New game stucture

[The Fugitive]

can always counter the horde with anti-horde guys that up jets and uber fighters.   Needs what 5 guys who have uber mode enabled to slay any 15-20 man mishun.

Unfortunately most of us don't have an "Uber mode"

Just need knowledge of whats been going on with the war situation / map and advance warning. 

And more often than not that info isn't forthcoming.

So far the only answer that looks like it could work is Drediock's

As I have said for years. Base or zone limits. IRL bases could not/cannot support an unlimited number of aircraft at any given time. Neither should they here. Nor were all aircraft able to fly from all feilds

Imposing such limits would force people to up from a greater number of bases thus broadening the front You may still have the horde but they wont be able to all come from the same place at the same time. This would force the so called (cough cough)planners to actually be creative when they plan

Can anyone poke holes in this one?

[Ack-Ack]

Can anyone poke holes in this one?

As anyone that used to fly in the VoD in AW, zone base limits had no effect on the hordes.

ack-ack

[caldera]

One way to counter hordes might be to ignore them and attack multiple empty bases simultaneously.  The bad guys would lose some bases and some would have to split up to defend.  The only time most of these hordies defend bases is when their precious "win teh warz" game plan goes awry.  Once they are about to go under 20% of your bases, they start thinking about defense.  You want change, then lead by example.

[Tinkles]

One way to counter hordes might be to ignore them and attack multiple empty bases simultaneously.  The bad guys would lose some bases and some would have to split up to defend.  The only time most of these hordies defend bases is when their precious "win teh warz" game plan goes awry.  Once they are about to go under 20% of your bases, they start thinking about defense.  You want change, then lead by example.

That is something that is a weakness of hordes.  IF everyone on that side (or most) are in a mission, then there are no defenders. Take that as an opportunity to launch multiple counter-offensives against the enemy. Use it as a strategic advantage.  Then, if they catch on, maybe hordes will become a thing of the past because of these "major weaknesses".

While I agree that hordes are annoying (they make my framerate drop from barely adequate to crap instantly), I understand why they are here and why all sides at some point or another have done it.  It's effective (sometimes, quite laughable when not), and isn't hard; with the same end reward, you have a new base.

It isn't my preference, but I won't dictate as to how everyone else should play. However, use the weakness of the horde. Instead of having defenders, use that cv that has been off that island for 2+ hours, grab that base before they get your base!   

Just a few thoughts.

Tinkles

<<S>>

[BaldEagl]

One way to counter hordes might be to ignore them and attack multiple empty bases simultaneously.  The bad guys would lose some bases and some would have to split up to defend.  The only time most of these hordies defend bases is when their precious "win teh warz" game plan goes awry.  Once they are about to go under 20% of your bases, they start thinking about defense.  You want change, then lead by example.

No no no.  Then Fugi would have to run all these strategic muti-target missions he always wants others to run.

[Tilt]

As anyone that used to fly in the VoD in AW, zone base limits had no effect on the hordes.

ack-ack

Not true they had a real game play effect in AW FR spreading combat and reducing the "Disneyland " effect (as Mage referred to it)

Further the AW base limit could be  attritted lowering the number of planes air borne from any one base from 24? To closer to 12? When certain objects were destroyed.( not something I would suggest for AH)

This forced mission planners to use multiple bases on many occasions.

The older AW terrains ( centre lake with three outer lakes) accommodated this very well as combat was to be had throughout the front.

Base limits were dropped when larger PAC and Euro terrains were brought into play. Not because they did not work re game play but because Mage etc could not get them to work at all ( technically) on these larger maps . I Indeed struggled to get them working on the AW Niemen terrain I built for that scenario. Basically AW terrain COAD was PITA from both design and setup viewpoints.   ( lists!)

Base zone limits are the only tried and tested anti horde device  to have "worked" IMO.

[Tilt]

I think we can see game play where it is possible to "farm" a horde.  Actually in the main this is not a typical gameplay circumstance.

The main game play occurrence starts with a large dar bar that moves from one base to another and claims it whilst rolling over the futile attempts of a small poorly organised defence.

The fact that a small poorly organised defence loses a base is a right and proper consequence. That this is done in in a manner that denies all participant access to combat is not IMO a desirable outcome.

Equally sometimes there is balance of combat over a field or near balanced with combat deciding an eventual out come..... When a horde rolls over  this combat and vastly for shortens the battle the net result is one of loss to game play at the the gain to territory. This would be OK if the next jucstaposition of fields allowed the same "fight" to resume.  But on so many terrains this is not the case.

In conclusion players should have an expectation of combat with opponents. Horde activity " in the main" removes access to this combat. Even when some player may "farm" a horde I would note that the swarm mentality focused on the mission reduces "farming" to a glorified pick fest.

[The Fugitive]

As anyone that used to fly in the VoD in AW, zone base limits had no effect on the hordes.

ack-ack

Yes they did... tho I don't know what VoD means. In AW you would have to up from different bases and rendezvous with the other wings. In that time it gave defenders time to up a cap. It also brought in more waypoint changes to try and make it look like your hitting one base when you were really going after another. Things that made running a big mission a bit more challenging, and in many cases fun due to the "historic" nature of the rendezvous.

No no no.  Then Fugi would have to run all these strategic muti-target missions he always wants others to run.

