Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: manybeer on December 16, 2001, 11:45:00 AM
-
Just wondering if anything can be done to Mindnao to make it a little more enjoyable to play on. I always see people complain about it, and it seems we are stuck on it for weeks because it is hard to get a reset.
I think it would be nice if it was easier to get GV's into different fields...that would certainly get the game moving quicker. I think the graphics are great, nice scenerey etc....however we just get sick of it because of all the restrictions.
Does anyone else feel the same way?
Sincerely
Brent...(manybeers)
-
The more I play on this map, the more I love it. There's nothing as awesome as weaving in and out of those canyons avoiding a bogey, only to loop around a mountain and turn the tables on him.
Or it's also funny to watch a low slow P-38 cause a bunch of friendlies to auger into the mountain (watched TAC do this earlier, very funny, I didn't feel like getting my P-51 slow enough to meaningfully engage as I was enjoying the show too much).
The main problem I think people have with Mindanao is the steep cliffs make it rough to use ground vehicles. Perhaps roads and even tunnels could somehow be incorporated into the terrain?
J_A_B
-
yup. Mindanao is my favorite map. I don't GV though, and can understand the gripes of those that do.
-
Yes, mindanao could use more GV action.
My view on the complaints about mindanao is this:
Its a map where furballing is NOT effective. Fields are usually taken after HOURS, if not a whole day of furballing. Or when an organized or semi-organized group go and attack the field. The fields are also layed out VERY well. No side has a marked advantage nor a clear cut path to win the reset. The only bad thing I see in mindanao is that the left side of the map is too easy to defend.
Its a map with many raised fields and rugged terrain and defenders can take off from a raised field near to it to help in the defense.
Compare that to NDISLES, where CV furballs and CV-flak cover are what gets the winning advantage & that fields are only reachable by one or 2 other fields (aka whoever gets the biggest furball wave over the other's field usually wins)... or to Baltic, where the fields are laid out in such a way that pushing for a reset always requires taking the same fields... or to the Uterus, where the front lines are clear cut and narrow, making the fight for each field be just another huge furball.
Mindanao is the only map where you can actually flank, go head-on or encircle the enemy fields.
-
I dislike game play on this map, I stagnates nobody takes the flanking aproach on the west side because it is to easy to see it coming, and defened aganst it. Also with the comparatevly huge numbers of people in the MA these days on the narow fronts this map has you basicaly have huge furballs raging for hours and days over the same sections of the map, I dont particuarly enjoy the furball madness, heck half the time I get kill shoter deaths more than deaths caused by the freaking enemy.
We nead bigger maps.
I do enjoy the Visual apeal of this map though it is by far the best looking.
I dont understand why they dont add some vehical spaws in the canyons like they did on the earler maps, I loved those canyon battles.
-
i've said it before, and i'll say it again...i hate this map simply due to the fact that it's one huge freaking mountain basically. (i also hate it because ever since i left home a couple of years ago to work with the feds, i've been living in mountains...working in mountains...and with this map, i have to play in mountains. hehe).
and lastly, i've said this before...and i'll say it again: I WANNA DESERT MAP (one that's nice and flat for the most part, with a few mountains/ridges...just for shi*s and giggles). :D
The Tuckster
"On the first day of Christmas, my true love gave to me, a beer!"
Bob and Doug McKenzie
(http://members.aol.com/tuck0006/images/lawnd2a.gif)
(http://members.aol.com/tuck0006/images/tucksspitsanta.jpg)
-
I agree with Manybrews on this topic,though Tac makes an observation I never thought of before...Still it's too hard to reset(west based country rarely gets invaded)with the large numbers as of late...I like to look for the small battles but it's hard to find them in prime time on this map.That is just my preference for gameplay though.
-
Yup, we are going through this now. The isthmus leading to the west is so narrow that only one country can, in praticality, pass through. This leaves that invading country being instantly attacked by the other eastern country as they cannot get to the west via a contiguous base. The western country has way too much of advantage in this one.
Crow
-
I love that map. I dont care for GV anyways.
