Post by: caldera on November 25, 2018, 08:35:38 AM
This rewards steamrolling eunuchs who run to the jack-in-the-box ack, the second the base changes hands. It would require a bit of strategy in base taking if the scorched earth approach wasn't completely in the attacker's favor.
Post by: The Fugitive on November 25, 2018, 09:19:58 AM
Post by: Lazerr on November 25, 2018, 01:37:02 PM
Ive been saying this for years. It should force players to defend the base they just grabbed even if it is only for 15 minutes.
This applies to the gamey resupply of towns, and how easily its done. Sucks the life out of good battles.
Post by: ccvi on November 25, 2018, 02:38:34 PM
E.g. ammo bunkers down for 180min, and the country that took the field has a fully working factory, that would grant a rebuild time of 30min.
Post by: Ciaphas on November 25, 2018, 02:50:47 PM
This applies to the gamey resupply of towns, and how easily its done. Sucks the life out of good battles.
The ease of resupply is born from the losing side not engaging the resupply vehicles running to town. It's still like a 5 minute ride to most towns from the vehicle spawn. That's more than enough time to track them down and break their toys.
What I have witnessed is those that lose a base very rarely turn around and fight back. While a majority of the community (actively on these boards) want some form of back and forth exchange between forces, there is still a portion of those that play the game that prefer the path of least resistance or putting forth effort but, "effort" is subjective.
It would make sense for defenses to be up and running first after a capture as a fortified structure is much better to launch ops from than an undefended one.
If it's the "gamey" (<--- terrible word for this situation) or "unrealistic" or "non immersive" aspect that is bugging you then recommend something that would be tangible. Perhaps something like this:
- No sorties can be flown from field for 15 minutes
- ** No attacks on the airfield can happen for 20 Minutes
- AAA downtime adjusted to 10 min - defenses always go up first
- Supplies via GV only from a VB with direct spawn point if GV base is not under attack
- Supplies via AC are allowed
- Limit the number of supply drops to 4 (2 for field and 2 for town from any combination of GV or AC)
** You know that whole immersion thing that is being complained about here. After being pushed from a base it's very unlikely for the sake of immersion that your team would be able to mount a counter attack to reclaim the base because of logistics and what-not.
Post by: The Fugitive on November 25, 2018, 03:42:14 PM
Post by: Ciaphas on November 25, 2018, 03:50:13 PM
I think the whole point here is to bring back the combat aspect of the game. As it is now it's roll a base and jump to some other side of the map and do it again. Sure it seems more and more players are looking to avoid combat and just roll bases. And look at where that has gotten us now. Low numbers and very little interaction between opposing sides.
Taking a base is combat. It's not the attackers fault the defenders do not rise to the challenge... .
I also think AAA should have friendly fire turned on... .
Post by: guncrasher on November 25, 2018, 03:56:54 PM
I think the whole point here is to bring back the combat aspect of the game. As it is now it's roll a base and jump to some other side of the map and do it again. Sure it seems more and more players are looking to avoid combat and just roll bases. And look at where that has gotten us now. Low numbers and very little interaction between opposing sides.
what makes you think they're gonna stay and defend?
semp
Post by: Ramesis on November 25, 2018, 04:08:01 PM
Taking a base is combat. It's not the attackers fault the defenders do not rise to the challenge... .
I also think AAA should have friendly fire turned on... .
+1
Post by: Shuffler on November 25, 2018, 04:22:12 PM
:aok
Post by: The Fugitive on November 25, 2018, 05:16:28 PM
Taking a base is combat. It's not the attackers fault the defenders do not rise to the challenge... .
I also think AAA should have friendly fire turned on... .
oh the defenders do "rise" to the challenge, they all jump into GVs and resupply the field! :rolleyes: From what Hitech says, AAA DOES hit friendlies as well as enemies.
You want to talk AAA, why do fighters get hit so much more often than buffs? AAA in the game targets aircraft by picking a spot ahead of the aircraft and firing a round randomly into a specific size box. You would think a bomber moving at a more "known" rate of speed with little or change of direction would have far more likely hits than a fighter that is maneuvering. I dont expect a bomber to be dropped by a single hit or two due to the size, but I have flown merrily along in B24 and have had "puffy" blowing up around me for 5 miutes or more and not take a single hit. Fighters, hit all the time WITH maneuvering, and dont even bother trying anything in a 262, you might as well just bail as soon as puffy opens up.
what makes you think they're gonna stay and defend?
semp
That is where the changes should be made. Game changes that FORCE players to defend a newly captured base. Force players to fight to defend instead or run supplies. FORCING players to attack and fight for the base instead of "sneaking" them. FORCING players to attack BOTH fronts, take two bases from one team,MUST take at least one from the other team before they can continue on the first team again.
Is this a combat game or not? These days not so much.
Post by: guncrasher on November 25, 2018, 05:25:35 PM
semp
Post by: The Fugitive on November 25, 2018, 05:34:18 PM
I think if more folks were in the game and not on the boards. There would be more fights.
:aok
I know your just "trying" to be funny, but that is as far from the truth as you can get. I dont fly any where near as much as I used to and I'd say I run into about 90+ percent of the posters on these boards in game. The majority of the posters these days are those trying to help the game one way or another. Maybe if Hitech came on the boards and posted his game plan for what he sees for the future of the game.... you know, less players, less combat, closed down during EURO times, then maybe those of us who are looking for more could then decide on whether this is the place to be or not.
As for the boards, they are drying up too. With my job, I have lots of down time during the day. 2 minutes here 5 minutes there. I use to spend that time reading/posting on the boards. Even with all that time invested I could spend a half hour to an hour trying to catch up on the days posts and NOT get caught up. These days 4 or 5 5 minute sessions and I've red ALL the posts, even the FSO and scenario posts.
There use to be 2 or 3 lines of names listed across the bottom of the page of players on the boards, now, half a dozen is getting hopping.
how are you gonna force me to do something I don't want to do? or anybody else?
semp
Not going to force you, but if it is a requirement that "X" number of players must stay in the radar circle for 5 minutes after capturing the base or it automatically reverts to is former owner it would make some players stick around to try and hold it.
Post by: Ciaphas on November 25, 2018, 05:42:00 PM
oh the defenders do "rise" to the challenge, they all jump into GVs and resupply the field! :rolleyes: From what Hitech says, AAA DOES hit friendlies as well as enemies.
Then take out the VH, it's not rocket science.
want to remove the GV resup from the equation, tae out the fields ability to launch them.
As far as the AAA hitting friendlies. I have yet to see a friendly take any damage from allied AAA.
Quote
You want to talk AAA, why do fighters get hit so much more often than buffs? AAA in the game targets aircraft by picking a spot ahead of the aircraft and firing a round randomly into a specific size box. You would think a bomber moving at a more "known" rate of speed with little or change of direction would have far more likely hits than a fighter that is maneuvering. I dont expect a bomber to be dropped by a single hit or two due to the size, but I have flown merrily along in B24 and have had "puffy" blowing up around me for 5 miutes or more and not take a single hit. Fighters, hit all the time WITH maneuvering, and dont even bother trying anything in a 262, you might as well just bail as soon as puffy opens up.
you explained why it happens in your question/complaint.
If AAA fires randomly in a predefined area, a target, regardless of size (as long as the target is not the same size as the target area) is less likely to get hit moving in a straight line. A maneuvering target is more likely to get hit while maneuvering through the target area as its path can and will encounter the random bullets more frequently by chance.
Quote
That is where the changes should be made. Game changes that FORCE players to defend a newly captured base. Force players to fight to defend instead or run supplies. FORCING players to attack and fight for the base instead of "sneaking" them. FORCING players to attack BOTH fronts, take two bases from one team,MUST take at least one from the other team before they can continue on the first team again.
whether you like it or not, everything that is being done by a player is related to combat. It doesn't matter if you agree with it. If that dude running sups to town prevents your attack, so be it. Prepare better next time.
Everything that HTC has given us to use serves a purpose. Everything has a tactical/logistical relevance in this game.
Quote
Is this a combat game or not? These days not so much.
It is a combat game, a very dynamic combat game.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: ccvi on November 25, 2018, 05:46:00 PM
You want to talk AAA, why do fighters get hit so much more often than buffs?
A feature exclusive to puffy, not cannons. Cannons seem to close in on the predicted path with longer time within range. Maneuvering definitively helps.
For the puffy ack, maybe it only feels that way, and isn't true. We need numbers. Lusche?
If it is true, maybe a faster plane is bigger, because it is at more places at the same time in any given time slice?
Post by: SPKmes on November 25, 2018, 06:02:36 PM
and if you don't like my opinion....I don't care.... It is mine...
Post by: Ciaphas on November 25, 2018, 06:36:19 PM
I agree with OP.... especially as with what I have noticed a lot of these days...all guns are destroyed on the fields...vulch is on...fair enough, it a base take....yet they are fully repaired on base capture.... so why not hangers??? sure if the guns were not taken down then there would still be ammo and a working gun in the turret and it is feasible that someone could jump in and get firing straight away no problem...but if it is a destroyed clump of metal...down times should stand...
and if you don't like my opinion....I don't care.... It is mine...
theoretically what's easier to repair?
A hangar will take a while to rebuild, AAA can be rolled to a field during capture by invading forces. Sure, it's a bit unrealistic on the scale but not outside of the realm of possibility.
