Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: Lusche on October 09, 2013, 02:00:45 PM
-
... as they are a gameplay paradox - They do not promote combat, they largely prevent it.
Instead of being key bases that are ferociously fought over, they are bases that a reasonable attacker doesn't want to capture and the defender doesn't want to hold - in fact, losing a zone base best thing thing that can happen to one side, as it then can go on conquering the map without having to worry too much about their own starts and thus downtimes of their own towns, ords and so on.
(http://i1145.photobucket.com/albums/o507/Snaildude/zoneparadox_zps4e098378.jpg)
For days, Bish ignored A128 until they won the map
Remove the zone base status from the three large maps and let people fight for them instead of avoiding them! :old:
-
... as they are a gameplay paradox - They do not promote combat, they largely prevent it.
Instead of being key bases that are ferociously fought over, they are bases that a reasonable attacker doesn't want to capture and the defender doesn't want to hold - in fact, losing a zone base best thing thing that can happen to one side, as it then can go on conquering the map without having to worry too much about their own starts and thus downtimes or towns, ords and so on.
(http://i1145.photobucket.com/albums/o507/Snaildude/zoneparadox_zps4e098378.jpg)
For days, Bish ignored A128 until they won the map
Remove the zone base status from the three large maps and let people fight for them instead of avoiding them! :old:
+1 :aok
-
It's hard to argue with logic. +1
-
good wish, bad thread title ;) :aok
(http://media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com/236x/2d/94/7d/2d947d7c12fc7b4cf08a3ccad29a11cc.jpg)
God Bless America! :salute
-
bad thread title
Maybe you could explain?
-
Well, a mix of the old strat system with the current may work. The Capital is in the back, where it belongs, with the old strat's (city, ords, etc.) will be up front. The only zone bases are for control of the outlying strats.
Something like this?
As for the OP, I agree. +1. Using your picture as example, if you removed the current zone system and the nits took 141, nits would be in a position to inflict a LOT of damage to the bish supply lines (even with gv's if someone was willing to take the time and risk). Nits would definitely get some fighting in, but only after some effort was put in as the bish may probably ignore it initially, until the nits have inflicted enough damage for them to feel it. :)
-
+1 make them fight for the protection of the strats.
EatG
-
I agree with leaving the strats up front where they can be hit with Bostons, Ju88's, and other range limited bombers.
On the same note, I wish for a high alt base near the front line strats (6k) that will help the defenders reach the higher altitudes for a legit defense.
-
I'll say +1, even though I honestly don't know what they are even after all these years. I get that if you lose one your strats retreat, don't know if there;s any more to it. I could care less about winning the war but I will occasionally do everything I can to take or defend a base. If it promotes red guys and green guys in the same sector then let the granting commence.
-
Maybe you could explain?
Folks with smarts have to spell titles correctly :D
-
Folks with smarts have to spell titles correctly :D
Unfortunately those who aren't that smart (or are suffering from certain conditions which make correct spelling difficult) have to rely on the spell checker, which doesn't check the thread title... :old:
-
My spell checker is part of my browser so everything I type anywhere is always being spell checked. Of coarse it cant cache sum wards sew I half two get the dictionary out witch is a pane.
-
+1 the whole transporting of the strats has never sat well with me.
There must be another way to give it increased gameplay options whilst not crippling one teams chances by the drive our CV straight to the strats habit.
I guess it is tough because it relies on the actual map and they are all very different!
-
... as they are a gameplay paradox - They do not promote combat, they largely prevent it.
Instead of being key bases that are ferociously fought over, they are bases that a reasonable attacker doesn't want to capture and the defender doesn't want to hold - in fact, losing a zone base best thing thing that can happen to one side, as it then can go on conquering the map without having to worry too much about their own starts and thus downtimes of their own towns, ords and so on.
(http://i1145.photobucket.com/albums/o507/Snaildude/zoneparadox_zps4e098378.jpg)
For days, Bish ignored A128 until they won the map
Remove the zone base status from the three large maps and let people fight for them instead of avoiding them! :old:
Just put all strat in the rear......no country in the real would have their factories on the front lines
-
Just put all strat in the rear......no country in the real would have their factories on the front lines
Um, the issue is a bit bigger then that. ;)
-
There should be a penalty for strats retreating to the rear. Maybe something like all down times are doubled even with strats at 100%?
-
There should be a penalty for strats retreating to the rear. Maybe something like all down times are doubled even with strats at 100%?
We went down this road and it seemed like many were against it and called it the "easy button" way out; that (now, once retreat) for not defending their strats they'd pay even greater penalty :headscratch:
^ maybe he just doesn't like defending and had to find an argument... I would much prefer that a zone base created a non stop combat, as it quite possibly would if the above were implemented.
Anyhow, +1 to the OP if what Latrobe has brought back up is out of the question...
-
How about linking the strats retreat to the territory lost not just certain zone bases? For example the strats retreat when 15% of the whole territory has been lost. It would make the defenders life a little easier in case two countries gang on one until they capture some of the land back. It would be bad IMHO if the location would be in front constantly.
-
There should be a penalty for strats retreating to the rear. Maybe something like all down times are doubled even with strats at 100%?
I like this but I'd suggest adding more to it. Perhaps, a particular base for each strat. Take one base, linked to the strat, then that strat has 5% downtime added across the country, take all 6 strat bases, strats retreat and 10% down time is added to strats across the country. Just a thought...
-
I like this but I'd suggest adding more to it. Perhaps, a particular base for each strat. Take one base, linked to the strat, then that strat has 5% downtime added across the country, take all 6 strat bases, strats retreat and 10% down time is added to strats across the country. Just a thought...
Perhaps make that base that is linked to a strat a large airfield that would be harder to take than other large airfields?