I had an amazing fight with Tac yesterday, he was lucky I wasnt flying his same plane.
I lost, but he didnt win.
YOU HEAR ME MARICÓN?!?!
-
more maps will smooth things right out.
-
Originally posted by mrfish:
more maps will smooth things right out.
I agree but this map just takes weeks while others take 3 days. Map should be changed every 12 days or so, or at least stagnant ones like this.
Don't get me wrong though I apreciate the work that went into making this map.
-
The only problem I have with Mindnao is the advantage held by the country in the western sector. Now, if we could do a NOE attack without sector counters giving it away.... :)
-
Perhaps, rather than field capture being too hard on Mindanao, it's too EASY on the other maps. As noted, the other maps tend to be reset in only a few days. I prefer the back-and-forth struggles seen on Mindanao over the "March to the Sea" seen on Baltic or Lake Shaw.
Personally I think field capture is too easy overall. A map reset should take longer than 2 or 3 days.
Brady: What do you mean by "bigger maps"? Would you recommend using roughly the same number of airfields, but spacing them out twice as far, or is your idea more along the lines of considerably increasing the number of airfields per side without changing the distances between airfields?
J_A_B
-
my two cents,
I like the mindnao map best of all , most difficult flying, fighting , canyon chasing and fighting is great. It seems I am in the minority
but I give AH credit for thinking it up.
Quicker resets I certainly would not object to for those who like variety.
Regards
Groger
-
It's ok. I don't like the high altitudes which fights are driven up to, and I don't like being stuck on it for weeks on end. There are worse maps, but I like some diversity.
Also, even though I don't do much GV'ing myself, I like the gv addition. Combined arms strikes, airfield under attack from both land and air. Not much of that on Mindanao.
Worst map is NIsles. CV dweebery gangbang dweeb map :D.
Hope HTC implements and auto rotate thing so we won't have the same map for more than 7 days in a row.
[ 12-17-2001: Message edited by: StSanta ]
-
Baaa! Tiffie dweeb. You need 4 hispanos to pray for the snapshot kill that is your trademark. :D :D ;)
Cerra el culo que esta diciendo bobadas ;) :D
-
Originally posted by Tac:
The fields are also layed out VERY well. No side has a marked advantage nor a clear cut path to win the reset. The only bad thing I see in mindanao is that the left side of the map is too easy to defend.
What? I disagree. I have never seen the western country become the cause of the reset.
-
This is just one of many threads about Mindanao's design.
I think that what I see both in playing and in reading the oppinions here, is that we are not playing the map correctly.
What I mean, to follow with Tac's great assesment, is that furballing is easy and yet useless.
There are 2 general types of flying in our community. Fighter Jock Furballs, and Strategic Minded Land grabbers.
Now, we could obviously split the 2 into arenas that are conducive to such game play, but do we really want to break up such a great bunch of pilots?
I think Mindinao just as a couple of bases that are to tightly spaced.
What we need is a terrain that perpetuates both styles of play. It should also need to allow for GV's and Naval forces to get equal billing.
Check out my Celebes map (http://www.siteviper.com/terrains/celebes.res) and see if it fits the bill.
BTW, there may be just enough flat area to satisfy Tuck's need (even if it's not sand) :).
Viper
-
best map we have. CV's need to be toughened up a bit tho. Who cares about GV's anyway?
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs1:
Who cares about GV's anyway?
lazs
Funny, I feel the same about CVs
-
yeah but... you fly LW so... your opinion about CV's is worthless.
Still.. If I flew short ranged, (and short sighted) fast climbing planes I would like to see CV's show up near my fields.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs1:
yeah but... you fly LW so... your opinion about CV's is worthless.
Hmmm....I could apply that same logic to you and your opinion of buffs.
-
you could but.. you would be wrong. Faulty analodgy. A common LW problem. Fluffs are modeled poorly in a reverse fashion to CV's. CV's have too little effect on the game because of their poor modeling while fluffs have too much effect on gameplay because of their poor modeling.
lazs
-
Well lasz, opinions are like amazinhunks.
-
Mindnao one of the very best maps, if not THE best map, VERY fun to fly on.