There are so many implied actions happening behind the scenes. To have them carried out by a player would cause one maybe two bases to be captured a day.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: scott66 on November 25, 2018, 06:37:12 PM
Post by: Shuffler on November 25, 2018, 06:38:47 PM
Staaaay.
Post by: The Fugitive on November 25, 2018, 06:41:35 PM
Then take out the VH, it's not rocket science.
want to remove the GV resup from the equation, tae out the fields ability to launch them.
As far as the AAA hitting friendlies. I have yet to see a friendly take any damage from allied AAA.
you explained why it happens in your question/complaint.
If AAA fires randomly in a predefined area, a target, regardless of size (as long as the target is not the same size as the target area) is less likely to get hit moving in a straight line. A maneuvering target is more likely to get hit while maneuvering through the target area as its path can and will encounter the random bullets more frequently by chance.
whether you like it or not, everything that is being done by a player is related to combat. It doesn't matter if you agree with it. If that dude running sups to town prevents your attack, so be it. Prepare better next time.
Everything that HTC has given us to use serves a purpose. Everything has a tactical/logistical relevance in this game.
It is a combat game, a very dynamic combat game.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Its too bad it is not all used. The point of the game..... or I always thought it was.... was combat. Todays players are using the tools to AVOID all combat.
Old days...
8-10 players would have a mission meeting, assign planes, targets, back up plans. Mission would launch, some of the more elaborate plans used way points and fighter groups rendezvousing from different base (know one guy who loved doing the math for time and speed to make these meetings).
Attack would begin. Defenders may or may not intercept, but once the base was under attack they would up fighters to push back the attack. The hunt for the troops began. Resupplying was not an option. If the VH was down early you had the LTARs to contend with for the rest of the night. Did I say "rest of the night?", yes because once a mission was stopped by the defenders we didnt move off to attack a different front because there was opposition, we regrouped on the fly and attacked again. Battles for bases could last for HOURS.
Present day...
version one, 3-4 players spawn in to field and long range drop buildings at a town. once white flaged everyone jumps into M3 and rushes the town with troops to capture. If it is spotted and M3s are killed they may try one more run with troops, but thats it. Attack over they move someplace else.
version two, 12-15 players launch from the same field, more often than not they try to go NOE, or not more than 5k. Low and fast to get in and do the damage before the enemy spots what they are doing. 3, or more buff groups carpet bomb a town with M3 running in under the falling debris the rest fighters looking to vulch.
version three, 25+ players launch from field after field and horde base after base.
In all three versions of "todays" play COMBAT is lacking. Should any fighting actually happen the attackers fold up camp and move off to try a grab some other base that other players are not watching.
People get board doing those same "missions" <---- and I use that term VERY lightly here.... and soon move on to other games. Where are the "dynamics" you mentioned? Sure the game has so many things to use, but as it is now players are allowed to boil it down to the weakest, most unimaginative, lamest game play there is. If this is the dirrection HTC wants to push the game, great, just let me know and I'll shut up and move on. If it isnt, things are going to have to change before everyone gets board and moves on.
You can NOT force s player to do anything.. I'm surprised after all these years some of the best sticks in the game still haven't figured that out
Sure you can, HTC FORCES players to get 10 uninjured troops in to capture a field, or hit with over 8k of bombs to sink a cruiser, or any number of things we do in the game. Its all coad. When most missions were NOE and we were stuck playing "wack a mole" trying to stop base captures radar was changed to make NOEs mission more difficult and so FORCED players into other missions.
It can be done.
Post by: Ciaphas on November 25, 2018, 07:16:32 PM
If this playing style is used so much, you'd figure that a counter to it would be used. There is a counter but it takes coordination to accomplish.
This isn't a "meet me at the flag pole at 3" type of game.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: scott66 on November 25, 2018, 08:37:17 PM
Its too bad it is not all used. The point of the game..... or I always thought it was.... was combat. Todays players are using the tools to AVOID all combat.that's not forcing that's just programming and requirements
Old days...
8-10 players would have a mission meeting, assign planes, targets, back up plans. Mission would launch, some of the more elaborate plans used way points and fighter groups rendezvousing from different base (know one guy who loved doing the math for time and speed to make these meetings).
Attack would begin. Defenders may or may not intercept, but once the base was under attack they would up fighters to push back the attack. The hunt for the troops began. Resupplying was not an option. If the VH was down early you had the LTARs to contend with for the rest of the night. Did I say "rest of the night?", yes because once a mission was stopped by the defenders we didnt move off to attack a different front because there was opposition, we regrouped on the fly and attacked again. Battles for bases could last for HOURS.
Present day...
version one, 3-4 players spawn in to field and long range drop buildings at a town. once white flaged everyone jumps into M3 and rushes the town with troops to capture. If it is spotted and M3s are killed they may try one more run with troops, but thats it. Attack over they move someplace else.
version two, 12-15 players launch from the same field, more often than not they try to go NOE, or not more than 5k. Low and fast to get in and do the damage before the enemy spots what they are doing. 3, or more buff groups carpet bomb a town with M3 running in under the falling debris the rest fighters looking to vulch.
version three, 25+ players launch from field after field and horde base after base.
In all three versions of "todays" play COMBAT is lacking. Should any fighting actually happen the attackers fold up camp and move off to try a grab some other base that other players are not watching.
People get board doing those same "missions" <---- and I use that term VERY lightly here.... and soon move on to other games. Where are the "dynamics" you mentioned? Sure the game has so many things to use, but as it is now players are allowed to boil it down to the weakest, most unimaginative, lamest game play there is. If this is the dirrection HTC wants to push the game, great, just let me know and I'll shut up and move on. If it isnt, things are going to have to change before everyone gets board and moves on.
Sure you can, HTC FORCES players to get 10 uninjured troops in to capture a field, or hit with over 8k of bombs to sink a cruiser, or any number of things we do in the game. Its all coad. When most missions were NOE and we were stuck playing "wack a mole" trying to stop base captures radar was changed to make NOEs mission more difficult and so FORCED players into other missions.
It can be done.
Post by: scott66 on November 25, 2018, 08:57:41 PM
Post by: Lazerr on November 25, 2018, 09:07:06 PM
I've heard this argument for a long time ... People trying to force ground people AKA manned guns and tank drivers into the air to defend... Ain't gonna happen you could take away the resupply aspect of the game altogether it still won't get you what you want but let me ask you this when your m3 drivers resupply the town and save the base do you scold them for being in an m3 or do you say way to go when your 88mm Gunners pluck bombers out of the sky from 10K and stop your base from getting flattened do you scold them for being in a manned gun or do you say way to go careful what you wish for what benefits one side benefits all sides.. I don't mind helping aircraft to defend the base but if there are 12 of you and only three of us and we get vulched and can't even get up off the field chances are you'll find us resupplying the town in m3s
Rather than come from a base back and fight for it? Sounds like the easy road.
Post by: Ciaphas on November 25, 2018, 09:30:37 PM
Rather than come from a base back and fight for it? Sounds like the easy road.
It is my understanding that you can't resupply a town from it's owning field.
Am I wrong in this assumption?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: The Fugitive on November 25, 2018, 09:52:41 PM
Those people are using ground vehicles, heavy bombers, light bombers, fighters to quickly grab a field. That's pretty dynamic.
If this playing style is used so much, you'd figure that a counter to it would be used. There is a counter but it takes coordination to accomplish.
This isn't a "meet me at the flag pole at 3" type of game.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
....and avoiding as much fighting they can.
Did you read what I wrote about "old days"? Planning, execution, timing, working together using way points to get to your target (also using them to try and confuse the enemy). It has nothing to do with "me me at the flag pole". It is using the game functions to build a plan and execute it BETTER than the enemy and prevail through fighting, NOT AVOIDING IT!
that's not forcing that's just programming and requirements
Of course it is forcing players to play a certain way. It is setting parameters to form how the game is played. The NOE example proves it CAN and HAS been done.
It isnt so much trying to push players out of GVs and guns but making players fight. As it is now, 4 guys sneak base after base runnig the GV spawn lines. Giving them a timed restriction where they must stay behind and "defend" the just taken base would help slow that type of run, and bring more players in to fight for the bases.
Post by: SPKmes on November 25, 2018, 10:01:34 PM
but on the flip side...I spose if you didn't have guns come up straight away you would end up having a bunch of M3's ready to re take the field back....then things would become stupid.
so in the end it all comes down to our mentality...and well...quite frankly .... hahahaha
and before we all get offended...I have friends on the otherside of the agument too :grin:
Post by: Ciaphas on November 25, 2018, 10:17:37 PM
....and avoiding as much fighting they can.
Did you read what I wrote about "old days"? Planning, execution, timing, working together using way points to get to your target (also using them to try and confuse the enemy). It has nothing to do with "me me at the flag pole". It is using the game functions to build a plan and execute it BETTER than the enemy and prevail through fighting, NOT AVOIDING IT!
Of course I read what you typed. I remember the old days, maybe not the before times (pre 2008), but I remember a much larger player base than what we have now.
See the thing is this, you're upset that people are playing the game the way that they envision it and not the way you envision it.
More times than not I see "ninja" base grabs being thwarted more than I see them be successful. I have also been a part of ninja grabs that have turned in to knock down drag out brawls for the field in question.