I would be up for this, but the base should have a uniqueness about it so it can't be steamrolled like other bases are but with more of an impact after the fact.
Tinkles
<<S>>
-
+1 to the original wish. Make strats matter or get rid of them altogether.
I've always felt the main problem with the strats is, with the exception of HQ affecting radar, they have little to no impact on the vast majority of players. While one could argue that these are strategic targets and therefore should not have immediate impacts, the reality of game play, I believe, makes this invalid. You never see anybody rush to resupply the refinery, ack factory, etc after they have been bombed because they just don't matter.
I'd like to see a system where attacking strats could impact a country's ability to wage the war. Destroy a tank factory, lose perk tanks for some period of time. Destroy an ordnance factory, lose 1000 pound bombs for some period of time. It doesn't have to be a long time, but it should have a visible benefit for the side which makes a successful attack and a visible detriment to the side which fails to defend.
Regards,
Hammer
-
+1 :aok this:
... as they are a gameplay paradox - They do not promote combat, they largely prevent it.
Instead of being key bases that are ferociously fought over, they are bases that a reasonable attacker doesn't want to capture and the defender doesn't want to hold - in fact, losing a zone base best thing thing that can happen to one side, as it then can go on conquering the map without having to worry too much about their own starts and thus downtimes of their own towns, ords and so on.
Remove the zone base status from the three large maps and let people fight for them instead of avoiding them! :old:
or +1 :aok this:
There should be a penalty for strats retreating to the rear. Maybe something like all down times are doubled even with strats at 100%?
If the Strats retreat there should be such a compelling penalty that it immediately becomes Job #1 to recapture the zone base(s) that caused the retreat.
-
I don't agree.
I don't understand your logic reason? Ohh, you are rook and can't bomb bish strats in safe mode without Me163s in range?Why to eliminate Strat- egy and punish the Bishops for playing smart tactic / steategic? Knights are always playing on the wrong side of the front line without understanding basic % math and strategy.
-
I don't agree.
I don't understand your logic reason? Ohh, you are rook and can't bomb bish strats in safe mode without Me163s in steats range?W
I thought you would have noticed over the past 8 years that I'm not that much affiliated with any particular chesspice or certain playing style (I was a Knight for months, am Rook now and will be Bish next tour). Furthermore, I have plenty of Komet kills over the past year and I am sporting a poitive K/D against them. And I'm the player with most kills in the Me 163 in the current year as well.
My wish has nothing to do with any personal preferences other than I want so see player engaging in battles, not avoiding them. No matter which side they are on.
As explained, the current strats retreat function creates a paradox - Lose bases near them to get an advantage. This is the thing without logic. Usually one would think a side would try to prevent the enemy from gettings near it's strategical center...
-
If the Zbase and strats moving system is eliminated, the strats are going to stay deep behind the front line, same like HQ; why would players engage in battle over this strats if are 4 sectors away?
-
If the Zbase and strats moving system is eliminated, the strats are going to stay deep behind the front line
Who said that?
-
If the Zbase and strats moving system is eliminated, the strats are going to stay deep behind the front line, same like HQ; why would players engage in battle over this strats if are 4 sectors away?
:headscratch:
Why would they do that?
-
If the genius of the strat is to promote visits from bombers so they can gain some perks but, eventually increase field rebuild times up to 120 minutes as a penalty for not defending them adequately. Which I've been there once helping, when 120 minutes was accomplished. The bish were SOL for a very long time that night as the knights dropped hangers. How many fields could your squad capture if It knew all hangers were down for the next 120 minutes for one side?
Ask Hitech to make it take x50 less bombs to reach 100% down for the strat facilities. You guys are fixated on punishing players like this is a 2 sided board game. If you can get the strat down 100% with a few bomber sortie early in the evening. The map is yours every single night you so choose. 120 minutes is real punishment after your bomber guys visit the whole front dropping VH and fighter hangers.
Then all you do is fighter hoard around your bombers to the strat like hoarding airfields. Kill all the defenders and your bombers cripple their country. At some point some of your bombers hit fighter hangers along the strat bomb run path as the down times increase to say 60 minutes.
Hitech does nothing but change a back end value and make a game change announcement.
Attention: Knights if all you care about is furballing beware. I have changed the damage to the strats so it takes x50 less bombs to achieve 100% down. This will mean all of your hangers will take 120 minutes to rebuild.
And we know as the strat goes down, so does the number of M3 and C47 trips goes up to rebuild them. And if your enemy has dropped hangers all around the strat, you get it. Just like AH1 when you could organize 300+ guys to reduce a country down to one field in an hour or so.
-
:confused:
-
:confused:
It's Okay, I didn't understand him either.
Bustr, could you translate your speech for us?
-
Make it take less bombs to flatten the strats.
Say the efforts of 5 bomber boxes in one well aimed pass to a strat.
I know the knights will furball while Rome burns.
And you just drop hangers across their front and roll up their bases because of the extended rebuild time. Though, the bish and rooks might actually put up a fight against each other, for trying to do this to each other. You can revisit the knights strats as needed along with distracting them with phony micro attacks to create furballs.
You want punishment for not fighting. This is punishment for not fighting while your country burns down around you.
The zones and strat are supposed to make the bomber guys happy and promote fighting.
-
Me thinks the Me163 should be available where ever the strats move to.
If they retreat, fine. If they don,t, maybe have an uncapturable base in the vicinity where the forward strats are located so you can up Me163s to defend.
Simple enough!!! :devil
:rock
-
Me thinks the Me163 should be available where ever the strats move to.
If they retreat, fine. If they don,t, maybe have an uncapturable base in the vicinity where the forward strats are located so you can up Me163s to defend.
Simple enough!!! :devil
:rock
^^^this^^^
-
I agree with OP.
