Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: Tinkles on March 15, 2014, 02:54:50 PM
-
This is just a debate/discussion on the "Win the War" combat promoting system and some of the things in it.
* Is where I discuss the current win the war setup.
** Is some of my totally random ideas. Bring coffee for this.
*** Some things that could be implemented into the current AH, that might spice some things up.
Leave your Purses at the door before commenting.
*
I'm actually curious of why exactly we have a 'win the war' system anyways? I mean that in a different way than it sounded. You can have your bomber-types, fighter-jock-types and ground warfare-types all get together and capture bases to win the war. I understand it's a.. 'goal' a mini-task of something to do in the game that provokes or encourages you to actively pursue a set goal or to accomplish something, most of the time damaging or taking something the enemy has. Which in turn starts combat.. which is the overall point of the game.
I've been trying to wrap my head around the concept for some time of why we have needed to destroy the town in order to capture a base. When there is nothing significant in the town to begin with that ensures the safety or security of the base that we are initially trying to capture. There might have been in the actual war, but not in-game.. unless bakery shops are something to be feared. I can see destroying the town buildings to lower troop morale (so instead of 10 troops in an m3/251/c47 you would only get 5) because their homes were destroyed. But why is destroying random homes and businesses required to take a military base? I can see destroying nearby factories that would supply the base with new planes/tanks or ammunition/fuel before taking the base, but not the town.
**
Since I currently don't have a computer that can play it, I have been watching gameplay on WarThunder for the past few weeks and seen some of their 'win da war' methods.
Disclaimer: I do realize that AH is to promote combat, and many of the things that you can participate in Warthunder don't directly benefit the combat aspect, they simply take away the 'tics/markers' to get your side closer to victory. Example: Like players who destroy only ground targets and convoys, avoiding combat and fights, while still benefiting their side.
Currently, we have only one way to capture a base, which is to destroy the town, de-ack it, and capture it with 10 troops. Which applies to all bases, large and small, V-base and Port. Which I think is wrong. I think we should have to meet specific requirements for each type of base, that is designed around that type of base.. and if HTC really wanted to.. they could design it for specific bases. So P63 might not be captured the same way as P71 because of the terrain around it, giving it a certain advantage of a key requirement for P63's capture. However, that would require more time and coading, but I thought I'd throw it out there.
I'm not really sure what could be 'added' to shake up the 'win da war' system. Every time I think of something, I think of "It's a combat game, to try and promote combat" and some of the things that I might mention wouldn't promote combat in the way things might now. Making it so people could literally not interact with each other and still win the war.. if done improperly.
There is a balance that has to be met, but it would make it so players would have to work together (not in hoards), and try to achieve different goals that would eventually reach a larger task or accomplishment.. which for some is winning the war.
Right now it's capturing a certain percentage of the two enemy sides to win the war. The requirements for capturing all types of bases is the same, and normally capturing bases is dealt with in the same manner. Hoards. Sometimes being changed up based on player driven activities. Like 'stealth' missions or 're-enactments' etc.
So working within the current gameplay mechanics. One side could capture 5%-10% of the enemy bases. Then they hit the enemy strats. Because they hit the enemies strats, it does direct damage to downtimes for whatever was hit, but what if it made it so based on the percentage of strats (or something else) was hit, would determine how many bases you could capture?
So, Bishops are on a steamrolling adventure, mopping up rooks and knights alike. Rooks or Knights (or both) hit Bishop strats. Doing direct damage, and making it so Bishops can only capture 15% bases, when they need 20% to win the war. Encouraging those who want to win the war, to defend strats, and giving something to defend if you are looking for combat; since that would be a target of interest for the enemy sides. In order to increase the amount of bases your side can capture, in this case Bishops', they would need to repair their strats with cargo. There would have to be multiple factors that impact how many bases a side can conquer, otherwise in this case, all the rooks & knights would have to do is flatten the bishop strats and they couldn't capture anymore bases.
In order to take more than 20%, you should have to do something different. Perhaps get a certain amount of kills (as a whole side) to prove to the higher-ups that you can handle taking more bases? Can't really think of anything for it, that last sentence was a pathetic example, but I'm trying. This would make it so one side doesn't have 50% of another while working on the other side. Making winning the war more difficult, and most satisfying when you win.
My goal here isn't to change the game - but to brainstorm. Right now no matter what 'tool' you use, what you have to do is the same in order to capture a base or win the war.
I think it would be cool if we had multiple ways of winning the war, all that promote combat, but that aren't.. funneled into a repetitive task.
Another idea... resource.. wars? *shrug*
Here's the idea. You need a certain amount of resources in order to cripple your enemy and thus 'win the war'.
Ports have specific resources, Vbases and small medium and large airfields too. You need certain amounts from each type of field.
There would be a system made mission that gives you planes, loadouts and a task. "Take this port with this plane and loadout, you have 40 mins to capture this base to get your reward. Only X amount of players can join, and the mission launches in X minutes".
***
There would be 'serious' missions and maybe a 'goofy' mission maker.
Serious would be.. 5 p51 escorts 2 p38s w/ rockets and DTs escorting a few formations of B17s. Take out at least 5% of the rooks AAA strats. Anything over the required amount gets you more perks rewarded. If you die you only get 70%, if you land you get 125%. If you land at the base you took off from 200%. You have 3 hours to complete this mission once accepted.
Goofy would be something like this.
Capture a port with 5 ju87s (37mm anti-tank version) and 2 Me410s (no ordinance).
This would award perks if completed, but it would be for fun.. not so much for capturing the base. (For Goofy Missions Only).
There could even be achievements for these. "Complete # # # of Goofy Missions" and "Complete # # # of Serious Missions".
Then perks earned on Goofy / Serious Missions (from rewards based on performance) etc.
Then Destruction Missions for bombers or attack types.
5 SBDs and 2 FM2s and capture a base. (For a challenging one).
For Heavy Bombers
5 sets of (heavy bomber here) and attack the strats. Overall mission should do at least 10% strat damage, anything over 10% gets more perks.. same multipliers as the "serious" mission type.
Daily challenges could be something that we could have.
Shoot down 5 planes by killing the pilot.
Destroy a bomber by shooting the wing off.
Sink a CV.
etc etc.
Which would award perks, not so much for veteran players (would could disable this if they wanted to), but more for newbie players. The serious and goofy system missions would take the 'spot' on the clipboard currently occupied by staged missions. These cycle through, so there is always something to do. There could be 'serious' or 'goofy' missions that require the team as a whole to succeed (those who fail take away from the reward of others), or individual performance benefits the individual. I think the latter would be most preferred.
The daily challenges would reset every 24 hours. So newbies could at least do some of the simple things and get to fly the "elit3" planes.
I know some are strictly against the daily challenge part, for making it easier on the newer players. Why I'm not entirely sure, but if you are against it, please give a detailed none derogatory reason as to why.
:cool:
That's pretty much all I can think of right now.
Please stay on topic and try to give detailed reasons as to why things will work and others won't. If you like something please say why, :aok 's or +1s don't really help me or HTC understand why you like it. Same applies for those who go No, -1 or (waystin's) NOPE.jpg
Thanks for reading.
:salute
:cheers:
-
If there was no "win the war", there would be no real goal for any side to work towards. There'd also be no reason for CVs, GVs, etc. All we would have is a dueling arena, which would keep players like myself for about a month before moving on.
Just my opinion.
-
If there was no "win the war", there would be no real goal for any side to work towards. There'd also be no reason for CVs, GVs, etc. All we would have is a dueling arena, which would keep players like myself for about a month before moving on.
Just my opinion.
^^^this^^^^ 100% agree. I would move on in 1 day or less :salute
-
I like the idea of resource wars.. maybe bombing them could play a bigger role in winning the war such as decreasing the % of bases required to win.
-
As is, other than affecting various things like ords, dar, fuel, etc., strategic facilities have no direct effect on the war. What if knocking them down to x plus having required bases captured would result in a win? IE: 20% bases and knocked down their strats to less than 10%?
-
If there was no "win the war", there would be no real goal for any side to work towards. There'd also be no reason for CVs, GVs, etc. All we would have is a dueling arena, which would keep players like myself for about a month before moving on.
Just my opinion.
:confused:
I didn't say anywhere in my post of getting rid of the win the war 'attribute'. The only thing I really addressed in section one (*) was what was HTC's reasoning behind destroying towns in order to capture a base?
In section two (**) I gave some ideas of having multiple methods of 'winning the war' like having resources being assigned to key bases.
I do agree that winning the war is a key role, if not THE role. Without a major goal to achieve there is literally nothing to do.