Check out this dynamic:
If I am going to try and grab a quick base to pull one of my enemy countries attention away from what they are currently focused on, I get a few people together, launch out (non NOE) and smash every VH with a spawn to my target while a few go in and de-ack the target town and fly in troops (my preferred method of delivery). It takes coordination, timing and the right rides and load outs for the mission.
oh, by the way, you have to have a contingency plan when things get sideways as they usually do.
If any one of those elements fails, we are getting stuck in to a pretty gnarly fight for the target field. Mind you we have already let whoever is paying attention know our intentions and target. SA, it's an odd little thing.
Quote
Of course it is forcing players to play a certain way. It is setting parameters to form how the game is played. The NOE example proves it CAN and HAS been done.
It isnt so much trying to push players out of GVs and guns but making players fight. As it is now, 4 guys sneak base after base runnig the GV spawn lines. Giving them a timed restriction where they must stay behind and "defend" the just taken base would help slow that type of run, and bring more players in to fight for the bases.
As the retreating force, take out the connecting fields VH's. Problem solved... .
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: The Fugitive on November 25, 2018, 10:31:59 PM
The point is players are AVOIDING fighting in a COMBAT game and nobody seems to know "why" we have so many fewer players than we use to. :headscratch:
Post by: scott66 on November 25, 2018, 10:41:04 PM
Rather than come from a base back and fight for it? Sounds like the easy road.with 12 of you and 3 of us coming from an airfield back a base will do nothing to save the base.. It will keep us fighting in the air while troops run into maproom...
Post by: guncrasher on November 26, 2018, 03:27:01 AM
....and again avoid fighting. You do know you can roll bases all by yourself off line and save the internet cost right? :rolleyes:
The point is players are AVOIDING fighting in a COMBAT game and nobody seems to know "why" we have so many fewer players than we use to. :headscratch:
your statement about players avoiding combat, i would call that almost an outright lie. not saying every base is defended but there's a lot of pretty good fights over bases.
of course your idea of a base take would be something along the lines of what FSO is about. for 1 week they plan the attack and defense of a target. so you love on every base take for 10-15 players to sit 15 or 20 minutes in a room while way points are plotted, target assigned. then you have another 10-15 players on the other side expecting an attack and getting assignments sitting in a room for 15 minutes.
you like that play FSO, it happens 3 times a month. started playing, I dont know over 10 years ago. never seen this kind of play, not saying it didnt happen, but I doubt every base take was planned as you always suggest "combat" should be.
semp
semp
Post by: Copprhed on November 26, 2018, 04:46:18 AM
Post by: Lazerr on November 26, 2018, 07:16:03 AM
with 12 of you and 3 of us coming from an airfield back a base will do nothing to save the base.. It will keep us fighting in the air while troops run into maproom...
You are kind of just making up numbers? Where does 12 and 3 come from?
Why is the outside of a strat factory like a parking lot for m3 supply drivers before the strat is even hit?
Why when i go to a a base alone, and start hitting a town, the only resistance I get is from a guy with supplies?
If you think younger generations will pay 15 dollars a month for that sort of gameplay, you are mistaken. The left over population of this game is older folk, hanging on to hope that it returns to its glory days..
Days before the crap described above.
Post by: The Fugitive on November 26, 2018, 09:28:48 AM
your statement about players avoiding combat, i would call that almost an outright lie. not saying every base is defended but there's a lot of pretty good fights over bases.
of course your idea of a base take would be something along the lines of what FSO is about. for 1 week they plan the attack and defense of a target. so you love on every base take for 10-15 players to sit 15 or 20 minutes in a room while way points are plotted, target assigned. then you have another 10-15 players on the other side expecting an attack and getting assignments sitting in a room for 15 minutes.
you like that play FSO, it happens 3 times a month. started playing, I dont know over 10 years ago. never seen this kind of play, not saying it didnt happen, but I doubt every base take was planned as you always suggest "combat" should be.
semp
semp
What I described happened two, three times a night on squad night unless we hit an epic defense. Mission planner had missions saved and could have them loaded in minutes. Assignments for 10-15 players again in minutes, more often than not on climb out..... yes we would climb out to the target.
This past Saturday night....
Logged in around 8PM eastern, just over 100 players on (I think the count made it to 128 as a high for the night) Small Pizza map, Bish are down 50-60% of their bases Knight and Bish front is the only fight going on. I spent the next two hour chasing singles that were trying to drop bombs on GV fights. Made one run to chase down 25-28K B17s with a 262 but only got one before I ran out of ammo (ya my aim sucks).
1030-1100 est, Knights bring up a CV and attack and capture one of our bases. We push back and take it back. I get in a fight or two, but it is mostly lawndarters and runners that failed their picks.
3 hours and 2 maybe 3 fights, the rest of the time it was chasing runners. Why would a new player decide to pay $15 a month for that? Changes must be made. The OP has an idea, give it a go.
The gaming industry has changed a lot in the past 10 years. Aces High, not so much. If things dont change they are just going to continue to slowly fade away. Last year we could still hit 200 players in the MA on a Saturday night. While 200 isnt that great a number it would be awesome these days.
Post by: guncrasher on November 26, 2018, 09:57:39 AM
you dont have to have a sit down for a base take. just up and see who's gonna hit what on the way there. it's not like every base is different and you must have to have a plan to successfully take it. what is there to hit? vh first, then town, get rid of the funny 88's, suppress all fighters that are up or are upping and stop those coming from another base, watch for gv's on the ground. it's not that difficult.
a lot of the times, we dont want to take a base, they dont want to take a base, we just furball in the middle of 2. it's a lot of fun. not every base attacked is with the purpose of taking it.
semp
Post by: scott66 on November 26, 2018, 01:33:42 PM
You are kind of just making up numbers? Where does 12 and 3 come from?numbers may very the point is being outnumbered trying to get off the runway to defend and getting vulched is just giving away free kills I know I've done it many times I understand if you're trying to take the base stopping me means vulching it's the nature of the beast doesn't mean I'll bend over and let you take me easy and if you hit strats first resupply will do little to nothing I might hide in m8 or pilot by maproom doesn't mean I'm avoiding combat it means you have left me that only option
Why is the outside of a strat factory like a parking lot for m3 supply drivers before the strat is even hit?
Why when i go to a a base alone, and start hitting a town, the only resistance I get is from a guy with supplies?
If you think younger generations will pay 15 dollars a month for that sort of gameplay, you are mistaken. The left over population of this game is older folk, hanging on to hope that it returns to its glory days..
Days before the crap described above.
Post by: caldera on November 26, 2018, 01:49:06 PM
wow...this started off as a simple...why do the guns insta fix and hangers not ....to...welll this hahahaha
Yep. Hangars, ordnance bunkers, fuel tanks, barracks and radar towers all stay down for the designated time but the guns magically pop up upon capture.
Why?
Post by: scott66 on November 26, 2018, 01:50:22 PM
Post by: JunkyII on November 26, 2018, 02:36:46 PM
The ease of resupply is born from the losing side not engaging the resupply vehicles running to town. It's still like a 5 minute ride to most towns from the vehicle spawn. That's more than enough time to track them down and break their toys.Everyone says it's like 5 minutes to get to a town which is actually a pretty big exaggeration for most spawns to towns. When I was more invested in the argument that M3s resupply Towns was OP(which they still are) most rides were around 2 minutes from spawn to drop in about 10 different test spawns...longest was a short spawn with an uphill which took 4 minutes.
What I have witnessed is those that lose a base very rarely turn around and fight back. While a majority of the community (actively on these boards) want some form of back and forth exchange between forces, there is still a portion of those that play the game that prefer the path of least resistance or putting forth effort but, "effort" is subjective.
It would make sense for defenses to be up and running first after a capture as a fortified structure is much better to launch ops from than an undefended one.
If it's the "gamey" (<--- terrible word for this situation) or "unrealistic" or "non immersive" aspect that is bugging you then recommend something that would be tangible. Perhaps something like this:
- No sorties can be flown from field for 15 minutes
- ** No attacks on the airfield can happen for 20 Minutes
- AAA downtime adjusted to 10 min - defenses always go up first
- Supplies via GV only from a VB with direct spawn point if GV base is not under attack
- Supplies via AC are allowed
- Limit the number of supply drops to 4 (2 for field and 2 for town from any combination of GV or AC)
** You know that whole immersion thing that is being complained about here. After being pushed from a base it's very unlikely for the sake of immersion that your team would be able to mount a counter attack to reclaim the base because of logistics and what-not.
No matter though, the combat isn't HTCs focus anymore...which is smart on their part.
Post by: ccvi on November 26, 2018, 02:37:54 PM
Yep. Hangars, ordnance bunkers, fuel tanks, barracks and radar towers all stay down for the designated time but the guns magically pop up upon capture.
Why?
Because the capture happen by the troops that are manning the guns afterwards. Capture does not require to bring bombs or fuel to the map room.
Post by: Shuffler on November 26, 2018, 08:44:39 PM
:cheers:
Post by: atlau on November 26, 2018, 08:54:54 PM
Everyone says it's like 5 minutes to get to a town which is actually a pretty big exaggeration for most spawns to towns. When I was more invested in the argument that M3s resupply Towns was OP(which they still are) most rides were around 2 minutes from spawn to drop in about 10 different test spawns...longest was a short spawn with an uphill which took 4 minutes.
