the extent that you appear to be (lack of defenders). I see the hordes roll bases but I also have seen just as many major battles develop with large numbers of players defending and holding. Mustering there own horde to defend.
But I do understand what you are trying to accomplish. Perhaps the system could be change so that bases are linked by proximity of the next closest base. If I’m at A101 and A102 is under attack I can up from A101 and select a mission type such as Base defense , fly to 102 and get additional perks for kills in proximity to base A102. Something along those lines.
I personally gave up watching score or caring about perk points many years ago. But I do understand that it has importance to many players and they enjoy tracking their score/progress.
One thing that AW had was pre canned missions, remember those. You could select one and fly the assigned mission to intercept an AI aircraft. I enjoyed those. I also remember as often as not running into real live nme fighters while flying the assigned route of the mission.
Traveler, I have an extra question for you :D
Your in a small squad, but a pretty tight group. I know when I run into you guys fly there is always a few others around. How often do you guys defend? I know fighter sweeps might be a mission you guys would do, as well as trying to grab a base or two, but how often do you just cap a base that looks like it has incoming, or one that had an attack turned back? Just curious.
-
So if there was a system message that said "Bishops have successfully defended against a capture attempt at A22", would that get more people to defend? Maybe points/perks for defending?
I think it has some merit if you can define and the system can recognize a legitimate capture attempt.
-
country A's squad brings 10 people to capture a base.
Country B only ups 3-4 defenders.
Country B's field gets steamrolled.
Country B whines that Country A is nothing but Horders.
..pretty much how i see it anyways.
-
...The ability to get a plane into the air.
Hangers are down.
Actually, lately I like getting up, staying on the deck, and go goon hunting. Also lately I've been hitting trees and such while attempting to do so.
The problem is:
Upping and seeing 20 planes over the town and getting HO'd by the first four you encounter while calling for help on country while you try to get a hit on someone while you are alone.
Or
The hangars are all down.
wrongway
-
Traveler, I have an extra question for you :D
Your in a small squad, but a pretty tight group. I know when I run into you guys fly there is always a few others around. How often do you guys defend? I know fighter sweeps might be a mission you guys would do, as well as trying to grab a base or two, but how often do you just cap a base that looks like it has incoming, or one that had an attack turned back? Just curious.
http://youtu.be/1futZ76CAUw
(http://youtu.be/1futZ76CAUw)
just one of our base defenses . Because we are a small squad we do find it necessary to rally others to help and they do help, at least for us. I think most other Knights understand that if the 113th is there, we will do our best to hold. We might need to fly interdiction flights against their Ammo or VH , but we won’t cut and run.
Check out our AH Wiki page and you will see the different types of missions that we fly.
The link is in my signature.
On our squad night, we spend about 40% of our time defending. Perhaps a little less or a little more.
-
I already spend 80% of my flight time flying high cap defense.
-
Here's the fundamental issue with defense. Inevitably you are forced to take off from an adjacent base when they destroy your hangars. Most of the time it seems, the sheeple have your base captured by the time you can even get there from the adjacent base. After they capture your base, they land and go fly elsewhere leaving you with nothing but an enemy base with full ack up and no enemies. So basically, before you end up deciding whether or not to take off from the adjacent base you are forced to ask yourself, "Is it even worth it? How close are they to capturing this thing and leaving the area"? That is a problem.
The solution is for the auto ack to not automatically pop up once a base is captured. They should be regenerated based on the same timer they were on before they were captured, but allow the other side to resupply the base with goons.
-
YOU CANNOT STOP THE BISHOP HORDES.
ALL YOUR SHEEP ARE BELONG TO US
-
YOU CANNOT STOP THE BISHOP HORDES.
ALL YOUR SHEEP ARE BELONG TO US
Another guy PROUD to hide in a horde :rolleyes:
Here's the fundamental issue with defense. Inevitably you are forced to take off from an adjacent base when they destroy your hangers. Most of the time it seems, the sheeple have your base captured by the time you can even get there from the adjacent base. After they capture your base, they land and go fly elsewhere leaving you with nothing but an enemy base with full ack up and no enemies. So basically, before you end up deciding whether or not to take off from the adjacent base you are forced to ask yourself, "Is it even worth it? How close are they to capturing this thing and leaving the area"? That is a problem.
The solution is for the auto ack to not automatically pop up once a base is captured. They should be regenerated based on the same timer they were on before they were captured, but allow the other side to resupply the base with goons.
Agreed, many a time once the hangers are down that is my thought process. If I up now and fly all that way, even at only 4-5k will I be in time to slow them down or will I be fighting in "their" ack by the time I get there. More often than not I'm off looking for another fight, it's just not worth the trouble.
I'd love to see something put it in to make the capturing team have to stick around to defend for a bit.
-
I'd love to see something put it in to make the capturing team have to stick around to defend for a bit.
I'm not too much away from this.
The reason for hitting here and there (preferably where no resistance is expected) and not staying to defend is mainly the way the war is win, the absence of any geographical strategic goal. It's just about number of bases, no matter what or where they are.
The old "capture order" was a try to fix that, but it was too limited.
I've been cudgeling my brain for quite some time how we could change that in a practical way. I've mentioned it before, a "captial" that would have be captured (or destroyed, details not that important at this point) as part of the victory requirements. How your country would get close enough to the enemy 'capital' wouldn't matter, so there would be a lot of room for different strategies/approaches. But in the end, once a faction would have pushed a wedge into the enemy territory towards that ultimate target, they would have the highest interest to hold that territory and to push even further. Diversions, sidestepping and securing of flanks will all happen, but both attacker as well as defender would know where the music truly is playing.... instead of trying to keep track of NOE's all over the map.
I'd prefer such a thing highly over any other mechanisms. which do not touch the core problem.... a lack of a strategic goal.
-
the instant ack resupply is a problem, I'd just get rid of that. let them pop depending on downtime as usual, like all the other strat objects on the field.
nothing more annoying than evading a bunch of vulchers at 50' only to be nailed by what was your own destroyed ack a second ago when the town gets captured.
-
I have a possible solution, a captured base does not regenerate any hangers, ords, fuel, barrack or ack with out the newly captured have to be supplied either by the truck system, goon or m3, would take a large number of resupply being delivered, This way the captured base will have to be defended until at least the hangers are up, change the down time equal to the current town time of 45 minutes. without being resupplied recapture will be possible, if recaptured up time will depend on how close to the owning city and stat it will take, the closed to the stats, then down time is reduced.
Just a thought, so lets hear any other ideas. This would give lot more reason to stay and defend a base once captured. plus give many targets such as the trucks, goons and m3 attempting to resupply the base, from either side.
There are other options to add, so give us some ideas.
DHawk
-
See rule #4
-
I've become more and more defensive in nature of flying. I've gotten extremely tired of just rolling bases, I hate doing a ton of work to get a pony low and slow, moving in for my kill, and having 10 guys dive in to clear my 12. Base defense normally offers up a much more target rich environment, and is faster paced, but even this gets to be discouraging when there's 1 or 2 people trying to defend against the mass of an entire country on a roll.
...so, it's now come to 'predicting' where the horde's going to come from, getting in position, trying to get a jump on Goons and Buffs before they have a chance to form up, and trying to cause as much havoc prior to the attack.
I've found that is fun, and people tend to get a little more angry at being shot down prior to their mission arriving at a base.
-
The debate here begins to focus on capturing air bases and how the capture model disables flight from a base as a result of game play vis the horde.
Yet if we look at WWII capture we see it was about logistics i.e capturing logistic points such as bridges, roads and most commonly towns. We have an ancient capture model that focuses on capturing the very fields we deploy from.
Of course there were WWII attacks on airfields but there are very few circumstances of such attacks ever actually closing them til the point of capture (Barbarossa 41?) let alone them being the focal point of the enemies advance.
As the "front line" approached an airfield its ac were deployed to the rear and it would only be of use to the opposing side once the "front line" had passed it.
In AH the front line could be defined by the capture of vehicle fields and towns and when this "line" approaches an air field it is rendered in operative. It is deemed captured when the line has passed it.
Then we can harden hangers and make it much more implausible that an airfield can be simply knocked out. The fight then moves over towns and vehicle fields (air fields no longer positioned so close to towns such that air cap on one means air cap on both!)
On top of this we could factor in the requirement to take and hold such towns and vehicle fields as are taken to form the front line. In this manner a capture has to have been successfull for # time before such defences are in place (gguns) and the "front line" redrawn.
Would this stop hordes................. NO the only way I have seen that limits hordes is the zone limit as applied for a while in AW.
Would this stop hordes killing game play............... well IMO it would reduce it as the land grab objective is no longer the air field....they could horde a town or a Gv field but then in this model I would anticipate that the GV element will always decide the final outcome of any capture (the winning side will need both air superiority and ground superiority) and this will be decided by gv fields spawn access to "front lines" and if they have not (split their forces and ) closed down the now harder local air fields then the defenders will still have access to the fight even if they are outnumbered at the combat zone.
-
If there is even the smallest chance that simply leaving the guns down after capture will force the hordes to defend and change the game dynamics in a positive way, I say HTC should give it a try for a couple of weeks. Seems like it would be a simple change to make, and worth giving it a try. If it doesn't have the desired effect, change it back.
-
The debate here begins to focus on capturing air bases and how the capture model disables flight from a base as a result of game play vis the horde.
Yet if we look at WWII capture we see it was about logistics i.e capturing logistic points such as bridges, roads and most commonly towns. We have an ancient capture model that focuses on capturing the very fields we deploy from.
Of course there were WWII attacks on airfields but there are very few circumstances of such attacks ever actually closing them til the point of capture (Barbarossa 41?) let alone them being the focal point of the enemies advance.
As the "front line" approached an airfield its ac were deployed to the rear and it would only be of use to the opposing side once the "front line" had passed it.
In AH the front line could be defined by the capture of vehicle fields and towns and when this "line" approaches an air field it is rendered in operative. It is deemed captured when the line has passed it.
Then we can harden hangers and make it much more implausible that an airfield can be simply knocked out. The fight then moves over towns and vehicle fields (air fields no longer positioned so close to towns such that air cap on one means air cap on both!)
On top of this we could factor in the requirement to take and hold such towns and vehicle fields as are taken to form the front line. In this manner a capture has to have been successfull for # time before such defences are in place (gguns) and the "front line" redrawn.
Would this stop hordes................. NO the only way I have seen that limits hordes is the zone limit as applied for a while in AW.
Would this stop hordes killing game play............... well IMO it would reduce it as the land grab objective is no longer the air field....they could horde a town or a Gv field but then in this model I would anticipate that the GV element will always decide the final outcome of any capture (the winning side will need both air superiority and ground superiority) and this will be decided by gv fields spawn access to "front lines" and if they have not (split their forces and ) closed down the now harder local air fields then the defenders will still have access to the fight even if they are outnumbered at the combat zone.
The biggest problem I see with this is the defenders are still losing an airfield to use to defend from. As the line moves over you are forced to abandon the field. It's pretty much the same as when the horde flattens it, not much of a difference.
To spread the fight out, maybe a twist on the old "ordered capture" system. To take a field/base you have to meet the requirements we have now, but add to that they must also have 2 adjacent towns down to 25% as well. This would have the horde hitting the main objective, but then it would have to split to hit 2 other towns as well. Giving defenders more time to defend, and busting up the horde a bit.
-
The biggest problem I see with this is the defenders are still losing an airfield to use to defend from. As the line moves over you are forced to abandon the field. It's pretty much the same as when the horde flattens it, not much of a difference.
To spread the fight out, maybe a twist on the old "ordered capture" system. To take a field/base you have to meet the requirements we have now, but add to that they must also have 2 adjacent towns down to 25% as well. This would have the horde hitting the main objective, but then it would have to split to hit 2 other towns as well. Giving defenders more time to defend, and busting up the horde a bit.
Not sure this would do anything cause I think it is the "MASS" of the horde that creates its own gravity that draws more like minded peeps to it. I think the draw to the many revolves around a general sense of being part of something that you yourself don't have to create, the common feeling of safety in the "many" just like herds of herbivores in the wild gravitate to each other for the protective quality of large groups.
There has to be some sort of change that brings these qualities to the defence, or some incentive that rewards defence or punishes a country for not defending. I believe the FIX is in the understanding of simple human urges and tendencies. Just like in the wild most animals travel in #s, so too most people travel and feel safer in herds. Human or animal there are in comparison very few lions! Just like with humans when a mob attacks the few, the few have little chance, with animals the same occurs when a lion gets trapped in the middle of a herd of wildebeests, the lion has little chance. Find a way to make "DEFENCE" like a herd and you will have more folks defending! Otherwise the "lions" will always be stampeded into the mud, the only upside for the lion is, he most likely dies with a full stomach :aok
JUGgler
-
They need to add more ack and make the town buildings stronger so we have a chance to stop the horde.
:headscratch:
-
The biggest problem I see with this is the defenders are still losing an airfield to use to defend from. As the line moves over you are forced to abandon the field. It's pretty much the same as when the horde flattens it, not much of a difference.
To spread the fight out, maybe a twist on the old "ordered capture" system. To take a field/base you have to meet the requirements we have now, but add to that they must also have 2 adjacent towns down to 25% as well. This would have the horde hitting the main objective, but then it would have to split to hit 2 other towns as well. Giving defenders more time to defend, and busting up the horde a bit.
One thing that the 113th Lucky Strikes does when we are able to capture a field is to hold in place , defend until the town starts to rebuild or in the case of airfields and Vehicle bases, re-supply. At times this may mean sending out strikers to take out a VH that spawns into the base or making strikes against Ords at nearby airfields, to prevent them from coming in heavy.
