20% Base capture, autoack and 88's

[DmonSlyr]

total victory should be the only condition IMHO but that is an end game for a two sided war not a three sided war.

For true tactical play I personally think there are far to many bases, but I suppose they are necessary for the type of setup we currently have.

ultimately I would like to see a two sided game that requires total victory, fewer bases. bases/towns and strat objects hardened considerably , dar bar removed for both Air and GV, radar rings effectivity based on Radar strat percentage. visual position notification to remain.

ENY would be of little concern by this point.

but then again I can only offer my opinion.





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

From a world map perspective, more bases in a smaller area would actually provide more action than less bases on a big map.  That's why I've always griped about making bases a little closer and I'm glad Hitech and Bustr have implemented that.

I do believe that radar should be harder to destroy. Tank dar is good for new players, though I don't think it should point to where they are on the map.

I wish that some custom arenas with these ideas could be created, but the biggest challenge is being able to keep the room open all day while keeping 2-5 people in there at all times to keep it active.

The only thing making AA harder would stop is people playing the game like Shufflers first comment. Its just not worth the time.

Zoned areas that are more important than others would provide a better way for players to chose where to fight. Players that are picking on one team to get them down to 20% would move to a new zone if they knew it was more important. This may shift the fight.

You always have players who just want fighter combat who don't care about the map, they will just go where the fight is regardless of the #s or fields on the map. If one side is getting picked on, that's fights to be had! If one side is under 20%, they should be fighting for bases back, that creates fights!

Its hard when not everyone on your team has the same idea of what to do in AH. The people just go where the fight is, the action is, or their sqaud is.

[1stpar3]

I agree, I agree and WELL, Maybe . I understand the OP's point...and Shufflers...VRACIU and Dslayer....I get it but... If/WHEN the situation as in OP's the down trodden country is just getting BEAT UP for no other reason than its.. well hateful(you guys know what I mean). 45% owned by one team...and 29% by the other AND STILL they are attacking the Other country.....Seems detrimental to game play MORE THAN the other situations brought up. Sure as in Shufflers remarks, for some it just wont be worth the flight time AND fighting increased Auto ACK. On the other hand...you will lose more players FROM THE BEATEN DOWN COUNTRY than 1 or 2 who dont want to fight ack. IF lets say, the BEATEN DOWN country is given EVEN A MODICUM of enhanced ability to fight/Claw back into the fight would it not be better? Its sort of like swapping sides BUT with NO TIME PENALTY. The attackers who dont want to fight ack...FIGHT THE OTHER COUNTRY. To me OP's idea would just SUSTAIN the numbers and work sort of like ENY is"Supposed" too. Equal out the fight...no? Its not ALWAYS about winning Da War, at times its just PILE ON, and I dont mind it. SOME DO so I am forced to take their feelings into account as well. I believe the OP is on to something, I can absolutely see something like this HELPING in certain situations   While at the same time I understand the "Dont want to fight the ACK" folk as well. It would ONLY BE An ISSUE for the folk who want to continue attacking a BEATEN DOWN COUNTRY...nothing to stop the other 2 sides starting a NEW FRONT. Its same argument starting point as "well, just swap countries" WITHOUT the time penalty

[Shuffler]

To be clear, I was on the knights side. The only fight I saw was at 27. I even looked to see what the numbers were so I could switch to the low number side to find fights. As it turned out the knights were the low number side by a pretty good margin.

I scratched my head and then scratched my... ummm in any case I just determined to return another time.

I may be on tonight... if I have to I will be hunting, or should I say PORKING 88s. 

EDIT; maybe one of the other sides had a lot of folks in the tower. Who knows........

[The Fugitive]

The only way your going to turn the "2 vs 1" thing around is to force the players to change fronts. Once a team gets 2-4 field captures from one front they MUST switch fronts and capture at least one base on the other teams front before they can continue with the assault on the first teams front.

If it is not coded to force players to do it, they wont do it. Its kind of like a "capture line" like some players asked for (and like we had years ago that didnt work) with out the enemy knowing exactly where the next attack is coming from. It may even get players to switch fronts to grab that "one base" after grabbing the first one instead of waiting until they hit the limit and are forced to switch fronts. More surprise involved that way.

Gamey I know, but maybe add a kill counter as a requirement to capture, to force the attacking force to have to kill 50% of enemy targets at the time of the first damage done. This forces players to fight for the base they want.

How tough is things like this to code? I dont know, but Hitech is a pretty good coader and Im sure he could figure it out if he wanted to.

