Author Topic: New toys!!! But...... (Read 10087 times)

haasehole · « **Reply #120 on:** February 24, 2008, 04:30:47 PM »

myself and the squad love the game and we try to pork strat target's but didn't really know if it was effecting down time or not. been try to put timer on things but a little diffcult as cant b 2 place's at the same time but any way we'll keep giving em he!! I like the bribe link HITECH u can come over and have some-o-my R&R

sacarism is just a free service..........o2b1ace

hubsonfire · « **Reply #121 on:** February 24, 2008, 04:41:52 PM »

How would the outnumbered country be able to mount effective long range strikes against factories and HQ, if the problem is that they're greatly outnumbered, and likely don't have hangars or ordnance to begin with?

rabbidrabbit · « **Reply #122 on:** February 24, 2008, 04:55:09 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by hubsonfire
How would the outnumbered country be able to mount effective long range strikes against factories and HQ, if the problem is that they're greatly outnumbered, and likely don't have hangars or ordnance to begin with?

I think he is saying that the perk modifier works for you or against... IE a 1.50 modifier raises your base scores by 50% and a .50 is a 50% decrease. Essentially if you have a big numbers advantage which gives you a mod of .5 then your stuff is twice as easy to take down. It could even be biased further where a .5 mod would make your stuff 60% easier to take down.

ridley1 · « **Reply #123 on:** February 24, 2008, 05:01:51 PM »

Hubs...quick answer...haven't thought that out , ideas welcome

Of the top of my head....more strat targets, supplying more zones.. Long range strike not required to affect front lines. Pushed country doesn't have to do as much damage to produce results...Pushing country needs to make much more damage to produce results (call it strat ENY)

Front line strats mangled, forcing aggressor to launch attacks from farther back, buying defender time.

Referencing the first paragraph, Badly pushed countries (as example) , don't lose all ord, but the most production intensive weapons first...i.e you'd lose 500 lb bombs but would still have 250's. You don't get neutered. But you don't get viagra.

Now, in the present system, if you're outnumbered, your toast, anyway. right?

hubsonfire · « **Reply #124 on:** February 24, 2008, 05:20:39 PM »

Do you think any of those supporting a revamped, improved, or greatly expanded strat system are going to be tolerant of the idea that they can't take ord down at fields? Their main gripe is that they can't cripple the other guy severely enough at present- they want more of a direct effect on the enemy, not less.

Yes, if the numbers are like they were last night (60/70/110), whether the 60 have bombs or not, they are pretty much cornered- how hard or soft the strat targets might be is irrelevant if they can't get there. In AH, it is quantity, not quality, and smaller bombs for the horde isn't going to make a great deal of difference. A few more bomber formations when you've got twice as many players as the other country? Not a big hinderance.

BaldEagl · « **Reply #125 on:** February 24, 2008, 06:27:49 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Rino
Ah yes, the age old gripe of "wah, I can't ruin the entire arena by my
lonesome" thing. With the expected group of professional toolshed
artists decrying any opposition to their plans to make "world domination"
easier.

Playability means nothing to those people, it's all about "winning the
war!" Who cares if anyone else has fun, it's me that's important! The
fact that bombing has been "easy moded" to the point of idiocy isn't
enough, now there must be tickertape parades and perks galore!

Guys, just once consider that your suggestions to have an effect all
out of porportion to your effort may negatively impact others.

I offered some suggetions here and I'm not a "win the war" guy. Sure it's fun to take a base now and then but I could care less about winning the war.

I do however like to play every aspect of the game and as such, I think there are changes that could be made to the strat system to make strats more valuable, and therefore, a strategicaly more important part of the game. If they become more impotant to hit, and to defend, that only increases the likelyhood of a fight and to me at least, that's a good thing. It may actually spread the fights out over broader areas reducing the hoards that we see today, and bringing more evenly balanced fights to the arenas.

ridley1 · « **Reply #126 on:** February 24, 2008, 06:28:51 PM »

Maybe that's another thing that can be looked at Hub....Quality vs. quantity. Or is that already here when ENY kicks in as a balancing measure? The debate on that can (has) kicked off a whole slew of topics.

And I was using an example of a country already crippled for the ords. If all parties are near equal, then sure...wiping out ords at the base is still there. Or link strat effects to arena numbers, instead of territory. But then....refer back to ENY comment in first paragraph.

