Aces High Bulletin Board

General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: Grin on June 12, 2015, 07:48:11 AM

Title: I have a proposal concerning HQs.
Post by: Grin on June 12, 2015, 07:48:11 AM
Turn all three HQs off for one Friday. Everyone will be on even ground. Spies won't be able to read locations on the map and relay to their handlers, missions won't be so easily intercepted, focus will be shifted more toward communication and coordinated effort. Shoot, make an event out of it! Team with the most bases by the end of the 24hr period, say 0800 US Central time Friday to 0800 Saturday, wins, if the map isn't shifted. Furballers can still furball, there will just be an actual objective behind it. Logging because of HQ being down will be seen as an act of cowardice, as NOBODY will have HQ up. Plan it out about a month and a half in advance, and we might just have record numbers for the year so far in the MA.
Title: Re: I have a proposal concerning HQs.
Post by: Zoney on June 12, 2015, 08:53:10 AM
-1
Title: Re: I have a proposal concerning HQs.
Post by: waystin2 on June 12, 2015, 09:50:16 AM
No dar for scenarios, FSO and special events is expected.  No DAR In the main arena where most folks are trying to find other human beings to scrap with is just a bad idea. 

(http://media.giphy.com/media/v3kzYYbRdPSQU/giphy.gif)
Title: Re: I have a proposal concerning HQs.
Post by: ink on June 12, 2015, 09:51:26 AM
No dar for scenarios, FSO and special events is expected.  No DAR In the main arena where most folks are trying to find other human beings to scrap with is just a bad idea. 

(http://media.giphy.com/media/v3kzYYbRdPSQU/giphy.gif)


completely agree :aok
Title: Re: I have a proposal concerning HQs.
Post by: JunkyII on June 12, 2015, 10:10:40 AM
What do they not understand!?!?!? I can fight buildings offline.
Title: Re: I have a proposal concerning HQs.
Post by: Aspen on June 12, 2015, 10:21:08 AM
Lets also have every country set at 29 ENY, triple the CV ack quantity and accuracy and have the game disco every 10 minutes.   :headscratch:


One thing I agree with is that the numbers could set records, but on the other end of the scale. :D
Title: Re: I have a proposal concerning HQs.
Post by: Bino on June 12, 2015, 10:57:30 AM
The whole point of the radar is to let players find fights. If there's neither bar-dar nor dot-dar, that will be far more difficult. I have to side with the naysayers on this suggestion. Based on my own observation, folks in the Main Arena want to find a fight, not practice their cross-country navigation skills. Over in the Special Events Arenas, organized squads make plans beforehand to coordinate scouting and intel to find the enemy. The MA is a bird of a different feather.

Turn all three HQs off for one Friday. Everyone will be on even ground. Spies won't be able to read locations on the map and relay to their handlers, missions won't be so easily intercepted, focus will be shifted more toward communication and coordinated effort. Shoot, make an event out of it! Team with the most bases by the end of the 24hr period, say 0800 US Central time Friday to 0800 Saturday, wins, if the map isn't shifted. Furballers can still furball, there will just be an actual objective behind it. Logging because of HQ being down will be seen as an act of cowardice, as NOBODY will have HQ up. Plan it out about a month and a half in advance, and we might just have record numbers for the year so far in the MA.
Title: Re: I have a proposal concerning HQs.
Post by: Traveler on June 12, 2015, 11:07:51 AM
Turn all three HQs off for one Friday. Everyone will be on even ground. Spies won't be able to read locations on the map and relay to their handlers, missions won't be so easily intercepted, focus will be shifted more toward communication and coordinated effort. Shoot, make an event out of it! Team with the most bases by the end of the 24hr period, say 0800 US Central time Friday to 0800 Saturday, wins, if the map isn't shifted. Furballers can still furball, there will just be an actual objective behind it. Logging because of HQ being down will be seen as an act of cowardice, as NOBODY will have HQ up. Plan it out about a month and a half in advance, and we might just have record numbers for the year so far in the MA.

why isn't this in the wish list?  Skuzzy where are you?
Title: Re: I have a proposal concerning HQs.
Post by: guncrasher on June 12, 2015, 11:08:30 AM
Turn all three HQs off for one Friday. Everyone will be on even ground. Spies won't be able to read locations on the map and relay to their handlers, missions won't be so easily intercepted, focus will be shifted more toward communication and coordinated effort. Shoot, make an event out of it! Team with the most bases by the end of the 24hr period, say 0800 US Central time Friday to 0800 Saturday, wins, if the map isn't shifted. Furballers can still furball, there will just be an actual objective behind it. Logging because of HQ being down will be seen as an act of cowardice, as NOBODY will have HQ up. Plan it out about a month and a half in advance, and we might just have record numbers for the year so far in the MA.

wish granted for 3 Fridays per month.


semp
Title: Re: I have a proposal concerning HQs.
Post by: Copprhed on June 12, 2015, 11:10:39 AM
The whole point of the radar is to let players find fights. If there's neither bar-dar nor dot-dar, that will be far more difficult. I have to side with the naysayers on this suggestion. Based on my own observation, folks in the Main Arena want to find a fight, not practice their cross-country navigation skills. Over in the Special Events Arenas, organized squads make plans beforehand to coordinate scouting and intel to find the enemy. The MA is a bird of a different feather.
I have to disagree with that. YOU use the radar to find fights. Many of us use the radar to see what bases are being attacked. You may think it's the same, but it isn't, otherwise, so many of us wouldn't be taking dar down when we're attacking bases. It's not just about perks, it's about, now you don't know where an attack is coming from. The fight is fun, no doubt, but there's so much more to this game than just dogfighting. Those who just want to do a limited part of the game, shouldn't have the right to make the rest of us "do it your way". This whole attitude of those who ONLY want to dogfight is really making me want to leave the game again. I'm NOT going to do it YOUR way, and the more you try to make me, the more I'm gonna call whiner and do it the OPPOSITE of what you want.
Title: Re: I have a proposal concerning HQs.
Post by: waystin2 on June 12, 2015, 11:41:25 AM
I have to disagree with that. YOU use the radar to find fights. Many of us use the radar to see what bases are being attacked. You may think it's the same, but it isn't, otherwise, so many of us wouldn't be taking dar down when we're attacking bases. It's not just about perks, it's about, now you don't know where an attack is coming from. The fight is fun, no doubt, but there's so much more to this game than just dogfighting. Those who just want to do a limited part of the game, shouldn't have the right to make the rest of us "do it your way". This whole attitude of those who ONLY want to dogfight is really making me want to leave the game again. I'm NOT going to do it YOUR way, and the more you try to make me, the more I'm gonna call whiner and do it the OPPOSITE of what you want.

