Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: Preon1 on November 11, 2001, 12:01:00 PM
-
Intro:
Last evening, the 34th Highland Raptors and the Buccaneers met to eat dinner and discuss the strategy regarding our joint ops operations for that night. The plan called for a systematic bombing campaign against enemy strategic targets before taking bases. This strategy was knocked down for the reasons I am about to mention:
The Problems:
*Convoys and trains completely and immediately rebuild whatever they supply (strategic or otherwise)
*Because goons carry 10 units of cargo that repair everything within a mile, they can drop just one on a town, base, or strategic target, a single goon can resupply any combination of these 10 targets.
*Even if you've completely cut off an enemy base from its logistic support (either through killing strategic targets or through disrupting supply lines), the base rebuilds. This goes the same for strategic targets as well.
My questions:
*If I put 20,000 lbs of bombs on a headquarters to destroy it, how is the train that arrives there going to be able to carry enough to rebuild the whole thing? Also, how is it going to know what to bring depending on what's destroyed?
*For that matter, if I put 20,000 lbs of bombs on a headquarters to destroy it, how is a single box dropped out of a goon going to repair it? We're talking about a VERY big building and a comparatively tiny goon.
*Lastly, if we're going to resupply bases with convoys, why do they still rebuild themselves?
My Ponderings:
*If a strategic target is leveled, it should take a good while to bring it back.
*If a base or strategic target is completely cut off from the rest of the country, it SHOULDN'T be able to rebuild; the only exceptions being cities and depots.
*The number of trains running should be a function of a rate determined by the health of the city.
*The number of truck convoys should be a function of a rate determined by the heath of a depot.
*It should take at least two trainloads to resupply a strategic target.
*What trains and supply convoys are capable of rebuilding should be a function of the health of the strategic targets when the convoys left the depots.
*It should take a FLEET of goons to resupply a strategic target
*A single resupply crate should have a limited value of targets it can resupply and should resupply only those targets that are nearest where the crate dropped.
*and FINALLY, on the isles map, there should be sea borne convoys to supply islands. After all, the purpose behind fighting over the seas is to secure ocean trade lanes.
Conclusion:
The reason why the war doesn’t seem to go anywhere is because it is impossible to cripple an enemy. It is way too easy to rebuild a target. This needs to be changed if we’re going to see a new map for a reason other than a hardware upgrade from HTC.
For those that made it this far, thanks for reading.
-
Very interesting and certainly worth considering. I think right now rebuilds are a bit too easy myself ... but dont know the alternative.
I kinda think you should be able to choose what you repair. I think a C47 should be able to repair more items than an M3. But I also think you should be able to control what you repair. For example, I think the VH is the most important hanger at a field under attakc. Yet when I resupply a field, sometimes the VH doesnt get repaired. What if I could drop supplies right next to/or on top of VH - this should repair VH. Same would be true for each other item I wanted repaired. I can see this might get a little complicated, but this is just an idea to spawn discussion?
Nim
-
I think the instant respawn is the reason were seeing the same map for weeks on end. Considering we now have a system to rebuild bases using convoys, m3's, goons, maybe the bases should'nt respawn themselves. If a hanger is destroyed, its destroyed until convoy, m3, goon or whatever resupplies it.
-
Oh, also, cities and hq's are useless now. If cities and HQ were immune from resupply, there might be a reason to bomb them
-
The more I think about this, the cooler it sounds. If bases don't autospawn and the capability of a goon to resupply a base is decreased, the importance of the supply lines will increase. That means that there will be a greater importance placed on interdiction missions.
Right now, people don't use planes such as the P-47, P-38, yak-9T, and hurr-D for the purpose that they were used for the most... killing ground targets. Using something close to this strategic change will probably increase the number of convoys and increase the number of interdiction missions.
That will increase the number of historicly accurate 2v1 and 2v2 missions that would occur due to planes flying interdiction missions and others flying interception missions. It might also decrease the number of furballs. (I think that's a good thing)
-
I think one problem is the automatic resupply by trains and convoys.If some one had to get in the cab of train and run it to point needing supplies,it might help strategy out.Like C47s and M3s do.
-
I think the MAIN problem is the lack of understanding of the new resupply system. You can easily cripple the system if you just know where to strike. It takes more then a single bomber, though. This sort of operation will take cooperation on a scale we haven't seen, as yet.
I haven't been able to muster the cooperation out of Bishops, as yet, but it's coming.
-
Here's another idea: Base DEGENERATION
Let's say a base goes a long time without the benefit of a resupply. It makes sense that they would start running out of fuel and ammo for regular missions and parts to keep regular maintenance up on antiaircraft positions.
So wouldn't it be cool, if you kept a base under siege for a while, if it started losing fuel, ammo, and ack positions?
-
My question... how is 20,000 pounds of bombs gonna destroy the ability of a base to launch fighters? What, kill their parking spot??? It is silly. How do heavy bombers kill cv fleets? Scare em to death?? it is silly.
I suppose that if you have silly bombers you will have to make the strategy just as silly and the more complex the "strat" the more obvious that the bombers are the problem.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs1:
My question... how is 20,000 pounds of bombs gonna destroy the ability of a base to launch fighters? What, kill their parking spot??? It is silly. How do heavy bombers kill cv fleets? Scare em to death?? it is silly.
I don't have so much of a problem with that. 30,000 lbs of bombs will kill 10 Fighter Hangars at a large field. It makes sense that without those hangars, they wouldn't have the equipment to maintain fighters in working condition. My problem is the fact that all of those tools are in a tiny box brought in by an M3
Also, don't forget that one of the early demonstrations of American offensive air power was when General Billy Mitchell used MB-2s to sink captured german ships, including the unsikable "Ostfriesland". We tried using B-17s on jap ships in the Pacific theater but the Japanese had the presence of mind to turn their boats... wonder where I've seen that?
-
Preon, your argueing with Aces High's version of "Eeyore"..."it'll never wooooooorrrk..." :D
-
Hmm... sinking one dead in the water and undefended battleship is not the same as killing a fleet. WWII proved this. As for killing a bunch of carports taking out all the fiters... LOL.
lazs
-
The main flaw in the presentation is the use of "realistic" elements.