If any one map should go it's the Isle map, nothing but movable acks, CV to field vulchs and more movable 88's all over the freaking place, no where to fly and no where to go without getting a 88 up yer but.
-
It would be a great map if it had some flat areas. It almost seems the only level land on the whole island is the bases them selves. Canyon fighting is fun so i would hate to see it totaly flat, but some areas need it (to promote GVs).
Also if it was possible to fly under the proximity radar this map would be great, but then i think every map would be great if that were the case :)
[ 12-18-2001: Message edited by: Am0n ]
-
"Well lasz, opinions are like amazinhunks.
--------------------
Raubvogel
LuftJägerKorps
Someday, I think I'd like to own a pet bat."
Yes they are and that is why I have stated the facts after you stated your opinion.. Kinda cleans up the air.
lazs
-
The facts as you see them = an opinion. I'm not going to play semantics with you.
-
Originally posted by lazs1:
you could but.. you would be wrong. Faulty analodgy. A common LW problem. Fluffs are modeled poorly in a reverse fashion to CV's. CV's have too little effect on the game because of their poor modeling while fluffs have too much effect on gameplay because of their poor modeling.
lazs
Buffs don't have too much effect on gameplay at the moment because hardly anyone flies them. Most of the times fields are taken via jabos.
They SHOULD be a major effect in the game.
Have you learned anything about the role of aviation in war?
Bombers were a HUGE part of the war effort in WWII (and they still are now in conflicts)
CVs dont have as much effect as they should..why?
IMO: CVs can only reach so many fields plus there is only one carrier in a group.
-
laz is busy looking up semantics in the dictionary. :P
-
Because fields are resupplied much faster than they are buffed down. A Jabo can deal the same damage and make sure the resupply doesnt come in.
Last night we did an attack with 7 lancasters escorted by 5 P-38's and 2 P-51's with our goon being half a sector away from town when our buffs hit the target.
We came in at 18k or so, fought off a jug and a p38 that had upped to intercept. The lancs blasted the town and much of the field down.
By the time the escorts had gone low to strafe, the town was half rebuilt.. because they had seen the big bad bar dar coming and had a resupply goon waiting for us to hit it. Once it was hit, the goon just dropped the cargo and voila! All the hard work and time by the buffs and escorts was wasted. Half the town was rebuilt and an FH came up. The n1k , spit and la7s came up and gave us hell as the escorts tried to strafe the town AND keep the fiters off the our goon. By sheer luck and the goon pilot's rabbit foot skill (Aknimitz! <S> ) was the field taken.
So why buff?
Im starting to think that field supplies should only rebuild barracks , ammo, fuel and a few acks. Anything else just defeats the use of the bomber.
I really wish I could understand that darned Terrain editor utility :(
-
I looked it up and.... mine is still fact and his is still opinion. damn fine word tho that "semantics" thing. thanks.
No.. fluffs should not have a huge effect on gameplay, or more accurately, one person should not have so much effect on gameplay. So far as I can tell from WWII.. the biggest effect that fluffs had on the war was to force the LW to fight and die and... wreck a lot of historic buildings with civilians in em. The A bomb of course was a different thing with very large effect on the war. Cv's or carrier groups had a huge effect on the war for the entire war.
And as far as "nobody flies em" goes... I wish!
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs1:
I looked it up and.... mine is still fact and his is still opinion. damn fine word tho that "semantics" thing. thanks.
No.. fluffs should not have a huge effect on gameplay, or more accurately, one person should not have so much effect on gameplay. So far as I can tell from WWII.. the biggest effect that fluffs had on the war was to force the LW to fight and die and... wreck a lot of historic buildings with civilians in em. The A bomb of course was a different thing with very large effect on the war. Cv's or carrier groups had a huge effect on the war for the entire war.
And as far as "nobody flies em" goes... I wish!
lazs
You should have looked up opinion while you were at it.
o·pin·ion (-pnyn)
n.
A belief or conclusion held with confidence but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof.
You believe that "Cv's or carrier groups had a huge effect on the war for the entire war."
