Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: Citabria on July 25, 2012, 09:06:05 PM
-
I got to do some fighting in the town and I wish they had these towns at vbases. I remember the towns didnt have ack at first. given the nature of how hidden the acks are id prefer a town without acks for vbases since they are rediculously hard to find for ground vehicles.
the towns are just plain fun.
-
So, in other words, you want the additional terrain to run around in, but none of the threat from ack? Ok, no problem, but what about white-flagging? Do you want to keep that in there? Without ack, it would seem like just another opportunity for some free perkies.
-
-1
I personally hate the current towns, and everything associated with them. In particular, I hate GVing in close quarters, primarily because survival in such a situation is too much a matter of luck.
MH
-
-1
I personally hate the current towns, and everything associated with them. In particular, I hate GVing in close quarters, primarily because survival in such a situation is too much a matter of luck.
MH
...or maybe it could be team work with other players in Storches, or someone sitting OUTSIDE the town on a hill spotting for those inside the town. Too many people look at spawn camping as the "be all, end all" of gvin'.
-
Just give V bases towns IMO.
GGuns are easily killed off by shermans etc and it makes more sense that a gv battle is for a town........... In both Euro fronts towns were the focus of the ground war as they were control points in logistic supply, it was only in the great battles that the conflict was drawn away from towns and even then they were still the bridge head objectives.
Towns are actually more applicable to GV bases than airfields IMO.
-
...or maybe it could be team work with other players in Storches, or someone sitting OUTSIDE the town on a hill spotting for those inside the town. Too many people look at spawn camping as the "be all, end all" of gvin'.
Fugitive; if you think that GVing consists only of "spawn camping", then you are greatly mistaken. Perhaps before you post again on GVing, you should do a bit more GVing yourself.
With respect to “team work”, some of us fly (or drive) alone. Not everyone is part of a squad.
Just give V bases towns IMO.
<snip> In both Euro fronts towns were the focus of the ground war as they were control points in logistic supply, it was only in the great battles that the conflict was drawn away from towns and even then they were still the bridge head objectives.
Towns are actually more applicable to GV bases than airfields IMO.
There is practically zero relationship between how we implement the AH strategic game and historical WWII operational or strategic reality. As I mentioned in another post, the purpose of the AH strat game is to add game play interest and facilitate individual fights between aircraft (and latterly GVs).
Now if you support towns for vBases because you think it would make the game more fun, then I could respect that. But arguing for it on the basis of historical realism indicates that you need to buy a few history books. No offense intended. ;)
MH
-
There is an additional major isssue with the towns, which is another of the reasons I would oppose adding them to vBases.
When defending the base, it is not unusual for a defender to up (possibly in a perk plane/vehicle) from the defending base, and immediately be under fire from the just-captured base via the distant out-of-sight town. The advantage of having the map room on the base (as in ports and vBases and as it use to be in air bases) is the elimination of this discontinuity.
The impenetrable maze-like hedges surrounding the new towns, often ending in cul-de-sacs, are no fun either...
MH
-
The towns were so much better when they were modeled without any ack guns (this coming from someone who never, ever takes bases).
Smaller groups of players could take bases and more of them, which kept the fronts from being stagnant and more bases under simultaneous attack.
I wish that towns were once again ack-free. Also, please install at least 4 quad Bofors mounts on every airfield, as the 88s are ineffective at best.
Keep the fight away from the base so perch sitting punk vulchers can't keep you from fighting back. :neener:
-
<snip>Keep the fight away from the base so perch sitting punk vulchers can't keep you from fighting back. :neener:
Hmm; didn't think of that. I guess that is an argument for remote towns for air bases then... However, I still oppose adding them to vBases, as the vulching issue obviously doesn't apply. In fact, quite to the contrary, as defending from vBase concrete is an advantage.
MH
-
It would be great if towns were further away from fields and were without ack protection. They would become free-for-all areas of sorts and that sounds fun to me. Put friendly and enemy vehicle spawns equidistant and on opposite sides of the town. The attackers would have the advantage of initiative in airstrikes, but if the fields were properly "tard-proofed" from vulchers, friendlies could at least get some air under their wings and make a fight out of it. Hangars could still be dropped, but low alt porking done by a single 190, La7 or 51 would be hazardous to the porker's health.
