The Aces High War Doctrine

[hitech]

I think Hitech wants to create a situation where the game is centered around COMBAT.

I think Hitech defines "combat" as the attack of bases with an equal defense.

1. Yes.

2. Combat is when people are fighting each other in vehicles or planes. How and why people choose to fight is irrelevant.

HiTech

[crazyivan]

ADD, you lost me in the ramble.  Anyone have a baby kitten to kill?


cc

1. find agent

2. kill agent

3. kill his friends! especially if  thy name is kappa 

[TnDep]

that would promote not switching sides to even numbers or find a fight.

your right so maybe that's not the best idea for the situation but we still have this problem to fix and then again maybe it is because that is why we have "enemy value"

          "The reward factor for putting up a fight to not lose your bases is not enough.  25 points per category for the amount of time spent is hardly worth the effort this is why the majority isn't worried about base captures or defending against base captures"

[crazyivan]

your right so maybe that's not the best idea for the situation but we still have this problem to fix and then again maybe it is because that is why we have "enemy value"

          "The reward factor for putting up a fight to not lose your bases is not enough.  25 points per category for the amount of time spent is hardly worth the effort this is why the majority isn't worried about base captures or defending against base captures"

You're forgetting what it was like as a noob and accomplishing a goal! It's the guys on everday who do the same "winthe warz" that don't evolve and care not too. I'm drunk I could contradict myself, and say. Agent doesn't  want to try evolving  as a player also! heheh

But  I love taking Agent, out of the sky so help me ! Que Samuel Jackson - Pulp fiction

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ujm9BLzaaBo

[stealth]

Good post Agent360.   

[Guppy35]

Very well spoken Agent and I would just like to add one other equation to this:

The reward factor for putting up a fight to not lose your bases is not enough.  25 points per category for the amount of time spent is hardly worth the effort this is why the majority isn't worried about base captures or defending against base captures.

Now if this was changed to lets say 50 points per category per hour spent in the game on that country side I believe it'd be a different story.

Example: 10 hours spent in game on winning country side and your online at the time of the war being won you'd receive 500 points per category

Example: 50 hours spent in game on winning country side and your online at the time of the war being won you'd receive 2500 points per category

What may be the fundemental flaw in it all is that anyone needs points.  Seems to me the cartoon combat against other players would be enough of an incentive to play the game.

[The Fugitive]

I agree with Agent in that the maps need work. I don't care "why" people play as long as there is a fight going on, and my guess is thats is HTC goal as well. I'm all for the "win the wars" guys as long as they fight to win it! That being said, I think the big maps are too big, and the small maps too small.

We out grew the small map, which is good for business. Small maps are 256 miles square, while the big maps are 512 miles. While that is double in miles it's 4 times in ground space. Our population hasn't grown to 4 times the numbers we had so the big maps are sparsely populated so much harder to "win the war". I think it was "Fester" that said we needed map with smaller numbers of bases, that the whole 512 miles didn't have to be filled.

My thought is that if the small maps Have 60 bases and the large have 180, maybe we need maps around 90-100 bases. They should be set on the 512 map size, but the set-up could be more centrally located. The small island map is reset in a few days at most, but the large island map isn't. We just don't have the population density to work these big maps ...yet   So we need a set of "medium" size maps to get us through until we get more numbers.

Any map makers up to the task?

[grizz441]

So we need a set of "medium" size maps to get us through until we get more numbers.

Any map makers up to the task?

So true.

[Crash Orange]

that would promote not switching sides to even numbers or find a fight.

True, but it would also remove some of the incentive to switch sides when a map win is in the wind in order to sit AFK in the tower and collect the perks.

[DrBone1]

if only they had a thumbs down 

[Crash Orange]

I think Hitech defines "combat" as the attack of bases with an equal defense.

This is called a "doctrine".

That's not a doctrine. A doctrine is something like "Always drop hangers at the outset of your attack" or "Never waste bombs on hangers while there's still town to kill".

I think of this game like a football (American) game. Combat is running, passing, blocking, and tackling. Those are the things that fans like to see and players like to do. A game that involved scoring touchdowns without decent running, passing, blocking, or tackling would be boring. Yet they don't exist in isolation either. 22 guys on a field just running around and playing catch with no purpose would be just as boring, no matter how much amazing athleticism the players displayed. What makes it interesting is the encompassing of all the running, passing, blocking, and tackling into strategies designed to acieve concrete goals - touchdowns - with the eventual purpose of winning the game. It's not just a contest of pure athleticism, it's a contest of wills and of strategies with athletic prowess being the means by which those wills and strategies are put into effect.

The team fans like to see isn't the team that has the guys who run the fastest 100 or even the team with the quarterback with the best arm - although those things are nice. The team fans want to see (and players want to be on) is the team that best uses those assets to score touchdowns, deny them to the opposition, and win games.

[bustr]

1.) Smaller maps would make the HQ's a more realistic gamble for lone wolves and missions to hit.
2.) Blinding a country for 10 minutes while its players scramble to resupply the HQ is it's own time honored traditional reward.
3.) With the current radar and a smaller size map you cannot avoid running into enemies.
4.) It becomes harder to remove CV's as combat generating elements as so many arm chair admirals try to do on the Giant maps.
5.) Our giant sized maps, even with the current radar, allow players to avoid each other.
6.) Sandbox environments rely on the imagination of the child, not the complexity of the sand.
7.) Elegantly complex systems are brain candy but often don't work in practice.
8.) Use K.I.S.S. in your suggestions and let HiTech complicate it if it inspires his COADing.

[Baumer]

Here ya go Crash this is the proper definition of a doctrine.

From Websters;
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/doctrine
Main Entry: doc·trine
Pronunciation: \ˈdäk-trən\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French & Latin; Anglo-French, from Latin doctrina, from doctor
Date: 14th century

1 archaic : teaching, instruction
2 a : something that is taught b : a principle or position or the body of principles in a branch of knowledge or system of belief : dogma c : a principle of law established through past decisions d : a statement of fundamental government policy especially in international relations e : a military principle or set of strategies

[gyrene81]

We get points in AH? 

[curry1]

I agree with Agent in that the maps need work. I don't care "why" people play as long as there is a fight going on, and my guess is thats is HTC goal as well. I'm all for the "win the wars" guys as long as they fight to win it! That being said, I think the big maps are too big, and the small maps too small.

We out grew the small map, which is good for business. Small maps are 256 miles square, while the big maps are 512 miles. While that is double in miles it's 4 times in ground space. Our population hasn't grown to 4 times the numbers we had so the big maps are sparsely populated so much harder to "win the war". I think it was "Fester" that said we needed map with smaller numbers of bases, that the whole 512 miles didn't have to be filled.

My thought is that if the small maps Have 60 bases and the large have 180, maybe we need maps around 90-100 bases. They should be set on the 512 map size, but the set-up could be more centrally located. The small island map is reset in a few days at most, but the large island map isn't. We just don't have the population density to work these big maps ...yet   So we need a set of "medium" size maps to get us through until we get more numbers.

Any map makers up to the task?

Could it be much simpler than that?  Perhaps use the same 512x512 mile maps but take away some of the bases but leave those larger 20mile radar rings.  That way it's easier to capture the needed bases and win Teh WArR!  Perhaps the radar rings could be lengthened even more and make it similar to how it was with the 12 mile radius rings (so basically friendly and enemy radar rings brush up against each other but do not cover the enemie's airfield).