War Win requirments

[Aspen]

I can see potential.  I fly late and would support something that would boost finding action.  There is always something going on, but its log off time for many so there's a lot of wasted time investigating possible fights that turn out to be a bust.

I see a lot of the base taking suggestions as being like trying to solve a cat herding problem by chasing the spotted ones first instead of the striped ones, but something like this could be a plus.

[Fox]

I would suggest that the condition for winning the war be based on victory points from the other countries.  Here are some ideas on how to get victory points:

Base captures
I would make the different bases worth different amounts as has been described.  It would add a new dimension to the base captures if other modifiers could be incorporated.  For example, capturing a base deep inside the enemy territory should be worth more than capturing the one surrounded by your bases.  Maybe a modifier could factor in the ratio of the next closest enemy to friendly base.  Maybe the bases could become worth more points the closer to the capital.  What if there was a bonus (or reduction) based on the number of players that do damage prior to the capture.  Capture the base with a small group and earn more victory points.  Blast the base with a mob and don't get as many.  Maybe there is a bonus if the base is captured when all damage is done with GVs only.  Etc, etc.  

Strategic targets
Maybe in addition to the current system, bombing the strat targets earns victory points toward winning the war.

Other
What if fighting in general earned victory points.  What if shooting down planes, or destroying gvs, or bombing non strategic targets earned a small victory point for each.  The argument some make to the furballers and campers is that they aren't helping to win the war.  What if they were earning points toward the war.

The winning country could be the first to earn so many points from each of the other countries.

[EagleDNY]

I definitely like the idea of having to knock the strats (or even just the city) down below a certain percentage to win.   

More strat raids!!!

[Tank-Ace]

Guys, remember KISS. Keep it simple, stupid.

The one thing I don't like about awarding bases a point value is that the bases really are strewn pretty randomly across the map. There's no logical pattern, and it would ignore position. It would also do nothing to make low-number fights easier to find, or increase bomber sorties, etc. Additionally, it would be far easier to game than my proposed system, as are most systems that simply modify an existing setup in an attempt to control behavior.

While it could have merit on a map built for the system from the ground up, as it stands, its just a new flavor on the old system.


However, needing to bomb either strats or the city is a decent idea.

[Tinkles]

Guys, remember KISS. Keep it simple, stupid.

The one thing I don't like about awarding bases a point value is that the bases really are strewn pretty randomly across the map. There's no logical pattern, and it would ignore position. It would also do nothing to make low-number fights easier to find, or increase bomber sorties, etc. Additionally, it would be far easier to game than my proposed system, as are most systems that simply modify an existing setup in an attempt to control behavior.

While it could have merit on a map built for the system from the ground up, as it stands, its just a new flavor on the old system.


However, needing to bomb either strats or the city is a decent idea.

OHHH OHH OHH! *waves hand frantically* I has an idea I does I does!

Each base we have now would have resources attached to it, be it destructible (like I mentioned in another thread of factories tied to each base and such) OR, they just have that value 'built in'.

So each base has specific resources with it, we shall assume built in.

Lets say you need 10 large 8 medium 5 small 4 Vbases and 3 ports per side at the start

And in order to win you need 2 ports 2-3 Vbases 3+ small 6 medium and 6-7 large bases.  (maybe smaller, just throwing out numbers here)

Once you reach the amount of resources required on both sides, WALA you have won da warz.

Each base has resources unique only to that type of field, so (for example) if you need pizza to win the war, then you need to take a large airfield because they are the only field who has pizzas.
 

Make sense?  It's simple, it is easy, and I like pizza. So there.

Acceptable?

Tinkles

<<S>>

P.S. This way we wouldn't have 'the random base grabbing that we do today. Right now it's steam roll, if they are 'linked' (linked = having a GV spawn into it) then that base is steamrolled.  With this, it would make it so that you have to hit specific targets 'strategically' and be effective, because you must get those bases to get the resources in order to win the war.

Another thought just hit me, if you have too much of a specific resource then you should be penalized for it. Now if you need 15% and you have 16-17% then that isn't a big deal, but if you have say 20%+, then there is an issue, as to what the penalties will be.. HTC would have to decide which bases would have what resources and what the percentages would be for all that.

Pretty much it would be a complete overhaul of the war system and how it is won. Somethings easier than others, but I think it would work.  At least if you are penalized for having too much of one resource we won't see steamrolling so much anymore, because you could possibly get penalized for it! 

Also, just like right now how many bases the enemies have, it would show how many resources the enemies have, that way players would have a reason to defend that one base because of the resources linked to it.



Just my thoughts.