No matter though, the combat isn't HTCs focus anymore...which is smart on their part.
Junky you still playing? Havent seen you on in a while!
Post by: The Fugitive on November 27, 2018, 10:20:30 AM
pizza map always has very few fights as most players are in gvs. that's why I didnt log in saturday, log in saw it, left. you should have been on the map before, lots of of fights that lasted for hours.
Small Pizza has some good air fights along the shore line. Both due to the fields along the shore as well as CV battles. Of course that doesnt happen much any more because the numbers are so low that you usually have two teams fighting on one front leaving the other team...... chasing runners. Why not institute a mechanism where a team MUST capture one base from "Team A" after capturing 2 bases from "Team B". It brings action to the other front.
Quote
you dont have to have a sit down for a base take. just up and see who's gonna hit what on the way there. it's not like every base is different and you must have to have a plan to successfully take it. what is there to hit? vh first, then town, get rid of the funny 88's, suppress all fighters that are up or are upping and stop those coming from another base, watch for gv's on the ground. it's not that difficult.
No you dont, but thats some of the stuff that IS in the game that is ignored/by-passed, for that watered down version of the game players seem to play these days. Half the fun SHOULD be that your IN the story. Your a WWII pilot on a mission with all the action an active imagination could conjure up. Todays players have washed right over all that and watered down the game to what did you say.... " just up and see who's gonna hit what on the way there" after a couple dozen of those wheres the excitement, the fun? Many players move on to the next game...... one that DOESNT cost $15 a month
Quote
a lot of the times, we dont want to take a base, they dont want to take a base, we just furball in the middle of 2. it's a lot of fun. not every base attacked is with the purpose of taking it.
semp
I miss the good old furballs. They dont happen very often any more. But what usually starts a furball? Yup a base attack. But not one of the "new" base attacks. Today players come in and try to grab a base quickly. Avoiding FIGHTING for it and bail on it as soon as any defense shows up. How can you get a furball going when the "attackers" run away at the first sign of resistance?
Players arent going to make changes unless forced to by changes in the game. Reward players for posting missions. Reward players for joining missions. Reward players for completing the assigned task IN the mission. Make things more difficult to do to force players AWAY from that type of play, much like the changes made for the endless NOE missions we use to have.
The game Hitech built hasnt changed, but players have muddied what the game use to be. I would love to see HTC come in and play the game like they use to. If they did play more often Im sure they wouldnt be too impressed with the game play. If they do play now, why are they letting the game play get more and more lame. People PAY to play games with challenges and action. Both things are slowly being wiped away from the game.
Post by: Ciaphas on November 27, 2018, 10:56:05 AM
There are more than enough on for great fights. When I log on there always seems to be a lot of good fights going down.
Take this morning as an example. There were 32 people on. A few rooks were working some bish strats, I jump on country and informed them that I was going to work 1 VB, 1 airfield and a port. I lift in TU-2's for the VH's at the VB and about half way there the bish woke up and started actively defending from a handful of surrounding bases. LVT's and buffs tried to work our CV, our bombers hitting a few targets at surrounding bases and Friendly and ENM fighters filling the void.
You can't be a lone wolf and then complain that people aren't playing to your vision of the game.
Do you post missions?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: JunkyII on November 27, 2018, 12:02:13 PM
Perhaps it boils down to a player trust issue.Do posted missions actually get filled now there isn't more then 300 people online? Because they didn't at all before last year..
There are more than enough on for great fights. When I log on there always seems to be a lot of good fights going down.
Take this morning as an example. There were 32 people on. A few rooks were working some bish strats, I jump on country and informed them that I was going to work 1 VB, 1 airfield and a port. I lift in TU-2's for the VH's at the VB and about half way there the bish woke up and started actively defending from a handful of surrounding bases. LVT's and buffs tried to work our CV, our bombers hitting a few targets at surrounding bases and Friendly and ENM fighters filling the void.
You can't be a lone wolf and then complain that people aren't playing to your vision of the game.
Do you post missions?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Junky you still playing? Havent seen you on in a while!I haven't been playing any games too much lately which unfortunately makes this game get pushed to the side a lot because I can't trust that I will always get a good combat experience if I log in outside of Special Events and for the times I am at work Special events are hard to make.
Post by: Ciaphas on November 27, 2018, 12:43:02 PM
Quote
Do posted missions actually get filled now there isn't more then 300 people online? Because they didn't at all before last year..
I believe that if a few of the "trusted vet" pilots posted a relevant mission it would get people to join. Probably small participation to begin with but as they went on, more and more people would join in.
There has to be an end game to a mission that gives everyone their kicks.
Post by: The Fugitive on November 27, 2018, 01:00:02 PM
I believe that if a few of the "trusted vet" pilots posted a relevant mission it would get people to join. Probably small participation to begin with but as they went on, more and more people would join in.
There has to be an end game to a mission that gives everyone their kicks.
Thats the best thing about missions, if done right there is an end game for everyone!
Buffs, climb out to a waypoint at altitude use a second waypoint to have the correct line to target, or move darbar to a different sector. calibrate and drop bombs from alt. This is what the Bomber guys are looking for!
Fighter, high cover. Some guys like using bombers as bait and love picking the guys who try to attack bombers
Fighter attack. Some guys love dive bombing targets be they buildings or vehicles.
GVs, troop transport, ground cover, anti tank ambush.
And these elements to a mission and EVERYBODY on the attacking side is happy.
From the defensive side fighters, attackers and GVs all work the defense in and around the field under attack. Bombers are needed to slow the attack from which ever base is being used.
Of course that generates more defenders on the "attacking" side to keep the enemy away from the base .
The issue is nobody want to take the time to put these together any more. With the "we want it now" generation in charge anything more than a couple minutes is too long. That makes these things very hard to get rolling.
Post by: Ciaphas on November 27, 2018, 01:06:12 PM
Thats the best thing about missions, if done right there is an end game for everyone!
Buffs, climb out to a waypoint at altitude use a second waypoint to have the correct line to target, or move darbar to a different sector. calibrate and drop bombs from alt. This is what the Bomber guys are looking for!
Fighter, high cover. Some guys like using bombers as bait and love picking the guys who try to attack bombers
Fighter attack. Some guys love dive bombing targets be they buildings or vehicles.
GVs, troop transport, ground cover, anti tank ambush.
And these elements to a mission and EVERYBODY on the attacking side is happy.
From the defensive side fighters, attackers and GVs all work the defense in and around the field under attack. Bombers are needed to slow the attack from which ever base is being used.
Of course that generates more defenders on the "attacking" side to keep the enemy away from the base .
The issue is nobody want to take the time to put these together any more. With the "we want it now" generation in charge anything more than a couple minutes is too long. That makes these things very hard to get rolling.
They get put together outside of the mission editor. Micro missions are constantly happening, you just don't see them as they are not made with the mission editor nor are they posted for all to see.
Post by: bustr on November 27, 2018, 01:43:05 PM
Uncoordinated effort does not attract defenders until it's obvious 10-20 people have straggled in and are not just passing through. The country being attacked turns a blind eye while a coordinated dar block moving with purpose rings an irresistible dinner bell. A mission means heavily loaded sitting ducks to get easy kills against. That was why missions worked in AH2 due to the radar minimum of 200ft to hide under until everyone popped on top of the target. Then the defenders showed up to fighters ready to furball having pitched their ordinance. And the way the current radar works, you might as well deliver a detailed mission plan on 200 when you launch.
On squad night POTW takes advantage of the uncoordinated effort effect to get a first wave of target destruction on the field. After that it's a toss up if enough green guys have followed or the country keeps ignoring us while we pick off a few defenders and hammer the town. For the most part this kind of informal initiative has replaced missions since it does not always trigger the dinner bell like a 60ft elevation NOE sitting duck mission does. One or two players always have the expected problems with staying below radar when the minimum is 65ft. If a single red block keeps popping up and going away in an obvious path to an out of the way target. That rings the dinner bell and why we don't see missions much anymore. Also there became historic sentiment that missions get ratted out for a host of reasons and why bother.
When you look at the few big missions that still get launched, the mission is a squad that already had numbers for squad night or, like a few do. The exercise of posting a mission is to give green guys a chance to tag along. POTW has enough guys so we go break things as a group and don't worry about the green guys.
In AH2 we noticed if we used a planned mission to organize our squad for a base attack we often got ratted out, the red guys always were waiting for us at the target. If our CO just said on squad channel to bring bombs and meet at the same end of the runway, we got to the target unopposed. You could say there is a trust issue after AH2 for many vets.
Post by: icepac on November 27, 2018, 03:14:59 PM
If a base is taken and the town guns and buildings remain down, then you would have red and green troops all over the place.
Come to think of it, that might be fun.
Post by: SPKmes on November 27, 2018, 03:19:15 PM
I think the flag should be lowered and we observe a 5 minute silence in remembrance of those whose score was tarnished trying to defend.
:cheers:
Oi you...Stop coming in and making light of things...this is serious stuff going on here and we don't need any of your tom foolery here....Ok !
Post by: The Fugitive on November 27, 2018, 03:58:14 PM
They get put together outside of the mission editor. Micro missions are constantly happening, you just don't see them as they are not made with the mission editor nor are they posted for all to see.
