Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: Tank-Ace on July 31, 2013, 01:56:35 PM
-
A post by Lusche got me thinking about the war win requirements. The current system seems flawed, in that it values all bases equally, regardless of size, location, or type. Lusche said he was toying with the idea of a big, main objective that is needed to win the war, but couldn't think of a way to make it work with 3 countries. The benefits would be a more clearly defined 'front', and that it REQUIRES you to fight both sides at once, as a single well-planned NOE sneak could effectively cost you the 'war'. Thus it would help alleviate the problems of finding fights during off-hours, and of two countries ignoring each other, because all the 'action' is on the other front.
The issue is that once you take one country's main base, the war-win players on the other country will drop all combat with that first country, and swarm to defend their main base. This would create a relative lack of combat for the first country, and would probably slow down the rotation of maps by a significant degree (literally, the enemy knows exactly where you're going, and how you have to get there).
So what I was thinking is that we could sort of merge the two systems. Instead of one main base, there would be a number of objectives scattered across each country, and you need to take two of each to win the map. There would be more lenient requirements about controlling your own bases, say drop it back to 70% of your own bases, as opposed to 80%.
This would help channel the fights during off-hours (due to a limited number of war-win targets), while still encouraging combat among all sides, at all times. You would still have the potential to win the map, even if you're "losing".
-
perhaps a "berlin" style take? make 1 "mega base hq style" thing 2nd should be elimination of strats?
-
I like it +1 to tankace :P
-
I like em both :aok
-
72 General Forums / Wishlist / Re: Strat perks on: September 24, 2012, 01:00:41 AM
In my opinion strats need to be an important part in winning the war, make it that the opposing countries city has to be down under say 40% and keep the minimum bases required in order for a win.
My fame suit is on.
Reply Quote Notify
This was an idea i had in another thread, instead of keeping the current percentages of bases owned the same, do like the OP suggested and drop them a bit.
-
this war win mentality IS flawed,simply because there is a large number of pilots that dont care if the war is even won.....they want a GV spawn for gv's to fight at all day long(and not get bombed), and there are bomber pilots that just want to bomb and sink stuff and dont care to join a planned attack...and then there are fighter sticks that just want to furball. and so when numbers are low in arena's,you still have the same problem...no mission makers,or no mission joiners.sometimes we have this same problem when the arena is full simply because there is an 85 like spawn on the map. not all spawn will flash a base,and gv's dont show up on radar. you can have 40 guys fighting it out and not be on radar and one base flashing......and on the other front 40 guys in the air spread all over the place making multiple bases flash....it could be even numbers...but it looks totally different. and then there are those guys that keep saying that because so and so shot them down or killed them...then somehow they have a cheat...and they say it all the time....and then ofcourse we also have the players that go on and on about how great their side is because they are taking a bunch of bases in a row...but dont stop to look at the fact that they go in a large group to a base where there are no defenders and usually have a 30-50 players advantage to boot,LOL. some of these same players also go on and on about how their ENY is so high(because they have 30-50 extra palyers) and they cant fly their 5 eny plane. the point here is, everybody pays their money and plays the way they want to play...as it should be. some just want a good fight and dont care about stategy or winning the war.
-
I think the Race for the Flag / Capital is a viable option.
I agree that a base loss count is less relevant than a capital loss
I would like to see the use of depots or rail yards as some refer to them as the logistical targets away from the central strat zone. I would like to see depots actually work in as much as their attrition/loss removes/reduces the prospect of auto resupply to the bases they would normally feed.
Once a number of connecting towns (to a depot) have been captured then the depot also becomes vulnerable to capture. Depots would have map rooms and some town buildings. These connecting towns should not be confused with zones of supply.
In this respect I would change the local model radically.
Towns would be come even more focal. All fields, Ports, GV Fields, Air fields would be logistically linked to towns which in turn are logistically "linked" to depots.
