Author Topic: Testing Capture system in LW orange today (Read 36437 times)

Overlag · « **Reply #165 on:** November 30, 2006, 09:27:34 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Zazen13
Why didn't Hitler 'capture' Great Britain? He failed to achieve local air superiority...Achieving local air superiority over a contested region is now and has always been the first and foremost purpose of air power in warfare, real or imaginary.
Zazen

wow, it was that simple?

hitler didnt "capture" Britain for a number of reasons

1: some lone bomber "dumped" his ord on london by mistake, causing retaliation from BOTH sides, causing the shift from RAF fields, to the cities... this gave the RAF a rest, and allowed them to "win" BOB. this was, however a VERY VERY narrow win. a week more of tactical bombing on SE RAF bases would have caused the RAF to retreat to middle England. However.....

2: Hitler didnt have a navy worth anything. and Dunkirk proved that the LW was terrible at sinking ships, so who was going to fight the Royal Navy? magic pixes? Sure, they might have been able to land a few 1000 troops on British soil, but its SUPPLYS, and the constant train of troops that needs to be kept up. And of course with the RAF pulled back and recovering up in North England, the south of england could still be protected.

but i fail to see your point. AH has always been about air power. However now all 100 players are spread between 2 bases... its rather odd.

the new arenas only needed number balance brought back and new maps.... other than that it was fine..... the issue was, Hitech said only 512maps could be made, then made some weird changes and said 256maps could only be made....so we had no 256maps made for a few years, and now that's all we could fight on.

nexus69 · « **Reply #166 on:** November 30, 2006, 09:29:54 AM »

HT PLEASE ! JUST PUT A GUN TO MY HEAD AND GET IT OVER WITH!!!!!!!!!

Donzo · « **Reply #167 on:** November 30, 2006, 09:35:19 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Zazen13
Achieving local air superiority over a contested region is now and has always been the first and foremost purpose of air power in warfare, real or imaginary.

Doesn't this promote taking out fighter hangers or "surpressing" then enemy by vulching?

Would you consider these "fair" tactics given this new setup?

BaldEagl · « **Reply #168 on:** November 30, 2006, 09:36:19 AM »

Just to add my final comment on this. If this is it, after 10 years, I'm outta here.

vizwhiz · « **Reply #169 on:** November 30, 2006, 09:40:19 AM »

I flew in Orange a couple hours last night. Some good, some bad.
1. The concept of only being able to capture certain bases is a good idea. The way it was in the test, though, you could only capture two per team (at the intersections of the countries). Thus, EVERYBODY was at those three points on the map. It takes the idea of strategizing, smaller groups doing missions, etc. away from the game play...it is "Might Wins"...whoever has the most and best takes the field. The Rooks (was one last night) just started a bulldozing drive (wooohooo) and took base after base down the line...it took the creativity and looking-over-your-shoulder out of the whole thing.
2. It makes the game play linear, like playing a game with levels... win level 1 and you can go to level 2, etc. (not very good idea)
I think the focus concept would work very well, getting more players into combat on large maps, and also be more realistic, if you could capture only bases within XX distance from the borders of the countries or the nearest base. Thus, you still concentrate on only a few enemy bases (but not just one) because they are the only bases close enough to take.
Then from THAT newly won base, you can take the next bases that are close enough (within the distance range). That would be more like what occurs in a real war.
It also leaves the actual strategies up to the members flying, not the administration of the game. If the team wants to take two of the three and leave one alone, they can. If they want to spread out, they can. If they want to take one base with vehicles and one with planes, they can. It would leave more open to the players, while still focusing the play to a few bases (as I'm understand the goal was).
vizwhiz

DadRabit · « **Reply #170 on:** November 30, 2006, 09:40:24 AM »

S! tactic

very well said sir. i S! you.

bring back the large maps with no restrictions. cant go wrong.

my 2 cents.

B3YT · « **Reply #171 on:** November 30, 2006, 09:46:06 AM »

Boy is this sytem great . Buffs can take out near by Feilds to delay fighter opps and VH from recapturing the base you just took.
It all means more team work and making a plan of war . getting tactical targets and strat targets like in WWII . one flight of bombers take out fuel or a factory some enmy bombers /fighters/ GV's find it harder to fight.

Proper escort and close support needs to be co-ordinated.