I know most think of me a a "fighter" guy, but I like to join in on missions. Its too bad players feel the need to hide the missions they are running. Do they fear "spies"? Do they fear other tagging along to feed on their work like bustr posted?
Bustr, I dont think it was the 65feet dar change that took out the missions. I think it was human nature. The type of players we have today are very different than those we had years ago. They are the "i want it now" generation and cant be bothered with creating bomber streams with high fighter cover and so on.
When I lead the 444th Air Mafia for years we did missions all the time. We had some that we used often and everyone had their assignments. I would call out a mission name and give a time and we would roll. Other missions I would setup and plan out while everyone was furballin, or just having fun. I'd post the mission and give a time and the squad would load up and off we would go. Those nights I spent most of my time in a buff as a back up so that all I really did was co-ordinate the missions and tweaking them on the fly so to speak.
The Mafia was starting is downward trend as all squads do, I was pretty burned out doing missions Mugz and Taz both took over for awhile but eventually the Mafia closed shop. I join OddCaf and the 47 Ronin and he planed many missions for the squad. Again we had good participation and the missions while pretty wild were always fun. But the game continued to change. It became more important to land big numbers of kills so some of the help wasn't really much help, and the defenders didnt want to fights us, they just wanted to pick us to rack up kills. Kind of took the fun out of the game, many of that squad quit with in a week of each other.
And so here we are now, low numbers, nobody running or joining missions, players running from fights as soon as they blow their first pass, players hiding in ack, players waiting to resupply town/fields before the attack even does any damage. Things need to change to bring back the heart and soul of this game. Gamers are use to rules and having to do certain things in a certain order to accomplish what ever their end game is. Add some rules, make more important or less important to GUIDE the players into bringing bad the interaction of players VS players again.
Post by: JunkyII on November 27, 2018, 09:37:45 PM
I believe that if a few of the "trusted vet" pilots posted a relevant mission it would get people to join. Probably small participation to begin with but as they went on, more and more people would join in.You can't expect players to "put in work" while playing a video game...most gamers are looking for a hobby outside of work, some do find big missions as that hobby but you can't expect any of the player base to do it.
There has to be an end game to a mission that gives everyone their kicks.
Post by: Ciaphas on November 27, 2018, 11:38:04 PM
You can't expect players to "put in work" while playing a video game...most gamers are looking for a hobby outside of work, some do find big missions as that hobby but you can't expect any of the player base to do it.
who said anything about forcing them?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: guncrasher on November 28, 2018, 10:45:05 AM
who said anything about forcing them?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
fugitive.
Players arent going to make changes unless forced to by changes in the game.
semp
Post by: Lazerr on November 28, 2018, 11:14:57 AM
Something else to use perk points on would be nice too.
Ive got groups of guys together, and we use range to coordinate and decide where to go next. Most of the guys that join in are established players, and we have worked together previously. The pickup mission tool might streamline things for new guys.
Post by: Ciaphas on November 28, 2018, 11:25:25 AM
fugitive.
semp
My reply was in reference to JunkyII's reply to my post.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: guncrasher on November 28, 2018, 01:07:47 PM
Perk bonus would help populate mission.. maybe if the creator was able to put a perk purse on a mission.. 200 perks for a 10 man mission, 20 per participant in whichever category they join under. Might help rebuild the community aspect in the MA, which seems pretty sparse the times I get to play.
Something else to use perk points on would be nice too.
Ive got groups of guys together, and we use range to coordinate and decide where to go next. Most of the guys that join in are established players, and we have worked together previously. The pickup mission tool might streamline things for new guys.
would be an easy way to help a squadie that doesnt have enough perks for a 262.
semp
Post by: bustr on November 28, 2018, 01:54:43 PM
Ive got groups of guys together, and we use range to coordinate and decide where to go next. Most of the guys that join in are established players, and we have worked together previously. The pickup mission tool might streamline things for new guys.
This is the mission of AH3 in today's game culture. I've watched it work when POTW is rook or knight for the last 5 years as it became the norm at the end of AH2. The mission planner cannot compete with the direct "now" of informal relationships between players who know each other and have years long honed skill sets. They have common interests and common goals supported by the experience of succeeding visa this informal process. It excludes the new player by accident, not by intent but, gives an impression of exclusivity to a club they don't have knowledge how to join. It lacks the formality of the mission planer process which includes the acceptance into the club activity central to new players gaining a feeling of belonging in this community.
Most new players never realize everything they see taking place in their country is an open invitation to jump in and their help is always welcome. Much like the clipboard and "Help", you have to figure it out on your own with no welcome mats, no new guy party, no flashing neon signs leading you to all the available activities. This game has always been a bit like having to teach yourself a programing language from a book. Just so you can process log files into a daily report becasue Microsoft thought no one would want reports like that.
Who knows, with all the informal groups loosely arranging to lift at field x or y to hit field z, throwing a note out on country may solve the new player joining the club issue. I see it from time to time but, these kinds of informal activities have no leaders, no prearranged target objectives, while everyone knows what to break to get the capture. The no leaders is the weak link in getting out a message. Kind of like how kids played sandlot baseball and football 60 years ago before we locked our kids up in the house with xbox's for fear the "lunatics" would steal the kids off the playground in broad daylight. All the kids in your neighborhood showed up because everyone wanted to play those games. New kids learned where as they developed friendships in the neighborhood.
Organized missions to feed the fix for organized mission junkies is one thing. Organized activities to make new players feel part of our community is another breed of cat entirely. There is always some kind of activity on the map, then depending on time of day, loosely organized groups of players heading to the same target to get their game fix. Missing is the invitation to new players to tag along and take part to learn the game. You don't need a formal planed mission when a message on country or range or Help will suffice to give the new player a place to get started. It's the communication that really matters to a new player of where to show up and where to go to help break an enemy field. Vets these days are not interested in waiting around for a mission when our numbers and opportunity for activity windows are limited. The informal pickup process is organic, quicker to organise, and in sync with the current limitations of our low community numbers.
Post by: molybdenum on December 07, 2018, 10:55:07 PM
And so here we are now, low numbers, nobody running or joining missions, players running from fights as soon as they blow their first pass, players hiding in ack, players waiting to resupply town/fields before the attack even does any damage. Things need to change to bring back the heart and soul of this game. Gamers are use to rules and having to do certain things in a certain order to accomplish what ever their end game is. Add some rules, make more important or less important to GUIDE the players into bringing bad the interaction of players VS players again.
In essence (if we take your worldview to be correct) you need to change the mentality of a generation of new players. I don't agree with you (there really aren't enough new players on to foist a new paradigm on us, are there?) but let's say for a moment you are right. What do you think ought to be done; and, more importantly, why do you think it would work?
Post by: The Fugitive on December 08, 2018, 09:35:22 AM
In essence (if we take your worldview to be correct) you need to change the mentality of a generation of new players. I don't agree with you (there really aren't enough new players on to foist a new paradigm on us, are there?) but let's say for a moment you are right. What do you think ought to be done; and, more importantly, why do you think it would work?
Not trying to change anybody's way of playing, or mentality.
example, to capture a field.
Basic plan, drop 3klbs on VH to take it out. Using attack, or low level hvy bombers carpet bomb the town. Take out ack at field and vulch until troops get in.
Adjustments to the game.
Bump the damage to take out a VH to 10klbs and allow only a certain number of vehicles out at a time. This leaves the option to drop a VH available. It also gives GVers a chance to FIGHT in vehicles, but only on a limited bases so that vehicles cant over whelm and attacking force. For every ATTACKING GV, the limit on the defenders side goes up one also. Say the limit is 3, most likely wirbles and Osties. If the attachers bring GVs, the defenders can still keep the 3 air defense but can roll a tank for the attacking tank.
Add a safety bubble over the field so uppers can not be vulched. Once they leave that bubble they no longer get the protection of it and so cant run back to it and hide. This give defenders a chance to get to a fighting speed with out having to up from a different field taking the time to get to the attack. It only protect this upping, ack would still cover those trying to hide, but attackers can still drop the ack to chase defenders back through the field doing away with their "hiding spot".
Adjust hvy bombers so that they can not release bombs under 10K feet. If you want to dive bomb with bombers you still have the medium bombers and the hvy are back to the lvl bombing roll they are designed for. Having groups of hvy bombers to level a town in a single pass will now need an escort creating more instances for battle. Medium bombers can become fighters after they drop creating more fights down low.
If dropping troops from a vehicle, make each troop count as a half. This way one goon takes a town, of 20 troops from M3s and jeeps take a town. This will put more goons in the mix, again needing cover and generating more fights.
after adjustments.....example, to capture a field.
Basic plan, drop 10klbs on VH to take it out, or not and deal with a number of wirbles. Using attack, or low level medium bombers, or high level hvy bombers, carpet bomb the town. Take out ack at field and suppress out bound aircraft until troops get in.
See, not much has changed. You still have the options you had before and still follow the same basic "plan" but the changes made force players to fight more, not just blow through. It gives defenders a chance to fight AT the base instead of flying TO the base to be too late. If defenders are fighting to save the base, attackers will have to fight to GET the base. All it does it put the COMBAT back into the game, which it what I think is sorely missing.
