Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: caldera on January 04, 2012, 03:22:40 PM
-
...and other hare-brained ideas:
Trying to find a way to allow defenders to get airborne without eliminating the will to steamroll -err attack. The basic gist of it is to move the fight away from the airfields and to a location where there will be no ack hugging or vulching. The way things are now, the attackers flatten and/or cap the field - eliminating the ability to fight back. The idea of the game is to fight after all, not avoid it.
Here is a common battle ground on the Baltic map:
(http://i343.photobucket.com/albums/o460/caldera_08/baltic-1.jpg)
The spawns allow roughly the same drive to the field as to the town. GVers hate being bombed and will soon be enjoying a reduced icon visibility from the air. With the current spawns, there will be much more sneaking to airfields and vulching. Quid pro quo, I say.
This is my proposal for moving the towns and spawns away from the field:
(http://i343.photobucket.com/albums/o460/caldera_08/baltic-2.jpg)
First, the towns get moved far away enough from the base so there is no base ack covering them. Then friendly and enemy spawns are placed equidistant, on opposite sides of the towns. This makes for a chance to actually fight in towns, tank to tank.
A few other tidbits:
- Remove all ack from towns and require it to be 100% flat for capture.
- Town buildings stay flat for one hour.
- Increase base ack both in number and lethality to discourage vulching and capping.
- Ord bunkers and radar towers rebuild in 15 minutes. So easy to destroy for a single fighter with great benefit for the attacking side.
By rendering a town defenseless, it will be up to actual players (air and ground) to defend it.
Airfields will be much tougher to cap, which will allow defenders a fighting chance.
Ack huggers can hug, as long as they don't mind you taking their base.
Vulchers can vulch, but will be shredded much quicker in the better ack.
Towns won't be so close to the base and there will be no protection over them except your own countrymen.
Ords and hangars can still be flattened on a base, but it will be much safer done in bombers at altitude.
Capturing the town is the only requirement to take a base. Let's put the fight there.
-
I see what you are trying to do... and it has merit. By making the base harder to cap/flatten... then the defenders have a chance to take off, get a little alt, and try and stave off the attackers more effectively.
However... one problem I see. With a large group attacking... and attacking in a coordinated effort... any defenders shot down are going to be hard pressed to get back to the town in time to stop the capture. Yes... attackers would face the same issue in getting back, but that is an issue now... and in numbers they easily overcome that problem.
The one main advantage defenders have now, is that they can get back to the town to defend very quickly. Meaning... as it should be... it takes less to defend a town and hold it, than it does to attack and take it.
I think that when the new version comes out, "base takers" are going to have to adopt new tactics as it is. The pendulum is about to swing even more in favor of the defender with the mannable 88's armed with AP and AA. I have been playing with them in the Beta... and they are downright lethal to aircraft. 4 at a large airfield... 3 at ports, vbases, and medium fields, and 2 at small fields. Yes... they can be taken out with as much ease as a manned ack or 17lb gun... but you have to get close enough first.
In addition... the GV's being able to hide easier in the next release... is going to make them the premier town defenders. By the time an aircraft sees a wirble... it is already well within lethal range. I think the "horde" is going to have to go back to school.
Lets wait and see how these new changes affect gameplay in a full arena setting before we reinvent the wheel. One thing that has to happen... no matter what changes would be made... is that people need to stop thinking that "defending" is a waste of time. If more players would actually defend when a horde is coming (and they arent that hard to spot) the horde wouldnt be as effective.
Well... that's my thoughts anyway. :salute
-
oh ya, i like the sound of that, i have always hated not being able to do anything to a town on my onw because it is to well defended
-
Years ago we had a map with the towns that far removed from the airfields.
Many of them fell before the defenders even noticed what was going on.
-
towns should be far enough for base not to be capped by same players are town but not far enough for town to fall undefended. about 10-15 seconds flight time should be cool. and not talking about from engine start.
