Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: GrandpaChaps on December 23, 2016, 04:00:18 PM
-
We've seen an interesting transition from AHII to AHIII and a change in resupply times to stats.
Regardless, I find it interesting about the different "opinions" on resupplying the strats of your own country.
My question is of a curious nature. If the strats of one's country determine it's ability to defend against an attack, why does it seem/appear that the opinion to resupply is neglected or mundane or laughed about at times?
I suppose this may be a question more related to why people play. Is the above question because people care more about "stars" and "achievements" or because they have no country alliance, or because they just want to "score more" than everyone else? It could also be a question of how we all see our role in the game... ?
I'm interested in everyone's opinions because it seems no matter what country you belong to, strat health tends to be a very low priority at times.
-
I play this game to fight. Fight air to air whether attacking or defending. Fighting Air to ground, ground to ground, air to sea, sea to air it doesn't matter as long as its a fight.
Resuppling strats, forget it. No fight, not worth what time I have to play. Im happy to help out with winning the war and will run supplies to bring up ammo so I can fight from there, as well as running troops. But strat are just a waste of time to me. I would rather up a buff and run a milk run over a half dozen bases just to draw a few guys up to fight with me than resupply, or bomb strats.
-
Some prefer furballing... some prefer taking bases :D
When it comes to taking bases, strats nedd to be taken out
or reduced... simple as that :cheers:
-
For me, it's about cost/benefit. When resupply was 30 minutes, I ran many resupply trips since it seemed worth my time to do so. Now, with resupply at 10 minutes I don't bother. Also, the "Buzzsaw" map makes it so easy to attack strats that resupply seems pointless.
-
Some prefer furballing... some prefer taking bases :D
When it comes to taking bases, strats nedd to be taken out
or reduced... simple as that :cheers:
Not at all! If you fight for the base and use skilled players who also like to fight you can grab bases all night and day.
The problem seems to be that todays players, instead of learning to dive bomb or level bomb in the upper 80% or learn tactics to build a better plan, lean on the easy path of carpet bombing.... and more often than not , bailing over the strats.
-
i would need to check my stats but personally i feel like 99 % of my sorties are not to the strats. I flew over there as a courtesy obligation to the team on a boring day. I loaded up some lancs and took off, set auto pilot and went afk to house chores, thankfully i remembered to come back and play, dam four more sectors to go... long sorry short i bailed as soon as i was empty. I was bored, nobody in sight the entire flight. :devil and wanted to actually get some ack guns down for more than 30 minutes.
On a side note, I am constantly evaluating what is worthwhile to attack. 30 minute down times and ten minute supply time...why bother if there is no horde. no horde because the is no will. funny, a downward spiral. log off? sometimes. Fly for the hell of it in a pointless sortie hanging on a thread from the depths of id? most times.
-
The maps that allow a quick resupply run allow you to make 100-200 perks a day if you play long enough. It's actually faster to do that than it is to kill the equivalent in vehicles, or factories.
When the ENY is highest on the opposing teams you can fly a Moss16 and resupp it a few times and make 100 perks or more.
Make a P-40 mission and WF a town and you can land 50 perks if the ENY is right.
I like any of these ideas over constantly flipping maps.
-
Bring back the factories to the city and move them away from the front line...
-
The maps that allow a quick resupply run allow you to make 100-200 perks a day if you play long enough. It's actually faster to do that than it is to kill the equivalent in vehicles, or factories.
When the ENY is highest on the opposing teams you can fly a Moss16 and resupp it a few times and make 100 perks or more.
Make a P-40 mission and WF a town and you can land 50 perks if the ENY is right.
I like any of these ideas over constantly flipping maps.
Ah, that may help my question. If you don't care about perk points, then what does it matter? Do we have players playing for perk points versus players playing for fun only regardless of perk points? Does the defense of the "map/country" mean more to some than perk points?
-
I think you would have to map this argument out on the basis of oriented goals. What do you want to get out of the game?
I could care less about reset. I do like to capture fields every now and then.
In the mindset of some if you do not play for the team then you are irrelevant. That is a direct quote from the Bishop Chief-of-Staff. So, I'm working on being as irrelevant as I can be.
-
Excellent and very enlightening.
