Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Axis vs Allies => Topic started by: Sabre on March 12, 2002, 03:25:10 PM
-
There was much fear amongst Allied leaders in the US and the UK during periods of WWII that Germany and Russia might make a separate peace, freeing a large portion of the Wermacht (spelling?) to oppose the Allied landings in France. The thinking may have been flawed to some extent, but this didn't stop Stalin from using it as a Sword of Pericles to get more Lend-Lease material, and to otherwise wield influence at the "Big Three" meetings.
I'm thinking of coming up with a "what-if" set up for the CT that pits the American and British forces against a notional alliance between Germany and the USSR. What do you in the CT community think of the idea? I believe the planeset (with appropriate perking and field availability would be a pretty decent match up. I don't have a terrain to run this on (though there's one or two in development that would work, I think), so it's not going to happen for some weeks, if at all. I just wanted some general feedback from the player-base. Thanks.
Sabre
CT Team
-
ohh +) at first glance the idea sounds interesting
SKurj
-
Interesting.
I would rather see more Pacific based set up's though.
A good one IMO would be TARGET JAPAN. We could recreate the carrier raids on the Japanese Home Islands in 1945. While there would be no real taking of territory there would have to be certain targets that would have to be taken out.
-
Do it.
This is one of the great advantages of AH--we have the tools to create these "what if" scenarios. There's no need to tie yourself strictly to what already happened; I'm glad to see the CT team "opening up" in this regard.
One day, when the planeset could support it, I'd also love to see a "USSR versus Japan" setup, or an "Allied civil war".
J_A_B
-
A good one IMO would be TARGET JAPAN. We could recreate the carrier raids on the Japanese Home Islands in 1945. While there would be no real taking of territory there would have to be certain targets that would have to be taken out.
I'd also love to see a "USSR versus Japan" setup
:D:D:D...
Sabre
CT Team
-
Sounds good to me.
-
ok by me.
Hehe i just thought of another what if? :)
what if finland had to fight the world? :D
think of it:
Finland:
109g2
Everyone else:
all the planeset
what do you think??? :p
-
Why not?
Sounds like fun.
eskimo
-
A special map is in the work's( Map master NUTTZ) to do a USSR VS Japan set up for 1945 as we speak, it should be done and playing in the CT withen about a month:)
-
Soooo USSR v Japan...
could that mean the Tu-2 or whichever it was Pyro has unfinished, will indeed be finished in time so that both sides have a twin engine bomber sorta thingy? +)
SKurj
-
I will fly it. :)
Cheers,
Pepe
-
:) Can we have a
"What If Reginald Mitchell didn't develop Spitfires, and the LW gets to fight all those BB gunned Hurricanes only in BoB" setup?? :D :D :D :D
-
Definately could be fun!
Westy
-
Variety - the spice of life :)
-
oh..oh.. I got one... suppose that there were three aliances and that they all hated each other... they all had access to each others plane designs due to captures and spying and... they all produced models of every plane as it became available. the countries could then supply a variety of different planes to match each type of fight.
lazs
-
laz2 now theres a good idea a couple os questions though
1) on plane captures and spying would that be ai or would ppl actually have to steal and spy to all have same plane type. (i could do the stealing part that would be fun kinda like that firefox movie.)
2) and maybe if this catchs on we could make another arena but i doubt it would:)
-
laz lol
if youre in here laz why dont we see you in the CT?
-
We could also have Texas Vs. The World
Think about it!
Lotsa n1ks,spits and La7's with bull-heads painted on the wings swarming the whole map
"Surrenduh y'all!"
:D
-
Sounds like an interesting idea... provided...
1. It focusses on the air war, and not base-taking.
2. The plane sets are not too restricted, IE lots of Ami iron flying from the isle!
3. Radar works properly.
Given those things, it sounds like fun. I echo others though I think in that I'd rather see things like USA vs. England, or Japan vs. USSR, or USSR vs. USA.
-
"USA vs. England"
This one is do-able with the current planeset even, provided the American team doesn't mind fighting spits 9/10 of the time and a few of the American planes for which there's no Brit counterpart are left out.
J_A_B
-
I would like to see more historical Pacific setups. I am not at all interested in European, East Front or What If setups. Ideally I would like to see a full time Pacific Axis vs Allies arena.
-
Originally posted by J_A_B
"USA vs. England"
This one is do-able with the current planeset even, provided the American team doesn't mind fighting spits 9/10 of the time and a few of the American planes for which there's no Brit counterpart are left out.