I believe cal has the right idea here.
semp
#2 of 3
-
Years ago we had a map with the towns that far removed from the airfields.
Many of them fell before the defenders even noticed what was going on.
I remember that map. Annoying as hell. :mad:
-
+1, but i think just 3-5 37mm's could defend the town. Leaving it completely undefended isnt made up with it having to be 100% down.
Good idea though.
-
Years ago we had a map with the towns that far removed from the airfields.
Many of them fell before the defenders even noticed what was going on.
Yea it was that Frac 3 map IIRC, and it didn't work out so hot at all.
-
This would be a great thing, I think it would help out in a great many ways. Unfortunately, to change the maps that drastically would mean a LOT of work I'm guessing. It might be better to just keep the makers of the maps attention and ask them to produce a map... a winter map with towns away from the field. :aok
-
Seems that a linear battlefield is what players like.. People like a battle that pushes forward, then the enemy pushes back.. Obstacles to be overcome thru player coop, making different types of tactic or equipment needed, adding variety to the experience.. Variety of REASONS to fight!
I like the idea of,
Putting a VH in the town, and a Map Bunker on the Base..
Hardball road that connects the Base to Town to Spawn..
Vehicles pay an accurate movement cost by terrain and vehicle..
Sure you can take your Tiger the long way around, see ya tomorrow buddy!
Or you can come down the road to town, and learn where the Iron Crosses Grow..
But lighter faster vehicles could make wide swings for deep flank attacks.. (As was so)
Obstacles to be overcome on the main line of Advance..
Like roadblocks put in place by player M3/251 Engineer Vehicles..
Mines, lol.. (maybe a little TOO real huh, lol)
Small river, with Medium sized bridge, that will only hold Medium tanks..
But can be reinforced by Pioneers to hold heavy tanks..
(Tigers never moved too freely, and their lines of advance were carefully chosen)
Lesser bridges on the flanks to carry smaller vehicles for flanking moves..
Again that can be reinforced, or destroyed and rebuilt..
All the possible permutations of this are pretty obvious..
Variety being fun, the possibilities of engineers to alter the BATTLEFIELD ITSELF
installing obstacles or surmounting them, offer much to the game..
PAK
-
...and other hare-brained ideas:
Trying to find a way to allow defenders to get airborne without eliminating the will to steamroll -err attack. The basic gist of it is to move the fight away from the airfields and to a location where there will be no ack hugging or vulching. The way things are now, the attackers flatten and/or cap the field - eliminating the ability to fight back. The idea of the game is to fight after all, not avoid it.
Here is a common battle ground on the Baltic map:
(http://i343.photobucket.com/albums/o460/caldera_08/baltic-1.jpg)
The spawns allow roughly the same drive to the field as to the town. GVers hate being bombed and will soon be enjoying a reduced icon visibility from the air. With the current spawns, there will be much more sneaking to airfields and vulching. Quid pro quo, I say.
This is my proposal for moving the towns and spawns away from the field:
(http://i343.photobucket.com/albums/o460/caldera_08/baltic-2.jpg)
First, the towns get moved far away enough from the base so there is no base ack covering them. Then friendly and enemy spawns are placed equidistant, on opposite sides of the towns. This makes for a chance to actually fight in towns, tank to tank.
A few other tidbits:
- Remove all ack from towns and require it to be 100% flat for capture.
- Town buildings stay flat for one hour.
- Increase base ack both in number and lethality to discourage vulching and capping.
- Ord bunkers and radar towers rebuild in 15 minutes. So easy to destroy for a single fighter with great benefit for the attacking side.
By rendering a town defenseless, it will be up to actual players (air and ground) to defend it.
Airfields will be much tougher to cap, which will allow defenders a fighting chance.
Ack huggers can hug, as long as they don't mind you taking their base.
Vulchers can vulch, but will be shredded much quicker in the better ack.
Towns won't be so close to the base and there will be no protection over them except your own countrymen.