The strategy system is more than just figuring how a base was realistically destroyed/resupplied. It is also figuring how it was realistically defended/captured and so forth.
If I look at a base capture with the new strategy, I don't see goons resupplying as being the main deterent. With dar and towns... that's another story but not with base capture.
Do you want to know why base capture is so difficult in AH? Watch one some day. Watch what happens at the start, middle and end.
If it is an organized attack, it will take 2 minutes to close the base and capture it. I've seen this too many times to think it impossible.
If it is even remotely disorganized, you might see the vh go down.. but usually not. Thus the presence of ground forces wich most everyone will try to straff (even though the vh is still up). Then everyone will get into a vulch fest at the base, maybe straffing a hangar when they get bored. Nobody will stay above 1000 feet and everyone falls victim to the defenders that now arrive from a nearby base. People are even so vulch festive that a C-47 can fly right in the middle of them and dump his cargo. This is what I see in 80% of all base captures.
The re-supply system is totally unrealistic. But so is the base capture system. The re-supply offers some means to recoupe a base. If you think its too easy, then you should try flying a C47 or driving an M3 more often to see how easy it is to fend off fighters.
BTW.. your idea that it should be possible to "cripple the enemy" may be something you want to seriously think about. If this is possible... on more than just a "we don't have dar" level... what are the implications? Could a country be so succeptable to crippling that once the momentum starts to build there is absolutely no way to turn it? Most of your proposals do that.
Example: A fleet of bombers destroys a base... what is the incentive to capture that base? None... they move to the next base and destroy it knowing there will be no re-supply. There isn't even a need to kill ack. You can totally deny the enemy the ability to lauch planes at 14 bases using 5 lancs.
It seems that if map rotation is the biggest concern, it should occur on a timed basis... say every week (or less.. I don't really care how long). Perk points can be awarded to the country with the most bases at the end... since they've managed to hold the most bases.
Basically... strategy is not added to the game. Strategy is what you use to play it. Address the concerns and plan for them. That is strategy. Not having HTC remove the concerns.
Prior to 1.08, the need for strategy in AH was minimal... and it was still too difficult for most to deal with. In 1.08, the need for strategy has been enhanced greately and its time people started to learn that strategy is how you play the game... not the game itself.
AKDejaVu
-
The way I see it, the problem in the game is that the strat targets are not vital enough to make us attack them. Add to that the insta-resupply problem and attacking them becomes a waste of time.
So far what are the strat targets?
HQ, Depots, Factories, Cities, Towns and Fields.
How do they work now?
HQ=Radar. Knock it out, dar goes out.
Depots=Source of supply trains/trucks. Knock it out and trains/trucks dont come out of it.
Factories=Determine rebuild time of respective structures in airfield (fuel, ammo, troops)
Cities= Affect global rebuild time. Knock it out and stuff will not rebuild for hours in some cases.
Towns=None. You need to have it down to capture a field though.
Fields=You need to keep them, you need to take them.
How these work together make it so that ONLY the depots are viable targets... because they prevent the resupply train from upping everything on the base you just spent the last half hour leveling. All the other targets are either too deep in enemy lines or useless to attack since a single goon can up it all up in 1/4th the time it took you to kill it.
WHAT I PROPOSE:
Make EVERY one of them be important. Something that HAS to be defended or it will affect your war efforts.
Here's how I think it should be:
Towns=Towns should determine the time the field should rebuild. Knock the town out, and it wont rebuild the field until the town comes back up. Towns should ALSO have their OWN map room and a VH of their own. TOWNS SHOULD BE CAPTURABLE. Capturing a town should NOT mean the capture of the field. More of this below.
Cities=Affect the rebuild time of factories, HQ and TOWNS. Knock the city down, it will seriously hamper the other side.
HQ=Should affect BAR radar (not the dot dar near fields), TRAIN TIMES (if HQ is down trains will take 4X the time to depart from depots) and there will be NO info on the status of enemy fields, friendly fields and friendly factories (since there will be no HQ to filter that info out to the rest of the country).
Factories=Knocking a factory to 50% will reduce the amount of the factory's production in ALL fields down to 75%. Knocking the factory to 25% reduces the amount of stuff on fields to 50%. Killing factory to 0% will set a PENALTY rebuild timer of 2X rebuild (fields will NEVER be reduced below 50% if the factory is destroyed).
Fields= Each field should have their OWN VH on the opposite side of where they have the town. The Field should have its OWN map room BETWEEN its VH and the field. Add this to the towns having their OWN VH's and Map rooms and you will get a GUARANTEED chance at ground war (in ANY MAP!!). If you lose the airfield but hold the town you can counterattack with GV's, hold the town but not the field and you can assault the town via gv's.
DEPOTS: Fine as they are now.
Note: For this to work, the resupply system will have to be re-worked. How? Instead of having ONE goon upping EVERYTHING up, why not CHANGE the goon/m3 loadouts to have a goon resupply a specific thing?
Goon/M3 loadouts: AAA Supply (will up 25% AI acks and ALL manned acks), FUEL (will resupply 25% fuel..so if field is at 50%, one supply will up it to 75%), AMMO (same as fuel, but for ordenance), TROOPS (same as fuel and ammo), FIELD SUPPLY (will REDUCE THE REBUILD time of the structures by 25%..this will also be used for rebuilding towns, cities, etc), GV supply (ok as it is now).
This will allow players to fully up a field's specific stuff by having 3 or 4 goons/m3's resupplying field. If a field is FLAT and the attackers have been pushed away, it would take around 12 resupply flights to bring the field up to at least 75% on each.
Would be nice if HT added some MANNED AT guns around the fields.. when the panzers start rolling.. the guns start flaring =)
And of course, fix the 38L and add the 38J & F!!! :D :D :D
-Tac
-
For the sake of fueling the disucssion, here is my earlier post regarding upgrading the strategic system in AH's MA. I fully agree with Preon1 that goons and M3s have no business being able to rebuild strategic targets. They should only effect bases, and even then it should take more than one goon to completely rebuild a completely flattened field or base. Preon's point, if I may be so bold, is that the strat targets really aren't strategic...rather, they're superfluous. Some targets should be important enough to maintaining the offense that they are worth attacking and defending.