[Zoney]

Wow mates!  I think a few of ya are over thinking this game.  Just fly around and shoot other planes down, it is a lot of fun.

[Chalenge]

This suggestion is only going to make hordes bigger. Hordes are bad, I think we all agree on that.

This is just another idea that is like many others that have come in over the last few years. The numbers online will only go down further.

[Fox]

I agree that the steam rolling mob is bad, but that is about the best way to win the war as it is currently setup.  The goal of my suggestions is to offer more ways to win the war without resorting the current approach.     

[The Fugitive]

I agree that the steam rolling mob is bad, but that is about the best way to win the war as it is currently setup.  The goal of my suggestions is to offer more ways to win the war without resorting the current approach.     

...but why offer more ways to win? After all it has been proven that horde missions are the best way to grab a base. As long as they can build a horde they WILL use it.

What's got to be done is something that makes the horde less appealing as a mission. I'm not saying to eliminate the horde, just to make it harder to use it. If 10 guys can take a base, 20 should have work twice as hard to do it. This way if you want to horde, by all means go ahead, but if they have to work harder at it defenders might have a better chance to defend against them.

[ScottyK]

This suggestion is only going to make hordes bigger. Hordes are bad, I think we all agree on that.

This is just another idea that is like many others that have come in over the last few years. The numbers online will only go down further.

Hordes = more targets, which in my opinion alot of people who play this want to shoot "red guys", so it should be win/win for them

[Fox]

Fugitive, my reasoning (which is probably flawed) was that if there are ways to help win the war besides capturing bases in the current manner, that it might encourage more diverse game play.  If the amount of points earned in a base capture could be reduced if captured by a large mob (for example), then perhaps there would be more smaller ones.  If you could earn points toward a victory by bombing the strats, then maybe some people that might otherwise have joined the large mission to capture a base might attack the strats instead. 

[Tank-Ace]

If possible, I'd like to keep discussion about the central objective / objective bases.

At the very least argue the merits of your points system over my proposed objective system.


And challenge, was that comment directed at me, or at tinkles/fox?

[Chalenge]

Hordes = more targets, which in my opinion alot of people who play this want to shoot "red guys", so it should be win/win for them

I agree that if you are looking for easier kills that finding the mob is a good place to start. I disagree with what you said next, which I think is your way of implying that people will go to the horde in large numbers. In my experience that is exactly what does NOT happen. If you want to shoot players in larger numbers you need to slow down the "capture the map" mentality, but to do that the game will need something to attract large numbers of players in some other form of combat.

THE main problem (as I see it) is that combat in AH is usually combat in one area, and then succeed or fail move to a completely new area and start again. That gets old too fast. I think if the game followed a more tactical pattern that the game would not only attract more players, but it would generate more interesting play. This has already been confirmed with the strat introduction, ironically. To take it further and make the game more successful would require additional elements that AH does not have, as yet. Someone educated and experienced in game theory would be an excellent start.

[Zoney]

It's amazing to me that no one here on the boards participates in base take hordes except for using them to get kills and yet they are all over the map.  I guess that means that those who do not frequent the boards here are guilty of hordeology.

I ignore what is going on in the base taking culture.  When I started doing this years ago I found Aces High to be a lot more fun and a lot less frustrating. Every map has blue skies that I can fly in and fight in, that's all that matters to me.

If you don't want to promote hordeology then just don't participate in them.

This is a great game and I love playing it.  Patience is the key.  An exciting engagement is the reward.  If you think about it, if all we ever had was a perfect environment for your type of gameplay, the anticipation of, and the excitement of these engagements would be diminished.  As an example, during a high altitude, defensive buff hunt, the investment of time and patience intensifies the reward when you find yourself at the right alt, at the right place, at the right time, in the right plane, with the right skills, as you intercept the buff group before they drop.

[Tank-Ace]

I post missions, but only about 7 guys. And I quit when it gets to large to manage (ie turns into a horde).

Aside from that, our current strain of viru....  Horders.... are too boring.


The thing about an objective system is that it would kind make the smash and grab hordes irrelevant. If we do like I suggested and make one super object to destroy for capture, they simply cease to work.

Granted it is replaced by the big horde vs horde furball, that's only at the later stages of the map. Realistically, they will have to fight their way perhaps upto 5 sectors in on large maps before taking an objective.

The benefits are that there are that taking bases all along the front becomes impractical, thus any hording away from the objectives doesn't matter a nickels worth. And you can much more easily pork Ord near the objectives, limiting a hordes capabilities.

More bombers will be used, hording is less effective, and there is actually something for the base takers to do that is beneficial for the furballers.