Towns would be capturable as they are now. However capturing a town would not capture a field..... instead it returns the field status to capturable and denies the field any further automated logistics (stuff does not rebuild) until the town (or the field) is returned to the same country as each other.
All towns are supplied by depots but the zone of supply would be very large and overlap the zones of other depots. All towns will be capable of supply from two or three depots. Border towns will be linked to both friendly and enemy depots but only supplied by friendly depots. The zones would also cause depots to be resupplied by other friendly depots on the edges of their zones.
As above if all depots supplying a town are lost or severely damaged then the town will not rebuild...... neither will the field it supports.
In this way land grab is focused upon the capture of town and depots. Encirclement via capture cuts off logistics to isolated fields leading to their rapid loss.
As towns are captured close to the capital it too becomes vulnerable to capture. The capital however enjoys several (ac & GV) fields linked to it. These then remain in the possession of the capital until the war is lost.
All fields and towns can be player resupplied. So whilst an enemy field may be dead it can be resurrected by the enemy if it is not captured. Individual field capture becomes a two stage process. (capture town & capture field) but the 2nd stage is somewhat rapid whilst giving the defenders a recovery position.
Focussing stuff over towns removes combat / attrition focus from airfields reducing the benefits of total airfield attrition until after the town is captured.
Whilst individual town & field capture is a little slower the ability to capture large sectors thru encirclement accelerates the pace of the "war". This risk of encirclement / logistic loss to large areas focusses combat in those areas threatening it. Capturing two depots with over lapping zones would have serious consequences to the towns supplied within the zones.
Single massive horde like attempts to roll up the map directly toward the capital risk being cut of them selves if they rely on only one thread of capturable depots to supply the fields they have captured. The whole incursion could be lost or seriously limited by the loss of one depot.
So we have a race for the flag type system that can focus combat and produce drama with respect to massive incursion or targeted defence whilst removing focus away from the airfield towards and over towns and depots, with presumably a big battle at the end as the capital is threatened.
-
Instead of a flat percentage of bases needed from each side you could make it a points total. So for instance the bases could be worth:- port or CV = 1 pt, V base = 2 pts, small field = 3 points, mid base = 4 points and big base = 5 points. So a country would have to get XX points worth of bases off each of the other sides without losing more than XX points worth of its own to win the war. The points required could be adjusted for each map.
Doing it this way HTC could nominate one or more rear bases per side to have a very high points score, say 30 points. There would be an extra option on the map to indicate which bases these are. These would then become strategic targets for the opposing sides concentrating the attacking and defending players together. Maps that tend to stick around too long could get more high value bases.
The benefit of this approach is it does not involve making new maps, it just needs a few FE and host adjustments. The problem with it is with asymmetrical maps like Mindanao where some sides might have more high scoring targets in reach than others, however that map is hardly fair now.
-
Instead of a flat percentage of bases needed from each side you could make it a points total. So for instance the bases could be worth:- port or CV = 1 pt, V base = 2 pts, small field = 3 points, mid base = 4 points and big base = 5 points. So a country would have to get XX points worth of bases off each of the other sides without losing more than XX points worth of its own to win the war. The points required could be adjusted for each map.
Doing it this way HTC could nominate one or more rear bases per side to have a very high points score, say 30 points. There would be an extra option on the map to indicate which bases these are. These would then become strategic targets for the opposing sides concentrating the attacking and defending players together. Maps that tend to stick around too long could get more high value bases.
The benefit of this approach is it does not involve making new maps, it just needs a few FE and host adjustments. The problem with it is with asymmetrical maps like Mindanao where some sides might have more high scoring targets in reach than others, however that map is hardly fair now.
This I like, it's simple, easy to keep track of, adjustable, and interesting for game play. HTC, "Make it so!"
....Please :D
-
Instead of a flat percentage of bases needed from each side you could make it a points total. So for instance the bases could be worth:- port or CV = 1 pt, V base = 2 pts, small field = 3 points, mid base = 4 points and big base = 5 points.
