Author Topic: ENY disablements (Read 10347 times)

Kev367th · « **Reply #270 on:** August 18, 2004, 12:43:48 PM »

Sound like the current perk modifier rehashed. HT has already stated that perks are not going to fix the problem, they haven't up to now.
Would be all for hardening strats etc, except that how would you know what you need to take them down. I am sure most people like to know that 8000lbs sinks a cv not, I wonder how much it needs with our numbers.

DoKGonZo · « **Reply #271 on:** August 18, 2004, 12:51:45 PM »

I think that the mission system is also terribly under-utilized, and I must confess that I haven't even looked at it myself (as I'm still re-learning the game).

However, having now just looked at the manual page for it, I'd suggest a "quick mission" interface. For instance, make it possible with a few clicks to pull together a mission like: "Prevent A42 from being captured; launch from A43." - or "capture A42, launch from A43." No waypoints, plane specs, etc. - but ADD IN a mission end time for these quick missions.

So if you're on defense, you could pull together a CAP mission from the nearest base quicly, grab a bunch of pilots and launch instead. If you can keep the base from falling for the duration the mission is set for (nothing less than 30 minutes!), then you were successful. Points would need to be awarded to the fallen as well.

With such an interface, you may see people on offense start using the system as well. And with a max time, they need to capture the field within the time frame or they don't get the perk bonus. So none of this endless orbitting of enemy fields.

Put simply, provide a sreamlined mission interface for basic attack/defend profiles suitable for people to quickly be able to take control of the local situation and organize forces. And then provide an incentive to use that system.

Captain Virgil Hilts · « **Reply #272 on:** August 18, 2004, 12:52:57 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Kev367th
Sound like the current perk modifier rehashed. HT has already stated that perks are not going to fix the problem, they haven't up to now.
Would be all for hardening strats etc, except that how would you know what you need to take them down. I am sure most people like to know that 8000lbs sinks a cv not, I wonder how much it needs with our numbers.

It ain't just rehashed. It's reworked to drive things in a different direction entirely. Think about it again. Perks now control usage of planes that throw off the balance, and makes it harder (more expensive) for numerically superior countries to fly them. The proposed change drives a country that is outnumbered to work together, and gives them incentives to do so. The rest of the system stays the same. No extra penalty for having numbers, but advantages given for being outnumbered but organizing a resistance rather than logging or whining.

The current perk system does NOTHING to encourage working together, which is what makes a country grow and the numbers equal out. In my opinion that is why the current system does not work. Or at least produce the currently desired result. That is the reason behind the changes.

A simple percentage notation will deal with the hardness difference. It could be posted under strat.

System: Hardness percentage adjusted for country "X".

Player then looks at the drop down menu on status for countries or bases, and sees country "X" has "Y" % harder strats etc.

milnko · « **Reply #273 on:** August 18, 2004, 12:53:14 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by DoKGonZo
I know a lot of people dislike rolling plane set. It's just a shame that we have 6 years worth of planes and only use about 6 months of it. And the trap of late war planes is that they are so capable on their own. You can do well without a wingman in most of them. Not so in pre-1942 rides - where everyone's level cruising speed is pretty close and you aren't bristling with high-quality cannons. And pre-1942 you'd have to use bombers and dive bombers for field capture - no fighters around capable of carrying 1000 pounders..

IMO the use of late war rides are offset by the fact that your up against other late war rides, wingmen are still a vital part of survival in the MA.

I'd definitely like to see more use of the early war mounts, but without a RPS I just don't see how this could happen. And we all know how bad the whines were in WB over the RPS (i.e. Jet Night)

Quote

Originally posted by DoKGonZo
Just increasing the number of C47's needed could change things a lot.

I was thinking more along the lines of doing away with C-47s being able to capture a base, after all how many bases were actually captured using Paratroops? Instead require M-3s only. And if needed, move spawn points closer to airfields to keep gameplay interesting.

Quote

Originally posted by DoKGonZo
Another thing that I think adds to the vultch situation is the toughness of GV's. You end up with 20 fighters vultching 10 or 12 GV's so often and it just stays that way for a long while - boring for all concerned. I don't think 50 cal's should take out an Ostwind (well ... it should kill the crew ... but anyway). But if certain planes had closer to historic effect on GV's, then you may see more specialization. I'm talking the Sturmi and Hurri IID mainly here. If these planes were more effective at killing GV's, you'd probably see them in action clearing bases. And they need protection from fighters - so again, this would enhance team play and may give people who still haven't mastered air-to-air something they could get good at and contribute with.

