Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: The Fugitive on November 03, 2013, 09:39:22 AM
-
Why has this game turned into an on-line version of "RISK"? You mass up your playing pieces along a boarder and then throw them at the next land mass. Roll your dice and take your chances that you brought enough "game markers" to take the objective.
Yesterday it started out with GHI and the Bish horde sneaking bases. Then supper time came and all the "kids" had to leave and it was Earl and the Rook horde taking back the base GHI and his horde had grabbed earlier. As night potato on the Knits got there horde running and as Earl and his horde were too busy stealing land from the Bish it was left to the stragglers to try and slow down the building Knit horde. Same old, same old.
Why has the game fallen into this routine? Don't get me wrong, I found little fights here and there, spoiled a few strat runs, made a milk run myself, but I had to work at it to find these things. When the "groups" get rolling it turns into the same old thing. Is grabbing bases more important than playing the game? No I don't want to see furballs all night, I want to see fights, period. It seems that when these groups get rolling they do what ever they can to avoid fighting for anything.
Want a base? Bring 50 guys to flatten everything and drop troops. Even if it is a vehicle base! How can there be a fight there? Now have 5 guys (2 buffs, 2 fighters, and a goon/M3) hit a V base and you might have to fight for it if someone is paying attention. If not you will take it with ease. Why must these "groups" all be on one base? is the chance of not getting the base such a horrible thought that it must be avoided at all costs? Will people actually die if the base is not captured? Will people rage quit if the "mission" ..... and I use that term VERY loosely, fails?
I wish some of these "leaders" would take it upon themselves to make mission more interesting and fun for all, and all being both sides.
-
The large missions (or hordes as call them) have become the main base taking method in the MA. I don't know why though but no matter what country the horde is from it seems their main goal is to avoid conflict and take undefended bases. Many times now I've heard things along the lines of "They've got some uppers! We've blown this take, let's go somewhere else." or "There's a dar bar in that area, let's not head that way to take that base." Yet they've got nearly a 3 to 1 advantage over the defenders.
I am not a mission planner but I have thrown together 1 or 2 Jug runs (usually only 8-12 people join the mission) and I've heard these comments even in my missions. I remember in the last Jug raid I threw together I asked all ords to be dropped on the town while the light Jugs flew fighter cap. Someone then made a comment along the lines of "They have planes over the base, should we drop the FHs instead?" Naaah, drop everything on town and we'll just kill anything up or trying to up... spoiler alert, it worked and we took the base. :devil
I bet things would become a bit more interesting and fun if mission planners branched out and tried some new stuff rather than the tried and tested NOE lancs, shut down all hangar, and take base.
-
10+ planes in a group should flash a sector red even NOE.
-
The problem is that with a small team too many things can go wrong. A small number of defenders can frustrate attackers who appear to hold air superiority.
GV have a large part in that - M3 resupplying can easily sneak in (thanks to the short gv icons) and make acks and town pop up again. A tank sitting next to the map room is difficult to get rid off unless they got more bombs (require more participants). Bombing the VH is a good start but spawn from near by bases are too close and within minutes destroyed tanks/whirbs are back in an endless stream.
All this means that attackers must come with lost of ordnance to spare, meaning a large team.
GVs are here to stay so what can be done?
1. Move away the remote spawns from the town base. Really, in some cases tanks start shelling the town/ base within a minute after spawning when a plane takes nearly 10 minuted to climb and fly to the target.
2. Town resupply by GV must be done at the map room. M3 must drive all the way into town.
3. Open turret vehicles should be more susceptible to fire from above. I can't imagine anyone surviving a 20mm volley into the open turret of an ostwind.
That is all I can come up with right now.
-
Fugitive has brought up a topic that I brought up, literally, years ago.
What is the best way to develop, or more appropriately, have the game evolve?
Base capture has been the way to 'win' the war in the arena. Can soemthing be introduced or developed that gives another 'path to victory'?
-
Mass hording groups of buffs and fighters has always been the way of life for Aces High. If you don't flatten everything on the base then you get resistance. I asked ET37 last night why exactly he does his (very successful) missions the way he does. His reply was "that's the only way to do it." Mass buff formations with escorts are usually unstoppable. Last night during the take of 222, a pony tried to breach the buff formation and was killed by escorts immediately. Mass buff formations and fighters is and always will be the most superior way to take a base.
-
Why has this game turned into an on-line version of "RISK"? You mass up your playing pieces along a boarder and then throw them at the next land mass. Roll your dice and take your chances that you brought enough "game markers" to take the objective.
Yesterday it started out with GHI and the Bish horde sneaking bases. Then supper time came and all the "kids" had to leave and it was Earl and the Rook horde taking back the base GHI and his horde had grabbed earlier. As night potato on the Knits got there horde running and as Earl and his horde were too busy stealing land from the Bish it was left to the stragglers to try and slow down the building Knit horde. Same old, same old.
Why has the game fallen into this routine? Don't get me wrong, I found little fights here and there, spoiled a few strat runs, made a milk run myself, but I had to work at it to find these things. When the "groups" get rolling it turns into the same old thing. Is grabbing bases more important than playing the game? No I don't want to see furballs all night, I want to see fights, period. It seems that when these groups get rolling they do what ever they can to avoid fighting for anything.
Want a base? Bring 50 guys to flatten everything and drop troops. Even if it is a vehicle base! How can there be a fight there? Now have 5 guys (2 buffs, 2 fighters, and a goon/M3) hit a V base and you might have to fight for it if someone is paying attention. If not you will take it with ease. Why must these "groups" all be on one base? is the chance of not getting the base such a horrible thought that it must be avoided at all costs? Will people actually die if the base is not captured? Will people rage quit if the "mission" ..... and I use that term VERY loosely, fails?
I wish some of these "leaders" would take it upon themselves to make mission more interesting and fun for all, and all being both sides.
:airplane: Well, now I am going to have to give away my little secret of missions! Yes, when I post missions in the MLW arena, I usually get 6 to 8 bomber pilots, 8 to 10 fighters, both heavy and light. What I try to do is stay under 14K for two reasons, #1 bomb accuracies and #2 it promotes a running fight to and from the target. This game is all about air combat, and some GV action, but mainly air combat, and as soon as I show that big DAR bar, I know the enemy fighters are going to show up and the fight is on. That is what is "fun" about this game, getting intercepted and defending the bombers with their guns and the fighters intercepting the bad guys.
While "furballs" are fun I guess, they usually don't prove much except who can out fly and out fight each other. But big bomber missions, all together a different atmosphere of flying. Getting the bombers into a defensive "box" and dispersing the fighters into a "Dr. Pepper" formation, waiting on the bad guys to try and outsmart not only the fighters, but the gunners in the bombers. Then over the target, things begin to get really interesting as all the bombers have a slightly different heading to fly for their hangar or what have you, then they begin to disperse because of the different headings and then the fighters have a helluva time defending them because they are scattered, even though I tell them what heading to fly leaving the base to make a procedure turn and go back to town.
If I get all my bomber pilots home, then I feel as though I have done my job as mission commander, even if they only get one bomber home.
Next time you are in MLW arena around 6PM, EST, that is when I usually start running missions, join us and I think you will enjoy the ramifications of escorting a ET37 mission! :salute
-
The problem is that with a small team too many things can go wrong. A small number of defenders can frustrate attackers who appear to hold air superiority.
GV have a large part in that - M3 resupplying can easily sneak in (thanks to the short gv icons) and make acks and town pop up again. A tank sitting next to the map room is difficult to get rid off unless they got more bombs (require more participants). Bombing the VH is a good start but spawn from near by bases are too close and within minutes destroyed tanks/whirbs are back in an endless stream.
All this means that attackers must come with lost of ordnance to spare, meaning a large team.
GVs are here to stay so what can be done?
1. Move away the remote spawns from the town base. Really, in some cases tanks start shelling the town/ base within a minute after spawning when a plane takes nearly 10 minuted to climb and fly to the target.
2. Town resupply by GV must be done at the map room. M3 must drive all the way into town.
3. Open turret vehicles should be more susceptible to fire from above. I can't imagine anyone surviving a 20mm volley into the open turret of an ostwind.
That is all I can come up with right now.
....and what is wrong with that?
I know the main focus is to capture the base, but ...to me anyway... the satisfaction of wining with small numbers just makes it that much more fun. If I lose, oh well, I had fun trying any way. If the fun is in the fight, whats wrong with setting it so there IS a fight?
:airplane: Well, now I am going to have to give away my little secret of missions! Yes, when I post missions in the MLW arena, I usually get 6 to 8 bomber pilots, 8 to 10 fighters, both heavy and light. What I try to do is stay under 14K for two reasons, #1 bomb accuracies and #2 it promotes a running fight to and from the target. This game is all about air combat, and some GV action, but mainly air combat, and as soon as I show that big DAR bar, I know the enemy fighters are going to show up and the fight is on. That is what is "fun" about this game, getting intercepted and defending the bombers with their guns and the fighters intercepting the bad guys.
While "furballs" are fun I guess, they usually don't prove much except who can out fly and out fight each other. But big bomber missions, all together a different atmosphere of flying. Getting the bombers into a defensive "box" and dispersing the fighters into a "Dr. Pepper" formation, waiting on the bad guys to try and outsmart not only the fighters, but the gunners in the bombers. Then over the target, things begin to get really interesting as all the bombers have a slightly different heading to fly for their hangar or what have you, then they begin to disperse because of the different headings and then the fighters have a helluva time defending them because they are scattered, even though I tell them what heading to fly leaving the base to make a procedure turn and go back to town.
If I get all my bomber pilots home, then I feel as though I have done my job as mission commander, even if they only get one bomber home.
Next time you are in MLW arena around 6PM, EST, that is when I usually start running missions, join us and I think you will enjoy the ramifications of escorting a ET37 mission! :salute
.... maybe in the first minute of posting the mission :D
More often than not your "missions" are over 30 guys easy. The same with GHI, but at least you'll go at alt and draw a fight... even if it is a hopeless fight. The point I'm trying to make is that you guys are running missions, but not promoting a fight. Your still holding that "well I need these extra guys just in case...." attitude over good game play <---- subjective term. All this does is create bigger hordes. You fly under 14k because of "bombing accuracies". I call it due to lack of skill in the playing populace. With the "lazer guided" bomb site we have a bit of training can have anyone hit anything from any alt. Of course why would any one "practice" something in a game :rolleyes:
Earl, just for giggles, the next time you have 30+ guys join a mission, hit 3 bases at once with 10 guys each and see how many bases you get. 10 guys carry enough ord and troops to take a base and if you hit 3 bases along the same front your going to force the few defenders that DO up to choose which base or bases to defend. What it will do is add some challenge to the attack, and a bit of a shot for the defenders to slow or maybe even stop you at one or more of the bases making it fun for them too. Just a thought.
-
I have been apart of quite a few successful small group takes. One set of bombers. One to three heavy fighters and a goons or m3. Those missions have statistically proven to work 1/3 the time. Win or lose its fun none the less. :)
-
The problem is that with a small team too many things can go wrong. A small number of defenders can frustrate attackers who appear to hold air superiority.
GV have a large part in that - M3 resupplying can easily sneak in (thanks to the short gv icons) and make acks and town pop up again. A tank sitting next to the map room is difficult to get rid off unless they got more bombs (require more participants). Bombing the VH is a good start but spawn from near by bases are too close and within minutes destroyed tanks/whirbs are back in an endless stream.