Just got another potential idea, as I mentioned in section two (**), we could have resources and our current percentage capture system together. But what if each side had factories that would benefit perked vehicles, or perk multipliers? If you capture these thing you increase your perks earned, or decrease the cost of perked planes/gvs down to a certain percentage. (And do not worry, if you log on when your side is suffering, you as an individual player would be able to select perked rides, you wouldn't have them disabled or anything due to your teammates not defending or whatever).
Maybe resources could take the place of ENY? If you have X amount of resources you can 'afford' to fly perked rides. Giving incentive to defend the factories or key bases with resources. If you don't have X amount, then you are limited to how many perked 'tools' you can take off in.
So if you are limited, lets say you can only take off 2 of each perked 'tool' with the perk price of course(tool ranging from planes to GVs to keep it simple). If your side exceeds the minimum required to take off, then you can take as many as you want, with the usual perk cost of course. And if your side exceeds a certain portion, then you may get a discount on perked rides.
Just ideas, I will post more ideas on the resource piece when I get them.
Again, I am not voting to get rid of the win the war, I am merely saying that the current method of winning the war is .... rather repetitive and not very diverse. No matter what plane you up or vehicle you drive certain requirements must be met, that can't be changed no matter what 'tool' you choose to complete the task with. The town must be de-acked, the town must be destroyed to a certain percentage and 10 unharmed troops must enter the maproom. Then the fact that all bases are re-guarded as equal, when they have vast differences.
Does anyone else like the resource idea? Note: I'm NOT saying what I have typed here would be in stone, or that 'it's this way only or get out', I'm just throwing this out quickly without much editing, and hoping you guys will like it, or give your own versions of it.
:cheers:
-
Let me start by saying that I appreciate the thought you put into this post, and I hope that people can stay open to the discussion, I do like the resource idea sort of, I am a big fan of the idea of adding more factories, doesn't have to be a bunch but maintaining the central strat importance beyond just being a city as it is now on most maps, I don't necessarily have a problem with the scattered strats but maybe we could pull couple of those in to the old cluster along with new factories filling the rest of it and being scattered, like the rail yard, and shipyard ideas that have been mentioned in past posts. Also on the resource side not sure about tieing all that into the ability to capture "x" amount of bases but tieing it into a zone and somehow maybe limiting the overall number of planes that can lit off from a particular size field within a certain amount of time I don't know.
I would like to see some changes to the format of winning the war. Maybe tip the hand saying if you have to capture 10 bases then at least 2 have to be ground assaults, 2 air assaults and 1 CV attack then the other 5 could be however you want. Nothing that makes it overwhelming but does encourage different aspects of gameplay.
Daily challenges could be alright, though I do think after while people would stop paying attention to them. Maybe make them a weekly or monthly, incorporate achievement points as well as perks, and make some of them squad based to encourage squad play as well as individual. Like capture 10 bases from the air as a squadron. Something like that.
I'll stop there and maybe if I come up with something else I'll put it up.
Salute
8thBuff
-
How many paragraphs to whine :rofl
The game is awesome but hitech goads us with the fact we cannot have our sheep back :cry
-
Some parameters: This is a Massively MultiPlayer online combat game. The main point of the whole exercise is to put your guns on other player-controlled machines. To try to make Aces High into a pure "war game" is fatuous, there are massively better strategic wargames both stand-alone and online. Aces High is a maneuvering and shooting in real time game.
Therefore, insofar as the rules and conditions of the "war" promote players shooting at other players, it is well designed, and vis versa.
-
The evolution of the base capture dynamic started with air warrior. I'm probably not remembering it correctly but in air warrior bases only had a couple of acks and you had to destroy the tower, then you brought a bunch of drunks via c47 to capture the base. Air warrior gave birth to warbirds and in warbirds the bases had a lot more ack, but you just had to kill the ack to capture the base, and when you dropped troops from the ju52 on to a base the troops would destroy base objects. Then warbirds gave birth to aces high and in the beginning there was no town, you just had to kill all the ack and get troops in. With that system there was little need for using bombers, so to make bombers relevant and perhaps to make base capture more challenging towns were created. As far as the winnable war thing, I believe that came after the introduction of perk points and the 262. So the winnable war thing is a fairly new mutation in the lineage. And I'm sure that I'm probably not remembering everything correctly, maybe someone can correct me.
-
As far as the winnable war thing, I believe that came after the introduction of perk points and the 262. So the winnable war thing is a fairly new mutation in the lineage. And I'm sure that I'm probably not remembering everything correctly, maybe someone can correct me.
The war is being won at least since January 2000 (Tour 1), because that's the earliest reference I found to it in General Discussions with a casual search. The perk system was introduced in tour 14 (March 2001), the Me 262 in tour 21 (October 2001)
-
Leave your Purses at the door before commenting.
LMAO! Good luck with that
-
The evolution of the base capture dynamic started with air warrior. I'm probably not remembering it correctly but in air warrior bases only had a couple of acks and you had to destroy the tower, then you brought a bunch of drunks via c47 to capture the base. Air warrior gave birth to warbirds and in warbirds the bases had a lot more ack, but you just had to kill the ack to capture the base, and when you dropped troops from the ju52 on to a base the troops would destroy base objects. Then warbirds gave birth to aces high and in the beginning there was no town, you just had to kill all the ack and get troops in. With that system there was little need for using bombers, so to make bombers relevant and perhaps to make base capture more challenging towns were created. As far as the winnable war thing, I believe that came after the introduction of perk points and the 262. So the winnable war thing is a fairly new mutation in the lineage. And I'm sure that I'm probably not remembering everything correctly, maybe someone can correct me.
True, base capture goes all the way back to Air Warrior DOS. As Bs and Cs were fighting this war long before Bishops Rooks and Knights. It has always been there in all three games. Air Warrior Warbirds and AH.
-
First, I think we should all pitch in and buy the OP a computer so he can play. He seems to have wayyyyyyy to much time on his hands thinking about this! :D
In the old days it took 2 or 3 guys a pass or two to kill the ack and so capture a base. Then we got towns, then we got ack in towns, then we got 5 times the ack on bases, then we got bigger towns. The whole progression I think was to make a base take one, more interesting, 2 and a bit more difficult. The detailed towns also added to the GV side of things as a place for battles to happen. Too bad they didn't have those during the LTAR's hey day, I think we would STILL have major battles in the towns today if it had.
Are the towns too hard to take now? I don't think so, but the player base must think so due to the numbers of players you see attacking them.
The resources idea has been mentioned before, as well as any number of "tweaks" to adjust the "win da waz". I think, and this is only my thoughts, is that this is a game and while it shouldn't be simple (gets boring quick and people stop playing) it also shouldn't be too hard (people get frustrated and stop playing). HTC has to walk a very narrow line in keeping it interesting while not pushing it over the edge.
"BnZ" said "The main point of the whole exercise is to put your guns on other player-controlled machines" which in this day and age is pure BS to most players. Yes there are many that are purely into nothing but fighting, and as been stated if the was no "win the war" goal the fights would dry up and disappear quickly. Today the majority of players are looking for the "pat on the back" they get when their "team" (AKA horde) captures another base, and ultimately the "Your country has won the war and you are awarded perk points". It's not so much fighting any more.
I bring this up because adding any other parameters to the "win the war" equation may not change much of anything. As it is there are a number of things in the game that could be used to make winning the war quicker and easier but they are not used. Why? Most likely the old "tried and true" methods will continue until someone comes up with something else but most players can't see "wasting time" to hit strats and then pork a bunch of base as a good plan. While it hurts the enemy, and forces them to resupply not only the strats but the bases hurt it stops them from taking base as well as mounting a defense that the porkers could use to run a bunch of bases at once. This stuff is all ready IN the game but is rarely used, why? Players aren't interested, why bother when they know hording one base after another can get them there.
Adding the "tweaks" and forcing them to use them as in "you must destroy 15% of HQ as well as capture 20% of each of the other countries bases" brings us back to that LINE HTC must walk. HTC has never been big on "forcing" any kind of play on players in the main arenas. They have to keep as many players happy at the same time as they can.
As for the missions, I've suggested much the same before. I also think HTC was looking to add that to the game. When they shelved the CT idea they had a mission generator in that and it was thought it might make it over to the mains. I believe you can use it in the Custom arenas and I think the AvA guys are using something like it too. I think it would be great for generating smaller battles all over the map. Be it "perks" or "achievement point" completing these posted missions would help break up the hordes and give players more options. Even those "fighter" guys would be able to find some fun in this.
