Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: USRanger on May 06, 2012, 10:44:41 PM
-
While building a custom strat setup for my latest AvA terrain, the thought occurred to me that this would be a good idea for the AH strat game as a whole, bringing it into the fight like never before. The huge mega city strat complex, while jaw-droppingly beautiful, took the strat game out of the overall game worse than it was before. There are probably 50 threads on the subject, so I won't bother discussing it here. My idea to bring the strats into the overall fight is this:
(http://img152.imageshack.us/img152/7789/strat1.jpg) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/152/strat1.jpg/)
Each strat factory is contained in its own mini-city. When a map loads, all these small strat cities are located 2-3 sectors behind the front line(s), making them instantly worthy causes for attacking & defending, i.e. promoting combat. If a strat factory is reduced to 0% or the field closest to it is captured, then that individual strat factory moves back 2 or 3 sectors. This way, instead of all the strats being grouped in a small cluster that all moves to the rear together, we would get more of a leapfrogging chess-like strat game, where the factories are always near enough to the front to make them points of conflict. Bomber pilots would now have more to do than ever before & wouldn't have to fly for an hour to reach the strats.
To avoid splitting up the factories to cover both fronts for a country (and denying enemy countries from half the strat targets), we could slightly go back to the zone system. Each country would be split into two zones. Each zone would have its line of factory mini-cities on its corresponding front. Let's say the Bishops blast the strats of the Knights on the Bish/Nit front. The Knights would suffer the downtime effects on Bishop front, but the half of the country facing the Rooks would not be effected, since that front has its own strat factories. The Bishops would be rewarded for their efforts without giving the Rooks a freebie advantage against the Knights. Each side would have to earn its reward.
So that's my idea. A compromise of all the strat systems we've had mixed with some new ideas. The factories would always be 2-3 sectors from the front, providing continuous targets and points of conflict besides over airfields. Each factory would be pushed back independently, and attacking these tagets benefits your country only & doesn't give the other opposing country a reward they did not earn.
Sorry I did not have time to make a clipboard map to show my idea, but I think you all can picture it in your melons.
I'd like to hear thoughts on this idea before moving it to the wishlist forum. Please try to keep it on the topic of this particular system. Do you think it would work as well as I do? See more benefits or any drawbacks that I have not considered? Let's hear it. I just feel this would finally bring the strat game into the overall game & make it more important than ever before. I think it also gives the terrain a more populated look, instead of a barren world containing nothing but airfields. It gives each country a more realistic look. :salute
-
I forgot to mention that each factory mini-city is about twice the size of an airfield. Since they would always be located 2-3 sectors from the front line, this size gives the strat a chance of having a decent lifespan while providing a near-perfect amount of targets for the average sized mission to expend all its ord.
-
Gonna have to think on this one a bit. Lots of variables... At first glance, I like the idea. Well presented.
:salute
-
bombers need more juicy center of town type targets. thats all there is to it.
you get almost no perk points or points for score for bombing anything but the towns. and that gets boring fast.
drop strat on a field and its like hmm that was lame too... i just dropped 3 500lbers on an ammo bunker and got 1 ammo bunker... zzz.
bomber pilots are pyromaniacs.
they want N00ks and massive explosions.
its just as bad hitting strat uber city. the buildings are about a mile long and hardened but don't seem to give any more points or perks.
as far as changing the strat setup and having factories leapfrog. I hate insta despawn and move strat almost as much as the annoy you to death or make your computer CTD over the city Puffy flak.
Im of the opinion that given the fact that the strat system has been physically BROKEN in terms of the city not effecting factory down times at all for years now that the whole thing is so neglected and unused that no one even cares and everyone tends to just bomb whatever makes pretty explosions and fills up the text buffer.
-
bombers need more juicy center of town type targets. thats all there is to it.
you get almost no perk points or points for score for bombing anything but the towns. and that gets boring fast.
drop strat on a field and its like hmm that was lame too... i just dropped 3 500lbers on an ammo bunker and got 1 ammo bunker... zzz.
bomber pilots are pyromaniacs.
they want N00ks and massive explosions.
its just as bad hitting strat uber city. the buildings are about a mile long and hardened but don't seem to give any more points or perks.
as far as changing the strat setup and having factories leapfrog. I hate insta despawn and move strat almost as much as the annoy you to death or make your computer CTD over the city Puffy flak.
Im of the opinion that given the fact that the strat system has been physically BROKEN in terms of the city not effecting factory down times at all for years now that the whole thing is so neglected and unused that no one even cares and everyone tends to just bomb whatever makes pretty explosions and fills up the text buffer.
I agree with this 10000 times over. I don't get why its so neglected either. Game needs a massive update to remain relivant. I'm not hating on AH2 I love this game I just wish it wasn't falling so far behind.
-
I was flying to P62 yesterday in a heavy Spit9 when i flew past some strange looking terrain,it was the Strats :old:
Its the first time in months i have seen it, its a shame really that a major theme of the game takes little part in game play, this new idea of towns near Strats might encourage more activity around these very nice looking features :old:
-
I was flying to P62 yesterday in a heavy Spit9 when i flew past some strange looking terrain,it was the Strats :old:
Its the first time in months i have seen it, its a shame really that a major theme of the game takes little part in game play, this new idea of towns near Strats might encourage more activity around these very nice looking features :old:
This.
-
I need to think about this too...
The only way (as my kneejerk thought) for folks to fight over strats is to make it worth it. Giving better perks for the buff boys is one way, but I think it would need to be combined with a strategic thing as well. Perhaps fields nearby are uncapturable until the strat is down to some level - and it stays down for a long time and is not able to be supplied. Further, the ability of the strats to reduce the fighting effectiveness around the country - reduced radar range / effectiveness, reduced fuel availability, increased time to resup the fields.
On the same note, I haven't seen strats in forever and would like to, same with the trains that I haven't seen in the MA in... Well ever.
-
+1
Anything to get the bombers hitting something besides town centers,
Please make them big enough to get 100,000 on a perfect run with a set of B-29's
-
I like the idea :aok a step closer to meaningful strat play within less than an hours flight is fantasticly appealing. :x
-
When has bombing the Strats affected game play, I see a messege every 3 months or so "Factories moved to the rear" or something simliar.
Trains with manable acks might be good though :)
-
I like the Idea. :aok
We need more depth to the game and not new Planes that few will fly but many scream for.
-
+1 Trillion - Nice job as usual Ranger :salute
PS: Really enjoy your bombing range :cheers:
:cool:
HP
-
+10 :aok
-
Awesome Idea I think that people will be very able to attack these smaller strats and will do it regularly because they won't be so far away. However, I think that each front should have each type of these factories so that each country can hit each type of factory. Obviously this would depend on each map as some could be laid out to have just one of each per country. Great Idea.
:aok
-
However, I think that each front should have each type of these factories so that each country can hit each type of factory. Obviously this would depend on each map as some could be laid out to have just one of each per country. Great Idea.
According to what I read from Ranger's post, he was proposing two zones - one for each "front" against the other two chesspieces. And yes, I believe he was talking about duplicate strats so each zone/front would have a complete strat system.
-
Correct Dot.
I came up with this idea in just a few minutes, so I'm sure there are ways to improve on it. That's why I figured I'd ask opinions. Many heads may equal better ideas.
:salute
-
According to what I read from Ranger's post, he was proposing two zones - one for each "front" against the other two chesspieces. And yes, I believe he was talking about duplicate strats so each zone/front would have a complete strat system.