The fact is that carrier groups had almost no effect on the war in Europe. They were a major factor in the Pacific theater, but in the European theater there were only a few carriers and they did not significantly affect the outcome of the war.
You also believe that "So far as I can tell from WWII.. the biggest effect that fluffs had on the war was to force the LW to fight and die and... wreck a lot of historic buildings with civilians in em."
The fact is that the strategic bombing of Germany and Japan was the greatest single impetus to the end of the war. Destroying the infrastructure of Germany's war machine accelerated its downfall. In the Pacific theater the firebombing of Japanese cities killed many more people and did much more damage than the A-bombs dropped.
Bombers played a significant role in both theaters. Carriers played a significant role in one theater. Those are the facts.
[ 12-19-2001: Message edited by: Raubvogel ]
-
The strategic bombing of Germany had little effect on war industry.It also had little effect on German morale,much like the bombing of Britain had little effect on English resolve.It DID have an effect on the Luftwaffe in that it forced the experienced pilots into a war of attrition it could not win or recover from...The factories hit were never badly damaged and were back in action in a matter of weeks.
-
I guess that's why they were forced to move aircraft production to the forests?
-
the germs were producing more planes at the end of the war than at the beginning. bombing japan had no effect on their ability to make war or their resolve to do so untill the atom bomb. Carriers had a huge effect on the war as a whole if you consider japan to be on the axis side. If japan had not had carriers they would not have even been a factor in the war and I bert Germany would not have liked it if the U.S. had concentrated on them instead of a two front war.
Yes.. opinion meant what I thot it did.. thanks tho.
lazs
-
*yawn* I have other walls to go to talk to now.
-
Raubvogel,
Does this back your view?
http://www.anesi.com/ussbs02.htm (http://www.anesi.com/ussbs02.htm)
-
Truth in both arguments. The Axis was forced to disperse its manufacturing, yet it was producing more at war's end than ever before. The quality of that manufacturing was suspect, and this in itself influenced the war's outcome.
-
Yes Seeker, that's what I'm getting at. Axis manufacturing at the end of the war was hampered. A few specific examples: German glue factory gets bombed...the mostly wooden Ta154 project gets cancelled. In Japan, Ki84s are known to suffer landing gear failure from shoddy metal working processes and inferior materials. The list goes on and on, but its a waste of time to try to make your point to a brick wall. A quote from that report sums it up: "As the air offensive gained in tempo, the Germans were unable to prevent the decline and eventual collapse of their economy. " I'll rest my case there.
-
Did strategic bombing of industry work?
I'd have to say, no it didn't.
Did strategic bombing of resources work?
I think it did.
This is all subjective interpretation, but the conclusion I draw from the report is that the Brits had no real material effect on production with the night bombing campaign, and the Yanks didn't really achive much more with day light bombing of production centres. You can flatten the factory, but the production machinery usualy survives, and can be relocated.
The real key was to go after strategic resources, such as oil, ore, rubber and similar, and then hammer communications with tactical, not strategic bombing.
That's not to say the Lancs and Forts had no effect - they tied up enormous amounts of German resources in terms of manpower and material, which did have an effect in every other theatre; but it wasn't the direct result the pre war proponants of "the bomber will allways get through" envisaged. This is further supported by the battle of Britain: The RAF was almost bought to it's knees by the tactical bombing of airfields. Once the LW switched to the strategic approach of bombing production and manufacturing centres, this gave the RAF the time to recover.
I'd say that in fact, strategic bombing did not, could not work in WWII due to the fact there were no strategic weapons, not until '45, and they were used in Japan with effect.
Tactical bombing, the disruption of resupply and the denial of resources is the way to go.
-
The very fact that the effect of bombing is debatable proves my point. It is not in the least debatable in AH.. It has an immediate and intense affect on gameplay in a very scewed and unrealistic manner whereas the CV's are operating in a realistic and "historical" manner with poor, or, undermodleing... They are not near tough enough or big enough.
And raub... if i couldn't argue any better than you I would have to talk to "walls" too.
lazs
-
Good one lasz :rolleyes: You've wounded my inner child.