Here is an opinion from a player that likes to fight when something is at stake (air field, port, Vbase, strat, carrier, etc.)-sea, land or air.  I do not like furballing or spawn camping.  I find both activites boring and repetitive.  Do not assume that everone who dislikes this idea is only interested in a furball or a spawn camp.  I am a fur-taker (This term is Patent Pending but you can use it).  I kill the enemy wherever they are found, then hit & take their fields if I cannot find them to provoke a response.  Rinse and repeat.
Title: Re: I have a proposal concerning HQs.
Post by: Slade on June 12, 2015, 11:43:08 AM
Quote
The whole point of the radar is to let players find fights.

Thats kinda my main objective when logging in.  I'll leave flying for scenic purposes to MS Flight Sim and the rest.
Title: Re: I have a proposal concerning HQs.
Post by: BuckShot on June 12, 2015, 12:11:33 PM
-1

Nope. Nice try
Title: Re: I have a proposal concerning HQs.
Post by: Wiley on June 12, 2015, 12:16:41 PM
I am a fur-taker.

There is a waxing comment in here somewhere...

And my favorite thing is to oppose the fur-takers.  Fur-giver(?) sounds... just wrong somehow.

Wiley.
Title: Re: I have a proposal concerning HQs.
Post by: Aspen on June 12, 2015, 12:23:56 PM
I switch up from furballing to base taking/defending, spawn camping, spawn camp breaking, gv furballs, fighter sweeps, escorting, and occasionally bombing.  I do not want a furballing only game but it is important to me to have players to fight and the ability to find action fairly quickly.  The HQ situation represented the pendulum swinging too far one way.  I have zero desire to force anyone to play "my" way but I have no issue asking for a change when some aspect of the game sucks the fun out to the point people start logging.  Players can still kill radar for over an hour but now it will take more effort and an increased likelihood of a fight during that process.  Bases are still getting taken, maps are still being won.
Title: Re: I have a proposal concerning HQs.
Post by: Oldman731 on June 12, 2015, 12:36:32 PM
Well said, Aspen.

- oldman
Title: Re: I have a proposal concerning HQs.
Post by: mikev on June 12, 2015, 12:41:15 PM
Ha may as well play hide and seek in the dark
Title: Re: I have a proposal concerning HQs.
Post by: waystin2 on June 12, 2015, 12:45:33 PM
There is a waxing comment in here somewhere...

And my favorite thing is to oppose the fur-takers.  Fur-giver(?) sounds... just wrong somehow.

Wiley.

 :rofl 
Title: Re: I have a proposal concerning HQs.
Post by: NatCigg on June 12, 2015, 01:01:20 PM
hmmmm  :headscratch: how about radar relay communication is run through a well defended building.  If the building is destroyed the team radar is down until the building is repaired, say 45 minutes.  given the high value of radar, the target should spark interest amongst the community to fly deep into enemy territory to destroy it.  this could help diversify the fight and gameplay.

just a idea.

 :ahand
Title: Re: I have a proposal concerning HQs.
Post by: Wizz on June 12, 2015, 01:14:33 PM
What do they not understand!?!?!? I can fight buildings offline.
no one would find you...

you never know when something goes wrong and the mission fails. Pathetic response.

Manned guns for HQ mandatory vh hanger. Problem solved!
Title: Re: I have a proposal concerning HQs.
Post by: Bino on June 12, 2015, 01:18:22 PM
...
Those who just want to do a limited part of the game, shouldn't have the right to make the rest of us "do it your way"
...

With this part of your reply ^ I wholeheartedly agree. And I still don't think that a no-radar MA is a good idea.

Title: Re: I have a proposal concerning HQs.
Post by: JunkyII on June 12, 2015, 01:19:29 PM
no one would find you...

you never know when something goes wrong and the mission fails. Pathetic response.

Manned guns for HQ mandatory vh hanger. Problem solved!
You misunderstand, your idea takes away from player on player interaction...something that would ruin the game for 75%+...your idea is pathetic.
Title: Re: I have a proposal concerning HQs.
Post by: DmonSlyr on June 12, 2015, 01:38:08 PM
For those players that like to avoid contact and be strategic, I just don't understand why you don't go to the offline and bomb buildings there... Its FREE too.

This isnt about "changing the game" or "whinning" it is about why the HQ is causing a problem to the diminishing player base. Like Semp or someone said, might as well fly MS flight Sim if you want to fly around all afternoon and avoid combat.. The graphics are even better too!

The whole point of radar is to be able to use it to find action on the map, be able to defend bases, and to measure the size of the enemy/friendly ratio of planes in that area.

Killing HQ for a day would suck sooo badly. I don't even know how you think this would be a good idea. So many new players wouldn't be able to find any action on the map. War play would be very stale. The argument goes on and on. I could make arguement until I was blue in the face about why we need HQ and radar as part of the game.

Once HQ gets coaded to where more of a team effort has to shut it down, and players kill HQ to actually win the war, instead of ruining everyone's fun with no single point in attacking it, then you will see that we can still use the HQ for exactly its same purpose, instead of doing it out of spite in the off hours. It is the most skillest aspect to the game, yet causes the most grief. Bombing is the easiest thing to do in the game. There is nothing strategic about flying to 29k in a bomber and downing HQ for no reason, while the rest of your team has no interest in capturing bases or using the teamwork to do so. 
Title: Re: I have a proposal concerning HQs.
Post by: Wizz on June 12, 2015, 01:42:16 PM
For those players that like to avoid contact and be strategic, I just don't understand why you don't go to the offline and bomb buildings there... Its FREE too.

This isnt about "changing the game" or "whinning" it is about why the HQ is causing a problem to the diminishing player base. Like Semp or someone said, might as well fly MS flight Sim if you want to fly around all afternoon and avoid combat.. The graphics are even better too!

The whole point of radar is to be able to use it to find action on the map, be able to defend bases, and to measure the size of the enemy/friendly ratio of planes in that area.

Killing HQ for a day would suck sooo badly. I don't even know how you think this would be a good idea. So many new players wouldn't be able to find any action on the map. War play would be very stale. The argument goes on and on. I could make arguement until I was blue in the face about why we need HQ and radar as part of the game.

