Instead of new vehicles

[Wiley]

The # of troops required for the ultimate capture is insignificant, the 20-30 minutes of 'contested" status is the "meat" of the idea.

Right, I'm on the same page.  I just wanted to understand how it would work.

As far as the "mud movers" are concerned, they could still move the mud however they desire they could even move on if they like, I'm sure "as we have now" squads that specialize in captures, we would have squads specialize in defending the potential capture as well as squads that specialize in 'counter attack" as well as "interdiction", GV defence/attack all brought on by the "timeout". You see the timeout gives TIME for a vast amount of diversity in gameplay to potentialy happen!


In RL the moment an attacker wins a possesion is the same moment he is the most vulnerable, <-- this is where all 'counter attack" theories are derived!



JUGgler

It's not a bad idea.  The downside I can see is, as it's presented above the ability to recapture might make it too easy for the original defenders to take it back.

I'm seeing this happening often:

Horde comes in, smashes base, drops 10 troops.  Base is now contested.
Counterhorde comes in, smashes CAP, drops 20 troops.  Base is now theirs again.

Maybe some kind of setup where if a base hasn't changed hands in the last hour, it's contested for 40 minutes.  If it's retaken by the original defenders, it's contested for 20 minutes.  If the original attackers take it back, it's contested for 10 minutes, or something along those lines.

Would the hangars be available when a base is contested?  The more I think about this, it looks to me like it's possibly overbalanced in favor of the original defenders.

Wiley.

[JUGgler]

Right, I'm on the same page.  I just wanted to understand how it would work.


Horde comes in, smashes base, drops 10 troops.  Base is now contested.
Counterhorde comes in, smashes CAP, drops 20 troops.  Base is now theirs again.
Maybe some kind of setup where if a base hasn't changed hands in the last hour, it's contested for 40 minutes.  If it's retaken by the original defenders, it's contested for 20 minutes.  If the original attackers take it back, it's contested for 10 minutes, or something along those lines.

Would the hangars be available when a base is contested?  The more I think about this, it looks to me like it's possibly overbalanced in favor of the original defenders.

Wiley.

There is a HUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUGE difference tween smashing a base where limited #s of peeps are trying to up and defend and smashing an already inplace cap that is established and has alt!  

As I said before the "counter attackers will have their work cut out for them as trying to regain control of the contested base (that will default ownership to the folks with troops in) will be very difficult and require some major commitment! I would say most counter attacks would fail miserably, but at least they will have TIME to try! There would be a forseeable goal for counter attackers to try and attain!


While "contested" the base is utterly unusable to any country!  all ack and buildings would remain down during this time

In fact the base could change colors on the clip board to signify its contested status, drawing more attackers and counter attackers in to the meat grinder! 
 


JUGgler

[PFactorDave]

You are overthinking it!

A simple "timeout" for a base that is "contested", "contested" being--> 10 troops have entered the maproom unmolested. 30 minutes later IF 10 opposing troops have not entered then the base changes hands. If 10 "counter troops" successfully enter the maproom then the next set, whomever gets them in takes the base, and it immediately becomes fully operational.


The idea for the "timeout" is simply in response to how missions work and how the general play of AH peeps is.


The average capture goes like this--> Horde assembles in mission then launches, defending country sees a bit of dar but most folks are off doing something else and do no wish to auger (for whatever reason) to respond in a timely manner. Defending country does produce a few "diehards" but they are waaaay to few. The mission arrives and pummels all before it and set up cap. A few defenders up from nearby bases trying to get there, those that come in low trying to be intime are poored over by the horde, those that grab alt are too late!


A "timeout" for 20-30 minutes will allow a response, it is still no guaranteed and the responders still need to get troops in (still very much against the odds) but doable if there is enough commited. The original attackers now have become the defenders for 20-30 minutes and maybe the attackers again if their defense sux. The "back and forth struggles" would be epic. Not all captures would be fought over, I suspect most would still be easy with little defence required, but a few of them would be "mindbendingly" intense and chaotic 


My idea does NOTHING to discourage the original "capture mission". Infact the same strategy could apply, they will just have to defend their troops for a time frame to ultimately be successfull 



JUGgler

I think this idea is very intersting and might actually accomplish the sought after goal.