But inequalities in arena numbers, that is a problem in and of itself.

Rolex · « **Reply #127 on:** February 24, 2008, 06:31:25 PM »

Take the Ammo Factory down to <30% and all ord is disabled.

Radar Factory, not HQ, affects radar. Percentage of damage affects the 4 radar attributes directly.

Barracks Factory disables troops. Number of troops loaded in M3 or C-47 is reduced directly in proportion to Barracks Factory damage. Drop factory to 79% and only 9 troops get loaded in hanger, 69% and 8 troops, 59% for 7 troops, etc. Troops are never completely disabled, so resupply can be done, but capture requires more than 1 goon or M3.

Ack guns are disabled in proportion to AAA Factory damage.

Fuel reduces fuel, again.

You want to win the war? You have to destroy the HQ along with the field count requirements.

I think these changes would promote attacks of, and spirited defense of, the strat targets.

The fairness of numbers is always a problem. I can't think of a system that would work any better than the ENY/perk multiplier system we have now. Many people are simply not going to change countries, so you need a carrot/stick mechanism.

Anyway, I'm sure HTC has thought about all this many times and in more depth than I could. There are reasons for why things are the way they are. They aren't arbitrary.

LYNX · « **Reply #128 on:** February 24, 2008, 10:20:42 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by hubsonfire
How would the outnumbered country be able to mount effective long range strikes against factories and HQ, if the problem is that they're greatly outnumbered, and likely don't have hangars or ordnance to begin with?

You make a very valid point if the whole game was to change. I have the opinion, not being condescending here, that folk are looking for a tweak or to add another dimension. Personally I'm happy with the present capture system but aspects of the strat system are virtually meaningless.

To answer your question .....just lower the ENY values on bombers. ENY kicks in ....no Lancaster's or B17's or B24's and so on down the line. Same principle as we have right now. You could even perk bombers or bomber ordnance. Or the bombers could only take the lesser load IE Lancaster's couldn't take the full 14x1k'ers..... there's an easy work around to balancing play here.

Besides all that if one overly numbered side was rolling the weakest I don't think the stronger side would be to bothered about the weaker sides strat. Just as it is today.

Bombing an enemies strat stystem is more of a defensive measure than an offensive tactic which you kind of acknowledge here

Quote

how hard or soft the strat targets might be is irrelevant if they can't get there. In AH, it is quantity, not quality, and smaller bombs for the horde isn't going to make a great deal of difference.

If your being rolled your just plain being rolled.....sorry an all that.

Tilt · « **Reply #129 on:** February 25, 2008, 06:38:52 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by hubsonfire
How would the outnumbered country be able to mount effective long range strikes against factories and HQ, if the problem is that they're greatly outnumbered, and likely don't have hangars or ordnance to begin with?

Well of course fundamentally the weaker side "loses"......

However.......

If the territory was evenly divided then the side with less numbers can still hit its opponentrs strat it just cannot do all the things a greater populated side can do at the same time............. hence it is thrown on the defensive or requires a higher level of "organisation".

If both territory and numbers are diminished then the sides access to its opponents strat is a function of terrain and if (and how) the strat is zoned or not.

It is important that under all circumstances that both sides have access to combat.

However if a side is being rolled over (due to inferior numbers or poor organisation) then both sides do have access to combat............. one is very much on the defensive the other very much on the offensive.

Equal access to combat unless a side is able to massively CAP it opponents fields during its offensive. (Hording)

It is in this respect that I would like to move the mechanism for territorial gain (and hence the battle/conflict for it) at least partly away from air fields.

The Fugitive · « **Reply #130 on:** February 25, 2008, 07:50:37 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Tilt
............If the territory was evenly divided then the side with less numbers can still hit its opponentrs strat it just cannot do all the things a greater populated side can do at the same time............. hence it is thrown on the defensive or requires a higher level of "organisation".

So by doing this your forcing me to play a certain way. Now being on the "defensive" team I have to either hit strat to slow the enemy, or fight against buffs to slow the attack on our start which is taking away our ability to fight.