Once HQ gets coaded to where more of a team effort has to shut it down, and players kill HQ to actually win the war, instead of ruining everyone's fun with no single point in attacking it, then you will see that we can still use the HQ for exactly its same purpose, instead of doing it out of spite in the off hours. It is the most skillest aspect to the game, yet causes the most grief. Bombing is the easiest thing to do in the game. There is nothing strategic about flying to 29k in a bomber and downing HQ for no reason, while the rest of your team has no interest in capturing bases or using the teamwork to do so.
ya well i cant for the life of me figure out why such a selfish driven player like yourself cant ever seem to figure out why fellas like us play to the benifit of the team.

U think our lights are out when we kill an enemy hq? hell no

Offline???

I beg for someone to stop me when im on a bomb run
Title: Re: I have a proposal concerning HQs.
Post by: Wizz on June 12, 2015, 01:43:42 PM
Manned guns and a vh at HQ or bust....
Title: Re: I have a proposal concerning HQs.
Post by: DmonSlyr on June 12, 2015, 01:56:09 PM
ya well i cant for the life of me figure out why such a selfish driven player like yourself cant ever seem to figure out why fellas like us play to the benifit of the team.

U think our lights are out when we kill an enemy hq? hell no

Offline???

I beg for someone to stop me when im on a bomb run

The only thing that is selfish is me shooting down your whole squad by myself in a fighter plane.

A VH or manned gun wouldn't matter at HQ against 30K buffs.

Personally, again me being selfish. I just want people to shoot down and fight against. I'd rather you not knock down the FHs or kill the other teams HQ while I'm trying to fight. I don't come here to fly in circles, I come to shoot down enemy planes. If you are in a bomber, I'll come shoot you down. But killing the HQ over and over again is just stupid and does nothing to support the war effort.

I could personally give a rats batootie about 50 perks for winning the war, I have 6,000 already.  I come here for fights and air combat, to battle planes in the sky. Avoiding fights and doing everything to prevent players from putting up a fight against me, ruins the idea air combat for me.

I know its apart of the game and its cool that all aspect of war fit into this simulation, but I could personally care less about what bases get taken and which teams win the war.
Title: Re: I have a proposal concerning HQs.
Post by: Oldman731 on June 12, 2015, 01:56:52 PM
For those players that like to avoid contact and be strategic, I just don't understand why you don't go to the offline and bomb buildings there...


I pondered this for quite awhile, before it occurred to me that there are many games out there - mostly men-in-tights fantasy games - where the live players fight AI.  In the AH setting, players who like that sort of thing probably don't care whether they're opposed or not; they simply have fun interacting with (only) the people on their own team.

- oldman
Title: Re: I have a proposal concerning HQs.
Post by: Wizz on June 12, 2015, 02:33:48 PM
The only thing that is selfish is me shooting down your whole squad by myself in a fighter plane.

A VH or manned gun wouldn't matter at HQ against 30K buffs.

Personally, again me being selfish. I just want people to shoot down and fight against. I'd rather you not knock down the FHs or kill the other teams HQ while I'm trying to fight. I don't come here to fly in circles, I come to shoot down enemy planes. If you are in a bomber, I'll come shoot you down. But killing the HQ over and over again is just stupid and does nothing to support the war effort.

I could personally give a rats batootie about 50 perks for winning the war, I have 6,000 already.  I come here for fights and air combat, to battle planes in the sky. Avoiding fights and doing everything to prevent players from putting up a fight against me, ruins the idea air combat for me.

I know its apart of the game and its cool that all aspect of war fit into this simulation, but I could personally care less about what bases get taken and which teams win the war.
30k buffs show dar and that is what 163's are for.
what you need to learn is that there is a player base who does care about what you dont inthis game. HTC recognizes this player base which is why you will never get whatyou really want.
Title: Re: I have a proposal concerning HQs.
Post by: DmonSlyr on June 12, 2015, 03:01:42 PM
See rule #4
Title: Re: I have a proposal concerning HQs.
Post by: Volron on June 12, 2015, 03:07:44 PM
(http://i1213.photobucket.com/albums/cc473/UnkShadow/WVVpU2d_zpsdqn8orxv.gif)


Turn all three HQs off for one Friday. Everyone will be on even ground. Spies won't be able to read locations on the map and relay to their handlers, missions won't be so easily intercepted, focus will be shifted more toward communication and coordinated effort. Shoot, make an event out of it! Team with the most bases by the end of the 24hr period, say 0800 US Central time Friday to 0800 Saturday, wins, if the map isn't shifted. Furballers can still furball, there will just be an actual objective behind it. Logging because of HQ being down will be seen as an act of cowardice, as NOBODY will have HQ up. Plan it out about a month and a half in advance, and we might just have record numbers for the year so far in the MA.


FSO, Scenario's and Snapshots already do this.  This will not help as much as you think.
Title: Re: I have a proposal concerning HQs.
Post by: DmonSlyr on June 12, 2015, 03:14:23 PM
30k buffs show dar and that is what 163's are for.
what you need to learn is that there is a player base who does care about what you dont inthis game. HTC recognizes this player base which is why you will never get whatyou really want.

And what is your point? Obviously your way isn't doing anything to the player base but minimizing it. Just because you can game a game doesn't make you right. It is simply a flaw in the system that you can easily get away with which limits the fun for a lot of players. What I want is a system where destroying the HQ is strategic to winning the war, not strategic to cause players to log. Comprendes?
Title: Re: I have a proposal concerning HQs.
Post by: Canspec on June 12, 2015, 03:56:05 PM
I have to disagree with that. YOU use the radar to find fights. Many of us use the radar to see what bases are being attacked. You may think it's the same, but it isn't, otherwise, so many of us wouldn't be taking dar down when we're attacking bases. It's not just about perks, it's about, now you don't know where an attack is coming from. The fight is fun, no doubt, but there's so much more to this game than just dogfighting. Those who just want to do a limited part of the game, shouldn't have the right to make the rest of us "do it your way". This whole attitude of those who ONLY want to dogfight is really making me want to leave the game again. I'm NOT going to do it YOUR way, and the more you try to make me, the more I'm gonna call whiner and do it the OPPOSITE of what you want.

Its your $15.00 do what you want......but just quit whining about the whiners......and stop capitalizing certain words to make it seem like YOU are REALLY SERIOUS ABOUT THIS and we should PAY ATTENTION........  :old:
Title: Re: I have a proposal concerning HQs.
Post by: Wizz on June 12, 2015, 06:59:34 PM
And what is your point? Obviously your way isn't doing anything to the player base but minimizing it. Just because you can game a game doesn't make you right. It is simply a flaw in the system that you can easily get away with which limits the fun for a lot of players. What I want is a system where destroying the HQ is strategic to winning the war, not strategic to cause players to log. Comprendes?
HTC created the target and its effects when destroyed. So because players have quit and numbers are low your forum griefing us with your drive by comments while HTC sits back and laughs while your posts get censored??

my point was actualy a comment pertaining to a post previous to that. go back and read it then get back to me
Title: Re: I have a proposal concerning HQs.
Post by: Delirium on June 12, 2015, 07:10:23 PM
Spies won't be able to read locations on the map and relay to their handlers

Okay, so your real motivation is based on baseless paranoia.