Ords and hangars can still be flattened on a base, but it will be much safer done in bombers at altitude.
Capturing the town is the only requirement to take a base. Let's put the fight there.
How would I realistically up a GV to defend the down?
-
Then people will complain that town was too far away for them to get too in time..
-
Then people will complain that town was too far away for them to get too in time..
Which is a very valid 'complain'
When the radar on the base is down, you will have no idea if something is happening at the town. You see a darbar in the sector, maybe a few cons over the field explaining it.. that's all. Meanwhile some sneaky 110's are taking the town down without anyone noticing.
-
A system message that says "such and such town under attack"
-
+1
I would leave AA in town to give its attackers something to over come whilst defenders are OTW.
All such towns should have one if not two defending GV spawns.
Attacking GV spawns should also be town orientated.
If such towns had something like an SB mound that could act as an look out post it would be neat. (or is there a church spire where a look out could be placed within town {an ungunned soft gun spawn?})
The town will flash as it does now when enemy are within range.
The previous map that tried this did not place defending GV spawns appropriately and NOE was easier then.
-
How would I realistically up a GV to defend the down?
There would be a spawn (or two to limit camping) from field to town.
-
Then people will complain that town was too far away for them to get too in time..
*slaps Tyrannis backside of the head* The example on the map CLEARLY shows that the defenders would have a spawn point near the town as well, so at minimum it would be the same time to get to the town and quite possibly a SHORTER drive time. :aok
-
Would this idea if implemented, lead to faster and easier base captures? Maybe - I hope so. I don't take bases or help in any way in that regard, but remember when they were easier to take that there were more smaller scale battles. Making bases harder to take has only made the hording worse. If the base takers have a chance with much smaller numbers, they will be inclined to attempt more base captures. More attempts = more fights, instead of one giant pick fest. This approach would also lead to defenders being able to get airborne with enough alt and speed to have an actual chance of defending. For the GV crowd, both sides would have an equal chance.
-
*slaps Tyrannis backside of the head* The example on the map CLEARLY shows that the defenders would have a spawn point near the town as well, so at minimum it would be the same time to get to the town and quite possibly a SHORTER drive time. :aok
...how would that work for planes? they air-spawn? Spawn in some field to take off?... No to both of those..
-
...how would that work for planes? they air-spawn? Spawn in some field to take off?... No to both of those..
The planes would still spawn from the airfields like normal. The idea of moving the towns away from the fields means less fields get damaged an so defenders could up to defend the town.... which is 6-7 miles away. About enough time to get your wheels up and to a good maneuvering speed.
-
The planes would still spawn from the airfields like normal. The idea of moving the towns away from the fields means less fields get damaged an so defenders could up to defend the town.... which is 6-7 miles away. About enough time to get your wheels up and to a good maneuvering speed.
But then that just loops the problem back around to what i originally said..
Then people will complain that town was too far away for them to get too in time..
-
But then that just loops the problem back around to what i originally said..
did you even read what you quoted at all? :bhead
-
LMAO
-
The planes would still spawn from the airfields like normal. The idea of moving the towns away from the fields means less fields get damaged an so defenders could up to defend the town.... which is 6-7 miles away. About enough time to get your wheels up and to a good maneuvering speed.
did you even read what you quoted at all? :bhead
That part? still wont matter. People will still complain about not getting there in time. And whats to stop fields from still not being suppressed anyways? Fighters will still just hang over the field while bombers take down the town.
Once town is down, The attacking force will just push the defenders back the "6-7 miles" to their base, then establish a cap while gvs/buffs/goons work on town.
try thinking outside the box skorp. :bhead
-
Not a fan of this idea. If we load up the base with more ack, above what we're getting with the new update, nobody will be able to jabo a field without it being a suicide mission.
Also, placing the town farther from the field would make them easier to capture, a lot easier to capture. Especially without any ack.
-
Years ago we had a map with the towns that far removed from the airfields.