[Wiley]

There is a HUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUGE difference tween smashing a base where limited #s of peeps are trying to up and defend and smashing an already inplace cap that is established and has alt!  

Not that big.  A good number of them are going to have to land and reup.  I'd say between the people who started out from the next base over when the attack was first sighted, and the people who are reupping after being shot down, it's going to be about equal, plus the original defenders don't have to put down the town again, they just need to sweep the sky.

Wiley.

[JUGgler]

Not that big.  A good number of them are going to have to land and reup.  I'd say between the people who started out from the next base over when the attack was first sighted, and the people who are reupping after being shot down, it's going to be about equal, plus the original defenders don't have to put down the town again, they just need to sweep the sky.

Wiley.

You are still looking at it thru narrow glasses. You see when a "mission General" posts a capture mission do you think it might be possible that he or even "random folks" might realize that counter attacks will be coming from nearby bases and actually go interdict the rout of those counter attackers?  I think yes. It would not be like you're thinking that 1 horde poors over the base then goes away while the counter attack horde has their turn. The whole battle would be immensly intertwined and complex in all its facets, bringing far more elements of diversity in actual warfair ( if you will).

Just imagine this, I would set up a base capture mission ( ). With my idea I would take in to account the real potential of counter attackers coming from nearby bases, so I would maybe ask for a few "air superiority" ponies or jets to go deal with the potential incoming counter attack untill the base is captured, many planes will easily  have fuel and ammo enough to stay aloft 45 minutes or better. The shear possibility that some of these contests would turn out to epic in all facets of the game would be exciting for all but the very few who need to be absolutely sure of the outcome before they commit to anything!



JUGgler

[Chilli]

Although, I like the concept intention to disarm the horde, I disagree with the stalemate over capturing turf.  We need something entirely different to give rewards to organized warfare that is more than a bunch of locusts feeding off everything living on the ground and moving along. 

As in real battle the boots on the ground are the ones that get it done.  So, it would make sense to have the air power battle each other for control of the SKIES, and troop carriers bring the boots on the GROUND to receive all the hugs from the grateful villagers for rescue from the evil dictators of that other country (hopefully young and very attractive women).  The difference in our two suggestions that I see, your defense changes nothing about how the fields are targeted, it simply gives them more time to be defend and/ or reclaim. 

For example:  C47s now have formations so you are bringing potentially 30 troopers to spread out and attack the village objectives, building by building.  Their assault can be assisted by friendly armor and strafing aircraft.  The defender's best chance for defense is to run as many of their own troops to the same village.  M3s, SDKs, Jeeps and C47s will be the grunts for both sides. 

[Wiley]

  <img src='notsureifserious.jpg>

You are still looking at it thru narrow glasses. You see when a "mission General" posts a capture mission do you think it might be possible that he or even "random folks" might realize that counter attacks will be coming from nearby bases and actually go interdict the rout of those counter attackers?  I think yes. It would not be like you're thinking that 1 horde poors over the base then goes away while the counter attack horde has their turn.

Why not?  What about this situation makes horde tactics suddenly not work?

The whole battle would be immensly intertwined and complex in all its facets, bringing far more elements of diversity in actual warfair ( if you will).

Juggler...  Have you...  Have you been playing in the same arena I have been for the last year and a half?

Let's take a look at that again:

The whole battle would be immensly intertwined and complex in all its facets, bringing far more elements of diversity in actual warfair ( if you will).

No, seriously.  Are you playing in a different arena from the Late War Main Arena in Aces High?

Just imagine this, I would set up a base capture mission ( ). With my idea I would take in to account the real potential of counter attackers coming from nearby bases, so I would maybe ask for a few "air superiority" ponies or jets to go deal with the potential incoming counter attack untill the base is captured, many planes will easily  have fuel and ammo enough to stay aloft 45 minutes or better.

Great.  So those few air superiority planes will be equipped to deal with the 30 guys that are upping en masse to smash the CAP?  Grizz and Kappa can't be at every base capture.