(...)
The benefit of this approach is it does not involve making new maps, it just needs a few FE and host adjustments.
This is exactly the system I proposed as well few years ago, and for the very same reasons. While I would prefer the "big single target" to push for, I have found no ways to make it work with the three side setup, nor with he current set of maps.
And while I don't know how the chances are for a change like this, I'd guess anything requiring a major redesign of all terrains has a "when hell freezes over" chance of implementation...
A point system would have another advantage it still allows for all kinds of gameplay, for example armored offensives along a chain of Vbases, because they would still contribute.
-
I am confused. What do you consider a "Main base".
HiTech
-
Larger capturable bases close to the HQ equidistant from borders?
-
I am confused. What do you consider a "Main base".
HiTech
Maybe like the former "zone base" we use to have?
-
I am confused. What do you consider a "Main base".
HiTech
Sorry sir, I was having trouble coming up with fitting terminology.
Let's just call the objectives needed for war win "objective bases".
So basically you need to capture 2 objective bases from each side, and control 70% of your own bases in order to win the war. With the 2 base requirement, these bases would have to be fairly large, and difficult to take, and a challenge to get to.
An idea I was toying with would be to use the FlaK tower structure as the only object that has to be destroyed to capture the base. Set it to need something like 60,000 lbs of ordnance to destroy. These would be placed roughly midway between the stats and the 'front'. Attach a medium airfield to it.
Or we could go with a "super base" type of setup. Say flack tower with hardness set at something like 100,000lbs of ordnance, with an attached vehicle base and two large airfield. Put them very close to, or right on the front, use it to generate massive fights.
Something I just thought of with the former setup; they would be a great incentive for people to hop in bombers, and give the interceptor crowd a more reliable source of combat. Additionally, they would be magnets for B-29's, as they would be the only bomber capable of destroying it on their own, as well as the relative lack of FlaK, and distance from 163 bases.
-
I am confused. What do you consider a "Main base".
HiTech
Any base with at least three brothels nearby would be considered a main base by my squadron.
-
I can see potential. I fly late and would support something that would boost finding action. There is always something going on, but its log off time for many so there's a lot of wasted time investigating possible fights that turn out to be a bust.
I see a lot of the base taking suggestions as being like trying to solve a cat herding problem by chasing the spotted ones first instead of the striped ones, but something like this could be a plus.
-
I would suggest that the condition for winning the war be based on victory points from the other countries. Here are some ideas on how to get victory points:
Base captures
I would make the different bases worth different amounts as has been described. It would add a new dimension to the base captures if other modifiers could be incorporated. For example, capturing a base deep inside the enemy territory should be worth more than capturing the one surrounded by your bases. Maybe a modifier could factor in the ratio of the next closest enemy to friendly base. Maybe the bases could become worth more points the closer to the capital. What if there was a bonus (or reduction) based on the number of players that do damage prior to the capture. Capture the base with a small group and earn more victory points. Blast the base with a mob and don't get as many. Maybe there is a bonus if the base is captured when all damage is done with GVs only. Etc, etc.
Strategic targets
Maybe in addition to the current system, bombing the strat targets earns victory points toward winning the war.
Other
What if fighting in general earned victory points. What if shooting down planes, or destroying gvs, or bombing non strategic targets earned a small victory point for each. The argument some make to the furballers and campers is that they aren't helping to win the war. What if they were earning points toward the war.
The winning country could be the first to earn so many points from each of the other countries.
-
I definitely like the idea of having to knock the strats (or even just the city) down below a certain percentage to win.
More strat raids!!!
-
Guys, remember KISS. Keep it simple, stupid.
The one thing I don't like about awarding bases a point value is that the bases really are strewn pretty randomly across the map. There's no logical pattern, and it would ignore position. It would also do nothing to make low-number fights easier to find, or increase bomber sorties, etc. Additionally, it would be far easier to game than my proposed system, as are most systems that simply modify an existing setup in an attempt to control behavior.