J_A_B
Of course you'd see Spits 9/10 of the time... but so? The novelty would be in the strange matchups. :)
What do you mean by American planes for which there's no Brit counterpart? Clearly the plane sets are quite different, but that's the point. Spits, Hurri, Typhie, and Temp vs. Hellcat, Lightning, Pony, Jug and Corsair. Sounds like a blast to me! :) Or do you mean bomber/attack roles where there is not counterpart?
-
Well, the B-26 would have to be left out since the Brits have no medium buffs.
The main Brit fighters would be the Spit 9 and Typhoon. The Typhoon is a good BnZ counterpart to the P-51D/P-47D-30/F4U-1D at low altitudes. The Spitfire has good performance up high, definately good enough compete with the American fighters.
I would leave out the P-51B because unlike the "D" it is IMO good enough up high that the Spit is at too much of a disadvantage. The "D"'s performance noticably drops off above 25K. The F4U-1, P-47D-11 and P-27D-25 could be in or out; they offer nothing over the other American fighters.
On carriers the Seafire is a decent counterpart to the F6F and holds up well versus the F4U-1D. However the Brits lack carrier-based bombers. I would solve this by enabling Mosquito's off of carriers if possible, otherwise I would deny the TBM to the Americans and give it to the British instead.
J_A_B
-
Originally posted by Sabre
I'm thinking of coming up with a "what-if" set up for the CT that pits the American and British forces against a notional alliance between Germany and the USSR. What do you in the CT community think of the idea?
It's only for a week. Why not?
- Oldman (who is, however, generally opposed to fantasy wars in CT)
-
ANd mossie's were adapted to carrier duties...
SKurj
-
I only fly axis / german mostly.......
out side of Russian/Japan (Manchuria in particular) any made up scenario that features la7s vrs spit ixs has no appeal to me.
I would like to eventually see Finland vrs ussr Italy vrs Greece (invasion of cyprus maybe)
But we dont have the plansets
don't care for pac set ups not enough jap planes and especially dislike the american and brit planesets and would not fly such a setup
either way I'll avoid the ones I dont like and fly the ones I do......
Start thinkin about a bob set up (atleast early war)
-
Originally posted by J_A_B
Well, the B-26 would have to be left out since the Brits have no medium buffs.
The main Brit fighters would be the Spit 9 and Typhoon. The Typhoon is a good BnZ counterpart to the P-51D/P-47D-30/F4U-1D at low altitudes. The Spitfire has good performance up high, definately good enough compete with the American fighters.
I would leave out the P-51B because unlike the "D" it is IMO good enough up high that the Spit is at too much of a disadvantage. The "D"'s performance noticably drops off above 25K. The F4U-1, P-47D-11 and P-27D-25 could be in or out; they offer nothing over the other American fighters.
On carriers the Seafire is a decent counterpart to the F6F and holds up well versus the F4U-1D. However the Brits lack carrier-based bombers. I would solve this by enabling Mosquito's off of carriers if possible, otherwise I would deny the TBM to the Americans and give it to the British instead.
J_A_B
I agree on the bomber/jabo points you make... but not the fighters. Removing Ami planes because you think they'll have too many advantages is just silly. I could just as easily say remove the Spit IX because it turns too well for a BnZ plane, or I could say that the Spit IX turns well enough to compete with the American planes, so the Spit V isn't needed. Both plane sets will have some advantages and dis-advantages.... but that's the point. Also the D-11 Jug is very different from the D-30, so I wouldn't want that one removed. Allow all the fighters from both sides.... the point is to run the two plane sets against each other, not to artificially limit one side to try and remove it's advantages. In addition, I believe you want as large a planeset as possible in any give setup to get more folks into the CT, so limiting it in any way with respect to fighters is a bad move IMO. The only limits I would put in place would be on high-performance perk planes like the Temp... and then it's just a simple matter of assigning a reasonable perk cost.
-
Don't forget range in British planes have shorter legs than US ones ...
-
Originally posted by Sabre
"what-if" set up for the CT that pits the American and British forces against a notional alliance between Germany and the USSR.
Well, to me the idea sounds about as realistic (even on a hypothetical level) as a modern alliance between the US and the Taliban going to war against the Israel and Iraq-coalition.
The USSR/US vs Japan 1945 sounds really interesting though.
-
What if the BOB had gone on for longer and the Germans won?
It would need a new map with a greatly reduced Atlantic ocean but would give Both sides rides to cover most roles.