That scenario would require the re-working of all the maps, so it's unlikely to happen. Removing the ack in town and increasing it at the field however, would be much less work. I agree that Vehicle bases don't really need towns but maybe some dragon's teeth to force invaders into narrow channels to get on the base. That could work against the defenders though. Don't know squat about tanking, so I'll stifle myself about that. This concludes this thread hijack. :angel:
-
Fugitive; if you think that GVing consists only of "spawn camping", then you are greatly mistaken. Perhaps before you post again on GVing, you should do a bit more GVing yourself.
With respect to “team work”, some of us fly (or drive) alone. Not everyone is part of a squad.
There is practically zero relationship between how we implement the AH strategic game and historical WWII operational or strategic reality. As I mentioned in another post, the purpose of the AH strat game is to add game play interest and facilitate individual fights between aircraft (and latterly GVs).
Now if you support towns for vBases because you think it would make the game more fun, then I could respect that. But arguing for it on the basis of historical realism indicates that you need to buy a few history books. No offense intended. ;)
MH
I'm sorry, I didn't realize that it was a requirement to have had hundreds of hours in GVs to post an opinion on this topic. :rolleyes:
I have no idea "who" you are in game, so I can't see how many hundreds of hours you have in GV's, but that only means your a bit slower in figuring out that most GV fight center around a spawn point. Now whether this SP is a hanger or a point out off base, they still almost ALWAYS end up with one group racking as many kills as they can before the camp is broken. It is almost un head of to see anyone flanking a spawn point even, most just drive strait ahead until they see something to shoot at.
As for the OP, he posted that town fights are fun, which I also find fun and exciting. He also posted he thought it would be good if there was no ack there either to make the hunt that little bit more even.
Now I understand that you might have a problem with town fighting, because well, it might be pretty rough on your score sheet if you hunt alone, but I find it pretty easy to work with who ever is around whether they are a squad mate, friend, or newb. The idea is to have fun fighting it out. The old TT use to be fun even with the ugly buildings we had back them. These days if it doesn't contribute to score or winning the war players just don't seem to be interested.
Now, if the town had to be cleared of enemy GVs AND white flanged before they could capture a V base..... whew-weee! talk about opportunities to have a fight!
-
I'm sorry, I didn't realize that it was a requirement to have had hundreds of hours in GVs to post an opinion on this topic. :rolleyes:
<snip>
Yes, but one does need some minimal understanding of the topic on which one posts, doesn't one? :rolleyes:
MH
-
The impenetrable maze-like hedges surrounding the new towns, often ending in cul-de-sacs, are no fun either...
There are no cul-de-sacs at all in town (where a cul-de-sac is defined as a road that dead ends; none of the roads in town dead end). In town you need to stay on roads or know which open areas connect with other roads.
GV fighting in town is more challenging, for sure, but I think that just increases the interest. It also gives non-perked tanks a chance since most encounters are very short range. I am aware of peoples dislike of being ambushed in a GV, as many complain when I do it to them, but I do not understand it. What exactly do they want? Do they want GV action to be medieval jousting- two opposing tanks line up on a flat open terrain and fire at each other until the Tiger wins?
Having an ack-less town surrounding v-bases (with the maproom still at the acked v-base) sounds like an idea with possibilities. Perhaps it would be best if the capture criteria were the same, i.e. take down v-base ack and get troops into the v-base maproom, rather than having to take down the town for a white flag?
If the town is close, and surrounds the v-base, it would kind of negate the 18-lbers. They slew so slowly that they must be able to see an enemy approaching from a distance; if the enemy just suddenly popped out of the town onto the v-base at close range the 18 lber would be less useful. But if the town did not surround the v-base then wouldn't attackers just avoid the town? I guess the other possibility is have the town near but separate from the v-base and use the airfield capture criteria, i.e. white flag the town and get troops into the town maproom. In this case, if the town had no defensive ack, wouldn't it be too easy to milkrun v-bases?
-
There are no cul-de-sacs at all in town (where a cul-de-sac is defined as a road that dead ends; none of the roads in town dead end). In town you need to stay on roads or know which open areas connect with other roads.
Maybe I should have said “dead ends”. Unless you have memorized the town terrain, if you approach cross-country, you often end up in a dead-ended hedge pocket, and have to turn around and drive back to the periphery again.