All this means that attackers must come with lost of ordnance to spare, meaning a large team.
GVs are here to stay so what can be done?
1. Move away the remote spawns from the town base. Really, in some cases tanks start shelling the town/ base within a minute after spawning when a plane takes nearly 10 minuted to climb and fly to the target.
2. Town resupply by GV must be done at the map room. M3 must drive all the way into town.
3. Open turret vehicles should be more susceptible to fire from above. I can't imagine anyone surviving a 20mm volley into the open turret of an ostwind.
That is all I can come up with right now.
For the Bold pieces, I disagree with. Short GV icons? Hardly, pay attention. Even in the Il2, better known as the coffin death trap, I can still spot enemy vehicles, and I'm on a crappy 14 year old computer.
Many vehicle spawns aren't even slightly close to the town or any base. Some are, I will give you credit for that, some truly are too close for comfort and should be moved back a little. But others are 8k-10k+ and sometimes uphill! Where even taking a c47 3-4 sectors (nearest airfield) is faster than taking the m3 up all the hills and AROUND the base.
Also, I agree with the underlined portion. I've had it sometimes where my wirble had been disabled with.. 5 303s :eek: and other times still kickin with a few passes of 20mms. No idea why, but it just happens. I've encountered some vehicles who died in one pass of my il2, others who required many passes.
I have been apart of quite a few successful small group takes. One set of bombers. One to three heavy fighters and a goons or m3. Those missions have statistically proven to work 1/3 the time. Win or lose its fun none the less. :)
And far more rewarding when you take the base. I recall taking a base with 3 people, me in bombers someone to deack and a goon standing by. That is how bases should be taken (IMO), don't need 15+ p51s, p38s, p47s to take a base when a few will do the job. What's funny to me is, when you bring all those people with all that ord, they bomb the town and the base and yet still can't capture the base!
10+ planes in a group should flash a sector red even NOE.
Too gamey.
While I understand where you are coming from (in the same boat), that isn't the way to handle it.
Maybe a feature of when you want to make a mission, you must decide what base this mission is going to attack. If more than a certain number joins and launches with the mission, (say, more than 10 or so) then a "system message" appears saying something like "a group of enemy were last spotted in "this sector" ) or something to that effect. But that would only happen if you exceeded a specific number of joiners. So if you launch with 8 instead of 10, this message doesn't appear.
If you make a mission, I think you should have to assign a target. "We are attacking A138!" Even if only the mission planner knows (to prevent de "Spiez"). If you capture the base, then you get a few perks for a job well done.
And I can't say how good it would be to have a random mission feature, that would have a mission that comes up that would say something like. "Capture a base with 110-Cs and Ju87s". Where it would have the players join and auto-launch at a specific time. If the players complete the objective they are awarded perks. Also, it promotes doing something outside the box (like the achievements sometimes do).
Or bomb a town with a D3A (Fun mission)
Or a strategic mission. Bomb strats in any heavy bomber and return to base.
Could even add an achievement for those star collectors. "Complete 5/20/50/100 auto missions
Sorry for the hi-jack fugitive. Not intended. But I think it would be a nice thing to have.
Just a few thoughts.
Tinkles
<<S>>
:cheers:
-
I rarely play to capture territory but a couple of weeks ago myself and two other Bish took a frontline airfield by ourselves using two GV's and a fighter and there was a defender there the entire time. It was sort of fun but really way too easy.
-
I have been apart of quite a few successful small group takes. One set of bombers. One to three heavy fighters and a goons or m3. Those missions have statistically proven to work 1/3 the time. Win or lose its fun none the less. :)
Mass bombers. Mass fighters. Backup goons. No way to loose. :D
-
:airplane: Well, now I am going to have to give away my little secret of missions! Yes, when I post missions in the MLW arena, I usually get 6 to 8 bomber pilots, 8 to 10 fighters, both heavy and light. What I try to do is stay under 14K for two reasons, #1 bomb accuracies and #2 it promotes a running fight to and from the target. This game is all about air combat, and some GV action, but mainly air combat, and as soon as I show that big DAR bar, I know the enemy fighters are going to show up and the fight is on. That is what is "fun" about this game, getting intercepted and defending the bombers with their guns and the fighters intercepting the bad guys.
While "furballs" are fun I guess, they usually don't prove much except who can out fly and out fight each other. But big bomber missions, all together a different atmosphere of flying. Getting the bombers into a defensive "box" and dispersing the fighters into a "Dr. Pepper" formation, waiting on the bad guys to try and outsmart not only the fighters, but the gunners in the bombers. Then over the target, things begin to get really interesting as all the bombers have a slightly different heading to fly for their hangar or what have you, then they begin to disperse because of the different headings and then the fighters have a helluva time defending them because they are scattered, even though I tell them what heading to fly leaving the base to make a procedure turn and go back to town.
If I get all my bomber pilots home, then I feel as though I have done my job as mission commander, even if they only get one bomber home.
Next time you are in MLW arena around 6PM, EST, that is when I usually start running missions, join us and I think you will enjoy the ramifications of escorting a ET37 mission! :salute
I must say sir your missions are excellent :aok
(http://i70.servimg.com/u/f70/18/54/90/27/ahss6_10.jpg)
The 49th runs good missions as well, know this from personal experience during my time as a knight
-
This game has always been a version of online RISK. In the past after 2004, we grew fast enough that there was an excess of the statistical small number of any population who liked to fight and or were less risk adverse. Now that our player base is shrinking, you cannot escape seeing human nature and motivation showcased by a game with no rules to how players find thier fun. Fugi you have made this complaint for the last decade.
You have a basic 3 choices to influencing how customers choose to play this game where no rules exist.
1. - Convince Hitech to finally impose a central command and control structure imposing someone's vision of how the game must be played.
This will only work if players are punished in real time. Cancelation of subscriptions, ejection from the game, and restrictions based on access time to resources or access time to join back into game play. Fugi you want to submit your resume?
2. - Convince Hitech to change backend variables.
You can control player motivation by how hard or easy you make objects to kill or capture. Or how much time it takes for them to make it possible for you to access resources. Reduce the effort required to capture a field, fewer players may be required to show up on average, freeing up more to become targets at the same time elsewhere. Less talented risk adverse players may feel emboldened to risk more on their own. The harder you make things to accomplish by average means, the normal human reaction is banding together or ignoring the activity. Radar minimums under 200ft along with towns harder to capture. Backend motivation by changing small variables to the max.
3. - Convince Hitech to change the reward system and what win means.
The current reward system is perceived to be war win centric by a majority of players who also don't spend any time in this forum unhappy about it. You win wars by capturing fields as you see showcased by hoards which are designed to win. And they win. The majority of people in the world want low risk for as much reward and winning as they can get. Especially since it's their $14.95 and not yours.
So reducing the radar minimums to 65ft and making towns harder to capture got rid of NOE hoards. But, it didn't force hoards to fight each other or stop being hoards. It just created a generation of more determined hoards with a new generation of leaders leveraging the current game mechanisms. Because they no longer feel secure from radar or the potential outcomes at their target. This is a result of a majority of people who play the game from the perception the reward system is war win centric. Right or wrong for the future of this game, that is a lot of $14.95 each month.
So what are you going to give them that will compete, or can replace their current reward system? Besides telling them to trust in you because they will feel better about themselves if they just believe what you do?
-
This game has always been a version of online RISK. In the past after 2004, we grew fast enough that there was an excess of the statistical small number of any population who liked to fight and or were less risk adverse. Now that our player base is shrinking, you cannot escape seeing human nature and motivation showcased by a game with no rules to how players find thier fun. Fugi you have made this complaint for the last decade.
You have a basic 3 choices to influencing how customers choose to play this game where no rules exist.
1. - Convince Hitech to finally impose a central command and control structure imposing someone's vision of how the game must be played.
This will only work if players are punished in real time. Cancelation of subscriptions, ejection from the game, and restrictions based on access time to resources or access time to join back into game play. Fugi you want to submit your resume?
2. - Convince Hitech to change backend variables.
You can control player motivation by how hard or easy you make objects to kill or capture. Or how much time it takes for them to make it possible for you to access resources. Reduce the effort required to capture a field, fewer players may be required to show up on average, freeing up more to become targets at the same time elsewhere. Less talented risk adverse players may feel emboldened to risk more on their own. The harder you make things to accomplish by average means, the normal human reaction is banding together or ignoring the activity. Radar minimums under 200ft along with towns harder to capture. Backend motivation by changing small variables to the max.
3. - Convince Hitech to change the reward system and what win means.
The current reward system is perceived to be war win centric by a majority of players who also don't spend any time in this forum unhappy about it. You win wars by capturing fields as you see showcased by hoards which are designed to win. And they win. The majority of people in the world want low risk for as much reward and winning as they can get. Especially since it's their $14.95 and not yours.
So reducing the radar minimums to 65ft and making towns harder to capture got rid of NOE hoards. But, it didn't force hoards to fight each other or stop being hoards. It just created a generation of more determined hoards with a new generation of leaders leveraging the current game mechanisms. Because they no longer feel secure from radar or the potential outcomes at their target. This is a result of a majority of people who play the game from the perception the reward system is war win centric. Right or wrong for the future of this game, that is a lot of $14.95 each month.
So what are you going to give them that will compete, or can replace their current reward system? Besides telling them to trust in you because they will feel better about themselves if they just believe what you do?
No there are only two ways to do this.
1. HTC institutes rules/rewards/punishments to guide game play toward a more strategic and tactical type of game play where fighting is more important.
2. The players change how they use the resources they have available to them, including player numbers.
I can try to influence #2 by asking these questions and making other suggestions. #1, well that is all up to HTC and company and so is out of my hands. Should they like an idea that pops up, like having game posted missions that when accomplished by using ONLY the number of players allotted for that mission REWARD those players with perks, or harden town buildings by tying the number of players in the dar circle (more players harder, less easier) and other ideas that pop up in these threads I'm good with that too.
The main line of this thread is hopefully to get players who DO read these theads to think about what they are doing. Are they playing toward a better game play trend or are they adding to the "same old same old horde" type of game play? New players like Whiskey2 find protection in a large group and so I'm sure have that as one of the main reasons they like those missions. Also with their limited skill it is much easier to "get things done" with that large group. I'm not looking to do away with those large missions, I would however like to see it be harder for a large group like that to take a base with out hurting those that use smaller groups.
While it may be fun and exciting for newer players to do these big missions soon they too will become bored with them. Flying 2 sectors only to be in the last half of the group to arrive over the target to find everything flattened already and no defenders. 20 minutes of flying around doing nothing.... you can do that off line too. Now if its harder for a big group to take a base your not stopping them from doing it and in a way your "punishing", but it is STILL an option for them. If they still want to run a big mission the extra work for the win can give defenders more time to try and stop them adding both more challenge and more fun for both sides.
The picture Whiskey2 posted shows exactly the issue. 13 ID's are shown making 39 B17's. If they are carrying 1k bombs they have 234,000 lbs of bombs 11,000 for the town (this is with out splash damage figured in), 3k each for FH at a large field another 24,000, 3k for each bomber hanger another 12,000, 3k for the VH, 20 other targets, barrack, fuel and such 20,000. If my math is right, thats 70,000 lbs to flatten a large field and it's town. Giving room for "missing" there are still enough tonnage in that one picture to flatten 2 large fields and their towns. How much you want to bet that mission had a single base as the target.
