Lost the Plot?

[CHAPPY]

this is what the knights have turned into.

wonder why  they always outnumbered

[mechanic]

One thing nits are good at is furballing. Useless wasters!

[Zazen13]

The problem is the HUGE maps. HUGE maps give the landgrabbers the false sense that they are an autonomous faction, somehow ordained by the God of AH to be his personal real estate agent. On HUGE maps, the landgrabbers can simply choose to not fight for fields. They can smash n' grab, NOE or GV sneak, ultra-high alt bomb to oblivion and if substantially resisted in time they have the oft exercised option of augering it in to simply evaporate at one field just to appear 3 minutes later at a vacant field 10 sectors away. Eventually, any would be defenders tire of chasing "ghosts" and find their pleasure by other means.

When we had a plethora of small maps the angst landgrabbers had for furballers was extremely curtailed almost to the point of nonexistence. The reason being, without furballers on a small map, the landgrabbers would be unceremoniously bare-bottom spanked long before getting into visual range of any field as all of a country's bases can be adequately and  simultaneously defended against such a one dimensional attack .

[mechanic]

I wonder Zazen, do you have any ideas on the pros and cons of a 'sector control' style of game play, rather than base taking. You control a sector and any fields in it by doing a set task for that sector. I have been wondering about it for a while.

[Soulyss]

I wonder Zazen, do you have any ideas on the pros and cons of a 'sector control' style of game play, rather than base taking. You control a sector and any fields in it by doing a set task for that sector. I have been wondering about it for a while.

Sounds similar to something Guppy/CorkyJr used to talk about from time to time.  He was kicking around an idea that historically in many cases you didn't have a single airfield as a strategic target, even in the south pacific were airfields were often times the objectives a more accurate description would be a base complex comprised of several airfields in relative proximity to each other.  Port Moresby I think had six different airfields if I remember right.  The idea being that the field is near to but not the objective itself, would be harder to cap or shut down and would serve to funnel players into the same sector but still allow defenders to up and mount a defense. 

BTW was great flying with you gents last night, tanks for letter me tag along.

[mechanic]

was our pleasure Soul! I wonder, how easy a sector control gameplay would be to make?

[Motherland]

Would this be like, having multiple airfields attached to a 'town' (probably closer to the size of a city, considering the increased value)?
Sounds interesting.

[Zazen13]

I wonder Zazen, do you have any ideas on the pros and cons of a 'sector control' style of game play, rather than base taking. You control a sector and any fields in it by doing a set task for that sector. I have been wondering about it for a while.

I like that idea in theory. But, I fear that level of abstraction may be a put off to those requiring more "concrete" empirical reinforcement of the relationship between their efforts and the resultant outcomes. But, indeed, in actual warfare the concept of sector control is actually how it works and is thought of in the overarching strategic planning phases of battle preparation and subsequent execution.

WWII taught the world's armed forces that if local air superiority was achieved the success of the land/sea based effort was all but a forgone conclusion, a mere consummation of that which had already essentially been obtained by virtue of unrelenting air dominance. Conversely, if local air superiority was not achieved, it wasn't even that the land/sea based effort was made more difficult, it actually made ultimate success by conventional means (IE: non-guerilla actions) virtually impossible.

Of course a lot would depend on how it was implimented. But, while the conept of sector control appeals from the stand-point of dogmatic strategic military thought, I think for the purpose of making AH easily relatable to and consistant with the visceral gaming experience to which players have become accustomed, it would be too obtuse and abstract.

[mechanic]

Understood Zaz. For me I see something like motherland says as being a great way to play. Bigger cities and factories as the focus of capture, with airfields as property connected to the capture point. I think This would make one very significant change to the current game play. It would mean that people flying over enemy airfields are there for one reason only, to vulch. The current setup allows constant vulching with the mislead belief that it is in aid of a capture, for the most part. Without airfields to capture, rather 'zone cities', there would be no logical reason to engage the enemy deep in his machine gun nests and flak wagons. Ergo more combat in the air, of course in theory this should work. Doubtfull in reality. Worth a shot though, imo.

[Shuffler]

ROX doesn't like Batfink either? Don't worry Batfink, I'd wear it as a badge of honor, the rest of us do. 

lol That is true.

[Lusche]

this is what the knights have turned into.

wonder why  they always outnumbered

Of course my opinion is biased and utterly subjective... but last month, I was finally flying knights again for a whole tour after a long time.
But I discovered all the reasons for leaving them long ago were still there:

Not being outnumbered - I like that.
Not being ganged - I love a good target density


But the paranoia and cluelessness on countrychannel was often almost unbearable. Yes, all chesspieces have their share of armchair generals, squeakers and conspiracy theorists... but the amount of whining about hacks, furballers wasting resources, Hitech being biased against knights, players being "too dumb" to pork fields, ENY never hitting the enemy, bla bla bla still seemed to be much bigger than on Bish or Rooks.

But I think Knights were glad when I switched back to Rooks, you can't trust a spineless countryswitcher anyway


Just my perception of course. Your can and probably will be different...

[RipChord929]

Hmmm, did you guys ever think of multiple maprooms at a base?

For example.. Would a big military post, like our Airbases, just
fold up and quit because the little town nextdoor fell to enemies?
HELL NO!!! LOL!!!

I say, put a maproom next to the tower, for the brultra melons to hide...
If they want the base, make them FIGHT onto the field to take it..

If there was a VH in the town, which was bound to the town MR..
Capture the town MR, you own the town VH too...

That would break a fight into outer and inner defenses.. With the
fight intensifying the closer they get to the goal...

It would also eliminate the simple smash and grab NOE stuff... It
would still be "possible", but far more complicated to achieve...
You would have to take BOTH maprooms to sieze the base..

Just an idea... I'm sure some won't like that, LOL!!!
IMO, that would be VERY interesting...

RC

[Stang]

Rox just can't help himself. 

[Tr0jan]

See Rule #4

[SIK1]

It is apparent that you are not trying to improve your flying at all.