Now as to the real reason the OP posted this book..... thread :neener:
Everyone has there idea of how this game should be played. BnZ thinks its all about getting guns on another player, GHI thinks its all about rolling bases, Stampf thinks it's all about historical squad battles with strict military structure. Other thinks its about "lone wolfing and killing as many as you can before you die.... Latrobe comes to mind. The point is "we" have these ideas of what we think should happen in the game, but HTC has to walk that line to keep as many of us happy as they can. Ideas like these have to be thought of with that in mind....how will it effect how other play the game?
Then you have to think on the devious side of things.... what is the ulterior motive of this idea? Forcing the players to hit HQ could mean the guy likes flying the 152 and buffs are his "bread and butter" so this forces an easy way for him to find his lunch so to speak.
For me, I'd love to see the strategic, and tactical side of the game come back. It's boring seeing the same mission performed over and over again. Maybe if we had the tools like a "ready" room for mission briefings with a map that you could lay out waypoints for the different wings/groups to hit different targets or different approaches to the main target would add enough "spice" to make more diverse missions.
Maybe something for those unsung hero's that defend against ridiculous odds to stop a base capture. Something that might entice a few more players to defense instead of only playing the offensive side of things. Nothing to "force" a player to play a different way, but something that could help a player step out of his/her comfort zone and try something else.
-
Good post. :aok
A lot to think about.
While I'm thinking, here is a question: Do you think that the game should have an "easy side to it" to keep newbies interested in staying?
-
Yes and no
-
Now as to the real reason the OP posted this book..... thread :neener:
Then you have to think on the devious side of things.... what is the ulterior motive of this idea? Forcing the players to hit HQ could mean the guy likes flying the 152 and buffs are his "bread and butter" so this forces an easy way for him to find his lunch so to speak.
For me, I'd love to see the strategic, and tactical side of the game come back. It's boring seeing the same mission performed over and over again. Maybe if we had the tools like a "ready" room for mission briefings with a map that you could lay out waypoints for the different wings/groups to hit different targets or different approaches to the main target would add enough "spice" to make more diverse missions.
Maybe something for those unsung hero's that defend against ridiculous odds to stop a base capture. Something that might entice a few more players to defense instead of only playing the offensive side of things. Nothing to "force" a player to play a different way, but something that could help a player step out of his/her comfort zone and try something else.
You're one to talk, you posted an article too :neener:
I adjust to what is needed at the given time. I don't have any secret hidden agenda, no hidden goal that this would make all my evil plans come true. I'm not forcing the player to do anything, it's no different than HTC's "required percentage" to win the war. I agree it's a fine line, and like I've said twice already, everything I said was not set in stone. I presented it and asked for your spin on it, what in it would you change? Some took it as a direct assault on the war effort, others for evil agendas *insert facepalm emote here*.
I find it odd that we have only one way of winning the war. We have all these tools to carry out the same tasks, that's why we see all these p51 p38 raids. What I'm truly asking for here, is to see other ways of winning the war, or contributing to the war effort that aren't in the typical hoard "bomb everything in this sector" fashion. Maybe one of the "system missions" would be take a lanc skip bomb, and take out this dam that floods this factory. Preventing the enemy of having more of this resource .
(The above was a random idea, don't get your pursues in a knot over it).
Why do we keep seeing all these missions with p51s p38s p47s? They fly fast to the target and unleash heavy damage while still being able to dogfight if needed. Why? Because all that is currently needed is destruction to win the war, the same.. stale.. tasks that need to be done. If I try to take a base with b29s, the town needs de-acked, leveled, and 10 unharmed troops. If I try to take a base with M4(75)s, the town needs de-acked, leveled, and 10 unharmed troops. If I try to take a base with a 110G-2, the town needs de-acked, leveled, and 10 unharmed troops.
I am wanting to change THIS.
The town needs de-acked, the town needs leveled, the town needs 10 unharmed troops.
The war revolves around the TOWNS and TOWNS only. Sure, you can attack the base, but in order to capture that base you need the TOWN. Sure, you can attack the strats, but in order to win the war you need the TOWN.
I'm asking for more diversity in trying to win the war. Maybe on one map you need to capture some of the enemy fleets, and keep say a minimum of 2 of your ports while capturing 1-2 of the enemies.
I'm looking for a way how to balance having multiple ways of winning the war.
For example: In order to win the war you need.
20% bases
or
5 enemy sheep
or
Rescue Rosie from the Tower
or
% of enemy strats destroyed, # of fleets captured while defending your own and % of captured bases.
You could have all the combat focus on captured bases for one map. Or have it be a balance of capture this specific type of base, and a % of general bases. Or, destroy # of enemy factories/strats and capture this # of enemy bases.. etc. Again, I am trying to find more ways of winning the war rather than "flatten base and town with peons - drop troops - rinse & repeat". I posted this on the forums to ask for your help in refining this idea. Is there something here that you see here that you like? Take it and refine it, post it here.
If you want to assassinate someone's character, shoot them in-game or go on twitter/facebook.
:cheers:
-
Good post. :aok
A lot to think about.
While I'm thinking, here is a question: Do you think that the game should have an "easy side to it" to keep newbies interested in staying?
That is sort of what my resource idea is for.. in a way. It's a different avenue for them to contribute to the war effort from.
It has been suggested in the past for new accounts to have a perk allowance for a short time so they can at least try out some of the big ticket items and experience them. I felt extremely intimidated when I first played this game, because it has such a high learning curve. I however am not really sure of a method that would make it easier to learn or more inviting for new players while still keeping it fun for veteran players.
However, I know it couldn't hurt having more avenues to win the war, it's just finding those avenues and implementing them in-game, which is why I posted this to the forums. Never hurts to have multiple perspectives.. as long as they actually contribute, rather than have purse fights.
Again, I am thinking more on your question, but right now I don't have an immediate answer for it.
:salute
-
It seems the objective type play neeeds to be standardized to work across a broad range of maps in an automatic arena.
What I have long wished for AvA was a way to set up a list of maps with custom planes sets and settings to automatically rotate through in a specific order and then options on setting parameters for winning the war. In our case it would be winning the battle. Say specific targets destroyed, specific bases captured, certain numbers of enemy destroyed, or combinations thereof to trigger a win the war reset and map rotation.
What we wish for and what is practical to code are often very different things.
-
It seems the objective type play neeeds to be standardized to work across a broad range of maps in an automatic arena.
What I have long wished for AvA was a way to set up a list of maps with custom planes sets and settings to automatically rotate through in a specific order and then options on setting parameters for winning the war. In our case it would be winning the battle. Say specific targets destroyed, specific bases captured, certain numbers of enemy destroyed, or combinations thereof to trigger a win the war reset and map rotation.
What we wish for and what is practical to code are often very different things.
I understand that this isn't something that can 'just happen' it will take time if it happened. However, I think it is something that should be addressed or at the very least looked at.
What you said is pretty much exactly what I want. The "winning the war" designed around each type of map. Something that would work for a small map might not work as effectively on a large map. This, along with having the multiple avenues for winning the war might assist with the off-peak hour problems. However, I am going to think more on this before commenting on it.
:cheers:
-
You're one to talk, you posted an article too :neener:
I adjust to what is needed at the given time. I don't have any secret hidden agenda, no hidden goal that this would make all my evil plans come true. I'm not forcing the player to do anything, it's no different than HTC's "required percentage" to win the war. I agree it's a fine line, and like I've said twice already, everything I said was not set in stone. I presented it and asked for your spin on it, what in it would you change? Some took it as a direct assault on the war effort, others for evil agendas *insert facepalm emote here*.
I find it odd that we have only one way of winning the war. We have all these tools to carry out the same tasks, that's why we see all these p51 p38 raids. What I'm truly asking for here, is to see other ways of winning the war, or contributing to the war effort that aren't in the typical hoard "bomb everything in this sector" fashion. Maybe one of the "system missions" would be take a lanc skip bomb, and take out this dam that floods this factory. Preventing the enemy of having more of this resource .
(The above was a random idea, don't get your pursues in a knot over it).
Why do we keep seeing all these missions with p51s p38s p47s? They fly fast to the target and unleash heavy damage while still being able to dogfight if needed. Why? Because all that is currently needed is destruction to win the war, the same.. stale.. tasks that need to be done. If I try to take a base with b29s, the town needs de-acked, leveled, and 10 unharmed troops. If I try to take a base with M4(75)s, the town needs de-acked, leveled, and 10 unharmed troops. If I try to take a base with a 110G-2, the town needs de-acked, leveled, and 10 unharmed troops.
I am wanting to change THIS.
The town needs de-acked, the town needs leveled, the town needs 10 unharmed troops.