Personally I can't see why half of those in the mission would think its fun as they won't have anything to drop on. From the other side, the only way to defend against something like that is to have the large numbers of planes flying cap or being in a position to intercept. While its on the easy side to get people together for a mission, it's a bit harder to get a defense force together. The rewards aren't the same and so there is very little to entice people to throw themselves at a gauntlet of buffs like that even if they didn't have cover.
Should they stop these kinds of missions? No because they are some what popular with the new guys. On the other hand there should be a way to counter them. I'm happy to fight against 39 buffs as long as I have a bit of help and a reasonable chance that my team could win. Players that lead these missions can make a difference and change how they guide game play with their missions. The question is do they want to be part of the solution and bring more fun to more players, or do they want to be part of the problem and add to the same old same old?
-
No there are only two ways to do this.
1. HTC institutes rules/rewards/punishments to guide game play toward a more strategic and tactical type of game play where fighting is more important.
2. The players change how they use the resources they have available to them, including player numbers.
I can try to influence #2 by asking these questions and making other suggestions. #1, well that is all up to HTC and company and so is out of my hands. Should they like an idea that pops up, like having game posted missions that when accomplished by using ONLY the number of players allotted for that mission REWARD those players with perks, or harden town buildings by tying the number of players in the dar circle (more players harder, less easier) and other ideas that pop up in these threads I'm good with that too.
The main line of this thread is hopefully to get players who DO read these theads to think about what they are doing. Are they playing toward a better game play trend or are they adding to the "same old same old horde" type of game play? New players like Whiskey2 find protection in a large group and so I'm sure have that as one of the main reasons they like those missions. Also with their limited skill it is much easier to "get things done" with that large group. I'm not looking to do away with those large missions, I would however like to see it be harder for a large group like that to take a base with out hurting those that use smaller groups.
While it may be fun and exciting for newer players to do these big missions soon they too will become bored with them. Flying 2 sectors only to be in the last half of the group to arrive over the target to find everything flattened already and no defenders. 20 minutes of flying around doing nothing.... you can do that off line too. Now if its harder for a big group to take a base your not stopping them from doing it and in a way your "punishing", but it is STILL an option for them. If they still want to run a big mission the extra work for the win can give defenders more time to try and stop them adding both more challenge and more fun for both sides.
The picture Whiskey2 posted shows exactly the issue. 13 ID's are shown making 39 B17's. If they are carrying 1k bombs they have 234,000 lbs of bombs 11,000 for the town (this is with out splash damage figured in), 3k each for FH at a large field another 24,000, 3k for each bomber hanger another 12,000, 3k for the VH, 20 other targets, barrack, fuel and such 20,000. If my math is right, thats 70,000 lbs to flatten a large field and it's town. Giving room for "missing" there are still enough tonnage in that one picture to flatten 2 large fields and their towns. How much you want to bet that mission had a single base as the target.
Personally I can't see why half of those in the mission would think its fun as they won't have anything to drop on. From the other side, the only way to defend against something like that is to have the large numbers of planes flying cap or being in a position to intercept. While its on the easy side to get people together for a mission, it's a bit harder to get a defense force together. The rewards aren't the same and so there is very little to entice people to throw themselves at a gauntlet of buffs like that even if they didn't have cover.
Should they stop these kinds of missions? No because they are some what popular with the new guys. On the other hand there should be a way to counter them. I'm happy to fight against 39 buffs as long as I have a bit of help and a reasonable chance that my team could win. Players that lead these missions can make a difference and change how they guide game play with their missions. The question is do they want to be part of the solution and bring more fun to more players, or do they want to be part of the problem and add to the same old same old?
I understand where you are coming from but I don't think increasing the level of hardness for things in a sector (or anything like that) would be relevant. To me it's the same as my plane is more resilient to enemy fire because there are 6 vs 1.
Chuwie made a fun mission a few months ago that was labeled as a "fun mission". Take up lancs and completely level a vbase. Carpet bombing, he even warned the enemy ahead of time. It cause many laughs when they bombed everything and you had craters in craters in craters, you couldn't really identify anything on the base because it was littered with craters.
Now, that screenshot with all those bombers in it. I agree, that is overkill for a base. In truth, 3 sets of bombers per base is sufficient. But I would truly like to see more diverse gameplay. Where you set up a mission to take a chain of bases. 3+ bases with 1 mission, now THAT would be something to see.
Or to see all those bombers going for strats, and even do a formation type thing with it. That would be cool.
I agree this is a problem and needs to be addressed. But I think we need to approach it cautiously. This is a sandbox with combat tools for a combat simulator. Sandboxes rarely have any sort of linear gameplay limits in them.
I will think more on this and give suggestions when I come up with something.
Thanks for reading,
Respectively,
Tinkles
<<S>>
-
....and what is wrong with that?
I know the main focus is to capture the base, but ...to me anyway... the satisfaction of wining with small numbers just makes it that much more fun. If I lose, oh well, I had fun trying any way. If the fun is in the fight, whats wrong with setting it so there IS a fight?
.... maybe in the first minute of posting the mission :D
More often than not your "missions" are over 30 guys easy. The same with GHI, but at least you'll go at alt and draw a fight... even if it is a hopeless fight. The point I'm trying to make is that you guys are running missions, but not promoting a fight. Your still holding that "well I need these extra guys just in case...." attitude over good game play <---- subjective term. All this does is create bigger hordes. You fly under 14k because of "bombing accuracies". I call it due to lack of skill in the playing populace. With the "lazer guided" bomb site we have a bit of training can have anyone hit anything from any alt. Of course why would any one "practice" something in a game :rolleyes:
Earl, just for giggles, the next time you have 30+ guys join a mission, hit 3 bases at once with 10 guys each and see how many bases you get. 10 guys carry enough ord and troops to take a base and if you hit 3 bases along the same front your going to force the few defenders that DO up to choose which base or bases to defend. What it will do is add some challenge to the attack, and a bit of a shot for the defenders to slow or maybe even stop you at one or more of the bases making it fun for them too. Just a thought.
:neener:
Earl, just for giggles, the next time you have 30+ guys join a mission, hit 3 bases at once with 10 guys each and see how many bases you get. 10 guys carry enough ord and troops to take a base and if you hit 3 bases along the same front your going to force the few defenders that DO up to choose which base or bases to defend. What it will do is add some challenge to the attack, and a bit of a shot for the defenders to slow or maybe even stop you at one or more of the bases making it fun for them too. Just a thought.
We do multiple base attacks quite frequently, and we are successful about 50% of the time. As far as the altitude we fly at, there is more than 2 reasons, but won't go into the 3rd. If you don't think we have running fights on each mission, again I invite you to join one of ours, think you might be surprised.
-
I think if you want to change the aspects of gameplay that you don't like you are going to need more carrot than stick. The question that I see is what is the pleasure that people get out of the kinds of gameplay that you don't like that they are not, or can not, get out of playing the way you want them to. The danger of, (and why caution is obviously used,) changing the game is that you may leave a population of players with no great reason to stick around as subscribers.
What do you think the reason is people join large missions or pile on a green blur? What is the best experience of AH and what keeps people from having that experience?
Thinking out loud here.
-
I think if you want to change the aspects of gameplay that you don't like you are going to need more carrot than stick. The question that I see is what is the pleasure that people get out of the kinds of gameplay that you don't like that they are not, or can not, get out of playing the way you want them to. The danger of, (and why caution is obviously used,) changing the game is that you may leave a population of players with no great reason to stick around as subscribers.
What do you think the reason is people join large missions or pile on a green blur? What is the best experience of AH and what keeps people from having that experience?
Thinking out loud here.
It's not that I don't like that game play, nor am I looking to tell anyone how to play the game I hate seeing people stuck in the same old thing. I see players getting bored with what they are doing and many, not knowing anything else is available or by getting frustrated trying something else instead quit.
If you run the same mission over and over again and only get to drop your bombs once in a while, and get shot down by one of the few defenders to come up because you haven't any clue on how to fight back, how long is that going to be fun? How many "V" guys are around these days? There was, what 4-5 squads of them? Why did they leave? I'm sure some found "life outside the game" (and hopefully they come back to their senses soon! :D ) but it can't be all of them. I'm thinking they got bored. The few that learned other skills and worked different missions are still here.
I haven't been able to come up with a "reward" to help counter the horde mission. It's not so much that I'd like to see them "punished" for running one. I'd like to see them have to work for it is all. The more they work at it, the more they learn. The more they learn, the less chance there is they get bored. Win win!
-
I love the rationale that because it keeps happening, its obviously the best thing for AH :rolleyes:.
-
What if there was a defensive mission you could join?
As soon as a mission is posted each opposing country gets a system message "an enemy mission has been posted". This allows potential defenders time to join the defensive mission. Once they do they are transported to a rear staging base. As soon as the offensive mission launches each player in the defensive mission is presented with a few fields they can launch from that are nearest the enemy launch point. Whether or not they take off and what they take off in is still up to them but at least a mechanism like this would allow defenders to organize which has been a longstanding complaint from the non-mission players.
The option to launch or not as a defender has to be there because there's still only a 50/50 chance the mission will be against your side so you might want to abort. Also there's no mission organizer but over time I'm sure some armchair General would bring some level of organization to these missions.
I realize it's kind of clunky but just thinking out loud.
-
We the customer are paying for reward.
We are not paying for things to be made harder to correct our character. You are a fool if you think you are better than us as a human being.
Until rules are imposed we will play how we see fit for our $14.95.
Or until the reward for our effort is changed in a manner we agree with.
In the LWMA, the only choice you have besides Hitech agreeing to change the game, is to collect a group of like minded individuals who agree with you and be examples that win by your standards. The herd follows winners. Lead by winning, or stop discriminating against us. Our $14,95 is just as good as yours.
-
You are a fool if you think you are better than us as a human being.
How did you ever read that into an idea for a defensive mission?
-
The matrix of potential game play modifications are nearly endless.
We can get bogged down in debate re detail and or specific gameplay mechanisms many of them are terrain specific IMO.
I think the brush strokes should be quite large.
It seems to me we would prefer multiple areas of "small war" instead of few areas of "big war" whilst retain considerable option of choice re "which war".
We have a debate over the interplay between ground war and air war with respect to "total war".
Taking a further step back we could even challenge the core concept of "war" as a mechanism to promote combat.
In general my belief is that combat and war should have "consequences" to winners and losers that are both discernible and measurable. However these should never influence the core opportunity to participate either thru gameplay or game structure.
-
More value (reward) in defending!
I don't think a punishment is a good idea to change game play, but more reward in defending a base, maybe based on the number of attackers might help! Just thinking out loud
-
We the customer are paying for reward.
We are not paying for things to be made harder to correct our character. You are a fool if you think you are better than us as a human being.
Until rules are imposed we will play how we see fit for our $14.95.
Or until the reward for our effort is changed in a manner we agree with.
In the LWMA, the only choice you have besides Hitech agreeing to change the game, is to collect a group of like minded individuals who agree with you and be examples that win by your standards. The herd follows winners. Lead by winning, or stop discriminating against us. Our $14,95 is just as good as yours.
Now if only the same equality applied to the players themselves, and not just their wallets.