Capturing the Azores would make an ideal forward base for a full scale assult.
Just thinking out loud...
TTFN
snafu
-
what if finland had to fight the world?:D
think of it:
Finland:
109g2
Everyone else:
all the planeset
Finns had 109 G2/G6 and some (few) Hurri I as well
Then of course, JU88 was there :)
-not to forget about C47 ( DC2 ), we need that for capturing bases ;)
Not bad, not at all :)
-
The original idea in the thread is interesting, and I'd give it a fly. :)
I don't like the USSR vs Japan idea, I think it'd be even more lopsided than the past Pac CT planesets. Down low, the Soviet planes are faster and accelerate MUCH better than the American iron. The Tony would be a viable plane against the La's over 15k perhaps, and the N1K could rely on the 4 cannons for some parity, but the Zeke... sheesh, it'd be fodder. USSR birds don't get low and slow without conscious effort on the pilot. Il-2 vs Peggy could be interesting tho... Maybe give some lend lease 109s to Japan and let's see. ;)
Britain vs Japan would be ok. Spits, Hurris and the Typhoon (no Temp) vs the Zeke, Tony, and George. Maybe the Peggy too, but dunno what the Brits would have.
US vs Brit would be ok.
-
Need 2 more jap planes and pac theatre. Sick to death of running into 190s in my f6f. Just aint right.
Ussr vs japan? A sky full of la7s is all I am seeing.
ussr and germany vs the world? yawn. I think its called MA.
-
Ya know Sabre, you ask for feedback, we give it to ya and then you and the rest of the ct staff come up with reasons not to take the suggestions offerred and in the meantime the ct has so few people in it it's pretty much useless unless the ma goes down. Connect in the ma has been horrible of late and there's still no action in the ct. That tell ya anything? At what point do ya figure the one's your choosing to take aren't cuttin' it and the whole thing needs to be re-invented? I don't mean to be so damn objectionable but I'm just tired of seein' these damn "help us make it better" posts that never seem to bring any worthwhile changes. It's really a waste of time.
CRASH
Originally posted by Sabre
There was much fear amongst Allied leaders in the US and the UK during periods of WWII that Germany and Russia might make a separate peace, freeing a large portion of the Wermacht (spelling?) to oppose the Allied landings in France. The thinking may have been flawed to some extent, but this didn't stop Stalin from using it as a Sword of Pericles to get more Lend-Lease material, and to otherwise wield influence at the "Big Three" meetings.
I'm thinking of coming up with a "what-if" set up for the CT that pits the American and British forces against a notional alliance between Germany and the USSR. What do you in the CT community think of the idea? I believe the planeset (with appropriate perking and field availability would be a pretty decent match up. I don't have a terrain to run this on (though there's one or two in development that would work, I think), so it's not going to happen for some weeks, if at all. I just wanted some general feedback from the player-base. Thanks.
Sabre
CT Team
-
Sorry you feel that way, Crash. It's a very mixed community, and trying to please even a simple majority is nigh on impossible at times. If you look through almost any post in here, you'll see multiple and opposing opinions on every idea presented since it was first suggested that the CT needed closer attention.
Pretty much every set up we've run has been adjusted based on player feedback. Those suggestions we don't take are often either impossible because of code restritions (or because we've received guidance from HTC not to mess with it), or favor one segment of the population too heavily. And yes, sometimes we don't take a suggestion simply because of a gut feeling that it would hurt more than help. We make mistakes, we learn, we move on. In the case of this thread, I don't believe any of us has "poo-pooed" anyone's ideas. I'm sorry if we've been coming across to you as insensitive to the community. Our ultimate goal is to see the CT succeed.
Sincerely,
Sabre
-
I have to admit, even though my views on what the CT should be frequently differ from Sabre's and others on the CT team, I feel they have been willing to change and update the CT using even some of my feedback. I do think that my views have had some influence on the CT setup, and for the better Crash, so it's not a waste of time. I'm not on the CT team and frankly don't have time to be, but I do think they listen to our feedback and implement some of our ideas. That's all we can ask for really.
-
Sabre, I am just glad you guys are trying. Keep it up.
To tell you the truth, I will fly whatever you put in the CT, but I really do like the early war and pacific set ups. I know you feel like you need to pander to the uber craft flyers in the MA, but dont. Just put in interesting and varied maps. I dont believe getting people in the CT should be your goal (which I am sure it is not entirely).