Oh I didn't realize he meant duplicate I just wanted to be sure. :o
-
I like this idea,
I believe we really need to shift the focus from taking bases to win war to more strategic bombing of factories and cities, supply ship convoys for anti shipping raid..
Jus t a few ideas i am tossing in.. :D
-
It would be nice if the bombers had more targets than airfields and still affect gameplay.
However, I would add some subtle wind layers (or thick clouds) so level bombers can't pinpoint drop from 30k. They need some reason to fly lower and accuracy would be a great reason.
-
However, I would add some subtle wind layers (or thick clouds) so level bombers can't pinpoint drop from 30k. They need some reason to fly lower and accuracy would be a great reason.
Couple those subtle winds with full manual calibration where you must shift-click on the map to set the target's altitude, and then steady your crosshair on the moving terrain below to set your ground speed...then you'd have something where hitting your target is a great accomplishment, instead of now where you drop your LGB right down the chimney every time.
-
I personally don't like the idea of moving strategic areas. I would rather see smaller factory complexes that fall to the enemy when the front lines push past them and those factory complex areas get lost to the side that is supposed to defend them. I think that would work out better and give each side more action and terrain to try to defend/attack against. These smaller complexes do not need to be everywhere but you can have small areas like ammo/fuel depots that are supplied by the massive strategic areas along the front lines.
-
For me
There should be "towns" (local conduits of logistics to fields) and "cities" (massive producers of logistics) I don't even care if the logistics are split into "strats" such as radar ,munitions, or what ever ............. we can do away with these sub strats. Even the HQ can go unless you want to link it to a "Capital city" which would be uncapturable.
Both Towns and Cities should be both attritable and capturable. (Towns are capturable now............ these days we just get a free field/base with every town we capture)
There should (initially) be several cities per side. If the front line moves past a city then ......... guess what......... its behind the front line......... surrounded, besieged.......... nothing new, (historically) in fact most cities fell only after they had been surrounded.
Just as we have Town objects I would like us to have "City objects" but now all of a City is made of City objects.
City objects (destroyed) should score more than town objects
City objects should (normally) rebuild slower than town objects and in proportion to total City assets per side (# of healthy City objects)
Cities ( when atritted to below a %) should be capturable.
Town objects should (normally) rebuild faster than City objects and in proportion to total # Cities/Towns per side.
Towns ( when atritted to below a %) should be capturable. (As now)
Field/Base assets should score less than Town objects
Field/Base assets (where appropriate) should rebuild faster than Town objects but in proportion to the local town assets. (# of healthy Town objects locally)
Field/Base assets can be resupplied by players.
"Roads" should run between a town and its local Field/Base
Fields/Bases atritted to below a % will revert to the same ownership as the local town. (a bit like when a port is captured and the CV latterly sunk)
agreed hi altitude bombing is toooooo easy.
-
well presented and worth consideration - I hope the right people have read it and will consider your proposal seriously.
-
HTC needs to take a very serious look at this Ranger. Im down.
-
Im for anything that improves the strat game.
-
making them instantly worthy causes for attacking
They can only be worthy if there be a reward: damage to cripple the other side, beaucoup points, or recognition. The 1st two mattering. The 1st really mattering.
-
I like the idea, Ranger. :aok
-
They can only be worthy if there be a reward: damage to cripple the other side, beaucoup points, or recognition. The 1st two mattering. The 1st really mattering.
That isn't going to happen. People are paying money to play a game and will not be too happy if they log in to play and see that their ability to play has been crippled by other players.
-
Theoretically, from my understanding, the current strat system (and past strat system) has a direct impact on airfields (down times mainly), meaning that we can already "cripple" the other countries to an extent. Correct me if I'm wrong.
-
Theoretically, from my understanding, the current strat system (and past strat system) has a direct impact on airfields (down times mainly), meaning that we can already "cripple" the other countries to an extent. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Depends on how you defin "crippling" ;)
Most of the time, players asking for strats that will cripple the enemy are asking for things that are really massive in effect, like plane factories, or taking down fuel to 25%... which would indeed truly "cripple" the enemies ability to fight and to defend. And I really doubt this will ever happen.
-
This post show cases and cellebrates the high levels of intellect attracted to Aces High. That makes it worth paying the monthly fee to be part of the community.
It's also why Chess is not the national sport of the masses in the U.S. or the EU. One of the hardest things to do is create a game for the masses while not making it unplayable for them becasue you are baselining it to entertaine your own sensabilities. HTC has only ever changed at most a single major game flow component at a time to this game and not very often. And some times had to back it out within a month.
This alters the game in such a massive manner that it would have to be released as a complete new game. Exercises like this have always been part and parcel of this forum's history. Much of the current exercise has been repeated over the past 10 years in variations. In every case no one has discussed to understand "why" HTC will only introduce "one of" structural game flow changes at a time. Instead of canning the current that you are bored to tears with and risk everything by imposing your bliss on the rest of the subscribers. Even with Beta's the Bug forum fills for months with ongong patches and pissed players after releasing general structural updates.
Who is the target player demographic of this change?
Why is this exercise supposed to be attractive to the "general" game population?
Is it a large enough demographic to support the consiquential bad PR and problems with its rollout along with the ongoing follow up problems to the general player base?
I know,
HTC is supposed to fall head over heels for this and make sure to iron out the mirad of tiny obsticles only the game creator would know about to make this dream a reality. Then he would just ram it down the masses throats and tell them it's a good thing. Queue stage left, Martha Stewart selling the new Aces High as a good thing to the masses in 1, 2, 3, live..........
-
+1 :aok
-
Depends on how you defin "crippling" ;)
Most of the time, players asking for strats that will cripple the enemy are asking for things that are really massive in effect, like plane factories, or taking down fuel to 25%... which would indeed truly "cripple" the enemies ability to fight and to defend. And I really doubt this will ever happen.
That's what I was thinking. I guess it all depends on the interpretation of "crippling."
-
I lik it Ranger. I like it a lot.
I like it because it addresses a basic concept of military warfare. An army travels on its stomach. Take away the rear support (the cities)and the forward bases loose their ability to operate. Battleline moves back to next field set.
Throw in trains, roads, and supply routes, we have a strat dream!
-
Good points, all.
Strategic resources need that tangible importance- vital enough for the offense to get at and destroy, and immediately valuable enough for the the opposition to defend against such attacks and keep their resources standing.
Base hangars already have this importance instilled foremost in everyone's mind. When their down, no launch. Up? Business as usual. Strat needs that most basic vitallity as well to fight over.
-
What is also very important in my opinion: No matter what change wil be implemented, there has to be more "promotion", the effects have top be made more visibilty.
For example, while the general idea of the traditional strats functionality (resupply chain City->Factories->Fields) in AH is a sound one, it's also way too cryptic for the average AH player. Yes, there is a percentage given on some clipboard sub-menue, but that's too hidden, and the meaning is nebulous as well.
Assuming a fixed strat system, I'd like to see arena message once certain thresholds of damage are reached, like "Rook City down to 20% - Factory Supplies severly limited" or "Rook Ammo Factory down to 50% - Ammo Bunker rebuild time increased". That should create awareness and maybe get the raiders a "WTG" similar to the ones for "A94 has been captured by the Bishops".