Plan it out about a month and a half in advance, and we might just have record numbers for the year so far in the MA.

It will give you record numbers... of AH players actually willing to spend a night out with their wives. I'll even volunteer to go to Ikea with my wife for the day/evening.

Heck, I'll even go through the colonoscopy that the doctor wants me to have, at least I know that will be a literal pain the a** that may be beneficial compared to a figurative pain in the a** of chasing non-existent fights in the skies of Aces High.
Title: Re: I have a proposal concerning HQs.
Post by: DmonSlyr on June 12, 2015, 07:18:20 PM
HTC created the target and its effects when destroyed. So because players have quit and numbers are low your forum griefing us with your drive by comments while HTC sits back and laughs while your posts get censored??

my point was actualy a comment pertaining to a post previous to that. go back and read it then get back to me

Exactly. You got it right that time!!

I do appreciate that Hitech has made this change for us for the short term.
Title: Re: I have a proposal concerning HQs.
Post by: Oddball-CAF on June 12, 2015, 07:55:59 PM
ya well i cant for the life of me figure out why such a selfish driven player like yourself cant ever seem to figure out why fellas like us play to the benifit of the team.

 
That's a load of malarkey. Guys who drop HQs accomplish nothing except ruin fun for the players
flying for the country whose HQ got dropped.
  Ask the probably 1000 guys who dropped their subscriptions to AH over the past couple of years
how much -they- enjoyed having HQ down.
  Guys like you and the squads who do 'em do it so -they- can fly "under cover" so the odds of them
actually having to fight against another plane are lessened.
  I can understand hitting strat targets. Those have an impact war-wise. HQs is just griefin' the game
just because you can.
 
 
Title: Re: I have a proposal concerning HQs.
Post by: Wizz on June 12, 2015, 09:18:35 PM
 
That's a load of malarkey. Guys who drop HQs accomplish nothing except ruin fun for the players
flying for the country whose HQ got dropped.
  Ask the probably 1000 guys who dropped their subscriptions to AH over the past couple of years
how much -they- enjoyed having HQ down.
  Guys like you and the squads who do 'em do it so -they- can fly "under cover" so the odds of them
actually having to fight against another plane are lessened.
  I can understand hitting strat targets. Those have an impact war-wise. HQs is just griefin' the game
just because you can.
 
 
no


I drop hq for strategic value
Title: Re: I have a proposal concerning HQs.
Post by: Guppy35 on June 12, 2015, 09:31:40 PM
no


I drop hq for strategic value

You do crack me up.  You go on and keep convincing yourself of that :aok
Title: Re: I have a proposal concerning HQs.
Post by: Wizz on June 12, 2015, 11:03:42 PM
You do crack me up.  You go on and keep convincing yourself of that :aok

if i understand you correctly you want me tokeep convincing myself that hq has strategic value.

Does that mean you and anyone else willing to admit on this thread the same that you feel the hq has no strategic value?
Title: Re: I have a proposal concerning HQs.
Post by: Arlo on June 12, 2015, 11:24:45 PM
Nope. You didn't understand him correctly.  :aok   :old:
Title: Re: I have a proposal concerning HQs.
Post by: guncrasher on June 13, 2015, 12:28:14 AM
no


I drop hq for strategic value

you ever think that it was your bb  posting that actually really proved that you were grieffing the majority of the player base?

It's a rhetorical question.


semp
Title: Re: I have a proposal concerning HQs.
Post by: JVboob on June 13, 2015, 03:26:01 AM
-1 from me grin. sorry bud.
Title: Re: I have a proposal concerning HQs.
Post by: Interceptor on June 13, 2015, 06:25:18 AM
(http://i58.tinypic.com/n6f4lf.jpg)

-1
Title: Re: I have a proposal concerning HQs.
Post by: Slade on June 13, 2015, 06:45:48 AM
One way to avoid THE point is to keep talking about periphery topics and\or call facts whines and the like.

Ladies and gents: Most of us play this game to engage in ACM.  If we log in and cant find any...we log out if we dont have unlimited time*.  Thats just a cold hard fact.

It really is that simple.

* I wonder what percentage of the player base have unlimited time?

Title: Re: I have a proposal concerning HQs.
Post by: Grin on June 13, 2015, 08:28:25 AM
It would also appear that a rather large portion of the player base logs in solely to engage in GV stuff, which really doesn't use the HQ at all other than for hiding from incoming air.

I personally prefer attacking those guys. Some GVers are tough cookies to crack, even with bombs! Much more rewarding to take a Stuka G-2 out to support a GV push, shoot Sturmbok's 262 down along the way, take out a Panzer or two and throw your plane into the Wirble that just knocked your wing off.

It's also a lot of fun when you have a LOT of squadmates on to fly big pretty formations in fighters. 14 A6Ms in a Flying Fish (<><) having a Jug come say hi, and at 3k away the tail doing a Split S and the front doing an Immelmann, and watching the Jug break as hard as he can away, dive to the ground and floor it home is absolutely hilarious.

Don't gotta be doing inverted 4G negative dives with the enemy to have fun.

(http://i1185.photobucket.com/albums/z341/GrinPhotoDump/ahss3_zps6b52bad4.png)
Title: Re: I have a proposal concerning HQs.
Post by: Rich46yo on June 13, 2015, 10:12:28 AM
This.

It takes a strange lonely creature to up a set of Lancs on a huge map with few players and fly all those sectors, probably while doing their yard work or watching TV, drop and HQ and immediately bail. All because they can and knowing its done for nothing but the purpose of griefing, perhaps knowing its doing nothing but helping kill the game. I cant remember the last time we had 300 on at night and last May set a record for lowest K/Ds in a month. I'd bet it was cancellations that forced HiTech to act.

I dont know if Junes stats are current but if they are then this month will be a disaster. Assuming there is a connection between K/Ds and lost players. And why wouldnt there be when the decline is so constant?






 
That's a load of malarkey. Guys who drop HQs accomplish nothing except ruin fun for the players
flying for the country whose HQ got dropped.
  Ask the probably 1000 guys who dropped their subscriptions to AH over the past couple of years
how much -they- enjoyed having HQ down.
  Guys like you and the squads who do 'em do it so -they- can fly "under cover" so the odds of them
actually having to fight against another plane are lessened.
  I can understand hitting strat targets. Those have an impact war-wise. HQs is just griefin' the game
just because you can.
 