Most of the people in the MA are like most of the people in Los Angeles. Its no longer the weather, or the beautiful sites, its cause thats where all the other people go. I dont want those people in the CT.
Ever met up with a 109f while flying a spit 5? Its a wicked fun fight right up until some shmuck in a niki shows up and completely ruins the whole historical sig. of the dogfight.
-
ergRTC,
I haven't heard people complaining about the plane sets. I think the mostly historical plane matchups is the reason folks like to fly in the CT, and personally I think it's the "whole point" of the CT. That said, the CT team needs to ensure that enough folks fly in the CT to make it worth HTC's while to dedicate VERY EXPENSIVE resources to keeping the CT in operation. If that means balancing the CT to be more interesting to folks that don't share your interests, then that's what they'll have to do. Granted, they don't need 500 folks in the CT every night, but I think they need to get it more populated than it is at the moment.
Anyway, I think things are generally headed in the right direction. The CT group keeps trying different things, seems to be willing to change things and listen to feedback, and are all working hard to make the CT a success. We can't reall ask for more than that!
-
I've wasted way too much time making suggestions that have continuously gone unheeded. The CT is a complete flop. We can pay lip service to it all we want but the result is the same, very few people want to fly there. I dont know what it costs to keep the server up but if its anything more than pocket change HTC aint gonna keep it forever with only 15 or 20 people in it a night.
I would imagine that sooner or later it may very well come down to make it work or lose it.
We had a scenario become totally oversubscribed by people who were willing to be forced to fly stuff they never fly in the ma and many in vehicles and ships guns and in historical terrain. Why is it that all these people are willing to accept these very restrictive scenario limitations yet refuse to fly the CT? When you've answered that you'll have solved your participation dilemma.
-
like I said.
California.
Thats all the answer you need.
Wanna know how to get more people in the CT? limit MA.
Dont do it though, cause I dont want em.
Let me have the 15-20 for as long as htc will pay for it.
'but the the people are so friendly'
-
Skurj,
I like the idea. As Eagler said, "Variety is the spice of life" and this is what makes the CT different from the MA because the plane sets and historical basis are changing constantly. However, with this particular setup that you mention, you'd have about 70% or more of the same aircraft that are flying the MA. I agree with Lephturn in that what attracts me to the CT is the historical plane matchups. When I fly an F4U, I do not want to be dodging LA7s and 190Ds like I would in the MA. This also holds true with me with a good "what if" scenario. When Germany and Japan were defeated, where was the biggest tension in the world? I would think a good USA vs USSR CT would prove interesting. Say, USA launching from bases in Germany or Japan. Maybe for once LA7 pilots would find themselves in an environment (altitude) where they are not king-of-the-hill when going after high level bombers. However, I'm sure they'd quickly dive to 12,000' or below and there'd be some very good medium-altitude and low-altitude fights.
One thing I think could really improve participation in the CT is if it could use its own particular paint schemes. The MA can use standard schemes but say if the CT were holding a desert scenario, the planes would have tans and off-yellow paint schemes. Beyond that, we really need more aircraft and I vote early-war Pacific. (I really feel strongly that Aces High concentrates on Europe too much, but that's just me.)
(I'd also like to see a water map and have CV vs CV only battles. Maybe uncapturable land for ports so CVs can respond [maybe a heavy bomber base too.] You'd have to locate the enemy CV and then conduct massed attacks against it. I dunno, seems thrilling to me.)
-
Hey steven that sounds very interesting!
Easy map to make too!:D
-
Actually, there's a battle of Midway map underdevelopment that is literally made for the carrier duel. As for the USA vs USSR, I've actually got a book outline for that very idea, an alternate history as it were. In this case, it was the Americans and the British against the USSR. American B-29's versus Soviet-produced copies of Me262s and Salamanders (the single-engined German jet that never saw combat). The American ace in the hole was the Atom bomb of course, but the Red Air Force would make delivery a bit more ticklish than it was over Japan. But I digress. The Soviet vs US/RAF is not a bad idea either.
Sabre
-
I nominate Crash to be in the CT team.
Many of us have been waiting for years for the opportunity to operate our own arena. To decide perk value, plane sets.. Hell they even let us make our own terrains. To me this is a dream come true. We are in essence, creating our own game.
It’s very disappointing to see this arena fail. Sometimes I think the Freepers are right, the people are really sheeple that can be easily lead by the status que. We need some sort of marketing genius that’s been around flight-sims a long time, someone who really knows what Joe flight-simmer wants, I think that fella is you Crash.