The war revolves around the TOWNS and TOWNS only. Sure, you can attack the base, but in order to capture that base you need the TOWN. Sure, you can attack the strats, but in order to win the war you need the TOWN.
I'm asking for more diversity in trying to win the war. Maybe on one map you need to capture some of the enemy fleets, and keep say a minimum of 2 of your ports while capturing 1-2 of the enemies.
I'm looking for a way how to balance having multiple ways of winning the war.
For example: In order to win the war you need.
20% bases
or
5 enemy sheep
or
Rescue Rosie from the Tower
or
% of enemy strats destroyed, # of fleets captured while defending your own and % of captured bases.
You could have all the combat focus on captured bases for one map. Or have it be a balance of capture this specific type of base, and a % of general bases. Or, destroy # of enemy factories/strats and capture this # of enemy bases.. etc. Again, I am trying to find more ways of winning the war rather than "flatten base and town with peons - drop troops - rinse & repeat". I posted this on the forums to ask for your help in refining this idea. Is there something here that you see here that you like? Take it and refine it, post it here.
If you want to assassinate someone's character, shoot them in-game or go on twitter/facebook.
:cheers:
I didn't accuse you of having a hidden agenda, I just pointed out that ideas posted will be scrutinized for them. You have to admit that it would be a great way to setup and find buff missions if it is a rule in winning the war.
Towns/bases are captured with ponies and 38s because it is the quickest easiest way to do it. Todays player base is into capture the flag, NOT fight for the flag. 3 buff groups in a tight formation flying e-w, or n-s carpet bombing a town could white flag it in one pass. Why don't we see this more often? It takes too long to get buffs high enough to be some what safe and so not be a wasted run. The same 3 guys could make a bunch of trips if they divebomb with a bunch of bombs and rockets and then bail/crash to reup.
It's not the game that needs adjusting, it's the players.
-
Yes-why, no-why? :P
Yes and no
-
I understand that this isn't something that can 'just happen' it will take time if it happened. However, I think it is something that should be addressed or at the very least looked at.
What you said is pretty much exactly what I want. The "winning the war" designed around each type of map. Something that would work for a small map might not work as effectively on a large map. This, along with having the multiple avenues for winning the war might assist with the off-peak hour problems. However, I am going to think more on this before commenting on it.
:cheers:
I'd sure love to see it. Of course, my wishes are arena specific.
Like a BoB setup where once a certain number of enemy fighters are destroyed, you get your "yeehaw! we did it!" auto-generated "knights have won the battle" message and it rotates to Midway where a certain number of carriers need to be sunk etc
-
I didn't accuse you of having a hidden agenda, I just pointed out that ideas posted will be scrutinized for them. You have to admit that it would be a great way to setup and find buff missions if it is a rule in winning the war.
Towns/bases are captured with ponies and 38s because it is the quickest easiest way to do it. Todays player base is into capture the flag, NOT fight for the flag. 3 buff groups in a tight formation flying e-w, or n-s carpet bombing a town could white flag it in one pass. Why don't we see this more often? It takes too long to get buffs high enough to be some what safe and so not be a wasted run. The same 3 guys could make a bunch of trips if they divebomb with a bunch of bombs and rockets and then bail/crash to reup.
It's not the game that needs adjusting, it's the players.
Just like the strats.. or is it divided 'facilities' like it was way back when? (Haven't been online with my rig since december so I don't know).
I am a 'rounded' player. I use all the tools in the game, fighter, bomber, attack, vehicle and anti-aircraft guns. I don't try and suggest something that interferes or unbalances the others. Just like the wishes for having 88mms turn 'realistically faster' I voted -1 on because I like the challenge. Or the fused shells (like the 5in) for 90mm anti-air defense turrets for bases. I voted -1 on them because it would make defending easier and make it harder for me to attack bases if the enemy could aim even half as good as I can. Demoting AH to point and click, which is something I want to avoid.
Geez, I keep getting ideas everytime I post.
Perhaps some of these factories or facilities could be shuffeled around each map rotation. SO we need a scout-type plane to find them (and only scout type planes could find them).
I'm trying to find different ways that we could use the planes in-game for what they were actually used for. For example: The storch, it has no real purpose in the game. I really like this plane, but I am commenting from an outside-the-box perspective. It has no real purpose in AH, it carries no ordinance, and all it does it mark vehicles on the ground. It has very little durability and is an easy target for most. Especially since you can take off in any plane, turn tracers on and "mark" for your friendly ground or bomber units even more easily, without dying nearly as much. Or even attack the tanks yourself with bombs or strafing. Even if they weren't used like that during the war.
I am looking for different ways to implement the large variety of plane types we have in the game.
As for your town example: I want to keep the captured bases as a familiar ground, it has kept AH around for over a decade, so something is right about it. However, I want to add new win the war ideas alongside this, for those who are looking for something different or engaging in a different way. I do agree that player involvement is a big part but it isn't all of it.
I think having options like my dam busting idea with the lanc.. something that adds more diversity to the game. Instead of the usual grind. No matter what map you go to, you still need to destroy the same things, no matter what tool you choose the same things need to be done. Over and Over and Over and Over and Over and Over. There is no diversity in the overall goal of the game! Sure, you as a player can take a tool out and find something to do with it, but the only way to benefit the 'war effort' is to join a mission and take a base.
I have taken bases with 2 people. Myself bombing the town and de-acking, and a friendly M3 nearby. So I'm not saying that you can only take a base with a 'hoard' or mission. I am saying though, that there is no other way to contribute to the war effort, unless you add the TOWN into your equation, without the TOWN you don't win the war. Which I think is totally wrong.
You should be able to destroy DAMs that would flood key factories, or destroy key things that limit something on the enemy side (maybe not planes.. but how about capture % like mentioned before)?
Whatever happened to brainstorming?
I'd sure love to see it. Of course, my wishes are arena specific.
Like a BoB setup where once a certain number of enemy fighters are destroyed, you get your "yeehaw! we did it!" auto-generated "knights have won the battle" message and it rotates to Midway where a certain number of carriers need to be sunk etc
I was thinking of per main arena map.
Not very good with main arena map names, but I think Ndisles would be a fairly good example.
For that map I would say 30% of enemy factories need to be destroyed or captured.
A minimum of 2 enemy ports and 2 fleets to win.
10% of general bases.. just for land grabbing if you will
5-10% of specific type bases
5-10% enemy strats need to be destroyed, to win the war.
You could have each of the 5 things I listed be a single requirement to win the war. You could bundle a few of them and have them be a requirement to win the war.
This gives diversity, instead of just "grab land, win war".
This would be customized to each type of map we have in-game based on what HTC wants, or if they allow, for us to vote *shrug*.
Since obviously ports don't exist on maps with no water :D
Having this option for AvA would be superb as well :aok
:cheers:
What I would do in the Ndisles example:
* For that map I would say 30% of enemy factories need to be destroyed or captured.
* A minimum of 2 enemy ports and 2 fleets to win. (so 4 ports and 4 fleets 2 from rooks 2 from knights). These wouldn't count towards the specific or general types of bases.
* 5-10% of specific type bases
* 5-10% enemy strats need to be destroyed, to win the war.
** 10% of general bases.. just for land grabbing if you will
** = optional, not needed, but can't really hurt either.
-
"BnZ" said "The main point of the whole exercise is to put your guns on other player-controlled machines" which in this day and age is pure BS to most players. Yes there are many that are purely into nothing but fighting, and as been stated if the was no "win the war" goal the fights would dry up and disappear quickly. Today the majority of players are looking for the "pat on the back" they get when their "team" (AKA horde) captures another base, and ultimately the "Your country has won the war and you are awarded perk points". It's not so much fighting any more.
Except for hours when there are hardly any players at all, I haven't much difficulty finding other players in fighters or vehicles who will do their utmost to shoot me down while I attempt to return the favor. Your personal problems in that regard are a mystery to me. The fact that you seem to be flying the P-51 these days, an airplane few airplanes could run away from even if they wanted to, only compounds this mystery.
That said, there are far better "war" games than Aces HighII. "War in the Pacific" is an old favorite of mine. The amount of control and detail one can put into resource production and war strategy in this game is truly astounding. If there are a small minority of players who are really playing purely for the hackneyed MA "campaign" instead of plane/vehicle combat, they should do themselves a favor and play something like WITP instead.
One example of a game mechanic that potentially needs tweaking to foster combat is HQ. While some combat is no doubt fostered by raids on HQ, it could be argued that even more combat is inhibited by the near inability of one country to find combat for as long as HQ remains down. This is an example of the sort of question by which changes to the MA dynamic should be gauged.