Note that none of what I have suggested would detract from those who play this sim simply for the air-to-air aspects. However, for the wargamers in the crowd it adds more possiblities for advancing the progress of your country's military campaign. It's all about move and counter-move.
_____________________________ ______________
With the addition of roads and rail, it is now possible to add a more complex logistical model to the main arena than a simple rebuild time modifier. The strategic posture of a modern nation-state at war is a complicated system that has been likened to a human body. Factories and their supporting cities are the body's organs, processing raw materials and turning them into the essential building blocks to propel and repair the body. The road and rail system (and maritime transport where applicable) are the arteries and blood vessels that carry those building blocks to the rest of the body. One can choose to attack the body's functioning in different ways. You can attack the extremities directly, as in crippling a hand of a leg. Cut all the arteries and veins feeding that extremity, and that appendage sickens and eventually fails. Lastly, you can go after the organs themselves, paralyzing the entire body until it dies.
Right now, the strategic system in the MA only affects the rebuild times of things you damage. You could completely destroy all the factories, refineries, and other strategic targets (leaving the HQ out of the picture for the moment) of the enemy, and they can continue to pursue the war without pause. Likewise, killing convoys and trains has no affect on the situation at the front, except to delay (not prevent, just delay) rebuilding of destroyed facilities. So long as no damage is done to a base, destroying any strategic targets or logistic lines-of-communication (LOC - the convoys and trains) is a useless gesture. Conversely, when a base or factory is damaged, the arrival of a convoy, train, or supply drop causes a complete and immediate resurrection of the facility. This also is unrealistic (dare I use that word in connection with the MA?), and overly simplistic. Now that we have LOCs and strategic targets modeled, we have all the elements to more closely simulate full-scale warfare.
What am I talking about? Supplies! It should now be relatively easy to model all the effects of isolating a base, either by cutting its LOCs or by hitting the source of supplies. There are two ways a base's capabilities should be negatively impacted. First, the enemy can destroy stuff at the base. Second, consumables like fuel, ordnance, and troops can be used up. Either situation can be fixed by the timely arrival of fresh materials. The difference is, cutting off the supplies can render a base nearly useless without the need to strike the base itself. Destroy a convoy to a base, and that base should begin to run out of supplies. Kill the depot, and all bases in the area should run low on supplies. Destroy a country's oil refineries should affect all bases throughout the country.
Now before anyone panics at what I'm suggesting, let me go into a little more detail of what I'm proposing. Let's take the situation regarding fuel at a base (the system can be extended to cover other items like ordnance and troops). A base starts with fuel at 100%. So long as a convoy arrives on schedule, fuel remains at 100%, unless fuel tanks are destroyed by enemy action. Bases normally get a new convoy dispatched to them 5 minutes after the previous one either reached the base or was destroyed. What I'm suggesting is that every convoy that fails to arrive have an incrementaly detrimental effect on the availability of fuel. The first convoy that fails to reach the base causes fuel availability to drop to 75%. The second missed convoy in a row drops it to 50%. A third missed convoy in a row drops it to 25%. This is as low as it can go as a result of missed convoys or destroyed fuel tanks.
Damage to fueling facilities at a base destroys the fuel storage capacity; killing half the fuel tanks will reduce the capacity to store fuel by 50%. Thus you may have a fuel storage capacity at a base of 50%, but only have 25% fuel available due to 3 missed convoys in a row. A convoy's safe arrival has two affects. First, it repairs 25% of the remaining damage to the storage tanks. Second, it completely resupplies the available storage tanks (including any just repaired). Going back to our example, a convoy arrives, repairing enough fuel storage tanks to store 75% of full capacity (remember, we were down to 50% storage capacity due to damage, but 25% fuel available due missed convoys). The convoy also fills all the available fuel tanks; i.e. fuel availability is now at 75%, or 100% of the non-damaged fuel storage capacity. Supply drops would have a simlar effect as the safe arrival of a convoy, though it should require more than one C-47 to completely resupply all items on a base.
Ordnance could be handled in a similar fashion, by dividing up the classes of weapons in the following fashion:
Ammo at 100% - all vehicle and aircraft ordnance available
Ammo at 75% - all aircraft and vehicle ammo available, plus rockets and bombs smaller than 500 lbs
Ammo at 50% - all aircraft and vehicle gun ammo available, plus rockets and bombs 100 lbs and smaller
Ammo at 25% - all aircraft and vehicle gun ammo 40-mm and smaller available
Troops would either be available or not available, based on damage and convoy status. Barracks destroyed or three missed convoys would disable troops at a base. Only a convoy could rebuild and/or resupply barracks; resupply missions would have no effect on troop availability.
Strategic Targets:
I haven't quite figured out yet how trains affect the current MA, except that they affect rebuild times of strategic targets (which ones, I'm not sure of). However, here's how I'd handle them. Generally, production facilities are place in a location near the source of their raw materials (oil refineries are near the oil fields, generally; steal mills are near ore deposits, factories are near population centers). So the flow of finished goods is generally via rail roads, between the production facilities and the population centers. These population centers (cities) also act as distribution centers, funneling the goods out to the areas that need them. Trains would move between the finished goods from where they're produced towards the city. Because depots can be captured, the movement of goods from city to depot would have to be handled in the abstract. Convoys would of course radiate outward from depots to bases.
The terrains in the MA should thus be laid out as follows: Each country would have one or two cities (regional capitols, we'll call them). A refinery, barracks complex, and an ordnance factory complex (collectively known as production centers) would be scattered around the regional capitol, connected to that capitol via a railroad. Trains would spawn at the capitol, in a major rail marshalling yard (a large train station, in other words) and head towards the production centers. Ideally, it should be the other way around, with trains spawning at the production centers and moving to the cities; however, you can only have so many stations in a terrain. Besides, I want the marshalling yards (stations) to be part of the regional capitol. The depots would in turn be connected to the bases via the road/convoy system.