-
The picture Whiskey2 posted shows exactly the issue. 13 ID's are shown making 39 B17's. If they are carrying 1k bombs they have 234,000 lbs of bombs 11,000 for the town (this is with out splash damage figured in), 3k each for FH at a large field another 24,000, 3k for each bomber hanger another 12,000, 3k for the VH, 20 other targets, barrack, fuel and such 20,000. If my math is right, thats 70,000 lbs to flatten a large field and it's town. Giving room for "missing" there are still enough tonnage in that one picture to flatten 2 large fields and their towns. How much you want to bet that mission had a single base as the target.
This was a strat raid sir
-
Now if only the same equality applied to the players themselves, and not just their wallets.
Then you would have to own the company and dictate only people you approve of can pay you $14.95 to play in your house. Until then, blaming your fellow paying customer for being less than yourself, is simple discrimination against them for making a personal choice.
Unless you are trying to tell everyone that in truth, you are superior to them as a human being. While hiding from the repercussions behind the game's petticoat and hoop skirt.
-
I'm saying they damage the game far more than I do. That makes me a better player.
-
Well I know it's a pain to defend against a massive horde of bombers. I know overwhelming numbers are no fun, but if we are keeping with reality (speaking of WW2) then you have to let the horde fly. I'll bet you most of the bomber missions flown in AH2 are nothing compared to what the Germans got during the war. Dresden, Sweinfurt, Hamburg. MASSIVE bomber formations. I do not see the problem with the horde. We are doing exactly as the allies did in WW2.
Thanks
Armkreuz
-
This was a strat raid sir
You still see this everyday for a base take, I've even seen numbers like that hit a Vbase.
More value (reward) in defending!
I don't think a punishment is a good idea to change game play, but more reward in defending a base, maybe based on the number of attackers might help! Just thinking out loud
I'd like to see it done like this too, but how? Baldeagl had a nice idea, but it relies on mission disclosure. Soon missions will be all word of mouth to avoid the system message loading up a defensive mission/alert. Making it harder for the "horde" missions adds challenge, but I'm sure many would consider it punishment instead of looking the challenge aspect.
Then you would have to own the company and dictate only people you approve of can pay you $14.95 to play in your house. Until then, blaming your fellow paying customer for being less than yourself, is simple discrimination against them for making a personal choice.
Unless you are trying to tell everyone that in truth, you are superior to them as a human being. While hiding from the repercussions behind the game's petticoat and hoop skirt.
I'm not trying to tell anyone "my way of playing is superior", all I'm looking for is a bit of fairness. It is a game and one side shouldn't have an unfair advantage because they have a huge numerical advantage. As in all games there should be a counter for the "horde" mission. With a new game structure some way could be introduced to counter the horde. If one team wants to horde it's ok, it's their $14.95, but the other guys on the other side are paying there $14.95 as well and should have some what of a chance at fighting the horde to make it "fun" for them as well.
Well I know it's a pain to defend against a massive horde of bombers. I know overwhelming numbers are no fun, but if we are keeping with reality (speaking of WW2) then you have to let the horde fly. I'll bet you most of the bomber missions flown in AH2 are nothing compared to what the Germans got during the war. Dresden, Sweinfurt, Hamburg. MASSIVE bomber formations. I do not see the problem with the horde. We are doing exactly as the allies did in WW2.
Thanks
Armkreuz
And the next time you "die" in a fight you will never up and play again too right? After all that would be just like WWII too.
The game is NOT war, its a game. People are paying their money to have fun. If you spend a week doing nothing but fighting the horde by yourself it is pretty much like paying some one to hit you in the face with a shovel.... repeatedly. While some people my find that fun :P I'm sure they are few and far between.
If everyone has to pay, shouldn't everyone be able to have fun?
-
Fugitive has brought up a topic that I brought up, literally, years ago.
What is the best way to develop, or more appropriately, have the game evolve?
As I have said for years. Base or zone limits. IRL bases could not/cannot support an unlimited number of aircraft at any given time. Neither should they here. Nor were all aircraft able to fly from all feilds
Imposing such limits would force people to up from a greater number of bases thus broadening the front You may still have the horde but they wont be able to all come from the same place at the same time. This would force the so called (cough cough)planners to actually be creative when they plan
-
If everyone has to pay, shouldn't everyone be able to have fun?
in other words those who fly in the hordes, which is about everybody except like 5 people here, are having fun. but a couple of you guys arent having fun. guess who's fault it is if you arent having fun?
I couldnt care less if we take a base or win the war. all I care about is if the last flight I had was fun for me. if yes then I keep paying my monthly dues if not, then I'll quit. think it's time a few guys either find a way to make the game fun for you or quit. and by making the game fun for you I dont meant trying to tell others how to play.
semp
-
or quit.
semp
A lot of people seem to be doing that lately. But I guess this is your approach to the problem.
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-HqvAcgxnIQg/T2Dpx_p_3kI/AAAAAAAAFU4/3Bq1Uum_lko/s640/ostrich-head-in-sand.jpg)
-
ET attracts a good following because he is a fine leader. Often on a mission I have heard him say, "Boys, this is going to get little hot, but that is why we are playing the game. Keep in mind too, decisions on which base are often strategic to get a foot hold.
I enjoy the furbal but look forward to ET's missions as well. I too enjoy a good base defense. Not good for the K/D, but it feels real good when you beat back a horde attack.
-
ET attracts a good following because he is a fine leader. Often on a mission I have heard him say, "Boys, this is going to get little hot, but that is why we are playing the game. Keep in mind too, decisions on which base are often strategic to get a foot hold.
I enjoy the furbal but look forward to ET's missions as well. I too enjoy a good base defense. Not good for the K/D, but it feels real good when you beat back a horde attack.
now that's the way to change player attitude instead of trying to regulate it. if those who complain about hordes would actually start setting up missions then something would change.
semp
-
now that's the way to change player attitude instead of trying to regulate it.
hordes self regulate.. eventually people get bored with them and learn to do other things or they quit the game altogether. this is why horde squads do not last.
-
Why has this game turned into an on-line version of "RISK"? You mass up your playing pieces along a boarder and then throw them at the next land mass.
Flying headlong en masse appeals to enough players that doing so happens time and time again.
-
As I have said for years. Base or zone limits. IRL bases could not/cannot support an unlimited number of aircraft at any given time. Neither should they here. Nor were all aircraft able to fly from all feilds
Imposing such limits would force people to up from a greater number of bases thus broadening the front You may still have the horde but they wont be able to all come from the same place at the same time. This would force the so called (cough cough)planners to actually be creative when they plan
And there I was thinking I was the only proponent of this.........
-
A lot of people seem to be doing that lately. But I guess this is your approach to the problem.
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-HqvAcgxnIQg/T2Dpx_p_3kI/AAAAAAAAFU4/3Bq1Uum_lko/s640/ostrich-head-in-sand.jpg)
I agree! So much so I drew a cartoon that looks a lot like your picture! I don't even both reading his posts any more.
ET attracts a good following because he is a fine leader. Often on a mission I have heard him say, "Boys, this is going to get little hot, but that is why we are playing the game. Keep in mind too, decisions on which base are often strategic to get a foot hold.
I enjoy the furbal but look forward to ET's missions as well. I too enjoy a good base defense. Not good for the K/D, but it feels real good when you beat back a horde attack.
The key word here is "crowd". I have tagged along in some of his missions as well as just over flying his horde as I go to a base the defenders may be upping from. He has the ability to use that force/horde more intelligently than just dumping all those numbers on one base.
hordes self regulate.. eventually people get bored with them and learn to do other things or they quit the game altogether. this is why horde squads do not last.
Unfortunately it really doesn't look like the game can lose very many more people.
Again, this is not a discussion about "play my way , it more about a counter to this type of game play.
-
I prefer to use the 3 player horde method to take bases,it works very well :cheers:
-
now that's the way to change player attitude instead of trying to regulate it. if those who complain about hordes would actually start setting up missions then something would change.
semp
:airplane: When I post and run missions, my first responsibility is to give each player in the mission a individual target for each object to be attacked. Sometimes, but not often, I do not even drop 1 bomb, as I prefer to give the guys in the mission a "goal" to achieve! As far as the hvy fighters, assigning them specific targets such as the 88's at a airfield or "air camping" a spawn point from another base. Sometimes I ask for someone to go to another base to kill the VH.
My second responsibility is to get all my bomber pilots home!
I always try to post different type missions so as to not "bore" the guys with the same old thing every mission.
I don't care about my score, my satisfaction comes from a successful mission and one that all enjoy!! :cheers:
-
This sounds like to me just another player that is trying to dictate how others should play because the masses don't conform to his game play expectations.
ack-ack
-
This sounds like to me just another player that is trying to dictate how others should play because the masses don't conform to his game play expectations.
ack-ack
Then you would be wrong and have not read through the thread. A number of times I have posted in this thread "If they want to horde, it's $14'95". I just think that if a different game structure isn't brought about we will continue to lose more players than are coming in.
I play all kinds of ways in this game. I HO when I have had enough of getting HOed :P I bomb tard GVs, I try spawn camping in tanks, I fly all kinds of fighters BnZin to turn and burning in the ack on the deck. I vulch when the opportunity presents it's self and there are no other fights around. I do milk runs in buffs as well as runs to the strats. I run supplies in GVs and goons. I enjoy figuring how to aim with the ships guns and like racing around in a PT boat covering a CV or port. I have no problem with people doing these things as well, but for every one of these actions there is a counter, hordes have none.
-
can always counter the horde with anti-horde guys that up jets and uber fighters. Needs what 5 guys who have uber mode enabled to slay any 15-20 man mishun.
Just need knowledge of whats been going on with the war situation / map and advance warning.
-
can always counter the horde with anti-horde guys that up jets and uber fighters. Needs what 5 guys who have uber mode enabled to slay any 15-20 man mishun.
Unfortunately most of us don't have an "Uber mode"
Just need knowledge of whats been going on with the war situation / map and advance warning.
And more often than not that info isn't forthcoming.
So far the only answer that looks like it could work is Drediock's
As I have said for years. Base or zone limits. IRL bases could not/cannot support an unlimited number of aircraft at any given time. Neither should they here. Nor were all aircraft able to fly from all feilds
Imposing such limits would force people to up from a greater number of bases thus broadening the front You may still have the horde but they wont be able to all come from the same place at the same time. This would force the so called (cough cough)planners to actually be creative when they plan
Can anyone poke holes in this one?
-
Can anyone poke holes in this one?
As anyone that used to fly in the VoD in AW, zone base limits had no effect on the hordes.
ack-ack
-
One way to counter hordes might be to ignore them and attack multiple empty bases simultaneously. The bad guys would lose some bases and some would have to split up to defend. The only time most of these hordies defend bases is when their precious "win teh warz" game plan goes awry. Once they are about to go under 20% of your bases, they start thinking about defense. You want change, then lead by example.
-
One way to counter hordes might be to ignore them and attack multiple empty bases simultaneously. The bad guys would lose some bases and some would have to split up to defend. The only time most of these hordies defend bases is when their precious "win teh warz" game plan goes awry. Once they are about to go under 20% of your bases, they start thinking about defense. You want change, then lead by example.