Many other things could be done. Add perks for a player posting a mission. Add perks for players completing the assigned attack in the mission (assigned to drop radar, 5 perks if you get it). Add perks for completing the mission. Add perk to defenders stopping the attack for 10 minutes after the first bomb drop. Create incentives to bring back the missions, the fighting.
Make it so you have to climb to 3500 feet before your bombs will arm. This makes the NOE still possible, but it will give the defenders a bit of a warning because everything carrying a bomb will have to pop up to 3500 before they can drop.
You can still run NOE, you can still try to jumpo from town to town grabbing base after base as quickly as you can, you can still call missions on the fly. It doesnt take anything away, it just makes it easier to follow the new rules to accomplish the same things. The new rules just guide players into interacting more and so create more opportunities for combat.
Post by: Ciaphas on December 08, 2018, 10:10:39 AM
Quote
Adjustments to the game.
Bump the damage to take out a VH to 10klbs and allow only a certain number of vehicles out at a time. This leaves the option to drop a VH available. It also gives GVers a chance to FIGHT in vehicles, but only on a limited bases so that vehicles cant over whelm and attacking force. For every ATTACKING GV, the limit on the defenders side goes up one also. Say the limit is 3, most likely wirbles and Osties. If the attachers bring GVs, the defenders can still keep the 3 air defense but can roll a tank for the attacking tank.
I don't think limiting any asset is the answer.
** Refer to the bottom of this post for the answer
Quote
Add a safety bubble over the field so uppers can not be vulched. Once they leave that bubble they no longer get the protection of it and so cant run back to it and hide. This give defenders a chance to get to a fighting speed with out having to up from a different field taking the time to get to the attack. It only protect this upping, ack would still cover those trying to hide, but attackers can still drop the ack to chase defenders back through the field doing away with their "hiding spot".
They can also get to "fighting" speed by launching from a another field. No need for spawn invincibility. Look at it this way, you have a decision to make when your field is under attack. You can either A. Launch from the field that is under attack or you can B. Launch from another field, get the proper posture and engage the enemy on your terms. Either way you have a decision to make and you must live with that decision. If you chose to launch from a capped field and get upset that you are now padding someones score, you have no one to blame but yourself.
** Refer to the bottom of this post for the answer
Quote
Adjust hvy bombers so that they can not release bombs under 10K feet. If you want to dive bomb with bombers you still have the medium bombers and the hvy are back to the lvl bombing roll they are designed for. Having groups of hvy bombers to level a town in a single pass will now need an escort creating more instances for battle. Medium bombers can become fighters after they drop creating more fights down low.
Heavy bombers flew sorties below 10k, ask the Japanese. Some sorties for the B-17 were flown around 7k and probably lower. To add an altitude drop restriction (higher than the required drop alt currently set by HTC) to heavy bombers is not going to help the game.
** Refer to the bottom of this post for the answer
Quote
If dropping troops from a vehicle, make each troop count as a half. This way one goon takes a town, of 20 troops from M3s and jeeps take a town. This will put more goons in the mix, again needing cover and generating more fights.
I do agree that it should take at least 20 troops from any method of school bus delivery. I think that the required 10 troops is just to small of a number. I think that changing this number to 20 would help shape a new dynamic with regards to the methods used to take bases. A bit more planning would be needed as the the troops, while important and a key part of base captures, troops are simply an after thought when attacking a field and it would serve better to make them a part of the tactical planning.
***situational awareness is key***
Post by: The Fugitive on December 08, 2018, 10:45:27 AM
I don't think limiting any asset is the answer.Limiting things controls game play. ENY limits things a bit, a zone ENY would do a much better job. An attacker dropping the VH is limiting the GVs for the upcoming battle.
Quote
They can also get to "fighting" speed by launching from a another field. No need for spawn invincibility. Look at it this way, you have a decision to make when your field is under attack. You can either A. Launch from the field that is under attack or you can B. Launch from another field, get the proper posture and engage the enemy on your terms. Either way you have a decision to make and you must live with that decision. If you chose to launch from a capped field and get upset that you are now padding someones score, you have no one to blame but yourself.
and by the time you get to the field that is under attack it is more often than not a lost cause. They either have complete air superiority or troops are running just as you dive in. You have to remember that many players have run the same missions so many time they could do most of it with their eyes closed. Practice DOES make perfect.
Quote
Heavy bombers flew sorties below 10k, ask the Japanese. Some sorties for the B-17 were flown around 7k and probably lower. To add an altitude drop restriction (higher than the required drop alt currently set by HTC) to heavy bombers is not going to help the game.
Yes they did, pretty much once Japan was down to 12 planes and they were busy loading them up as Kamakazi's. Which by the way is completely beside the point. We are not at war, we are PAYING to PLAY a GAME.
Quote
I do agree that it should take at least 20 troops from any method of school bus delivery. I think that the required 10 troops is just to small of a number. I think that changing this number to 20 would help shape a new dynamic with regards to the methods used to take bases. A bit more planning would be needed as the the troops, while important and a key part of base captures, troops are simply an after thought when attacking a field and it would serve better to make them a part of the tactical planning.
Leaving the goon at 10 troops makes the goon a 'preferable" way to get troops in as you only need the one. This helps get more players out of M3s and into the air. Bring back the old radio call..... "PROTECT THE GOON!!!!"
Players have found and exploited a number of "loop holes" to make the game easier and to avoid battle. This is not the way the game should be played. Here is the main part of the HTC web page...
Welcome to the best WW2 and WW1 combat experience online!with less and less combat as players continue to look for ways to avoid it.
GET STARTED!
- With the best combat flight simulator that less players use because it is easier to sneek bases in GV or resupply one under attack
- Engage in land, sea, or air combat sometimes!
- Create your own missions that nobody joins!
- Form a squadron...or a clan!
- Find action 24 hours a daynot any more, plenty of dead times now
- Participate in historical scenarios2 maybe 3 times a year. FSO had 147 last night, last year 187, 193 the year before
Free download. Free 2 week trial.
No credit card required for free trial.
Numbers are dropping steadily, something has to change. I think players are getting board much quicker these days because everyone is trying to play such a watered down version of the game. Players are not going to change other than to look for a MORE watered down version so HTC will have to "guide" players back to what puts the excitement in the game, combat.
Post by: rvflyer on December 08, 2018, 05:38:22 PM
theoretically what's easier to repair?
A hangar will take a while to rebuild, AAA can be rolled to a field during capture by invading forces. Sure, it's a bit unrealistic on the scale but not outside of the realm of possibility.
There are so many implied actions happening behind the scenes. To have them carried out by a player would cause one maybe two bases to be captured a day.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: Ciaphas on December 08, 2018, 05:39:11 PM
I have an idea to repair field guns. You have to at least go to a hangar and hook up to one with jeep and drag it out to the spot where the damaged one is. Kind of like picking up supplies only it could be a field gun then take it out and drop it at the correct spot. Same with guns in town.
+500
that would be friggen awesome!!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: Puma44 on December 09, 2018, 08:51:45 AM
Post by: The Fugitive on December 09, 2018, 09:00:26 AM
I have an idea to repair field guns. You have to at least go to a hangar and hook up to one with jeep and drag it out to the spot where the damaged one is. Kind of like picking up supplies only it could be a field gun then take it out and drop it at the correct spot. Same with guns in town.
Love it!
Post by: Ramesis on December 09, 2018, 04:12:42 PM
Post by: 1stpar3 on December 23, 2018, 12:03:09 AM
Post by: The Fugitive on December 23, 2018, 12:09:18 AM
I know "An older post". Fugi, a question from your earlier posting. Why worry about FIELD ACK at all? Most bases are too far away from towns on almost all maps. I can see why some of you guys hate MAN ACK,judging by your post. Its unnecessarily putting attackers in harms way. At most, VH and Ord bunkers,to me, is all that is required on BASE. AIR base anyway. Town can be captured with WF and town ack down(8). It might be a good idea to require more damage to WF and harden guns though. I would be good with that...stop the sneak takes anyway :uhoh Just wondering why you put in "Deack the field"? :uhoh
What I dont like about the guns is just this, 5 guys in guns equals 5 LESS guys in planes. Guns are easy, I can deack a small field by myself with a plane that has only 50cals. Give me two guys as wingers and we can do it in a single pass each. Field guns are nothing.
The issue is players HIDING in the guns thats all. With the numbers as low as they are these days we need all those hiding in the guns flying a friggin plane!
Post by: Shuffler on December 23, 2018, 03:53:51 AM
What I dont like about the guns is just this, 5 guys in guns equals 5 LESS guys in planes. Guns are easy, I can deack a small field by myself with a plane that has only 50cals. Give me two guys as wingers and we can do it in a single pass each. Field guns are nothing.
The issue is players HIDING in the guns thats all. With the numbers as low as they are these days we need all those hiding in the guns flying a friggin plane!
What if folks in the guns fly sometimes also. But if they can't ever use guns they just quit. Won't you just compound your problem?
Post by: ccvi on December 23, 2018, 06:42:20 AM
Bump the damage to take out a VH to 10klbs and allow only a certain number of vehicles out at a time. [...]
Yes, but no. Making things harder doesn't create more fights. It causes bigger strikes with a harder bang, or giving up more early instead of trying to push through.