While it could have merit on a map built for the system from the ground up, as it stands, its just a new flavor on the old system.
However, needing to bomb either strats or the city is a decent idea.
-
Guys, remember KISS. Keep it simple, stupid.
The one thing I don't like about awarding bases a point value is that the bases really are strewn pretty randomly across the map. There's no logical pattern, and it would ignore position. It would also do nothing to make low-number fights easier to find, or increase bomber sorties, etc. Additionally, it would be far easier to game than my proposed system, as are most systems that simply modify an existing setup in an attempt to control behavior.
While it could have merit on a map built for the system from the ground up, as it stands, its just a new flavor on the old system.
However, needing to bomb either strats or the city is a decent idea.
OHHH OHH OHH! *waves hand frantically* I has an idea I does I does!
Each base we have now would have resources attached to it, be it destructible (like I mentioned in another thread of factories tied to each base and such) OR, they just have that value 'built in'.
So each base has specific resources with it, we shall assume built in.
Lets say you need 10 large 8 medium 5 small 4 Vbases and 3 ports per side at the start
And in order to win you need 2 ports 2-3 Vbases 3+ small 6 medium and 6-7 large bases. (maybe smaller, just throwing out numbers here)
Once you reach the amount of resources required on both sides, WALA you have won da warz.
Each base has resources unique only to that type of field, so (for example) if you need pizza to win the war, then you need to take a large airfield because they are the only field who has pizzas.
Make sense? It's simple, it is easy, and I like pizza. So there.
Acceptable?
Tinkles
<<S>>
P.S. This way we wouldn't have 'the random base grabbing that we do today. Right now it's steam roll, if they are 'linked' (linked = having a GV spawn into it) then that base is steamrolled. With this, it would make it so that you have to hit specific targets 'strategically' and be effective, because you must get those bases to get the resources in order to win the war.
Another thought just hit me, if you have too much of a specific resource then you should be penalized for it. Now if you need 15% and you have 16-17% then that isn't a big deal, but if you have say 20%+, then there is an issue, as to what the penalties will be.. HTC would have to decide which bases would have what resources and what the percentages would be for all that.
Pretty much it would be a complete overhaul of the war system and how it is won. Somethings easier than others, but I think it would work. At least if you are penalized for having too much of one resource we won't see steamrolling so much anymore, because you could possibly get penalized for it!
Also, just like right now how many bases the enemies have, it would show how many resources the enemies have, that way players would have a reason to defend that one base because of the resources linked to it.
Just my thoughts.
-
Wow mates! I think a few of ya are over thinking this game. Just fly around and shoot other planes down, it is a lot of fun.
-
This suggestion is only going to make hordes bigger. Hordes are bad, I think we all agree on that.
This is just another idea that is like many others that have come in over the last few years. The numbers online will only go down further.
-
I agree that the steam rolling mob is bad, but that is about the best way to win the war as it is currently setup. The goal of my suggestions is to offer more ways to win the war without resorting the current approach.
-
I agree that the steam rolling mob is bad, but that is about the best way to win the war as it is currently setup. The goal of my suggestions is to offer more ways to win the war without resorting the current approach.
...but why offer more ways to win? After all it has been proven that horde missions are the best way to grab a base. As long as they can build a horde they WILL use it.
What's got to be done is something that makes the horde less appealing as a mission. I'm not saying to eliminate the horde, just to make it harder to use it. If 10 guys can take a base, 20 should have work twice as hard to do it. This way if you want to horde, by all means go ahead, but if they have to work harder at it defenders might have a better chance to defend against them.
-
This suggestion is only going to make hordes bigger. Hordes are bad, I think we all agree on that.
This is just another idea that is like many others that have come in over the last few years. The numbers online will only go down further.