If you say you don’t have the time, all they ask for is about 30 minutes a month, maybe every month and a half to set up tables, type in a simple MOTD and the thing runs itself for a week. I understand the CT team have their own board to squabble and sort out what maps and setups work and what doesn’t.
Sabre and Hblair are in a way of knowing how to have you accepted within hours. and... if your looking for financial compensation, I think $30.00 an hour is fine for sitting in front of your computer at home.
So Crash think about it.. your not a critic your a member of the community. Like Curtis Le Mey used to say... “Just Fix it!!”
-
It’s very disappointing to see this arena fail.
Gosh, 10Bears...writing us off a little early, ain't ya?:)
if your looking for financial compensation, I think $30.00 an hour is fine for sitting in front of your computer at home.
WHAT!?! You mean I'm supposed to get PAID for doing this!
:eek: LOL. Actually, the CT staff was originally four people, and we're now down to three. I'm not sure if Pyro is interested in adding the fourth back again, but you can always e-mail him Crash and ask. Just tell him what experience you've had doing scenarios or other similar CM-type work, either here or in another MMPOLS. Also tell him a little bit about your ideas on making the CT better. Beyond that, the job entails having dragon-tough skin, fire-proof long-johns, and an even temper. Do you think you can measure up to those specifications?:D
Sabre
CT Team (singed but not burned)
-
heheh relax Major, just wanted to make a point, these guys that stand outside of the show.... their're part of the show :)...
Sometimes the plumber has to put on hip boots... know what I mean Gene? :)
-
You don't need me, hell if you search out some of my posts you already know what my thoughts are......hmm, they may be gone with the new bb and all. Too bad. Anyone figure out why scenario's are over subscribed yet no one flys the ct yet?
-
Originally posted by CRASH
Anyone figure out why scenario's are over subscribed yet no one flys the ct yet?
no. have you?
-
uhhh yeah its easy.
They are sheeple, they know lots of people will be playing.
Baaaa follow the herd.........
-
Ofcourse Nifty, wouldn't have posted if I didn't:) As a matter of fact the answer is in one of my recent posts.
Originally posted by Nifty
no. have you?
-
Major?....Thought Sabre was a student?
Originally posted by 10Bears
heheh relax Major, just wanted to make a point, these guys that stand outside of the show.... their're part of the show :)...
Sometimes the plumber has to put on hip boots... know what I mean Gene? :)
-
He's retired but I still sometimes call him by his rank. He was in the Air Force for 20 years.
-
Do me a favour Crash... just tell me in this thread what you think the "solution" is. I want to discuss it, but I don't remember what you posted or where, I there is not a search function that works anymore. (That I'm aware of).
-
Why? Start an argument over how it wont work? So we can all waste even more time debating it. So I can spend hours substantiating it to the endless stream of people who won't fully read it and make sure they understand it before posting their objections....no thanks. The information's out there for anyone who wants it. BTW there is a search function.
Originally posted by Lephturn
Do me a favour Crash... just tell me in this thread what you think the "solution" is. I want to discuss it, but I don't remember what you posted or where, I there is not a search function that works anymore. (That I'm aware of).
-
Major?....Thought Sabre was a student?
Yeah, it's my boy-ish good looks. Fools everyone:D.
Sabre
-
You weren't a pile-it, where ya?
Originally posted by Sabre
Yeah, it's my boy-ish good looks. Fools everyone:D.
Sabre
-
No, but I played one on TV;). Actually, I was in Space Command, flying satellites. Before that...well, if I told you I'd have to kill you:D. I've got all of about 13 hours in Cessnas, though I did get to take the stick of a T-6 Texan for a while once. Aerobatics! Most fun I ever had with my clothes on.
Sabre
-
Originally posted by CRASH
Why? Start an argument over how it wont work? So we can all waste even more time debating it. So I can spend hours substantiating it to the endless stream of people who won't fully read it and make sure they understand it before posting their objections....no thanks. The information's out there for anyone who wants it. BTW there is a search function.
You are right, there is a search function. I found something you wrote about making the CT more "scenario" like, but I'm just guessing that's what you are talking about. I'm not sure I would like something like that, but I'm not closed-minded about the whole thing. Shame you don't seem willing to discuss it.