:cheers: Oz
-
If the genius of the strat is to promote visits from bombers so they can gain some perks but, eventually increase field rebuild times up to 120 minutes as a penalty for not defending them adequately. Which I've been there once helping, when 120 minutes was accomplished. The bish were SOL for a very long time that night as the knights dropped hangers. How many fields could your squad capture if It knew all hangers were down for the next 120 minutes for one side?
Ask Hitech to make it take x50 less bombs to reach 100% down for the strat facilities. You guys are fixated on punishing players like this is a 2 sided board game. If you can get the strat down 100% with a few bomber sortie early in the evening. The map is yours every single night you so choose. 120 minutes is real punishment after your bomber guys visit the whole front dropping VH and fighter hangers.
Then all you do is fighter hoard around your bombers to the strat like hoarding airfields. Kill all the defenders and your bombers cripple their country. At some point some of your bombers hit fighter hangers along the strat bomb run path as the down times increase to say 60 minutes.
Hitech does nothing but change a back end value and make a game change announcement.
Attention: Knights if all you care about is furballing beware. I have changed the damage to the strats so it takes x50 less bombs to achieve 100% down. This will mean all of your hangers will take 120 minutes to rebuild.
And we know as the strat goes down, so does the number of M3 and C47 trips goes up to rebuild them. And if your enemy has dropped hangers all around the strat, you get it. Just like AH1 when you could organize 300+ guys to reduce a country down to one field in an hour or so.
wat? :headscratch:
This is about keeping the strats to the front, not adjusting the down time to hangers. Make defending the strats a worthy cause. If anything, I think HTC could adjust the zone bases a bit and have only 2-3 bases that are within peein' distance of the strats. Remember, the Soviets were all ready to abandon Moscow and set up manufacturing in the east but it took the enemy to be knockin' on the gates before they moved. On the same token, the Soviets were finishing T34 tanks and rolling them off the assembly line right in to a firefight. So, I have no issues having enemy fields that close to the strats. It is a lot of fun patrolling the skies hunting for loaded down fighters and bombers at lower altitudes. Heck, I think HTC should add a few gv spawns and let tanks duke it out on the edges of the strats. :aok
-
+1 one everthing about capturing zone bases including the 163
-
wat? :headscratch:
This is about keeping the strats to the front, not adjusting the down time to hangers. Make defending the strats a worthy cause. If anything, I think HTC could adjust the zone bases a bit and have only 2-3 bases that are within peein' distance of the strats. Remember, the Soviets were all ready to abandon Moscow and set up manufacturing in the east but it took the enemy to be knockin' on the gates before they moved. On the same token, the Soviets were finishing T34 tanks and rolling them off the assembly line right in to a firefight. So, I have no issues having enemy fields that close to the strats. It is a lot of fun patrolling the skies hunting for loaded down fighters and bombers at lower altitudes. Heck, I think HTC should add a few gv spawns and let tanks duke it out on the edges of the strats. :aok
It seems either get rid of them based on Lusche's analysis. Or based on that, simplify destroying strat so the country in question feels the full weight of the real value to their fun. Everyone was adding a need for consequences to ignoring strat and the combat potential that sort of happens from time to time. Or leave it all alone so that the very slow pain is in force that seems to be management's choice. For how to inflict pain on customers who don't care about the strat's health related to rebuild times from a mechanism like the strat.
It would certainly wake players up like the HQ getting flattened every 30 minutes.
-
It seems either get rid of them based on Lusche's analysis
I'm not sure whos 'analysis' you did read, but for sure it wasn't mine.
-
I went to the source for the reason for zone bases.
It would make the strats effect on fun more relevant if they were a bit easier to flatten. Then zone bases would become relevant.
-
wat? :headscratch:
This is about keeping the strats to the front, not adjusting the down time to hangers. Make defending the strats a worthy cause. If anything, I think HTC could adjust the zone bases a bit and have only 2-3 bases that are within peein' distance of the strats. Remember, the Soviets were all ready to abandon Moscow and set up manufacturing in the east but it took the enemy to be knockin' on the gates before they moved. On the same token, the Soviets were finishing T34 tanks and rolling them off the assembly line right in to a firefight. So, I have no issues having enemy fields that close to the strats. It is a lot of fun patrolling the skies hunting for loaded down fighters and bombers at lower altitudes. Heck, I think HTC should add a few gv spawns and let tanks duke it out on the edges of the strats. :aok
Trying to bomb strats in a ftr is a complete waste of time unless there are several of the ack towers down, poof before you can even say it.
Knights are often defending their strats from nearby bases, when has this happened to Rooks lately? :headscratch:
-
Trying to bomb strats in a ftr is a complete waste of time unless there are several of the ack towers down, poof before you can even say it.
Knights are often defending their strats from nearby bases, when has this happened to Rooks lately? :headscratch:
Oh, I wouldnt say that it is a waste of time taking a heavy fighter to the strats. 1 single P51D can do a lot of damage in one pass. Same goes for the P47D-40. We'll make a single pass through the auto ack and drop everything on 1 factory and then RTB.
All three chess pieces get their turn at getting their strats hit hard, I'm not seeing any one side get any more than the other, really. Actually, I can't remember the last time I hit the Knight strats. However, almost daily I'll hammer the squeakops at least once. :D
-
-10 leave it as it is
On some maps,bumping strats to the rear after porking them will hamper re-supply efforts.
some day the armchair generals will figure this out :rolleyes:
-
-10 leave it as it is
On some maps,bumping strats to the rear after porking them will hamper re-supply efforts.
some day the armchair generals will figure this out :rolleyes:
Repeating this all over the BBS doesn't make it correct though :)
-
Repeating this all over the BBS doesn't make it correct though :)
I cant help it, 2 people post same topic ;)
-
I cant help it, 2 people post same topic ;)
Both topics are quite different, actually. One is about players and their motivations, the other is strictly about the gameplay function :old:
-
You never see anybody rush to resupply the refinery, ack factory, etc after they have been bombed because they just don't matter.