Couldn't agree more.

milnko · « **Reply #274 on:** August 18, 2004, 12:57:27 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by DoKGonZo
I think that the mission system is also terribly under-utilized, and I must confess that I haven't even looked at it myself (as I'm still re-learning the game).

However, having now just looked at the manual page for it, I'd suggest a "quick mission" interface. For instance, make it possible with a few clicks to pull together a mission like: "Prevent A42 from being captured; launch from A43." - or "capture A42, launch from A43." No waypoints, plane specs, etc. - but ADD IN a mission end time for these quick missions.

So if you're on defense, you could pull together a CAP mission from the nearest base quicly, grab a bunch of pilots and launch instead. If you can keep the base from falling for the duration the mission is set for (nothing less than 30 minutes!), then you were successful. Points would need to be awarded to the fallen as well.

With such an interface, you may see people on offense start using the system as well. And with a max time, they need to capture the field within the time frame or they don't get the perk bonus. So none of this endless orbitting of enemy fields.

Put simply, provide a sreamlined mission interface for basic attack/defend profiles suitable for people to quickly be able to take control of the local situation and organize forces. And then provide an incentive to use that system.

Or let the game create a list of missions for you to join, base D, base capture, etc.

Zanth · « **Reply #275 on:** August 18, 2004, 12:59:50 PM »

Also knowing ahead of time the layout is an advantage to the attacker and maybe too much information?

Should we know before we reach destination that field A32 is airfield type Large and there are are "X" numnber of target "B" located at position "Y" etc etc. ?

Is it possible to randomize the field layouts or contents somewhat? (edit: how about randomize stratigic target hardness within some guideline. )

Captain Virgil Hilts · « **Reply #276 on:** August 18, 2004, 01:03:06 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by DoKGonZo
I think that the mission system is also terribly under-utilized, and I must confess that I haven't even looked at it myself (as I'm still re-learning the game).

However, having now just looked at the manual page for it, I'd suggest a "quick mission" interface. For instance, make it possible with a few clicks to pull together a mission like: "Prevent A42 from being captured; launch from A43." - or "capture A42, launch from A43." No waypoints, plane specs, etc. - but ADD IN a mission end time for these quick missions.

So if you're on defense, you could pull together a CAP mission from the nearest base quicly, grab a bunch of pilots and launch instead. If you can keep the base from falling for the duration the mission is set for (nothing less than 30 minutes!), then you were successful. Points would need to be awarded to the fallen as well.

With such an interface, you may see people on offense start using the system as well. And with a max time, they need to capture the field within the time frame or they don't get the perk bonus. So none of this endless orbitting of enemy fields.

Put simply, provide a sreamlined mission interface for basic attack/defend profiles suitable for people to quickly be able to take control of the local situation and organize forces. And then provide an incentive to use that system.

If I may add to the brilliance of this idea.

Also add an automatic announcement of the mission by the system for that country. Let the system tell the country a mission is available. This will reduce the load on the creator further, and increase his chance of filling a mission and executing it.

Few things discourage people from creating missions and such than hassle, and lack of participants.

Were you to add that AND the incentives in my proposal, there would be every reason to take part in missions, create missions, and work together.

The idea is to make people WANT to fly with you and your country. That is how you increase the player base, level the playing field, and make the game better. That is the solution. You can't force people to switch, you really can't force them to do anything, at least in a game. You have to make them WANT to. Make them want to, and they will be happy to have the chance, and happy to take it. If you build it they will come, for lack of a better phrase. People who are playing for fun will react much better to a positve incentive rather than a negative penalty.

Dok,
Sorry to intrude on your post and hijack it. But thanks for the opportunity to have something great to build on.

milnko · « **Reply #277 on:** August 18, 2004, 01:04:40 PM »

I like that idea Zanth, it would require players to use recon flights to determine a fields type and layout, which in turn alerts the enemy of a potenial attack. Plus it may put planes like the TA-152 more into play for recon missions.

Morpheus · « **Reply #278 on:** August 18, 2004, 01:05:50 PM »

I would love to see more missions come back to AH. Its been quite a while since there has been anyone notable who posted missions on a regular basis which were also successful.