-
20 years here too, 4 active security police, 16 Air Guard, security police, transportation officer and then supply officer. Gettin ready to go back in this month or next as security forces again only this time as an officer. I'd like to get at least 10 more in if its possible. Not sure, I'm goin back in as a captain most likely. I'm due to pin on major soon but I'm inclined to postpone if possible, dont wanna go back into a new field (as an officer anyway) too high in rank, no good for the af and no good for me:)
Only have a few hours in cessnas here too but I'll be changin' that once I'm back in. I may actually have time to do it then:)
Originally posted by Sabre
No, but I played one on TV;). Actually, I was in Space Command, flying satellites. Before that...well, if I told you I'd have to kill you:D. I've got all of about 13 hours in Cessnas, though I did get to take the stick of a T-6 Texan for a while once. Aerobatics! Most fun I ever had with my clothes on.
Sabre
-
Okie Dokie Leph, ya got me. The difference is in fact organization. Two sides flying historical terrain and a/c with realistic military objectives. Thats it, simple. How do we make it happen in the ct, well one of two ways. We run a mini scenario once or twice a week or someone at htc runs one as often as possible. My vote is for htc to do it and I dont mind payin a buck or two more a month to make it happen. We have open singups the week before, everyone gets tossed into a unit and we go. The days we're not runnin one people will come to the ct to practice. Once we get rollin' people will submit scenario ideas like mad and I would be inclined to be very liberal with regard to what gets run. The more reasons you come up with not to do something someone suggested the less likely people are to make suggestions. Its a game, people have fun even when the scenario's poorly designed as long as they get to fight.
If I know that every wed and fri night theres gonna be an organized event in the ct I'll plan my flying time around it. People who didnt sign up will very likely come out of the ma to play reducing the load in the ma. Squads will plan their squad nights around it. Its lookin' like for the CT to work this is gonna need to happen.
Its my view that htc should provide the organization. As far as I'm concerned they could have left it 30 bucks a month and provided more service in this regard, but hey, who am I?
Originally posted by Lephturn
You are right, there is a search function. I found something you wrote about making the CT more "scenario" like, but I'm just guessing that's what you are talking about. I'm not sure I would like something like that, but I'm not closed-minded about the whole thing. Shame you don't seem willing to discuss it.
-
Hmmm, I like your idea more now that you've explained it. There is a lot of work involved there though, and I don't see HTC as being ready or able to do it as you suggest. That leaves the players and the CT crew to handle it.
Still, a regular (dare I say it) "Scenario Lite" a couple times a week in the CT would rock. Those SL's were some of the most fun I ever had back in WB days. I think that idea has some legs as they say. Possibly the CT team could provide some info on maps we can use and what settings we have, then invite folks to submit SL designs. I think you have to try and keep it as simple as possible, because to be honest you just can't get the level of organization you have in a full scenario, it's too much work to do IMO. I think you have to go with something like an SL that doesn't require registration but has a semi-formal organized setup like a scenario.
CRASH, I think you have some good ideas there, and I'm sure the CT crew will be interested in hearing them. Granted, not all folks on this forum will agree with or understand your suggestion, but I think we need this kind of input. Thanks for putting the time in to discuss it. :)
-
Crash: My advice is, take the promotion if it's offered. My dad told me the day I left for basic training (was prior enlisted, then earned my degree and went to OTS), "Don't go seeking greater responsibility unless you feel you're ready for it, but, never turn it down when they offer it to you."
Now, regarding the "suggestion" topic, you and Lephturn's verbal sparing has highlighted the difficult line we've been trying to walk in running the CT. Almost everyone has their own ideas on what would be "the perfect" venue. "Enable base capture, and I'll fly in the CT." "Get rid of base capture, that's for the MA, not the CT!" "Give us histirical matchups, even if it means only a few planes to choose from." "Just make it Axis and Allies; don't limit my choice of ride." "Victory conditions are stupid...people just want to fly and fight." "Make it more scenario-like; people want a reason to fly and fight." Every one of the above are statements make by people in this and other forums. The opposing arguments are almost always in the same thread.
I remember your suggestion very well Crash, now that Lephturn jogged my memory. It was a guiding principle of my first CT set up, "Fire in the Sky." It's the reason I always try to include some sort of victory conditions, and often do things like enabling certain aircraft/vehicles at certain fields, or have captured fields with no aircraft available for the capturing sides. I'm trying to introduce (with varying degrees of success and failure) new dynamics into the on-line play, dynamics such as you'll never see in the MA. At the same time, I still have to make concessions to those who just want to hop on line whenever the mood strikes them and quickly find a {reasonably} historical fight. So while your suggestion may not have been implemented in exactly the way you hoped or intended, the attempt was made to move the CT in your direction. Not every tour, but generally every other one. Again, we're trying to give everyone something to like in the CT, even if there are other elements they would not have put in themselves.