You never see anyone do that because it is mind boggling useless. Taking a box to a particular damaged strat reduces its down time by only 4 minutes out of what can be nearly 100 minutes. Supplying the strats has so little effect you have to be insane to waste your time doing it.
And for the people that seem to enjoy denying the game to others and "punishing" them for not properly defending their strats, how do you handle the causality problem? If I log on and I find my country is laid waste, is this a proper punishment for me for not having defended it before I even existed in the game? And will that cause me to better defend in the past? Can you tell me where I get the time machine to do that please?
-
Oh, I wouldnt say that it is a waste of time taking a heavy fighter to the strats. 1 single P51D can do a lot of damage in one pass. Same goes for the P47D-40. We'll make a single pass through the auto ack and drop everything on 1 factory and then RTB.
All three chess pieces get their turn at getting their strats hit hard, I'm not seeing any one side get any more than the other, really. Actually, I can't remember the last time I hit the Knight strats. However, almost daily I'll hammer the squeakops at least once. :D
Unless if you have already taken out the ack towers (at least some of them,) as I stated, you won't make it to your target in a ftr. If you have been able to repeatedly make it to your target in a ftr, against strats that are 100% and you even survived to rtb, please share your secret with the rest of the community. I've participated in numerous attacks on strats once the cv gunners had their fill of fun. The only way I've ever seen anyone or myself able to be effective against strats is once they've been hit pretty good. What are you talking about, flying a pony at 20k, and dive bombing with your release below the 8.5kagl? If so I'd still doubt you didn't get hit by puffy. I know that is not what you said, but there is no making a single pass through strat ack, unless they're hit...so please share. Furthermore, we have a different definition of a lot of damage I guess; when I do strat runs, ~20% of of 3-4 factories depending on what I'm flying is a minimum I like to see.
All three chess pieces on several maps are not constantly backed up to their strats. If you think the other two have been backed up to their strats lately, than you're not talking about the MA.
-
... as they are a gameplay paradox - They do not promote combat, they largely prevent it.
Instead of being key bases that are ferociously fought over, they are bases that a reasonable attacker doesn't want to capture and the defender doesn't want to hold - in fact, losing a zone base best thing thing that can happen to one side, as it then can go on conquering the map without having to worry too much about their own starts and thus downtimes of their own towns, ords and so on.
Remove the zone base status from the three large maps and let people fight for them instead of avoiding them! :old:
Forgive me Lusche for going to the heart of the process, the strats themselves. Removing the zone base function would be a kindness to players, I guess sticking the strats in one place at the same time. Or is there another "retreat" trigger?Changing the vulnerability to the source of the zone base's ownership would change the importance of the zone bases. Though that would require more players to appreciate the "chess" or "Go" hidden aspects of their contribution to the country they are playing for during their short fun seeking session.
Have we ever attempted to list a realistic breakdown of what is important to players by player density? Would their short term fun related goals top the list per player density? If so, what is it you want the zone bases and strat functions to do to their seeking of short term fun? Is it realistic, and who will ultimately benefit besides the architect getting what he wants? Opposed to improving the ability to seek fun by the majority.
In a way, player fun, zone bases, and strats effect upon that, are describing an economic system style outcome imposed by a central authority. The majority of players are oblivious to it unless you make drastic corrections that ultimately impact their fun. Does this correction really matter to their ultimate fun or the authority?
-
Can anyone dispute that the old zone base system was better? If so. How is the current setup better then the old?
Or how wouldnt what I suggested in the general forums here http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,355005.msg4702503.html#msg4702503 be better then what we have now?
-
Can anyone dispute that the old zone base system was better? If so. How is the current setup better then the old?
Not the zone bases themself, but the important central strats do offer something since last August which has been absent from AH for ages: A high value (in game terms), long range targets for bombers.
-
Not the zone bases themself, but the important central strats do offer something since last August which has been absent from AH for ages: A high value (in game terms), long range targets for bombers.
Could have had that by simply doing what I suggested as opposed to bouncing strats around when a special base is captured and leaving the old Zone style system in place which provided reason for seeking ot attack or defend specific bases.
the only downside to the old system that i saw was the milk running that took place on the local strats which could have been easily addressed by what I also suggested int he link above. you dont want to pork strats you might need to advance. On the other hand if your defending hitting the local depots makes sense. it provides a reason to both attack and defend such targets locally. And the deeper strats would have a greater effect nationally thus making them a desirable target to both attack and defend. People care if Radar is taken out. Few care if strats are hit
-
Be carful with people not caring if strats are hit. If the ability to drop the strats down to "0" was made so easy that it only took say, 12 bomber boxes getting over target to knock them "All" out. Players would more frequently ask each other why it was taking so long for their fighter hanger to come back up. Like that initial shock from discovering just how important a single M3 with base supplies suddenly became to thwarting a town capture. Now looking for M3 or dropping the vehical hanger at the "spawn from" base is SOP to missions. We pay attention these days.
Time frame in this game is very important. If the strats could be taken down completely inside of the 4 hours of prime time. Say during the first 1-2 hours. And the same people could then see frustrated players angry about fighter hangers, along with not being able to defend across a front they are actively bombing down fighter hangers. Strats would become very important.