GV fighting in town is more challenging, for sure, but I think that just increases the interest. It also gives non-perked tanks a chance since most encounters are very short range. I am aware of peoples dislike of being ambushed in a GV, as many complain when I do it to them, but I do not understand it. What exactly do they want? Do they want GV action to be medieval jousting- two opposing tanks line up on a flat open terrain and fire at each other until the Tiger wins?
Having an ack-less town surrounding v-bases (with the maproom still at the acked v-base) sounds like an idea with possibilities. Perhaps it would be best if the capture criteria were the same, i.e. take down v-base ack and get troops into the v-base maproom, rather than having to take down the town for a white flag?
If the town is close, and surrounds the v-base, it would kind of negate the 18-lbers. They slew so slowly that they must be able to see an enemy approaching from a distance; if the enemy just suddenly popped out of the town onto the v-base at close range the 18 lber would be less useful. But if the town did not surround the v-base then wouldn't attackers just avoid the town? I guess the other possibility is have the town near but separate from the v-base and use the airfield capture criteria, i.e. white flag the town and get troops into the town maproom. In this case, if the town had no defensive ack, wouldn't it be too easy to milkrun v-bases?
Well, you will still be able to fight in towns, since all air bases have them. However, I, for one would hate to see this extended to vBases for the reasons previously stated.
MH
-
There are always 2 ways to look at everything, and so is the case here as well. I like the idea of an added dimension of a town near or associated with a v-base. I don't think the current town we have with full ack is right for the job, but I also believe that a ackless town is pointless as well. My take on it would be something along the lines of perimeter ack, less hedge rows, more buildings! Also several different layouts would be cool as well, but also probably a lot of work to create.
I would like to see one with a river or stream between the base and the town with destroyable bridges..... That could be interesting especially with a properly laid out spawn point. I think it would make for some great knock down drag em out fights...
I like the idea of having to white flag a town before a v-base take, yet leave the maproom at the v-base I feel is a must!
As it is, a town is really no big deal to de-ack and knock down to white flag, and if properly executed, a v-base is not all that big a deal either. The 2 combined would make for a new dimension to the game, and if placed strategically on the maps with well placed spawns, I think it would make for some pretty cool ground pounding.... Especially with some well placed terrain features (i.e. hills, water, landscape, and destructible buildings) I have always felt that some of the barns and houses that are randomly placed on the maps, should have a %age of them that can be destroyed,
Just my $.02
:salute
-
Manable town Ack?? Is that a good idea
-
Just get rid of the flags. Flags have killed the game. Give us strategy instead. Deep thinking strategy so we get rid of the early war perk farming and so that there is always a way to stop the map resets. Force people to fight to win instead of hide and sneak and camp. Maps should be hard to reset and not easy.
-
Sometimes I wonder if people explaining the game are actually playing it...
-
There is practically zero relationship between how we implement the AH strategic game and historical WWII operational or strategic reality. As I mentioned in another post, the purpose of the AH strat game is to add game play interest and facilitate individual fights between aircraft (and latterly GVs).
Now if you support towns for vBases because you think it would make the game more fun, then I could respect that. But arguing for it on the basis of historical realism indicates that you need to buy a few history books. No offense intended. ;)
Well yes it would be more fun to be a little more historically accurate in terms of combat "routine" and strat objectives................
clearly there is considerable role play in the game and (with the overriding principle in place that it has to add fun) enhancing game play should follow history where ever it can be applied positively IMO.
and I have plenty of history books..............
re caldera's point I would fully concurr that towns might be better further from airfields but added to be close to gv fields............. gv spawns would target towns and so not approach air fields.......... air fields would have a single gv spawn to its town..................
capture battle is moved further away from the airfield
air fields have no offencive gv role
gv fields are close to towns so spawns join towns to each other across the map
OK it wont kill off air fields being horded, porked and "over" capped but it would reduce the tendancy. IMO it would draw battle away from the air field and place it over a town............ some of which would have GV fields attached
for the rest leave the town as it is.................it's pretty neat compared to where AH started from in terms of towns and capture IMO
-
Would we still capture airfeilds? And if so what will be the capture mechanism? Flatten the base in one pass while never letting defenders off the feild then drop troops? Other wise NOE missions to capture a town next to a GV base will succeed almost 100% of the time.