Hope that helps to understand some of the pressures we work under when considering which suggestions to try to implement.
Respectfully,
Sabre
-
I think much of what's mentioned is minutia, it's somewhat important in specific context but taken seperately each item is not very important. Victory conditions change, whats available where and in what numbers, icon ranges, dar, ect. are all fine tuning instruments but not what draws people. What draws them is the organization, two sides, broken down into units, fighting a war with clear military objectives, with clear leadership, and something of a plan....thats what draws people like mad into scenarios and what will draw people into the ct and enable the historical enthusiasts to use the ct for what should be its intended purpose, to immerse players into the wwii air war. While managing all of those other decisions is difficult it doesnt have the impact on attendance of the ideas mentioned above. Those small items can be changed and fine tuned as we go along or just changed so that everyone gets a chance to fly in the environment they want. Theres no reason not to have bar dar one frame and none another to give players of varying opinions what they want. Theres no need to find the "right" combination as long as the basics I've mentioned are in place. As players we could pull it off, we need a website for sign ups, we've already got historical terrains made or in the pipeline. We're gonna need someone to assign people to units and volenteers to lead. We sign up one week, schedule maybe two frames the next week and in the mean time we assign people to units and the leaders come up with a plan, doesnt have to be elaborate, doesnt really matter who wins as long as it gets people in the action. Should probably have 2 lives per frame I would think or at least make it so that as long as you get back on the ground without dieing you can still re-up, the idea being to keep the action going but still somewhat realistic. One of the keys will be to get everyone organized and up as quickly as possible. As walk-Ons show up we group'em together, give'em a mission and a frequency, tell'em who the co is and send'em on their way, this way you dont alienate everyone that shows up after takeoff. Keep it simple, give players a mission and buddies to fly with, an organizational framework to support them, get'em into the action quickly and thats your recipe for success. As we (or you :)) get the ball rolling I think that quite a few squads will step up and help with organization, leadership and participants. To help get the average joe ah drivers attention I'd like to see perk points usable in the ma awarded for participation initially. I think we need to give people an incentive to try it that otherwise wouldn't. I dont think it'll be necessary but its always best to stack the deck in your favor when it comes to stuff like this. We're gonna need a couple people who are willing to spend two hours in the ct once or twice a week to do this and I think htc should provide the support. I dont think it's fair to ask players to do it. Like I said I wouldnt mind payin a buck or two more a month for it and its by far the best solution when compared to player driven events. I dont think its wrong to ask for more than just "yeah, ok, we'll change a setting for ya" from them in this regard.
-
<>
Use the mission planner in the game if you want organized missions. Also, if you want the CT to be only for "pre-planned" "signed up for" missions, what are you going to use the arena for the other 99.99% of the time?
My life does not revolve around Aces High, but rather, Aces High revolves around my life. If it's 9:07 p.m. and I have every task I need done with home and family, I'll jump into Aces High for some fun and for as much time as I can spare. And I'll normally choose the CT for the plain reason that it seems wrong for my F4U-1 to be fighting LA7s and 109s like it would be fighting in the MA. I like historically pitted adversaries as opposed to the smorgesborg of destruction in the MA. I jump into the game for fun, not to pretend I'm a little fighter ace General in a real war.
Prove us wrong. Start making missions in the mission planner or get your web site going with the description of your missions so we can sign up for 'em. And be sure to be providing the leadership at 3 a.m. Pacific Time when I might happen to want to fight in the CT. I'm willing to sign-up, but not sure I can always make it or that I should then be locked out of the CT if I do have some free time available when I'm not signed up for anything.
-
Sigh....ya see what I'm talkin' about Leph?
CRASH
-
Good ideas Crash, and don't get discouraged because someone plays devil's advocate. This scenario light idea has some possibilities. My idea was to come up with a set time of day (or times, as we don't want to leave people out just because they don't live in a particular time zone) where there would be set objectives to accomplish. In otherwords, during the majority of the time, the CT would just be a place to go fight historical matchups. However, during these specific intervals is when the victory conditions would be monitored. Maybe that's to capture certain bases, or perhaps to do as much bomb damage to strat targets as possible, or maybe just a war of attrition.
