Alternatives to the ENY dilemna

[CMC Airboss]

Instead of limiting the aicraft that people can fly, why not make it more difficult to capture a base?  

For instance

- More and/or hardened acks (perhaps with shorter downtimes) that are activated when arena numbers/ratios reach certain levels .

- Greater troop requirements.  Instead of needed only 10 troops to capture a several square mile area, maybe it could require 100 or 200 troops.

- Surround a base with more towns that need to be captured.  When numbers are equal, only one town has to be "invaded" with troops.  As numbers grow disproportionate, there could be a need for  two, three, or four surrounding towns that have to be captured.  

- The ability "fly" as a ground soldier with the ability to kill incoming paratroopers from town spawn points .

- Create a threshold in total arena numbers that disables the ENY limitations when the population reaches, say, below 50.

I rarely fly low ENY-valued airplanes but in recent weeks have been unable to fly anything less than 35 in several instances.  This often occurs past prime time when the total numbers are well below 100.   It only takes a couple of people to unbalance one side enough to severely limit plane choice.  In most cases there is virtually no chance of a reset at these times, so the limited aircraft set becomes unnecessary for its intended purpose of balancing gameplay.  

MiG

[hitech]

While what your asking for would be extreamly difficult to implement. One thing I had been thinking about over the week end is changing the hardness of all targets with the balance ratio.
And adjusting Ack lethality based on numbers.

HiTEch

[Furball]

Originally posted by hitech
While what your asking for would be extreamly difficult to implement. One thing I had been thinking about over the week end is changing the hardness of all targets with the balance ratio.
And adjusting Ack lethality based on numbers.

HiTEch

ROFL that would really pee the building battlers off.

[Zazen13]

Originally posted by hitech
While what your asking for would be extreamly difficult to implement. One thing I had been thinking about over the week end is changing the hardness of all targets with the balance ratio.
And adjusting Ack lethality based on numbers.

HiTEch

I actually like the idea of making buildings harder. Don't like the idea of making ack more lethal to one side or another though, I think that's just a little too 'out there' in terms of realism. But, from a realism point-of-view harder buildings could abstractly equate to the side on the defensive 'digging-in', re-enforcing critical structures and hard-points. This would also making flying Bombers more meaningfull as alot more ordnance would need to be delivered. As it is now the entire MA is and has been VERY Jabo-centric.

Zazen

[JB73]

HiTech i love the idea...
but only if it replaced the current ENY thingy.

are you talking about like 5000 instead of 2500 to kill a hangar and stuff?

or a fluid thing like 3000, then maybe 3672lbs or somethgin based on a forumula?

[Flyboy]

i think replacing the ENY with hardness of buildings is a right step.

modifing ack leathely is very wrong IMO, it will change the fighting dynamics greatly, and not for batter im affreid.

the problem with the ENY system (atleast IMHO) is:

A. players have favorit planes and they fly allmost exlusivly that favorit plane, if they cannot fly it- they log of. = a bad thing

B. HTC greatly underestimaded how much players are attached to their chess piece "country" i will risk saying around 90% of the players will never switch countries.


replacing the ENY system with building hardness will solve this problem, and will just cause a more dynamic and challenging environment.

[dragoon]

at this point ANYTHING would be better than the current ENY system. so many good ideas out there but nothing in terms of change yet.

making ack more lethal would be a bad idea since its already lethal enough. especially the puffy ack. i get hit almost every other sortie 10 to 15 alt as soon as it starts fireing. how many times have i lost a plane espeically a perk ride to puffy ack? a ton.

since war isnt supposed to be fair and numbers is a fact of life. making harder stuctures would be an immense help and a possible solution for the time being. trying to even out the numbers only makes a certain group happy and in the end it will stall the game and make playing a bore.

you have my vote

[akkobek]

And to think all of time and effort spent on this problem could have been avoided by a few squad co's hitting the switch country button. What a waste.

[ALF]

Originally posted by hitech
While what your asking for would be extreamly difficult to implement. One thing I had been thinking about over the week end is changing the hardness of all targets with the balance ratio.
And adjusting Ack lethality based on numbers.

