Change the objective of the game

[Clifra Jones]

(I posted this in a reply to another thread in the General forum, but I think it should be here also. Comments please, good and bad.)

An idea I had: Change the objective of the game.

The current Win the War strategy is for one country to be reduced to 3 bases. This IMO has a few deficiencies.

1. It encourages 2 sides to gang up on the third. We can deny this fact all we want but we all know it happens.

2. It discourages concentration of force. We see this all the time in the MA. A "hoard" takes an undefended field and instead of using that field to mount new attacks they just go off somewhere else on the map and take another undefended field. All the while the other country is doing the same. There is no incentive for driving into the other countries territory and holding that land.

3. Once a country get below say 10 bases it really increase the boredom factor for the losing country. By this time most of the perk potatos have switched to what they believe will be the winning side and the losing side has nothing to do but fight the hoard. A lot of us at this point will usually just log and wait for the reset.

My idea on how to fix this.

Instead of the goal being to reduce the number of bases, make the object of the game to capture the countries HQ. Make it so you have to land say 30 or 50 troop in to the HQ to register a the capture. Sure this would probably cause resets to happen quicker that they do now but it does bring some better battle scenarios to the game.

1. It will encourage each country to capture and HOLD bases. Especially those that will lead towards the HQ. It will discourage the "capture the undefended field" mentality. Add additional points to squads/missions that capture adjacent fields.

2. It will encourage each side to actually mount credible defenses.

3. It will ensure force concentration. It won't be hard to find a fight because you know that the enemy will be trying to attack your HQ. It will become quite obvious where the enemy is attacking.

4. There will be more air-to-air/fighter-v-fighter engagements. Because we will know what the enemies objective is and the map will show their encroachment into our territory. It will be easier to determine where they will strike next. Thus allowing defenders to up fighters to cover those areas. It will also make bomber take escort fighters along because they will know that they will encounter fighter intercept on their missions.

5. It will require that much more strategic thought be put into porking troops and ord as you know you will need them to advance your position. Not only that but you will know you will need to protect your troops and ord for future use. Example: You know the enemy is going to go after your troops and ord in your front line bases you have just captured. Therefor fighters can up to intercept them. No searching the map for a fight. It will be quite obvious what the enemies primary targets will be.

I'm sure that there are problems with this idea I've not thought of. Feel free to express them. I just think that anything we can do to encourage what I call "concentration of force" will improve game play. Currently we have far to many players off in their own section of the map doing what ever they can to avoid the enemy. IMO, the whole point of this game is to engage the enemy, is it not?

[SELECTOR]

im not sure it holds all the answers, but its better than what we have now...the game is stALE AND STAGNENT AT THE MOMENT..

[Hornet33]

I would have to agree that this idea should be seriously looked at. The HQ should play a mojor role in the game instead of the weak role it plays now.

I would also add that the zone bases and the strategic targets, i.e. troop barracks, ammo factories, radar factories, and refineries should play more of a role than they do. Maybe harden the radar towers at the zone bases, and then let them control all the radars for that zone, like the HQ does for the country now.
Example: Take out the radar tower at the zone base and radar coverage is diminished by 50% in that zone. As the radar factory is damaged the % goes down further in that zone. Make it so it takes 10,000 pounds of ords to kill that zone base radar tower. It will still require a directed effort to take it out. Make it the same for all the zone base strat. targets.

The HQ should be the ultimate prize, requiring a concentrated effort to capture it.

I like this idea, because the important targets will have to be hit to win, and they will have to be defended to keep from losing.

[Karnak]

I don't think it is complex enough and still makes capturing the fields required just to get close enough to have a chance of getting troops to the HQ.

Here is my reply under yours in that thread:

This one is for Lazs,

I'd like to see it changed so that winning the war was based on the destruction/capture of strategic targets and defensive hard points. Change it so that airfields are part of the territory capatured and not capture targets themselves.

It would still be a tactic to suppress enemy fighters from lifting, but it would not be required. Move the focus off of the airfields. Fighters can fight and the strat guys can fight the war.


Do this and the war is still a progression of capturing territory chuck by chunk, but killing the ability to even fly fighters is no longer the best way to win.

[tikky]

ehh I like 1 vs 1 country.