The scenario objectives would be advertised ahead of time, and the "scenario-hour" (hours actually, probably two, but no more than three at a stretch) would be the sametime and day(s). It would require a minor change to automate the opening and closing of the logs; right now that has to be done manually by a CM. We'd also probably need one or two more people on the CT staff; one to set up the scenario, and another to check the logs and post the results.
Thinking out loud here, so don't anyone panic:).
Sabre
CT Staff
-
<>
Do this in the Special Events arena where it belongs, please. Don't lock me out of the CT if I'm not signed up ahead of time or if I enter the arena mid-frame or I lose my alotted lives.
I wasn't playing "devil's advocate" as that (to me) insinuates I'm taking a position I don't really believe in. As a matter of fact, I think the proposed idea is dumb because the whole idea is to bring more people into the arena as opposed to locking them out...which this will do in my opinion at certain times if you aren't signed up or don't show up on time or if you die more than your allotted lives. I'm not opposed to this type of play and in fact prefer it, but it doesn't belong in the CT because we already have an arena for this specific purpose. Don't muck up an arena I go to (freely at any time and for a time-frame of my own choosing) for a limited plane-set/Axis-Allies fighting setup type of play which the CT is. We have TODs, Snapshots and the four-frame events people can join for organized play in their appropriate arena (Special Events.) Make more organized events for that arena where it belongs if that's the type of play you want.
Well, that's my opinion and do what you want.
-
Steven makes a good point. Why not use the SEA for Scenario Lite type events? CRASH, does what your talking about fit into a Scenario Lite type setup in the SEA just as well if not better than the CT?
CRASH, just because folks don't always agree doesn't mean they don't understand. That doesn't mean your input isn't valuable, IT IS. You can't expect folks to simply agree with you completely, but you have gotten a lot of discussion started here and lots of good ideas kicking around. That has a very positive effect I think. The CT team is listening and discussing your ideas, that's a good start in my book. We're just discussing the pros and cons of the ideas you put out, and I submit that any ideas should go through a similar process before being implemented. As Sabre said... you can't please everyone. However, I think we all appreciate you putting your ideas forward for discussion, I know I do. It's got me thinking. :)
-
Steven, I think you're reading more into the idea I was describing than is there. The idea wasn't to lock anyone out, or to limit lives. It was merely to have a set period or periods during the week where the arena scoring logs would be opened for the purposes of tabulating victory conditions. The arena would still be a 24/7 arena. Also, this idea wouldn't necessarily be applicable to every CT set up, either. The idea was to open up more options for scoring, that's all.
Sabre
-
I think some things would be required for it to be successfull:
1. pre frame sign ups, though all walk-ons welcome throughout the event and walkons would have a choice as to what unit they wanted to fly with.
2. assigned leaders with assigned unit members and assigned military objectives within a larger plan to win the war
3. limited lives though could be rather liberal, ie if you survive you can re-up and if you die twice your done or must gun or gv or something like that, an ma free for all without consequences belongs in the ma and it really detracts from the excitement and tension of an arena with consequences.
4. limited time frame, ie 2 hours, although the war could last for weeks. Actually, that might be a good idea to have many frames last for several weeks or a month, might help draw more people into the fight.
5. Historical matchups and terrain.
6. Using the sea would further fragment the player base and is exactly the opposite of my intent, ie. populate the ct. The ct would have more people in it during non scenario play for practice and such. So Puke, your choices would be keep the arena the way it is, that is to say anemic, or tolerate having to survive for two hours a week all the while gaining the benifits that the above ideas would provide.
Your right sabre, you'd need more help during scenario night, your gonna need a guy to handle walk-ons and we're gonna need CC's for squadron or Wing size units to get their people somewhat organized. Each side will need a CO, primarily to plan though I would imagine that we would have plenty of arm chair generals willing to volenteer. Its been my experience that even when the CO sucks and the plan is horrible most of the participants have a good time anyway as long as they get into the action and aren't super competitive about winning all the time.
Sabre, to my mind it's important not to water down these ideas to the point where everyone seems to agree, leadership by committee as it were. I think the CT needs to be re-invented to a certain extent and I think that requires the implementation of some bold ideas.
Originally posted by Sabre
Steven, I think you're reading more into the idea I was describing than is there. The idea wasn't to lock anyone out, or to limit lives. It was merely to have a set period or periods during the week where the arena scoring logs would be opened for the purposes of tabulating victory conditions. The arena would still be a 24/7 arena. Also, this idea wouldn't necessarily be applicable to every CT set up, either. The idea was to open up more options for scoring, that's all.
Sabre
-
How to make the CT arena a ghost town, read above...