Why horde?

[Tank-Ace]

increases the percentage of town that needs to be destroyed, and raises the total troop count.

[Wiley]

Ah, so one never knows how many buildings  it will take to get a base captured, or how many troops it will take, and the variations of these numbers will be beyond the control of all invoved.

This is a logical and well thought out idea which I am sure will be immensely  popular with all people who enjoy the ground game.

Wiley.

[Tank-Ace]

No, thats not true. You can make a reasonable guess based on the number of friendlys  and, as I said, it would max out at 100% of town destroyed. If you can't kill all the buildings in town with 30 attackers, you clearly don't deserve to own the base.

But theres no reason (as far as gameplay) that you shouldn't face harder goals if you insist on using obcenly gratuitious force.

A big reason I didn't suggest local ENY affecting perk price and usable planes (based on the Plane's eny value) is so that the furballers can still do their thing.


Another option would be for local eny to just raise the troop numbers with no limit. If you want to make a 50 man horde, well then you should get to enjoy needing 40 sets of troops to take the base. Theres no reason you should be trying to avoid combat as much as possible (by trying to overwhelm the defenders as quickly and completly as possible so you don't have to do much real fighting, which is the entire reason behind a base take horde) in a combat flight simulator.

[Wiley]

No, thats not true. You can make a reasonable guess based on the number of friendlys  and, as I said, it would max out at 100% of town destroyed. If you can't kill all the buildings in town with 30 attackers, you clearly don't deserve to own the base.

Another option would be for local eny to just raise the troop numbers with no limit. If you want to make a 50 man horde, well then you should get to enjoy needing 40 sets of troops to take the base. Theres no reason you should be trying to avoid combat as much as possible (by trying to overwhelm the defenders as quickly and completly as possible so you don't have to do much real fighting, which is the entire reason behind a base take horde) in a combat flight simulator.

And since the people planning the missions have complete control over which friendlies can be in that sector when they are attempting to take the base, these numbers will be easy to predict and manage.

This is one of the most rational, logical and practical ideas I've ever seen proposed for the game.  I can't fathom why HTC hasn't implemented it yet.

Wiley.

[The Fugitive]

And since the people planning the missions have complete control over which friendlies can be in that sector when they are attempting to take the base, these numbers will be easy to predict and manage.

This is one of the most rational, logical and practical ideas I've ever seen proposed for the game.  I can't fathom why HTC hasn't implemented it yet.

Wiley.

They certainly have control over their mission, or they should. If you roll a mission with 20 people and another 20 show up you either use them and for fill the requirements for the larger group, or you ignore the extra players, pass by the first target and hit a new one in the next sector. Adapt.

The "missions" run today have no need to adapt, they just flatten everything and move on. A "commander" should have to think on his feet, adapt the plan to something workable. Not enough people in the mission for a capture due to defense, split the force and turn it into a porking run hitting 3 bases. Regroup and hit one base on the second trip, but the defenders may be defending the wrong one. So much more can be done in this game. It's a shame that todays players are so one dimensional that they can't see the opportunities for others types of missions. They are so tied up in having to succeed in grabbing the base that nothing else is allowed. So they bring 30-40 guys to make SURE.

[Tank-Ace]

Yes, because we all know that somebody screaming over country channel "HEY, EVERYBODY IN SECTOR 16,5 CLEAR OUT. MISSION INBOUND!!!" is likely to work well  .

Besides the constant carping about how it could be potentially circumvented and made a bit less effective, or how its way overdoing it because you can't take exactly the number of aircraft thats allowable with 2 goons so you can game the game, maybe you could think "hey, this might actuall give us a little relief from the lemmings. Might not be perfect, but so what? God knows our current ENY system isn't"

Or perhaps you could stop the sarcastic comments about rationality and logic, and come up with some *cough* rational and logical reasons about why this would be A) impractical    B) overbearing     C)ineffective.


Just saying, for one whos main 'argument' against my suggestion is a supposed of logic or rationality, you have yet to provide an actual argument against it.

[JUGgler]

The issue is the hordes like being hordes. Giving the option to split into smaller groups isn't going to do it. It's nice with the option there, bit they won't use it. They have the option now to hit 3 bases at once with the extra numbers they have and never do it.