-
While building a custom strat setup for my latest AvA terrain, the thought occurred to me that this would be a good idea for the AH strat game as a whole, bringing it into the fight like never before. The huge mega city strat complex, while jaw-droppingly beautiful, took the strat game out of the overall game worse than it was before. There are probably 50 threads on the subject, so I won't bother discussing it here. My idea to bring the strats into the overall fight is this:
(http://img152.imageshack.us/img152/7789/strat1.jpg) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/152/strat1.jpg/)
Each strat factory is contained in its own mini-city. When a map loads, all these small strat cities are located 2-3 sectors behind the front line(s), making them instantly worthy causes for attacking & defending, i.e. promoting combat. If a strat factory is reduced to 0% or the field closest to it is captured, then that individual strat factory moves back 2 or 3 sectors. This way, instead of all the strats being grouped in a small cluster that all moves to the rear together, we would get more of a leapfrogging chess-like strat game, where the factories are always near enough to the front to make them points of conflict. Bomber pilots would now have more to do than ever before & wouldn't have to fly for an hour to reach the strats.
To avoid splitting up the factories to cover both fronts for a country (and denying enemy countries from half the strat targets), we could slightly go back to the zone system. Each country would be split into two zones. Each zone would have its line of factory mini-cities on its corresponding front. Let's say the Bishops blast the strats of the Knights on the Bish/Nit front. The Knights would suffer the downtime effects on Bishop front, but the half of the country facing the Rooks would not be effected, since that front has its own strat factories. The Bishops would be rewarded for their efforts without giving the Rooks a freebie advantage against the Knights. Each side would have to earn its reward.
So that's my idea. A compromise of all the strat systems we've had mixed with some new ideas. The factories would always be 2-3 sectors from the front, providing continuous targets and points of conflict besides over airfields. Each factory would be pushed back independently, and attacking these tagets benefits your country only & doesn't give the other opposing country a reward they did not earn.
Sorry I did not have time to make a clipboard map to show my idea, but I think you all can picture it in your melons.
I'd like to hear thoughts on this idea before moving it to the wishlist forum. Please try to keep it on the topic of this particular system. Do you think it would work as well as I do? See more benefits or any drawbacks that I have not considered? Let's hear it. I just feel this would finally bring the strat game into the overall game & make it more important than ever before. I think it also gives the terrain a more populated look, instead of a barren world containing nothing but airfields. It gives each country a more realistic look. :salute
I spend 90% of my time in bombers, as that's what I flew in the USAF. This is one of the best suggestions I have seen to improve the game since I have been visiting the forum pages and viewing comments and suggestions. Hi Tech really needs to take a constructive suggestion like this and do everything he can to implement it into the game. I realize he is interested in mostly "stick and rudder" guys, but there is a lot of us in here like the bombing raid aspect of the game. Attacking airfields and towns is getting a little boring to say the least....I find myself spending less and less time in the game because of lack of interest. How about the B-25J and the B-26C invader series, would certainly give us bomber guys some more interesting things to do
-
What is also very important in my opinion: No matter what change wil be implemented, there has to be more "promotion", the effects have top be made more visibilty.
For example, while the general idea of the traditional strats functionality (resupply chain City->Factories->Fields) in AH is a sound one, it's also way too cryptic for the average AH player. Yes, there is a percentage given on some clipboard sub-menue, but that's too hidden, and the meaning is nebulous as well.
Assuming a fixed strat system, I'd like to see arena message once certain thresholds of damage are reached, like "Rook City down to 20% - Factory Supplies severly limited" or "Rook Ammo Factory down to 50% - Ammo Bunker rebuild time increased". That should create awareness and maybe get the raiders a "WTG" similar to the ones for "A94 has been captured by the Bishops".
Agreed.
-
+ 1 from me
I`m not even a Buff guy....
but I see a different style of combat here
..more variety is definitely good
good job
<S> Jimmy
-
I spend 90% of my time in bombers, as that's what I flew in the USAF. This is one of the best suggestions I have seen to improve the game since I have been visiting the forum pages and viewing comments and suggestions. Hi Tech really needs to take a constructive suggestion like this and do everything he can to implement it into the game. I realize he is interested in mostly "stick and rudder" guys, but there is a lot of us in here like the bombing raid aspect of the game. Attacking airfields and towns is getting a little boring to say the least....I find myself spending less and less time in the game because of lack of interest. How about the B-25J and the B-26C invader series, would certainly give us bomber guys some more interesting things to do
I spend 99.9% in Bombers.........and I totally agree with you! :aok
Thank You for your service earl1937 :salute
-
The concept of heavy bombers was crippling effects at the source of a resource opposed to medium bombers for mission specific targeting of the resource in route to, or at it's destination. The only way heavy bomber players in the game now can have immediate feed back and reward for their efforts is to attack the resources in play at the location of the "mini war" hot engagements scattered around the map.
Immediate feed back is sinking CV's, dropping hangers, ord and troops. Flattening town centers and carpet bombing spawn campers. Strategic efforts to drop the strat then the HQ to achive the poorly understood master effect HTC occasionaly reminds us about. Generaly takes too long and is too vaughly unrewarding for the amount of time bomber pilots either have to invest each evening or want to invest for the reward achived. Then the area fills up with 163 and many times the heavy bombers hours of effort goes down the drain.
Granted this game has some scaled very long distances to run long term efforts across. But, by the design of insuring every single airfeild, GV base and port is it's own self generating "mini war" towards the 20% war win goal. Heavy bombers logicly cannot be given their true potential of being able to cripple strategic resources at the source to deny the enemy it's full potential to wage war. So AH heavy bombers are reduced to the medium bomber tacticle role of milk running localised resources to kill the localised "mini war" furballs, GV fights and CV actions.
Hitech mentioned that as the game programer, when you come up with an idea, you have to then think about how it can be abused. The single greatest strategic abuse would be to implement a new game objective that allowed heavy bombers to cripple one of the countries for any longer than a HQ raid makes the loss of country DAR irritating. Or deny paying customers globaly or regionaly the equal ability to wage offensive or defensive war outside of ENY or feild specific strategic efforts. You then give a minority of players control over the game play happiness of the player population of one of the 3 countries.
Once the expectaion of being able to login and wage equal war is gone, what is the point of playing this game? Any of you remember AH1 and what it was like to login to find your country was down to a single base to defend from? Anyone remember JSO and how it felt to be the targeted country by 300 players? Making it possible to strategicly impact a country's ability to wage war by a minority of heavy bombers is no different than JSO by 300 players. What does the first wave of day crew do when they login to an arena where the sparse numbers late night milk run crew has left them a crippled map?
This is why the game model for war is fought one feild at a time until you capture 20% of the other two countries feilds with the localised short term ability to deny war resources. Keeps the game from becoming one player one button press your country is screwed. The vTards would love that ability.
Why don't you guys with these dramatic game play changes ever ask your audience to specificly help you completely tear the idea apart to find every conceivable manner in which all of you will game it if Hitech agrees to use it? It's no different than a zoning code review for new home blue prints or FAA review approval for an experimental design or selling a plan to your company you want them to sink thousands of dollars into. That's ultimatly the review process Hitech will have to go through privatly to consider using any part of your masterpeice.
-
Well excuuuuuuuuse me!!! It was just an idea for discussion. :frown:
-
Well excuuuuuuuuse me!!! It was just an idea for discussion. :frown:
And it's a good one, Ranger. Well thought, well articulated, well intended. <S> :)
-
Well excuuuuuuuuse me!!! It was just an idea for discussion. :frown:
In 10 years of this ongong almost verbatum group attempt to change the game only the upsides are ever rigorusly discussed. Everyone loves the chance to add some finger paint of their own to this mural. No one actualy wants to deconstruct this sacred cow and see why and where it will fail in the face of how collectivly we know we will beat it to death learning how to game it to everyone elses disadvantage.