We've already talked about what happens to bases when their supply line to the depot is cut. Now for the strategic part of the equation. Damage to the regional capitol would simply affect rebuild time of the production facilities and the city's marshalling yard, just as it has in the past. This reflects the city's role as a labor pool to repair and operate production centers. Damage to a particular type of production center will cause shortages of the product produced at that production center at all depots in the region. This in turn would restrict that product at bases fed by that depot, just as if the convoy had failed to arrive (but only for that specific product; other products would still be available). The percent damage done to the production center would dictate the reduction at the base. Resupply drops would still have the same effect as they do when missed convoys cause the reduction (this represents a redistribution of supplies at the front, rather than an infustion of new supplies). Damage to the marshalling yard in the city (a separate target, but co-located with the capitol) would prevent trains from spawning. Likewise, hitting the train from the production center to the capitol would also cause shortages, but for shorter time than damage to the production center or the rail yard.
Again, the idea is to recreate more completely the myriad of ways to affect an enemy's ability to make war, at the tactical level (hitting the bases and convoys), the operational level (hitting the depots and trains), and the strategic level (cities and production centers). Because hitting an area target like a factory would now have a more immediate impact on the war effort, you'ld likely find more bombers plying the skyways with a system like this. It will also give Jabo's more jobs to do, jobs they traditionally performed. What do you think?
_____________________________
[ 11-12-2001: Message edited by: Rojo ]
-
Sabre,
Sweet ideas. I think however, if HTC is going to make the city the main marshalling point for the entire train structure, then they may have to model a larger city. (Ofcourse that could be the buff pilot in me hungering to drop more 4k bombs on dense paper targets worth lots of perks :D )
-
As a fellow squad mate and friend of Preon, I feel the need to add my simple thought to this post... The problem may be that there is not enough strategy in the game, not enough variables to contend with. But you'll find that in all games, you can't please everyone. I feel the problem is in the mentality of the players. It's a thing called INSTANT GRATIFICATION that is getting people all riled up. What do I mean by this? In real life pilots flew for hours before they ever reached a target sometimes. I know it's not feasible to do this in the game we play, but how about less bases, and making maps a little larger. That way you wouldn't get to just take off and end up in a furball 2 minutes outside the base. It would take some time to get some altitude... perhaps then we would feel more like pilots than the typical "Counterstrike-esque" players we have become. I hate getting airborne and not even given a chance to get altitude before I have players from an nme base 5 clicks away diving on me. So to add the realism, and keep attracting all types of players to the game, I would move bases a little farther apart, and maybe make the spacing more erratic, not so defined. I agree heartily with all the suggestions to have mathematical formulas manipulating the supply lines and their effect on the country. If anyone remembers, a player made a post a long time ago about the "fluid front" I forget who it was, but this was an outstanding article, basically the same as this one. Good luck AH, and keep up the hard work. All these changes keep us on our toes!
-
A lot of these are really good ideas, but I guess the real question is this:
HiTech, do you think any of these are feasible, and if they are, are they marketable?
-
Geez I sure hope so :D
Being an avid "wargamer" myself I can see all sorts of missions that could be developed with that kind of strategy in mind.
Surprised lazs1 hasn't been in here more trying to shoot down an idea totally contrary to his "closer bases" post :)
Awulf
-
well.... you guys have had your say. I am of course totally opposed to most of what yu want. lady wants the bases farther apart.. take off farther back I say. Others want to affect the enemies ability to make war.. Limit player choice, to sum it up.
I can't speak for anyone else but.... I play an hour or two at night. I don't give a whit about the grand plan but i do despise having no radar while everyone else does. I hate having the only useful fields have the silly 25% fuel thng. I would really hate any of the "board game" silliness that you have all suggested. I bet I'm not alone.
If you make people log off it don't matter how many anal posters yu get to agree with you.
lazs
-
Lazs1 wrote:
I bet I'm not alone.
No, I'm sure you're not. However, from the lack of support for your position in this post I'd venture that you're in the minority. As for "board game silliness," I can only reiterate that some of us want a purpose to our gaming experience besides just furballing. Nothing suggested above will prevent those who's only objective is to try to shoot others down from pursuing that goal. No one has suggested limiting plane choice or availability beyond what is already built into the game. With the coming changes in bomber operations (read the HiTech interview at http://www.wargamer.com (http://www.wargamer.com) ), the ideas espoused above would give those changes true purpose.
The reason Aces High has more than just fighters is because it is trying to attract the widest player base possible. This is how they sustain and grow their business, and how they can afford to produce more fighters for you to furball in. Stop biting the hand that feeds you. If this game had nothing but fighters, with opposing bases always within spitting distance, it would be Fighter Ace...and it would have died already.
[ 11-13-2001: Message edited by: Rojo ]
-
rojo... u have apparently not read this thread. Certainly, you have not read what I posted. Bases further apart and strat that limits parity and variety and choice along with action does indeed affect me and my ilk. Bases closer together do not affect you and your ilk unlesss you are willing to admit that you are in the minority and that most people would shun the anal boredom of board game strat for the fun of simulated air combat.
I would rather see bases closer together and easier captures along with fighters available up until base capture. I would rather the "front" moved mre rapidly in keeping with the time "normal" guys have to play. I would contend also that during any peak time you will find that "most" of the players are not participating in the so called "strat" except in a peripheral manner. I would also contend that 90% of the guys you see playing during peak times do not post to this or any other board but... they do expect action, parity and variety.. they do not want things that are complex or cumbersome or take hours to accomplish. You got to admit... 99% of us have never read the help files or care about em.
lazs
-
<Sigh> Pearls before swine. I would engage him in a battle of wits, but it's not fair to fight an unarmed opponent. Anyone have any constructive comments?
-
Lazs1 said:
I would rather see bases closer together and easier captures along with fighters available up until base capture. I would rather the "front" moved mre rapidly in keeping with the time "normal" guys have to play.
For someone who promotes furballing over all else why would you even care about a more fluid front line? That indicates a desire for strategy rather than just some close stable bases in which to furball from.