They know they can't win the base unless they have the big numbers .

Fugi, you're pretty burned about hordes I understand but they are here to stay. I think the game is morphing into a "war type" strategy game. Whether anyone admits it or not, so lets go with it and alter some stuff to encourage smaller base capture attempts and defense of base captures. AH has invested much time and resources into the vehicle model <-- so this tells me everything I need to know on what direction the game is going. It is no longer just an "aircombat game" it is changing, and changing rapidly. Currently the hording is "mad crazy" very intense and frustrating to fight against it is not for the faint of heart, that is why there are soo many more horders than those who lock horns against it!


I actualy think there is a much simpler way to curb the hording, that is get rid of SYSTEM landed messages, but this will never happen cause I think without "name in lights" most would wonder on out of this game!


At the moment there are almost exclusively 2 kinds of fights

#1- join the horde, whether it is attacking bases or just "cherry festing" the edge of a base for whatever reason.

#2- fighting against these overwhelming odds.


 The "hordes of today" are filled with good pilots so the days of old where 1 or 2 good sticks could launch and give the many a run for their money is long over. There is so much youth in the game now that the "xbox" mentality is taking over. Kill kill kill, shoot shoot shoot, very little appreciation for the "chess match" this game once was, and far fewer "old school" folks who enjoy the "chess match". Sad really but it is what it is! We can only hope to nudge it in a direction that makes us want to stay, not sure it will happen but I'm sure it can!


 



JUGgler

[Rob52240]

DIdn't air warrior only allow a set number of planes to take off from any 1 field withing a given time?

[Wiley]

Yes, because we all know that somebody screaming over country channel "HEY, EVERYBODY IN SECTOR 16,5 CLEAR OUT. MISSION INBOUND!!!" is likely to work well  .

...Precisely, which is what your system would require.  Thank you for making my point for me.

Your general is going to have no control over what is near the base he's trying to take, and additional aircraft in the area will raise the requirements to take the field.  More planes come into the sector, suddenly he doesn't have enough troops now.  Completely beyond his control, and through no fault of his own, the base take fails.  I am sure, based on the pocket generals we see every night in the arena, that they will just smile, shrug it off, and try again at another base.

Now, which scenario is more likely?
A) The countries start working like well oiled machines, following a chain of command and making tactically brilliant harmonic attacks.
B) The hordes stay the same or even grow, and they bring enough troops to cover the cap every time?

Idle curiosity, if 30 planes attack a field and 20 of them die during the attack, will the requirement to take it be for 30 planes or 10?  How do GVs factor into that equation?  Over what time frame?

Besides the constant carping about how it could be potentially circumvented and made a bit less effective,

You misspelled 'completely ineffective'.  In fact, your proposal would be likely to have the precise opposite effect to what you are desiring.  You're talking about upping the requirements to take a base unless everybody does everything just according to plan.  Any time base taking was made more difficult in the past, the hordes have only grown.  Every single time.  It doesn't matter that the size of the horde is what's making it more difficult, why will they not simply bring enough troops to cover the cap?  You see mass troop runs all the time now, why would it be any different under your system?

or how its way overdoing it because you can't take exactly the number of aircraft thats allowable with 2 goons so you can game the game, maybe you could think "hey, this might actuall give us a little relief from the lemmings. Might not be perfect, but so what? God knows our current ENY system isn't"

Explain in detail what part of ENY is designed or even remotely intended to control hording?

Or perhaps you could stop the sarcastic comments about rationality and logic, and come up with some *cough* rational and logical reasons about why this would be A) impractical    B) overbearing     C)ineffective.

Although the idea is obviously silly, I'll play.  I'm willing to accept that you actually can't see why it won't work.

A)  The mission has no control over what flies into its sector.  That alone means they're going to have to bring extra troops and ordnance to cover contingencies, which means they will need to bring more planes, which means they will need to bring more troops and ord, which means they will need to bring more planes...  Are you seeing the issue yet?