 
Title: Re: I have a proposal concerning HQs.
Post by: 715 on June 13, 2015, 01:29:17 PM
Ah... shouldn't you be looking at K/H not K/D to judge player participation?  K/D just cancels out... i.e. fewer K and fewer D gives the same ratio.  Or am I missing something?
Title: Re: I have a proposal concerning HQs.
Post by: Lusche on June 13, 2015, 01:30:56 PM
Ah... shouldn't you be looking at K/H not K/D to judge player participation?  K/D just cancels out... i.e. fewer K and fewer D gives the same ratio.  Or am I missing something?

He meant overall arena kills and deaths
Title: Re: I have a proposal concerning HQs.
Post by: 715 on June 13, 2015, 01:33:06 PM
He meant overall arena kills and deaths

Oh...  OK.  He means K+D not K/D.
Title: Re: I have a proposal concerning HQs.
Post by: Soulyss on June 14, 2015, 10:39:32 AM
The 'ol furballers vs basetakers debate has been going on for ages and will likely continue to go on for ages to come.  As someone who is primarily interested in furballing here's my take for those that care (if that means 1 or 2 of you out there actually care then I'm batting far above my average :)).

Someone made the analogy of the pendulum earlier which I think it's a good way to look at it.  From a game play, community, or overall big picture I think it should be right there in the middle.  Dogfighting alone won't sustain the community, there needs to be a larger objective.  I also reject the idea that furballers or dogfighters are selfish or individualistic.  Coordination, teamwork, and have friends with you whom you can rely on matter as much in a furball as any endeavor in the game.   Base taking can be a healthy objective as well but not when it's too the detriment of combat.

The game is at it's best when there is conflict, and that conflict is at at best when there is an objective at stake.  Too often people point to the extremes as an example of why the other side is wrong.  The game play extremes at both ends also tend to be exclusionary to the other side, which is bad in the long run.

Some of the best battles I can remember where over an airfield, especially when it was a coordinated air/ground push.  They lasted hours and if my side eventually lost the field then there were no hard feelings from me, the front lines shift and the battle launches again.  For the victor that win I'm sure felt a whole lot better than the smash and grab of an undefended field as well.

What it boils down to for me is a player needs to be able to log in and find combat, whether that's a 1v1 duel, a big swirling furball, or a battle over an air/vehicle field, or port (better yet have all at once).  They need to be able to get in game, and join a battle.  Everything else flows from there.

Ok I'm done, hopping off the soapbox.  Carry on. :)
Title: Re: I have a proposal concerning HQs.
Post by: 68ZooM on June 14, 2015, 11:07:06 AM
 I think there is a way you could tie headquarters into being a major part of the game, once the percentage of bases that have been captured instead of just winning the war the side with the most bases taken would have to drop the other countries headquarters in order to win the map.

that could really start some knock out drag out fights knowing the enemy has to drop your headquarters in order to win the map it's just a thought.
Title: Re: I have a proposal concerning HQs.
Post by: waystin2 on June 15, 2015, 09:33:13 AM


The game is at it's best when there is conflict, and that conflict is at at best when there is an objective at stake.



This is Sig worthy Sir.  :aok
Title: Re: I have a proposal concerning HQs.
Post by: NatCigg on June 15, 2015, 03:49:53 PM
This is Sig worthy Sir.  :aok

 :old: see, told ya.  :old: base taking is what makes the world go round.   :joystick: fighter jocks need to  get in line or go back to boot camp.  :old:

 :old: radar is privilege not a right!  :old:

 :airplane:

Title: Re: I have a proposal concerning HQs.
Post by: bustr on June 15, 2015, 04:46:26 PM
One country with some number of un-capture able neutral bases around the outside edges. All other bases can be captured by anyone. Everyone can shoot anyone as soon as they up at a field or GV spawn. Remove all score.

Players can form alliances and would need a mechanism to give members an alliance icon color, bases that color on the clip board map when they capture one. And no ability to shoot each other while wearing that color. Bases with a capture color can only be upped from by members of that alliance(single player capture also) or you have to capture it to change the color. Auto ack shoots at anyone not wearing the capture color. All capturable bases off the reset, auto ack shoots at everyone until the base is captured.

Person or group alliance that has some pre determined percentage of the map's bases wins. Map resets and all alliances are null and void. The 12 hour rule rebels will love this kind of a map. They can form a wolf pack and do nothing but whizz on everyone else to their uber skillz Lil hearts desires. Either launching from the neutral bases or capturing a few to make flight times shorter. Now hoards would have a purpose with greifers being needed to keep them from winning the map.

Arm chair generals can have strategygasims and furballer greifers will be hero's. And Gvers would be needed to place pressure on fields to keep other arm chair generals guessing.

Some genius would figure out how to get 75% of all players on his side as the end all of win strategies. And Hitech would probably close it down.

At Bentnail's missing man flight in the AvA, when it was over, kill shooter was turned off and we all shot at each other chasing around the feild. The world didn't end and we had a boat load of fun. That is what inspired this idea of a KOTH style capture arena.   
Title: Re: I have a proposal concerning HQs.
Post by: NatCigg on June 16, 2015, 07:19:04 AM
 Maybe a ww2 type game with a open moving front line like ww2 with MISSION PLANS like ww2.
Title: Re: I have a proposal concerning HQs.
Post by: DmonSlyr on June 16, 2015, 08:35:30 AM
Hitech, you should put one Free for all arena and one Team death match arena on small maps like smog 8 and another good FFA map in the online game choice. Limit these 2 arenas to 16-20 players. That way people can do what ever they want with no scores attached. They could still win the TDM war but it would reset the same map. Also, you can keep the other arenas as well. It wouldn't take too many away from the MA, but it would give the furballsers, small map players, and limited time players to have some quick fun!
Title: Re: I have a proposal concerning HQs.
Post by: NatCigg on June 16, 2015, 10:31:17 AM
Lol not only fighter jocks play for them self they want everyone else to do the same. :bhead is not war thunder what your describing.  You do this and you have what we do now with out the big number at login.  DONT FORGET ABOUT ALL OF US THE DONT WHINE AND THE GREAT GAME WE HAVE PLAYED FOR SO LONG.  :salute
Title: Re: I have a proposal concerning HQs.
Post by: JunkyII on June 16, 2015, 11:04:35 AM
Lol not only fighter jocks play for them self they want everyone else to do the same. :bhead is not war thunder what your describing.  You do this and you have what we do now with out the big number at login.  DONT FORGET ABOUT ALL OF US THE DONT WHINE AND THE GREAT GAME WE HAVE PLAYED FOR SO LONG.  :salute
I don't think anyone doubts that the base take mechanism is what spawns fights...but the HQ being down all the time was the issue for finding those fights. Even with the HQ up, you have to look for where the horde is going next.
Title: Re: I have a proposal concerning HQs.
Post by: The Fugitive on June 16, 2015, 12:09:57 PM
Hitech, you should put one Free for all arena and one Team death match arena on small maps like smog 8 and another good FFA map in the online game choice. Limit these 2 arenas to 16-20 players. That way people can do what ever they want with no scores attached. They could still win the TDM war but it would reset the same map. Also, you can keep the other arenas as well. It wouldn't take too many away from the MA, but it would give the furballsers, small map players, and limited time players to have some quick fun!