I don't mind helping take a base, but my squad doesn't have organized missions for land grab, and I like it that way. We wing up and go look for fights. That means other fighters willing to fight, not chasing buffs across sectors, or dive/pork/ and auger dweebs. By limiting what some of us like to do you taking us out of game play, and eventually out of HTC subscription base.

LYNX · « **Reply #131 on:** February 25, 2008, 09:20:21 AM »

The Fugitive I think you missed the point mate. Tilt was answering Hubs question to some ideas forwarded. Hub asked in short, if one side was way outnumbered what then? A few answered with... ENY already takes care of that or submitted other ideas to "take care" of that. Tilt just politely said if your sides being shagged then it's being shagged.

He's reminding you how it is. Which is.... you can either fight the fight or go kill some field strat. When your side is outnumbered most opt to fight but some actually go kill field strat ....ammo mostly and troops sometimes. The outnumbered side by that very virtue lacks manpower to kill FACTORY strats to keep those porked field strats down longer. No one is telling you how to play he's just saying how it is already.

ridley1 · « **Reply #132 on:** February 25, 2008, 09:41:36 AM »

"you're limiting us as to what we can do!" "You're taking us out of the fight" "you're forcing us to play a certain way"
These are not objective comments. All quotes can be used by both sides.

Here....have a quick boo at this link, from the thread entitled, "Aces HighII, last of a dying breed?"

http://www.simhq.com/_air11/air_337a.html

Doesn't matter what your product is, you either figure out ways to improve it, or competition comes along and buries you.

Here's one suggestion...simple to implement. Slow the bombers down.

The Fugitive · « **Reply #133 on:** February 25, 2008, 09:43:00 AM »

but by taking away strat, hes taking away my ability to play the way I want. No more drop tanks, or ord. By making strat more important, he's taking away the ability of some to just furball. Thats why I don't see how its possible to tweak strat to make it more effective. There is a "balance point" that HTC has to maintain to keep as many folk a possible happy.

I'm not a strait "furballer", nor am I a strait "land grab/win the war" type either, I like to play all of the game, but I'd be lieing if I didn't say the most fun for me is "the fight" A couple of planes duking it out at 5k is the reason I send my $15 in every month.

All I'm trying to point out is that "people" can't push for one thing with out thinking of the consequences of how it would effect other things. Tilt and many other like the strategic elements in the game, and as it's their $15 I say have at it, but HTC has to look at the big picture and weight it all out. I'm just playing the "devils advocate" here and pointing one reason why making strat bombing more important won't work.

Tilt · « **Reply #134 on:** February 25, 2008, 10:30:45 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by The Fugitive
but by taking away strat, hes taking away my ability to play the way I want.

The primary concern (IMO) must be to always allow players access to combat....... indeed the ability to "furball" is the minimum basic requirement (IMO).

The furball is the result of the meeting of offensive and defensive fighters/attackers in battle.

The fact that one side is attacking anothers strat or field is the focus for such a meeting.

If a side does not defend then there is no furball.

If a side does not attack there is no furball.

Strat should never be removed to an extent where this is not possible.

However the availability of strat does decide how many options (beyond this) are available to each side....... how much fuel, how much ordinance, supplies or troops...........

It has ever been thus...........

Its a basic gameplay mechanism that simply incurrs a consequence, where by one side can put itself at an advantage over an other.

It also allows a roll for heavy bombers where by their efforts are also fed into the gameplay mix. Whilst this should reward such bomber pilots/players it should also make defence against such incursions possible, probable and equally rewarding whether at a micro level vis a vis the individual player or at a macro level re the "war balance".

Is this dictating that players should play a certain way? Well yes in some respects.. but only in the most simple of logics..............

If I were to play Quake but wished to do so with only a knife then I could complain that where my opponents are armed with machine guns gameplay was dictating the way I should play.

If I were to play Everquest but wished to wield mighty spells but found I had to learn over many months first I might complain that the gameplay was dictating the way I should play.

The attrition of Strat (factories) is equally a game play consequence if only a temporary one.

One thing bombers can do now is kill hangers. I would wish that whilst we make the interaction of factories and field logistics more "vital" that we indeed make hangers indestructable (or change their purpose in this respect)and limited stuff in other ways.........

We should always give defenders access to battle. Strat should decide the range and quality of tools they have to fight with...... within limits that preserve the broadest element of enjoyment.