All good by me .

john9001 · « **Reply #172 on:** November 30, 2006, 09:50:15 AM »

HT has said over and over that this not war, it is a game, in my opinion it is getting gamier.

no liky follow the blue line.

the MA is really just a training arena for the real game --scenarios.

44MAG

SlapShot · « **Reply #173 on:** November 30, 2006, 09:51:55 AM »

and the 3rd change brings us straight back into hordeing and "griefers". because us "griefers" are going to have to take out hangers...and since its the only base people are flying at the furballers are going to go nuts.

It won't be that bad ... especially if bases are 3/4 of a sector away. Also, if they wack the base, one will have a good idea where the NEXT attack will take place and they can up from there. This results in a moving furball and not a stagnant furball ... which is acceptable.

I still have some reservations about the initial implementation of this idea. I think that it definitely needs some tweaking so that the fight is not so focused.

Total elimination of sneaking of bases behind the lines needs to be addressed. Sometimes the sneaking of a base behind enemy lines takes the pressure off heavily attacked areas and that is a good thing. I loved participating in these NOE sneak attacks ... the anticipation would make my hands sweat.

Some people in this thread are bringing forth tweak ideas and thats a good thing, and I think that is what HT wants to see in this thread ... rather than whining.

Swarmed · « **Reply #174 on:** November 30, 2006, 09:54:30 AM »

I couldn't get the map to load. Just kept CTDing after preloading textures.

Tilt · « **Reply #175 on:** November 30, 2006, 09:56:19 AM »

Seems to be a very viable method of focussing conflict.................

I assume the blue line zigzags down one half of your territory and back up the other?(suppose I should wait to play it tonight)

I think if the focus is only over one field at each border then it will be come a bombing war to deny the opposition access to the area of combat.

The impact of this could be lessened if the blue lines only connected airfields such that vehicle fields and ports were open to free capture.

This may make fleets more viable also.

Quah! · « **Reply #176 on:** November 30, 2006, 10:00:40 AM »

WOW this cracks me up.

So the only complaints are:

1) We cant take bases NOE and sneak them without a fight.

2) We have to take the base where everyone is at, we have no choice to go where no one is at. - kinda like number one.

3) It creates Hordes. - LOL this one is the funniest, since two hordes fighting each other were never a problem. It was you guys that took your hordes to undefended fields that was the problem and the reason we have this system in the first place.

4) We can't use strategery. - As if there were any tactics to old MA. Most tactics of old MA were and until this change still are - 1) Up for undefended base 2) If base becomes defened, go back to number 1.

The only problem with this change is furballers taking bases, Stang is ghey. LOLH

FrodeMk3 · « **Reply #177 on:** November 30, 2006, 10:02:55 AM »

When I flew it yesterday, there was a sustained fight between two fields across the channel, occasionally broken by a CV group or two...But for the most part, the front was static. I logged, went into LW Blue for the next 5 hrs., then popped back into orange. The fight had moved, and there had been a base capture, but I think it was because fewer Bish were on. I know there had been some grumbling about numbers on the country channel. Anyway, was going to say that the fights weren't too bad, But I realized that 1 big mission that was properly organized could ruin everything at any given time. I'm just waiting for a bunch of people to come up with a method to blow this out of the water, And I think it will be soon.

Overlag · « **Reply #178 on:** November 30, 2006, 10:04:09 AM »

wow, we was working on taking back a V base today.... it was big.....

dropped troops..... no capture.....ah the base is small now.....

WTG!!!!!!

Laurie · « **Reply #179 on:** November 30, 2006, 10:13:49 AM »

In england we dont waste our time trying to fix things that arent broken.
Really cannont see the piont in this setup, just starts 3 large furballs... and 50 loud ppl may like this, but what about the not so loud other hundreds??

sadly i see the game drifting down infamiliar paths and game is really starting to lose my interest. This new 'test' wich i hope wont just stick around is another twist of the knife for me....

**IF** this setup stays or is put into use then, surely LW player number. caps should be lifted so that people can CHOOSE what setup they want to fly in? Its unfair if you Dont like something to have fly with it because your fun is full due an enforced cap.

AGAIN notice the 'IF' before i get char grilled

Is this possible HT. Think it would be for the best. and it might give an actual reason for having 2 LW's

<>S<>