Why do people ask for this? It is already available. You can already build a custom arena and set it as you want. Have at it!

The reason you don't see it is fighter guys like to hang out in the MA with every else. Fighter guys need the win the war guys and believe it or not the win the war guys need the fighter guys as well.
Title: Re: I have a proposal concerning HQs.
Post by: bustr on June 16, 2015, 01:08:13 PM
Because they would have to do some work and face their grand ideas being rejected. It's easier to try and get Hitech to do all the work, which looks like arenas that force players into smaller areas with no place to run for Demon to harvest them.

The DA as a purpose built sand box has everything he wants except it has become a ghost town of late. Unlike "Field of Dreams", building it has nothing to do with anyone wanting to play in it.

Back around 2007-2009 at the population peak for the MA, the DA held a constant population under 10% of the MA most nights. That is demographically proportional to the personality spectrum seeking fun in our game. Patience for gamers will never be a virtue while they cannot get their game fix.

AH3 should see an increase in the personality spread which will probably see a new influx to the DA even if it's only the lake for adolescent picking and HOing. Along with what ever Hitech has in mind with those sheep and anything else he is cooking up. But, I seriously doubt he is going to purposely pack people into a 4x12 with nowhere to run and call that Aces High anything while the DA and custom arenas exist for those so inclined to that kind of masochism.

 
Title: Re: I have a proposal concerning HQs.
Post by: DmonSlyr on June 16, 2015, 02:00:13 PM
To refute yalls arguements.

1. 16-20 player limit for both arenas. (Mentioned in first post). The MA still has the same feel.

2. Smaller arenas allow people to learn the game much more quickly and can utilize different aspects of the game in a quicker period of time. We kind of have them but dont.

3. Custom arenas are practically hidden, hard to create, and generally looked over more often than not.

4. This creates faster combat zones, more people to fight in a smaller area, would be great for off hours, and small arenas with 20 people are a hell of a lot of fun.


I'm not saying it will or will not work.

People are glued to the MA so hard.

I do think smaller fighting areas are the key to success and fun in the MA with low #s in the off hours.

I learned to play the game in smaller maps like smog8 and others in H2H where only 8 people could fit in a room. FFA and team death match were hella fun!

It doesn't matter to me though, I know how to get kills in the MA and I dont really care what team I'm on or who wins the war.  I'm just trying to think of things that will make the game more exciting and challenging to play for the actual people who begin subscribing for the first time.

Seriously though. Once the #s start picking up again (hopefully), the MA is where it's at. The MA really is fun with a lot of players. I hope we can bring in more players so that some of the new guys can really see how awesome it is to fight on a big map with so much going on.




Title: Re: I have a proposal concerning HQs.
Post by: bustr on June 16, 2015, 02:30:14 PM
Ergo the AvA with about 20 players at the most, occasionally, packed close together because they choose to play that way some times. The quick action, no where to run concept with the Aces High player base is self limiting by a predictable percentage of personality spread. It's only ever a small dedicated percentage following in games to your kind of masochism.

Faster combat is not what the majority wants in our game, or they would all be in the DA or AvA slaughtering each other. They want the comfort of their friends and lower odds that you Demon, and others like you won't harvest them every time they turn around. The vast majority of customers do not play the game for the fix you want. Ergo custom arenas.

Most pay for an evening of an illusion of winning their personal version of combat in the game while keeping their kester as safe as possible at all times. You are the anomaly, they pay the light bill.
Title: Re: I have a proposal concerning HQs.
Post by: DmonSlyr on June 16, 2015, 04:03:46 PM
Ergo the AvA with about 20 players at the most, occasionally, packed close together because they choose to play that way some times. The quick action, no where to run concept with the Aces High player base is self limiting by a predictable percentage of personality spread. It's only ever a small dedicated percentage following in games to your kind of masochism.

Faster combat is not what the majority wants in our game, or they would all be in the DA or AvA slaughtering each other. They want the comfort of their friends and lower odds that you Demon, and others like you won't harvest them every time they turn around. The vast majority of customers do not play the game for the fix you want. Ergo custom arenas.

Most pay for an evening of an illusion of winning their personal version of combat in the game while keeping their kester as safe as possible at all times. You are the anomaly, they pay the light bill.

I think that is a misconception. If the majority didn't want faster game play, if they wanted to be secretive, if they didn't actually want to engage in combat, if all they wanted to do capture bases and move on to the next one, if they all wanted to fly base to base seeing no red icons, then why are more and more people logging during the off hours? Why are more people unsubscirbing due to the HQ being down all the time? Not to mention 99% of players die anyway, so them dieing is not the reason for them quitting the game.
I dont want the game to soley be custom arenas like WT. I love the MA, but its lack without a lot of people playing in there and making the arena smaller based on # of players in the MA is the way to go. IMO
Title: Re: I have a proposal concerning HQs.
Post by: bustr on June 16, 2015, 06:25:51 PM
Those are systemic things driving players to seek games with the chances of more people to play with. Most humans tell the self-deceptive lie that they are warriors and want everything that goes with it. Games give them that illusion. When the statistical few who are the top of the food chain make them too uncomfortable they don't want to play around them. When they say they want to get into action faster, it's not the action you want to get into faster. But, they will whine until everyone around them is tone deaf, rather than admit they are not the equal at combat in what ever game as that minority they avoid.

They pay the light bill, you are the anomaly they don't want to play with.
Title: Re: I have a proposal concerning HQs.
Post by: kvuo75 on June 17, 2015, 12:28:04 PM
ask yourself hypothetically, if there was a single building target on a map that would completely shut down all the aircraft and vehicles for a country, would you go bomb that target?  if yes, you're part of the problem.

i suspect the typical hq hero would jump at the chance.