Regardless of what happens there will ALWAYS be furballs AND strategic attacks.
So suck it up and roll with it :D
Awulf
-
To be honest, considering that AH is inheriting all the business from AW, we're going to see a lot of changes in the MA (anybody notice that the new max is like 400 something people).
First off, I think the maps will simply get a lot bigger to avoid the crowding that we're already starting to see. We'll probably still see a furball on every front, but, like now, the furballs won't have much to do with the outcome of the war.
Personally, I'd like to see the outcomes of those furballs decided by the work of a comparatively small number of people working in the supply lines. That won't end the furball... it'll just move it back a base, in the direction favoring the country with the strategically minded personnel.
Both worlds can live together and affect each other; I'd just like the strategic world to become a little more malleable.
"Amateurs study tactics. Professionals study logistics." -Napoleon
-
I'm his squadmate so I may be a bit biased, but I think Preon's right about the current status of the strategic targets in the game. Once upon a time, when you saw a single dot or two heading towards your HQ, people would scramble fighters to intercept them. Now, people just lift supply goons to reverse the damage done by 20,000 lbs worth of bombs dropped 20 seconds earlier.
I don't have the solution, although I've read many good ones in this thread, but I hope that HT will do something to fix the current situation. And lazs, this won't hurt your precious furball in the least.
-
I would disagree with bases further apart. However, I would agree with a more complex and developed strat system. I think preon and sabre make excellent arguments here. I dont want a 1-dimensional game as lazs seems to suggest.
Jarbo
-
I think you have missed my point and in rojo's case... are simply poleaxed. closer, easier to capture bases with no restrictoions on fighters till capture would allow more people to particpate (or seem to). I have nothing against "goals" if... they promote action rather than destroy it. "moving back a base" with the current field distance is a disaster for those who only have an hour or so to play and have no interest in some anal, gamey, complex and unrealistic (oops allready said gamey).
Face it... to add strat to such a game as AH you have to make these huge concessions to realism and add all these unrealistic elements to the, comparitively, "pure" realism of FM's, gunnery, and damage models. Every step towards board game strat is a step backwards in realism. At least... the ones I have seen so far and the ones suggested so far. How do you reconcile the fluffs for instance? They are a joke and you are trying to make em a larger part of the game.
lazs
-
mj... of course it will hurt my "precious furball in the least". If you can cripple a field or 3 so that any fighter action has to fly a couple of sectors or more to engage other fighters then the action will be sporadic and unfun. This should be obvious...
If, on the other hand, the bases are closer together but easier to capture with planes available til the end... the fights will center around the base "capture".
In you guys case... you depend on forcing people to fly in a manner that they dislike. In my case people fly any way they want out of choice. both methods end in "capture the flag" but... those who don't care about the "war" are still having fun while it is happening. In your scenario... those who like action but have no interest in monopoly have nothing to do but mill around chasing red bars that dissapear or double in size before you can get to em. Squads who don't want to spend half their time in the towers are fragmented... never seeing squaddies.
lazs
-
At the risk of turning this into an anti-Lazs post, I quite frankly don’t understand what the guy’s motivation is. The vehemence in his posts here and elsewhere, the disrespectful and denigrating tenor of his posts, all points to an unreasonable paranoia that the different ideas being explored above might actually be implemented. He claims his views represent the majority, and that any move to make the game play more strategically realistic (granted, we seem to disagree on what “realistic” means) would totally ruin the game for this silent majority he claims to represent. Yet, HTC would not change things in any way that would alienate and drive away a major percentage of their clientele. See? There is nothing for the guy to worry about. So why come in here and disrupt with acerbic language (he uses the word “anal” three times…a fetish perhaps?) a harmless bit of musing by this (at least by his reckoning) minority? These are suggestions on things that would improve our enjoyment of Aces High. We won’t convince him of our view, and he won’t convince us, since we’re obviously viewing things through dissimilar paradigms.
Instead of running our ideas down with condescending language, why doesn’t he instead start his own post on what his ideal vision of Aces High would be? I would be curious to know, and promise to look at his ideas with a more open mind than he has shown thus far. And I promise not to use words like “silly” or “anal.” Oh, and lighten up, guy! Its just a game.
-
I would disagree with bases further apart. However, I would agree with a more complex and developed strat system. I think preon and sabre make excellent arguments here. I dont want a 1-dimensional game as lazs seems to suggest.
The MA is not one dimensional right now. People are playing with totally different goals in mind.
The main thing the MA is: simple. The strat is simple, the fighting is simple, everything is simple. It really needs to stay closer to that than complex. Not everyone plays AH to participate in "the war". It is not right to change the game so drastically that they are virtually excluded.
I read the initial post and some others and get the feeling that this is what people are striving for. I do believe that is not the proper direction.... not for the MA.
Basically, to the author and others:
If you feel AW has brought enough people over to merit a more advanced strat system, then tell them to get their butts in the CT and ask for these changes to be implimented there. I regularly see 250+ players in the MA with 0 in the CT.
AKDejaVu
-
I never claimed the MA is one-dimensional currently. I think the strategic system could use some complexity. I want many diffent ways to accomplish base capture objectives. I was implying that to simplify the MA to "close base fast capture furball with no strategic system" would be very one- dimensional.
Also the CT doesn't have base capture or any objective other than historic matchup fightering. The strategic system is completely useless here. This setup is extremely one-dimensional and IMHO contributes to the lack of interest in the CT.
Jarbo
[ 11-14-2001: Message edited by: jarbo ]
-
Complexity is the issue. Some want it in the MA, many do not. That goes for dogfights and strat. I think that's the point lazs so ineffectively tries to get across.
The complexity should come from other arenas and events... not the MA. There is no way to make AH "one arena suits all".
BTW... there is something else that is important to remember. The numbers playing the game have decided to do so with the current system.