HiTEch

Now heres an Idea I can get behind....and push for.  

Especially the ack and its harness.  That would prevent any over zellous vulchfesting with fighters only if it took 2-3k to kill an ack.  Those who like to feel all realistic and stuff, can think of this as the few remaining defenders setting up a last stand kind of mentality.

[DoKGonZo]

Hmmmm ... so you make ground targets harder while at the same time removing the availability of planes which can deliver adequite payload to destroy them? It has to be one of the other - ENY or hardness - both would become absurd. I like it in theory, though. It does simulate the "digging in" process.


Also, consider that this makes the pork'n'auger tactic for anyone outnumbered even more happenstance. You remember how much "fun" it was having to deal with "radar runners" in the old days, HT.

What this leads to is endless, pointless, boring vultch sessions over a field because there's no troops anywhere nearby with which to capture it. It also leads to outnumbered sides being hard pressed to retake fields because their troops have been likewise porked everywhere. Hence the front never moves. Hence everyone gets bored and cranky.


What if you did the following:

- Each field has 2 barracks, these are hardened bunkers requiring at least a 1000 pounder.

- As the balancer kicks in, structure hardness increases for the outnumbered side. There should never be a decrease in hardness (so to speak) because of odds. Rebuild rates shouldn't change tho - that's weird enough as it is.

- Have secondary AAA positions on the fields which only spawn up in response to the balancer. That is, you have the gun positions there, but until your "general" sees he's outnumbered, he won't deploy a AAA battery there. So if it's RJO night, Bish/Knit fields should look pretty nasty flak-wise. Also the repair rate on AAA improves based on odds - maybe just do this for now rather than add AAA to all the maps.


What this would do is make taking a base of an outnumbred side require more ord and flak-suppression. Not saying it can't be done, but it is more work. Hardening barracks diminishes the pork'n'auger effect for everyone concerned.


My big concern is that, once again, the side which happens to have numbers is being penalized, while the side being outnumbered is given no incentive to improve their quality of play in response. I don't see this changing the dynamics of the arena much.

That "zone hq" idea someone had last week still seems like the best idea to shift gameplay from porking and vultching to, like, strikes and intercepts ... before the porking and vultching.

    -DoK

[Tilt]

I wonder at adjusting our virtual laws of physics (object hardnesses etc) in order to perpetuate a dead locked land grab.

I dont see any problem with land grab.......even as one sides terittory contracts its defence naturally increases in density...

The fact that a side may be out numbered decides its fate not its present territorial assets.

To me disatisfaction comes from local game play imbalance not total territorial assets...........

I regularly note that my choices seem to be either going to a field where my country locally massively out numbers its opponents or going to a field where my country is locally massively out numbered by its opponents.

This IMHO is poor game play opportunity.

There are ways to over come it (as a player) but grabbing to safe alt and playing safe over the horde is not fun all the time.


On a general note I would increase map room hardnesses to require more team work re troops...........many fields can still be "stolen" which to my way of thinking removes capture as a mechanism to promote combat.

[CMC Airboss]

Originally posted by hitech While what your asking for would be extreamly difficult to implement. One thing I had been thinking about over the week end is changing the hardness of all targets with the balance ratio.
And adjusting Ack lethality based on numbers.

HiTEch

HiTech, thanks for the reply.  The hardness variability solution would solve several issues while being beneficial to a number of communities in AH.  

Furballers could fly and fight to their heart's content while not being as affected by arena limits to lessen the impact of "mob land grabs" in which they don't participate.  

Strategic bomber pilots would have a greater number significant targets that could be affected by area bombing.  This would also have the added benefit of better replicating the use of a majority of bombers in WW2.  

Pilots at a base under attack would have the ability to maintain a defensive posture that wouldn't be affected by a single flight of three P-51's intent on destroying fighter hangars.  Localized gameplay is enhnaced.

Variable hardness would add an element of uncertainty to Aces High that could imitate the "fog of war."  Does an attacking force  have enough bombs and rockets to destroy a town?  Did I hit or miss the target?  Can I risk using an entire load of ammunition on a single building if there are enemy fighters about?

MiG