This would never be considered by HTC, because then the game would be focused on destroying and defending the strats. But, it's not something that would take a game rewrite. Just an arena setting for strat hardness. Proportionally to that, resupply would have to accomplish a bit more per drop. Which might make ambushing resupplyers an important and fun activity. Then the country with the most players would have a real advantage. Attack, defense, and supply would have bodies. While the lower number sides would suffer. As is, yes strats are not important and only attack and defense matter much. Unless Hitech decided to change the game's focus from "Combat Simulator" to "Strategic War Game".
Lately I've seen the impact of very slow rebuild times on the ability to defend, combined with masterful leverage of the dt command. So far I've not seen many realizing the connection between their fun and how resupply of the strats affects them on defense. The bomber guys seem to be the only ones who care with their fighter guys reaping the coincidental benefits of better vulching due to fighter hangers staying down longer.
I'm surprised no one has asked for a resupply delivery multiplier to help low numbers countries make up for the superior effect more players give to bomber operations against strat versus fighter defense. Since this is a combat game and not a strategic war game. I almost wonder if the knights are in the position they are due to player flight to the other countries. With those players not realizing their country change decision is as much due to resource availability effecting their fun?
So in a way. As strats don't really matter to most. Zone bases probably don't either. Unless you make them a painful or highly rewarding fun reality of game play inside of 4 hours of prime time game play. As they are now, an annoying pulled muscle a few times a week that might have slowly helped redefine country populations in the game.
-
Adding another +1 to this since the whining and complaining that I got on country vox for recapturing a Knights field that the Bishop held. Significance? It kept our strats in the rear. God forbid if we had to fight them red guys. :rolleyes: Took it anyway. :devil
-
We do not need zones.
The trigger to move the strats to the rear should be simply the loss of a field inside some radius of the strats, does not matter which.
The logic of moving the strats to the rear is that the other country will not be able to continuously bomb the factories and thus it must be at a minimum distance from an enemy field. That is all.
-
Unless if you have already taken out the ack towers (at least some of them,) as I stated, you won't make it to your target in a ftr. If you have been able to repeatedly make it to your target in a ftr, against strats that are 100% and you even survived to rtb, please share your secret with the rest of the community. I've participated in numerous attacks on strats once the cv gunners had their fill of fun. The only way I've ever seen anyone or myself able to be effective against strats is once they've been hit pretty good. What are you talking about, flying a pony at 20k, and dive bombing with your release below the 8.5kagl? If so I'd still doubt you didn't get hit by puffy. I know that is not what you said, but there is no making a single pass through strat ack, unless they're hit...so please share. Furthermore, we have a different definition of a lot of damage I guess; when I do strat runs, ~20% of of 3-4 factories depending on what I'm flying is a minimum I like to see.
All three chess pieces on several maps are not constantly backed up to their strats. If you think the other two have been backed up to their strats lately, than you're not talking about the MA.
Actually, I'm talking about taking any fighter with any sort of high speed dive capability. Grab an F6F loaded with a pair of 1k bombs, get to 10k, and go on in. The "secret" is to hammer one of the factories on the corner and to dive through with the least amount of auto ack bearing down on you. I dive those targets just like I do if I were diving on ord bunkers on a field. Granted, 50% of the time my plane gets ripped up but I'd say at least half of the dive bomb missions I've done to the ammo factory or AAA factory I've made it home with very little damage. On a very few % of the missions I get caught by ack and enough damage occurs that I dont make it back due to losing a wing, vert stab, etc. I don't remember ever going "puuf" in one those missions unlike floating over top in level bombers at any alt. Nothing says "ouch" like losing a B29 at 30k to puufy ack.
On that note, do the "wild weasel" missions, as we call them, is a lot of fun. We'll send in 2-4 fighters armed with rockets only to hammer ack towers on a certain part of the strat complex, then close behind bring in the 110's, Mossis, or other such dirt movers. Good time.
-
good wish, bad thread title ;) :aok
(http://media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com/236x/2d/94/7d/2d947d7c12fc7b4cf08a3ccad29a11cc.jpg)
God Bless America! :salute
I wonder if this post would be any funnier if Lusche was from America, instead of Germany, or if English was his primary language :headscratch:
-
Bustr,
To clarify, strats don't affect hangars. The downtime for fighter hangars is always 15 minutes no matter how bad strats are down. Strats do affect Ammo bunkers, Ack, Radar, Troops and Supplies rebuild times.
-
I am not the only one that would like to see the old strat spawns be put back in use, while I can see the reason to have the main factories around the Capital/IC, now I would like to see the amount of supplies available be variable as to the total condition of the strats, and if those that are in outlying areas are still in our hands and are able to produce the needed supplies, I would also like to see a change that if those that are new take some time to fly said supplies out to the areas needed reduceing the time some bases are 'damaged', limited in the ability to conduct full combat missions.
looking forward to your input as to this idea!.
1WILDCAT over/out
-
Actually, I'm talking about taking any fighter with any sort of high speed dive capability. Grab an F6F loaded with a pair of 1k bombs, get to 10k, and go on in. The "secret" is to hammer one of the factories on the corner and to dive through with the least amount of auto ack bearing down on you. I dive those targets just like I do if I were diving on ord bunkers on a field. Granted, 50% of the time my plane gets ripped up but I'd say at least half of the dive bomb missions I've done to the ammo factory or AAA factory I've made it home with very little damage. On a very few % of the missions I get caught by ack and enough damage occurs that I dont make it back due to losing a wing, vert stab, etc. I don't remember ever going "puuf" in one those missions unlike floating over top in level bombers at any alt. Nothing says "ouch" like losing a B29 at 30k to puufy ack.
On that note, do the "wild weasel" missions, as we call them, is a lot of fun. We'll send in 2-4 fighters armed with rockets only to hammer ack towers on a certain part of the strat complex, then close behind bring in the 110's, Mossis, or other such dirt movers. Good time.
Sounds like good info there. I'll try the solo run sometime. Thanks.