The shear possibility that some of these contests would turn out to epic in all facets of the game would be exciting for all but the very few who need to be absolutely sure of the outcome before they commit to anything!

JUGgler

You're assuming a lot.  The first and biggest mistake is, you're assuming you're going to get the right players to fulfill your mission requirements when you go to take the base.  Take a look at how battles proceed currently in the MA.  Sometimes, there are enough people interested in the landgrab to actually bring ord and drop it on the enemy field once the furball gets pushed back over top of it.  However, every time there's a fight, there are always plenty of people willing to get over the enemy base and kill enemy planes.  It will be the same way under your system.  You'll have to work to find enough people willing to fulfill a role in your attack, but there will be a buttload of people who will be thinking, 'To have an effect on the game, all I have to do is up in this nice friendly horde and sweep the sky over that base?  Hooray!'  And then all it will take is a couple guys willing to fly goons.

My point is, it will be infinitely easier to find the resources to form a counterhorde than it will be to put together a

whole battle would be immensly intertwined and complex in all its facets, bringing far more elements of diversity in actual warfair ( if you will).

It would stagnate the arena, in horrible fashion.

Wiley.

[guncrasher]

it will be one epic battle, dozens of planes against dozens of planes.  then 10 minutes later he will post threads telling how the game is going down due to horde against horde battles.

semp

[JUGgler]

<img src='notsureifserious.jpg>


It would stagnate the arena, in horrible fashion.

Wiley.

Well maybe I just can't see the superior awesomeness of the current system!

Maybe I need to take some bases then land and move on to the next capture over and over again. If I live it maybe I'll love it!

Or I could just continue to reject the game!!


Somehow the latter seems less boring  



JUGgler

[JUGgler]

it will be one epic battle, dozens of planes against dozens of planes.  then 10 minutes later he will post threads telling how the game is going down due to horde against horde battles.

semp

I knew you were sitting at your screen hoping against hope to see me post again. Although your attraction to me is flattering it is also gross, please find a new idol!



JUGgler

[Wiley]

Well maybe I just can't see the superior awesomeness of the current system!

I never said the current system is awesome.  I happen to agree with you that the current strategy is lacking.  I am just a firm believer that if change is to be made, it should be a change that will actually work.  The first thing people are going to do if a change is made is try to continue on as they have done in the past.  When that occurs with the system as written above, I believe it would stagnate the arena.

The problem is, people don't log into the MA to be told where to go, what to fly, or which role to fulfill.  They want to get in and do their thing.  Making the ground battle so it requires actual skilled coordination on multiple levels in multiple roles is a recipe for failure.  I think HTC sees that, which is why the ground war is the way it is.

It needs to be simple so that casual players can make a difference.

Wiley.

[grizz441]

The problem is, people don't log into the MA to be told where to go, what to fly, or which role to fulfill.  They want to get in and do their thing.  Making the ground battle so it requires actual skilled coordination on multiple levels in multiple roles is a recipe for failure.  I think HTC sees that, which is why the ground war is the way it is.

It needs to be simple so that casual players can make a difference.

Wiley.

I agree, changes to the strategic system need not make game play more "complicated" which forces players to use a lot more energy to do what they want.  However, I think there are plenty of simple changes that can be made that will make things much better without really affecting the difficulty of the game.  I'm getting tired of listing them but:

1) Increase strategic value of strats.  Provide player base with readily accessible information/intel in regards to the value of objects in the strats via clipboard map
2) Eliminate acks from auto upping when a base is captured.  Provide a necessity to defend said base or run supplies to it to get it back online.
3) Add bridges to be fought over that control either supply lines or unlock additional spawns based on who controls it.
4) Add central zone city/hub where ownership of affects supply lines to corresponding zone bases.  Place in central location of affected zone bases.
5) Add historical war statistics in game to show which sides have been winning the most wars, which squads have been capturing the most bases, which players are running the most troops, etc.  Like a "Heroes of the Last War" section.
6) Add health counter above friendly towns to show the current state of town.  If it is down show it to be red, heavily damaged yellow, light damage to no damage green.