[Ciaphas]

Putting conditions to capture in the manner you have described would be counter productive.

adding lethality to AAA, hardening structures , shortening down times etc.. will not prevent the capture but it make it considerably more difficult to continue rolling a country.

Adding something like this would also make attacking another front more lucrative for those that want to fight (path of least resistance) and for those that want to score (quicker point earning) and HT could also add a point modifier to those that continue to attack the adjusted countries bases and to those that defend it.

just spit balling here.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Arlo]

The only way your going to turn the "2 vs 1" thing around is to force the players to change fronts. Once a team gets 2-4 field captures from one front they MUST switch fronts and capture at least one base on the other teams front before they can continue with the assault on the first teams front.

I find this idea compelling. Now I only wonder what amount of coding it would take and if it would break the game. It doesn't sound like too much, on the surface ... but I don't code.  

[DmonSlyr]

Putting conditions to capture in the manner you have described would be counter productive.

adding lethality to AAA, hardening structures , shortening down times etc.. will not prevent the capture but it make it considerably more difficult to continue rolling a country.

Adding something like this would also make attacking another front more lucrative for those that want to fight (path of least resistance) and for those that want to score (quicker point earning) and HT could also add a point modifier to those that continue to attack the adjusted countries bases and to those that defend it.

just spit balling here.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

A tempest from a back field would be more beneficial than all of that. 

It really only takes about 3-5 good fighters to take out a hoard enough so that players can roll their planes. If the other team is putting up a fight, that's where the action is, disregard the # of bases they have.  The point of the 3rd team is to make it so the other 2 have to fight each other to win. The team with the least amount of bases should technically be able to take bases back more easily as the other 2 teams fight. Thus creating fights on both sides of the map. There are also fields on the map that cannot be taken, this prevents a total base field capture.

You just cannot stop natural flows of how people play the game, and the situations that the maps are in when you log in.

Be the Temp that stops the hoard! 

[Ciaphas]

A tempest from a back field would be more beneficial than all of that. 

It really only takes about 3-5 good fighters to take out a hoard enough so that players can roll their planes. If the other team is putting up a fight, that's where the action is, disregard the # of bases they have.  The point of the 3rd team is to make it so the other 2 have to fight each other to win. The team with the least amount of bases should technically be able to take bases back more easily as the other 2 teams fight. Thus creating fights on both sides of the map. There are also fields on the map that cannot be taken, this prevents a total base field capture.

You just cannot stop natural flows of how people play the game, and the situations that the maps are in when you log in.

Be the Temp that stops the hoard! 

it wouldn't stop the flow of play it would add consequence to game play decisions and over all strategy.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Vraciu]

To be clear, I was on the knights side. The only fight I saw was at 27. I even looked to see what the numbers were so I could switch to the low number side to find fights. As it turned out the knights were the low number side by a pretty good margin.

I scratched my head and then scratched my... ummm in any case I just determined to return another time.

I may be on tonight... if I have to I will be hunting, or should I say PORKING 88s. 

EDIT; maybe one of the other sides had a lot of folks in the tower. Who knows........

Logged in twice today...saw Buzzkill.  Groaned.  Logged off. 

[8thJinx]

Countries that get ganged to the point they're at 50% or below should get access to a limited stockpile of nukes.  That would be awesome fun.  One bomb flattens a base, white flags it, and kills every enemy plane and gv inside a certain radius.  Or sinks every ship in a fleet.  Or flattens a strat or city.  How fun would that be.

[715]

Re auto AAA friendly fire: I think it's already on by default.  I've flown AH since before it was AH and the only time I've ever been shot down by auto puffy ack it was my own ack.  (I was attempting to defend a CV from an attacker.  Manned ack, of course, cannot hurt friendlies.)

[1stpar3]

Putting conditions to capture in the manner you have described would be counter productive.

adding lethality to AAA, hardening structures , shortening down times etc.. will not prevent the capture but it make it considerably more difficult to continue rolling a country.

Adding something like this would also make attacking another front more lucrative for those that want to fight (path of least resistance) and for those that want to score (quicker point earning) and HT could also add a point modifier to those that continue to attack the adjusted countries bases and to those that defend it.

just spit balling here.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I understood where you were going...I like it. its like a SHOCK COLLAR...it only zaps you if you are THAT hard headed

[Ciaphas]

I understood where you were going...I like it. its like a SHOCK COLLAR...it only zaps you if you are THAT hard headed

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[icepac]

How about a timer that reduces rebuild times of objects such as hangers, town, and guns based on percentage of fields owned and arena population of each side?

[JimmyD3]

How about a timer that reduces rebuild times of objects such as hangers, town, and guns based on percentage of fields owned and arena population of each side?

+1