Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: Dadtallica on October 22, 2023, 06:16:16 PM
-
The practice of hoarding and hiding task groups is a super sized pet peeve of mine. The I’m taking my ball and going home doctrine is very boring.
BUT Dad!! If we use them and they get killed then the other country gets to use it! See This way nobody gets to use it and it’s way way more fun don’t you see?
Just knock it off already! :old:
-
It is one thing to get them gathered up for an attack (course at this point it be a bit on the useless side due to numbers), it is another just hiding them in the back. Don't know how many times I've had to fly Lancs at 100% fuel to hunt CV's in the back of that one REALLY big map, one I've long since forgotten the name too. :( I know that the map had bases in the middle, and potato-esc islands between the bigger landmasses. :headscratch:
-
It is one thing to get them gathered up for an attack (course at this point it be a bit on the useless side due to numbers), it is another just hiding them in the back. Don't know how many times I've had to fly Lancs at 100% fuel to hunt CV's in the back of that one REALLY big map, one I've long since forgotten the name too. :( I know that the map had bases in the middle, and potato-esc islands between the bigger landmasses. :headscratch:
I’ve tried to gather them up when we have like four or more TG’s but it generally take a long time and someone always gets a better idea before they can meet up.
Hiding them is so lame and childish.
-
There weren't any carriers in the European conflict...
It's OK if some maps don't have any ships imo
Eagler
-
There weren't any carriers in the European conflict...
It's OK if some maps don't have any ships imo
Eagler
Not true. HMS Ark Royal instrumental in Sinking the Bismarck, and there were additional British CVS involved in delivering aircraft to Malta. I think the USS Wasp might’ve been involved as well?
In addition, the was CV support for Operation Torch, the invasion of N Africa…(USS Ranger?)
-
Not true. HMS Ark Royal instrumental in Sinking the Bismarck, and there were additional British CVS involved in delivering aircraft to Malta. I think the USS Wasp might’ve been involved as well?
In addition, the was CV support for Operation Torch, the invasion of N Africa…(USS Ranger?)
Ok but nothing like the Pacific
A map or two without boats is something I am game for..
A map or two without gv's is another...
Imagine a map with everyone in a plane in a game built for a2a?
The horror..lol
Eagler
-
Ok but nothing like the Pacific
Moving the goalposts.
-
Moving the goalposts.
Stating a fact
Eagler
-
Let's not even mention the guy who constantly manipulates the BB/CV groups, only to sink them when he's autoswitched.
-
Let's not even mention the guy who constantly manipulates the BB/CV groups, only to sink them when he's autoswitched.
Glad we have people who like to auto switch but there should be more restraints on what you can do or you’re just cheating the system.
-
Ok but nothing like the Pacific
A map or two without boats is something I am game for..
It would tick of a good portion of the players. Many complain that the flight time is too long from base to base. The biggest plus of a CV group is a launch pointnear a field for quick action.
A map or two without gv's is another...
Imagine a map with everyone in a plane in a game built for a2a?
The horror..lol
Eagler
And removing GVs all together would have 30-50% of players log of when ever one of those maps comes up. Forcing GV players in fighters is like forcing you into a GV. How long would you play if it was a GV only map?
-
It would tick of a good portion of the players. Many complain that the flight time is too long from base to base. The biggest plus of a CV group is a launch pointnear a field for quick action.
And removing GVs all together would have 30-50% of players log of when ever one of those maps comes up. Forcing GV players in fighters is like forcing you into a GV. How long would you play if it was a GV only map?
Pay attention..... this here fellers got a point. :cheers: Fugi
-
And removing GVs all together would have 30-50% of players log of when ever one of those maps comes up. Forcing GV players in fighters is like forcing you into a GV. How long would you play if it was a GV only map?
Damn it man! You know you are not to use logic! :furious
-
Heck of the maps were small enough and turn over quick enough I'd be for gv only, fighter only and with the right small naval map a ship only setup..
Variety is the spice of life guys!
:cheers:
Eagler
-
I believe it is a good idea to move captured CV's away from their ports. It increases the value of your groups by denying the enemy use of their boats. I see it as no difference than putting mines in a harbor, to keep boats in port.
Also, if you need more than a BB and a CV to take a base you are wasting resources!
:banana: :airplane: :banana:
-
Heck of the maps were small enough and turn over quick enough I'd be for gv only, fighter only and with the right small naval map a ship only setup..
Variety is the spice of life guys!
:cheers:
Eagler
I can't argue with that, to a degree. Would be neat to see a map that is very heavily based around ships. :aok The only problem is that it is very easy to sink said ships, and with the ports practically undefended, well, you get the picture. :(
-
I can't argue with that, to a degree. Would be neat to see a map that is very heavily based around ships. :aok The only problem is that it is very easy to sink said ships, and with the ports practically undefended, well, you get the picture. :(
A midway scenario where there aren't any land based anything just ships and cv planes..
Or huge battleship and destroyer convoys only to simulate a Hood Bismarck sorta encounter..
Who cares if the maps toll over quickly..I think the faster they change the more variety and interest the game might draw
Don't really know the affect on the numbers until you try it
Eagler