No one attempts to define the rational upon which the game is being presented and why it is presented in that manner. Then using that as the operational boundaries perform the postmortum you are dumping on Hitech's shoulders after you have all the fun at the white board showing your variation of AH the Avatar MovieII. Very few of these grand constructions will survive contact with the average player's desire to seek any advantage however miniscule to game the game. They are always intoxicating and intelectualy complex with more holes than fresh baked bread dough.
If you want to change this monstrocity, first honestly define why Hitech limits it to how it currently operates. Then for every idea you come up with to change the game, figure out how to game it in the worst ways possible.
-
Well excuuuuuuuuse me!!! It was just an idea for discussion. :frown:
Please tell you aren't bothering to read that bloviating nonsense?
And I really dig your idea. :aok
-
I never understood What the problem with the old strat system was? A combination of old and new have been discussed more than a few times tho,,, IMHO it does seem to be a waste of darn fine eye candy to have the factory setup we have now in such a distant and hard to use place, big nice cities with nothing going on in them,
what was their purpose if no one gets to enjoy them from anything less than 30,000 feet with bombers?
-
In 10 years of this ongong almost verbatum group attempt to change the game only the upsides are ever rigorusly discussed. Everyone loves the chance to add some finger paint of their own to this mural. No one actualy wants to deconstruct this sacred cow and see why and where it will fail in the face of how collectivly we know we will beat it to death learning how to game it to everyone elses disadvantage.
No one attempts to define the rational upon which the game is being presented and why it is presented in that manner. Then using that as the operational boundaries perform the postmortum you are dumping on Hitech's shoulders after you have all the fun at the white board showing your variation of AH the Avatar MovieII. Very few of these grand constructions will survive contact with the average player's desire to seek any advantage however miniscule to game the game. They are always intoxicating and intelectualy complex with more holes than fresh baked bread dough.
If you want to change this monstrocity, first honestly define why Hitech limits it to how it currently operates. Then for every idea you come up with to change the game, figure out how to game it in the worst ways possible.
Someone needs a hug.
-
Anything is better than what we have atm.
Id agree most players dont even think of them. Why should they?
Lots of what Bustr said also make sense.
Do we want a system where a side can cripple the abilities of another side?
If so, for how long?
Remember we have a few squads in here that mass together.
Imagine this.
One of those sides organize a massive bomber raid at 8pm et.
Some people try to defend, but the strats are hit hard, and ord,fuel are unavailable at certain bases for a long time.
The side doesnt bother rtb, it bails in mass.
Now it ups at a frontline base and porks all the ord of the enemy bases.
Once done, everyone does a mass tank attack across the maps hitting multiple fields.
Base after base is captured with no way to stop them until the strats regen.
As it is now to stop stuff like this, the strats are huge, ME163s are there to defend, the recovery time of the strats is pretty fast, and they realy dont seem to do anything anyways.
Rangers idea makes more sense, because it really doesnt seem so much about crippling the enemy, as it is providing targets to bomb. One great addition would be to eliminate the 163 from the game. Save it for events.
Nobody likes to take the time to organize, and fly along ways, only to meet 20+ 163s at the target.
Ive always wanted a separate arena that would allow strats to cripple the enemy and force people to protect them, but Ranger's idea is a good compromise.
-
With respect to the original premise: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6ALySsPXt0
-
Nobody likes to take the time to organize, and fly along ways, only to meet 20+ 163s at the target.
I don't say every bomb group does like we do- complete and attempt to survive a mission as entact as we possibly can, but even the 91st has taken several B29's to extreme altitudes into strat/HQ territory and tried to have fun despite the ease of the opposition's Me163 crutch to take us down. It does get old very quickly, and we're probably one of the most patient squads in the game.
-
At least a few manned acks. I have always believed there should be
A couple manned guns in the towns to help defend against the low level
bombers hitting the center of towns.
-
Well excuuuuuuuuse me!!! It was just an idea for discussion. :frown:
A really good idea for discussion. :aok
-
What Lusche said about System Messages. Yes.
-
That isn't going to happen. People are paying money to play a game and will not be too happy if they log in to play and see that their ability to play has been crippled by other players.
Yeah . . . I guess you're right. Even after the war is won, Joe Player can fly about and squeeze the trigger for 5 mins. My point was, strats while on paper are a great idea, unless the in-game results are real in terms of disadvantaging the other side, then, sadly, things will remain as they are. Beaucoup points might help. Would be more fun that milking towns. And points could be traded for B29's.
Fugi, still something about what you typed doesn't sit well with me. I do think your assessment of players' reactions is right though.
Well, how about this. ENY deprives hot rods from players. We could open the old Air Warrior "Spit Factory" discussion or something akin to that. And to hear the howls from Bishlandia when ENY hits, you would think those complaining had been crippled. When in fact, we know that is not the case. Again, something possibly similar occurs when a Vbase is taken that was part of a "favorite" spawn battle. The cry is basically, "you ruined our fun."
But, even in air combat or ground combat, once you get killed, for that sortie someone "crippled" my play, my fun, what I was gonna do. Nonetheless your point is valid. I'm trying to come up with something would allow players to "play" in a way that would satisfy many while at the same take jacking up the other side that is somehow tied to strats. Maybe Dale and the guys can create something that will accomplish that end.
Still gnawing on this . . . from my view in the cheap seats many players get a bang out of rushing headlong into each other from a close by base as well as a crazy spawn battle on gv's. Both are similar to each other: a fury of activity. Honestly, all I can think of is something tied to "availability" of either fuel, ammo, ack, dar, or troops. Fuel is a no go. Loved it when it wasn't. So, really, I see no way to make strat bombing an effective choice in the game. What's the point of bombing when after all is said and done no harm has been inflicted on the other side. Yes, there is the "fun" of being intercepted and shooting one's way out of a mess the way large buff formations can . . . but still . . . as I sit right now and think about it, I don't guess any changes to our current strat system are possible. Rats.
-
Let's say the Bishops blast the strats of the Knights on the Bish/Nit front. The Knights would suffer the downtime effects on Bishop front, but the half of the country facing the Rooks would not be effected, since that front has its own strat factories. The Bishops would be rewarded for their efforts without giving the Rooks a freebie advantage against the Knights. Each side would have to earn its reward.
Ranger, thanks so much for the thought you put into this and the computer art work also. Really stunning visuals.
I guess all turns on "would suffer the downtime effects" and how those results would affect Joe Player logging in after a hard day at work. Or, given Summer is upon us, how strat damage would affect Joey Player logging in after a hard day of lazing about the house.
If crimping anyone's in game playing choices, when it comes to planes, gv's, boats, bullets, gas, bombs, dar, troops, & ack are off limits, then the only roles that I see bombers playing are hangar/town busters and targets for fighters. I mean, I know we're "pretending" in this game. It would be just so very nice to make damage damaging to the other side.
-
I am not sure that big joint squad ops or even hordes attacking start then rolling ord and bases is "a problem" re any start design. It's really a "horde" related gameplay result. So I would not overly concern any design of strat to focus upon it.
Whilst saying this strat should not be so easy to rollover that it massively changes the game dynamic.
I quite like the big cities, I think there should be more of them and hitting them should bring rewards ( to bombers) beyond those enjoyed when hitting towns.
The nice thing about them being big is that it would take a lot of bombs to kill them off and so multiple big cities would mean that the city/strat object could repair comparatively slowly to what we experience now.
I would like to see a link between strat and bases that was proportional. I.e lots of healthy strat in ratio to a few bases means faster base rebuild and inversely lots of bases in need of rebuild in ratio to fewer healthy strats means longer base rebuild times.