My feeling is that the strategy part of the game play could be improved. I’ve love to see more towns connected a road system that actually had an impact on game play, with open areas in which Knight, Bishop or Rook engineer teams could build Vehicle Bases or Airfields, rivers with bridges that could be destroyed and rebuilt,
Change Airfields so that there are limits to the number of aircraft that can be launched. There were few airfields in WWII that supported both bombers and fighters. There was a limit on number and type of fighters that were based at an airfield,
Any aircraft could refuel but only a limited number were actually based their. Perhaps if the rearm pad would allow a more flexible choice in rearm. You could chose a new load out both fuel and ord. If you had to fly from a base in the rear . You could go with no ord and re-arm at a forward base with ords.
Perhaps we need to put troops in both places towns and airfields and when a base is captured it needs to be re-supplied or it stays down. You need to put troops in the town and engineers on the Airfield to get the base functional again.. You need move troops and supplies to get AAA and Anti aircraft functional. Or it’s down for the hour.
A town could have a nearby airfield and a nearby Vehicle base and perhaps a nearby artillery base. One that can put up Anti Aircraft cover over both the town and airfield. You would need to capture all three to secure a sector.
Some sectors would have all three bases others two and some just one. Make deploying engineers to build remote airfields or bases that would need to be supplied with logistics. Move things to fight over and about.
-
Not sure this would do anything cause I think it is the "MASS" of the horde that creates its own gravity that draws more like minded peeps to it. I think the draw to the many revolves around a general sense of being part of something that you yourself don't have to create, the common feeling of safety in the "many" just like herds of herbivores in the wild gravitate to each other for the protective quality of large groups.
There has to be some sort of change that brings these qualities to the defence, or some incentive that rewards defence or punishes a country for not defending. I believe the FIX is in the understanding of simple human urges and tendencies. Just like in the wild most animals travel in #s, so too most people travel and feel safer in herds. Human or animal there are in comparison very few lions! Just like with humans when a mob attacks the few, the few have little chance, with animals the same occurs when a lion gets trapped in the middle of a herd of wildebeests, the lion has little chance. Find a way to make "DEFENCE" like a herd and you will have more folks defending! Otherwise the "lions" will always be stampeded into the mud, the only upside for the lion is, he most likely dies with a full stomach :aok
JUGgler
I think making the horde hit both bases adjacent to the targeted base would split the horde up. Make the battle spread out along a 50+ mile front for one base. You have more chances of smaller groups fighting it out instead of a single concentration of attackers.
One thing that the 113th Lucky Strikes does when we are able to capture a field is to hold in place , defend until the town starts to rebuild or in the case of airfields and Vehicle bases, re-supply. At times this may mean sending out strikers to take out a VH that spawns into the base or making strikes against Ords at nearby airfields, to prevent them from coming in heavy.
My feeling is that the strategy part of the game play could be improved. I’ve love to see more towns connected a road system that actually had an impact on game play, with open areas in which Knight, Bishop or Rook engineer teams could build Vehicle Bases or Airfields, rivers with bridges that could be destroyed and rebuilt,
Change Airfields so that there are limits to the number of aircraft that can be launched. There were few airfields in WWII that supported both bombers and fighters. There was a limit on number and type of fighters that were based at an airfield,
Any aircraft could refuel but only a limited number were actually based their. Perhaps if the rearm pad would allow a more flexible choice in rearm. You could chose a new load out both fuel and ord. If you had to fly from a base in the rear . You could go with no ord and re-arm at a forward base with ords.
Perhaps we need to put troops in both places towns and airfields and when a base is captured it needs to be re-supplied or it stays down. You need to put troops in the town and engineers on the Airfield to get the base functional again.. You need move troops and supplies to get AAA and Anti aircraft functional. Or it’s down for the hour.
A town could have a nearby airfield and a nearby Vehicle base and perhaps a nearby artillery base. One that can put up Anti Aircraft cover over both the town and airfield. You would need to capture all three to secure a sector.
Some sectors would have all three bases others two and some just one. Make deploying engineers to build remote airfields or bases that would need to be supplied with logistics. Move things to fight over and about.
Adding things to make players even MORE timid isn't going to help. While your squad does defend, most do not. The horde captains are much more interested in rolling base after base. You see it when one of these "captains" log on. Everyone starts clambering for a mission to grab a base. We need the same kind of excitement for building a defensive mission as well.
-
This is a great discussion with a lot of great ideas.
I particularly like the delay in auto ack coming back after capture.
-
This is a great discussion with a lot of great ideas.
I particularly like the delay in auto ack coming back after capture.
It used to be that way and was changed.
Think how easy it is for the original country jut to have troops waiting to capture it back instantly.
-
Think how easy it is for the original country jut to have troops waiting to capture it back instantly.
This is what everyone is asking for.
If folks wish to horde a base, that is fine. All the defenders want is a reason to keep said hordlings around for a while so that they can engage them.
Imagine this if you will: The troops have landed and have taken the map room.
Grunt: "We've captured the map room, but the situation is still tentative. We're working hard to get the AA operational again, but spotters have located enemy troop movement to the north and a Tiger in the bomber hangar."
Pilot: "Uhhhh copy that crazylegs. Be advised, uhhhhh we're strafing the troops to the north, uhhhhh and we'll see what we can do about that uhhhhh tank in the fighter hangar."
Grunt: "BOMBER HANGAR! The Tiger is in the bomber hangar!
Pilot: "Uhhhh yeah, the tank is in the bomber hangar. He just uhhhhh vulched five of our guys on the runway. Uhhhh wait one."
<28 seconds of silence>
Pilot: "Uhhhh yeah crazylegs it's gonna be at least 8 more minutes before we can get a plane with a bomb up here. Uhhhhh erm you see, we expended all ords on the ords bunkers. So ummm wait one."
Grunt: "Oh for crying out loud, we'll have the ack up in 10 minutes."
Pilot: "Ummm crazylegs, you guys are gonna have to hold fast and try to uhhhh get that ack up. Some creeps just showed up and are currently whipping the uhh snot out of us."
Grunt: "WTF?"
Pilot: "What's that honey? Tacos for breakfast? Ummm I gotta bail crazy. Watch out for that tank in the VH."
Grunt: Dammit, get the ack up before those M3's get here!
-
It's Friday night and there have been substances.
What if the towns were sized appropriately to the field? So a Small Field has a town the size it is now, a Medium Field has a town 100% bigger and a Large Field has a town 100% bigger still.
Wow. this might not even be the right thread. Lets just send it out and see where it ends up.
-
You fools, making it 'easier' to defend only increases te size of the attacking horde :old:
-
red guys to shoot, squaddies to wing up with
that's about it
-
It used to be that way and was changed.
Think how easy it is for the original country jut to have troops waiting to capture it back instantly.
True.......there would be 350 troops running to the map room.....both red and green icons.
-
The biggest problem I see with this is the defenders are still losing an airfield to use to defend from. As the line moves over you are forced to abandon the field. It's pretty much the same as when the horde flattens it, not much of a difference.
To spread the fight out, maybe a twist on the old "ordered capture" system. To take a field/base you have to meet the requirements we have now, but add to that they must also have 2 adjacent towns down to 25% as well. This would have the horde hitting the main objective, but then it would have to split to hit 2 other towns as well. Giving defenders more time to defend, and busting up the horde a bit.
Of course "land grab" mean that the losing side at some point loses access to its fields. The mechanism here is where this as a result of a lost battle elsewhere rather than actually over the field in question. meaning that the field is usable right up until the battle is lost rather than being closed down prior to the battle being lost.
Defining the front line could be done in a number of ways. One such would be to triangulate (or quadrulate) an air field with 3 (or 4) surrounding towns/vehicle fields. If # t's/VF's (say 2) are lost then the field is disabled only to be re enabled when one side or another reduces the # (to say 1).
-
I think that if you pay attention to the dynamics of the land war, anticipate the enemies next move, and have the patience to be in a position to intercept, the rewards of defending are fun. Unfortunately if you base your fun on "stopping" the offense instead of "engaging" the offense, you may be frustrated. No, you won't always be right when you work your intercept and may have to adjust your strategy possibly involving a longer flight to the fight, or landing and towering out to up where they did go.
I defend 90% of the time. I'm at altitude in position to be able to make the choices I want as the offense arrives. I'm not alone. There are lots of us that fly this way. I see many of the same guys over and over. You know we are talking and working together even though we are not always in the same squad. There are 2 things I find in common with my fellow defenders, we are patient, and we are happy.
-
It used to be that way and was changed.
Think how easy it is for the original country jut to have troops waiting to capture it back instantly.
Maybe add a 5 minute timer for the "new" defenders to get set-up and find those guy looking to hide troops. After the 5 minutes the base can be recaptured, and ack is still down for 25 minutes.
Attackers capture base and get 5 minutes to setup defense.
Old defenders have 5 minutes to set up their attack to retake the base.
25 minutes later all buildings and ack pops fresh if the base isn't re-taken.
You fools, making it 'easier' to defend only increases te size of the attacking horde :old:
maybe, but if it takes the horde longer to capture, more may defend making more combat.
-
Maybe even simpler...
Leave ack down but just set one or two buildings in town to pop when the capture happens. This will prevent the previous owners from simply flooding the town with troops, but will still leave the town vulnerable enough that it needs to be defended for a period of time.
-
You fools, making it 'easier' to defend only increases te size of the attacking horde :old:
I think there is some truth in this. IMO Hordes by their definition are of such a size as to overwhelm their opposition completely without any regard to tactic or skill.
As stated elsewhere I see no method of limiting Horde activity out side that of a dynamic zone/field limit. Given this the only remaining course is to motivate hordes away from airfields.
Regarding ggun delay upon capture.
The idea now that a side without local superiority in either air or ground should both take and hold a field is an anachronism. If capture has been achieved yet the attacking GV and Air forces cannot hold it for #minutes (5minutes?) without gguns then maybe they deserve to lose it.
Whats wrong with holding troops in reserve for a counter attack?
-
Somehow motivate "defender hordes" and you'll have a fix!
JUGgler
-
I up to defend anyways, but I'd rather have more people up with me so I don't feel so alone.
-
One of the sweetest moves in the game!
Is to sneek in behind the horde and snatch back one of the bases they took, LOVE THAT, LOL!
They blast the town down so fast, then move on after the take.. Sure the ack pops, but all the bldgs are still down..
Just need two guys, savvy troop taxi and a skilled deacker, and a little luck..
Love seeing their whole attack choke, when the base behind them is stolen back, right under their noses! :rock
And hear the lementation of the women :cry
-
Think how easy it is for the original country jut to have troops waiting to capture it back instantly.
If the attacking country cannot scan the town for enemy M3s prior to capture, they deserve to lose it. Not to mention, a single fighter can lay waste to so many M3s, it would be prohibit such an activity. Heck, it might even give tank drivers a new role of guarding a newly captured town.
My biggest worry with this set up is the ability to spawn something carrying troops and drop troops almost at the spawn to take the base. This has been minimized with the gameplay setting that removes active ord/troops from remaining in effect if they respawn. It looks like most of the GV spawns are ok, and the changes to the LVT spawn positions in the past (from what I remember, they cannot spawn close to town now) would also further gameplay. This wasn't in place before and isn't really comparable.
I still think it is worth revisiting delay in ack coming back up. I feel strongly that it would diminish the 'whack a mole' base taking in the Main Arena. I call it 'whack a mole' because by the time you take off from a rear base and get to the field in trouble, they have already taken it, landed and moved on to the next base.
-
Somehow motivate "defender hordes" and you'll have a fix!
JUGgler
Well THAT is the question I posted in the first plac, "What would motivate a player to defend more?"
If the attacking country cannot scan the town for enemy M3s prior to capture, they deserve to lose it. Not to mention, a single fighter can lay waste to so many M3s, it would be prohibit such an activity. Heck, it might even give tank drivers a new role of guarding a newly captured town.
My biggest worry with this set up is the ability to spawn something carrying troops and drop troops almost at the spawn to take the base. This has been minimized with the gameplay setting that removes active ord/troops from remaining in effect if they respawn. It looks like most of the GV spawns are ok, and the changes to the LVT spawn positions in the past (from what I remember, they cannot spawn close to town now) would also further gameplay. This wasn't in place before and isn't really comparable.
I still think it is worth revisiting delay in ack coming back up. I feel strongly that it would diminish the 'whack a mole' base taking in the Main Arena. I call it 'whack a mole' because by the time you take off from a rear base and get to the field in trouble, they have already taken it, landed and moved on to the next base.
Exactly!
Base comes under attack, a few guys get up to defend and do so until the hangers are drop (usually in the first few minutes of the attack). Then defenders MUST come from another field, but the attack is finished, a couple of the "horde Captains" land their kills and the the whole group disappears.
Pretty much how I spend most of my time flying.
-
Well THAT is the question I posted in the first plac, "What would motivate a player to defend more?"
Exactly!
Base comes under attack, a few guys get up to defend and do so until the hangers are drop (usually in the first few minutes of the attack). Then defenders MUST come from another field, but the attack is finished, a couple of the "horde Captains" land their kills and the the whole group disappears.
Pretty much how I spend most of my time flying.
Close 'satellite" fields with just fighter strips and VHs. To really take turf you have to take out all three. The main base houses bombers and fighters as well as a VH. Just single fighter strips and a VH for supporting the main base within fairly close proximity.
If you are a serious cartoon general, it means coordinating your attack horde to hit targets at the same time. If you are a 'whack a mole' cartoon general, you might get frustrated at having to work for the capture. The first pass drop the hangers bit doesn't work quite so well if fighters are scrambling from close by and mobile AA and tankers can be on the role to support the main field under attack.
-
That sounds interesting. Something like this...
(http://i266.photobucket.com/albums/ii253/maddogjoe_photos/base.jpg)
If the satellites have 1 VH and 1 FH for small and medium bases, and maybe 2 FHs each for a large.