Many of them fell before the defenders even noticed what was going on.
Yep... been there, done that and it doesn't work to promote game play.
-1
(I'd rather see satellite fields around the main field instead of just making the towns remote)
-
Not a fan of this idea. If we load up the base with more ack, above what we're getting with the new update, nobody will be able to jabo a field without it being a suicide mission. It should be a suicide mission. You are flying into the heart of the enemy. All their forces are concentrated there and you think it's OK for a single fighter to waltz in and tear up the place? :rolleyes:
Also, placing the town farther from the field would make them easier to capture, a lot easier to capture. Especially without any ack.
As opposed to the current setup, where they are both easily capped together by the same planes?
Here is how easy it is for base takers now:
(http://i343.photobucket.com/albums/o460/caldera_08/captards.jpg)
Under modeled ack and vulchers circling. You can sure get to the town fast though. SO much better! :aok
-
Ok now I've not read the whole thread, but wouldn't it make sense then to have a GV spawn inside the town, alternatively very close to it say a 1-2 minute drive? While attackers would have to spawn a certain distance outside of the town? That would make town defense a more attractive prospect and to the attacker it would mean, actually attacking the town not just destroying it flat.
-
LIKE.... OMG!
They took out the radar and vh, we're doomed!
(http://i972.photobucket.com/albums/ae209/thedevilsbrigade1/captards.jpg)
Nevermind that you can strafe any troops trying to enter that maproom while taking off.
Ack is already deadly, less when you go fast but it can still easily kill any enemy over the field, although by going really fast this is reduced some.
-
Cute picture. Make sure you point out the ack that has been taken out (100% flat) and see if you can get your wheels up before 10 fighters swoop down on you. And you must have a hell of an aim to spawn in and shoot the troops. Good luck climbing out with ords for the town too. Either you like being served up as a hot lunch or are one of the circling vulcher types who loves to pad his stats with suicidal defenders. I'm guessing the latter.
And ack is not nearly deadly enough. A moving CV group has way better protection than any base. A single fighter should not be able to make multiple passes alone against the ack.
-
So 1 person should have an easy time defending a base? It takes a lot more than one person to take a base. Maybe nobody wants to fly with you?
-
So 1 person should have an easy time defending a base? It takes a lot more than one person to take a base. Maybe nobody wants to fly with you?
How did you arrive at this? :headscratch: Didn't you say my proposal would make bases really easy to take? :headscratch:
And I don't fly with a crowd to hold my hand. I fly with me, myself and I. :)
-
I'm saying that your proposal would make bases way too easy to take.
-
I'm saying that your proposal would make bases way too easy to take.
And a few minutes ago, you said:
So 1 person should have an easy time defending a base?
Where am I asking for it to be made easy for a solo defense?
The harder base taking has become, the bigger the hordes have become. Pretty sad that the noe town bashing of old has devolved into the steamrolling the hangars flat and de-acking (the sport of eunuchs) for no-risk vulching. At least back then, you could up to fight. That's the whole point of this: making it worthwhile to not steamroll everything in sight. Smaller attack groups in two or three locations beats one big group in my book.
-
It looked like you were complaining about how many people it takes to stop troops from getting into the maproom.
I'm not opposed to trying to require multiple locations but if we kept things the way they are aside from moving a town away from fields, bases would be too easy to take for it to ever be any fun.
The towns that sit nearly on top of airfields are harder than the ones with some distance between them.
Just my observations.
:cheers:
-
The towns would be easier for a flash mob of GVs to take but I'm not so sure they would be that much easier for airplanes. But there would be a chance for defenders to get into the fight. Right now, you have to come from another base for that. So in some ways, it could also be easier to defend as well.
Not much fun in trying to fight if you can't clear your own runway in one piece. Personally, I don't care who has which base or wins teh war.
Just want smaller fights. :cheers:
-
Lets wait and see how these new changes affect gameplay in a full arena setting before we reinvent the wheel.