Splitting the strat almost back to the old model is not so attractive to me. Actually looking at FiLth's analysis the ord strat would/ may be easier to attrit alone if it uniquely became close to enemy bases.
Zoning the strat as ranger suggests does balance game play across fronts. I missed what would happen if a front line passed strat zones...... Also on smaller maps we do see occasions where one side invades beyond the mid point of another. In this scenario both sides ae attritting the residual strat. To me this is ok ( the losing side is losing ...... So what?) but in this instance the twin front strat zone is prejudiced.
Actually just making loads of strategic targets such as multiple big cities would probably have the same net effect if set with the appropriate relationship with total strategic health against rebuild times.
In summary I would very much support any change that brought strat back into game play, both with respect to effect and reward. I think now it has to be made simpler. I would get rid of specific factories and their links back to hangers, base ammo, radar, supplies etc and just make them cities (vis the bomber Harris approach) or just "factories"( within cities? ) that have a general health condition that effects rebuild times generically.
-
What if damaging the strategic targets, in addition to the current results to fields and bases, contributed toward the win the war campaign. For example, each of the strats might be work x fields. Each strat might have a different value. Destroying a % of the strat would earn a portion of the target value towards winning the war.
Perhaps this concept might allow the strats to play a larger role without impacting those who don't care about the win the war aspect of the game.
-
Several posts above refer to and debate crippling. I would agree that any thing that denies players access to game play is not an objective. However something that radically alters the ability of a countries ability to "win" ( due to a strategic mis balance) whilst still permitting all players access to the fight is IMO very desirable.
This then should target capture as the variable mechanism. We can see several variables that do not effect ride access. Looking at the town we see that capture can be made easier or harder as town objects rebuild slower or faster or indeed if the % destroyed ( prior white flag) becomes greater or lesser. Strat could link to these variables without prejudicing game access.
I am sure that there are more........
-
What if damaging the strategic targets, in addition to the current results to fields and bases, contributed toward the win the war campaign. For example, each of the strats might be work x fields. Each strat might have a different value. Destroying a % of the strat would earn a portion of the target value towards winning the war.
Perhaps this concept might allow the strats to play a larger role without impacting those who don't care about the win the war aspect of the game.
This goes somewhat into the direction of one proposal I made almost 2 years ago. Instead of a simple base count (which leads to a wha-a-mole gameplay) I suggested to assign a point value to the different kind of bases, for example:
VBase, Port: 1
Small Airfield: 2
Medium Airfield: 4
Large Airfield: 6
City: up to 16 if fully down.
So instead of 20% of all bases a country would need 20% of all points from each enemy.
The advantage I see is that not only the main strategic target becomes suddenly very valuable without "crippling" anything, but also the now differeing importance of different bases for reset counds may reduce the whack-a-mole" effect somewhat and makes holding certain key bases much more attractive.
Right now, when one base is under attack, the "friendly" mob will just try to capture the enemie's bases faster instead of defending (=hordes avoiding each other). Now if that base would be a 6pt large airfield... or a field which opens the way to the city...
-
Several posts above refer to and debate crippling. I would agree that any thing that denies players access to game play is not an objective. However something that radically alters the ability of a countries ability to "win" ( due to a strategic mis balance) whilst still permitting all players access to the fight is IMO very desirable.
This then should target capture as the variable mechanism. We can see several variables that do not effect ride access. Looking at the town we see that capture can be made easier or harder as town objects rebuild slower or faster or indeed if the % destroyed ( prior white flag) becomes greater or lesser. Strat could link to these variables without prejudicing game access.
I am sure that there are more........
In the change I suggested last year I focused on towns and captures for that reason. The commonly requested Mustang and Spitfire factories would deny access to two key fighter or fighter lines to, most often, the outnumbered side which most needs those potent fighters.
-
No matter what else we do get,,( hopefully)
I really would like to see GV spawns into the strats for resupply and or battle .
If a base on one side of a strat gets captured the enemy could spawn in and destroy it while freindly GV'S could still spawn in and resupply it or defend it!
If it was like a small headquarters were it would effect an area of radar for a short time would also be cool
-
Strats should not be resupplyable. Period.
-
Strats should not be resupplyable. Period.
Why?
they are now and have always been!!
there used to be GV spawns into them as well,, at least some of them,, the problem was that only one base had a spawn,, so if the enemy got into it you could only supply it by goon,, now there are hardly any spawns into the city/ strat If it is destroyable,, it should be repairable,,, hangers is the only exception to this rule as it is!
-
You guys were doing good deconstructing and analysing your monoliths for holes untill the resupply the strats personal wish part created a whizzing match.
Remember the current model protects all of the player's fun factor so they are free to do what ever, where ever, when ever. The counter to the unlimited action is each mini strategic object flashes a warning, anyone interested responds which generates imediate conflict over the object or just between players.
At any time a group of players can form a coalition to achieve goals up to capturing the prerequisite numbers of mini strategic objects from the opposing two countries to achive the maximum reward of winning the war. All of the capturable objects are the real strats because owning 20% of them from the two other countries is the Currency to win the war. If the "Strats" or the HQ really mattered other than as a bomber destination, they would be required Currency to winning the war.
For the new player obviously it's challenging and highly immersive for 1-3 years if they stay that long. Or untill the learning curve is run and they graduate to veteren player status. I suspect this audience has reached or exceded veteren status and so the source of the collective "bordom".
The game as is works very well allowing 3 countries to combat each other while protecting the player base from being denyed an equal ability to wage war at all times. HTC will probably never host and help direct these idea fests to change the game. You would be tinkering with their livelyhood while not being personaly exposed to any risk. That is absolutly unfair to HTC.
If you have to carry on this excercise year after year keep some basics in mind. They have become a bit obvious over the years.
1.) You cannot create a system by which a minority can deny the majority the equal ability to wage war at all times. That works well as the primary strategy for a 2 country death match style war game. With 3 countries you will create side imbalancing as players jump to other countries that still have the ability to wage war and then eventualy drive away customers. You cannot force players to stay in the inferior country and be abused, or goof and create a potential Catch-22 MAD condition.
2.) Keep it simple. Complex ideas are mental candy but, no one really wants to fly ww2 fighters to play chess.
3.) How will neophyts honestly respond to it? They are the future of the game. Are you adding to their drudgery of learning the game while feeding your imagination candy? Who are you really designing your game change for? 50 bored hardcore vets or an equal community of 500 paying players?
4.) How can it be gamed and abused. Spend alot of time working on debugging your masterpeice. Or the players will for you, then use it against you.
5.) What is the late night small numbers crowd going to do with your monster? Will you login to an unplayabel map primetime the next day? Wil they get bored becasue it's too much of a construct for so few?
6.) Is it really a good fit for this game? Your 50 bored cohorts will agree to anything that looks good in the off chance any kind of change will happen. Design by Committe often devolves into personality contests, compromises and lost focus over miniscule details down dead ends becasue everyone is a Chief.
I still think it's a better idea to let HTC do this becasue it will cost them if they are wrong. We'll just go find another game to fight over and reminisce about Aces High in the new game's forum like we do Air Warrior here.
-
"exceeding veteran status" What a concept.............
(firmly in ol'fart status...........)
-
An HQ run is done these days for no other purpose than to deny the enemy radar acroos his whole map and the thrill of doing so , it's not worth nearly enough points and yet players still do it!
So your idea/ theory that you can't deny the other side is bogus!
It can also be repaired by goon as it is, but on some maps it can also be repaired by m-3
I still think the large city, sitting all empty , so far from the fights is a waste of memory, if all we could ever do was fly over it at 30k, why not just paint the ground to look like a city?