-
I like this idea, assuming that the distance from the satellite fields is fairly short. The problem is, this idea would require the reworking of the maps. That's a job that HTC seems not to have any interest in doing.
-
Seeing as it's still all one base, it would be just remaking the "base" set-up. What that entails I don't know. It would be just changing out 4 base units in the maps (small field, medium field, large field, and vehicle field)
-
What a concept Jug - makes the issue a player problem and HTC doesn't have to "fix" the game. All sides horde - offensively and defensively when they have the right leadership.
Maybe some of the complainers/whiners/naysayers should take a more active leadership role in their respective countries if they want to change game play.
Myself - I just try to have fun and enjoy all aspects of the game :lol
-
For the most part EVERYONE wants to be on the attack. Part of the team to grab that next base. Part of the team to "WIN THE WAR!"
Here's the question, what would it take for you to DEFEND?
As the game is played now defenders are few and far between. Sure sometimes you get a dozen guys to up, but as soon as the numbers get overwhelming like they "sometimes" do :P most head off looking for something else to do. More often than not it's to join their local "horde" for the next attack on a base that very few will defend against.
So what would it take? We know players JOIN the hordes to be part of the "success" of the mission, the comradary of flying with their squad. So if there was a system message that said "Bishops have successfully defended against a capture attempt at A22", would that get more people to defend? Maybe points/perks for defending?
What would it take for you to defend more?
A real good question Fugitive. The problem with the base take horde, is they have nothing to loose, and its purpose is to discourage any defense. When I defend a base, I like to get in before it gets ugly (vulchers, capped, downded hangers, deacked, etc).
Defending is pretty much like lining up to block the PAT after a touchdown. Pretty much they pay a guy to do nothing more than to put the ball through the uprights, so you very rarely actually stop him from doing his job. Still, somebody has to do it. ;)
Give me the option to roll a mission with AI drones (no more than 3) that respond to my commands (to keep them from leaving my high and dry at the first sight of enemy contact). Give me a simple form up dot command to keep them on my wing until, I give the attack at will dot command. Now, I am all set to defend and don't have to beg for others to leave whatever they are doing to help.
To keep it from being used to create the horde, the AI option would only appear from an airfield that had a certain enemy count in that sector.
-
...
Bad idea. Part of the beauty of AW/AH was/is playing against human opponents. I have no interest in playing against AI. There's many other games where I could do that without paying a subscription fee.
-
Leave it the way it is I love watching everyone try to defend a field from 10 ft off the ground and whine when they die 12 times a minute.
-
Has there ever been a test of the gameplay dynamic?:
In which the town is disconnected from the base capture.. Such as giving the town its own single VH, representing the Garrison Motorpool or whatever.. And give the base its own Map bunker, naturally next to the tower, so the brass hats can hide in it..
In that way, taking the town would give the opponent a VH close to the base.. Battle would move, from Spawn vs Town, to Town vs Base..
I mean really, would a military facility, like we have in game, fold up shop because the local townies were overrun??? HELL NO!
MAKE EM COME ON THE BASE TO TAKE IT!
-
Well THAT is the question I posted in the first plac, "What would motivate a player to defend more?"
Easy, everyone that has been logged in for the country 1/2 hour prior to a 1/2 hour after that country loses a base loses 50 perks each.
Everyone in the same sector as the captured base "either country" receives 50 perks the moment the base is won/lost.
Everyone within the dar ring of the captured base "either country" receives 100 perks the moment the base is won/lost.
Think of the whiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiine s and dare I say, INVOLVMENT :aok
JUGgler
-
hmm .... not much defend 75% of time in game. Planes are free and when i do stop base take (likes 1 out of 1000) make it all worth it.
-
Bad idea. Part of the beauty of AW/AH was/is playing against human opponents. I have no interest in playing against AI. There's many other games where I could do that without paying a subscription fee.
Then you would be less likely to join the horde. In a way you have just increased the defenders' chances by 1 :rock and that could be one less vulcher, one less tool shedder, one less BnZr, or one less pair of eyes.
Have you flown any of the offline missions? If so, you pretty much don't HAVE to fight the AI, but depending on how accurate they set their gunners, you might need to avoid them. You could easily avoid them by not joining a HORDE. I explained that AI would only be available1 in my idea (which you either don't entirely understand or didn't read that part) if there were a certain *1(large) number of enemy counted (dar bar) in the same sector as that field they would depart from. In another thread, I explained that the AI in the mission planner are actually place holders, and if actual players join the mission, they would take an AI slot. Basically, the AI insures that a mission under the above defense conditions, may launch almost immediately with the planner and at least 3 other planes.
So, to answer the OP's question, what would make it worth my while to defend, I say all of the above, assuming that HTC would grant those 2 wishes:
- 3 AI available in times of defense
- AI that respond to 2 commands, form up (with the smarts to land and end sortie when I do) and attack
In the meantime, the previously lone wolf defender has the option to spawn wingmen to draw fire away or camoflague emergency take offs from capped fields by assigning each AI a different runway direction. :aok
-
Easy, everyone that has been logged in for the country 1/2 hour prior to a 1/2 hour after that country loses a base loses 50 perks each.
Everyone in the same sector as the captured base "either country" receives 50 perks the moment the base is won/lost.
Everyone within the dar ring of the captured base "either country" receives 100 perks the moment the base is won/lost.
Think of the whiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiine s and dare I say, INVOLVMENT :aok
JUGgler
why not just make it anybody that has been in that country for any length of time loses 50 perks. think of the whining from those who switch all the time.
semp
-
AI isn't the answer. I think we would lose more people to that than we do to Hordes. If people are content to play with AI they buy a boxed game and call it a day. They are not going to pay a monthly subscription to do it.
-
why not just make it anybody that has been in that country for any length of time loses 50 perks. think of the whining from those who switch all the time
Just who are these people that can switch all the time? The whines of the people who never switch caused the end of that.
-
Not many enjoy the challenge of upping against overwhelming odds. But there are those of us who do; to a point. I will always look first for an area with an overwhelming red dar-bar. If I can up from the field then that is exactly where I want to be. But that point comes when upping is absolutely pointless in that death is certain without a possibility of a fight, even against numbers. At that point there is no reason to up unless one simply wants to pad someone's landing numbers.
But for those of us who enjoy the challenge, we will always look for that fight and enjoy it while it lasts. I think it has to be in the nature of the person to be honest. It takes all kinds to play this game, and the diversity quite frankly is a tenant of the fun in this game. In the end, if someone does kill me and take the base; I simply move on or log and go find something else fun to do like ride the hog! :D
-
Has there ever been a test of the gameplay dynamic?:
In which the town is disconnected from the base capture.. Such as giving the town its own single VH, representing the Garrison Motorpool or whatever.. And give the base its own Map bunker, naturally next to the tower, so the brass hats can hide in it..
In that way, taking the town would give the opponent a VH close to the base.. Battle would move, from Spawn vs Town, to Town vs Base..
I mean really, would a military facility, like we have in game, fold up shop because the local townies were overrun??? HELL NO!
MAKE EM COME ON THE BASE TO TAKE IT!
Not exactly but the maproom used to be on the field.
This post gave me an idea though; it would be cool to have light armored available in the towns. Say the Jeep, M3, M8, M16, SkD and maybe something else I might be forgetting. Esentially make the town a "GV base light". It wouldn't stop the horde and might actually make it bigger but it could be fun for defenders who generally take too long to get to the town from the field. It might be just enough to give others a chance to arrive.
-
AI isn't the answer. I think we would lose more people to that than we do to Hordes. If people are content to play with AI they buy a boxed game and call it a day. They are not going to pay a monthly subscription to do it.
That's your opinion. I can recall early one Saturday morning while Combat Tour was still in the works. A rumor was going around that HiTech was testing the AI planes and folks were flocking to the area to see how they actually performed. Besides, you make it sound like only AI would be flying. Read again and you will see that I only called for 3 in a mission. That is only 1 more than we already have in bomber formations (and those actually give you extra lives).
There are a number of things the HTC COULD do, it is more likely that they have enough proof by the diversity of complaints that completely contradict each other daily, that it is simply the safe move to do nothing different.
If the subscriptions are falling off, it is most likely just another sign of the times. But if the majority of the folks are finding the game to be more of a drag than fun, then that is another thing (better go to the drawing board).
AH has filled a niche with "simulated" flight modeling based on historical data and that is what holds most folks interest. So, hordes or no hordes they will have a core group of players content with that along with special arenas.
-
Just who are these people that can switch all the time? The whines of the people who never switch caused the end of that.
the poster.
semp
-
The problem with AI is they become predictable after awhile. Also, if you add them will they be counted as kills when you shoot them down? If not, why both to chase them, they just become moving obstacles that you can predict where they will go becoming unimportant and so will be basically ignored in a fight. If they are counted, that means they will be able to shoot you down. Imagine the cries! "Dweeb couldn't fight me, had to send his drones after me!".
No I don't think AI is an answer. There has to be a reason to defend, or people won't defend. There is no reasonable way to stop a horde. Sure you and 19 of your buddies can cap a base at 15-20k waiting for an attack they may not come. Maybe 20 guys can get together in winged pairs and do 3-4 sector sweeps looking for an attack and another 20 guys can just wait in a tower shooting the s**t waiting to get a report for when to roll where.
No, until there is a way to entice people to defend, the horde will rule the game.
-
Here's an idea. In addition to the country perk multiplyer have a sector multiplyer or maybe just get rid of the country multiplyer altogether. At the moment of a kill the friendlies vs enemies in the sector are counted and the ratio applies an additional perk multiplyer for that specific kill. That way the horde's get few perks and the few defenders get many. Likewise a lone attacker against a heavily defended field would also benefit.
Successfully defending in lower ENY planes would be HUGE perk gainers and even the horde's might try higher ENY planes to offset the loss of perks from the horde itself. You might even be able to do a little perk farming flying late war monsters in defense. All the guys who dive into the swarm anywhere on the map would be beneficiaries. Maybe more would be willing to try it knowing there's something to gain and not just everything to lose. If the incentive were great enough maybe it would spread the fights out over more the map as people would seek more red and less green.
This is actually a variation of the old zone ENY idea. It seems like a relatively easy implementation since AH tracks all the planes and puts up dar bars in each sector already. The data needed is already there.
-
Here's an idea. In addition to the country perk multiplyer have a sector multiplyer or maybe just get rid of the country multiplyer altogether. At the moment of a kill the friendlies vs enemies in the sector are counted and the ratio applies an additional perk multiplyer for that specific kill. That way the horde's get few perks and the few defenders get many. Likewise a lone attacker against a heavily defended field would also benefit.
Successfully defending in lower ENY planes would be HUGE perk gainers and even the horde's might try higher ENY planes to offset the loss of perks from the horde itself. You might even be able to do a little perk farming flying late war monsters in defense. All the guys who dive into the swarm anywhere on the map would be beneficiaries. Maybe more would be willing to try it knowing there's something to gain and not just everything to lose. If the incentive were great enough maybe it would spread the fights out over more the map as people would seek more red and less green.
This is actually a variation of the old zone ENY idea. It seems like a relatively easy implementation since AH tracks all the planes and puts up dar bars in each sector already. The data needed is already there.
Probably wouldn't help much. The horde dwellers are looking for the map change and the 25perk per category prize. Reducing what few perks they earn by actually scoring victories makes fighting even less attractive to the horde. They'll just want to win the war that much faster.
-
the poster.
semp
Once a day maximum, ya that's horrible :rofl
-
Probably wouldn't help much. The horde dwellers are looking for the map change and the 25perk per category prize. Reducing what few perks they earn by actually scoring victories makes fighting even less attractive to the horde. They'll just want to win the war that much faster.
That might be true but the question is what would it take to get more to defend. Right now there's no incentive to do it whereas there is an incentive to roll the map.
-
Probably wouldn't help much. The horde dwellers are looking for the map change and the 25perk per category prize. Reducing what few perks they earn by actually scoring victories makes fighting even less attractive to the horde. They'll just want to win the war that much faster.
That might be true but the question is what would it take to get more to defend. Right now there's no incentive to do it whereas there is an incentive to roll the map.
Correct, the idea is to get more people to defend.
At this point whats important to players? Points, perks, "name in lights" All of these thing are easier gotten through the offensive side of the game and having 13 wingman doesn't hurt.
At this point the defender is more often than not a lone guy or maybe a few, and the only recognition they get is on the horders kill board, dieing many deaths with little points or perks added on. No points, no glory, why bother.
-
The problem is that it is virtually impossible to actually defend against the horde. The entire capture mechanic needs to be slowed down. Not necessarily made harder, but made longer.
How about this...
When the 10th troop goes into the maproom, instead of the base being captured and ready for immediate use, have the base go nuetral and start a timer. The base cannot be used by either side for 15 minutes (or whatever time is deemed proper). After that timer elapses, if the original owners have not retaken control, then the base changes hands and can be used. If the original owners can get 10 troops into the map room, then the capture timer restarts but now if it elapses the original owners retake control of the base and can begin using it again.
This would actually make the base capture system more of an attack/counter attack situation instead of Attack/Defend. It would slow the whole process allowing aircraft from other fields to get into the fight. But it would also not give the defenders too much of an advantage since once the base goes nuetral neither side can launch from it.
Did that make sense? I can picture the system in my mind, but I'm not certain I've described it well enough.
-
Change Airfields so that there are limits to the number of aircraft that can be launched. There were few airfields in WWII that supported both bombers and fighters. There was a limit on number and type of fighters that were based at an airfield,
Any aircraft could refuel but only a limited number were actually based their. Perhaps if the rearm pad would allow a more flexible choice in rearm. You could chose a new load out both fuel and ord. If you had to fly from a base in the rear . You could go with no ord and re-arm at a forward base with ords.