-
Land grab is tool used to focus combat...... Nothing new in that statement it's just useful to remember its purpose.
Whilst ( in the main) it succeeds we we can also see the odd occasion where it is thwarted...... When hordes make opposition futile and unrewarding. I'll park this as basically horde control is a single subject best addressed outside much of the OP' post.
Why towns? IMO destroying / defending multiple objects brought about a need to use all the assets the game provided. Bombers were intercepted and escorted, gv's were used in both attack and defence. Early capture models did not use towns basically base assets had to be reduced and the map room was on base.
Towns were added to create targets, and a combat focus point away from base. In the early days the destruction of town buildings was created as the measure of town attrition and so formed the ready for capture mechanism.
As the game grew this remained. I would pose some questions....
If I wanted to capture a base would I not attrit infantry targets ( Barracks) as a priority?
Whilst towns are important to the free passage of logistics is bombing/ shelling them to destruction the method usually used?
Why are towns only linked to airfields?
Historically would we not usually find gv " hubs" in or beside towns.
Historically would we not find air fields more remote from towns?
Historically would we not find ports in towns?
Towns are in RL are captured by infantry.
This infantry takes possession of town buildings by combat.
The infantry is conveyed to the town by vehicles or aircraft from which the infantry is released to attack other infantry which may occupy town buildings or their remnants.
Some defending infantry may be already occupying town buildings or associated barracks.
The combat for the town is ( for a successfull out come) supported by mechanised land and air borne assets.
These are deployed for both defence and attack.
Blow up a building and the infantry inside are killed, blow up a barracks and the ability to provide troops for defence/ attack are removed, attack troop carriers and the troops inside are lost, defend the troop carriers and they may assist to capture the town. Etc etc etc.
In essence I would increase the role of the town in the land grab..... Indeed I would not bother capturing bases but focus wholly on towns as the measure of land grab. By definition as bases fall behind enemy lines so they whither thru lack of logistic supply and, just like a cv after a port is taken, eventually are occupied by the enemy.
I would like to see occupation by troops become the capture mechanisms.... Whereby their release to do a form of infantry AI combat in a town has to be supported by attrition / defence from land air and sea.
Gv' s would be able to spawn into the battle along roads from neighbouring towns or from neighbouring bases. Air craft would access the battle from more remote air fields. These air fields would have no gv spawn points from other fields other than those originating from their own base.
M3's would not be able to magically repair towns. They would be able to launch defending infantry.
Each AI infantry man would carry a bolt action 7.6mm or .303 rifle with an infinite clip. He is programmed to run to the nearest town building site . If he comes within range of an enemy AI infantry man they exchange fire and both die. If the first town building site he comes into contact with is occupied by a freindly AI infantry man he then proceeds to the next town building site . If the town building site is occupied by an enemy AI infantry man then they exchange fire and both die.
If the town building is whole then the AI infantry man is impervious to mg strafing from players. If the town building site is rubble then they can be machine gunned more easily.
If sufficient ordinance is dropped on a building site then the AI infantry man occupying it is killed.
AI infantry men who have not been used after # minutes ( 30?) fall asleep and lose their weapons.
There is no flag or map room. Simply have more than "x" troops in town and greater than "y" % of all troops in town ........ then the gguns become yours and the town is considered captured. If it is linked to a local base simply hold the town for "z" minutes and the base becomes yours or it becomes yours once you have (cv like) destroyed some of its assets.
-
Land grab is tool used to focus combat...... Nothing new in that statement it's just useful to remember its purpose.
Whilst ( in the main) it succeeds we we can also see the odd occasion where it is thwarted...... When hordes make opposition futile and unrewarding. I'll park this as basically horde control is a single subject best addressed outside much of the OP' post.
Why towns? IMO destroying / defending multiple objects brought about a need to use all the assets the game provided. Bombers were intercepted and escorted, gv's were used in both attack and defence. Early capture models did not use towns basically base assets had to be reduced and the map room was on base.
Towns were added to create targets, and a combat focus point away from base. In the early days the destruction of town buildings was created as the measure of town attrition and so formed the ready for capture mechanism.
As the game grew this remained. I would pose some questions....
If I wanted to capture a base would I not attrit infantry targets ( Barracks) as a priority?
Whilst towns are important to the free passage of logistics is bombing/ shelling them to destruction the method usually used?
Why are towns only linked to airfields?
Historically would we not usually find gv " hubs" in or beside towns.
Historically would we not find air fields more remote from towns?
Historically would we not find ports in towns?
Towns are in RL are captured by infantry.
This infantry takes possession of town buildings by combat.
The infantry is conveyed to the town by vehicles or aircraft from which the infantry is released to attack other infantry which may occupy town buildings or their remnants.
Some defending infantry may be already occupying town buildings or associated barracks.
The combat for the town is ( for a successfull out come) supported by mechanised land and air borne assets.
These are deployed for both defence and attack.
Blow up a building and the infantry inside are killed, blow up a barracks and the ability to provide troops for defence/ attack are removed, attack troop carriers and the troops inside are lost, defend the troop carriers and they may assist to capture the town. Etc etc etc.
In essence I would increase the role of the town in the land grab..... Indeed I would not bother capturing bases but focus wholly on towns as the measure of land grab. By definition as bases fall behind enemy lines so they whither thru lack of logistic supply and, just like a cv after a port is taken, eventually are occupied by the enemy.
I would like to see occupation by troops become the capture mechanisms.... Whereby their release to do a form of infantry AI combat in a town has to be supported by attrition / defence from land air and sea.
Gv' s would be able to spawn into the battle along roads from neighbouring towns or from neighbouring bases. Air craft would access the battle from more remote air fields. These air fields would have no gv spawn points from other fields other than those originating from their own base.
M3's would not be able to magically repair towns. They would be able to launch defending infantry.
Each AI infantry man would carry a bolt action 7.6mm or .303 rifle with an infinite clip. He is programmed to run to the nearest town building site . If he comes within range of an enemy AI infantry man they exchange fire and both die. If the first town building site he comes into contact with is occupied by a freindly AI infantry man he then proceeds to the next town building site . If the town building site is occupied by an enemy AI infantry man then they exchange fire and both die.
If the town building is whole then the AI infantry man is impervious to mg strafing from players. If the town building site is rubble then they can be machine gunned more easily.
If sufficient ordinance is dropped on a building site then the AI infantry man occupying it is killed.
AI infantry men who have not been used after # minutes ( 30?) fall asleep and lose their weapons.
There is no flag or map room. Simply have more than "x" troops in town and greater than "y" % of all troops in town ........ then the gguns become yours and the town is considered captured. If it is linked to a local base simply hold the town for "z" minutes and the base becomes yours or it becomes yours once you have (cv like) destroyed some of its assets.
While I understand that your initial intention of this post wasn't to attempt to de-rail the thread. Can you please re-post this in the wishlist forum?
Will think more on the pros and cons of this before commenting.
:salute
-
Holy wall of text.
-
Holy wall of text Batman!
:D
-
bunch of mini bustr's in here
-
bunch of mini bustr's in here
At least we are staying on topic. Contribute something to the thread, or don't bother commenting :)
-
Players incapable of fighting with any degree of skill/success need something to do in the game
Let them have their war *shrug*
-
At least we are staying on topic. Contribute something to the thread, or don't bother commenting :)
</3
-
bunch of mini bustr's in here
From the mini-Changeup. :rofl
Sorry Blu....couldn't help myself. :D
-
Players incapable of fighting with any degree of skill/success need something to do in the game
Let them have their war *shrug*
Players not showing any skill and success need something alright-better training.
People sign up for this game to become the Red Baron, not pork buildings. If people are doing the latter because they gave up on the former, we have failed as a community.
-
Players incapable of fighting with any degree of skill/success need something to do in the game
As sarcastic that statement may sound, it's very much correct and important to keep in mind.
For a new player, playing AH can be incredibly frustrating when it comes down (air) combat only. Dying again and again and again to the "AH vets" which often have many years experience at their hands. It's only good for the game in helping to retain newer players if they have a chance to contribute something to their team, to achieve some degree of "victory" even when dying countless times - by running supps, taking down a few town buildings that help to capture the base (and possibly the war) and so on.
It's no fun dying 9 out of 10 times for weeks, months or more. And it's not a sign of lack of character or being "xbox generation" if you get frustrated from that. After all it's a game which should be fun in some way.
And it's actually not only about new players. Even if everyone would strat to work hard and disciplined about their air combat skills (again, it's actually just a game), it's the very nature things that there will always be a small minority clobbering the majority of players. Many fish, few sharks.