This kind of confirms what I've seen in the transition from AHII to AHIII. I seem to see folks who fight for fun.... with no regard to achievements or perk points. And, I see those who care about country and fight tooth and nail to preserve a map based on country.
It does make the game interesting, to say the least. Which brings me to the next question....
Given the different preferences in play, it's amazing that we don't have more who go to other arenas currently. If one were to fight purely for fun, you'd think that person would go to the WWI arena... but, perhaps there's more? If one were to fight for map, would they not be more included to help with AvA since it's 1 country versus another?
I think you would have to map this argument out on the basis of oriented goals. What do you want to get out of the game?
I could care less about reset. I do like to capture fields every now and then.
In the mindset of some if you do not play for the team then you are irrelevant. That is a direct quote from the Bishop Chief-of-Staff. So, I'm working on being as irrelevant as I can be.
-
I seem to see folks who fight for fun..
This is what the game should be about...it should be fun to fight...it should be a rush...
current game mechanics let people take a map without fighting.....aka garbage.
-
I would not stretch it that far. Like life, everyone is different. To me the obvious difference for many populations is increased opportunity. Something more for some, and simply "it" for others. Aka the sand box.
-
Yeah, if you push people into the intense fights they may quickly get overstressed, and overwhelmed. Like it or not, there are a lot of retirees that play this game, and they like the action of being a ship gunner, or flying bombers, but the fighters just are not that important to them. Some of the GV guys just do not care about airplanes.
So, if your entire world is comprised of the massive clouds of fighters and you see red every time someone runs from that, it's time to get over it. That sort of thing may once again be a regular part of AH, but that isn't today for the most part.
-
This is what the game should be about...it should be fun to fight...it should be a rush...
current game mechanics let people take a map without fighting.....aka garbage.
This is what the game was about when there was 600 plus online.
Look at what these supplies, manned 88s and other garbage turned it into.
-
I find it no surprise that the people known for hitting strats complain about the m3 resupply times but it looks like it's the resupply of town that most have a problem with so as long as one set of bombers can devistate the strats in one or two passes I would leave resupply times alone.. Harden the strats then you can nerf resupply times
-
Harden the strats then you can nerf resupply times
One issue on many maps is the location of the strats. Some are on top of mountains, far from an airfield, uncovered by radar. Defenses around high value targets should be stronger.
It is probably easier to harden the strats.
-
No, the strat hardness is not the problem. The problem is the willingness of people to stop the strat raiders. It has become so common that even a bomber at 8k above the strats can get through and home safely (depending on the time of day). It is true that there are times when radar gets to be fickle and does not warn you of contacts until they are right on top of you, so it can be hard to see them coming. Still, if a bomber is able to hit the strat and then bail, then your fighters have failed you.
-
No, the strat hardness is not the problem. The problem is the willingness of people to stop the strat raiders. It has become so common that even a bomber at 8k above the strats can get through and home safely (depending on the time of day). It is true that there are times when radar gets to be fickle and does not warn you of contacts until they are right on top of you, so it can be hard to see them coming. Still, if a bomber is able to hit the strat and then bail, then your fighters have failed you.
My 2 strat runs I've made this year have brought up 4 enemy fighters all the way to 22K.
-
Yeah, if you push people into the intense fights they may quickly get overstressed, and overwhelmed. Like it or not, there are a lot of retirees that play this game, and they like the action of being a ship gunner, or flying bombers, but the fighters just are not that important to them. Some of the GV guys just do not care about airplanes.
So, if your entire world is comprised of the massive clouds of fighters and you see red every time someone runs from that, it's time to get over it. That sort of thing may once again be a regular part of AH, but that isn't today for the most part.
I'd rather see them in tanks or bombers...What I don't like is the M3 flood and the 88 gunners who shoot at enemy planes that are in rolling scissors with one of their friendly aircraft.
-
One issue on many maps is the location of the strats. Some are on top of mountains, far from an airfield, uncovered by radar. Defenses around high value targets should be stronger.
It is probably easier to harden the strats.