AKDejaVu
-
AKDeja, I don't disagree with your assertion that the set up in the MA should not exclude anyone. I don't believe the bulk of the ideas discussed above would do so, either. I agree also with Jarbo that the location of the bases is not the issue (never was, in my opinion. I'm suggesting that the MA can offer more to more people than it currently does. I used to love to do mass bomber raids on enemy cities and HQ's, but there is now no incentive to do so. I also think that the addition of trains and convoys allows for a lot of possbilities without taking away from those that simply want to fly around and get air-to-air kills. That's why they were added in the first place.
While the above suggestions may go too far in some peoples' opinion, I think there's likely a happy medium that could make the MA a better experience for all. Remember, air combat is more than shooting other fighters down (other peoples' opinion not withstanding). As HiTech said in his recent interview, there's a balance he's seeking: Maintian the utmost realism in the flight model, but provide a great gaming experience for the largest crowd possible.
-
The main exclusion issues come in with changing strat systems. Adding to them (as was done with 1.09) is seldomely the same as it only creates additional opportunities.
The one thing I've also noticed is that with the strat additions made to 1.09... there is more furballing than I've ever seen before. This might be as a result of the AW closure, so its hard to tell, but its obvious that a large chunk of the arena really could care less about any complex game strategy.
As I look at the above suggestions:
*Convoys and trains completely and immediately rebuild whatever they supply (strategic or otherwise): I could care less
*Because goons carry 10 units of cargo that repair everything within a mile, they can drop just one on a town, base, or strategic target, a single goon can resupply any combination of these 10 targets.: A vailid point with one exception. How long would it take for a single goon to resupply 10 different targets?
*Even if you've completely cut off an enemy base from its logistic support (either through killing strategic targets or through disrupting supply lines), the base rebuilds. This goes the same for strategic targets as well.: This is the one I find completely disrupting. By being able to disable a base's rebuild, you make it possible to close a large number of bases with a small number of bomber pilots... without having to bother with capturing them. This is a virtual pandora's box and would be one that should be avoided at all costs.
And the conclusion sums up why this thread is entirely in the wrong direction.
The reason why the war doesn’t seem to go anywhere is because it is impossible to cripple an enemy. It is way too easy to rebuild a target. This needs to be changed if we’re going to see a new map for a reason other than a hardware upgrade from HTC.
I'm sorry... but "crippling the enemy"? Play the game and see what kind of whining is emitted when a country loses both of its CVs. "If I can't launch from a CV I just log off". Denial of vision with clouds or darkness: "I don't fight in storms" or "I log off as the sun starts setting."
HTC has avoided anything in regards to denial of resources nationwide. This is a strategy I happen to agree with. If that is introduced, the tools are at hand to make things quite misserable for another country.. to the point they can't recover. Its bad enough now that two countries excelling in one area (numbers) can roll over a third... make it so that you can reduce their resources on top of that and you make it totally pointless for the gangbangee to fight back.
Complex strategy in regards to supply are a good idea... just not in the MA.
AKDejaVu
-
Why do you automatically assume that any complexity or change to the strat system would ruin the game in the MA? You stated that its a possibility that the new strat system increased the furballing action, and is a positive benefit. Why couldn't additional complexity enhance gaming more, if implemented correctly? HTC has always been very careful on new additions that they don't destroy the fun. If it did, they would rapidly change it back.
Jarbo
-
"Complexity is the issue. Some want it in the MA, many do not. That goes for dogfights and strat. I think that's the point lazs so ineffectively tries to get across.
The complexity should come from other arenas and events... not the MA. There is no way to make AH "one arena suits all".
BTW... there is something else that is important to remember. The numbers playing the game have decided to do so with the current system."
well deja... It seems that I am not so inefective that you can't get it. I believe that it is a reading comprehension problem combined with wishfull thinking that makes it impossible for some to understand.. I believe that I am quite clear and to the point.
I can't claim to speak for the majority but.. it is apparent by even a cursory glance into the MA what most people prefer to do. It is not the furballers who moan and groan that no one participates in furballs... heck, give em a couple of close fields and the furball will be created... No, it is the "strat" weenies that are forever whining about "all they want to do is furball" "it was nothing burt a big furball" "nobody wants to cooperate, they only want to furball". It's not me claiming to be in the majority it is the strat guys telling me I am!
There is plenty of so called "strat" to do right now if people wish to but they mostly...don't... the more complex... the less point to it for those who want to have fun or have limited time. We are not interested in a stirring game of monopoly.
You may say that we just don't have the "right" strat yet but I believe that is like saying that "communism works... they just haven't done it right yet".
lazs
-
I think the two sides in this understand each other perfectly.
The Buccaneers + attatchments gain motivation in the game by using combined and coordinated ops to curtail the enemies ability to resist. They feel that the current strat system advertises this ability but does not deliver on it due to the ease of resuply.
Lazs wants a strat system that gives the strat players things to do without limiting his fun during the limited time he plays a day.
I think both sides have presented their arguments well. I think that a great many players would aggree with lazs if they were presented with a crippled country every time they logged on. Such crippling is very unlikly to be performed by the underdogs but rather inflicted on them.
HT has gone out of his way to present us with a fragile but repairable infastructure. I am sure he is not finished the balancing and discussions such as this will help.
But from someone who is not sure either way, I would say that Lazs represents his concerns well. And they are real concerns.
This is more then just dont drop my hangers..this is about only wanting to play for 2 hours but not wanting to man an ack the whole time cause your fighter factories have been cratered
-
The main exclusion issues come in with changing strat systems. Adding to them (as was done with 1.09) is seldomely the same as it only creates additional opportunities.
Version 1.09 brought the possibilities for more opprotunities; however, one could argue that the strat changes in 1.09 (as currently implemented) actually took away opportunities. I point to the lack of interest in HQ and city attacks.
its obvious that a large chunk of the arena really could care less about any complex game strategy
I would be cautious before making broad statements like this with only empirical evidence to point to. It's also possible that we have more furballing because there's no point with the current strat system to do anything else.
You will always be able to find a furball, and I'm glad. There are times when I have a half hour to kill (pun intended), so I up at a base close to or right in the middle of a fight. The question is not "should I be able to close an enemy base." We already can close them and close them completely. In fact, what I've suggested above could never close an enemy base by itself, nor prevent it from engaging in a point defense of that base.