-
An HQ run is done these days for no other purpose than to deny the enemy radar across his whole map and the thrill of doing so. It's not worth nearly enough points, and yet players still do it!
So your idea/ theory that you can't deny the other side is bogus!
Naww . . . so easy to fix that the "denial" is minimal while having egg on a country's face and getting the lights turned out of them is really the deal.
I still think the large city, sitting all empty, so far from the fights is a waste of memory. If all we could ever do was fly over it at 30k, why not just paint the ground to look like a city?
That's about all we have now. The easiest "fix" would be for HTC to boost the points awarded to strat destruction big time. Other players remain unaffected unless <gasp> the city and a factory and field actually do get porked enough and an affect is felt which I doubt would happen.
So, if strat runs earn mega buff points, then we'll all know what's up when we see our strats flash. And if the bar is significant, we'd see it approaching from sectors out. The, "hey, look! Buff ib to reap mega points at our strats' expense, let's wack 'em" might be the likely result. One that should garner smiles from all of us guys in this thread.
-
The easiest "fix" would be for HTC to boost the points awarded to strat destruction big time. Other players remain unaffected unless <gasp> the city and a factory and field actually do get porked enough and an affect is felt which I doubt would happen.
So, if strat runs earn mega buff points, then we'll all know what's up when we see our strats flash. And if the bar is significant, we'd see it approaching from sectors out. The, "hey, look! Buff ib to reap mega points at our strats' expense, let's wack 'em" might be the likely result. One that should garner smiles from all of us guys in this thread.
. +1. Value targets should have a HIGH value!! Right now the highest value target in the game is at the corner of bombhere and dropem lane in every town on the map
-
I whole heartedly agree there needs to be some change.
I don't think we are qualified to architect that change. As is this game developed by HTC is a steady state design that works very well to insure 3 countries have the ability to wage unlimited war at all times. Very simple and very effective. Stop trying to fix what ain't broken.
Over the years none of us has admitted we could have desinged the concept ourselves. We have always come from a two protagonist ultimate winner and looser perspective to solve our design wishes. The third protagonist concept is blind to us. We have evolved with a mental architecture of Us vs Them.
In a 3 sided conflict very often you are winning and loosing at the same time. This balances across the 2 other countries with a steady shift state of objects being captured, dead end death matches, and individual actions. This balance is the heart of the game and what your designs seek to tip to the favor of the efforts by a minority rather than to the ebb and flow of the 3 sided process or a concerted effort by a majority.
Your designs have generaly attempted to circumvent the need to organise a majority to win a map in favor of allowing a minority using clever strategies to achive the same goal.
I'm beating this horse to death becasue you keep throwing 2 protaginist cubist formulas at a 3 protaganist sphere problem.
-
Why not add a "sim city" side to the game?
The highest ranking bomber pilot from each side, can build cities/etc and defences with limited sets of resources/proximity to resources which limit where and what you can build?
Something easy, fun and simple to do, yet not too time consuming! Something as basic as civilization style or whatnot?
Then the other side can work to destroy it!
-
Ask yourselves some questions in the terms of how the three sided process works. Three sides with an equal number of capturable objects that are self contained and limited in how other objects near by or globaly can influence them. While relative to the concept of the near constant equal ability to wage war at all times excepting the designers imposed restrictions or requirments to win the map.
For this exercise sector = map square.
What can you change equaly across the arena that does not violate the 3 side constant of the equal ability to wage war at all times factor?
1. You can increase the density and types of objects per sector.
2. You can increase or decrease the size of objects in each sector.
3. You can change the requirements for destroying the objects in each sector.
4. You can change the regeneration time for destroyed objects in each sector.
5. You can change the density and lethality of automated defenses in each sector.
6. You can change the capture requirments for capturable objects in each sector.
7. You can change how player controled objects are exposed through the radar interface.
All of this allows for each sides player population to act as independant generals of their own actions or collaborate for the short time logged in. There are no unfinished or rouge constructs left behind. While each player logs back in later with the expectation of a clean slate and action anywhere they choose to involve themselves.
Why do you want HTC to change this?
-
lulz, maybe skuzzy, pryo and ht could teak das helms instead; that would be total win!
Ht would be like: "Ok heres the new system, get stuk in"
Skuzzy ez liek: "Zomg, noez; moar work?"
Pyro wud beh: "LOLWUT< I NO HEAR YOU"
Den Ht euz: "nubs..."
Epic situation for teh winz, lulz
-
I suspect torquila now sounding like lulu is more representative of the actual sentiment by not having any answers to the construct question in it's basic boring format.
You guys asking for change don't want changes to the existing changable parameters it apperes. You want a complete new underlying structure and process flow outcomes. You want a next gen evolution that can support species of your professed wants and desires while maintaining all of the protections to waging war equaly at all times across 3 countries.
If a two country death match strategy war was your goal the AvA would be populated every night in preference over the LWMA. As is your best ideas don't quit protect the prime requirment of maintaining unlimited war ability at all times to equaly serve all paying players at any time they login.
You keep designing to serve your own wants over if it is good for the whole game. Let HTC do this. The whole game is their meal ticket and primary concern.
-
*sigh* Just let this one die fellas. It appears a "what if" topic can't be held with certain people getting bent out of shape & taking this conversation waayyyy too seriously. Let's just move on. :salute
So, how about them Stukas, eh? :banana:
-
There was a really good fire burning, but some pig pissed on it.
-
You gents design excellent strategies for 2 sided death matches.
Honestly I don't understand why you aren't in the AvA going at it. I bet the CM staff would be willing to put up a two sided death match LWMA style arena with everything enabled on both sides if it would pump up the player base. Thats what the more strategic minded ultimatly are asking for with their game change designs.
I suspect the AvA CM staff can modify the arena so strategic bombing and other strategies will have the capability to cripple the other country into submission with well designed and orgnised master strokes unless diligently defended against. I'm not sure how you will force players to stay in that arena once the master stroke puts the writing on the wall that their ability to wage war has been castrated.
Rule #1 in the LWMA 3 sided matchup is: The ability to wage equal war at all times.
Pick your whizzing match with Hitech. He created it.
-
Rule #1 in the LWMA 3 sided matchup is: The ability to wage equal war at all times.
Quoting this continuously does not make it valid.....................
-
Quoting this continuously does not make it valid.....................
True its rarley 3 sided most the time the bish n rooks are gagning up on the Knights.
-
True its rarley 3 sided most the time the bish n rooks are gagning up on the Knights.
lol
-
lol
Of course that before 6 pm est the n it goes to Rook n Knigths on bish
-
Quoting this continuously does not make it valid.....................
Holding your fingers in your ears and going nanananananananananana won't make it go away.
Nor does trying to find ways to slip 2 sided death match strategies in under the guise of making the strat game meaningfull for lone bomber pilots. So far all of the strategies enable some species of country wide or regional denial of resources as a punishment for the population of that country not spending their whole time logged in on bomber raid alert versus having the fun they are paying for.
The majority of players don't play this game to have to worry about who is sneaking around in their backfeild getting ready to deny them the next hour of fun they are paying for.
Except for killing the strat 100% then the HQ 100% right after that to achive the 6 hour country wide ressuply delay Hitech built in to the game. Nothing in the game when destroyed impacts other than the local destoryable object's sphere of influence. This is so no small group of players can disproportionately effect the ability of that country's larger population from waging equal war in return. Thats why it takes a hoard to win the war or have any lasting effect to the country you are attacking.
