Author Topic: Question? (Read 715 times)

NHawk · « **Reply #15 on:** May 13, 2006, 09:30:49 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by NoBaddy
Ghosth...

The problem is that there are two diametrically opposed forces at work in the game. One side is "I want to pop in and have a little fun", the other is "I want to win the war". HT is attempting to balance them in the MA.

One can only be made more viable at the expense of the other. So, the question for HT becomes, who do you alienate....and to what extent? Since I only rarely drive bombers, I would vote for the low impact strat we have now. With the setup the game has now, it is simply to easy for a small group to negatively impact a large segment of players.

It might be that the "zone" concept should be expanded. Make more, smaller zones. Instead of having an easily visible factory complex that just needs to be flattened to destroy its strategic usefulness, have multiple cities where the factories are not easily identifiable.

I believe the only balanced way to make strat targets move viable is to make them less easy to find and destroy. I also believe the problem is more than simply redesigning maps.

Hmm, combine most of these two ideas and you've given me an idea for a new map!

To the TE Batman!

SlapShot · « **Reply #16 on:** May 13, 2006, 09:44:50 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Ghosth
It changed because HT made it impossible to drop fuel below 75%.
It was a concession to the furballers who'd been screaming bloody murder for years.

I am surprised at this for someone who keeps their ear very close to the ground. You are so very wrong to single out 1 faction of the game.

Everybody was pissin' and moanin' about how fuel was constantly being porked in the latter stage of AH I leading up to AH II. It was after AH II was introduced and the new fuel burn multiplier that they decided to stop the fuel porking ... else no one would have gone anywhere.

GunnerCAF · « **Reply #17 on:** May 13, 2006, 11:15:36 AM »

I think it should take a group working together to effect another countries strat. Like a bomber group hitting cities or factories.

A single person should not be able to stop the progress of another country. If a bomber group is headed to a stat target, the country needs to work together to stop it.

If a single person wants to find a fight, or wants to drop some bombs on a field, this is good, but they should not be able to shut down a country.

I think it works well with the exception of the lone porker who can shut down troops in a large area single handed. Maybe soft targets like troops should be harder to kill at airfields. Maybe they shouldn't be sleeping in the barracks all day waiting for a bomb to drop on them.

Gunner

Goth · « **Reply #18 on:** May 13, 2006, 11:24:06 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Ghosth
It changed because HT made it impossible to drop fuel below 75%.
It was a concession to the furballers who'd been screaming bloody murder for years.

So now its pork ord & troops at individual bases.

In a sense that's true, but not completely. HT also implemented the x2 burn rate on fuel, which IMO evens out the dropping of the fuel ord issue. Old system, drop fuel to 25% with normal burn rate. New system, drop fuel to 75% with x2 burn rate and it's probably almost the same flying time if it was dropped to 25% like in the old system.

SlapShot · « **Reply #19 on:** May 13, 2006, 02:20:43 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Goth
In a sense that's true, but not completely. HT also implemented the x2 burn rate on fuel, which IMO evens out the dropping of the fuel ord issue. Old system, drop fuel to 25% with normal burn rate. New system, drop fuel to 75% with x2 burn rate and it's probably almost the same flying time if it was dropped to 25% like in the old system.

WOW

... somebody who actually gets it.

68DevilM · « **Reply #20 on:** May 13, 2006, 03:00:50 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by FiLtH

Imagine one team fielding a really effective bomber squad that constantly shut down a teams strats. Having the opposing team field a large intercept force to constantly thwart them is rather unlikely.

yeah but it sure sounds fun.......

E25280 · « **Reply #21 on:** May 13, 2006, 03:07:28 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Goth
In a sense that's true, but not completely. HT also implemented the x2 burn rate on fuel, which IMO evens out the dropping of the fuel ord issue. Old system, drop fuel to 25% with normal burn rate. New system, drop fuel to 75% with x2 burn rate and it's probably almost the same flying time if it was dropped to 25% like in the old system.

Oh, dang, its a math thing, . . . powerless . . . to . . . resist . . .

X2 fuel burn means flight time is 50% of historic. 75% fuel load of half historic flight time is 37.5% of historic flight time.

Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't the old model X1.5 burn rate? If so, flight time was 66.7% of historic. 25% fuel load of would then be 16.7% of historic flight time. Current system more than doubled the minimum.

If I am wrong and burn was set at X1, then 25% fuel is (Captain Obvious to the rescue) 25% of historic flight time. Current system is still 50% more flight time.

So, no, it isn't the same as the old system. Maximum flight times definitely got shorter, but minimums became much longer.

Toad · « **Reply #22 on:** May 13, 2006, 11:28:17 PM »

Don't overlook the fact that dropping fuel by percentage affected the various planes in very different ways.

25% in a P-51 is much, much more flying time than 25% in most early war birds.

In effect 25% with even the OLD fuel burn eliminated quite a bit of the planeset due to minimal flight time.

It'd be a greater problem with the new fuel burn.