The airfeild and town capture relationship promotes the large congregation of plane to plane combat in a small area while ensuring all of the tools for a reasonable defence are on hand. It's simple and dosent require the majority of players to spend time watching the map for signs of an NOE to a town 10 miles away with the hopes enough players can get scrambled and at combat alt in time.
If you add to the GV base capture its own local town, then it will be steam rolled by carpet bombing lancs unless you increase auto ack density and lethality to super levels. If you pull the town out between airfileds and GV bases with spawns to have hide and seek fights. NOE missions will show up before a sufficient air defence can be mustered and flatten the town and your GV hide and seek fight.
Or do you really need a new class of town, factory and structure objects to which you can create custom towns that are GV battle freindly on a micro grid and plop them into maps next to or between GV bases? All buildings are destoryable for the immersion factor but, you don't capture it to win anything. You can blow a big hole through a building to see the tank hiding in the street behind it.
Just use it for GV furballing on a cross roads between major feilds and put up with tank busting jocks in their Ju's and Il's. With a custom town creator for tank furballs you can plop down a small city with roads between two close GV bases and fight through the rubble or flank the whole thing to capture either feild. Think Stalingrad but the buildings auto rebuild every 20-30 minutes.
-
Sometimes I wonder if people explaining the game are actually playing it...
I realize I posted a rather incomplete thought but I can elaborate in more detail. This indefensable town concept is only going to make vehicle fields easier to capture and we do not need easier at all. Instead I would like to make fields uncapturable unless there is a fight over it. Say a certain amount of kills or percentage of kills for that sector to one team or another or a completely dominant flattening of the base over a longer period of time. Smash and grab is too easy and the flags even though they are a good indicator are part of the simplicity problem.
-
Manable town Ack?? Is that a good idea
how about my idea man-able town ack
-
Smash and grab is too easy and the flags even though they are a good indicator are part of the simplicity problem.
Base/Town captures with the flag addition are far more difficult than it had been for like 90% of AH's history. Far less fields get captured since the new towns were introduced, both in absolute numbers as well in relatives (captures per manhour played, captures per individual pilot.The belated introduction of the flag changed thad only by a small margin. Bases change ownership much rarer than they had for most of the time AH is running, including the often cited "golden age".
Just get rid of the flags. Flags have killed the game.
The flags hadn't changed anything to the worse.
-
I got to do some fighting in the town and I wish they had these towns at vbases. I remember the towns didnt have ack at first. given the nature of how hidden the acks are id prefer a town without acks for vbases since they are rediculously hard to find for ground vehicles.
the towns are just plain fun.
GVing in the strat cities is awesome fun too... so many bridges, buildings, factories, roads, hiding places, etc... :x
-
Base/Town captures with the flag addition are far more difficult than it had been for like 90% of AH's history. Far less fields get captured since the new towns were introduced, both in absolute numbers as well in relatives (captures per manhour played, captures per individual pilot.The belated introduction of the flag changed thad only by a small margin. Bases change ownership much rarer than they had for most of the time AH is running, including the often cited "golden age".
The flags hadn't changed anything to the worse.
Wrong. We have three sectors worth of cons at every field capture. I dont remember seeing that when I started playing. I can see that since the hangar count and gun count has increased for vehicle fields that captures would go down but the gangs (hordes) have increased since it became capture the flag. Small maps are often times reset in a matter of hours.
-
Wrong. We have three sectors worth of cons at every field capture. I dont remember seeing that when I started playing. I can see that since the hangar count and gun count has increased for vehicle fields that captures would go down but the gangs (hordes) have increased since it became capture the flag. Small maps are often times reset in a matter of hours.
Why would the flags have increased the hordes?
What increases the need to have a horde is making the capture more difficult. The flags made it easier, trying to rectify the huge increase in capture difficulty by the introduction of the new towns. That worked only to a small extend.
Small maps are often times reset in a matter of hours.
As did they before we got the new towns. Far more base captures both absolute and relatively, quicker basetakes and more won wars.
-
Man-able Town ack will solve the problem why am i ignored :cry
-
Recently Hitech expressed a point about simplicity and focusing on that going forward. Complexity dosen't get used in this game if players have to expend too much effort.