This would only get worse if in fact the bish and rook squads really are agreeing to pick on the knights and had a mechanism to castrate that country at will built into the game. At that point knights would jump to the other sides or log off along with players voting for other games with their credit cards.
You guys are only designing for yourselves and not for the survivability of the game once you allow the lunitics to run the assylum.
Ask the AvA CM's to setup a 2sided LWMA that mirrors all of the aircraft, vehicals and their perk structure but, place a handfull strategic knock out functions into the map. Then see how many players want to play in your MA when they can't compete on equal terms against you after you knock out their P51 factory, spit factory, Tiger factory, radar factory, fuel factory, ammo factory, ords factory, and global feild regeneration for several hours.
It kind of looks like a mini special events snap shot with imposed marching orders and consiquences for not following them once it's a two sided affair. Versus the MA which is an unstructured free for all with minimal impose order and no one shot way to kill the fun. And where do the majority of players vote with their credit cards?
-
Except for killing the strat 100% then the HQ 100% right after that to achive the 6 hour country wide ressuply delay Hitech built in to the game.
That must be a brand new feature... :headscratch:
-
Lusche, I've heard it described several ways over the years.
I'm still not sure which way it works. I've never seen it accomplished or the effects there after. My memory of it is you take down the strat 100% then the HQ 100% and for (2 or 6) hours that country globaly has a slowed regeneration time for regeneratable objects. Or something along this line of reasoning.
Since it's never been accomplished that I can tell, even I have a fuzzy memory of how it works. Once in a long while during these game remodeling fests Hitech has jumped in and reminded us the function is there and how to accomplish it. So far it appears no one was listening or cares to expend the time and effort to find out what happens when you take down the strat and HQ 100% collectively. It's possible the proximity of 163's and the low perk price of 163 has killed any interest in the process. Hitech may be doing that on purpose... :)
They mostly want some kind of a shorter time investment strategic knock out blow that multiplys their personal effort and results on a regional or global scale to the affected country. And they want it to reduce that county's equal ability to wage war as a consiquence of allowing them to do it.
-
The HQ has no impact on any resupply whatsoever. I don't even know where anyone could have gotten the idea from :headscratch:
The (theoretical) supply chain is as follows:
City->Factories->Bases. (The HQ is outside this supply chain. It's just for country dar)
The City has a fixed 6h downtime. The factories from 45 minutes to 3 hours, depending on City status. The base items 45minutes up to 3h, depending on the corresponding factory/City status.
I called it 'theoretical', because currently the factory downtimes are broken, they only stay down 45 minutes no matter what.
-
As I said it's been so long since Hitech has explained it in these discussions, or that anyone that I can remember has ever accomplished it, or that very few have knowlege of how it realy works.
You are describing the only process available to bombers to globaly impact a country at one choke point object. But you are also describing something that does not allow a minority to dictate to a majority in spirit. Time and effort evens out how long a small number would have to work at it to succeed becasue of the number of trips involved and chances of 163 interference.
It's easier to use a large group effort to roll the map when a group is so inclined. But, that means placing the future of the endevore in a visible majories hands versus one press of a button by a player sneaking around in the back feild while everyone else has logged in to wage local combat for the evening. The equal ability to wage war at all times and expected fun is then controled by an individual or minority of players. And we know just how intoxicating it is to stick it to the largest possible number of people with the least amount of effort. Human nature is about taking away each others fun with no thought to the consiquences.
The microcosim example of this is how the 2 sides furballing between a carrier and an airfeild suddenly loose a tacitly accepted fun furball after 2 hours to a single bomber pilot with his middel finger on the release button. Often thats the end of the fun for the night and players loose interest and logoff for the evening. Simply scale that up to a country sized scenario and you have the real gist of many of these game change constructs over the years.
So how many players do you know, who know's how Hitech has setup the strat's underlying cause and effect if they can 100% destroy it? How many do you know who are willing to expend the copius amount of effort to achive the 100% destruction to reap the global reward effect on that country? And how many of these plans do you see that want the effort shortend and the rewards and effects made greater as the goal?
Equal ability to wage war at all times or players jump countries or log off. Then vote with their credit cards.
-
Is it me or does he like the long winded diatribes? Ranger I like the idea as long as it can be worked to keep the game flowing.
As for the pig dude you keep saying equal ability. When has this game or any other game been about equal ability? No rule ever written has been about equality, in actuallity rules in games are no more than the best compromise for keeping a game close to fair. I have played this game for over 3 years and have never seen a "FAIR" fight nor ever seen a country win a map fair and square. For it to be equal and fair each side would need to have the exact same amount of players on at the same time and all would have to be matched equally according to skill. The game simulates war and war is NEVER fair.
Equal ability to wage war is achieved by setting said system up so that all 3sides can do the same thing to each other and then letting them go. Just as the game is now all 3 sides will come up with different approaches to try and acheive the very same outcome which is victory. Your equal ability argument lacks sense since all 3 sides will have the same tools,equipment and ability to inflict the maximum amount of damage on it's 2 opponents.
I also find your over-inflated use of the english language to tell us what Hi-Tech is thinking quite annoying in the least. While I must admit your grasp and use is quite impressive I must say you do convey your thoughts in a very condescending way which never wins hearts nor minds, but then again what do I know as an uneducated blue collar kinda guy who drinks his beer form a bottle....
-
M1A1,
Thats OK my job in life is not to win any popularity contests. I don't give a hairy rats kester. Once you give up your soul to the popular collective you are one offended borg cog away from mob justice.
I've been playing AH since April 2002. Only an inanimate brick would fail to catch on over 10 years to how the 3 country game works in the MA. Unless HTC decides to impliment strategic choke points into each country to allow a minority of players to dictate the flow of the game to the majority of a given country. I cannot see how to change the primary rule in the MA that gives subscribers the confidence that when they logon any time 24x7, it won't be into an imbalanced no-win heck hole.
Equal ability to wage war at all times right up to the very last contested base needed to win the map.
HTC has changed many things in the last decade. But, I've not seen them touch this as of yet. So far no one that I can remember has asked why HTC won't specificly change it. Why not ask them yourself M1A1 and lets see what they say.
Any change thats been rolled out in the last decade I've willingly adapted to including building 4 PC to overcome the change. In my experience HTC has applied a consistant sound judgment almost all of the time to how they change the game. They have also shown a great propensity to learn from mistakes. I've worked for heck hole companies when it comes to not owning up to and not repeating mistakes with their code.
Personaly I bought those beer glasses you see in the Samual Adams commercials. They really do improve the flavor of beer over the bottle.
-
Your the guy who kept sharper image in business aren't you??
Well for all the scolding you have done how about you put that head of your into the pot and help make it a little more involved and fun. What is your answer to making the startegic level of the game a bit more indepth. After all we had a saying in my unit and that was " If you aren't part of the solution then YOU are the problem" I would truly be interested in what you feel would be a better balance than what we have now.
By the way if you are drinking American beer there is nothing that would ever make it tatse better, glass stein or plastic bucket it all tastes like crap anyways...If you want good beer go to Amburg Germany and try their local brew..For the life of me I can't remember it's name but it is tmade by the smallest brewery in Amburg ..Straight form the bottle that weisse was pure sunshine... :)
-
Ask the AvA staff to setup a 2 sided LWMA duplicate with input from yourself and anyone else who wants HTC to change the game by introducing 2 sided death match war strategic choke holds. Make sure there are strategic targets that a minority of players can kill to impact the flow of resources and materiel to the global targeted country and all of it's players. That will be the polar difference between the MA as is and the MA changed into a strategic war arena.