-
Not just a bump, but an additional argument to my cause.
The already described paradoxial and non-combat promoting zone base effect also leads to more, very unfortunate actions.
Knights had taken a Bish zone base, which retreated far away and into Me 163 territory, thus being largely safe from bombing. Nothing new so far... but:
Some Knights jumped to Bish side and first took the Bish zone base back (moving the strats back to the front) and then captured a Knight zone base (of course unopposed), triggering Knight strat retreat. Both with the clear and obvious intention of hurting the side they are flying on as much as possible. And there is nothing any Bishop could do about
(http://i1145.photobucket.com/albums/o507/Snaildude/zonebaseeffect_zps7023efb0.jpg)
(I removed the names, as this is not about the specific people, but the gameplay issue. Start your own thread if you want to 'call somebody out' and keep this one 'clean' pls.)
That's almost the same as if you could kill friendly town buildings and would switch sides to take advantage of it.
So I plead again: Please removed this flawed gameplay mechanism.
-
Not just a bump, but an additional argument to my cause.
The already described paradoxial and non-combat promoting zone base effect also leads to more, very unfortunate actions.
Knights had taken a Bish zone base, which retreated far away and into Me 163 territory, thus being largely safe from bombing. Nothing new so far... but:
Some Knights jumped to Bish side and first took the Bish zone base back (moving the strats back to the front) and then captured a Knight zone base (of course unopposed), triggering Knight strat retreat. Both with the clear and obvious intention of hurting the side they are flying on as much as possible. And there is nothing any Bishop could do about
(http://i1145.photobucket.com/albums/o507/Snaildude/zonebaseeffect_zps7023efb0.jpg)
(I removed the names, as this is not about the specific people, but the gameplay issue. Start your own thread if you want to 'call somebody out' and keep this one 'clean' pls.)
That's almost the same as if you could kill friendly town buildings and would switch sides to take advantage of it.
So I plead again: Please removed this flawed gameplay mechanism.
This is why we can't have nice things.
-
Not just a bump, but an additional argument to my cause.
The already described paradoxial and non-combat promoting zone base effect also leads to more, very unfortunate actions.
Knights had taken a Bish zone base, which retreated far away and into Me 163 territory, thus being largely safe from bombing. Nothing new so far... but:
Some Knights jumped to Bish side and first took the Bish zone base back (moving the strats back to the front) and then captured a Knight zone base (of course unopposed), triggering Knight strat retreat. Both with the clear and obvious intention of hurting the side they are flying on as much as possible. And there is nothing any Bishop could do about
(http://i1145.photobucket.com/albums/o507/Snaildude/zonebaseeffect_zps7023efb0.jpg)
(I removed the names, as this is not about the specific people, but the gameplay issue. Start your own thread if you want to 'call somebody out' and keep this one 'clean' pls.)
That's almost the same as if you could kill friendly town buildings and would switch sides to take advantage of it.
So I plead again: Please removed this flawed gameplay mechanism.
Losers... :rolleyes:
-
Not just a bump, but an additional argument to my cause.
The already described paradoxial and non-combat promoting zone base effect also leads to more, very unfortunate actions.
Knights had taken a Bish zone base, which retreated far away and into Me 163 territory, thus being largely safe from bombing. Nothing new so far... but:
Some Knights jumped to Bish side and first took the Bish zone base back (moving the strats back to the front) and then captured a Knight zone base (of course unopposed), triggering Knight strat retreat. Both with the clear and obvious intention of hurting the side they are flying on as much as possible. And there is nothing any Bishop could do about
(http://i1145.photobucket.com/albums/o507/Snaildude/zonebaseeffect_zps7023efb0.jpg)
(I removed the names, as this is not about the specific people, but the gameplay issue. Start your own thread if you want to 'call somebody out' and keep this one 'clean' pls.)
That's almost the same as if you could kill friendly town buildings and would switch sides to take advantage of it.
So I plead again: Please removed this flawed gameplay mechanism.
No reason to eliminate the names if they "played by the rules" as they claimed. Total dbaggery (that they gloated over) and they should get a complimentary week off from the game.
Kind of like when people would switch sides to get CVs intentionally sunk. If the Nits hadn't steamrolled deep into Bishie territory, they wouldn't have screwed themselves in the first place.
I don't care who wins the war or who has the most bases, but object to allowing blatant griefing like this.
Nothing wrong with switching sides (except that it takes a 12 hour commitment) but switchers who switch only to grief (and brag to everyone about it) should be given a time out.
If HTC sees nothing wrong with their behavior, then no reason not to bring light to it. They were quite proud of themselves, after all.
-
No reason to eliminate the names if they "played by the rules" as they claimed.
It detracts from the original point of this thread, which is about this paradoxical mechanism that triggers this actions in the first place. A critically important base that side A doesn't want to take and side B doesn't want to defend - that's where all the problems start, the actions described above are just the tip of the iceberg.
-
Agreed, the zone system is annoying.
But switching sides to take zones back or to acquire other teams zones is wrong? Maybe it's good for the game, maybe it's their way of playing, maybe they are tired of Knights getting horded by real estate moguls, tired of losing every 99/100 maps, tired of endlessly logging on to find there is no fight because the other sides have 30% of their bases, I wonder how many unearned perks are generated on the other sides, maybe they're tired of that, no? To each all the tools they are provided with. How is this any different than a guy who was just fighting next to me, then he shows up 5 mins later (with a recon advantage too) on the other side.?
It's actually rather funny what happened. It should happen more often. It did exactly what they intended it to do, you see that correct? Isn't it all about whizzin in your/their Wheaties?
-
Isn't it all about whizzin in your/their Wheaties?