That is something that is a weakness of hordes. IF everyone on that side (or most) are in a mission, then there are no defenders. Take that as an opportunity to launch multiple counter-offensives against the enemy. Use it as a strategic advantage. Then, if they catch on, maybe hordes will become a thing of the past because of these "major weaknesses".
While I agree that hordes are annoying (they make my framerate drop from barely adequate to crap instantly), I understand why they are here and why all sides at some point or another have done it. It's effective (sometimes, quite laughable when not), and isn't hard; with the same end reward, you have a new base.
It isn't my preference, but I won't dictate as to how everyone else should play. However, use the weakness of the horde. Instead of having defenders, use that cv that has been off that island for 2+ hours, grab that base before they get your base!
Just a few thoughts.
Tinkles
<<S>>
-
One way to counter hordes might be to ignore them and attack multiple empty bases simultaneously. The bad guys would lose some bases and some would have to split up to defend. The only time most of these hordies defend bases is when their precious "win teh warz" game plan goes awry. Once they are about to go under 20% of your bases, they start thinking about defense. You want change, then lead by example.
No no no. Then Fugi would have to run all these strategic muti-target missions he always wants others to run.
-
As anyone that used to fly in the VoD in AW, zone base limits had no effect on the hordes.
ack-ack
Not true they had a real game play effect in AW FR spreading combat and reducing the "Disneyland " effect (as Mage referred to it)
Further the AW base limit could be attritted lowering the number of planes air borne from any one base from 24? To closer to 12? When certain objects were destroyed.( not something I would suggest for AH)
This forced mission planners to use multiple bases on many occasions.
The older AW terrains ( centre lake with three outer lakes) accommodated this very well as combat was to be had throughout the front.
Base limits were dropped when larger PAC and Euro terrains were brought into play. Not because they did not work re game play but because Mage etc could not get them to work at all ( technically) on these larger maps . I Indeed struggled to get them working on the AW Niemen terrain I built for that scenario. Basically AW terrain COAD was PITA from both design and setup viewpoints. ( lists!)
Base zone limits are the only tried and tested anti horde device to have "worked" IMO.
-
I think we can see game play where it is possible to "farm" a horde. Actually in the main this is not a typical gameplay circumstance.
The main game play occurrence starts with a large dar bar that moves from one base to another and claims it whilst rolling over the futile attempts of a small poorly organised defence.
The fact that a small poorly organised defence loses a base is a right and proper consequence. That this is done in in a manner that denies all participant access to combat is not IMO a desirable outcome.
Equally sometimes there is balance of combat over a field or near balanced with combat deciding an eventual out come..... When a horde rolls over this combat and vastly for shortens the battle the net result is one of loss to game play at the the gain to territory. This would be OK if the next jucstaposition of fields allowed the same "fight" to resume. But on so many terrains this is not the case.
In conclusion players should have an expectation of combat with opponents. Horde activity " in the main" removes access to this combat. Even when some player may "farm" a horde I would note that the swarm mentality focused on the mission reduces "farming" to a glorified pick fest.
-
As anyone that used to fly in the VoD in AW, zone base limits had no effect on the hordes.
ack-ack
Yes they did... tho I don't know what VoD means. In AW you would have to up from different bases and rendezvous with the other wings. In that time it gave defenders time to up a cap. It also brought in more waypoint changes to try and make it look like your hitting one base when you were really going after another. Things that made running a big mission a bit more challenging, and in many cases fun due to the "historic" nature of the rendezvous.
No no no. Then Fugi would have to run all these strategic muti-target missions he always wants others to run.
I've run thousands of them split between here and AW. The 444th Air Mafia was known as a great base taking squad that just didn't quit. The biggest reason I stepped down as CO of the squad after years of being the CO was I wanted more time to just fly the missions. Running big multi-target missions is a lot of work. I spent most squad nights just cruising around at 25k in a bomber just over seeing the action. Of course running those kinds of missions these days would be a bit tougher. Most of todays players aren't as skilled as they use to be. Why practice divebombing when you know for the most part you'll have 5 guys diving in right behind you going for the same target :rolleyes: There are few squads left that have that kind of skill any more Stampfs group, Palidins group, 71 Squadron RAF, and a few other I've seen take the time to train and work with their people to get BETTER at the game and use skill to offset numbers. The rest use numbers to make up for the lack of skill.
Again, this is not a "lets get rid of the HORDE" posting. I'm just hoping we get to see a change in game structure either by players who lead these missions, that they take into consideration not only their "teams" fun but the "enemies" fun as well, or something by HTC to provide a counter to what has become the "norm" in mission types. Like back in the day when you saw mostly NOE's.... err or didn't :devil HTC changed the dar levels and now we see NOE's, but they are no longer the norm, but the occasional mission (except on any of the island maps, much easier to NOE over water) that is a surprise tactic.
-
I think the best thing that hitech could do to improve play is to have an easy to use self training system for air combat that would work offline.
-
tho I don't know what VoD means.
Valley of Dweebs; the furthest west bases between the AZ and BZ near the river which launched the 24/7 furball in the VOD.
-
I think the best thing that hitech could do to improve play is to have an easy to use self training system for air combat that would work offline.
While I like it and don't want to shot down your idea, have you ever seen a "gamer" start a new game? From what I've seen instruction sheets are pristine after years of non use (I don't think they even bother printing them any more) and they jump strait into the "action". Unless forced very few will bother using a training system.
Valley of Dweebs; the furthest west bases between the AZ and BZ near the river which launched the 24/7 furball in the VOD.
ahhh ok. The Mafia spent most of our time in the Pac arena especially once it went to Big Pac and we had a base named after our squad :devil
-
Why has this game turned into an on-line version of "RISK"? You mass up your playing pieces along a boarder and then throw them at the next land mass. Roll your dice and take your chances that you brought enough "game markers" to take the objective.
Yesterday it started out with GHI and the Bish horde sneaking bases. Then supper time came and all the "kids" had to leave and it was Earl and the Rook horde taking back the base GHI and his horde had grabbed earlier. As night potato on the Knits got there horde running and as Earl and his horde were too busy stealing land from the Bish it was left to the stragglers to try and slow down the building Knit horde. Same old, same old.
Why has the game fallen into this routine? Don't get me wrong, I found little fights here and there, spoiled a few strat runs, made a milk run myself, but I had to work at it to find these things. When the "groups" get rolling it turns into the same old thing. Is grabbing bases more important than playing the game? No I don't want to see furballs all night, I want to see fights, period. It seems that when these groups get rolling they do what ever they can to avoid fighting for anything.
Want a base? Bring 50 guys to flatten everything and drop troops. Even if it is a vehicle base! How can there be a fight there? Now have 5 guys (2 buffs, 2 fighters, and a goon/M3) hit a V base and you might have to fight for it if someone is paying attention. If not you will take it with ease. Why must these "groups" all be on one base? is the chance of not getting the base such a horrible thought that it must be avoided at all costs? Will people actually die if the base is not captured? Will people rage quit if the "mission" ..... and I use that term VERY loosely, fails?
I wish some of these "leaders" would take it upon themselves to make mission more interesting and fun for all, and all being both sides.
Is this not the nature of war?
Is not the goal to win the map, hence winning the war.
If this was real life, would you not approach the targets in this fashion?
Believe it or not sometimes, not engaging in aerial fights, is a tactic. Stringing out the enemy fighters so the bombers can do their job.
My guess would be that the different time zones have the same groups that work together whilest other time zones go to bed, or work or school.
In the MA there are too many sides, I think. This is where AvA comes into mind. But most will not play AvA, most go to the MA where the numbers are.
I have to say that AH has done a great job at recreating actual circumstances in an air war world. They have provided what real air combat is. You are now to familiar with the game, hence the spontaneity is gone. I have this problem myself. This is why FA died IMO. AH has out lived FA due to GV's, Boats, better physics. But eventually peoples get bored. All of us cap out our skill level at some point. The bestest remain the bestest. Team play is great, but once the team finds tactics that work for them, they stick with the same old same old.
I do not think there is a real answer for this other than less realistic gameplay.
The bottom line is what is "your" end game to be?
If we could all get togather in the same warehouse, connected to the server on the same lan, at the same time, it would be different prolly.
No lag, real, real time gameplay. This would be new. Eventually you would get bored of this.
S
-
One way to counter hordes might be to ignore them and attack multiple empty bases simultaneously. The bad guys would lose some bases and some would have to split up to defend. The only time most of these hordies defend bases is when their precious "win teh warz" game plan goes awry. Once they are about to go under 20% of your bases, they start thinking about defense. You want change, then lead by example.
:aok
-
Is this not the nature of war?
Is not the goal to win the map, hence winning the war.
If this was real life, would you not approach the targets in this fashion?
Believe it or not sometimes, not engaging in aerial fights, is a tactic. Stringing out the enemy fighters so the bombers can do their job.
My guess would be that the different time zones have the same groups that work together whilest other time zones go to bed, or work or school.
In the MA there are too many sides, I think. This is where AvA comes into mind. But most will not play AvA, most go to the MA where the numbers are.
I have to say that AH has done a great job at recreating actual circumstances in an air war world. They have provided what real air combat is. You are now to familiar with the game, hence the spontaneity is gone. I have this problem myself. This is why FA died IMO. AH has out lived FA due to GV's, Boats, better physics. But eventually peoples get bored. All of us cap out our skill level at some point. The bestest remain the bestest. Team play is great, but once the team finds tactics that work for them, they stick with the same old same old.
I do not think there is a real answer for this other than less realistic gameplay.
The bottom line is what is "your" end game to be?
If we could all get togather in the same warehouse, connected to the server on the same lan, at the same time, it would be different prolly.
No lag, real, real time gameplay. This would be new. Eventually you would get bored of this.
S
This NOT war, nor is it suppose to represent WAR in any way. IT IS A GAME. What happened in real life shouldn't have any bearing here other than the historical elements. You will never see ambulances in this game nor piles of bodies along the side of the roads, nor concentration camps. This is a game. War is never meant to be fair. You take ever advantage you can to save your army and decimate the enemies. War is not fun.
This is a game. Games are suppose to be fun. Games are suppose to be ..... well basically.... fair. This is why the main arena isn't 2 sided like AvA. If it were people would pile on the side with the biggest numbers just to steam roll the other side. With 3 sides it's much harder to single out just one side. So with the idea of the game being fair there should be some counter to hordes.
Yes I am familiar with the game VERY familiar as I have been here 11 years and a couple in Air Warrior as well. I still find ways to have fun, if I didn't I'd be long gone. The thing is, with 11 years here you start to see trends. Yes we have always had Hordes, I've even lead a few myself :devil the point is it is becoming the norm. Years ago they use to post on the boards that Friday was the "so an so groups" mega mission night and they would put together a horde. The warning worked out good because the opposing players could mount a defense and fight it out. After all the game isn't about winning the war, it's about FIGHTING for it. That could be why they call it a "Combat Game".
-
the game is about pretending to be a pilot using ww2 airplanes. that and having a couple of drinks and telling your friends how you just fought 1 million red cons, killed them all and landed safely without a scratch.
semp
-
You'll never convince people to give up a means to "win". They'll have to do that of their own accord or be coerced by gameplay mechanics.
Many changes have been made over the years from the addition of star wars ack to increasing town sizes to centralizing the strats to reducing radar alts and more. Each has had an influence on the hordes and how they operate. Not all of these changes have been for the better.