Simplifying the capture system again at first would see maps rolled because we are currently geared to do everthing as hoards just to take feilds. But, with time as small groups of players discovered they could take bases without the need of 30 freinds again. Human nature would cause small groups of players to spawn more small actions spread out while coinciding with large actions to take advantage of the general focus on the big darbar to sneak bases on the quick under the cover of the large action.
Granted this would create a different kind of Whack-A-Mole game akin to the early days of the old style towns. But, simplifying base capturing would reduce the emberassing spectical of knights (from my perspective) spending hours blowing the timing every 30-45 minutes on a small airfeild capture while being picked by an eveh higher hoard of enemy fighters who won't come down and fight. We have become so dysfunctional and lazy at base taking, no one bothers to attempt interdiction against the nearest airfeild spawning the high altitiude hideing fighter hoard. The planning for that is too complex and removes a few fighters from the safety and conveinience of the base vulching hoard.
Heck, knights wont de-ack unless it's a mission and FBDred orders them for fear of not having enough 20mm left to vulch easy kills. This is one of the kinds of dysfunction long drawn out stalemate base capture attempts with hoards devolves our game culture to. We become timid looking for easy kills. As always there are exceptions to this. But, even they must be getting tired of this timid "herring shoal" centric style of ACM currently in vogue.
The current hoard needed to mill around trying to take a small airfeild for hours is producing a secondary negative effect of higher altitiude fighter hoards not willing to mix it up, and never learning ACM skills beyond the HO or picking and running. This is with exception for the squads and individuals who know how to run fighter sweeps and want to mix it up with the lower enemies playing fudgeball with the feild ack for hours.
Our current capture process seems to produce stalemates and a propencity for fighters flying around with altitiude timidly avoiding the fight unless numbers are on their side. In response it favors organised fighter sweeps to push them to the deck and kill them but, the organisational part of that begins to reach the complexity problem opposed to simply being able to just up and get into fights. On any given night the 20 or so guys willing to scrum it up in the bushes in the MA are the same 20 or so guys who regularly try to kill each other in the DA for the most part. Thye are always the exception to the general rule of MA play culture.
I know, just fly stright and level. Eventualy that high hoard will come down all 12 of them versus you. By that point Fester and his 262 coalt aginst my Poni is a fairer fight.
-
Why would the flags have increased the hordes?
What increases the need to have a horde is making the capture more difficult. The flags made it easier, trying to rectify the huge increase in capture difficulty by the introduction of the new towns. That worked only to a small extend.
As did they before we got the new towns. Far more base captures both absolute and relatively, quicker basetakes and more won wars.
No. The reason we have hordes is because the mentality of players in AH now is to go in low and attack one ack and auger. If you see a plane vulch it. And by all means knock the dar down so they dont know we are coming even though three sectors of cons are already overhead. Its not about flying. Its about using a cartoon device to get from A to B and fire everything you have at C. Occasionally this style of play mutates into someone capable of going from A to B while gaining something called altitude and HOing the first airplane they see. If they live then they return to A as soon as possible and if not then thats been taken care of and its time to repeat. If they get shot but dont die its time to dive to the deck so that their friends can have an easy lunch. Bombers come in now at 3k and fighters at 5-8k. No need for altitude because they have enough bombers to lose half and still kill the field and town. The fighters can protect the bombers long enough to accomplish the smash and grab. To stop the smash and grab you have to dive into sixty planes or more and get the goon before he drops but wait! There are four to six goons so just dont bother.
I dont know what game you are playing but it isnt AH.
-
No. The reason we have hordes is because the mentality of players in AH now is to go in low and attack one ack and auger. (...)
I said "What increases the need to have a horde is making the capture more difficult." I didn't say anything about other possible or probable reasons. Don't try to put things in my mouth.
It all started with your statement "flags have killed the game". All my staements and explanations are targeted at that single statement, which is totally incorrect. Flags have not changed the game at all. As I pointed out before, they had just made cpaturing an arifield a tad easier, which was made much more difficult by the new towns a few tours before. That was, in some way, a 'game changer'. That massively reduced the base captures, and the introduction of the flags was just a minor(!) corrective to that effect. Even with the flags, we have much less base captures than we had all the years up to the introduction of the new towns.