It's about whizzin in the red guys Wheaties. Combat game, you know. Not whizzing your own team (and yes, if you go Bish, that's your team), not avoiding combat "Don't take it! "Don't defend it!". Red guys attacking my base - I can defend against that, I can fight. Combat.
Red guys becoming green to HURT yours, while you can not fight them is pathetic.
A gameplay mechanism in a combat game which doesn't create battles but prevents them (you don't actually FIGHT over zone bases) is a fail.
-
at least i started a post snail resonped 2 means i have a point
-
So they switched sides and that's all they accomplished?
If I ever went as far as to switch sides to influence strats to move, you can be sure I will make sure a CV is parked right next to where they end up moving or that 10 tanks are waiting for the strats to come to them.
-
It's about whizzin in the red guys Wheaties. Combat game, you know. Not whizzing your own team (and yes, if you go Bish, that's your team), not avoiding combat "Don't take it! "Don't defend it!". Red guys attacking my base - I can defend against that, I can fight. Combat.
Red guys becoming green to HURT yours, while you can not fight them is pathetic.
A gameplay mechanism in a combat game which doesn't create battles but prevents them (you don't actually FIGHT over zone bases) is a fail.
lusche, please explain again what was done wrong and which rule was violated? was it dweebish? you bet. but not anymore than hiding cv's, or pushing to get close to the strats just to milk run it.
sometimes to help your country you switch and be just as dweebish as the other team.
semp
-
lusche, please explain again what was done wrong and which rule was violated? was it dweebish? you bet. but not anymore than hiding cv's, or pushing to get close to the strats just to milk run it.
sometimes to help your country you switch and be just as dweebish as the other team.
semp
So by the same logic you'd be totally cool with people switching sides and intentionally trying to get you to killshoot yourself off them as you were dogfighting one of their buddies. :aok
100% agree with the Snail, zone bases are bad for the game.
Wiley.
-
Leave them at the back........I hit them more often when they are retreated anyway and there's usually mountains between the nearby bases and the strats which often complicates resupplying the strats.
If you want your strats to stay up, defend them.
-
I still prefer the old strat/ZB system.
-
I still prefer the old strat/ZB system.
How about a combination of old and new? Four strat complexes the size of the current single, only each one comprised of four of the same factory type and having them all close to the front. Bigger and more numerous targets, far away from the Me163 base, which should be reserved for HQ defense only. Add in a frequently changing wind layer over 25k to discourage milk running, 300+ mph B-17s at 35k.
And trains, rail yards and merchant ship convoys, while your at it HTC. Get a move on, then. :D
-
I personally am at a half/half standpoint for this. Pros: Zone bases help a country to regenerate strats if they have been hit.... The whole point of zone bases is to protect strats when they are most vulnerable. Without zone bases strats would be too open to attack. What if they [the enemy] takes a base only a few sectors away? Heavy fighters and bombers will ruin the strats. That would require a lot of the team to go into defensive mode and up to defend strats, leaving us open to attack elsewhere on the battlefield. Cons: Yeah, they do prevent combat. Yes, they can be abused to keep strats from raids.
Pros I can think of: 3
Cons I can think of: 2
60% for zone bases, 40% against :noid
-
I personally am at a half/half standpoint for this. Pros: Zone bases help a country to regenerate strats if they have been hit.... The whole point of zone bases is to protect strats when they are most vulnerable.
Which is completely negated if the zone base is not taken.
Without zone bases strats would be too open to attack. What if they [the enemy] takes a base only a few sectors away? Heavy fighters and bombers will ruin the strats.
Happens now as long as they don't take the zone base.
That would require a lot of the team to go into defensive mode and up to defend strats, leaving us open to attack elsewhere on the battlefield. Cons: Yeah, they do prevent combat. Yes, they can be abused to keep strats from raids.
Pros I can think of: 3
Cons I can think of: 2
75% for zone bases, 25% against :noid
Er... 60/40, technically. :D :bolt:
Wiley.
-
Er... 60/40, technically. :D :bolt:
There. I changed it just for you. :D
-
Remove the zone base status from the three large maps and let people fight for them instead of avoiding them! :old:
NO NO and 100% NO!
For one no country in it's right mind would have their factories in the front lines in real life. OK your going to say this is not r/l....true, but based on WW2. OK now you'll say "why should I have to fly 2-3 hours to get to strat. Wellllllll bombers boys flew 10 or more hours, count you lucky star we don't. Strat in this game should be in the rear on all map and be heavily armed, more ack, more 88's and partly buried underground. If a side want to get to strat, put up a 50 buff raid with escorts(promotes combat) and do away with the 163's(joke of a/c should not be in game).
So maybe if we don't want realism maybe we should have planes that look like this
(http://imageshack.com/a/img23/2875/ltbl.jpg)
-
NO NO and 100% NO!
For one no country in it's right mind would have their factories in the front lines in real life. OK your going to say this is not r/l....true, but based on WW2. OK now you'll say "why should I have to fly 2-3 hours to get to strat. Wellllllll bombers boys flew 10 or more hours, count you lucky star we don't. Strat in this game should be in the rear on all map and be heavily armed, more ack, more 88's and partly buried underground. If a side want to get to strat, put up a 50 buff raid with escorts(promotes combat) and do away with the 163's(joke of a/c should not be in game).
So maybe if we don't want realism maybe we should have planes that look like this
(http://imageshack.com/a/img23/2875/ltbl.jpg)
Spit dweeb.
-
sometimes to help your country you switch and be just as dweebish as the other team.
semp
So I or some one else switches sides and calls out mission, helps my side......ok I'll try that thanks :salute
-
I think this could be settled with a simple switch. When the factories retreat, all bases more than 75 miles (negotiable) from the center of the strats have a 45 minute base down time for objects affected by strats. Maybe even make it an hour. Then you'll see people defending the zone bases and trying to get them back once lost. Taking a zone base becomes much more rewarding instead of punishing.