Personally I'd like to see the spread out zone strat system returned. More ways to play and have fun and win in your own way would help to disburse some of the hordes. I also like the idea of limiting how many and what types of aircraft can take off from a given size airfield (although there has to be accomodation to launch as many as needed from the uncapturable fields) and the idea of a zone based ENY system that would better localize the ENY restrictions.
Everyone plays the way that best allows them to feel they have won, whether that's by capturing territory, killing enemy's, chasing scores and ranks or garnering achievments (probably another tweak that could influence behavior) among others. Everyone plays in the same sandbox by the same rules.
You can beat your head against the wall for another 11 years trying to shame people into playing differently or you can provide constructive ideas that subtly modify game behavior. Obviously the first choice isn't working.
-
You'll never convince people to give up a means to "win". They'll have to do that of their own accord or be coerced by gameplay mechanics.
Many changes have been made over the years from the addition of star wars ack to increasing town sizes to centralizing the strats to reducing radar alts and more. Each has had an influence on the hordes and how they operate. Not all of these changes have been for the better.
Personally I'd like to see the spread out zone strat system returned. More ways to play and have fun and win in your own way would help to disburse some of the hordes. I also like the idea of limiting how many and what types of aircraft can take off from a given size airfield (although there has to be accomodation to launch as many as needed from the uncapturable fields) and the idea of a zone based ENY system that would better localize the ENY restrictions.
Everyone plays the way that best allows them to feel they have won, whether that's by capturing territory, killing enemy's, chasing scores and ranks or garnering achievments (probably another tweak that could influence behavior) among others. Everyone plays in the same sandbox by the same rules.
You can beat your head against the wall for another 11 years trying to shame people into playing differently or you can provide constructive ideas that subtly modify game behavior. Obviously the first choice isn't working.
I'm not beating my head against the wall, nor am I trying to shame anyone into changing how they play the game. My constructive ideas include laying out other options for these "generals" to change game play on there own. I have also made suggestions HTC could institute to change game play. However the biggest reason I post questions like this is to get as many people involved as possible to get as many ideas posted as possible. I am smart enough to know that I don't have all the answers and so look to see what others think. Maybe someone will post something that will spawn an idea in Hitechs head that will become a great addition to game structure and game play.
Many people posting ideas and thoughts is better than one person just "pizzin and moaning" on the boards. At this point I still enjoy this game, even in its current "horde mentality" form. I just don't see an active future for the game if it continues down this road. If the game isn't fun and exciting why would people continue to PAY and play it? If all you know is the horde mission how long is that going to be fun?
-
While I like it and don't want to shot down your idea, have you ever seen a "gamer" start a new game? From what I've seen instruction sheets are pristine after years of non use (I don't think they even bother printing them any more) and they jump strait into the "action". Unless forced very few will bother using a training system.
I don't mean a training system. I have seen people suggest tutorials that you have to successfully complete. That is exactly what I am not talking about, that's the clutter most people want to skip over. I mean an offline resource that provides instant access to air combat with drones of selectable ability and selectable energy states/altitudes. Basically a drill area with a high ratio of drilling to time, no reading, diagrams, or level completions. The game doesn't have to explain maneuvers it just has to afford a way to practice them, optimally with the fewest clicks possible. Better skills lead to better game is my thinking.
-
Fuel burn changed from 2x to 1x would be the New Game Structure that would blow your minds!
*imagine the term... 'altitude' so ON THE DECK speed wouldn't be most important factor!
*Massive formations of fighters bombers, and c47's going across a map...
*Massive formations of fighters trying to guess their course and where to intercept (not so easy when enemy is at 30k or higher)...
*Fuel buys time for large groups of players to form up! <--- the key!
*Every plane can come along because ALL would have RANGE, except for the FURTHEST MISSIONS, where FUEL tanks can be used and required! Capital to Capital would be the only exclusionary case depending on the map.
*Your fight will rarely be against TIME, mostly against FUEL WEIGHT!
*Base captures far behind enemy lines, and continuing intense fights that require strategic choices and teamwork to win the day.
*Squad nights with other players or squads added/picked up, would see better action than FSO, since main arena has dar, icons, working radar, etc etc...
*Enemy fighters show up ANYWHERE, with new improved range, especially if NOE radar is raised to higher than tree level, like it used to be!
*Fighters could even circle really slow, just under radar near enemy bases, I used to even land, hide near a barn or something, have lunch or do homework waiting for something to up! *yes fighters camping!
*Fighter sweeps over the other two enemy fights! New meaning to 'cherry pick' (like a Rook flying around a Knite-Bish fight.)
*Add troops to the He-111, and it would be sooo totally ON... (better than the pingy thing the old days c47's had poking out right side of the plane...)
*Game population would probably go exponential!
And about these claims of "la-7 planes with 100% fuel vulching for an hour"... NOT, they would get pwned by other planes upping with 25% fuel (50% by current flight time) that would loop and turn all over them.
The ONE FAULT of FUEL BURN 1X... fuel load does become 'the great equalizer' even more so than our 2x... A spit1 with 25% fuel might pwn a spit16 with 100% fuel, in most catagories. How you fly might TOTALLY BE DETERIMED BY YOUR FUEL GAGE.
Blow your minds! Most of you might think you can imagine, but you weren't there! You don't know!...
I feel like an actual war vet trying to tell you guys how it was... you don't even know what you're missing! :/
I'm sure that others here, from the old days, would agree... 1x would blow your minds!
And to the 'online vets' vets of days of old... this game (version) would be better! This game is new and improved since those days!
I can't believe it was ever changed... What's HTC know that the rest of us 'online vets' don't? :D
As is, very fun, but every fight winds up a flying through ack, and then a vulch fest? Me no like flying thru ack!
A new study and wishlist topic: which planes had a switch to drain a fuel tank
Put fuelburn to 1x on the least populated day, and watch it become the most populated day within... two weeks, really!
Notice my sig?
-
It would be popular because people could haul less fuel to accomplish the same thing making the P-51D, Mosquito Mk VI, A6M and other such long ranged aircraft more agile while also giving La-7s, Fw190s, Spitfires and Bf109s the range to go wherever they wanted.
It would not cause people to fly at high altitudes or in large numbers as you suggest. There is currently no barrier to doing so in bombers as most bombers can reach any location on the map after climbing to 20-30k. Fighters, even Spitfires and Bf109s, also have no problems operating at those altitudes, though the shorter ranged fighters cannot penetrate deep into enemy territory.
-
I was here when the fuel burn was 1x and don't remember high alt masses of planes.
I agree with Karnak that all that would do is have planes upping with less fuel to try and get an edge in maneuverability.
-
Karnak:
Most players know that the fuel tank hurts plane performance, even after it's dropped, few would fly sooo far to be at such disadvantage!!! Difference!
Yes they DID up in masses in the old days, SQUAD NIGHTS... and pickup groups, taking off from 3 bases within friendly lines, flying to 4 or so bases behind enemy lines! All this at a time when home computers were not in every household!... we have the same or less population #s now, yet there are a billion more pc's out there than back then!
If you doubt it, then LETS TEST, fuel burn 1x Wednesdays!
I wasn't here when fuelburn was 1x IN AH, but I was in AW2, and AW3, exact predecessors of this game...
FUEL BURN 1X could cause this game to actually be MASSIVE multiplayer... we get 300 players with half in tower is not quite massive!
Check FSO... more players than in the MAIN arena and ALL in the AIR... and again, 1x in main with icons, dar, radar, is better than FSO!!!
Fugi if you didn't see masses, I wonder if you were at the ending stages of AW3 when the arena's were split to Europe and Pacific, meaning a Zeek couldn't fight a 109... causing numbers to drop off terribly. AW ended for a reason! Or were you in the early stages of AH1?
And I for one DID NOT make the transition from AW3 to AH(1), 8 years break or so, to Microsoft flightsim, etc, not all of us accepted the 'month free' or what what when we AW3'ers got our AH1 CD mailed to us.
Not to mention there were other games competing and coming out then too probably.
These days, for air to air, this is the ww2 plane game without any competition for what it does... base capture etc etc.
-
AH never had 1x in the MA. It used to be 1.5x and then was changed to 2x.
The lower player population or different player culture or different gameplay goals in the game are far more likelier to be the cause of the gameplay changes you've seen than any fuel consumption changes.
In the Mossie, my most commonly taken plane, I take 50% fuel. If the fuel burn was 1x I would simply save 700lbs and take 25%.
-
Karnak, you are obviously stuck in 2x mode...
Your thoughts don't seem to see past the nearest base... :frown:
You must unlearn what u have learned... too old to begin the training! ~ Yoda
You seemingly can't even imagine 'epic' compared to this nearest base stuff.
Is there an expense issue that HTC doesn't want to spend? Like the split main arena thing back when?
HTC is Karnak defending that which is hidden to the public?
What's wrong with 1x????? sooo epic even '20,000 posts' Karnak can't imagine!
WHY CAN'T WE TRY IT ONE DAY A WEEK???
-
Karnak, you are obviously stuck in 2x mode...
Your thoughts don't seem to see past the nearest base... :frown:
You must unlearn what u have learned... too old to begin the training! ~ Yoda
You seemingly can't even imagine 'epic' compared to this nearest base stuff.
Is there an expense issue that HTC doesn't want to spend? Like the split main arena thing back when?
HTC is Karnak defending that which is hidden to the public?
What's wrong with 1x????? sooo epic even '20,000 posts' Karnak can't imagine!
WHY CAN'T WE TRY IT ONE DAY A WEEK???
If most players are going to pick the uber rides, the low ENY, easiest to get a kill with rides. Like the Peee51 then what do you think people are going to fly when fuel is dropped to x1?
I would like the option for certain low range planes to have the option of x1 burn rate, I don't see it happening. It isn't about imagining anything, or hoping for the best. It's about looking at the consequences, something you don't do.
-
Here are my thoughts on some changes that I think might help promote combat over simply running over a base.
1:While not my idea I do like the concept of limiting the number of aircraft that can come off a base in a set time. Though I am unsure how this would best be implemented.
2:I think a small perk cost (2-4) added to Wirbles only when a player spawns at an airfield would help encourage people to up aircraft for defense. Perhaps some other AA vehicles that aren't quite as tough should be added as well?
3:Remove the 88mm flak guns from all airbases, and increase the number of 88's and other anti-aircraft guns on vbases. Vehicle bases need the extra firepower to defend against mass bombers/attack aircraft, airfields have fighters.
4:Count any gun that is destroyed while being controlled by a player as a kill for the attacking party, and a death for the defending party. If people towering when they see a con diving on them will be a problem then a five second delay should be imposed from the time a player ends flight.
5:Increase the hardness of hangars, or increase the number of hangars on every base. This should be implemented along with either a reduction in accuracy of the auto-calibrating bombsite as altitude increases or players should be required to manually calibrate. With the current mechanics two or three sets of 25k bombers can shut down an entire field in one pass.
6:Increase the hardness of ordnance bunkers. One suicide Pony should not be able to pork ords at a field.
7:Introduce perked ordnance loads for the P-51 and F4U-1D.
-
Here are my thoughts on some changes that I think might help promote combat over simply running over a base.
1:While not my idea I do like the concept of limiting the number of aircraft that can come off a base in a set time. Though I am unsure how this would best be implemented.