This is one the things I have been hoping for many years. I have never like the fact that your side can drop 100's of tons of bombs on a base.... but if the base has one fighter hanger up, it has "unlimited" numbers of planes?????
Or... "Joe furballer" and his friends, up Spitfires and flies off to a furball and dies over and over for hours....... but the base never runs off of Spitfires????? Hello? why is that?
The GameMechanics over in WWIIOL works better, Your base has XX number of planes/tanks...... you take off in a plane and get shot down...... that base has one less plane till the factories replace it and that takes time! If you have a good mission and RTB your piece of equipment will immediatly goes back into the supply of equipment for that base. Now if you like bombing... you can go bomb Production.... the resupply of the bases can be slowed down dramatically by bombing enemy factories. Something useful for buff drivers to do!
This is how I would fix game play in AH.
CAVALRY
'
-
This is one the things I have been hoping for many years. I have never like the fact that your side can drop 100's of tons of bombs on a base.... but if the base has one fighter hanger up, it has "unlimited" numbers of planes?????
Or... "Joe furballer" and his friends, up Spitfires and flies off to a furball and dies over and over for hours....... but the base never runs off of Spitfires????? Hello? why is that?
The GameMechanics over in WWIIOL works better, Your base has XX number of planes/tanks...... you take off in a plane and get shot down...... that base has one less plane till the factories replace it and that takes time! If you have a good mission and RTB your piece of equipment will immediatly goes back into the supply of equipment for that base. Now if you like bombing... you can go bomb Production.... the resupply of the bases can be slowed down dramatically by bombing enemy factories. Something useful for buff drivers to do!
This is how I would fix game play in AH.
CAVALRY
'
...and from what I've heard, they don't have that many playing over there any more. Maybe it ISN'T better.
-
My experience with WWIIOL was that it's way easier to get picked on takeoff over there (was taking off over 200 miles from the front too!), their auto/puffy ack is 100x more accurate, and you can't look even remotely towards the rear of your plane.
-
...and from what I've heard, they don't have that many playing over there any more. Maybe it ISN'T better.
Well the "Rats" never say how many they have paying to play. But I just did some time over there playing, I would say just by feel and looking around in the larger battles they are going as good as Late War AH. There are many thing I still think they need to work on... Flying being one of them. But they do a very good job at playing "war".
CAV
-
Well the "Rats" never say how many they have paying to play. But I just did some time over there playing, I would say just by feel and looking around in the larger battles they are going as good as Late War AH. There are many thing I still think they need to work on... Flying being one of them. But they do a very good job at playing "war".
CAV
so you want to bring their way of playing here so there would be less of us :).
semp
-
I Think the best thing to do is to institue a "local" ENY. This can serve to motivate defenders by allowing them to earn more points in a shorter amount of time.
~BParker
-
I Think the best thing to do is to institue a "local" ENY. This can serve to motivate defenders by allowing them to earn more points in a shorter amount of time.
~BParker
I doubt that any perkcentric solution will be effective. Many of us have thousands and thousands of banked perks. I never even think about them. Extra perks would do nothing to motivate me, and I suspect that I am not alone.
-
[so you want to bring their way of playing here so there would be less of us]
No........... I just want better gameplay. And for me that is a better war. Less players, been there sir. I played AW back in the days of GEnie for more $$$ an hour than I like to think about. And most player wanted back then want same thing most players want now.... a better war game.
cav
-
I doubt that any perkcentric solution will be effective. Many of us have thousands and thousands of banked perks. I never even think about them. Extra perks would do nothing to motivate me, and I suspect that I am not alone.
For the record I think most players here have less then 200 perks at anyone time.
-
I doubt that any perkcentric solution will be effective. Many of us have thousands and thousands of banked perks. I never even think about them. Extra perks would do nothing to motivate me, and I suspect that I am not alone.
Ya but Dave your one of those that already will up to defend so there isn't any need to entice you other than it's a place to fight. The problem is we need more to counter the horde. The only things that will stop the horde is a squad that does nothing but pork runs ALL the time, or matching numbers. Having 12-20 guys doing nothing but porking runs all day and night isn't fun. Getting more people to defend and so more combat.... well, what ever "carrot" works.
-
The problem with AI is they become predictable after awhile. Also, if you add them will they be counted as kills when you shoot them down? If not, why both to chase them, they just become moving obstacles that you can predict where they will go becoming unimportant and so will be basically ignored in a fight. If they are counted, that means they will be able to shoot you down. Imagine the cries! "Dweeb couldn't fight me, had to send his drones after me!".
No I don't think AI is an answer. There has to be a reason to defend, or people won't defend. There is no reasonable way to stop a horde. Sure you and 19 of your buddies can cap a base at 15-20k waiting for an attack they may not come. Maybe 20 guys can get together in winged pairs and do 3-4 sector sweeps looking for an attack and another 20 guys can just wait in a tower shooting the s**t waiting to get a report for when to roll where.
No, until there is a way to entice people to defend, the horde will rule the game.
"The dweeb couldn't fight so he brought his horde!" What's the difference? You are totally ignoring my premise that more folks would defend if they could fill the skies faster (only in areas stressed by overwhelming numbers).
The answer to the question if restated, "What would make players want to balance the fights?" The incentive for balancing fights has to come from some drive as big as wanting to win the war. You do it for yourself, you do it for your friends and comrades, you do it for the chess piece that you fly for, in that order. So, what's in it for me, my friends and comrades, and my chess piece. ENY and perk multipliers just ain't gonna cut it. HTC would have to give an outnumbered defender huge bonuses in order to balance what it would be worth to just go somewhere else and make perks by attacking where the enemy are not. Face it, the majority of AH2 players are motivated by what they can do for themselves, and chess piece be damned.
-
The answer to the question if restated, "What would make players want to balance the fights?"
I dont think the "average" player ever ups to balance a fight. He/she will up to win a fight or some how gain from the fight that is joined. It could be as you say that some extra motivation could be providd thru score although I cannot see the mechanism other than a local ENY which is transfered to all aspects of score. Which is not of import to all players.
From my perspective the inability to launch and gain any alt over a horded base just means I move to another base but some times this is too far or too much time or too porked to make my reprisal worth while or in any way rewarding. I suppose horde busting via 262 is plausible its just not the game play I enjoy.
So fix No.1 for me would be to remove the hordes target from the environs of my air field such that I could up to defend the skies over local (no more then a sector away) towns or vehicle fields. My air field would be heavily defended by auto AA, Puffy AA etc etc. If you want to kill my airfield then it should be as heavily defended as any Cv group and more.
If you want to capture my air field then you better move the front line a bit closer by capturing these towns that are just a sector away. But I want to be always be able to up to defend from a field within a sector of your target. Further if you capture I want to be in a positon to immediately re capture if your not organised enough to hold it for a given period of time.
In this way we do not assume to control the horde. It will still overwhelm its targets (but the air field is not one of them so it will not deny us access to local game play) So we neutralise its ability to deny us access to local combat
by capping our fields. Then we exploit its greatest weakness........ its not organised. It has to hold the the town or GV field it has just taken......auto AA has not popped up magically and now it has to defend......... both sides have access to the field of combat.
-
I doubt that any perkcentric solution will be effective. Many of us have thousands and thousands of banked perks. I never even think about them. Extra perks would do nothing to motivate me, and I suspect that I am not alone.
You are not alone Dave. I have thousands banked in each category but find myself uninterested in earning more or spending what I have(kinda have my favorites and they are not perk planes or vehicles). I like to fight though and it takes nothing but a huge red dar to motivate me.
-
I doubt that any perkcentric solution will be effective. Many of us have thousands and thousands of banked perks. I never even think about them. Extra perks would do nothing to motivate me, and I suspect that I am not alone.
What percentage of the player base do you think have more than say, 2000 perks?
-
What percentage of the player base do you think have more than say, 2000 perks?
I'm surprise at how many people cry about losing perks because they got discoed while in a 262, or scrubbed a B29 launch and request their perks back.
Taking into account that a majority of players fly late war monsters and are in hordes they most likely get very few perk points. I'd bet it's less than 25% of players have more than 1000 perks in a single category.
-
I'm surprise at how many people cry about losing perks because they got discoed while in a 262, or scrubbed a B29 launch and request their perks back.
Taking into account that a majority of players fly late war monsters and are in hordes they most likely get very few perk points. I'd bet it's less than 25% of players have more than 1000 perks in a single category.
I agree. I think perk incentivized ideas would work.
-
The majority of players may only have been here for a year or two - who knows. If that is the case, they almost need to fly the late war planes to survive.
Especially against all the vets that still fly the late war rides. Losing a 262 is easy if you don't have experience in it. I lost a bunch of B-29s just trying to get them to descend on the trip home. And Tigers are just another target for an inexperienced tanker. Perks may be easy for teh experten to come by, but much easier for the average player to lose. The win the war crowd seems to like the measly 25 perks they get.
-
I agree. I think perk incentivized ideas would work.
If that were the case, wouldn't more people switch sides to the outnumbered side to take advantage of the perk multiplier? History seems to me to show that's not the case. There's a vocal minority who want to do it but can't very often due to the 12 hour rule, but I'd estimate based on the number of people in the forums that post about it that group is roughly the same size as the "chesspiece 4 lyfe and anyone who thinks different is a spiez" contingent.
Wiley.
-
Personally a perk bonus for defending wouldn't interest me, however I think it would be a good incentive for some percentage of players (especially among new players).
What I think would really increase the chances of more people defending (and I know this is complete heresy) would be for each field to have an air spawn. It would be a fighter only spawn, directly over the field, at about 6,000 feet agl.
-
the guys who horde roll bases dont hardly earn perks, so perks clearly arent an incentive for them.
they may pick up a couple for killing some buildings, but with 10:1 numbers flying late war low-ENY planes the chances of earning perks for aircraft kills are almost non-existant.
-
About a dozen quad Bofor mounts at every field would let the defenders get airborne at least.
-
The majority of players may only have been here for a year or two - who knows. If that is the case, they almost need to fly the late war planes to survive.
Especially against all the vets that still fly the late war rides. Losing a 262 is easy if you don't have experience in it. I lost a bunch of B-29s just trying to get them to descend on the trip home. And Tigers are just another target for an inexperienced tanker. Perks may be easy for teh experten to come by, but much easier for the average player to lose. The win the war crowd seems to like the measly 25 perks they get.
So your saying that if it was easier to earn perk points defending, more people might do it? :devil
If that were the case, wouldn't more people switch sides to the outnumbered side to take advantage of the perk multiplier? History seems to me to show that's not the case. There's a vocal minority who want to do it but can't very often due to the 12 hour rule, but I'd estimate based on the number of people in the forums that post about it that group is roughly the same size as the "chesspiece 4 lyfe and anyone who thinks different is a spiez" contingent.
Wiley.
No the chess piece loyalty is much to strong to break with points/perks.
Personally a perk bonus for defending wouldn't interest me, however I think it would be a good incentive for some percentage of players (especially among new players).
What I think would really increase the chances of more people defending (and I know this is complete heresy) would be for each field to have an air spawn. It would be a fighter only spawn, directly over the field, at about 6,000 feet agl.
But again, your one of those guys with a bunch of perks, and no real "need" to spend them. A new player still like that idea of FINALLY getting the perks to try a 262 in the mains.
No I think air spawns would hurt more than help. Think of what it would do to your SA. Quick scan and there is noone in icon range, 3 seconds later you look again and you have 4 guys diving on you.
the guys who horde roll bases dont hardly earn perks, so perks clearly arent an incentive for them.
they may pick up a couple for killing some buildings, but with 10:1 numbers flying late war low-ENY planes the chances of earning perks for aircraft kills are almost non-existant.
True, and they know that. They also accept the idea that they suck enough on there own that they couldn't earn them anyway. If they shot down one guy in the horde mission they earn .25 perks. If they shoot down one guys defending against a horde they earn 2 perks. You think some may try defending some times?
-
Create a new class of airfeild that only ups fighters and attackers. A dirt strip and place them half a sector away.
No troops available, just the ability to attack or defend larger feilds. They can be disabled but, rebuild in half the time of other fields. Think of how fast forward strips were repaired in the pacific and russia. Let them serve 2-4 bases from a centralised spot only changing hands when all of the bases they serve are captured. Even tie that to winning the war. Not just 20% but, the dirt strips serveing those 20%
The idea: if you want to march through Gerogia, there's gonna be a redneck with a shotgun behind every tree making you earn your ground.
-
I doubt that any perkcentric solution will be effective. Many of us have thousands and thousands of banked perks. I never even think about them. Extra perks would do nothing to motivate me, and I suspect that I am not alone.
I've got 12 years of perks stored up, a perk incentive would not motivate me in the slightest.
ack-ack
-
No I think air spawns would hurt more than help. Think of what it would do to your SA. Quick scan and there is noone in icon range, 3 seconds later you look again and you have 4 guys diving on you.
It's just my opinion, but you asked for ways to increase the likelihood of players upping to defend a base. The reason I recommended a low spawn altitude was to minimize what you are talking about, AND give the defender a little altitude and speed to work with. If you spawn most fighters at 6000 feet they will drop several hundred just getting the engine started and gear up, then drop more to get some speed, so the only ones that would really be surprised would be the vulchers going for the easy runway kills.
However, it's a moot point because I seriously doubt HTC would allow air spawns in the MA.
-
over 10,000 fighter perks and I'm a very average player.................. nothing to spend them on that attracts me.............
-
over 10,000 fighter perks and I'm a very average player.................. nothing to spend them on that attracts me.............
but your another one who has no problem upping and defending a field. You don't need any enticement.
-
True, and they know that. They also accept the idea that they suck enough on there own that they couldn't earn them anyway. If they shot down one guy in the horde mission they earn .25 perks. If they shoot down one guys defending against a horde they earn 2 perks. You think some may try defending some times?