+1
-
Ya I tested that theory too lol it didn't end well for me.. Took b17s to 18k on Buzzsaw map to hit nit city strats which was guessing 8 to 10k above the field they launched from.. As soon as I dropped ord I immediately got in my guns and was met with a Nikki, a TA152,and a pony Nikki got all three of my rear guns and two of my bombers but I smoked him enough for him to quit and land his kills, the pony ran out of ammo on me while I slowed to stall speeds and the 152 took my wing.. The bomb and bail tactic isn't in my nature way too much fun fighting my attackers..I was impressed with the nit response and my other friendly bomber hit their AAA dropped it to 56 percent which they resupped....PS...I suck at bombing but just wanted to do something different
-
This is what the game was about when there was 600 plus online.
Look at what these supplies, manned 88s and other garbage turned it into.
No offense but I don't think supplies and manned guns have anything to do with much, other than add realism to the "game".
If the success or failure of a "base" pivots on the issue of attrition, then bases are strategically important (note "strat").
If there are a couple groups of people with different interests, such as "fight only", why don't the fight only fight in AvA or the DA?
When we talk about numbers, is there info that HITech has that explains why there aren't as many players? it can't be the cost. It's very affordable. But, I could be wrong. Everyone has different likes, dislikes, preferences, etc. I suppose Hitech has a fantastically gigantic challenge of finding that balance. AFter all, I would assume having 600 players or more per night online at a time is preferable to having less than 200. (subscriptions = $$$$)
I have enjoyed everyone's responses so far and found it interesting. in the handful of people who have responded, we have a good variety of opinion, I would assuming we have the same with 200 or more people playing.
But, if strats play a role in the ability to keep or lose a base, and ultimately losing bases plays into "winning" or "losing" a map, I guess the bottom line is, no one cares about the ultimate "loss" of a map until the very end. Makes sense I guess. I suppose it's more basic than that. Do more people find it rewarding to be on the offense rather than defensive? Perhaps that's a preference to fighting. After all, both offense and defense provides opportunity to fight.
:t
-
Aside from Rooks having very few members for too many hours of each day . . .
The only real problem I see with the current game is that the maps are usually reset daily. That part should be harder. If you take resupply out of the town equation, then maps will be reset even more often.
The way things are right now the map gang generally go where there is least resistance until the time arrives for 'the big push' when every member of their country is at one location. At that point you cannot stop the reset. So, generally the maps are won without any real battles having occurred.
-
Aside from Rooks having very few members for too many hours of each day . . .
The only real problem I see with the current game is that the maps are usually reset daily. That part should be harder. If you take resupply out of the town equation, then maps will be reset even more often.
The way things are right now the map gang generally go where there is least resistance until the time arrives for 'the big push' when every member of their country is at one location. At that point you cannot stop the reset. So, generally the maps are won without any real battles having occurred.
This is how the game is now, but not in the old days. Fights for those last few bases could last for ever, and many times as you defended a brave few were off trying to sneak a base or two back to upset the count. But again, it was more about the fight for the win back then. Now its more about the win, the quickest easiest way it can be done, thats it.
-
Ah, that may help my question. If you don't care about perk points, then what does it matter? Do we have players playing for perk points versus players playing for fun only regardless of perk points? Does the defense of the "map/country" mean more to some than perk points?
Depends on the person of course. Perk points mean nothing to me because I almost never up a perk plane or GV, and yet there's a satisfaction in getting 49.41 or whatever in a single sortie, even though I have no use for them. Others earn them so they can burn them, but even thought that's practical it doesn't seem to be the norm.
Resup isn't "fun," so the people who play AH for the adrenaline rush don't bother with it. For those who say strats should be hardened, they've already been hardened--you could get much better downtimes in AH2 vs AH3 with the same set of buffs. So if there was a problem in AH2 to you that seems ongoing in AH3, that's not the solution.
-
Given the different preferences in play, it's amazing that we don't have more who go to other arenas currently. If one were to fight purely for fun, you'd think that person would go to the WWI arena... but, perhaps there's more? If one were to fight for map, would they not be more included to help with AvA since it's 1 country versus another?
That's a matter of the definition of "for fun". Many claim it's the fight, while in fact it's the kill. An arena with a war over territory increases the number of targets. Targets who might not even fight back too much due to different priorities. Complaints only start when priorities (e.g., get back home quickly to grab more bombs by bailing) get in the way of getting kills.
-
Now there's a point right there. I have seen this in effect in the MA where if they see you coming from 3.5k they will bail because a fight will only slow the win down, and the perks from a win are more than anything they will lose by bailing.