The problem is that captures are instantaneous. If a capture attempt is executed with sufficient precision and speed there is no way to defend. If attackers don't work that well (most are lazy, and don't), a robust defense can spoil any attempt by resupply or killing troops. For attackers, there is no incentive to continue an attack that is going to fail. For defenders there's no incentive to attempt defense in situations that can quickly become hopeless.
The cause is instantaneous captures, with a lot of binary randomness until that point. Hangars going down or not equals the option for local defense. Troops slipping through equals capture. A single bailed player hiding near the map room negates capture. Is it wise to continue an attack when the first hangar is about to pop in 2 minutes, making the field fully functional? Is it wise to attempt to defend when multiple M3s are reported close to town? "Wise" in the sense of the overall war-effort, time spent here, and not elsewhere. With a mostly empty map, it isn't. The game time (the only limited resource for everyone is hours played) is more efficiently spent (to achieve the team objective) elsewhere.
More bombs and M3s needed doesn't change that.
Compare to other games. Examples:
a) capture the flag. Players move in, grab the enemy flag, and bring it home to score a point. The flag-carrier may be somewhat limited in abilities to speed up the process, but usually isn't totally helpless. Nothing like the sitting duck the goon is. A defender or two in fast planes can avoid any enemy fighters and pick goons at will.
b) domination or conquest: Just getting there isn't enough. There's always a time-component included, that creates room to defend, and requires attackers to keep pushing. In AH we sneak through an invisible M3 to capture.
Captures needs an enforced slow down, that cannot be negated by throwing more at the target. For example: "more offensive than defensive planes within 1 mile of town for 10 minutes". Suddenly it makes sense for both attackers and defenders to throw in more planes. Of course, that favors the horde, but that's also true for the current system.
Post by: The Fugitive on December 23, 2018, 09:34:36 AM
Yes, but no. Making things harder doesn't create more fights. It causes bigger strikes with a harder bang, or giving up more early instead of trying to push through.
The problem is that captures are instantaneous. If a capture attempt is executed with sufficient precision and speed there is no way to defend. If attackers don't work that well (most are lazy, and don't), a robust defense can spoil any attempt by resupply or killing troops. For attackers, there is no incentive to continue an attack that is going to fail. For defenders there's no incentive to attempt defense in situations that can quickly become hopeless.
The cause is instantaneous captures, with a lot of binary randomness until that point. Hangars going down or not equals the option for local defense. Troops slipping through equals capture. A single bailed player hiding near the map room negates capture. Is it wise to continue an attack when the first hangar is about to pop in 2 minutes, making the field fully functional? Is it wise to attempt to defend when multiple M3s are reported close to town? "Wise" in the sense of the overall war-effort, time spent here, and not elsewhere. With a mostly empty map, it isn't. The game time (the only limited resource for everyone is hours played) is more efficiently spent (to achieve the team objective) elsewhere.
More bombs and M3s needed doesn't change that.
Compare to other games. Examples:
a) capture the flag. Players move in, grab the enemy flag, and bring it home to score a point. The flag-carrier may be somewhat limited in abilities to speed up the process, but usually isn't totally helpless. Nothing like the sitting duck the goon is. A defender or two in fast planes can avoid any enemy fighters and pick goons at will.
b) domination or conquest: Just getting there isn't enough. There's always a time-component included, that creates room to defend, and requires attackers to keep pushing. In AH we sneak through an invisible M3 to capture.
Captures needs an enforced slow down, that cannot be negated by throwing more at the target. For example: "more offensive than defensive planes within 1 mile of town for 10 minutes". Suddenly it makes sense for both attackers and defenders to throw in more planes. Of course, that favors the horde, but that's also true for the current system.
But thats the one of the points Im trying to make. The game play has dissolved into a single quick strike mission. In and out with the capture, or move off to another front/base. Everyone thinks they are soooo smart coming up with these NOE plans, or dive bombing a town in a few TU2s to white flag it and capture it in a single pass.
The game is suppose to be about combat. Fight for the base, dont just blast through one time and then bail if you dont capture it. Your avoiding the defender that way, avoiding combat. Thats why I think they should tweak some of the game parameters. If you have to bring 3 or 4 players to drop a hanger instead of one , sure it makes for bigger attack forces, but it also makes it harder to hide that force. It also makes it harder to sweep through on a single pass because if one guy fail on his drop a hanger doesnt go down and there is more than likely not a few spare bombs around.
Now a mission needs precision, better training, more than a single pass, attackers who will have to fend off the defenders while "plan B" is put into effect. A continuous attack footing and the same for the defense. Combat.
Post by: ccvi on December 23, 2018, 12:48:51 PM
Thats why I think they should tweak some of the game parameters.
I agree on the idea that an environment is needed that promotes a continued fight, but disagree that tweaking a few parameters would do it. Especially toughening things up has exactly the opposite effect.
An example of hangars. An impatient noob drops one fighter hangar 7 minutes before the main attack force arrives. The result is a downtime of 8/15/15/. What to do? That's an attack already gone pretty bad today, but there's still a chance to have someone on standby to re-kill it at the right moment to get the full 15 minutes. With hardened targets, that's much less possible, and attempting to pull through with the attack is much less useful than today. It is the same with buildings in town. Got things into a bad cycle, some buildings popping shortly before troops can get there. Today attackers can push through with sufficient force if not too many are being rebuilt. Toughened up buildings? Better to abort, and try another day or place.
If everything is too soft, of course, a single medium hard punch can make a field change sides in a heartbeat. With close field distances, that doesn't leave much reaction time to defend. Soft fields, long distances between fields - that did work. Attackers had a chance to pull through even if something didn't go as planned, and defenders had some time to get into a position to defend.
Now everything is being moved closer together. Short distances between fields, vehicle spawns extremely close to towns. At the same hardness of things, of course that allows fast captures. And limits the possibilities to defend. That possibility isn't restored through increased hardness. It just requires more attackers, and even worse, it makes it less meaningful to push through with an attack gone slightly wrong.
With short distances, and thus short times to the target, some mechanism is needed to allow defenders to protect the field. But that mechanism should not spoil attacks to the point that it is more beneficial to abort and attack elsewhere. Hardening would do exactly that.
Other more fast paced games (decades after the concept AH uses was invented) have that in the form of timers. With AH speeding up (by closer distances), that might work here, too. Unfortunately, it's not just one of the hundreds of existing arena settings.
Post by: The Fugitive on December 23, 2018, 12:57:02 PM
I agree on the idea that an environment is needed that promotes a continued fight, but disagree that tweaking a few parameters would do it. Especially toughening things up has exactly the opposite effect.
An example of hangars. An impatient noob drops one fighter hangar 7 minutes before the main attack force arrives. The result is a downtime of 8/15/15/. What to do? That's an attack already gone pretty bad today...........
only because todays players dont have the skill to pull it off any more. Now it just a single pass, either we get it or we dont, move on to the next one either way.
The tweaks Id like to see is to slow down that base rolling style of play. Give defenders time to get organized to make a fight of it. Of course everyone would then complain that they have to fight for a base :rolleyes:
Post by: ccvi on December 23, 2018, 04:29:03 PM
The tweaks Id like to see is to slow down that base rolling style of play. Give defenders time to get organized to make a fight of it.
Yes. But it cannot be solved by some simple changes of the existing configuration. Whatever can slow down a capture will also make switching to an unharmed and undefended target in any kind of issues the preferred option, causing less fighting.
Post by: ccvi on December 24, 2018, 07:55:14 AM
Imagine no defenders at all. Two targets to choose from: One with a half dead town, and a pristine one. The easier target is the latter one, as issues with rebuilding targets are avoided.
Going back in time. Small maps, few fields, many players. Such thing as an undefended field didn't exist, except on the other side of the map. The targets nearby were often partially damaged. Fights would continue due to lack of patience, and a higher ratio of people not understanding the issue with rebuilding stuff, hitting things randomly out of sync. A well-timed attack could turn a fight into a capture. Not by contributing much to the fight, but hitting things at a time when everything was up.
Attacking fields further away was an option, and paid for with a longer trip, or possibly low-E state at the target by going NOE. Less defense was a plus, but a huge advantage was that this avoided rebuild issues.
Today, there's almost as many fields that can be reached easily as there are players (well, EU primetime, with 15-20 in-flight per side). Unharmed fields do exist in large numbers. They are also undefended. Fighting for a capture doesn't make any kind of sense.
What is the proper way to drop supplies on town? Its not to bring all buildings guns up as fast as possible. Its to get the drop distance right to rebuild only part the town, sufficient to prevent capture. By the time that resupplied part be destroyed again, the non-supplied part is closer to rebuilding on its own.
There should be an incentive for persistence. It should be easier to capture a field that's partially destroyed than one that hasn't been hit at all. A badly hurt field should need more defending players than a fresh one.
I don't think that is possible with the current way how destruction/rebuild works.
Possible solutions might be a minimum time of air/ground superiority requirement for capture, or the possibility to prevent things from rebuilding while they are down (supply trucks are one way, but their destruction cannot prevent rebuild even when the field is under continued pressure).
Post by: The Fugitive on December 24, 2018, 08:37:04 AM
If it takes 3-4 guys to flatten a hanger at ANY field defended or not, it is going to slow down the grab.
Resuppling towns was the biggest mistake. Its only purpose was to help in low numbered times..... which we more than likely wouldnt have had had changes been made to the game right along to keep up with the changing times in the gaming industry..... Resupply town because they only had 5 defenders for the whole country.