Some would.
But in my opinion the overwhelming majority would not. Perk motivation only goes so far, and that is not a long distance. We could notice that with the unwillingness of balancing sides despite having an enormous perk gain advantage, and the very high usage of low eny birds, which hardly earn you perks at all.
One motivation for preferring the attack missing so far in this thread (or maybe it's just me who missed it, please ignore me in this case):
Players love to have the initiative. As attacker you can choose when and where you strike, you can abort the mission when it doesn't run well with less impact on combat morale than a defender can. Most players get quickly tired after a number of base defenses, constantly reacting to enemy activity is apparently very frustrating for many. (I might point out that the most renowned defenders are for the most part players of significantly above average skill level) Even when the defense is successful, you will start to read a lot of "I'm tired of defending... let's grab a base!".
After all these years of heavy gaming, I have yet to read the opposite expression on any country channel.
Players love to attack for the sake of attacking. They endure much more losses as long as they still have the impression it's them who dictates the action.
And this not entirely a bad thing, as this game lives from the attack. It depends on players running into enemy defenses again and again. Attack creates combat.
There have been quite a few proposals for getting more players to defend. Some are not bad in my opinion, some won't work well.... but in the end, it's preferable that the gameplay is not totally balanced between attack and defense, and it's very important that the defense doesn't get stronger or just more attractive than the offense. This would stall the game quickly - we could see the effect when the new towns had to be 100% down with no flag being there at all.
Once a huge number of players have the impression that "it's useless to attack at all", AH will run into trouble, unless there is a total and radical change in MA gameplay mechanisms.
Now we can bewail that many players give up far too easily, are demotivated to quickly and so on... but that doesn't matter. In the end it is what it is, and AH has to accept the players for what they are.
-
You can't earn perks if the horde won't allow you to take off. The problem, in my opinion, is that it is virtually impossible to defend a field once the horde has the vulch going. If the base capture still happens lightning fast, and it isn't worthwhile to fly in from another field, a perk multiplier for defense will have little to no effect in my opinion.
I'll say it again, the key to it all is to slow the base capture process down (not necessarily harder, just slower) making flying in from an adjacent base more useful.
Which takes me back to the idea of there being a period of time between when the last troop goes into the maproom and when the capture actually occurs X number of minutes later. During this period of time, neither side can launch from the field in question. And during this period, the defenders can attempt to get troops into the maproom.
-
I'll say it again, the key to it all is to slow the base capture process down (not necessarily harder, just slower) making flying in from an adjacent base more useful.
Slower is harder.
-
Slower is harder.
Point taken. But isn't the point of this thread to come up with fresh ideas on how to entice people to fight against the hordes? Slowing the horde down seems like the only really viable option to me.
But what do I know?
-
As someone who has been gone for a while:
1. It got to a point where who cared??? You have a bazillion bases so who cares if you lose one? Back when maps were smaller then it mattered if you lost/won bases...now it really doesn't.
2. It's easier to kill when you are on the attack (alt/e/coordination)....thats why folks play...success etc
3. When there is no country loyalty you can just jump to whatever side gives you the best opportunity to do what you want....so again why care what state one country is in??? I understand folks will flame and go on about chesspiece loyalty blah blah blah...but most mmo's....and our population is more mmo'ish then fps'ish don't allow rapid transitions from side to side....encouraging formation of relationships and cooperation.
But the bottom line is "base taking" at its most basic is "something to do"....while base defense is "something to get annoyed over" (read most posts/qq threads/"horde" threads) and ask yourself which pathway is more likely to be pursued.
gluck all
falc
-
Slower is harder.
I have tried to convince my wife that :aok
SNIP
One motivation for preferring the attack missing so far in this thread (or maybe it's just me who missed it, please ignore me in this case):
Players love to have the initiative. As attacker you can choose when and where you strike, you can abort the mission when it doesn't run well with less impact on combat morale than a defender can. Most players get quickly tired after a number of base defenses, constantly reacting to enemy activity is apparently very frustrating for many. (I might point out that the most renowned defenders are for the most part players of significantly above average skill level) Even when the defense is successful, you will start to read a lot of "I'm tired of defending... let's grab a base!".
After all these years of heavy gaming, I have yet to read the opposite expression on any country channel.
Players love to attack for the sake of attacking. Snip
Lushce, I agree but was trying to stay on the topic of what would help the defense. Now that you opened the door, :old: I have been saying THIS, and there is a simple solution:
- Compact sized base captures
- One or two large hordes could not keep up with the success of multiple captures by "Compact" sized attack missions
- Eventually the hordes would loose players to those conceding the horde's inefficiency and willing to defend against smaller numbers
- More areas of activity spread across the map
- Air combat improves
- Organized strikes would more likely be squad based
- Large missions are still available, but no longer the prevailing base capture
Easily achieved and easily tweaked. Simply roll the town percentage back to 50% or reduce it to the appropriate percentage that yields the above results. :cheers:
Simple, explain the change as experimental, with the above desired results. Explain that the percentages may need to be adjusted again and tested until HTC has determined that the it fully realized the best balance for all level of players. Of course there will be those who will throw tantrums and panties will knot, but seriously what was the harm in allowing smaller compact groups to capture bases in the first place?
-
How about a system message that announces only to the opposing teams when a mission with more than say.... 25 players launches. As an added twist put in a randomizer that blocks the message 1 out of 5, or maybe 10 times. This way defenders get an alert simulating intel that a mission is launching. The only info is "where" the destination is unknown. It gives defenders time to get organized to defend, and with the randomizer the attackers get a surprise attack now and then.
I have tried to convince my wife that :aok
Lushce, I agree but was trying to stay on the topic of what would help the defense. Now that you opened the door, :old: I have been saying THIS, and there is a simple solution:
- Compact sized base captures
- One or two large hordes could not keep up with the success of multiple captures by "Compact" sized attack missions
- Eventually the hordes would loose players to those conceding the horde's inefficiency and willing to defend against smaller numbers
- More areas of activity spread across the map
- Air combat improves
- Organized strikes would more likely be squad based
- Large missions are still available, but no longer the prevailing base capture
Easily achieved and easily tweaked. Simply roll the town percentage back to 50% or reduce it to the appropriate percentage that yields the above results. :cheers:
Simple, explain the change as experimental, with the above desired results. Explain that the percentages may need to be adjusted again and tested until HTC has determined that the it fully realized the best balance for all level of players. Of course there will be those who will throw tantrums and panties will knot, but seriously what was the harm in allowing smaller compact groups to capture bases in the first place?
zHordes don't care how easy things are, thats why you see 30-50 guys hitting a V base.
-
How about a system message that announces only to the opposing teams when a mission with more than say.... 25 players launches. As an added twist put in a randomizer that blocks the message 1 out of 5, or maybe 10 times. This way defenders get an alert simulating intel that a mission is launching. The only info is "where" the destination is unknown. It gives defenders time to get organized to defend, and with the randomizer the attackers get a surprise attack now and then.
Interesting idea, and if the NOE mission was still standard procedure, it might be helpful. But would a message really give much more lead time? As it stands right now, the giant red dar bar gives the mission's launch point away within a couple minutes of launching.
The dar bar warning doesn't prompt much defense now. I'm not convinced that a system message would be any more effective.
That said, it might be worth trying anyway. What do I know?
-
Fugi,
With what I am suggesting, it is okay for them to horde. Those 35 or so guys will have one base captured and a handful of kills to divide amoung the horde.
Meanwhile, folks (that think like me) take up 5 guys and coordinate with another 5 guys and take 2 of their bases. Give it a couple of weeks and the dust will settle, you will have far more groups of 5 guys taking bases successfully, while the horde is concentrated in one area, equal and greater numbers from both opposing countries will be consuming their turf where they are not.
So horde away folks...... just don't :ahand when the numbers turn against you. It is plain and simple, the right balance and the right attitudes, and AH2 gold can be had by players of all levels.
On the flip side, the vDevils get a lot of publicity for hording (possibly because it is easier to spot their Vnames), are actually a tight group of guys that enjoy flying together. My bet is that if these types of changes did occur, they would adjust and become more noted for the positive things that they bring to the game.
-
I think I would speed capture up or keep it where it is ........... but slow town rejuvination down so there is an ebb and flow across a battle for a town. The win line is too clear and too irreversable.
I like the ideas of take and hold so there is a #minute ticker before the whole thing flips over to a fully ai defended town and base owned by which ever team pushed the last 10 troops in the map room. If numbers of troops cause FR problems then a) remove their icons b) simplify their graphics at short range+, c) don't render them at all at medium range+.
If a side has massive numbers advantage they will roll the map (and win?) but permit a game play model where this does not prevent (defenders?) access to the combat zone due to massive base cap.
First we had airfields. AW
Then we had airfields that can be porked AW
Then we had airfields that could be captured AW/AH
Then we had airfields with towns (that had to be partly destroyed) that held the map room AH
Then we had airfields with bigger towns (that had to be partly destroyed) that held the map room AH
The model has developed (straight line) from the original rather than look to a parallel (land grab) alternative that finally pushes combat away from the field. There will be some other game play balances required (gv spawns local to towns not airfields ?) but I am sure that if we tried a terrain with more remote towns, harder fields and a balanced game play layout of gv spawns it would be worth further development.
-
Even though I suggested the perk carrot it wouldn't motivate me. I always have several thousand perks banked in each category although I currently have less in GV's. I once lost around 60 AR234's one camp trying to find a bug in my system that would cause me to disco every time I dropped bombs on a city. 234's got me there faster so I kept using and losing them.
Regardless, I think most of us posting are in the "perks to lose" category. Many in the MA play for their 25 perks for winning the war. Besides that what I proposed would not only be a carrot for the defenders but a stick for the hordes and anything that helps spread the combat around has to be a good thing.
-
Even though I suggested the perk carrot it wouldn't motivate me. I always have several thousand perks banked in each category although I currently have less in GV's. I once lost around 60 AR234's one camp trying to find a bug in my system that would cause me to disco every time I dropped bombs on a city. 234's got me there faster so I kept using and losing them.
Regardless, I think most of us posting are in the "perks to lose" category. Many in the MA play for their 25 perks for winning the war. Besides that what I proposed would not only be a carrot for the defenders but a stick for the hordes and anything that helps spread the combat around has to be a good thing.
My idea of the "local" ENY to allow defenders to earn more perks is not aimed at the relatively few players that have "thousands" of perks, but more at the hundreds of players that have less then 2000 perks in any one category (99% of them have never even been to the forumns). There's very little you can do to motivate veterian players that have amassed thousands of perks over the years. They will continue to play the way they always have for better or worse. Again, IMO I think you need some way to positivitly motivate players to defend when all the odds are against them especially when loosing a base doesnt usually mean anything. I mean really, don't you just fall back to a base that has all the same planes and tanks. The only difference is there's no enemy horde over head and its not full of holes. Geeze when you put it that way, why defend at all? Just fall back. Or the game could be setup to reward defenders for making the effort.
-
My idea of the "local" ENY to allow defenders to earn more perks is not aimed at the relatively few players that have "thousands" of perks, but more at the hundreds of players that have less then 2000 perks in any one category (99% of them have never even been to the forumns). There's very little you can do to motivate veterian players that have amassed thousands of perks over the years. They will continue to play the way they always have for better or worse. Again, IMO I think you need some way to positivitly motivate players to defend when all the odds are against them especially when loosing a base doesnt usually mean anything. I mean really, don't you just fall back to a base that has all the same planes and tanks. The only difference is there's no enemy horde over head and its not full of holes. Geeze when you put it that way, why defend at all? Just fall back. Or the game could be setup to reward defenders for making the effort.
Huh? Maybe you should read the thread before responding.
Here's an idea. In addition to the country perk multiplyer have a sector multiplyer or maybe just get rid of the country multiplyer altogether. At the moment of a kill the friendlies vs enemies in the sector are counted and the ratio applies an additional perk multiplyer for that specific kill. That way the horde's get few perks and the few defenders get many. Likewise a lone attacker against a heavily defended field would also benefit.
Successfully defending in lower ENY planes would be HUGE perk gainers and even the horde's might try higher ENY planes to offset the loss of perks from the horde itself. You might even be able to do a little perk farming flying late war monsters in defense. All the guys who dive into the swarm anywhere on the map would be beneficiaries. Maybe more would be willing to try it knowing there's something to gain and not just everything to lose. If the incentive were great enough maybe it would spread the fights out over more the map as people would seek more red and less green.
This is actually a variation of the old zone ENY idea. It seems like a relatively easy implementation since AH tracks all the planes and puts up dar bars in each sector already. The data needed is already there.
-
Huh? Maybe you should read the thread before responding.
Sorry bout that amago didn't see that. Well it looks like we both have similar ideas.
-
I think I would speed capture up or keep it where it is ........... but slow town rejuvination down so there is an ebb and flow across a battle for a town. The win line is too clear and too irreversable.
I like the ideas of take and hold so there is a #minute ticker before the whole thing flips over to a fully ai defended town and base owned by which ever team pushed the last 10 troops in the map room. If numbers of troops cause FR problems then a) remove their icons b) simplify their graphics at short range+, c) don't render them at all at medium range+.
If a side has massive numbers advantage they will roll the map (and win?) but permit a game play model where this does not prevent (defenders?) access to the combat zone due to massive base cap.
First we had airfields. AW
Then we had airfields that can be porked AW
Then we had airfields that could be captured AW/AH
Then we had airfields with towns (that had to be partly destroyed) that held the map room AH
Then we had airfields with bigger towns (that had to be partly destroyed) that held the map room AH
The model has developed (straight line) from the original rather than look to a parallel (land grab) alternative that finally pushes combat away from the field. There will be some other game play balances required (gv spawns local to towns not airfields ?) but I am sure that if we tried a terrain with more remote towns, harder fields and a balanced game play layout of gv spawns it would be worth further development.