-
(http://i1344.photobucket.com/albums/p659/XxDaSTaRXx/ahss206_zps269d9b8b.png?t=1387505651)
I take back what I said. Remove Zone bases. :noid
-
Maybe the "retreat" doesn't need to be as deep? Instead of putting them clear to the rear of the map maybe split the difference from the edge of the sea to the HQ building?
-
Or just give it a hefty penalty at moving by setting all factories to 0% (after all, a moved factory doesn't get into production in a heartbeat). That way the defender still has a huge incentive to keep his zone base and the attacker to capture it (= BATTLES)
-
Or just give it a hefty penalty at moving by setting all factories to 0% (after all, a moved factory doesn't get into production in a heartbeat). That way the defender still has a huge incentive to keep his zone base and the attacker to capture it (= BATTLES)
Looking at the way people play the game, wouldn't that penalty just make the losing side's situation even worse? People don't defend, even if there's a reason to generally speaking. I'd think that change would just produce more bad feelings because the relatively easy task of taking a zone base would result in 0% factories.
Maybe if it knocked them down to half, or some other number it might not be that bad.
Wiley.
-
(http://i1344.photobucket.com/albums/p659/XxDaSTaRXx/ahss206_zps269d9b8b.png?t=1387505651)
I take back what I said. Remove Zone bases. :noid
Unless I am missing something, I only see 2 unconquerable bases in the picture, not 3. :noid
-
Isn't this really a software limitation? The mechanical loss of zone base/strat moves next to HQ would be better replaced by a more dynamic conditional retreat so that the strats were always a distance from the front. As it stands you will need a mechanism to initiate retreat of some sort, else the strats will wind up behind enemy lines before the map is captured and it will be the same binary system.
-
I've seen the strats flash constantly for 2 hour straight without a single green dot up there defending them.
-
I've seen the strats flash constantly for 2 hour straight without a single green dot up there defending them.
I'm curious: do you enjoy climbing to 30K and being shot down by bombers you can barely overtake? For some reason, perhaps a defect in my character, I don't want to spend $15/month to do that.
-
I'm curious: do you enjoy climbing to 30K and being shot down by bombers you can barely overtake?
Most bombers attacking the strats are not B-29's ... ;)
-
Maybe if it knocked them down to half, or some other number it might not be that bad.
The 0% was just a shot at it. Could be any other number, as long as it makes it worthwhile defending that zone bases instead just letting some 'dumb enemy' (or friends that switched sides for that) capture them and laugh afterwards. Make 'em fight for control of them!
-
I'm curious: do you enjoy climbing to 30K and being shot down by bombers you can barely overtake? For some reason, perhaps a defect in my character, I don't want to spend $15/month to do that.
Yes, I do.
It's fun chasing down someone who thinks they are too high or too fast.......especially fun when you do it in a plane slower than thiers.
-
Yes, I do.
It's fun chasing down someone who thinks they are too high or too fast.......especially fun when you do it in a plane slower than thiers.
The J2M would solve that problem for you, if we could just get it. :frown:
-
That was my favorite plane at warbirds.
Nobody flew it until a change in CoFL caused it to become uber......which is when I stopped flying it.
I also like the ki44.
-
I'm certainly not knowledgeable to say how it would be in AH. But my guess is that according to a lot I have read about it, the higher the model the less uber it would actually be except in two areas. Two areas that HTC generally imo uses to give a high eny to; speed and guns package. The J2M5 would not be much of a turny bird by most standards but with a high top speed at any alt and 4x20's it would probably have real high eny. Iirc the 5 was used primarily as an interceptor. The 3 would be a turnier bird but still wouldn't turn with most IJ planes I'd imagine, prolly out turn the KI61, ?
I say all ^ that with a brain exhausted and now scrambled from watching the Bears punch holes in my FF Super Bowl hopes. Long day to have counted on Bears to show up and instead the Eagles decided the Bears would go nowhere...
-
I'd be fine with just the J2M2 though the j2m3 was made in more significant numbers.
-
BUMP for a worthy thread. Helped take back the Knight's zone base last night and the whines were epic. :D
-
BUMP for a worthy thread. Helped take back the Knight's zone base last night and the whines were epic. :D
They wanted the strats in the back too, eh? It was hilarious watching everyone crap bricks when someone so much as flew towards the zone base that was taken's (Rook) general direction from ANYWHERE on the map last week. :lol
I honestly forgot the argument. Most seem to think it was a good idea to keep it there, but then started to argue about it be back up front. :headscratch:
-
BUMP for a worthy thread. Helped take back the Knight's zone base last night and the whines were epic. :D
Dang, sorry I missed that. Moving strats back to the front is always a good time. In my opinion, letting them keep a zone base so our strats stay to the rear is no fun. Strategy? Bah! Take back whats ours and start adding to the empire if the map is important. Strats might be in danger? Molon Labe.
-
Lets say we do remove zone bases, then let make it harder to bomb. By what I read it takes 1 250bs bomb to kill 1 part of lets say dar factory. Bump that up to 2 x1000 and I would say yes to this wish. If you take one part of this game away you must give something.
-
You two that take back zone bases do it so you can irritate your own green guys and hear them whine??? :headscratch:
Sadists :uhoh
-
With the upcoming decentralisation of the strats, it's unlikely this wish has any relevance for the future.
-
With the upcoming decentralisation of the strats, it's unlikely this wish has any relevance for the future.
I missed this. Where is the info for this Lusche? I appreciate the heads up.
-
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,357887.0.html
-
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,357887.0.html
Thanks Snail! :aok
-
Is that like Weimar decentralized or Jeffersonian?