Title: Re: I have a proposal concerning HQs.
Post by: waystin2 on June 17, 2015, 01:05:24 PM
ask yourself hypothetically, if there was a single building target on a map that would completely shut down all the aircraft and vehicles for a country, would you go bomb that target?  if yes, you're part of the problem.

i suspect the typical hq hero would jump at the chance.

This is where you drop the mic and walk off stage.  Well said Sir. :aok
Title: Re: I have a proposal concerning HQs.
Post by: NatCigg on June 17, 2015, 03:43:07 PM
ask yourself hypothetically, if there was a single building target on a map that would completely shut down all the aircraft and vehicles for a country, would you go bomb that target?  if yes, you're part of the problem.

i suspect the typical hq hero would jump at the chance.

do we want to add "nuke" to the next users choice survey HTC puts out concerning "what game feature should we add next?"

what percent do you think you would get?

I would say....47%.  yep 47%. 

Note: 47% is the only percent i know.

 :bolt:
Title: Re: I have a proposal concerning HQs.
Post by: Volron on June 17, 2015, 09:37:25 PM
ask yourself hypothetically, if there was a single building target on a map that would completely shut down all the aircraft and vehicles for a country, would you go bomb that target?  if yes, you're part of the problem.

i suspect the typical hq hero would jump at the chance.

Yes, yes I would.  Would I hit it regularly?  Nope.  Quite rarely in fact.  No different than with the HQ really.  Would I hit it right now?  No, for the same reason I don't hit the HQ right now.


Lumping me into that group is a PITA you know. :(
Title: Re: I have a proposal concerning HQs.
Post by: kvuo75 on June 18, 2015, 08:04:17 AM
Yes, yes I would. 

maybe htc really should try a one country setup after all.  no enemies to worry about.

Title: Re: I have a proposal concerning HQs.
Post by: Volron on June 18, 2015, 11:36:35 AM
maybe htc really should try a one country setup after all.  no enemies to worry about.

You didn't seem to have a problem with me hitting the HQ that one time.  You and someone else in 163's intercepted my set of lanc's (there were 2 or 3 other guys with me on this raid, but scattered after attacking it).  Your buddy compressed, and I took out one of your 30mm's.  PM'ed you bout whether you were making another video or not that day.  This was before the lanc was updated, which was the last time I attacked an HQ.

You asked a silly question, to which I respond honestly.  You then cut out most of my response so you can whine about my answer? :headscratch:  Can I have some of what you are drinking? :)
Title: Re: I have a proposal concerning HQs.
Post by: kvuo75 on June 18, 2015, 02:35:23 PM
You didn't seem to have a problem with me hitting the HQ that one time.  You and someone else in 163's intercepted my set of lanc's (there were 2 or 3 other guys with me on this raid, but scattered after attacking it).  Your buddy compressed, and I took out one of your 30mm's.  PM'ed you bout whether you were making another video or not that day.  This was before the lanc was updated, which was the last time I attacked an HQ.

You asked a silly question, to which I respond honestly.  You then cut out most of my response so you can whine about my answer? :headscratch: 


oh i dont have a problem with hitting hq in general (when there's the chance of actual combat)..  i was talking about my hypothetical target that would eliminate any opposition at all. that would be a very strange type of gameplay for a combat game, but i think there are people who would actually like it.

Quote
Can I have some of what you are drinking?

watchu want?

 :cheers: :cheers: :cheers:
(http://imageshack.com/a/img538/2299/DUjx51.jpg)
Title: Re: I have a proposal concerning HQs.
Post by: Volron on June 18, 2015, 03:34:37 PM
oh i dont have a problem with hitting hq in general (when there's the chance of actual combat)..  i was talking about my hypothetical target that would eliminate any opposition at all. that would be a very strange type of gameplay for a combat game, but i think there are people who would actually like it.

Ah.  Then to re-answer your question: No.  I was thinking there would be SOMETHING left to do, but to completely eliminate everything on the opposing side, poo to that.  Believe or not, I don't mind being intercepted. :)  Preferably after I've hit my target, for maximum damage. :D

watchu want?

 :cheers: :cheers: :cheers:
(http://imageshack.com/a/img538/2299/DUjx51.jpg)

I'll take one shot of everything, though likely I won't make it past the 5th shot.   :o   :cheers:
Title: Re: I have a proposal concerning HQs.
Post by: Babalonian on June 19, 2015, 01:50:10 PM
Turn all three HQs off for one Friday. Everyone will be on even ground. Spies won't be able to read locations on the map and relay to their handlers, missions won't be so easily intercepted, focus will be shifted more toward communication and coordinated effort. Shoot, make an event out of it! Team with the most bases by the end of the 24hr period, say 0800 US Central time Friday to 0800 Saturday, wins, if the map isn't shifted. Furballers can still furball, there will just be an actual objective behind it. Logging because of HQ being down will be seen as an act of cowardice, as NOBODY will have HQ up. Plan it out about a month and a half in advance, and we might just have record numbers for the year so far in the MA.

Weren't you one of the frequent HQ bombers, or am I mistaken?  Ironic, if so.
Title: Re: I have a proposal concerning HQs.
Post by: waystin2 on June 19, 2015, 02:01:46 PM
Weren't you one of the frequent HQ bombers, or am I mistaken?  Ironic, if so.

You mean the 40-whiners? :D
Title: Re: I have a proposal concerning HQs.
Post by: Grin on June 22, 2015, 03:02:12 AM
Weren't you one of the frequent HQ bombers, or am I mistaken?  Ironic, if so.

I've only dropped bombs on the HQ a couple times, always as part of a strat run after hitting the city. I've never dropped it with a bomber, and never attacked it alone from the air or ground. I did participate in a ground mission yesterday about 1:30pmCDT as a last ditch to keep the Bish from winning, but the Knights wouldn't capitalize and push back against the Bish, even with Rook bombers supporting on the tri-front in the south.

Saturday we did take it down twice to attempt to facilitate a push against the Bish from the Rook front, but nothing came of it. We had F4Us pulling CAP over the CV for 2 hours pushing north past the A50 cluster to get it to shore on the HQ island, during which we spotted up a large Bishop bomber formation that we prevented from reaching their target with enough planes left to do significant damage.