I found this interesting. The game was more fun imho when you could noe with 5 guys and take a town. I know some hated it but it allowed low number countries to sneak bases. Witht the ever larger fields and numerous acks it required a large force to take a base. Also quick building respawns made it useless to go back if the first attempt failed.
Maybe a combination of "sneakable" bases and other zone bases with larger towns that are not close to the airfield (we had a map like that once) and a slower respawn on buildings would create more emphasis on "combat".
The question is what the remaining player base will support...by this I mean most "vet" pilots only want to fight and not capture bases...so will changing base structure/capture requirements really accomplish desired goal???
-
For the most part EVERYONE wants to be on the attack. Part of the team to grab that next base. Part of the team to "WIN THE WAR!"
Here's the question, what would it take for you to DEFEND?
As the game is played now defenders are few and far between. Sure sometimes you get a dozen guys to up, but as soon as the numbers get overwhelming like they "sometimes" do :P most head off looking for something else to do. More often than not it's to join their local "horde" for the next attack on a base that very few will defend against.
So what would it take? We know players JOIN the hordes to be part of the "success" of the mission, the comradary of flying with their squad. So if there was a system message that said "Bishops have successfully defended against a capture attempt at A22", would that get more people to defend? Maybe points/perks for defending?
What would it take for you to defend more?
Up the perk multiplier when the flag is white maybe? Also give GV perks to the guys in the field guns? Maybe give perks in all categories? The only issue is that it would probably be easy to game it.
-
I found this interesting. The game was more fun imho when you could noe with 5 guys and take a town. I know some hated it but it allowed low number countries to sneak bases. Witht the ever larger fields and numerous acks it required a large force to take a base. Also quick building respawns made it useless to go back if the first attempt failed.
Maybe a combination of "sneakable" bases and other zone bases with larger towns that are not close to the airfield (we had a map like that once) and a slower respawn on buildings would create more emphasis on "combat".
The question is what the remaining player base will support...by this I mean most "vet" pilots only want to fight and not capture bases...so will changing base structure/capture requirements really accomplish desired goal???
Bullseye my friend! :aok
Taking bases is a fun "cartoon" addition to the game. It was implemented to motivate air combat IIRC. That combat comes from the challenge of stopping the base capture. How many challengers go against the horde? I believe that is the meat of Fugitive's question, and Lushe's answer was it is more fun to attack. I say that when we had smaller groups attacking multiple targets, we had more challengers having fun defending.
Who are these folks that hated easier captures? Do they hate hordes more or less? Or are they not willing to concede that they may have plugged the leaking dike with their finger and now the rise of the horde is on the other side and they are franctic, looking for more fingers to plug the cracks that are springing up? Do some of them suggest to let the flood of the horde just roll over the dike and leave whatever resistance the dike offered to wither below the current? Shall we just have a sea hordes pushing back and forth across map after map?
Would changing base capture requirements make defending more fun? There is a SIMPLE way to find out, and it is already coded and ready to implement. But beyond that, I am willing to see what HTC has planned. They have always come up with improvements and changes that we were not aware of. I would be in favor of something entirely different, as long as it was friendly enough for me and a couple of other close friends to have success engineering a better existence for our current chesspiece.
-
I found this interesting. The game was more fun imho when you could noe with 5 guys and take a town. I know some hated it but it allowed low number countries to sneak bases. Witht the ever larger fields and numerous acks it required a large force to take a base. Also quick building respawns made it useless to go back if the first attempt failed.
Maybe a combination of "sneakable" bases and other zone bases with larger towns that are not close to the airfield (we had a map like that once) and a slower respawn on buildings would create more emphasis on "combat".
The question is what the remaining player base will support...by this I mean most "vet" pilots only want to fight and not capture bases...so will changing base structure/capture requirements really accomplish desired goal???
As a "vet", I'm for anything that brings more fights to the game and less hordes if that is possible. I would even be ok WITH hordes if any one could come up with a way to defend against them. Right now there isn't any way to stop a horde other than spending the night porking ord and troops along a front. With the bigger maps that's a LOT of bases. NOBODY wants to spend their "free time" doing that. So that leaves us with hordes rolling bases and very few defending against them.
Helping the defenders defend using game mechanics is about the only option left. We all know that the public will not adjust things themselves. Look at the NOE issues. Once it became rampant, and it was the "only" real mission any one was running HTC stepped in and adjusted things to make that more difficult. The only time you see a lot of NOEs now is on the maps with a lot of water. Maybe that's why "Trinity" hangs around so long, there are very few bases that you can now get to easily in an NOW.... hmmmm
-
How about moving the fights away from the bases most of the time? Have a road/supply/network on the map. Along the road are spawn points, 5-8ks apart, enough room to maneuver, but not so far apart that you would be bored driving it. At the Spawn points have the map room bunkers and a AT gun and an AAA gun. To get to the bases you have fight your way down the roads. Also we would have to limit the number of bases with C-47 with troops. Very few Goons with troops = very few NOE hordes . But... still do able with planning.
Next tie supply to the roads to your base....... no open road to your base... NO supply convoys, longer down times. We would need other rules for Task Force attacks from the sea... maybe the the bases is only in supply if the TF stays nearby... something like.
(https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-IF5frGpuxD8/TwTfuRFs_nI/AAAAAAAAAAk/9uMWs_vIZXw/s1152/ahss3.jpg)
I don't if this is even do able or not.
But the base captures would be at the end of a long hard road of battle.
GV'ers would something better to do than spawn camping or TT.
With any luck larger furballs out away from bases and base ack!
Slow the hordes down but not good planned missions.
Cavalry
-
:noid :noid :noid :noid :noid Wow!
-
Defense is the most fun. Take off and fight. No flying a sector or more. No need to climb.... they come to you.
-
Defense is the most fun. Take off and fight. No flying a sector or more. No need to climb.... they come to you.
It could be. I love the fleet off shore battles, minus the puffy ack. Due to the convenience of the carrier right off the field most planes don't have a bunch of altitude and the fights are somewhat even.
It is a totally different story trying to defend against an organized horde driven mission, where the attackers are coming from other fields and generally have a high cap and enough energy to pick off any would be defenders .
The first thing that came to mind when I read your post Shuffler, was that you were from a particular cartoon country (that I won't name) and therefore were not as familliar with the amount of difficulty in just getting your wheels up, nevermind fighting. But then, you could just be someone like me that will give it 3 chances to get up without being vulched straight off the runway just so I can flop around and pile up as many bodies as I can and then land kills right in their face. :t
The problem with defending straight off a capped field, is that it is generally taboo, especially if you are in a squad that is conscious of their ranking. I say that squads are the way to go in AH2 to maximize your fun.
-
Defense is the most fun. Take off and fight. No flying a sector or more. No need to climb.... they come to you.
Absolutely :aok
-
The problem with defending straight off a capped field, is that it is generally taboo, especially if you are in a squad that is conscious of their ranking.
This is one of the reasons I will never fit in a normal squad.
- oldman
-
weren't there hordes in WW2?
-
I won't up off a capped field. It has nothing to do with score. I don't find fun in being dog piled.
I up from a field that is close and hope to make it before they take the base. Does it really matter though? They take a base so what?
-
:rofl There goes the ole lipstick on the pig again. Hordes are not in any way advancing the game or adding subscriptions.
Aces High takes the art and science of vintage WW1 and WW2 air combat and sets it in a high intensity online multiplayer environment. Hundreds of players simultaneously battle it out against each other in massive aerial dogfights and bomber raids.
^^^
Sound like the massive hordes rolling over bases to you?? I am treading very lightly here, because the rest of the ad, and I believe the majority of the player base, better represent what AH2 still has done right.
Hordes taking bases is not the problem, as much as the void of action in vast sections of maps....... leading to...... boredom....... and eventually......... :frown:
-
:rofl There goes the ole lipstick on the pig again. Hordes are not in any way advancing the game or adding subscriptions.
^^^
Sound like the massive hordes rolling over bases to you?? I am treading very lightly here, because the rest of the ad, and I believe the majority of the player base, better represent what AH2 still has done right.
Hordes taking bases is not the problem, as much as the void of action in vast sections of maps....... leading to...... boredom....... and eventually......... :frown:
So you know hordes are "not advancing subscriptions." How would you know that?
Just because you are bored doesn't mean those 50 guys in the group are. Honestly I have never had a problem finding what is listed on the front page.
-
weren't there hordes in WW2?
Yes, and people really died in WW2 as well so overwhelming numbers made a big difference. Lacking the actual death bit in the 'game' makes that a lousy justification though.
-
Only a BBS rookie would parallel hordes with the real war, tsk tsk.
-
I love to defend, the vast majority of attackers buy a one-way ticket. Some are aware of it and don't mind, others just aren't aware of it. It is rare to encounter attackers which actually value the return trip home as something to strive for. The game does not reward it, much. So on the defensive I find myself looking for opponents who have the same thing in mind as I do, their demise.
:D
-
So you know hordes are "not advancing subscriptions." How would you know that?
Just because you are bored doesn't mean those 50 guys in the group are. Honestly I have never had a problem finding what is listed on the front page.
No, no and NO! IN no way do the hordes that we see pictured with 40 plus countrymen flattening a town and airfield reflect massive aerial dogfight or battle (even going out on a limb here and saying that many of them are the same names over and over again). Don't mix that up with a FURBALL.
Furballs are exactly what is described on the front page. I could do that all day. I could run in a horde and take bases all day also. The big difference is, one actually discourages aerial combat, destroys plane hangars, vulches would be combatants before their wheels ever leave the ground and moves from one deserted area to another.
Now, if you enjoy throwing caution to the wind and roll directly into the horde (which on occasion I do), then you might find a quick fight or two before you find 5 or more guys diving at you from every angle including HO in the name of a base cap.
Kilo, if there was no problem with the system that we have that rewards hordes, then you wouldn't see so many threads about them or, as in the case of this one, what can be done to defend against hordes. So let's be honest and say this is not what encourages a 2 week trial subscriber to pay to play or even keep some of the old veterans that know how much better game play has been in the past.
-
I would like to take the conversation back toward possible solutions...
Several people have suggested some form of perk modifier for defenders as a form of motivation to defend... I would like to reiterate my opinion that perk bonuses would not be effective.
I decided to park my beloved Ki-84 in favor of something faster that can dive. My thinking being that I would make an effort to fight the horde. I thought that a faster plane that can dive might be the ideal choice for picking the edges of the horde. Since I don't enjoy flying 262s, I opted for the P51D. I was shocked by how few perks you earn on a multiple kill sortie.
The P51D is a low ENY aircraft. You earn virtually no perks for flying the screwy thing. You would think that if perk modifiers were an effective motivator, there wouldn't be so many P51Ds flying around the LW arena. And yet, the P51D is everywhere. Players seem to prefer the safety that the speed of the P51D grants them over the perks you can earn in an higher ENY airframe. Why? Because that speed allows them to avoid being shot down.
I believe that this is human nature. I also believe that a perk bonus for defending will not be enough of a motivator to get a significant number of people launching to fight the hordes.
Just my $0.02...
-
I wonder if it might be more fun if defenders if defenders were allowed to get a bit of an air spawn in close to a base that they just lost. Too often there is not enough of a fight. Either the attacking group gets intercepted en route to target, or they get to the target and the fight is over before it had a chance to materialize.
-
I would like to take the conversation back toward possible solutions...
Several people have suggested some form of perk modifier for defenders as a form of motivation to defend... I would like to reiterate my opinion that perk bonuses would not be effective.
I decided to park my beloved Ki-84 in favor of something faster that can dive. My thinking being that I would make an effort to fight the horde. I thought that a faster plane that can dive might be the ideal choice for picking the edges of the horde. Since I don't enjoy flying 262s, I opted for the P51D. I was shocked by how few perks you earn on a multiple kill sortie.
The P51D is a low ENY aircraft. You earn virtually no perks for flying the screwy thing. You would think that if perk modifiers were an effective motivator, there wouldn't be so many P51Ds flying around the LW arena. And yet, the P51D is everywhere. Players seem to prefer the safety that the speed of the P51D grants them over the perks you can earn in an higher ENY airframe. Why? Because that speed allows them to avoid being shot down.
I believe that this is human nature. I also believe that a perk bonus for defending will not be enough of a motivator to get a significant number of people launching to fight the hordes.
Just my $0.02...
Are all these Mustangs you see attacking, or defending? It makes a difference. Used as an attack plane it carries a heavy load with out that nasty trick that most people have with the 38 of lawndarting. It isn't often you'll see a pony in defense unless your going to play the climb high and hunt for the horde game. Wost defenders use quick cannon planes for defense.
Many people say score doesn't matter, but I bet the page is hit more often than any other page HTC has. The same goes for the perk, those that have them couldn't care less, but those that don't, wish they did. They may not work toward building perks. After all you have a better chance building them if you first learn to fly and fight instead of hiding in the horde. But ask anyone of them that "has not" and I'd bet you see a lot of those wishing they had.
So far the only "carrot" in this has been points/perks. Maybe making the attacks easier to spot farther out to give defenders time to mount a defense, some kind of "early warning system.?
-
I'd respectfully submit that there is no 'motivator' that will push people to up into a horde. Perks are my main score motivator, so I tend to fly higher ENY stuff when I'm thinking about it, but I hop around from plane to plane and planeset to planeset depending on my whims. Often, I fly the week's FSO ride or possible rides before Friday.
However, even though I like perks, that's not what makes me up and head toward a horde. I do it because I find it fun, and I know when I get there, there will be enemy planes to kill. I assume people who fly in the horde in low ENY planes aren't there for the perks or the score, they're there to take the base. If you got 10 fighter perks for getting shot down in a goon, it wouldn't make me fly troops any more often because I don't find that part of the game fun. I believe most people are similar. They do what they find fun, or what they think the 'objective' is.