2:I think a small perk cost (2-4) added to Wirbles only when a player spawns at an airfield would help encourage people to up aircraft for defense. Perhaps some other AA vehicles that aren't quite as tough should be added as well?
3:Remove the 88mm flak guns from all airbases, and increase the number of 88's and other anti-aircraft guns on vbases. Vehicle bases need the extra firepower to defend against mass bombers/attack aircraft, airfields have fighters.
4:Count any gun that is destroyed while being controlled by a player as a kill for the attacking party, and a death for the defending party. If people towering when they see a con diving on them will be a problem then a five second delay should be imposed from the time a player ends flight.
5:Increase the hardness of hangars, or increase the number of hangars on every base. This should be implemented along with either a reduction in accuracy of the auto-calibrating bombsite as altitude increases or players should be required to manually calibrate. With the current mechanics two or three sets of 25k bombers can shut down an entire field in one pass.
6:Increase the hardness of ordnance bunkers. One suicide Pony should not be able to pork ords at a field.
7:Introduce perked ordnance loads for the P-51 and F4U-1D.
I agree with all except #3. I have saved quite a few bases because the attackers didn't kill the 88s and were vulching, making it impossible for anyone to take off (and we had 5+ trying to take off at once). I agree the 88s can get annoying sometimes, they are legit defense, and are easy to kill (and evade) if you know how to do it.
-
I agree with all except #3. I have saved quite a few bases because the attackers didn't kill the 88s and were vulching, making it impossible for anyone to take off (and we had 5+ trying to take off at once). I agree the 88s can get annoying sometimes, they are legit defense, and are easy to kill (and evade) if you know how to do it.
make all the ack down for perhaps 5 minutes at most. nothing better than to vulch uppers with all ack up and werbies all around. heck I look forward to dead guys thinking they can hide in the ack at a base.
semp
-
Karnak, you are obviously stuck in 2x mode...
Your thoughts don't seem to see past the nearest base... :frown:
You must unlearn what u have learned... too old to begin the training! ~ Yoda
You seemingly can't even imagine 'epic' compared to this nearest base stuff.
Is there an expense issue that HTC doesn't want to spend? Like the split main arena thing back when?
HTC is Karnak defending that which is hidden to the public?
What's wrong with 1x????? sooo epic even '20,000 posts' Karnak can't imagine!
WHY CAN'T WE TRY IT ONE DAY A WEEK???
I didn't say it couldn't be tried. I said what the outcome would be and I am so confident I am right I would be willing to bet on it. Say, if it is tried and it turns out as you say I pay your subscription fee forever and if it turns out as I say then you pay my subscription fee forever.
You are so focused on your idea being good that you aren't thinking about the counter points people bring up and are instead reacting to them as generic opposition. You have provided no mechanism through which the effects you claim it would have would actually happen or even be encouraged.
You accuse me of being stuck on a 2x mindset, but you can't even explain what that means. I usually pick a fighter that carries so much fuel that even at 2x I only take 50% fuel and when it was introduced it had a mistake in its model that had it consuming double the fuel it should so it was flying around at 3x while everybody else was at 1.5x. So, if I am taking 50% now at 2x why would I not shed 700lbs of fuel and take 25% at 1x? If that is the choice facing me, why wouldn't it be faced by almost every other player as well?
-
Here are my thoughts on some changes that I think might help promote combat over simply running over a base.
1:While not my idea I do like the concept of limiting the number of aircraft that can come off a base in a set time. Though I am unsure how this would best be implemented.
2:I think a small perk cost (2-4) added to Wirbles only when a player spawns at an airfield would help encourage people to up aircraft for defense. Perhaps some other AA vehicles that aren't quite as tough should be added as well?
3:Remove the 88mm flak guns from all airbases, and increase the number of 88's and other anti-aircraft guns on vbases. Vehicle bases need the extra firepower to defend against mass bombers/attack aircraft, airfields have fighters.
4:Count any gun that is destroyed while being controlled by a player as a kill for the attacking party, and a death for the defending party. If people towering when they see a con diving on them will be a problem then a five second delay should be imposed from the time a player ends flight.
5:Increase the hardness of hangars, or increase the number of hangars on every base. This should be implemented along with either a reduction in accuracy of the auto-calibrating bombsite as altitude increases or players should be required to manually calibrate. With the current mechanics two or three sets of 25k bombers can shut down an entire field in one pass.
6:Increase the hardness of ordnance bunkers. One suicide Pony should not be able to pork ords at a field.
7:Introduce perked ordnance loads for the P-51 and F4U-1D.
I don't think field guns are that big an issue. After all they are pretty easily taken out.
As for adding toughness to target people say that they will just bring more people so adding to the horde. On top of that, hardening of the targets makes it even harder for small groups to attack and take bases.
-
I don't think field guns are that big an issue. After all they are pretty easily taken out.
As for adding toughness to target people say that they will just bring more people so adding to the horde. On top of that, hardening of the targets makes it even harder for small groups to attack and take bases.
The horde will never go away, every open world game has their own version of it. The proposed changes are meant to encourage fighting and prevent hordes from rolling over base after base by dropping every single hangar before 90% of players even know the field is under attack. As for the changes to field guns I frequently spend a good deal of time circling frontline airfields either by myself or with one or two pilots while some guy in the 88 and a half a dozen wirbles take shots at me and not a single aircraft comes off the runway. I have zero incentive to dive through the laser guided ack to kill the 88 since I don't even get a kill for my trouble, and they have zero risk since they can't even be killed while in the gun.
-
The horde will never go away, every open world game has their own version of it. The proposed changes are meant to encourage fighting and prevent hordes from rolling over base after base by dropping every single hangar before 90% of players even know the field is under attack. As for the changes to field guns I frequently spend a good deal of time circling frontline airfields either by myself or with one or two pilots while some guy in the 88 and a half a dozen wirbles take shots at me and not a single aircraft comes off the runway. I have zero incentive to dive through the laser guided ack to kill the 88 since I don't even get a kill for my trouble, and they have zero risk since they can't even be killed while in the gun.
3 guys can deack a field in two maybe 3 passes depending on field size. If no one is upping why are you bothering circling?
Making a field harder to roll is just going to bring more people. Yes hordes are here to stay, but there should be some counter to them. Something that won't hurt smaller groups like hardening FH and such. Something along the lines of an early warning system so that those who want to defend can get organized, or the hardness of FH be tied to an automatic scale so that the more people you bring the harder it is to knock them down. This way small groups can still hit bases and have a chance at taking them.
Much like the change in the dar alts slowed the NOEs WITHOUT stopping them, we need something to either slow the hordes and give the defenders some way to fight back.
Yesterday was another prime example. Bish were running NOEs across the water with 30-40 guys in each mission for a single base. Meanwhile Knights got together and had their own horde or 25-35 guys rolling. Rooks were all over the place. I think we stopped the Bish once or twice but then they just disappear and go grab a base on some other front running NOE. After supper the Bish had to go to bed and the Knits fell apart and ET's put his horde together and rolled a few bases from the rook side. Same old same old. :(
-
3 guys can deack a field in two maybe 3 passes depending on field size. If no one is upping why are you bothering circling?
Because this game is about more then just taking bases. Bases are there to provide something to fight over.
I don't think my changes would hurt small base takes since they usually don't bother dropping all the hangars anyway.
-
:airplane: :airplane:
Here are my thoughts on some changes that I think might help promote combat over simply running over a base.
1:While not my idea I do like the concept of limiting the number of aircraft that can come off a base in a set time. Though I am unsure how this would best be implemented.
2:I think a small perk cost (2-4) added to Wirbles only when a player spawns at an airfield would help encourage people to up aircraft for defense. Perhaps some other AA vehicles that aren't quite as tough should be added as well?
3:Remove the 88mm flak guns from all airbases, and increase the number of 88's and other anti-aircraft guns on vbases. Vehicle bases need the extra firepower to defend against mass bombers/attack aircraft, airfields have fighters.
4:Count any gun that is destroyed while being controlled by a player as a kill for the attacking party, and a death for the defending party. If people towering when they see a con diving on them will be a problem then a five second delay should be imposed from the time a player ends flight.
5:Increase the hardness of hangars, or increase the number of hangars on every base. This should be implemented along with either a reduction in accuracy of the auto-calibrating bombsite as altitude increases or players should be required to manually calibrate. With the current mechanics two or three sets of 25k bombers can shut down an entire field in one pass.
6:Increase the hardness of ordnance bunkers. One suicide Pony should not be able to pork ords at a field.
7:Introduce perked ordnance loads for the P-51 and F4U-1D.
:airplane: I thought that you did get a kill, when u take out a manned gun! Is that not correct, some of these other guys know better than me about that, and maybe they will comment on this.
-
:airplane: :airplane: :airplane: I thought that you did get a kill, when u take out a manned gun! Is that not correct, some of these other guys know better than me about that, and maybe they will comment on this.
No, you don't get a kill because the gunner also doesn't get a death. Furthermore, if you get shot down by a manned ack the system will tell you who it was (it records the kill as one that doesn't count for score or rank and records the death as a generic death to a field gun) when you shoot one down it doesn't tell you who it was nor does it record it in the stats.
-
3 guys can deack a field in two maybe 3 passes depending on field size. If no one is upping why are you bothering circling?
I think we should be careful to note what actually typically happens rather than what "can" happen or might be achievable.
Its clear that in game 3 guys do not routinely deack a field.... indeed this is quite rare...........
What is clear is that the battle is still over fields.......... the defences/ size of towns simply delay matters as the field has to be neutralised because it is so close to the town and so must be neutralised prior capture. (thus denying defenders access locally)
The only game play where the field is not fully neutralised is during a sneak capture (where was the gameplay combat there?) or as a result of heavy GV activity after porking ordinance and VH (showing GV capture to be more efficient in this respect....... again limiting AC combat effectiveness)
Neutralising a field denies the defenders access to game play..............
The "need" to neutralise the field sponsors the act of doing so...............
-
I think we should be careful to note what actually typically happens rather than what "can" happen or might be achievable.
Its clear that in game 3 guys do not routinely deack a field.... indeed this is quite rare...........
What is clear is that the battle is still over fields.......... the defences/ size of towns simply delay matters as the field has to be neutralised because it is so close to the town and so must be neutralised prior capture. (thus denying defenders access locally)
The only game play where the field is not fully neutralised is during a sneak capture (where was the gameplay combat there?) or as a result of heavy GV activity after porking ordinance and VH (showing GV capture to be more efficient in this respect....... again limiting AC combat effectiveness)
Neutralising a field denies the defenders access to game play..............
The "need" to neutralise the field sponsors the act of doing so...............
And that is the point I'm trying to make when it comes to players effecting change in game structure.
If these "generals" sent 3 guys ahead to 3 different bases, using Pand's map edited to show "ack runs" like these....
(http://i266.photobucket.com/albums/ii253/maddogjoe_photos/SF_ack_zps5bde0d1f.jpg) (http://s266.photobucket.com/user/maddogjoe_photos/media/SF_ack_zps5bde0d1f.jpg.html)(http://i266.photobucket.com/albums/ii253/maddogjoe_photos/MF_ack_zps39bba189.jpg) (http://s266.photobucket.com/user/maddogjoe_photos/media/MF_ack_zps39bba189.jpg.html)
9 guys could effectively de-ack 3 bases. Now the defenders have a warning, but which of the 3 bases? The other 20+ guys could hit two of them and vulch instead of taking out all the FHs and most likely take both. This is where PLAYERS could make the game more fun for everyone by creating these types of fronts and battles instead of just the same old horde effect.