Don't have to agree with all of the above but this is just the hamster turning.  Plenty of ideas to work with if there is an actual effort on HTC's part to make it better.

[Wiley]

I agree, changes to the strategic system need not make game play more "complicated" which forces players to use a lot more energy to do what they want.  However, I think there are plenty of simple changes that can be made that will make things much better without really affecting the difficulty of the game.  I'm getting tired of listing them but:

1) Increase strategic value of strats.  Provide player base with readily accessible information/intel in regards to the value of objects in the strats via clipboard map

To do what?  If it's to degrade the enemy's ability, it's not a good idea.

2) Eliminate acks from auto upping when a base is captured.  Provide a necessity to defend said base or run supplies to it to get it back online.
3) Add bridges to be fought over that control either supply lines or unlock additional spawns based on who controls it.
4) Add central zone city/hub where ownership of affects supply lines to corresponding zone bases.  Place in central location of affected zone bases.

I wasn't here for it.  Why did zone strat die horribly the first time?

5) Add historical war statistics in game to show which sides have been winning the most wars, which squads have been capturing the most bases, which players are running the most troops, etc.  Like a "Heroes of the Last War" section.
6) Add health counter above friendly towns to show the current state of town.  If it is down show it to be red, heavily damaged yellow, light damage to no damage green.

Don't have to agree with all of the above but this is just the hamster turning.  Plenty of ideas to work with if there is an actual effort on HTC's part to make it better.

Wouldn't 5 result in an unbalancing effect because 'Oh hey, Bish got more map rolls, they must be the bestest side to be on!'  and the horde rolls on...

As far as 6, I've always thought 'fog of war' should only apply to the other side's status.  Sitting in a tower that's presumably plugged into your entire intel network should mean you have the means to see exactly what's going on at any friendly location in the map.  This would help, IMO.

I get what you're saying, Grizz.  The problem is, to implement a more robust strategy system requires a completely different approach to map design, and I think that's where the inertia comes in.  The more complex ideas above require a complete rework of the map layouts.  That would have to be done all at once.  Pretty big risk to take on an idea.

Wiley.

[grizz441]

Wouldn't 5 result in an unbalancing effect because 'Oh hey, Bish got more map rolls, they must be the bestest side to be on!'  and the horde rolls on...

Do you think the player base is that shallow?  My crew would be on the side that loses the most often, and I presume a large number of players like being the underdog as well.  If the game is populated by a majority of fair weather front runners then it wouldn't be good I guess.  Not like it'd be hard to remove though if the player base proved they really were that lame.

[Wiley]

Do you think the player base is that shallow?

I'm trying to figure out if this question is rhetorical in favor of my standpoint, or rhetorical in favor of yours.   Forum board posters are not a representative sample of the playerbase.  There's lots of guys on here that would pipe up and say they'd go to the underdog side.  Most of them might even actually do it.  If that mindset was a majority thing though, don't you think we would see less hordes in game now?

My crew would be on the side that loses the most often, and I presume a large number of players like being the underdog as well.  If the game is populated by a majority of fair weather front runners then it wouldn't be good I guess.  Not like it'd be hard to remove though if the player base proved they really were that lame.

Sure.  There are always some who enjoy being on the pressed side.  Hey, at least you'd never have to worry about ENY again.

The problem I see with the game is, dogpiling on an undefended or poorly defended location works, and works well.  You get points, you get perks, you get attaboys.  Your side advances on the map.  You get maybe 1 or 2 grumbles from the usual suspects about 'way to go, those buildings sure put up a helluva fight!' and you move on to your next base.

There is no ingame reward for defending a base as it stands now.  That's a major problem.  The only thing you do by defending is momentarily slow down the other side's offense.  Somebody possibly gives an attaboy if your side completely crushes an oncoming horde, but apparently that isn't as motivating as something that says SYSTEM: in front of it. 

I don't know what kind of a carrot to offer people for defense.  Perks?  'SYSTEM: Rooks successfully repelled a Bishop attack on A34'?  That's the tricky part, is to provide people with a motivation to do the stuff that's good for the game.  I think that's part of the problem across the board.

Wiley.