Set it up so the first reward for a sucessful destruction of a strategic object is a total reduction in war fighting ability by 1/4-1/3. Then so forth. It becomes a domino effect from there on and the outcome is no secret. Being no secret players will jump countries or logoff. New players logging on will asess the situation and either join the winning country or find another arena until the inevitable end is reached. All strategic choke holds accomplish is a shortcut to winning the map without having to bring manpower numbers to accomplish the job like you currently have to do in the MA. Thats why all capturable bases are the strategic objects with an equal value towards winning the war. Which means you have to be good at inspiring a coalition to win the map instead of using a single finger to short cut the process.
You cannot force paying customers to login to a castrated country over run by superior forces, with no real expectation of a fair fight, and have them stay in the arena to have their teeth kicked in. 6 or 7 years ago that was called JSO. 300+ players in one country swamped the 2 other countries ability to wage equal war and rolled the maps. Thats how we got ENY.
As is the game is balanced towards the majority of paying customers expectation of being able to login 24x7 to a non castrated country with the equal ability to wage war.
The honest thing to do is directly ask Hitech to place strategic choke holds into all three country's so that small groups and individuals can shortcut the coalition driven war winning process by destroying them. When you reduce the concept of high value global effect strategic objects to their simplest form in any game, they are short cuts to winning the war from 2 sided death match scenarios.
No one will be satisfied even if a gazillion points are awarded for bombing the factory or the HQ in an attempt to make it more meaningful. That would be a simple one line wish. It's forever large complex constructs that if reduced to a one line wish is always the same wish:
Hitech please add global effect strategic choke hold targets to the three country's so a small number of players or individuals can impose a reduction in the general war fighting ability of the targeted country as a punishment for letting us do it.
M1A1 put that in the Wishlist forum and see if Hitech respondes to it. It's a much more honest request.
-
Forgive me for going back to the original topic, but here is the final version of a factory min-city going into my next AvA terrain. I look forward to hearing from bomber pilots how much they enjoy hitting them, at least until bustr convinces them how much they should hate them. :)
(http://img194.imageshack.us/img194/9987/stratq.jpg) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/194/stratq.jpg/)
The terrain (avawintr) will be finished & on the server in a couple weeks if anyone wants to try it out for yourselves.
:salute
-
"I say i do believe i hear the roar of heavy bombers overhead."
Amazing work Ranger sir <S>
i shall certainly enjoy it. :aok
-
In my opinion what the game needs, is more variety in the parameters to be met to trigger a war win.
Just designate additional conditions that will also lead to victory.
A certain number of bases currently need to be captured right now.
Keep, that, but also add a parameter of a combination of a lesser number of bases and a higher percentage of strategic targets destroyed can also trigger a win.
They don't need to be modeled to have a real time logistical choking effect, they simply need to become high value targets.
-
In my opinion what the game needs, is more variety in the parameters to be met to trigger a war win.
Just designate additional conditions that will also lead to victory.
A certain number of bases currently need to be captured right now.
Keep, that, but also add a parameter of a combination of a lesser number of bases and a higher percentage of strategic targets destroyed can also trigger a win.
They don't need to be modeled to have a real time logistical choking effect, they simply need to become high value targets.
I agree. I'm going to say a line here that MOST people will either just stop reading, or blow a gasket and reply with out reading the rest, but bare with me :D
I think the game should be geared more toward making players play the game the right way <ducks> :bolt:
OK, if your still with me this is what I mean. The game is a combat game, in all it's forms, it boils down to combat period. Whether it's tank to tank, plane to plane, or country to country to win the war it should all be about combat. If you want to avoid a fight or hide try THIS (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CKQBEBYwAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.microsoft.com%2Fgames%2Fflightsimulatorx%2F&ei=l0LCT-vSG6Lw6AGO-Ji6Cg&usg=AFQjCNEpwR56sMRkgi2TiEq81eyQssCVMA&sig2=NbMcA6pjMayjc2zfawtVzw).
I'm not trying to stop anyone from playing the way they want, but I do want to change the rules as to how important it is as to the game. If you want to spawn camp, go for it, but you get nothing in perks and you don't get your name in lights, but it your part of a moving force attacking a base you get perks points and your name in lights. The same with base captures. Your part of an NOE horde you get nothing but the base, but if your part or a force that uses the mission planner and attacks with a full fledged mission with objective that MUST be met, then you get it all, points, perks, name in lights.
Yesterday was tough. We were on OZKANSAS which is the NOE wet dream map. Even a 2 weeker can stay under dar over water. It was like.... as Delirium says... playing "whack a mole". Spent most of the day jumping around chasing NOE missions. Sure there was the Rook horde to join by that isn't much of a fight either. Too many people playing the game the "wrong" way and avoiding combat. There shouldn't be any rewards for avoiding combat, and more for generating it.
-
Ya know. I don't know. This mid-morning all countries had their usual 30 players in-flight. And the calls for help on country channel just caused me to shake my head. Also, what counts as "a base we should capture" as in, "let's get A## because . . .." I glanced at my country's roster looking at the names and rank to try to see what portion of the in-flight players know what they're doing. It looked to be about 2/3rds or less. Yet, there was precious little porking going on.
I suppose the appeal, the big appeal of AH is pointing your green plane at a red one and pulling the trigger. Or diving into a bunch of red ones. I really think that's what drives subscriptions for HTC. If that be the case, then all the cooler stuff we talk about from time to time, is just that. Cooler stuff.
And for the life of me, all that NOE horde base demolishing . . . not my cup of tea. But it must be a hoot for others because they keep at it.
-
I like Rangers Idea. When I fly I don't avoid fights, I tend to slow down to let the enemy catch up so I can put a few .50 rounds in to them.
I hit a strat target the other day and as soon as my bombs hit, the darned thing moved on me. It ran to the back of the country this was after my hour and a half flight to target.
-
You cannot dictate courage to those who feel insecure about their ability to compete in this game. All you will result in is forcing the insecure into being cannon fodder for the better talented, or out of the game by making them feel punished. You build self confidence in others by leading from the front by example. Accept most simply want to follow a winning leader. Imposing social controls to force combat will drive players from the game.
You can force combat by moving feilds closer together. Putting in a large capturable city ringed by capturable feilds with the requirment of capturing that city in two country's to win the map. Now you have your strategic targets to keep destroyed all the time untill your forces can get the troops into some of the defending feilds and past the big city GV battle. Change radar so all aircraft in the air can be seen everywhere at all times by everyone except in the alleys between radar rings so the timid can partialy hide from fight hunters. Then setup feilds so that you have narrow blind radar corridors to run missions through or run away from fights in.
Unless HTC fundimentaly changes how the game process works, those are the kinds of things that can be changed in the game.
A change example in the current framework:
OZKANSAS, that big island with all the GV feilds in the center. Put a giant city in the center along with those GV feilds and airfeilds. Then require 12% of two country's and ownership of that city to win the map. Place 3 maprooms in the city and require capturing all three to own the city. Start the maprooms out as neutral then upon capturing have manned gun positions around them go live to help defend the position along with your GV moving into the city. Make bridges functional destroyabel/rebuild strategic objects to moving tanks towards map rooms. Tie them to 3 city sectors owned by maprooms and rebuild times of the surrounding buildings. Make the reward for bomber hoards flattening the city adfenitum when it's not owned by their own country substantial. How do you capture the city? Capture the island first.
Downsides: This will focus most players to the center of a large map. The frame rates for many will stutter or become a slide show. Warping will be a real issue in the confined space with all of the city objects and moving planes and vehicals.
You can change things like this within the current famework if HTC wants to go along with it.