Giving players different things to do and opportunities to define their own goals and achieve 'victories' on many different levels. The more, the better. The majority will never be a virtual Bong, Koshedub or Marseille, but the game still needs them
-
As sarcastic that statement may sound, it's very much correct and important to keep in mind.
For a new player, playing AH can be incredibly frustrating when it comes down (air) combat only. Dying again and again and again to the "AH vets" which often have many years experience at their hands. It's only good for the game in helping to retain newer players if they have a chance to contribute something to their team, to achieve some degree of "victory" even when dying countless times - by running supps, taking down a few town buildings that help to capture the base (and possibly the war) and so on.
It's no fun dying 9 out of 10 times for weeks, months or more. And it's not a sign of lack of character or being "xbox generation" if you get frustrated from that. After all it's a game which should be fun in some way.
And it's actually not only about new players. Even if everyone would strat to work hard and disciplined about their air combat skills (again, it's actually just a game), it's the very nature things that there will always be a small minority clobbering the majority of players. Many fish, few sharks.
Giving players different things to do and opportunities to define their own goals and achieve 'victories' on many different levels. The more, the better. The majority will never be a virtual Bong, Koshedub or Marseille, but the game still needs them
qft
-
One of the suggestions was to make different goals for capturing different bases. The problem with this is that it makes the game much more complicated, and harder to learn. You would have to check a base, and have some information pop up that says, "to capture this base, you need to _________ and _______". Not to mention how much harder it would be to make a new map.
With the system we have now, we know that if it is an airbase, then we need to destroy 75% of the town buildings to get a white flag, kill all the ack, and get ten troops to the map room. This makes it easier to make a new map, and easy to understand the goal. Of course with a port or a vehicle base, there is not town to bomb. Just kill the ack and get the troops to the map room.
Part of the question was, what is the tactical justification for having to capture the town? Think of it this way. The military base (the airfield) is there to protect the town. If the town is captured, the base has failed to protect the town.
-
Think of it this way. The military base (the airfield) is there to protect the town. If the town is captured, the base has failed to protect the town.
Thinking of it that way would justify such ... but thinking of it that way gives a false impression on what air bases actually did. They weren't there to protect the nearby town. They were there to provide a base of operations for air units to project force and attack the enemy. During the initial Luftwaffe air raids on Britain the air bases were attacked and if that strategy had been maintained the RAF would likely have been rendered useless. At that point there would be no air cover for defense against invasion (pretty much like it was when France was blitzkrieged). Granted,there's still the Royal Navy. Bombing London and other cities didn't 'white flag' them.
-
bunch of mini bustr's in here
Meth is a hell of a drug.
-
Meth is a hell of a drug.
Is this mere observation or an endorsement?
-
Meth is a hell of a drug.
That was actually a somewhat shortened/edited version, of my normal self.
:D
As sarcastic that statement may sound, it's very much correct and important to keep in mind.
For a new player, playing AH can be incredibly frustrating when it comes down (air) combat only. Dying again and again and again to the "AH vets" which often have many years experience at their hands. It's only good for the game in helping to retain newer players if they have a chance to contribute something to their team, to achieve some degree of "victory" even when dying countless times - by running supps, taking down a few town buildings that help to capture the base (and possibly the war) and so on.
It's no fun dying 9 out of 10 times for weeks, months or more. And it's not a sign of lack of character or being "xbox generation" if you get frustrated from that. After all it's a game which should be fun in some way.
And it's actually not only about new players. Even if everyone would strat to work hard and disciplined about their air combat skills (again, it's actually just a game), it's the very nature things that there will always be a small minority clobbering the majority of players. Many fish, few sharks.
Giving players different things to do and opportunities to define their own goals and achieve 'victories' on many different levels. The more, the better. The majority will never be a virtual Bong, Koshedub or Marseille, but the game still needs them
My wish is for those who want to play the game, or contribute something to their side without having to participate in the same tasks as everyone else (kill town, deack town, capture town). Even if the town is something that HTC wants to keep, I think they can switch it up some change SOMETHING on it.
It's very easy to take out a town with 1 set of bombers. I can do it without issue, and I'm not the best with heavy bombers (dive bombing I'm awesome at).
When I first started playing I was intimidated, I actually thought of quitting a few times, because it was simply too hard. I am happy I kept going and got to where I am today, but what about all those other players who never stayed because it was too hard. That is where having some other means of winning the war or promoting combat would be beneficial. And, if you don't want to do it, you don't have to! Same with the achievement system, it is there, doesn't mean you have to 'accomplish' it. Same with planes, you don't like spit "dweeb" fighters, good, we have other planes too.
For those who are staying on topic and contributing something worthwhile, thanks. :salute
-
No,not everyone can be the "Ace of Aces" but almost everyone can learn to have sorties in fighters that are non-frustrating, and with decent teaching it doesn't take years. The two biggest things that would help new players is are conveying ACM basics in a more easily grasped manner, and helping people get their controls set up so they can see, fly, and fight without nose bouncing or stalling everywhere. This last one is underestimated and IMO VERY important, I think half the trouble new (and experienced) players have with their flying and fighting is figuring out how to get their controls configured to make their planes into stable gun platforms.
-
It's no fun dying 9 out of 10 times for weeks, months or more.
Actually it was fun, dying is learning in this game, if they put enough deaths in anyone can master air combat in this game. The problem is that players equate not dying to success, the obvious point missed being that they cannot actually die here.
-
Actually it was fun, dying is learning in this game, if they put enough deaths in anyone can master air combat in this game. The problem is that players equate not dying to success, the obvious point missed being that they cannot actually die here.
I actually question the idea that new players have to do little but die for month and years. I came here in 2006 after developing an interest in and playing some non-online flight sims. I spent a few hours flying around shooting drones offline and actually got my first air to air kill on my very first MA sortie. Within a few tours I was consistently killing as often as died. There were frustrations, but I am a confident person so I never doubted I could learn to fly competently. I think to a certain degree prophecies are self-fulfilling, and if you let yourself be intimidated by this "You'll be up against players with years of experience and die over and over stuff" then they may turn self-defeating.
-
Yes-why, no-why? :P
who is the chick?
-
Thinking of it that way would justify such ... but thinking of it that way gives a false impression on what air bases actually did. They weren't there to protect the nearby town. They were there to provide a base of operations for air units to project force and attack the enemy. During the initial Luftwaffe air raids on Britain the air bases were attacked and if that strategy had been maintained the RAF would likely have been rendered useless. At that point there would be no air cover for defense against invasion (pretty much like it was when France was blitzkrieged). Granted,there's still the Royal Navy. Bombing London and other cities didn't 'white flag' them.
the question you should be asking yourself is are we actually fighting a war or we just playing a game? are we real pilots or just sitting at a computer drinking a beer and bs with some friends?
semp
-
the question you should be asking yourself is are we actually fighting a war or we just playing a game? are we real pilots or just sitting at a computer drinking a beer and bs with some friends?
semp
Well, actually, I don't have to ask any of that. It's never been in question .... to me. Do you ask yourself these questions? :D
-
Well, actually, I don't have to ask any of that. It's never been in question .... to me. Do you ask yourself these questions? :D
wells since you have such short memory and you are comparing our game to what happened during ww2. would you like re rephrase the below statement.
Thinking of it that way would justify such ... but thinking of it that way gives a false impression on what air bases actually did. They weren't there to protect the nearby town. They were there to provide a base of operations for air units to project force and attack the enemy. During the initial Luftwaffe air raids on Britain the air bases were attacked and if that strategy had been maintained the RAF would likely have been rendered useless. At that point there would be no air cover for defense against invasion (pretty much like it was when France was blitzkrieged). Granted,there's still the Royal Navy. Bombing London and other cities didn't 'white flag' them.
semp
-
wells since you have such short memory and you are comparing our game to what happened during ww2. would you like re rephrase the below statement.
semp
Semp, if you're gonna ankle-hump me like this for the next week or so try to at least act like you're coherent part of the time. Someone posted a rationalization for white flagging the town to capture a base. I addressed said rationalization with a dose of reality. Personally, I couldn't care less if towns are white flagged to capture a base or drunks shag sheep on the runway to capture a base. Is this where you try to add 2 pounds of gold and two pounds of cotton again? ;)
-
Semp, if you're gonna ankle-hump me like this for the next week or so try to at least act like you're coherent part of the time. Someone posted a rationalization for white flagging the town to capture a base. I addressed said rationalization with a dose of reality. Personally, I couldn't care less if towns are white flagged to capture a base or drunks shag sheep on the runway to capture a base. Is this where you try to add 2 pounds of gold and two pounds of cotton again? ;)
but nobody posted a rationalization over why in ww2 we there wasnt a white flag. should I bring up your post about how it didnt happen during the war?