The flag was just a minor corrective without any direct impact on game culture and gameplay compared to all the years before.
-
I've been seeing wirbelwinds taking down all the town ack from just outside of town lately.
The problem with this is that the wirbs had line of sight to only one ack and the rest were on the other side of the hill.
I was parked in a tank 100 feet from the wirb and noticed he was shooting lower than the height of the rise in town and just traversing back and forth as all the ack came down in short order.....even the ones on the other side of the rise.
-
Our previous style of town was very simple to take down by one or two players because the simplicity of the town lent itself to a formulaic by the numbers quick destruction procedure. The old town was well ordered in it's layout on a grid. This new town dosen't take much time to drop by 20% if the effort by a group of players is intense, organised and concentrated into a short interval. If not, it becomes a stalling point allowing at times a minimal defensive effort by small numbers to stave off a superior number of attackers for hours. But, it generates combat. Stagnent combat.
The realism and complexity of the new town and the subsiquent stalling out of attacks against it may have been HTC's original purpose in the thought of generating combat as a result of the stalemate. At first requiring the whole town down just overwhelmed the community and made the town unusable as a capture object. Reducing the percentage of town down and introducing the flag made it a functional part of the capture process. But, the organisational requirments and force size for a rapid take down then capture equivalent to the old town, makes the new town a game flow choke point more so than even if it's an eyecandy wonder and good for tank ambushes.
It still needs a hoard, even if it's a small hoard to overcome the ease to which the new towns can stall an action. Which dosen't promote smaller actions all across the fronts as much against multiple bases as did the old style of town. You don't see the same kind of rapid town kiling and capture experts as were constantly dropping towns when the old style towns were in the game. You see mostly large stalled darbars across three fronts unless one country super hoards to roll the map. Or a squad late night milk runs undefended feilds.
--------------------------------------
The amount of time spent stalled out across fronts does not give newer players the feeling they can head off on their own and attack anything with any success. How did the vTards come about if you think about it? With the old style of town you saw groups of summer and school vacation kids putting together kiddy squads and bragging about taking feilds and how easy it was to drop the town. SOAR comes to mind. A very simple way to get positive feedback in a hurry playing this game as a newbie who may stick around and become it's future. And granted late night milk running a country single handedly with two freinds taking feilds was obscene some times. But, they felt like it could be accomplished. With this new town suddenly you have to become a bomber expert, not a weekend player having fun with his freinds for a few hours.
But, complexity can kill this golden goose over time as well as gamey simplicity. People are paying to play this game to achive their goals not those dictated to them by the illuminati game play geniuses of this forum or the fly boy supermen of the DA. Long periods of stalled fronts with fewer feilds being captured does not give newer players positive feed back and encourage them to keep exploring the possibilites of what they can accomplish in this game environemnt as individuals. It makes them cautious and timid which which makes hoards. Not everyone is motivated by challenging Fester in the air or Dr7 in tanks. The only other accomplishment availabel is capturing bases which exposes that kind of player to Fester and Dr7 with half a chance of making themselves happy by capturing the feild in spite of either hot player.
-----------------------------------------------
A simple test of this would be to have TT again or Fri at 16:00 to Mon at 00:01. For that time reduce the town required down percentage to 10-15%. Increase the town white flag time by 5-10 minutes longer. Upon town capture keep the town and airfeild auto ack down for 5-10 minutes. Then see after a few tours if more small actions and base captures start taking place across the fronts with less hoarding or stalled hoards. At the very least on TT you could coun't on more map resets which would mean more people determined to attack things across the map than stalled on it by virtue of the easy town kills. You might get bomber squads again specialising in long flights along fronts dropping towns, VH, ords and troops and a regular reason to sit around at 20k in a 410 with the BK5 or a Ta152.
The current town may well be the reason for the stalled hoards and the need for squad sized actions these days to accomplish anything from capturing that town to suppressing the defending hoards of fighters. Then late night why so many scatter around the map or do pitched GV fights and ignore airfeilds and their towns unless they ahve numbers or total arena numbers are really low.
Still wonder why several different size or types of towns were not created for the different sizes of airfeilds to reflect the complexity of de-acking and disabling the associated airfeilds. And then have some logical relationship of airfeild size to map control and war win reset importance. See how easy it is to get complex?