I think history shows in the game that a side that concentrates on defense winds up losing the war fairly consistently. I believe this is why people tend to horde roll, because it is the most effective way to win, in the absence of a truly coordinated offensive/defensive strategy.
Wiley.
-
Are all these Mustangs you see attacking, or defending? It makes a difference. Used as an attack plane it carries a heavy load with out that nasty trick that most people have with the 38 of lawndarting. It isn't often you'll see a pony in defense unless your going to play the climb high and hunt for the horde game. Wost defenders use quick cannon planes for defense.
Many people say score doesn't matter, but I bet the page is hit more often than any other page HTC has. The same goes for the perk, those that have them couldn't care less, but those that don't, wish they did. They may not work toward building perks. After all you have a better chance building them if you first learn to fly and fight instead of hiding in the horde. But ask anyone of them that "has not" and I'd bet you see a lot of those wishing they had.
So far the only "carrot" in this has been points/perks. Maybe making the attacks easier to spot farther out to give defenders time to mount a defense, some kind of "early warning system.?
You misunderstand me Fuji... It has nothing to do with P51Ds attacking or defending... Just that there are crap loads of them used in the game, in spite of the fact that there would be a huge perk advantage to flying something of a higher ENY... But yet, there are craploads of them... My commentary was only on the effectiveness of perk modifiers on player behavior.
-
I would rather defend than attack, as I more often do. The challenge of fighting at a disadvantage and more often than not outnumbered brings an element of fun I dont experience when attacking.
Hovering over an enemy base with an altitude and numbers advantage is good for getting kills, but not for finding those white knuckle fights you really want.
-
To me there has to be a problem for a solution. I see no problem. Honestly many of you seem to be chasing a dream of what once was(in your own mind). Its like crack addicts trying to get a high like their first high. Just chasing the dragon.
Like I said before you can still find whats listed on the first page in this game right now.
-
Kilo,
Either you haven't played the game long enough to know the difference or just too stubborn to admit there has been a shift in game play. As for imagination, I am quite certain that I have NOT imagined the numerous threads on the matter, nor have I imagined the number of screenshots usually showing a particular squad, surrounded by excessive numbers, attacking one airfield. I have no quarms with that squad or those that choose to play the hand that is dealt them. In fact, I will most likely join them and grab my perks from destroying stationary objects and planes with at least one wheel on the ground.
Truly the dilusion is yours, but as long as you are happy, nevermind what others think. I know what happened, I was there when it happened, and could tell you that it was actually fixed at one point, meaning there IS a solution.
The main reason that I post at all about it is that there is much more right with the game, than is wrong.
-
. If you got 10 fighter perks for getting shot down in a goon, it wouldn't make me fly troops any more often because I don't find that part of the game fun.
Dang Wiley, ya totally cracked me up with that right there mate. Totally true dude.
.......still laughing, got no idea why I find that so funny.........really
.................dang
-
Kilo,
Either you haven't played the game long enough to know the difference or just too stubborn to admit there has been a shift in game play. As for imagination, I am quite certain that I have NOT imagined the numerous threads on the matter, nor have I imagined the number of screenshots usually showing a particular squad, surrounded by excessive numbers, attacking one airfield. I have no quarms with that squad or those that choose to play the hand that is dealt them. In fact, I will most likely join them and grab my perks from destroying stationary objects and planes with at least one wheel on the ground.
Truly the dilusion is yours, but as long as you are happy, nevermind what others think. I know what happened, I was there when it happened, and could tell you that it was actually fixed at one point, meaning there IS a solution.
The main reason that I post at all about it is that there is much more right with the game, than is wrong.
I remember when I first started playing in 2007 joining huge missions all the time. So no there hasn't been a shift in game play just a shift in complaints on the forum.
-
I'd respectfully submit that there is no 'motivator' that will push people to up into a horde. Perks are my main score motivator, so I tend to fly higher ENY stuff when I'm thinking about it, but I hop around from plane to plane and planeset to planeset depending on my whims. Often, I fly the week's FSO ride or possible rides before Friday.
However, even though I like perks, that's not what makes me up and head toward a horde. I do it because I find it fun, and I know when I get there, there will be enemy planes to kill. I assume people who fly in the horde in low ENY planes aren't there for the perks or the score, they're there to take the base. If you got 10 fighter perks for getting shot down in a goon, it wouldn't make me fly troops any more often because I don't find that part of the game fun. I believe most people are similar. They do what they find fun, or what they think the 'objective' is.
I think history shows in the game that a side that concentrates on defense winds up losing the war fairly consistently. I believe this is why people tend to horde roll, because it is the most effective way to win, in the absence of a truly coordinated offensive/defensive strategy.
Wiley.
So your basically saying that there is nothing that will bring players to organize a defense. It will always be a hap-hazzard setup with little chance to beat the horde. On top of that there is no way to stop a horde. On top of that we are stuck with the horde because it IS the "most effective way to win". :cry
To me there has to be a problem for a solution. I see no problem. Honestly many of you seem to be chasing a dream of what once was(in your own mind). Its like crack addicts trying to get a high like their first high. Just chasing the dragon.
Like I said before you can still find whats listed on the first page in this game right now.
I agree, everything is still there. the problem is now you have to look for it. Some times you don't find it for hours, and heaven forbid your looking for one thing while all everyone else is doing something else. Back in tour 22 when I started you could find any type of game play that was available at that time ANYTIME! Fights, co-ordinated attacks, bomber missions to strats, base take missions both in NOE and high alt GV battles that didn't happen right at a spawn point, squads that fought squads. Today we chase hordes WOO-HOO!! :rolleyes:
-
So stubborn it is then, Kilo. :lol Fugitive, you are absolutely correct. What burns me is that the moment base capture was again put within the reach of a normal sized squadron, the maps opened up with action spread all over. Like you were saying some made NOE missions, some took the bombers and escorts, and some just flew to the nearest fight where their buddies were hanging out. :rock
- Then, what happened? Folks (probably the ones who never defend) complained that one bomber could ready a town, opening the door for a goon to capture a field. :rolleyes: Well, duh.......
- Small force attempting a base capture takes much less of an organized defense. Making the town ready sooner and less kabobulated, brings all kinds of players to the table. :aok
- HTC relented and pushed town percentage back up to another arbitrary percentage (75%) and now we have the horde, nothing but the horde, so help me horde...... :bhead
Again, implementing a better balance in town readiness and size of successful capture missions, distributes the players in a much more random pattern :aok rather than the "one fight fits all" clump, which heavily favors the chess piece with the quickest clotting factor.
-
Theres probably some truth in what you last said Chilli.
There have been a lot of changes to fields since AHI; VBases used to be a single camouflage net hanger then had three hangers that were all together but could be taken in a single bomber pass then were spread out then more ack was added then more manned ack was added then 17 lbers were added.
Likewise in the beginning you dropped troops on the airfield and could close down the runways by bombing them then the towns were added then auto ack was expanded (star wars ack) then troop barracks were increased then more manned ack was added then the towns were expanded and soon 88mm ack will be added.
I'm sure I messed up that chronology somewhere or missed things but is it any wonder that along the way the hordes have expanded?
I think you're right too in that most of these things were wished for and brought on by the furballers. The very ones who now comlain about the hordes.
Like the old saying goes; be careful what you wish for.
-
I think history shows in the game that a side that concentrates on defense winds up losing the war fairly consistently. I believe this is why people tend to horde roll, because it is the most effective way to win, in the absence of a truly coordinated offensive/defensive strategy.
Wiley.
Implementing any kind of strategy involving more people than you have on vox and know well is like herding cats.
-
So stubborn it is then, Kilo. :lol Fugitive, you are absolutely correct. What burns me is that the moment base capture was again put within the reach of a normal sized squadron, the maps opened up with action spread all over. Like you were saying some made NOE missions, some took the bombers and escorts, and some just flew to the nearest fight where their buddies were hanging out. :rock
- Then, what happened? Folks (probably the ones who never defend) complained that one bomber could ready a town, opening the door for a goon to capture a field. :rolleyes: Well, duh.......
- Small force attempting a base capture takes much less of an organized defense. Making the town ready sooner and less kabobulated, brings all kinds of players to the table. :aok
- HTC relented and pushed town percentage back up to another arbitrary percentage (75%) and now we have the horde, nothing but the horde, so help me horde...... :bhead
Again, implementing a better balance in town readiness and size of successful capture missions, distributes the players in a much more random pattern :aok rather than the "one fight fits all" clump, which heavily favors the chess piece with the quickest clotting factor.
Well if not agreeing with you is stubborn then yes. This is just another thinly veiled "you should play the game my way" complaint. The thing that makes this game great is it is so open ended. You can do whatever you want. Implementing any you must fly here or you can't fly there will ruin that.
-
Implementing any kind of strategy involving more people than you have on vox and know well is like herding cats.
Precisely. Hording is used because it works in the near complete absence of organization. Any addition of organization to the mix makes it work even better.
IMO it's the nature of the beast. You've got an arena that is essentially free for all, people generally don't log in to be a cog in the machine, they're here to do their own thing. Expecting anything else is unrealistic.
Wiley.
-
Well if not agreeing with you is stubborn then yes. This is just another thinly veiled "you should play the game my way" complaint. The thing that makes this game great is it is so open ended. You can do whatever you want. Implementing any you must fly here or you can't fly there will ruin that.
Kilo,
Let's back up. It is true that we don't agree. I am sure that you are someone that I would enjoy playing the game with in all of it's many different options. :cheers:
What I think that you are not hearing me say, BaldEagle put into perspective. The game designers have consistently implemented changes that have made base captures more difficult. The only exception, was when they reduced the town percentage to 50% and added the flag in town for a short period of time (a couple of weeks). During that time, what you say about having the ability for multiple options was abundant. Like I said before, I was there when this happened.
Why did they make that change? As I recall they said that adding the towns with more buildings and more difficult line of sight on destroyed buildings (paraphrase) was not their intention to decrease the rate of base captures.
Me personally, have no interest in limiting where anyone must fly. I don't even like ENY or country change time limits (although, I do understand what they are intended to do). With a simple roll back of the town percentage, it would only make more options available. Please dispute me on the last premise if you like (that is all that I am saying in a nut shell).
Have a good day bro :salute
-
Chilli,
Be carefull what you ask for. The hoards have gotten more experienced now. If you reduce the white flag percentage so it takes a small number to capture feilds, the hoards will not disband. They will organise multiple assaults and capture more territory faster. And as usual dissapere in a moment onward to the next feild capture. We will be playing Whack-A-Mole all night trying to find a standing fight. It was getting close to that the last time the white flag percentage was lowered.
My own squad was getting the timing down to drop the town with a Lanc patteren'd pass, then clean up ack and run in troops. You want to give this speed capturing abillity to the vTards now that they are more experienced and never stay around to defend what they capture? Notice FBDred has been getting back into mission mode lately? He will definantly exploit a lower white flag percentage and we all now how experienced the FreeBirds are at missions.
-
Chilli,
Be carefull what you ask for. The hoards have gotten more experienced now. If you reduce the white flag percentage so it takes a small number to capture feilds, the hoards will not disband. They will organise multiple assaults and capture more territory faster. And as usual dissapere in a moment onward to the next feild capture. We will be playing Whack-A-Mole all night trying to find a standing fight. It was getting close to that the last time the white flag percentage was lowered.
My own squad was getting the timing down to drop the town with a Lanc patteren'd pass, then clean up ack and run in troops. You want to give this speed capturing abillity to the vTards now that they are more experienced and never stay around to defend what they capture? Notice FBDred has been getting back into mission mode lately? He will definantly exploit a lower white flag percentage and we all now how experienced the FreeBirds are at missions.
You seem to be placing the "vtards" in a "less valid" category than your "vpigs". I will say I find both of your styes identical in #s, skill and intent! good for you :salute
I think chillis idea has merit, when the hordes were smaller there were many more creative ways that folks use to capture bases before the changes. With that said I still don't think chillis idea would have the same affect now, cause peeps have learned the "horde way" and I don't believe you, vtards or any others will change now. The only thing that will matter is IF the defenders can be motivated to contest the base. If this was to happen then you guys would find more creative and covert ways to gain territory other than horde and that would only improve the game for all!
Find a way to motivate defenders in reasonable #s and you have a fix! Once defenders get involved then discussion can begin about making captures easier etc. etc.
JUGgler
-
If anything the town should require more damage to get a white flag.
My opinion.
-
If anything the town should require more damage to get a white flag.
My opinion.
Then the # of the people in the so called hordes increase, in another thread i posted that the number of bases to win the war be decreased and add a % of the strats being knocked down (hopefully zones strats being brought back) in order to win the war.
-
I don't remember exactly how the old strat system worked and Iv'e only waded through half the pages in this thread so this may have been mentioned or tried before.
If the main motivation for capture is to win the war, another one is to slap each other on the back after seeing "Rooks captured field A21."
So change it to a capture the sector game rather than capture the base.
In a given sector, you have bases, factories, and cities.
The bases have to be taken and the strats have to be taken down to a percentage, before you get the announcement "Rooks have captured sector 12"
Surely there is a finite size of a horde that can be mustered up. So they have to spread out over a larger area and have to defend their newly won bases, while trying to get control of the rest of the sector.
-
I don't remember exactly how the old strat system worked
It worked basically the same as the current one, only that on large maps we had a several cities & factories (one of each type for every zone) instead of a single strategic cluster. Small maps had always been just one single zone, the factories had been just more dispersed over the map.