-
This is where PLAYERS could make the game more fun for everyone by creating these types of fronts and battles instead of just the same old horde effect.
Then I think you are beating a long dead horse........... the original posting was related to "new game structure"........... if the outcome is a conclusion that a new game structure is one generated by PLAYERS behaving differently to the way they always have done then IMO it is a flawed conclusion.
Game play is not a construct of individual play........... it is a construct of mass play........... motivate the masses toward an end that improves game play. Take your lessons from what motivates the masses now........ understand what limits the masses now.
Do not assume to change what motivates the masses.
-
Not true they had a real game play effect in AW FR spreading combat and reducing the "Disneyland " effect (as Mage referred to it)
Further the AW base limit could be attritted lowering the number of planes air borne from any one base from 24? To closer to 12? When certain objects were destroyed.( not something I would suggest for AH)
This forced mission planners to use multiple bases on many occasions.
The older AW terrains ( centre lake with three outer lakes) accommodated this very well as combat was to be had throughout the front.
Base limits were dropped when larger PAC and Euro terrains were brought into play. Not because they did not work re game play but because Mage etc could not get them to work at all ( technically) on these larger maps . I Indeed struggled to get them working on the AW Niemen terrain I built for that scenario. Basically AW terrain COAD was PITA from both design and setup viewpoints. ( lists!)
Base zone limits are the only tried and tested anti horde device to have "worked" IMO.
AW FR with its lower player base, zone bases did have an affect but in AW RR where 90% of the players were playing in, zone bases didn't have any real impact. All it did was create multiple hordes taking off nearby bases to join the main horde in VoD. It wasn't uncommon to see almost all of Az and Bzland in the VoD while Czland was left alone to fight no one.
ack-ack
ack-ack
-
Then I think you are beating a long dead horse........... the original posting was related to "new game structure"........... if the outcome is a conclusion that a new game structure is one generated by PLAYERS behaving differently to the way they always have done then IMO it is a flawed conclusion.
Game play is not a construct of individual play........... it is a construct of mass play........... motivate the masses toward an end that improves game play. Take your lessons from what motivates the masses now........ understand what limits the masses now.
Do not assume to change what motivates the masses.
But that is how the game structure was changed to get to where we are correct? If it is going to be PLAYERS that are going to again change the game play structure it's going to take a group of players who are looking for more fun/action than base captures which really isn't to hard to believe. The biggest problem with most of the players who like this type of play is that they are not "leaders", but players. Use to jumping from front to front, fight to fight even if it means changing sides.
Thats why I think it's going to take something from HTC to change the game structure that we have now.
-
But that is how the game structure was changed to get to where we are correct?
if the game structure changed then it was the cause of any change in game play not the activities of players that modified their gameplay to meet the new structure.
If it is going to be PLAYERS that are going to again change the game play structure it's going to take a group of players who are looking for more fun/action than base captures which really isn't to hard to believe.
I'm sorry but its near impossible to believe that a group of players ("leaders") are going to change the game play motives of the masses.......... its been tried so many times and failed every time
The biggest problem with most of the players who like this type of play is that they are not "leaders", but players. Use to jumping from front to front, fight to fight even if it means changing sides.
Agreed the leaders that are "followed" are those that give the masses what they desire.... not what they "should" desire.
Thats why I think it's going to take something from HTC to change the game structure that we have now.
I do not see how your logic led to your conclusion but I agree with the conclusion in any event.
:salute
-
AW FR with its lower player base, zone bases did have an affect but in AW RR where 90% of the players were playing in, zone bases didn't have any real impact. All it did was create multiple hordes taking off nearby bases to join the main horde in VoD. It wasn't uncommon to see almost all of Az and Bzland in the VoD while Czland was left alone to fight no one.
ack-ack
ack-ack
As a Die hard cz of the time we refered to VoD as Disney Land and I can advise that by early AW3 it was in FR to prior to base limit. Base limit was also introduced around that time that country rotation was introduced..prior to this Cz was always North and South West, Az was North and South East, and Bz were South West and South East. for us Disneyland was over the far South Eastern Lake. It was certainly a feature of RR and remained one of FR untill the base limit was introduced.
My squad moved to FR with the introduction of AW3 beta.
On the very small maps within AH it would be a waste of time . As soon as a country has suffured a modicom of attrition the base limit would have to be raised just so everyone could launch and not have players stuck in the tower. As the shrinking number of bases pushes the base/zone limit up so it becomes useless to a point where it supports massive numbers from the defending side.
On larger maps this is not the case and so gameplay is spread further.
-
As a Die hard cz of the time we refered to VoD as Disney Land and I can advise that by early AW3 it was in FR to prior to base limit. Base limit was also introduced around that time that country rotation was introduced..prior to this Cz was always North and South West, Az was North and South East, and Bz were South West and South East. for us Disneyland was over the far South Eastern Lake. It was certainly a feature of RR and remained one of FR untill the base limit was introduced.
The zone limits were not introduced in AW3, it was already a feature in the game long before that. I don't recall them being in AW DOS but the zone limits were in AW4W when the map was static and country rotation wasn't implemented yet (that wasn't until AW3) and bases were only numbers (named bases appeared in AW3). VoD was, IIRC, B85 and A83 and that is where the majority of the fights took place (with the exception of factory and main base raids) and where the majority of the players were on the RR small ETO maps. The zone limits didn't stop the horde at VoD, all it did was make players up from a nearby base and take the longer flight to VoD and then get shot down and hope a slot opened up at B85 (or A83 if you were an Azlander) so you didn't have to fly so far to the fight. As a die-hard Czlander, my squadron often had to up from C83 and then fly across half the map if we wanted to fight as the majority of Az and Bzlanders were in VoD furballing.
ack-ack
-
The zone limits were not introduced in AW3, it was already a feature in the game long before that. I don't recall them being in AW DOS but the zone limits were in AW4W when the map was static and country rotation wasn't implemented yet (that wasn't until AW3) and bases were only numbers (named bases appeared in AW3). VoD was, IIRC, B85 and A83 and that is where the majority of the fights took place (with the exception of factory and main base raids) and where the majority of the players were on the RR small ETO maps. The zone limits didn't stop the horde at VoD, all it did was make players up from a nearby base and take the longer flight to VoD and then get shot down and hope a slot opened up at B85 (or A83 if you were an Azlander) so you didn't have to fly so far to the fight. As a die-hard Czlander, my squadron often had to up from C83 and then fly across half the map if we wanted to fight as the majority of Az and Bzlanders were in VoD furballing.
ack-ack
I have to admit that even as I was typing I was wondering if it was during the ever so brief period of "AW2" after AW4W that the base limit was used. I remember going FR during AW3 beta (Big PAC).
I am sure that during this period prior AW3, base names (Jennifer, Grey Eagle, Moggy etc)were introduced along with rotation, Multi field capture and possibly as you say base limits.
I suppose I could check this chronology with the Bigweek crowd.
I have distinct memories of launching from fields south of the river as a Cz and having to modify mission waypoints to merge from different bases because the field had been bombed and the base limit reduced below squadron strength.
So it could have been in RR during this period that I recall. However having said that I would repeat that base limit worked to spread combat.... And if you are correct re the timing then I would state that it worked in RR just prior to AW3..... Albeit my experience is Euro time zone related where numbers were not as great as US time zones.
Further it is still the only measure I have seen that breaks/ modifies the tendancy to horde.
-
I have to admit that even as I was typing I was wondering if it was during the ever so brief period of "AW2" after AW4W that the base limit was used. I remember going FR during AW3 beta (Big PAC).
I am sure that during this period prior AW3, base names (Jennifer, Grey Eagle, Moggy etc)were introduced along with rotation, Multi field capture and possibly as you say base limits.
I suppose I could check this chronology with the Bigweek crowd.
I have distinct memories of launching from fields south of the river as a Cz and having to modify mission waypoints to merge from different bases because the field had been bombed and the base limit reduced below squadron strength.
So it could have been in RR during this period that I recall. However having said that I would repeat that base limit worked to spread combat.... And if you are correct re the timing then I would state that it worked in RR just prior to AW3..... Albeit my experience is Euro time zone related where numbers were not as great as US time zones.
Further it is still the only measure I have seen that breaks/ modifies the tendancy to horde.
Indeed zone limits were in AW2. That is where I started playing AW. I bought the boxed game,and got some free hours to play on Compuserve. This was the time AOL quit having AW for free. When I started AW2 had like 6 or 7 players in FR. First trainers were Soup and Root. I quit flying shortly after Electronic Arts took over. I still will never spend a dime on their stuff. Not even at a garage sale. I think you are dead on right Tilt. I think limits did work as you suggest.
-
When I started AW2 had like 6 or 7 players in FR.
....er....what was your handle then...?
- oldman ("oldma" back then)
-
I have to admit that even as I was typing I was wondering if it was during the ever so brief period of "AW2" after AW4W that the base limit was used. I remember going FR during AW3 beta (Big PAC).
I am sure that during this period prior AW3, base names (Jennifer, Grey Eagle, Moggy etc)were introduced along with rotation, Multi field capture and possibly as you say base limits.
I suppose I could check this chronology with the Bigweek crowd.
I have distinct memories of launching from fields south of the river as a Cz and having to modify mission waypoints to merge from different bases because the field had been bombed and the base limit reduced below squadron strength.
So it could have been in RR during this period that I recall. However having said that I would repeat that base limit worked to spread combat.... And if you are correct re the timing then I would state that it worked in RR just prior to AW3..... Albeit my experience is Euro time zone related where numbers were not as great as US time zones.
Further it is still the only measure I have seen that breaks/ modifies the tendancy to horde.
At that time wasn't Hitech a programmer for AW? If so, why does he have a different take on what you are asserting to the point he won't include the feature in this game? Between programming AW, WB and now AH, why are you right and he is wrong?
-
At that time wasn't Hitech a programmer for AW? If so, why does he have a different take on what you are asserting to the point he won't include the feature in this game? Between programming AW, WB and now AH, why are you right and he is wrong?
From what I understand Hitech wasn't an "official" programmer with AW :devil
-
At that time wasn't Hitech a programmer for AW? If so, why does he have a different take on what you are asserting to the point he won't include the feature in this game? Between programming AW, WB and now AH, why are you right and he is wrong?
HT and the Fubars were a distant memory within AW by 1998 ..........stuff of folklore even then. In fact WB's was by then AW's main competition
I'm not sure HT was ever a programmer with Kesmai. I have read he was involved with the AW film viewer but obviously he knows the detail of this more than I.
Clearly base limits are controversial. It stops players doing stuff, it would be unpopular with players who want to horde.
All I ever say is that it is the only effective anti horde mechanism I have seen.
-
HT and the Fubars were a distant memory within AW by 1998 ..........stuff of folklore even then. In fact WB's was by then AW's main competition
I'm not sure HT was ever a programmer with Kesmai. I have read he was involved with the AW film viewer but obviously he knows the detail of this more than I.
Clearly base limits are controversial. It stops players doing stuff, it would be unpopular with players who want to horde.
All I ever say is that it is the only effective anti horde mechanism I have seen.
(http://cdn.uproxx.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/ben-stiller-do-it.gif)