If we could have a War Production target that could increase hangar downtimes we wouldn't have any reason to hit the HQ other than to knock out radar for a few minutes and draw folks off the front line to resupply.
Title: Re: I have a proposal concerning HQs.
Post by: DmonSlyr on June 22, 2015, 07:19:30 AM
Longer hanger downtown times!!! THATS JUST WHAT WE NEED!!!
I mean who really wants to actually fly and play the game anyway? I know sitting in the tower is just exhilarating, especially when they kill our FHs and the next closest base is 35 miles away!! That just makes my AH playing time just so much fun!!
Title: Re: I have a proposal concerning HQs.
Post by: Grin on June 22, 2015, 07:25:54 AM
Longer hanger downtown times!!! THATS JUST WHAT WE NEED!!!
I mean who really wants to actually fly and play the game anyway? I know sitting in the tower is just exhilarating, especially when they kill our FHs and the next closest base is 35 miles away!! That just makes my AH playing time just so much fun!!

How do you expect the Rooks and Knights to be able to take a base when the Bish up so many defenders that it takes 20 minutes to knock them all down and the hangars are only down 15?
Title: Re: I have a proposal concerning HQs.
Post by: JunkyII on June 22, 2015, 07:29:41 AM
How do you expect the Rooks and Knights to be able to take a base when the Bish up so many defenders that it takes 20 minutes to knock them all down and the hangars are only down 15?
The current down times have worked since I started playing in 2006-07. It's the ability to up 20 P51 with full ord out of one airfield at once that is the problem...if any at all.
Title: Re: I have a proposal concerning HQs.
Post by: The Fugitive on June 22, 2015, 07:35:02 AM
Taking down the bish HQ isn't going to slow the attack down at all. Radar isn't important  when they are on the attack. More often than not they horde up and NOE  each base they want. Either that or with a big horde they just roll a base as attrition is unimportant.  No your time would be better spent taking out ords along the front and the ords strat. No bombs force them into cannon birds. 110's and such flown by guys who regularly  lawndart make much easier  prey.

Killing HQ is for attacks only. It for guys who like to fly at 10k but have the advantage of an NOE.
Title: Re: I have a proposal concerning HQs.
Post by: JunkyII on June 22, 2015, 07:48:20 AM
Taking down the bish HQ isn't going to slow the attack down at all. Radar isn't important  when they are on the attack. More often than not they horde up and NOE  each base they want. Either that or with a big horde they just roll a base as attrition is unimportant.  No your time would be better spent taking out ords along the front and the ords strat. No bombs force them into cannon birds. 110's and such flown by guys who regularly  lawndart make much easier  prey.

Killing HQ is for attacks only. It for guys who like to fly at 10k but have the advantage of an NOE.
These days taking down the strats, is actually pretty important to normal front line porking. I think that is one area HTC did a great job at, it was the connection between the HQ and the city which was not working with the added minutes which they already took off.
Title: Re: I have a proposal concerning HQs.
Post by: DmonSlyr on June 22, 2015, 10:14:16 AM
How do you expect the Rooks and Knights to be able to take a base when the Bish up so many defenders that it takes 20 minutes to knock them all down and the hangars are only down 15?


Ok here is a base taking strategy that guarantees success.

1. Up 2-4 fighters with cannons
2. up 4 attack planes like 110, or p38s
3. up 2-3 bombers (may not need them)
4. bring goon.


Go to enemy base. Immediately knock down the VH and radar.
send your attackers to De-ack the town and start bombing/strafing the town. 3 P38s can take down a whole town.
Use the fighters to stop any uppers and keep Vulch/Cap on base.
Do your best to get everyone to kill Ack on the entire base and town.
Send in the goon once all is clear.

This will take 10 minutes if your whole team does everything correctly.

You don't have to kill HQ or kills FHs to take bases. It simply takes a coordinated 6-12 people (sometimes less) to kill the town and stop Vehicles from getting out. Enemy Vehicles are wayyyy more crucial to not taking bases than planes are. Keeping a vulch cap is simple and you can use more men to take down the town.



And one more thing. You don't always have to take the most popular field. Killing the FHs on the field that has the biggest furball doesn't always make it easier to capture a base. And most of the time this does nothing but kill the fight and people's fun, when trying to capture these types of bases is the most illogical form of strategy on the map.

You have to go for bases that have no action and are not busy. Go NOE pop up, do what I said.. and BOOM. Easy base take!

Title: Re: I have a proposal concerning HQs.
Post by: Grin on June 22, 2015, 05:30:11 PM
Yeah that works against Knights just fine. As soon as a Bish base flashes the Wirbles multiply and the uppers scramble.
Title: Re: I have a proposal concerning HQs.
Post by: DmonSlyr on June 22, 2015, 07:11:54 PM
Yeah that works against Knights just fine. As soon as a Bish base flashes the Wirbles multiply and the uppers scramble.

IDK man, I personally think the bish are the worst fighter team in the game. They are good at GVs and bombers. That's about it. Besides a few good players who hang around. But if you use that strategy I posted above, you will have a much easier time taking bases. 90% of the time a base doesn't get captured is because they didn't kill the VH first and they wasted the rest of their bombs on the FHs instead of the town. Heck, I wish more bish would up most of the time so I could get a fight in but a lot of times I wind up flying to an empty base...I look for planes to fight and y'all want no fight. So situation is different I guess lol. But I do know how to capture bases.

Oh well cycles come and go.

 
Title: Re: I have a proposal concerning HQs.
Post by: rvflyer on June 22, 2015, 09:56:58 PM
You are so funny, there is not a bit of difference in game play because of the chess piece you call yourself.  :rolleyes:


IDK man, I personally think the bish are the worst fighter team in the game. They are good at GVs and bombers. That's about it. Besides a few good players who hang around. But if you use that strategy I posted above, you will have a much easier time taking bases. 90% of the time a base doesn't get captured is because they didn't kill the VH first and they wasted the rest of their bombs on the FHs instead of the town. Heck, I wish more bish would up most of the time so I could get a fight in but a lot of times I wind up flying to an empty base...I look for planes to fight and y'all want no fight. So situation is different I guess lol. But I do know how to capture bases.

Oh well cycles come and go.
Title: Re: I have a proposal concerning HQs.
Post by: DmonSlyr on June 22, 2015, 10:56:46 PM
You are so funny, there is not a bit of difference in game play because of the chess piece you call yourself.  :rolleyes:

There isn't?!!

I'm sure some of our fine loyal chess peice players will have something to say about that...

I'm sorry.. It's just last time I was on the bish it was the worst 2 days of AH I've had in a while. So I'm just giving them a hard time.

Grin started it!!!
Title: Re: I have a proposal concerning HQs.
Post by: waystin2 on June 23, 2015, 07:23:40 AM
You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy than the Bishop.

O. Kenobi