B)  By design, the system practically demands the pocket generals have everybody clear out of their way if they're going to make a run on a base.  Attempting to support them if they are fighting a losing battle will actually hurt their cause.

C)  Outlined above, but barely scratching the surface of the number of ways this could be gamed.

Wiley.

[guncrasher]

DIdn't air warrior only allow a set number of planes to take off from any 1 field withing a given time?

yes and that only helped the attackers.



semp

[Tank-Ace]

Thats the point. People can't control whos in the sector. Since the troop requierment might increase without warning, smaller would be better. Its entirely the mission leader's fault if he brings exactly the number of planes that his goons can support (as in 1 more person in the sector will kick up the troop requirement). He is responsibe for the failure to capture the base, and he is responsible for the waste of everyones time. He screwed up because instead of being smart with his resources, and timing, he got greedy and tried to use as much force as possible so he wouldn't have to do any real fighting.


30 planes up, 20 die (all simultaneously), then its counted as 30 for the first 5 minutes following their deaths, and then 10 after that. This would be to prevent all the fighters from bailing as soon as troops are about to enter the map room, and working the system for a capture. GV's have equal value as aircraft. The point is to reward minimal use of assets. If theres a GV fight right next to the base you want..... well tough **** jack, go find another base to take. Theres about 20 others scattered along the front all just as good as that one.


If it were less harsh, yes, that would be true. But if its harsh enough that 30 man raids become no more effective (which is not to say less effective) than 15 man raids, and 40+ man raids are damn near impossible, then people will have no incentive to fly in the 30 man raids.
If A = B, and C doesn't work, then why would you insist on picking B every time?


ENY isn't to limit hording, its to provide some sembalance of a fair fight when the numbers get way out of whack. I was simply using ENY of an example of something that, while kind of effective under certian circumstances, works less well than could have been hoped for.

A) thats the point. If using a few works, using more doesn't work any better, and using a lot doesn't work as well..... then you would have to be the biggest idiot in the history of AH to keep trying to use more and more people. Yes, it will be annoying for the horders the first week or so, but once they realize they can't put out the fire by throwing more lemmings on it, then things will start to improve.

B) no, because nothing will work if you insist on using huge 30-40 person raids. More people won't work. More managment won't work, less managment won't work. The only thing that will work is scaling the attack back to a reasonable level. You want 20 person raids? Fine. Thats not impossible to defend against if you're good. But 35 is like going after a fly with a jackhammer.

C) see above, the point is to make big raids equally or less effective than small raids. No benefit to 30 people flying together, then they'll stop.

[Wiley]

Thats the point. People can't control whos in the sector. Since the troop requierment might increase without warning, smaller would be better. Its entirely the mission leader's fault if he brings exactly the number of planes that his goons can support (as in 1 more person in the sector will kick up the troop requirement). He is responsibe for the failure to capture the base, and he is responsible for the waste of everyones time. He screwed up because instead of being smart with his resources, and timing, he got greedy and tried to use as much force as possible so he wouldn't have to do any real fighting.

Assuming the leader buys into your system and brings several less than will boost the cap, when 5 or 10 or 11 or however many friendlies it takes happen by doing something else and mess up his situation, it will sting less.  Got it.

30 planes up, 20 die (all simultaneously), then its counted as 30 for the first 5 minutes following their deaths, and then 10 after that. This would be to prevent all the fighters from bailing as soon as troops are about to enter the map room, and working the system for a capture. GV's have equal value as aircraft. The point is to reward minimal use of assets. If theres a GV fight right next to the base you want..... well tough **** jack, go find another base to take. Theres about 20 others scattered along the front all just as good as that one.

Right.  They will bail 5 minutes before they plan to release the troops, leaving a skeleton crew at CAP alt in case the enemy gets ideas.  Or, 40 of the 50 they brought will continue to the next base, leaving a skeleton crew at the previous base to mop up.  Another question occurs to me.  What happens if the requirement for troops is 15, 11 troops get into the maproom, and the timer runs out on a bunch of planes that have left the area/died to push it down to requiring 10 for the take?