Hordes = more targets, which in my opinion alot of people who play this want to shoot "red guys", so it should be win/win for them
-
Fugitive, my reasoning (which is probably flawed) was that if there are ways to help win the war besides capturing bases in the current manner, that it might encourage more diverse game play. If the amount of points earned in a base capture could be reduced if captured by a large mob (for example), then perhaps there would be more smaller ones. If you could earn points toward a victory by bombing the strats, then maybe some people that might otherwise have joined the large mission to capture a base might attack the strats instead.
-
If possible, I'd like to keep discussion about the central objective / objective bases.
At the very least argue the merits of your points system over my proposed objective system.
And challenge, was that comment directed at me, or at tinkles/fox?
-
Hordes = more targets, which in my opinion alot of people who play this want to shoot "red guys", so it should be win/win for them
I agree that if you are looking for easier kills that finding the mob is a good place to start. I disagree with what you said next, which I think is your way of implying that people will go to the horde in large numbers. In my experience that is exactly what does NOT happen. If you want to shoot players in larger numbers you need to slow down the "capture the map" mentality, but to do that the game will need something to attract large numbers of players in some other form of combat.
THE main problem (as I see it) is that combat in AH is usually combat in one area, and then succeed or fail move to a completely new area and start again. That gets old too fast. I think if the game followed a more tactical pattern that the game would not only attract more players, but it would generate more interesting play. This has already been confirmed with the strat introduction, ironically. To take it further and make the game more successful would require additional elements that AH does not have, as yet. Someone educated and experienced in game theory would be an excellent start.
-
It's amazing to me that no one here on the boards participates in base take hordes except for using them to get kills and yet they are all over the map. I guess that means that those who do not frequent the boards here are guilty of hordeology.
I ignore what is going on in the base taking culture. When I started doing this years ago I found Aces High to be a lot more fun and a lot less frustrating. Every map has blue skies that I can fly in and fight in, that's all that matters to me.
If you don't want to promote hordeology then just don't participate in them.
This is a great game and I love playing it. Patience is the key. An exciting engagement is the reward. If you think about it, if all we ever had was a perfect environment for your type of gameplay, the anticipation of, and the excitement of these engagements would be diminished. As an example, during a high altitude, defensive buff hunt, the investment of time and patience intensifies the reward when you find yourself at the right alt, at the right place, at the right time, in the right plane, with the right skills, as you intercept the buff group before they drop.
-
I post missions, but only about 7 guys. And I quit when it gets to large to manage (ie turns into a horde).
Aside from that, our current strain of viru.... Horders.... are too boring.
The thing about an objective system is that it would kind make the smash and grab hordes irrelevant. If we do like I suggested and make one super object to destroy for capture, they simply cease to work.
Granted it is replaced by the big horde vs horde furball, that's only at the later stages of the map. Realistically, they will have to fight their way perhaps upto 5 sectors in on large maps before taking an objective.
The benefits are that there are that taking bases all along the front becomes impractical, thus any hording away from the objectives doesn't matter a nickels worth. And you can much more easily pork Ord near the objectives, limiting a hordes capabilities.
More bombers will be used, hording is less effective, and there is actually something for the base takers to do that is beneficial for the furballers.
-
Hordes = more targets, which in my opinion alot of people who play this want to shoot "red guys", so it should be win/win for them
Personally, I don't want more "targets" I want more fights!
<snip>
This is a great game and I love playing it. Patience is the key. An exciting engagement is the reward. If you think about it, if all we ever had was a perfect environment for your type of gameplay, the anticipation of, and the excitement of these engagements would be diminished. As an example, during a high altitude, defensive buff hunt, the investment of time and patience intensifies the reward when you find yourself at the right alt, at the right place, at the right time, in the right plane, with the right skills, as you intercept the buff group before they drop.
...and this happens 1-10 times? I just don't have that kind of patience. I get just as big a thrill intercepting a mission, or protecting one and can do that far more often than your example.
I post missions, but only about 7 guys. And I quit when it gets to large to manage (ie turns into a horde).
Aside from that, our current strain of viru.... Horders.... are too boring.