1 vs 1 country wil be fun cause of HUGE concentrated actions. Imagine 200-500+ friendly and enemy forces clash together in 1 sector

[Tails]

Originally posted by tikky
ehh I like 1 vs 1 country.

1 vs 1 country wil be fun cause of HUGE concentrated actions. Imagine 200-500+ friendly and enemy forces clash together in 1 sector

Even number countries will never happen HiTech said it himself. And it makes sense to an extent. While the odd-numbers system may allow some ganging up on a weaker side, there is still enough backstabbing going on to keep things atleast a little even.

[DREDIOCK]

Originally posted by Hornet33
I would have to agree that this idea should be seriously looked at. The HQ should play a mojor role in the game instead of the weak role it plays now.

I would also add that the zone bases and the strategic targets, i.e. troop barracks, ammo factories, radar factories, and refineries should play more of a role than they do. Maybe harden the radar towers at the zone bases, and then let them control all the radars for that zone, like the HQ does for the country now.
Example: Take out the radar tower at the zone base and radar coverage is diminished by 50% in that zone. As the radar factory is damaged the % goes down further in that zone. Make it so it takes 10,000 pounds of ords to kill that zone base radar tower. It will still require a directed effort to take it out. Make it the same for all the zone base strat. targets.

The HQ should be the ultimate prize, requiring a concentrated effort to capture it.

I like this idea, because the important targets will have to be hit to win, and they will have to be defended to keep from losing.

I woud tend to strongly agree with all of this.
the only problem I see with the HQ being the main goal is its only a matter of time before a horde storms in and just captures the HQ outright without bothering to take many bases.

But I think your one the right track

[Hornet33]

If the HQ was kept as is, as far as amount of ord to destroy the HQ building, and also make it where the entire city had to be crushed like an airfield town, plus up the amount of troops required to capture the "BIG" map room, say 50 troops, you would need one heck of a big hoard.

[Karnak]

Originally posted by Hornet33
If the HQ was kept as is, as far as amount of ord to destroy the HQ building, and also make it where the entire city had to be crushed like an airfield town, plus up the amount of troops required to capture the "BIG" map room, say 50 troops, you would need one heck of a big hoard.

I think it a dumb idea unless it is only the capstone of a larger campaign that involves the destruction/capture of strategic targets and defensive territory control points (not airfields).  If it is only the HQ that matters it ends any complexity or spontenaity to the game by just giving one single target and only one single target.

[cav58d]

Great idea but without a doubt will be show down by HTC

[toadkill]

i like the idea, but on all these maps with hqs way off in hte back, what says someone doesnt bring 5 goons with p51 escorts all the way around the side below dar, and take the hq and win the war within 2 hours of reset. these sneak attacks would be executed by all the reset perk potatos. and would get very old very fast

[Clifra Jones]

Hornet, Karnak and Toadkill have brought up valid points. I think that they could all be worked out. I did think about the sneak attack on HQ and tried to think of ways that could be minimized.

Increasing the strategic value of zone bases and strat targets is a possibility. Also I though of putting several vehicle bases in close proximity to the HQ. If a sneak attack is launched on the HQ these bases can respond if not flattened yet.

You could also make it so you'd have to capture the zone bases near the HQ of maybe all of them, not sure on this one.

My goal was to suggest something that would not require massive changed to the game. Any time we introduce significant change we also introduce the potential for bugs. I don't know what HiTech response will be. I'd be interested in hearing what he has to say on this.

[Hornet33]

Well like I said in one of the earlier post, to prevent the HQ from a sneak attack by a small force, leave the HQ building with the same amount of ord required to destroy it. In addition make it so the entire HQ city has to be flat like the airfield towns. It would require MORE than a flight of P51's and some goons to take it. You would need around 30 or so bombers and heavy fighters plus the goons, not to mention fighter escort. It would be a battle royal to take it. Good time to be had by all:aok

[Karnak]

Hornet,

It is too simple.  It focuses all of the strategy in the game on one target and one target only.  There needs to be a progression of captured/lost territory leading to eventual victory/defeat.

I have thought for a long time that the change needs to be to take the focus off of the airfields.

I'll see if I can draw up a more formal rendering of my idea later.

[Colt44]

Most of  the current map HQ locations would take all cv opps out of the game.  

However, I love the idea of more strat in the game play.  Changes that would force squads to work together would be a good thing.  

But isn't "Tour of Duty" going to address all that?