In fact, on a map like Ozkansas (up in LW at the moment), a country isoften even more vulnerable to strategic warfare than with the old system... it's just that nobody cares ;)
-
I'd respectfully submit that there is no 'motivator' that will push people to up into a horde. Perks are my main score motivator, so I tend to fly higher ENY stuff when I'm thinking about it, but I hop around from plane to plane and planeset to planeset depending on my whims. Often, I fly the week's FSO ride or possible rides before Friday.
However, even though I like perks, that's not what makes me up and head toward a horde. I do it because I find it fun, and I know when I get there, there will be enemy planes to kill. I assume people who fly in the horde in low ENY planes aren't there for the perks or the score, they're there to take the base. If you got 10 fighter perks for getting shot down in a goon, it wouldn't make me fly troops any more often because I don't find that part of the game fun. I believe most people are similar. They do what they find fun, or what they think the 'objective' is.
I think history shows in the game that a side that concentrates on defense winds up losing the war fairly consistently. I believe this is why people tend to horde roll, because it is the most effective way to win, in the absence of a truly coordinated offensive/defensive strategy.
Wiley.
I like fighting..... the war means nothing except to folks who can't get those few perks any other way. IMHO of course.
-
To me there has to be a problem for a solution. I see no problem. Honestly many of you seem to be chasing a dream of what once was(in your own mind). Its like crack addicts trying to get a high like their first high. Just chasing the dragon.
Like I said before you can still find whats listed on the first page in this game right now.
:aok
(http://www.werkkrew.com/uploads/1113_catch_the_dragon.jpg)
-
That's the problem I see wiley, most people don't want to fight against a horde, so they join them instead making the horde problem worst. Players like you and I and shuff go head long onto the horde because that is where the only fight is. If on the other hand there was some incentive to have those that normally wouldn't up against the horde do so, it would create better fights as well as pull people out of the hordes.
-
Maybe the whole thing boils down to "OFFENSIVE mindedness". Maybe most folks just prefer being the "ATTACKER" per say, looking at the bigger picture. Maybe most don't see how defending is also attacking and has some "offensive" qualities to it.
Going back to my original idea of a delay from the time troops enter till the base actually changes hands would create a sense of "OFFENSIVE mindedness, an opportunity to "counter attack" for the original defenders.
Lets get some dynamic game play up in here!! :rock
JUGgler
-
Going back to my original idea of a delay from the time troops enter till the base actually changes hands would create a sense of "OFFENSIVE mindedness, an opportunity to "counter attack" for the original defenders.
...Why, when they can horde a base 2 sectors over that doesn't have a large angry cloud of red planes hovering over it?
Wiley.
-
Maybe the whole thing boils down to "OFFENSIVE mindedness". Maybe most folks just prefer being the "ATTACKER" per say, looking at the bigger picture. Maybe most don't see how defending is also attacking and has some "offensive" qualities to it.
Going back to my original idea of a delay from the time troops enter till the base actually changes hands would create a sense of "OFFENSIVE mindedness, an opportunity to "counter attack" for the original defenders.
Lets get some dynamic game play up in here!! :rock
JUGgler
Yes.... when you fight off an attacking horde at a field and push them back, it goes to pot if or when you have to reup and fly all the way over to where the fight has been pushed. lol I usually go look for another flashing base.
-
...Why, when they can horde a base 2 sectors over that doesn't have a large angry cloud of red planes hovering over it?
Wiley.
Well cause if it is not defended then the counter attackers will have an easy recapture, I don't think the original attackers will like that very much, hence creating some "OFFENSE, attack" and "DEFENSE, defend" for both sides in the fight for the same base!
JUGgler
-
Yes.... when you fight off an attacking horde at a field and push them back, it goes to pot if or when you have to reup and fly all the way over to where the fight has been pushed. lol I usually go look for another flashing base.
Me too shuff, but there is much complaining about hordes from those who do little about against hordes! Just trying to help :cheers:
JUGgler
-
Well cause if it is not defended then the counter attackers will have an easy recapture, I don't think the original attackers will like that very much, hence creating some "OFFENSE, attack" and "DEFENSE, defend" for both sides in the fight for the same base!
JUGgler
I think it's a pretty large assumption that a large group would head toward a recently rolled base to retake it against opposition given the possibility of rolling an undefended base on their own.
Wiley.
-
Me too shuff, but there is much complaining about hordes from those who do little about against hordes! Just trying to help :cheers:
JUGgler
:aok
-
Well cause if it is not defended then the counter attackers will have an easy recapture, I don't think the original attackers will like that very much, hence creating some "OFFENSE, attack" and "DEFENSE, defend" for both sides in the fight for the same base!
Actually, this idea of keeping a recently captured base "in play" longer sounds like a potentially strong improvement to game play.
The simplest way to do this, in my opinion, is not have the ack reset as soon as a base is captured. I've always thought this is a ridiculously gamey aspect of AH, where all the ack instantly comes up and starts shooting at the defenders. Maybe even have all ack destroyed upon capture for 5 or 10 minutes. Or at least leave whatever ack is destroyed down for at least 10 minutes. The attackers will then have to "clear the base" themselves instead of relying on the ack instantly popping and doing it for them.
Also, by keeping the ack down, the side that lost the base now has a better opportunity to recapture. This should create more interesting fights in the process. As it is now, most of the attackers quickly land (especially if they have gotten some vulch kills in). Meanwhile the the defender's reinforcements arrive from the adjacent base, only to find little or no fight over the newly captured field. By leaving the ack down, the attackers would actually have to think about defending their new base from an easy recapture.
This also makes the tactic of completely flattening a field, dropping all hangers and ack, more risky for the attackers. They may need those hangers to defend the base right away, since the defenders may have a recapturing goon standing by. If the hangers are all down, the attackers would have to stay up or rearm to defend, or risk the newly taken base being recaptured. (Anyone else picturing 10 vGuys on a rearm pad with no CAP up...? :D)
The bottom line is this may lead to more fighting for a base and creative game play with regard to field capturing/defense -- a positive change from the "horde smash and quick land" (with as little "fighting" as possible) that happens over and over ad nauseum now.
My vote: Keep ack down to keep captured bases in play.
<S>
-
Or how about making a base unviable for 45 minutes after capture unless resupplied?
-
Or how about making a base unviable for 45 minutes after capture unless resupplied?
Not sure exactly what you mean by "unviable", but that sounds like more of a "limiting" approach. My thinking WRT keeping ack down is it makes the attackers make strategic choices about how they take (and have to think about defending) the base.
Keeping the fight on longer is the key to the process being more fun IMO.
-
Meaning Troops, Ord, Fuel, Dar and Ack would all be down as if the base was just dropped, requiring a resupply... or waiting 45 minutes for the base timer to come up. Why would a defender leave a completely viable base if they're evacuating it and giving it over to the enemy? They'd take what they could, and blow up the rest, lest it fall into enemy hands.
-
Actually, this idea of keeping a recently captured base "in play" longer sounds like a potentially strong improvement to game play.
The simplest way to do this, in my opinion, is not have the ack reset as soon as a base is captured. I've always thought this is a ridiculously gamey aspect of AH, where all the ack instantly comes up and starts shooting at the defenders. Maybe even have all ack destroyed upon capture for 5 or 10 minutes. Or at least leave whatever ack is destroyed down for at least 10 minutes. The attackers will then have to "clear the base" themselves instead of relying on the ack instantly popping and doing it for them.
Also, by keeping the ack down, the side that lost the base now has a better opportunity to recapture. This should create more interesting fights in the process. As it is now, most of the attackers quickly land (especially if they have gotten some vulch kills in). Meanwhile the the defender's reinforcements arrive from the adjacent base, only to find little or no fight over the newly captured field. By leaving the ack down, the attackers would actually have to think about defending their new base from an easy recapture.
This also makes the tactic of completely flattening a field, dropping all hangers and ack, more risky for the attackers. They may need those hangers to defend the base right away, since the defenders may have a recapturing goon standing by. If the hangers are all down, the attackers would have to stay up or rearm to defend, or risk the newly taken base being recaptured. (Anyone else picturing 10 vGuys on a rearm pad with no CAP up...? :D)
The bottom line is this may lead to more fighting for a base and creative game play with regard to field capturing/defense -- a positive change from the "horde smash and quick land" (with as little "fighting" as possible) that happens over and over ad nauseum now.
My vote: Keep ack down to keep captured bases in play.
<S>
I agree, keeping ack down would be a good improvement. It would make base capturing a little more difficult, so if HTC thinks they have the balance right, they might have to reduce town % by 5-10% to offset this improvement.
-
Meaning Troops, Ord, Fuel, Dar and Ack would all be down as if the base was just dropped, requiring a resupply... or waiting 45 minutes for the base timer to come up. Why would a defender leave a completely viable base if they're evacuating it and giving it over to the enemy? They'd take what they could, and blow up the rest, lest it fall into enemy hands.
This is not a bad idea either, as it does require more defense of the new base. I certainly think the "insta changeover" of all the assets at a base is rather gamey. However, keeping a base flat until it's resupplied does not give the attacker an incentive not to completely flatten and deack a base (since everything will be closed anyway).
My thinking with the idea of simply keeping all ack down at a newly captured field is:
1) it may be a simpler change/fix
2) some advance thought must be given to defense, instead of the "quick-land and move to next target" approach
3) base (and town) defense would need to be done by players, not "insta-popping" ack
Again, whatever keeps the fight going at the base and does away with "smash and hide" game play is a good thing, IMO. Attackers should need to think about defense to hold their gains.
As it is now, the attackers hardly have to think about holding their gains, since the ack defends the base in the short term while the hangers usually pop before a counter attack can arrive in any force.
-
This is not a bad idea either, as it does require more defense of the new base. I certainly think the gamey "insta changeover" of all the assets at a base is rather gamey. However, keeping a base flat until it's resupplied does not give the attacker an incentive not to completely flatten and deack a base (since everything will be closed anyway).
My thinking with the idea of simply keeping all ack down at a newly captured field is:
1) it may be a simpler change/fix
2) it makes defending the base (and town) something that needs to be done by players, not the "insta-popping" ack
3) the attackers may need to defend, instead of "quick-land and move to next target" as they do now
Again, whatever keeps the fight going at the base and does away with "smash and hide" game play is a good thing, IMO. Attackers should need to think about defense to hold their gains.
As it is now, the attackers hardly have to think about holding their gains, since the ack defends the base in the short term while the hangers usually pop before a counter attack can arrive in any force.
Bingo.
-
Bingo.
Update: It's been brought to my attention that it used to work that way (ack would stay down) and it turned into more of a goon rush game.
Assuming ack can be set to pop in 10 min after base take, isn't keeping a CAP over a new town for 10 minutes easy enough to prevent a goon rush re-take? I would think goons would have to be escorted in, hence continuing the fight over the new base (the whole point) .
Personally, I'd rather have a goon rush fight over a town than the "horde and hide" system in play now.
-
This is not a bad idea either, as it does require more defense of the new base. I certainly think the "insta changeover" of all the assets at a base is rather gamey. However, keeping a base flat until it's resupplied does not give the attacker an incentive not to completely flatten and deack a base (since everything will be closed anyway).
My thinking with the idea of simply keeping all ack down at a newly captured field is:
1) it may be a simpler change/fix
2) some advance thought must be given to defense, instead of the "quick-land and move to next target" approach
3) base (and town) defense would need to be done by players, not "insta-popping" ack
Again, whatever keeps the fight going at the base and does away with "smash and hide" game play is a good thing, IMO. Attackers should need to think about defense to hold their gains.
As it is now, the attackers hardly have to think about holding their gains, since the ack defends the base in the short term while the hangers usually pop before a counter attack can arrive in any force.
I like its simplicity. I agree as long as the ack for both the base and the town stayed down until the base was fully resupplied and functional!
nice and simple!
:salute
JUGgler
-
Update: It's been brought to my attention that it used to work that way (ack would stay down) and it turned into more of a goon rush game.
Assuming ack can be set to pop in 10 min after base take, isn't keeping a CAP over a new town for 10 minutes easy enough to prevent a goon rush re-take? I would think goons would have to be escorted in, hence continuing the fight over the new base (the whole point) .
Personally, I'd rather have a goon rush fight over a town than the "horde and hide" system in play now.
I don't remember it being that way. They did have goon races to get them back tho. Acks were much fewer in the old days and it only took a pass or two to clear the ack for the goon drop. Also back then it was more important to try and recapture the base because there were much less numbers of bases and the total needed to win the war was easier to get to.
Leaving the ack down after a capture would most likely lead to goons rolling, or M3s as soon as an attack is spotted. They would run out and try to hide and be ready "just in case". Of course if they did, that would be and added on think to the list during a capture. "After we capture the base you, you, and you hunt goons/M3s"
-
I think anything that forces the horde to stay airborn in one area for another 10-15 minutes would be a good thing. It's enough time to get airborn from a nearby field and punish the horde some. It might force them to actually fight against airborn opponents occaisionally.
Maybe a few of them will realize that they aren't getting any better at flying by running in the crowd all of the time. They might realize that the horde masters aren't doing them any favors in the long run...
-
Update: It's been brought to my attention that it used to work that way (ack would stay down) and it turned into more of a goon rush game.
Assuming ack can be set to pop in 10 min after base take, isn't keeping a CAP over a new town for 10 minutes easy enough to prevent a goon rush re-take? I would think goons would have to be escorted in, hence continuing the fight over the new base (the whole point) .
Personally, I'd rather have a goon rush fight over a town than the "horde and hide" system in play now.
[runonsentence]
A coordinated goon rush retake would not work if the side that just captured the base stuck around and defended for ten minutes instead of landing and going to the other side of the map immediately after the capture, leaving the defenders that actually put in effort to defend and take off from the adjacent base with absolutely nothing to shoot at, except for the ack that just magically popped up once the base was captured.
[/runonsentence]