If it were less harsh, yes, that would be true. But if its harsh enough that 30 man raids become no more effective (which is not to say less effective) than 15 man raids,

...So 30 planes isn't a horde?  I'll... just leave that comment right here.  That statement alone completely invalidates anything else you might say, no matter how many italics you use.

and 40+ man raids are damn near impossible, then people will have no incentive to fly in the 30 man raids.
If A = B, and C doesn't work, then why would you insist on picking B every time?

Yes, because people always approach the game in terms of 'where can I be the most effective?'  You act like people log into the game and uniformly sit down and plan among themselves how big the horde is going to be today, and where it's going.  People log in, see a bardar, and head toward it.  Under your system, if you don't bring the maximum number of people, the number of troops that are required to take the town will be random, and the number of buildings needed to be down will also be random.  Alternately, they can bring in a horde they know will get the job done, and enough troops to satisfy the maximum requirement.

Based on previous behavior, which is more likely?

ENY isn't to limit hording, its to provide some sembalance of a fair fight when the numbers get way out of whack. I was simply using ENY of an example of something that, while kind of effective under certian circumstances, works less well than could have been hoped for.

"hey, this might actuall give us a little relief from the lemmings. Might not be perfect, but so what? God knows our current ENY system isn't"

Reads to me like you're saying ENY is supposed to be saving us from the hordes, but if you say so...

A) thats the point. If using a few works, using more doesn't work any better, and using a lot doesn't work as well..... then you would have to be the biggest idiot in the history of AH to keep trying to use more and more people. Yes, it will be annoying for the horders the first week or so, but once they realize they can't put out the fire by throwing more lemmings on it, then things will start to improve.

Based on what? There will be fewer people in the game?

B) no, because nothing will work if you insist on using huge 30-40 person raids. More people won't work.

Why?  What will prevent them from bringing enough goons?

C) see above, the point is to make big raids equally or less effective than small raids. No benefit to 30 people flying together, then they'll stop.

If they're equally effective, they'll still be there.  If 30 works pretty much as well as 15, 30 will be what will come.  If 40 has a higher troop requirement, why will they not bring 50 with more troops?

Wiley.

[chipr]

Been noticing talk about hordes is up lately, and hordes have always been one of my pet peves. And so I ask you: why?

Why do you fly in hordes? What benefit does it get you?

If you're after the war win perks, then you should know that the defenders get more perks from killing you guys than you do from the war win. Hordes are about the worst way to earn perks in the game.

If you're out for a fight..... why does it have to be a massive 30v30? a 10v10 is just as fun, and less harmfull to the health of the overall gameplay.

If you're out to capture bases and win the map as easily as possible, you can do that offline for free.

If you're out to stir up anger, and piss people off...... well in that case you're a sadist, and I wish you an unpleasant life.


Just trying to understand the reasoning from the horders perspective. From my perspective, there is no benefit to flying in a horde if you want to actually play the game.

I may be speaking only for myself when I say that hording keeps mediocre to below average players ALIVE longer. Lets say I go up by myself and I run into a small pack of bogeys. 3 vs 1 and my chances are slim to none (if i stick around to fight). On the other hand, lets say its 10 vs 10 or 10 vs 20 or 20 vs 10..... Im not the only target to shoot at. With this game being as it is, success is the only way to have fun on a consistent basis. Dying every 10 minutes is no longer fun for me and therefore i'd rather take my chances in a furball with friendlies then a furball without friendlies.

[The Fugitive]

I may be speaking only for myself when I say that hording keeps mediocre to below average players ALIVE longer. Lets say I go up by myself and I run into a small pack of bogeys. 3 vs 1 and my chances are slim to none (if i stick around to fight). On the other hand, lets say its 10 vs 10 or 10 vs 20 or 20 vs 10..... Im not the only target to shoot at. With this game being as it is, success is the only way to have fun on a consistent basis. Dying every 10 minutes is no longer fun for me and therefore i'd rather take my chances in a furball with friendlies then a furball without friendlies.

if that's the only way to have fun, your missing out on a whole lot of the game, just saying.

[Shuffler]

 With this game being as it is, success is the only way to have fun on a consistent basis.

I die alot and have fun. Success is what you make it out to be. To me having fun is success.