Thinking of it that way would justify such ... but thinking of it that way gives a false impression on what air bases actually did. They weren't there to protect the nearby town. They were there to provide a base of operations for air units to project force and attack the enemy. During the initial Luftwaffe air raids on Britain the air bases were attacked and if that strategy had been maintained the RAF would likely have been rendered useless. At that point there would be no air cover for defense against invasion (pretty much like it was when France was blitzkrieged). Granted,there's still the Royal Navy. Bombing London and other cities didn't 'white flag' them.
semp
-
To Semp & Arlo
This
Leave your Purses at the door before commenting.
Also means tampon bags too.
I actually question the idea that new players have to do little but die for month and years. I came here in 2006 after developing an interest in and playing some non-online flight sims. I spent a few hours flying around shooting drones offline and actually got my first air to air kill on my very first MA sortie. Within a few tours I was consistently killing as often as died. There were frustrations, but I am a confident person so I never doubted I could learn to fly competently. I think to a certain degree prophecies are self-fulfilling, and if you let yourself be intimidated by this "You'll be up against players with years of experience and die over and over stuff" then they may turn self-defeating.
I agree, I learned a majority of what I know by trial and error, but some took the time and flown with me, answering questions I had. Unlike most games, the information isn't all there for you, you still have to adventure out and discover some of these things for yourself. Or can only experience them first hand, to get a true 'grasp' of what it is, or how to deal with it.
The majority of this wish is to add more ways of winning the war besides smashing towns down. I understand this is a combat game, which I support that, but they funneled the combat over the towns which increases the hoard sizes. "We know the combat will be over the towns, and there may be some defenders, so lets take enough people to ensure we capture this base". I want to make it so you can still capture bases like you can now (would be labeled under the general "land grab" that I said in previous posts), specific-type fields, where you need 2-5% of the enemies large airfields or ports (if the map has water), and then some of the strats destroyed.. I honestly forgot about the HQ will think on something for that :o
I don't think having multiple avenues for winning the war would be a bad thing. I think it would give more areas to have combat in. More 'town-like' areas that can be destroyed in unique ways we haven't had before. With the New Terrain Engine, we could maybe have dam busters and submarine attacks/naval attacks on certain bases. Have destructible bridges, that once destroyed limit the supplies that can be received across the river. I'm not saying the game isn't fun, but I think that it wouldn't hurt to have all of this.
I mean we have HUGE maps, yet we can only bomb a small town in order to capture a base? No matter the map it's the same thing to win the war! Sure, you can bomb the strats to assist with the war effort, but even if you level the strats to 0% or destroy the HQ, that doesn't automatically win the war. You still need to flatten towns, and run troops in. I understand the concept behind it, I really do, but I think we should have more ways of winning the war rather than just that.
:cheers:
-
Having more ways to win the war is not going to get you anything other than options. It isn't going to stop the hordes, it isn't going to promote more combat. It sounds to me like your bored with the game and you don't even play at the moment.
Look at all the game mechanics that are available now that aren't being used. Why do you think that HTC, with their small crew should take the time to add these subs, dams, bridges, rail yards and so on? Most likely they will hardly be used once the new wear's off. The only way another way to win the war will be used at this point is if it is quicker and/or easy than the way they do it now.
-
Having more ways to win the war is not going to get you anything other than options. It isn't going to stop the hordes, it isn't going to promote more combat. It sounds to me like your bored with the game and you don't even play at the moment.
Look at all the game mechanics that are available now that aren't being used. Why do you think that HTC, with their small crew should take the time to add these subs, dams, bridges, rail yards and so on? Most likely they will hardly be used once the new wear's off. The only way another way to win the war will be used at this point is if it is quicker and/or easy than the way they do it now.
I can see how it sounds that way, but I assure you it isn't the reason.
Could you clarify on these game mechanics that aren't being used?
Well HiTech said he wanted to add submarines, with the new water I see that totally possible. Meaning the dams could be added as well, bridges - we have them now - but on land with no water.. just make them destructible :D
I know what I'm asking for completely changes the core foundation of their system. I'm not asking them to abandon their core foundation (capture 20%), but I'm asking them to add on to it. So those who don't want change, don't have to embrace it, but those who want something different can have it too. In a way I'm a people pleaser (within reason), I try to make everyone happy, and when I see that something I said be it an idea in this case, that makes it too hard or is unnecessary, I try to compromise.
What I've asked for, would give purpose to otherwise meaningless things. Some of what I've asked for is already modeled in-game, but has no meaning, like the bridges. Why is a large airfield "worth" the same as a port or a V-base? Even if they changed it so you needed a certain % of enemy ports or specific type of bases, I think that would change it up a bit. So instead of steamrolling, you would have to actually plan. Say knights have a port that bishops need, but the knights took it from the rooks, and the rooks need this port so they are eligible to win the war. (Remember my keep # of your ports and take # of their ports in previous posts?) So, you have bishops going for this port, knights trying to defend it, and rooks trying to take it back! It makes that base actually worth something.
Whereas now, it's take any base that is in sight as long as we get this #. It lumps all the base values in the same pot, even though they are vastly different. I fully understand why they did it the way they did. Simplicity, Be it for their sake (time work etc) or for the player's, so they don't have to learn anything more in an already difficult game. These are merely suggestions for the New Terrain Engine, which will unlock new things for them to experiment with.
:cheers:
-
So instead of steamrolling, you would have to actually plan. Say knights have a port that bishops need, but the knights took it from the rooks, and the rooks need this port so they are eligible to win the war. (Remember my keep # of your ports and take # of their ports in previous posts?) So, you have bishops going for this port, knights trying to defend it, and rooks trying to take it back! It makes that base actually worth something.
How do you make that system so people can understand it though? The majority of the playerbase seems to have trouble understanding even something as simple as porking the ords of the other side to halt their momentum when they're steamrolling. I'm not sure if it's the chicken or the egg, but it seems like the majority can't grasp anything beyond 'up in large green horde. bomb base, send in seven goons to troop.' It's all they seem to do, anyways.
Whereas now, it's take any base that is in sight as long as we get this #. It lumps all the base values in the same pot, even though they are vastly different. I fully understand why they did it the way they did. Simplicity, Be it for their sake (time work etc) or for the player's, so they don't have to learn anything more in an already difficult game. These are merely suggestions for the New Terrain Engine, which will unlock new things for them to experiment with.
:cheers:
I don't know where the line is between interesting and simple enough for people to grasp. Wherever it is, I think it's finer than the line between too hot and too cold on the handle of my shower.
Wiley.
-
i got a headache just reading this---i think this should have been in wish list--because you WISH to change this game..always somebody wants to change this game or a part of it...i guess new graphics and maps are just not good enough..when i started i died alot.still do in planes-just a little in tanks---people will learn the more they play...i know i'm gonna get smash here..but so what it's a free country..and i pay my 16.95 a month.which reminds me...................
-
How do you make that system so people can understand it though? The majority of the playerbase seems to have trouble understanding even something as simple as porking the ords of the other side to halt their momentum when they're steamrolling. I'm not sure if it's the chicken or the egg, but it seems like the majority can't grasp anything beyond 'up in large green horde. bomb base, send in seven goons to troop.' It's all they seem to do, anyways.
I don't know where the line is between interesting and simple enough for people to grasp. Wherever it is, I think it's finer than the line between too hot and too cold on the handle of my shower.
Wiley.
It doesn't have to be a complex explanation. It's simply adding value to the things that players have been destroying/capturing for years anyways. This obviously is something that would take a while to implement, or even think on the pros and cons of it from HTC's perspective. However, I don't think it would be as drastic as some think it would be.
i got a headache just reading this---i think this should have been in wish list--because you WISH to change this game..always somebody wants to change this game or a part of it...i guess new graphics and maps are just not good enough..when i started i died alot.still do in planes-just a little in tanks---people will learn the more they play...i know i'm gonna get smash here..but so what it's a free country..and i pay my 16.95 a month.which reminds me...................
Discussions provoke debate and 'grinding'. Grinding to me in the form of a discussion helps with polishing ideas and getting everyone's perspective. Once the idea is more refined/polished, then it should go into the wishlist forum. Because many ideas that go into the wishlist forum aren't polished by the community, they are shot down and eventually deemed "worthless" or "unnecessary". And any discussion on that topic is lost.