-
your inner child is a wuss too. and so is the horse it rode in on.
lazs
-
Seeker wrote:
"Did strategic bombing of industry work?
I'd have to say, no it didn't.
Did strategic bombing of resources work?
I think it did."
You're obviously correct on the second part. On the first, it depends on whether "work" means "bring the enemy to his knees" or whether it means "seriously affect Nazi production." It certainly didn't stop the production, but it DID seriously affect it. In January, 1945 Speer and his people decided that the bombing had cut 1944's planned tank production 35%, aircraft production 31% and lorries (must be Euro for "trucks"?) 42%. Production of some/all of those things went up, in an absolute sense, from previous numbers, but not to what it might/should have been.
Seeker continues:
"The real key was to go after strategic resources, such as oil, ore, rubber and similar, and then hammer communications with tactical, not strategic bombing."
True. Note, though, that the transportation targets were hit by the entire 8th AF (as well as those large odd-looking English planes) beginning in May, 1944. It wasn't just the strafing 47s and Typhoons that stopped the Nazis from shipping their coal to their steel mills by war's end.
"That's not to say the Lancs and Forts had no effect - they tied up enormous amounts of German resources in terms of manpower and material, which did have an effect in every other theatre; but it wasn't the direct result the pre war proponants of "the bomber will allways get through" envisaged."
True. Note Speer's point, however, that having 1/3 more 88s and 128s on the Eastern Front might have significantly helped the Nazis out against the Bolsheviks; that 2 million Germans were engaged in air defense and bombing-mess cleanup; and that 20% of all ammo produced went to fight off the bombers.
Seeker stumbles:
"This is further supported by the battle of Britain: The RAF was almost bought to it's knees by the tactical bombing of airfields."
The RAF was almost brought to its knees because it chose that course. There was no military need for Eleven Group to be based where it was. Like the continuance of the channel convoys, it was a noodle-size competition.
"I'd say that in fact, strategic bombing did not, could not work in WWII due to the fact there were no strategic weapons, not until '45, and they were used in Japan with effect."
Did I imagine it? I thought the Survey concluded that, had the Allied ground forces not ended the war quicker, the bombing campaign would have brought Germany down within six more months. And....ummm....why was it that Nagasaki and Hiroshima, of all places, were picked for A-bomb practice?
After one more drink, Seeker concludes:
"Tactical bombing, the disruption of resupply and the denial of resources is the way to go."
Ummm....did you get this from Herman Goering's book?
Heh heh.
- oldman (looks sideways at door, places hands under table in anticipation of quickly turning it over.)
-
THE UNITED STATES STRATEGIC BOMBING SURVEY (http://www.anesi.com/ussbs02.htm)
"... The Attack on the Railways and Waterways
The attack on transportation was the decisive blow that completely disorganized the German economy. It reduced war production in all categories and made it difficult to move what was produced to the front. The attack also limited the tactical mobility of the German army....."
Interesting read, for those who haven't.
-
Oldman quips (Jealous that people laugh when they say "Achtung! Jug!"):
"There was no military need for Eleven Group to be based where it was."
Forgetting the fact that in designing the sensous silhoutte of that greyhound sleek Empress of fighterplanes, The Spitfire! (notice the caps and obligatory exclamation mark)Mitchell forgot to put any petrol in it, and, as seeing as we hadn't got round to inventing A2A refuelling at the time, where were we supposed to put 'em?
"Like the continuance of the channel convoys, it was a noodle-size competition."
Well, you know those sailors. RN, Kriegsmarine, was it ever going to be a match?
"I thought the Survey concluded that, had the Allied ground forces not ended the war quicker, the bombing campaign would have brought Germany down within six more months."
And that's what they said before the ground forces got there too. "Give me four hundred Lancasters, and I'll end the war in six months!" was a remark I've seen attributed to one some would call the luckiest war criminal in Christendom....
"Ummm....did you get this from Herman Goering's book?"
No, Stormin' Norman's. Unless, your're suggesting the US military have been influenced by....nah..
:)