I hope this conversation helps bring back some more missions to the game.

Morpheus · « **Reply #279 on:** August 18, 2004, 01:18:37 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by hitech
Pyro and I this morning were kicking around the idea of making 2 changes.

The way the reset system works is that once a country is down to a set # of air fields the war ends.

Was thinking of raising this number to between 4 or 6, or posibly a % of the original fields.

2nd would then also change field capture (no specifics) but the changes would make it a lot harder to capture a field.

One we didn't discuse but I have been thinking about, is moving towns farther away from the fields. This would promote more fighting and less vulching when trying to capture a field.

On a side note: It is refreshing to have you around again DOK, it is fun for me discusing game design, from a game design view point, VS this is what I want view point.

HiTech

I understand what you are getting at HiTech, but with the new field designs and larger towns, taking a base is already much more involved than it was in AH1.

Back then, when you got over a base and the fight was gone, you shot up the town. Being that they were much smaller, it wasn't long before the town was down and people were yelling out for a goon. End result is a group of players, (Somtimes large sometimes not) organized or not, could go from base to base and take one after another with ease.

Now, with larger towns and many more buildings if you dont have a fairly large number of players bringing bombs to kill a town it will not go down and the base will not get captured. This is what I have seen anyways since the release of AH2.

Moving the towns further away from a base may give the other players who are rolling from that base get up and fight but it would have to be very far away I think. If a player is intent on vulching another, or not letting that player get any sort of advantage or next to even playing field, he wont.

Altho, on the upside of your ideas, making bases harder to take would posibly promote more missions in the game and lead to a stronger community/country as a whole.

Im torn here now with your ideas. May be good or it may just be not needed.

Can you clarify on just how far you are thinking of moving the towns?

hitech · « **Reply #280 on:** August 18, 2004, 01:31:33 PM »

5 Mile range.

HiTech

kj714 · « **Reply #281 on:** August 18, 2004, 01:35:58 PM »

"One we didn't discuse but I have been thinking about, is moving towns farther away from the fields. This would promote more fighting and less vulching when trying to capture a field."

sounds like fun, add some mannable guns at the town.

How about a town VH?

Alpo · « **Reply #282 on:** August 18, 2004, 02:05:27 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by hitech
5 Mile range.

HiTech

Personally, I think adding distance from base to town will make it easier to capture. Even if you place a spawn point to the middle of the town, one VH killer and a few vulchers at the base leaves the town defenseless to a few heavy bombers or Me110s and a lone goon.

It seems it's always the occasional La7 that survives a vulch pass or three that is able to scream toward the town just in time to kill the goon or at least a few drunks.

FWIW, I like the idea of a GV spawn very close to the towns.

Zanth · « **Reply #283 on:** August 18, 2004, 02:07:20 PM »

Good idea on the guns.

How about a creating a manned 88 AAA gun for use in terrains here and there?

DoKGonZo · « **Reply #284 on:** August 18, 2004, 02:19:43 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
...

Dok,
Sorry to intrude on your post and hijack it. But thanks for the opportunity to have something great to build on.

No problem. Despite my reputation for being an ego-maniac (and were that not in some part true I wouldn't get nearly as much accomplished as I do

), I only have once concern - that the game gets better for everyone. I really have no ego invested in if an idea gets used or not (though I do like being given credit where it's due).

As for the difference in flying early war vs. late war (from another reply), I disagree about the technological offset. In flight-testing for Rangoon it became very obviouos just how different the early war planes were in the areas of roll rate, acceleration, and firepower to their late-war brethren. It was also quickly evident how similar they all were in level flight speed. Meaning a Zeke is pretty close to as fast as an F4F, and not much slower than a Spit I. So you can't just power away like you do now in a La7 from a Spit IX. You can't snap roll out of trouble like you can now in any Fw190. And you don't have 4 20mm's to shoot people's faces off with. And things happen quite a bit slower, and much more up close and personal.

I do remember "jet night" (aka "Night of 1000 Warps") in the RPS and I avoided it like the plague. But we didn't have perks in WB to tone down the use of jets. An RPS combined with perks for the jets and rare planes (like the C-Hog, Ta152, etc.) could work better. In fact, on "1941 nights" the Fw190A-5 and Spit IX could be perked planes.