-
Discussions provoke debate and 'grinding'. Grinding to me in the form of a discussion helps with polishing ideas and getting everyone's perspective. Once the idea is more refined/polished, then it should go into the wishlist forum. Because many ideas that go into the wishlist forum aren't polished by the community, they are shot down and eventually deemed "worthless" or "unnecessary". And any discussion on that topic is lost.
The same thing happens in there happens in here. Ultimately anything we do as far as judgement in the forums is irrelevant. Whether we think an idea is peachy, worthless, or unnecessary doesn't mean a thing. If HTC likes an idea, they work with it. If they don't, they don't.
Wiley.
-
The same thing happens in there happens in here. Ultimately anything we do as far as judgement in the forums is irrelevant. Whether we think an idea is peachy, worthless, or unnecessary doesn't mean a thing. If HTC likes an idea, they work with it. If they don't, they don't.
Wiley.
True, but I thought it would be better under "Aces High General Discussion" since I wanted to get everyone's perspective on the matter. Rather than just wishing for it outright.
-
True, but I thought it would be better under "Aces High General Discussion" since I wanted to get everyone's perspective on the matter. Rather than just wishing for it outright.
you would probably had the same outcome in the wishlist..whenever someone post here or wishlist--everyone sees it--we all visit these sites all day everyday...just to see whats cooking.
-
I can see how it sounds that way, but I assure you it isn't the reason.
Could you clarify on these game mechanics that aren't being used?
None about win the war, as there is only one way to do that. The mechanics I talk about are the depot and HQs. Some of these hordes could be split into two buff groups to climb to and level the Ammo and Troop depots. 30 minutes after those groups launch you launch 5-8 pairs of heavy fights/med buff to pork a full front line set of bases of both ammo and fuel. How long would the ammo and troops be down along that front? Even if the porked team got together to resupply it would take a while. You now have a "protected" front as they are either too busy resuppling, or have no ammo or troops. You now attack the other front line and grab a bunch of bases. Almost never used
Carpet bombing. You do know that some people have figured out the salvo and delay that is best to carpet bomb towns and white flag them in one pass. almost never used.
Well HiTech said he wanted to add submarines, with the new water I see that totally possible. Meaning the dams could be added as well, bridges - we have them now - but on land with no water.. just make them destructible :D
HITECH has said he'd like to add sub to the game.... because his father was a submariner. He has also said this for over 10 years. You talk like were getting it in the next update. How much do you know about the new water? To me it looked like it had depth, but that doesn't mean it does. In the video, how big were the "swells" we were seeing? No way to tell as we can't be sure if we were 2 feet of the water or 20 feet. Dams, bridges "just make them destructible", all of these things, your assuming a LOT, and very possibly reading in a lot more than what is there, planned, or possible.
I know what I'm asking for completely changes the core foundation of their system. I'm not asking them to abandon their core foundation (capture 20%), but I'm asking them to add on to it. So those who don't want change, don't have to embrace it, but those who want something different can have it too. In a way I'm a people pleaser (within reason), I try to make everyone happy, and when I see that something I said be it an idea in this case, that makes it too hard or is unnecessary, I try to compromise.
What I've asked for, would give purpose to otherwise meaningless things. Some of what I've asked for is already modeled in-game, but has no meaning, like the bridges. Why is a large airfield "worth" the same as a port or a V-base? Even if they changed it so you needed a certain % of enemy ports or specific type of bases, I think that would change it up a bit. So instead of steamrolling, you would have to actually plan. Say knights have a port that bishops need, but the knights took it from the rooks, and the rooks need this port so they are eligible to win the war. (Remember my keep # of your ports and take # of their ports in previous posts?) So, you have bishops going for this port, knights trying to defend it, and rooks trying to take it back! It makes that base actually worth something.
Whereas now, it's take any base that is in sight as long as we get this #. It lumps all the base values in the same pot, even though they are vastly different. I fully understand why they did it the way they did. Simplicity, Be it for their sake (time work etc) or for the player's, so they don't have to learn anything more in an already difficult game. These are merely suggestions for the New Terrain Engine, which will unlock new things for them to experiment with.
:cheers:
At one time HTC added a base capture order. Basically it was suppose to make it easier to find fight because the enemy had to capture bases along a certain line. Your "must need certain bases to win" smacks of the same idea. It was a horrible experiment and was soon removed.
There are many ways to play this game, however most play it only one way. Whether that is base capture, GVin, furballing, NOE hordes, in your face hordes, or only flying blue planes of CV's. Everyone get into that mode of play that they enjoy. Some of us fly different planes, do bomb runs, or jump in a GV now and then to change it up, but most stick to one thing. Adding extra stuff may be fun for a bit, but it wears off and they go back to that one thing they really enjoy
Changing game play isn't something that is done lightly as it effects HTC pocket. While to us this is all fun and games, to them it is how they make their living.
-
None about win the war, as there is only one way to do that. The mechanics I talk about are the depot and HQs. Some of these hordes could be split into two buff groups to climb to and level the Ammo and Troop depots. 30 minutes after those groups launch you launch 5-8 pairs of heavy fights/med buff to pork a full front line set of bases of both ammo and fuel. How long would the ammo and troops be down along that front? Even if the porked team got together to resupply it would take a while. You now have a "protected" front as they are either too busy resuppling, or have no ammo or troops. You now attack the other front line and grab a bunch of bases. Almost never used
Carpet bombing. You do know that some people have figured out the salvo and delay that is best to carpet bomb towns and white flag them in one pass. almost never used.
HITECH has said he'd like to add sub to the game.... because his father was a submariner. He has also said this for over 10 years. You talk like were getting it in the next update. How much do you know about the new water? To me it looked like it had depth, but that doesn't mean it does. In the video, how big were the "swells" we were seeing? No way to tell as we can't be sure if we were 2 feet of the water or 20 feet. Dams, bridges "just make them destructible", all of these things, your assuming a LOT, and very possibly reading in a lot more than what is there, planned, or possible.
At one time HTC added a base capture order. Basically it was suppose to make it easier to find fight because the enemy had to capture bases along a certain line. Your "must need certain bases to win" smacks of the same idea. It was a horrible experiment and was soon removed.
There are many ways to play this game, however most play it only one way. Whether that is base capture, GVin, furballing, NOE hordes, in your face hordes, or only flying blue planes of CV's. Everyone get into that mode of play that they enjoy. Some of us fly different planes, do bomb runs, or jump in a GV now and then to change it up, but most stick to one thing. Adding extra stuff may be fun for a bit, but it wears off and they go back to that one thing they really enjoy
Changing game play isn't something that is done lightly as it effects HTC pocket. While to us this is all fun and games, to them it is how they make their living.
I'm very optimistic, yet realistic.
I fully understand that all things that HTC is calculated and thought out on whether or not the playerbase will approve. Because if the players don't like, then no paycheck. I was taught to treat things as they were your own, and if you work somewhere - treat it like it was your business. So don't act disrespectfully, clean up stuff etc. I plan on going into the gaming industry some day, and while playing games I get ideas that I think through somewhat (no thought is perfect right out of the box), and then post here on the forums.
I am constantly thinking of ways to improve things, but also having fun while playing the game.
There is nothing wrong with Aces High, and I am not saying they should change. These are simply general ideas. No different then when someone asks you 1 lump or 2.
As for your 1st paragraph on the strats.. I'm not sure what you are talking about on that. Is it a response to my 'percentage of strats downed' as one of the requirements to win the war?
I think big. I fully understand that what I have said in this thread would take many man hours. And while I think it might work, it might certainly backfire and be a total waste of time and ultimately the end of HTC/Aces High.. well, if absolutely no one liked it. Got to have goals though.. right? :D
:cheers:
-
As for your 1st paragraph on the strats.. I'm not sure what you are talking about on that. Is it a response to my 'percentage of strats downed' as one of the requirements to win the war?
:cheers:
It's one of those things that isn't used. An awesome system for strategic hits to cripple your opponent and nobody bother to use it. I'm sure it took hours and hours to figure all the percentages and there it sits.
-
It's one of those things that isn't used. An awesome system for strategic hits to cripple your opponent and nobody bother to use it. I'm sure it took hours and hours to figure all the percentages and there it sits.
That's why I wanted to add a "kill this percentage of strats" to be included in the requirements to win the war. Maybe a map with no water would need the HQ destroyed to win the war? *shrug*
There are some things modeled in game already, like the cv being repaired at the ports, or the random bridges on land.. that have no real use. Why not do something with them? And with the strats.. I don't see why adding a 'percentage' to the win the war requirements would be 'bad'. At the very least it would provoke a large scale "all or nothing" battle.
:salute