Thats the problem these days, there is only one plan. It doesnt work on a hurt field/town because it is designed to do nothing but flatten everything and then slip troops up to the last possible second for the capture, or to move on in the case of a failure. Short down time dont give enough time for them to get the troops in because they dont know how to fight/protect the troops, because it was never part of the plan.
The "war" has been watered down to the least common denominator. Add something in like a "2 pronged attack" and everyone would go "huh?" The NOE was the ONLY mission run for a long time until changes were made to radar and then all of a sudden they had to work for a base again until they came up with the smash and grab they run now. I just think its time for another change.
Post by: ccvi on December 24, 2018, 05:59:22 PM
If things are set to slow down a capture at base "A" they certainly would be set to slow down a capture at base "B". :rolleyes:
With different starting conditions of A and B, the slowdown / increased effort to capture can differ. Hardening things doesn't change the time scale of a capture, it just requires more or bigger bombs. The need to bring more bombs isn't satisfied "slower", the time scale of a capture is mainly determined by rebuild times, not hardness. Its not possible to drop the first klbs on a hangar, then 16 minutes later the second klbs, because the hangar forgets prior damage at some point.
Proposal: Add a capture requirement to have an attacking GV and no defending GV in town (or attacking aircraft and no defending aircraft over town) for 15 minutes. While the condition is fulfilled, a timer counts (displayed on the flag for everyone to see). When both attackers/defenders are close by it stops, and counts backwards when only defends or no-one is present. When the timer counts, freeze the rebuild-timer of town buildings. Make hangars vulnerable when they stop smoking (killable before they are up again).
This requires the attacker to focus for at a certain minimum time. It allows defenders to stop the condition. On the other hand, attackers can attack a partially damaged field (continuing a partially failed attack) without issues with rebuilding targets under attack.
Post by: Ciaphas on December 24, 2018, 06:51:40 PM
Here is the fix you are looking for:
Each country gets 5 airfields, 5 Vehicle bases, 1 port, 1 city, HQ, 1 flak, 1 aaa, 1 fuel, 1 troop and 1 radar factory.
FH's, BH's and VH's all require 3k damage to go away for 30 minutes. Towns should be twice the size that they currently are and to capture the town it must require that the number of troops required be equal to the number of military and non-military structures destroyed. Re-arming should take 5 minutes. Oh, and aircraft have to lift off in flights not solo. Bombers should be required to have three "Actual" pilots per box but all guns should be able to be manned by "actual" players.
Cities should have FLAK walls, there should be twice the number of AAA on airfields and in some towns (large airfields) and all towns should have forward observation for , you know, ground attackers.
Does that about sum it up?
Post by: The Fugitive on December 24, 2018, 09:50:25 PM
As a member of the 444th Air Mafia in the old days we took 11 bases in one squad night. 4 hours of intensive fighting, planning, and execution by 10-12 players. That was our "record". Something we were proud of. Some were NOE, most were head to head against other squads. That is what this game was all about. We didnt win the war, but for 4 hours we FOUGHT for every base we wanted.
You dont see that any more. The "fighting" aspect of this game is so lost in the need to roll bases that it isnt funny. "Birds of Prey" use to do the same thing. Their squad night was a night you KNEW was going to be a battle all night! Again, you dont see that any more. Squad rivalries, LOL!!! ya right.
There is so much missing from this game that is rolled over by these "smash and grab" groups that it is ridiculous. People are bored with the "same old, same old" that the game has been watered down too that they leave and look for something different. If WE the core players dont do something to stir interest in the game, bring back the "fight" in the game, I fear it will continue its slow decline into obscurity.
Post by: DmonSlyr on December 25, 2018, 11:31:47 AM
Bustr also needs to focus on "paths of action" and keeping bases closer together and more compact when making new maps.
That's it.
That will make fights more fun and entertaining. I can promise you that most people just want fun fighter combat action. I really like the MA style, it's just that we have too many super planes that can easily run away, and far apart bases that make it hard to defend against a hoard that starts to take over the fight. Eventually, one side is going to be dominate, that's just how war works. Closer back bases would help to defend against that hoard a little easier.
Make the damn radar on the bases harder to kill. Radar problem fixed.
All of the problems that most people have with AH can be fixed very simply.
Other than that. You really aren't going to be able to get people to stop ganging and doing what ever they want to do.
Post by: Ciaphas on December 25, 2018, 12:58:05 PM
Bases are far too easy to roll. Adding a certain level of difficulty would help prolong base captures and it will mitigate the " fights over before it starts" cycle we are in.
I participate in land grabbing when I am online. I prefer to he part of a team with an objective and not one of those that solo for the dogfighting aspect of the game.
With this being said, I would like to see Hitech implement the following as requirements to capture a field:
1. Barracks must be taken out at the attached base.
2. Total # of troops required to capture base must be equal to or greater than the total number of military targets destroyed +10 (map room). (ie... 8 Town guns destroyed + 4 barracks destroyed + 10 (map room) = 22 troops ).
3. For fields within 20 miles of a large Airfield, auto resupply should exists at a x2 multiplier, providing it's (large field) Ammo, fuel, barracks etc... are up.
4. Heavy bombers ( B17, Lancs, B24 etc...) should only he allowed to launch from medium Airfields and larger. Medium/light bombers and those dual category planes (light bombers/ heavy attack) can be launched from all fields.
5. Naval and Marine aircraft should be limited to bases within two sectors of a coast line when possible.
* 4 and 5 are preferences and should not be taken seriously unless that is your cup of tea *
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: 1stpar3 on December 27, 2018, 02:50:04 PM
Post by: Traveler on December 29, 2018, 05:53:01 PM
If WE the core players dont do something to stir interest in the game, bring back the "fight" in the game, I fear it will continue its slow decline into obscurity.Sorry to say it, but the writing is on the wall, put there by HiTech himself, War Online:Pacific. It's all a down hill slide from here. Very hard to attract new member to a squad when you can't say for sure that the game that we played weekly for 20 years will be here next week.
Post by: Oldman731 on December 29, 2018, 06:18:13 PM
Sorry to say it, but the writing is on the wall, put there by HiTech himself, War Online:Pacific. It's all a down hill slide from here. Very hard to attract new member to a squad when you can't say for sure that the game that we played weekly for 20 years will be here next week.
(slaps Traveler with a wet carp)
You need an attitude check, my friend. You sound like a grouchy old man.
(looks closely at Traveler)
...well...OK, but you don't have to act like one. Buck up, son. The world continues to turn, there are still over 100 people in the arena each night, and we have not yet sold New Jersey back to the Indians. So brighten up.
- oldman
Post by: Traveler on December 29, 2018, 09:17:25 PM
(slaps Traveler with a wet carp)
You need an attitude check, my friend. You sound like a grouchy old man.
- oldman
And you need a reality check. How much new development do you think will go into AH3 from now on. HTC only has so many employees. The priority is WO:P.
Post by: Oldman731 on December 29, 2018, 09:54:54 PM
And you need a reality check. How much new development do you think will go into AH3 from now on. HTC only has so many employees. The priority is WO:P.
OK, I'll bite.
AH3 already has all the planes it will ever need. New ones are flown for a bit because they are novel, but people then gravitate back to the dozen or so that you see every day.
The sandbox already has been established. For all the whining about various tweaks that it needs....well, I've just grown weary of hearing it. You can have fun here now. Up to you.
The two basic problems with attracting new players - and then keeping them - have always been the difficulty of becoming competitive, and the actual outlay of money, no matter how modest. If the veterans stay out of WO, that should help with the first problem. WO is one of these "free to play" (wink wink) games, so that should solve the second. Hey, who knows, the FTP might even reward you with limited time in AH3.
HTC has been working on fly-by-mouse (the heads-up display, multiple mouse advancements) and VR. The first reduces the need to buy expensive equipment, the second rewards people who already have it. These are good things.
So...to stay on point...guns v hangars is interesting to discuss, but collateral to the health of AH. Try it for a couple of weeks, see what happens (look what happened when (1) channel 200 was eliminated for a few days and (2) full Dot DAR was turned on for a day or so). Meanwhile wait to see if WO brings some new folks into the fold.
- oldman (and stop talking with food in your mouth. Really, it's repulsive)
Post by: Lusche on December 29, 2018, 10:35:15 PM
OK, I'll bite.
AH3 already has all the planes it will ever need. New ones are flown for a bit because they are novel, but people then gravitate back to the dozen or so that you see every day.
From the three planes last added (Yak 3, Yak 7b, Tu-2), two have become very popular. I believe there are still planes out there that could get some reasonable usage in the MA when added to AH.
But of course, new toys by won't do any magic to the player numbers either. :old:
Post by: Traveler on December 30, 2018, 10:38:22 AM
OK, I'll bite.
I'm not talking about planes, or graphics, Heads up display, please list any WWII aircraft that contained them. I'm talking about the game play itself. Allowing for destroyable bridges, engineering troops to rebuild anything, actual roadway systems that mean something. And please don't make this personal, I didn't call you any names please provide me the same respect. You want a discussion that fine.
Post by: Oldman731 on December 30, 2018, 11:48:17 AM
And please don't make this personal, I didn't call you any names please provide me the same respect. You want a discussion that fine.
Apologies. I meant it in good fun.
- oldman