The remark about communism is simply inflamitory. That sad experiment died after being tried repeatedly. There are those who said democracy would never work either, that the experiment known as the United States of America was doomed to failure. The difference is that democracy was tried and seems to have succeeded. It is certainly a more complex scheme than a simple monarchy or dictatorship. Yet it works pretty good.
Complexity is not inherently bad. AH is a great game in many respects. Does that mean we should shy away from anything new? New aircraft alone will not keep AH vital and improving. Let's try different things. If the majority finds those changes detract from the game, they will make their voices heard and HTC will heed their call. They will heed it because that's the only way to make their business grow and last.
Oh, and Pongo: Great to hear from you on this. Please understand that neither I or anyone above has suggested that aircraft choices should be limited in any fashion by hitting strat targets. That would be disasterous! Smashing hangers and (for bombers) ammo bunkers at the base (as we do now) should be the only way to prevent aircraft from launching, in my opinion.
[ 11-14-2001: Message edited by: Rojo ]
-
Version 1.09 brought the possibilities for more opprotunities; however, one could argue that the strat changes in 1.09 (as currently implemented) actually took away opportunities. I point to the lack of interest in HQ and city attacks.
Actually... I agree with this and said as much early in the thread (in regards to dar). But overall... strat has increased greatly.
As a rule, the only real reason people attacked factories in previous versions was a low risk perk point boost or attack stats boost. They've always been a somewhat minor part of the MA and strat. Not much was lost there.
As for DAR... I do agree that re-supply should not be possble there. But that really only buys you 15 more minutes or so... so once again... no big deal.
But then, this thread wasn't just adressing those things. A handfull of people <or squad> want to more drastically affect the outcome in the arena. There is a clammoring for a means to do this. That is a bad idea.
AKDejaVu
-
I'd like to point out the situation that brought us to this debate: Our joint bomber offensive was going to target enemy infrastructure and then hit the HQ. This would allow us to attack multiple rear area bases with a low probability of somebody responding.
In the past, this was a goal that we could accomplish. Yes, hitting the HQ would normally only give us a half hour in which to work before we had to hit it again... however, if we attacked the city, that would increase the time it would take for the HQ to be rebuilt.
I don't mind if plans like this are foiled. I don't mind if an HQ can be rebuilt... but an operation like that takes some serious cooperation, timing, and communication. It also takes numbers and time. What a shame if that operation can be foiled by a single goon pilot with a pack of base rebuilding crates, or a single train that just happens to show up 30 seconds after the bombers pass overhead.
-
Umm.. preon1... you do realize you've just tried to justify that you should be able to do the same thing over and over and over again.
Strat is figuring things out. Adjusting to the environment. Predicting the unknown and preparing for it. Work on that. Using "we can't do it the way we used to" does not demonstrate an incredbile understanding of strat in general.
I don't mean that to be a knock. But when the same old thing won't work... time to figure out something new. THAT is strategy. THAT is what made some generals famous.
AKDejaVu
-
Strategy is figuring out how to limit an enemies freedom of action before the battle is joined. Preon1 understands this very well. What you refer to, Deja, is tactics. What Preon1 was lamenting was that the strategic infrastructure in AH has no practical purpose in the AH main arena. Why we hit a target is strategy; how we hit a target is tactics.
-
I stand corrected.
Irregardless... this thread is basically a complaint that the game isn't as predictable as it used to be.
AKDejaVu
-
Unpredictability is a good thing. Being unpredictable is what allows a group of 5+ pilots thinking strategically to take bases.
My only problem with the system right now is that there are no effects that last more than 5 minutes. If there are going to be targets with strategic value, then that implies a reason for me to hit it. However, if I'm going to spend an hour on a mission that involves me risking my neck on a high altitude incursion behind enemy lines where I'll probably get popped by a 262, there should be a benefit that lasts longer than the time it takes me to land.
The fact that the enemy can trail me in a goon and undo my work nullifies the worth of that risk. Instead of enjoying the full spectrum of possibilities in the MA, I am forced to conduct a time management exercise and realize that I can accomplish more in a furball than I can in the enemy's rear.
If there's no point to attacking the target in the first place, then why spend the time? or why take the risk? If your response to that equates to a "so what? it's your problem", then I must ask why these targets are there in the first place?
-
Plan to defend the target from resupplying...
That would be the biggest "way" I could think of to prevent something from coming up 5 mins later.
AKDejaVu
-
Just the opposite, Deja. Complexity breeds choices.
-
Somehow the idea of defending a target deep behind enemy lines that you can't put troops on doesn't seem very tenable... and one which doesn't have any real worth in the long run.
Surely you're kidding.
-
Just came out of Mindanao map.Nme hitting our base hard.I bombed their fuel and barracks down after fighting to get there.Fuel and barracks popped up within 5 minutes.Not enough time for a goon to resupply.Automatic train.Tried it again.Same thing happened.The automatic resupply makes bombing useless in Mindanao.
In 1.07 you at least got 1/2 hour relief when you bombed something down.So what do I do.I go furballing.Thats why you got more furballers.
On N-D Isles map which does not have depots on the small islands,you can do some strategic bombing and kill resupply etc.To get it back up,they have to up a C47 and resupply it.If they do,good on them.But the strategic bombing on other maps is just not there at this time due to the automatic resupply.
-
giving you the ability for crippling a country for hours on end will not force the furballers to participate in the strat... it will force them to log off.
You guys have used many different words to say "limit the ability of fighters to take off or be useful". In the end... It all raises a red flag to me tho and all I see is the inevitable outcome of boring 2 or more sector flights (to and from) chasing red bars that go away or double in size by the time I get there.... Actionless drivel... And to what purpose? Is having fighters spread out in ones and twos across the map "realistic" is higher alt hide and seek more worthy action than the good ol historical melee? Of course not. Is making the gamey and embarassing elements of the sim like fluffs, more important a good thing. No.