+1
Also caldera I think the new flak 88's will make a big difference, can't wait to see them in action. The idea you have is great, do I think it's 100 effective no but I think your onto some great ideas for the future.
The one problem I see is that you have 40-50 plane hordes come in not wanting a fight, they just want to see "**base is captured by "insert country" most of the time it's bish" :devil how can you defend that, most of the time your 1 of about 3 to 5 upping to try and defend and it's no use. I upped a 262 to try and defend one of these and I had a 15k f4u4 that dove on me, got a pm from him don't remember who it was but his response was got to love the f4u's in a dive. So you got 40 planes hitting the field and town, vulching ect, and you got high alt cover for 262's ect. how do you defend that? Don't think you can regardless what you do. Adding new guns to the field is going to be great, however against a horde they will not be effective.
Also another simple idea is allowing planes to spn out of every hanger instead of just the 1 fh or bh or vh for vh bases. Allowing them to spn out of which one they choose if that makes sense. That would stop alot of the vh camping for the most part and also help on the vulching of the fields, should be simple and not hurt a thing. Thoughts?
-
I know what you mean about 262 defense. Was chased around by a cloud level Tempest yesterday and had a tough time attacking low buffs.
It's true that you can't defend against a giant horde no matter what. No idea is perfect or without trade offs.
Allowing spawning hangar discretion at V-bases would work.
As for the 88, I can't wait. Would like to see some quad Bofors on airfields too. And dragon's teeth to keep out the GVs.
-
Also on another note if the hanger is destoyed obviously you can't spn out of that hanger but whatever hangers are up should be your decretion, should apply to both vbases and abases
-
Moving the town away from the base does not of its self make the town easier to capture or harder.
The placement of the defending vehicle spawns will contribute greatly.
Imagine there were two vehicle spawns actually in the town from the associated base. IMO its now much harder to capture but as the terrain designer moves these spawns further from the town it gets easier to capture. The balancing mechanic is within the terrain design. IMO the defending spawn should be positioned such that the spawn point could not be camped without the town flashing showing enemy present.
Further spawning vehicles in the centre of town will demand that the associated VH be porked (it would become a pre requisit to any attack) .....denying folk accesss to the battle. Spawning further from town will permit the well organised "raid" to succeed as a well organised raid should. However if the raid is poorly organised then both defending air and ground assets should be able to arrive intime to disrupt it.
In this respect (a less than optimum raid design) the out come will be decided by the strength of the two battling forces. As it should be.
Even if the attackers are a horde, the defenders still have access to the fight because the defending base no longer falls under the same CAP as the town and has not been taken out the equation. The next question is how far should the base be from its associated town. Some of the same "rules" apply as when considering how close the vehicle spawns should be.
My first thought would be that the minimum distance be beyond Icon range. The the terrain should be taken into account.....is there a mountain in the way? (now its too far) ..is the base higher than the town (now even at the same distance it could be too close)....is the only approach (from the defending base) up a single valley (that maybe too hard to defend or intercept).
There would be subtle variations across terrains............. making some easier or harder than others for differing reasons (variety is gud!) some towns may be coastal some towns may enjoy multiple gv spawns from multiple fields, which as the land grab ebbs and flows means a mix of enemy and freindly spawns as we have now (the defending base spawn will always be the closer to the town). Some towns may be a little closer or further from their associated base. (infact if this were ever done across a whole terrain then mixing the distances would allow HTC to determine some optimum distances for game play)
IMO there would be no GV spawns pointing at air bases they will point at towns, ports and GV bases.
SO none of the above has requested anything that cannot now be modelled into a terrain.
If I were to consider any addition it would be a look out post. A high POV local to town accessable from the hanger such that any player could quickly access the (or more than one) church steeple / tower and simply look over the town and it environs for enemy action. In this way if a town starts to flash its a very quick spawn to discern whats happening and also one that was very common in RL.