The thing about an objective system is that it would kind make the smash and grab hordes irrelevant. If we do like I suggested and make one super object to destroy for capture, they simply cease to work.
Granted it is replaced by the big horde vs horde furball, that's only at the later stages of the map. Realistically, they will have to fight their way perhaps upto 5 sectors in on large maps before taking an objective.
The benefits are that there are that taking bases all along the front becomes impractical, thus any hording away from the objectives doesn't matter a nickels worth. And you can much more easily pork Ord near the objectives, limiting a hordes capabilities.
More bombers will be used, hording is less effective, and there is actually something for the base takers to do that is beneficial for the furballers.
Why give up your missions when they get big? Spread the attack out! You have people WILLING to run in your missions give them something to do. Attack two bases at the same time. Assign the lead of the second group to someone who you think can handle it and go for two!
Another think I thought might work. Perked missions. HTC loads a number of missions locking the plane types and numbers, ord load outs maybe even fuel, but leave open start stop times, launch bases and so on. You select a mission and get the number of players required pick launch times and bases and select an objective from a number of choices.... capture, pork, so on. Then if you complete the objective you get X amount of perks, if you also RTB a certain percentage of players in the mission everyone gets X amount of perks added on top. Points could be substituted, or "achievements" awarded. Again, another way to make "hordes" less desirable with out taking away the ability to horde if you want.
-
Fug, we were running 3 missions simultaneously by the end of things!
What I'm talking about is when you get guys that go "hey, Jager, I just hit the VH for you. Oh, and I already hit some of town at what I presume is your next target!".
I'm just sitting there on the runway in my 110, thinking "f**k, we're going to have to go in without alt to get there on time!"
That's when I stop rolling missions;when there are too many people working on their own" with us "for me to keep track of, and they start doing their own thing.
-
Slight hijack, but I figured I'd just post it here since it is a "win the war" wish:
Currently, active players are the only ones who receive perk points if their country wins. There are a whole bunch of other people that may fight for a particular country but receive nothing for their country's win if they are not logged on. I ask that when a player logs on for the first time for a new map, the player could select the country he/she would like to fly for that duration. If this selected country wins the map while the player is not logged on, he/she will still be granted the awarded perk points. Now, there are a bunch of players who choose to change countries. If they are logged in for a winning country other than the one they chose at the beginning of the map, they still receive the full perk point award just like we have now. If their selected country wins the map while they are logged into a different country, they will receive half the perk points (a generous award for at one time fighting for the winning country). You have to log on during a map rotation at least once to select your country otherwise you will not be credited with any perk awards. The system will not roll over your selected country loyalty automatically at the beginning of each map. The player will be penalized if he/she is logged off and served for a country other than the selected one during the last time logged in. This will prevent abuse by people who log off from a non-selected country at the last second prior to their selected country winning the map to get the full perk point award. Again, selecting a country will in no way prevent players from changing country loyalty as they choose. As a loyal member of the Bishops, I like the idea of getting some credit (doesn't have to be full credit) for my country winning the map if I at least one time contributed to the win.
Example (1) - I select Bishops as my starting country. Bishops win while I'm either actively fighting for them or logged off the game completely = full perk point award.
Example (2) - I select Rooks as my starting country. I decide to change countries over to the Knights during the map. While actively logged in as a Knight, the Knights win = full perk point award.
Example (3) - I select Knights as my starting country. I decide to change countries over the Bishops during the map. While actively logged in as a Bishop, the Knights win = half perk point award.
Example (4) - I select Bishops as my starting country. Rooks win while I'm actively fighting for the Bishops, Knights or logged off the game completely = no perk point award.
Example (5) - I select Rooks as my starting country. I decide to change countries over to the Bishops at one point in time, but successfully return to the Rooks prior to them winning the map = full perk point award.
Example (6) - I select Knights as my starting country. I decide to change countries over to the Rooks and log off prior to the Knights winning the map = half perk point award.