I guess I would ask.... what do you forsee happening if your ideas were implemented? do you actually believe that those with an hour or two of free time would participate in some boring building smashing "mission"?? Do you not see how at first, people would simply complain of the lack of action that you created and then.... simply begin logging off? Great for WB, bad for AH.
lazs
-
In other words, you believe that people fly bombers merely because they like to see the "city building destroyed" message fill the text buffer. While that IS cool, it's not really enough to get most people to fly bombers. Personally, I fly bombers because I know if I hit something, (be it a base or a strategic target) I stand a chance at facilitating the movement of that furball into enemy territory and away from mine.
To me, I think a game in which you can use strategy to become more effective has more merit than one in which you simply charge into combat and die simply to charge back in. We have a difference of opinion here. Such is life.
-
well... that was some fancy footwork that "moving the furball" thing but... You and I both know that not only is "moving the furball" of little concern to you but.. Your suggestions would pretty much destroy any action at all much less... furballs.
when you blind a country or shut down it's fuel for a major part of the day/hour(s), you are in essence ruining the fun for a large percentage of people who are only on for the short term action. When you force these same people to take off from 2 sectors away from a fight that may or may not exist by the time they get there.... you force those people to log off in disgust.
If the fields are closer and easier to close with fighters available till the end then everyone is participating and... more importantly, having fun. the choices are many. Join the fast paced and fast moving "front" or... take off from a back field and gain as much alt as you wish, finding like minded folk to fight with, ignoring the peasants down below. If you don't find anyone to play with then maybe YOU are in the wrong game and maybe it's not best to "force" people to play your way by removing the options for them to have fun.
lazs
-
Lazs, there are so many things wrong with the line you've taken, I simply don't have time to respond to them all. Let me just see if I understand you correctly.
1) Are you suggesting that there should be no way to disable flight/spawning at fields at all? That destroying fuel tanks, ammo bunkers, barracks, and field radar should not be allowed, so as not to restrict a pilot's freedom in any way up to the moment the last trooper runs in to the map room?
2) Are you suggesting that only fighters should be allowed in the MA?
3) That the only kind of air combat that should be represented or have meaning should be air-to-air, fighter against fighter?
4) That the destruction of any other ground targets besides ack and (maybe) airfield towns should have no affect on the war in the MA?
Help me to understand your position, instead of mindlessly attacking others'. Your main argument seems to be that anything that prevents you from taking off in the plane you want, from where you want, and carrying what you want is inherently evil. Yet, aren't you asking those that choose to fly differently and for different reasons, to bugger off? What about their freedom? I say again, not everyone logs on to Aces High for the same reason.
So please, to tell me what your ideal vision of Aces High is. If it has no room for people that like to fly bombers, or to Jabo trains and trucks, isn't your vision the more restrictive one?
Maybe if all the suggestions above were implemented, it would hurt the player base. However, I believe many have merit, and could be implemented in such a way as to be an overall enhancement to gameplay in the MA. I'm at least willing to consider it. When the current base capture model was implemented (the need to kill every building at the town to capture), there were plenty of complaints: "It's too hard to capture a base now!" "It's too easy to capture a base now!" We adapted, made suggestions on improvements to HTC, then moved on (yes, even you). Yet, you seem incapable of believing there might still be ways to improve the overall enjoyment of Aces High's MA. Again, who is trying to exclude whom?
-
rojo... I am not your enemy.. it is your grade school reading comprehension teacher who is.
I stated what i wanted.. I would also say that... I would like each country to have one or more large city(s) when this city(s) is say, 75% carpet bombed to death.... say 10 lanc loads on target, and... that country is down to two fields.... "the blah blah have won the war" message comes up. Reset.. No crippling anything like radar or fuel or whatever. I would of course, also like to have seperate "areas" on the map for early, mid and late war fields. Fields closest together at early area and farthest apart at late area. Furballers could appear to be part of the strat or.... even join in when it was FUN. Strat sis... "guys" could plot and plane and sneak and claim "victory" or plunge to the depths of despair depending on who won/lost the "war". Action lovers could ignore them or not... depending. everyone wins.
lazs
lazs
-
"Word"
-
Originally posted by lazs1:
I play an hour or two at night. I don't give a whit about the grand plan but i do despise having no radar while everyone else does. I hate having the only useful fields have the silly 25% fuel thng.
lazs,
There is a very simple solution for you. Since you dont care about the grand plan, the country you play for.. uhh sorry .. the country you play in should not matter either.
Every time you log for your hour or two, you can select the country with lots of players and a working radar. Thus you have your intact bases and furball targets.
Or simply just go to the duelling arena with all those players who agree with you how the gameplay at MA should be.
-
Preon1,
Excellent ideas. Just disregard the stupid counter arguments.....
Just imagine if chess players began whining about their limited choises when game pieces are lost and the game progresses... "I want to be able to play with my bishops all the way through the game.. it is unfair that you took both my bishops :(" :eek:
-
WTF.. it went in the wrong thread. Must be God trying to tell me something.
[ 11-17-2001: Message edited by: AKDejaVu ]
-
Originally posted by BlauK:
Preon1,
Excellent ideas. Just disregard the stupid counter arguments.....
Just imagine if chess players began whining about their limited choises when game pieces are lost and the game progresses... "I want to be able to play with my bishops all the way through the game.. it is unfair that you took both my bishops :(" :eek:
Just imagine a chess player that wants to be able to kill the opponents queen first move with one of his rooks.
-
For Laz to say that strategy and strat bombing is "unrealistic" is well....unrealistic :p and they both certainly have a place in AH and the MA.
Obviously bombing and strategy was, and continues, to be effective. It's not the be all/end all but it certainly is an important element to a balanced war effort. And unless sublety doesn't work...I am also implying that furballing doesn't win wars.
If a person who can only play an hour or two a day wants to furball without strat concerns (the inconveinence of flying a sector before engaging or limited fuel/ammo) then may I suggest that they visit the Dueling Arena or H2H.
That point aside I would like to salute preon and the others <S> for having creative and thoughtful minds to offer innovative suggestions to how AH can get better. I have been told that HiTech left Warbirds due to a lack of continued improvements (probably an over-simplified explanation) so I really doubt that someone (hint laz) who doesn't want changes will hold much sway here.