I've run thousands of them split between here and AW. The 444th Air Mafia was known as a great base taking squad that just didn't quit. The biggest reason I stepped down as CO of the squad after years of being the CO was I wanted more time to just fly the missions. Running big multi-target missions is a lot of work. I spent most squad nights just cruising around at 25k in a bomber just over seeing the action. Of course running those kinds of missions these days would be a bit tougher. Most of todays players aren't as skilled as they use to be. Why practice divebombing when you know for the most part you'll have 5 guys diving in right behind you going for the same target  There are few squads left that have that kind of skill any more Stampfs group, Palidins group, 71 Squadron RAF, and a few other I've seen take the time to train and work with their people to get BETTER at the game and use skill to offset numbers. The rest use numbers to make up for the lack of skill.

Again, this is not a "lets get rid of the HORDE" posting. I'm just hoping we get to see a change in game structure either by players who lead these missions, that they take into consideration not only their "teams" fun but the "enemies" fun as well, or something by HTC to provide a counter to what has become the "norm" in mission types. Like back in the day when you saw mostly NOE's.... err or didn't  HTC changed the dar levels and now we see NOE's, but they are no longer the norm, but the occasional mission (except on any of the island maps, much easier to NOE over water) that is a surprise tactic.   

[pembquist]

I think the best thing that hitech could do to improve play is to have an easy to use self training system for air combat that would work offline.

[BaldEagl]

tho I don't know what VoD means.  

Valley of Dweebs; the furthest west bases between the AZ and BZ near the river which launched the 24/7 furball in the VOD.

[The Fugitive]

I think the best thing that hitech could do to improve play is to have an easy to use self training system for air combat that would work offline.

While I like it and don't want to shot down your idea, have you ever seen a "gamer" start a new game? From what I've seen instruction sheets are pristine after years of non use (I don't think they even bother printing them any more) and they jump strait into the "action". Unless forced very few will bother using a training system.

Valley of Dweebs; the furthest west bases between the AZ and BZ near the river which launched the 24/7 furball in the VOD.

ahhh ok. The Mafia spent most of our time in the Pac arena especially once it went to Big Pac and we had a base named after our squad 

[MADe]

Why has this game turned into an on-line version of "RISK"? You mass up your playing pieces along a boarder and then throw them at the next land mass. Roll your dice and take your chances that you brought enough "game markers" to take the objective.

Yesterday it started out with GHI and the Bish horde sneaking bases. Then supper time came and all the "kids" had to leave and it was Earl and the Rook horde taking back the base GHI and his horde had grabbed earlier. As night potato on the Knits got there horde running and as Earl and his horde were too busy stealing land from the Bish it was left to the stragglers to try and slow down the building Knit horde. Same old, same old.

Why has the game fallen into this routine? Don't get me wrong, I found little fights here and there, spoiled a few strat runs, made a milk run myself, but I had to work at it to find these things. When the "groups" get rolling it turns into the same old thing. Is grabbing bases more important than playing the game? No I don't want to see furballs all night, I want to see fights, period. It seems that when these groups get rolling they do what ever they can to avoid fighting for anything.

Want a base? Bring 50 guys to flatten everything and drop troops. Even if it is a vehicle base!  How can there be a fight there? Now have 5 guys (2 buffs, 2 fighters, and a goon/M3) hit a V base and you might have to fight for it if someone is paying attention. If not you will take it with ease. Why must these "groups" all be on one base? is the chance of not getting the base such a horrible thought that it must be avoided at all costs? Will people actually die if the base is not captured? Will people rage quit if the "mission" ..... and I use that term VERY loosely, fails?

I wish some of these "leaders" would take it upon themselves to make mission more interesting and fun for all, and all being both sides.   

Is this not the nature of war?
Is not the goal to win the map, hence winning the war.
If this was real life, would you not approach the targets in this fashion?
Believe it or not sometimes, not engaging in aerial fights, is a tactic. Stringing out the enemy fighters so the bombers can do their job.
My guess would be that the different time zones have the same groups that work together whilest other time zones go to bed, or work or school.
In the MA there are too many sides, I think. This is where AvA comes into mind. But most will not play AvA, most go to the MA where the numbers are.
I have to say that AH has done a great job at recreating actual circumstances in an air war world. They have provided what real air combat is. You are now to familiar with the game, hence the spontaneity is gone. I have this problem myself. This is why FA died IMO. AH has out lived FA due to GV's, Boats, better physics. But eventually peoples get bored. All of us cap out our skill level at some point. The bestest remain the bestest. Team play is great, but once the team finds tactics that work for them, they stick with the same old same old.

I do not think there is a real answer for this other than less realistic gameplay.
The bottom line is what is "your" end game to be?
If we could all get togather in the same warehouse, connected to the server on the same lan, at the same time, it would be different prolly.
No lag, real, real time gameplay. This would be new. Eventually you would get bored of this.
S

[matt]

One way to counter hordes might be to ignore them and attack multiple empty bases simultaneously.  The bad guys would lose some bases and some would have to split up to defend.  The only time most of these hordies defend bases is when their precious "win teh warz" game plan goes awry.  Once they are about to go under 20% of your bases, they start thinking about defense.  You want change, then lead by example.

[The Fugitive]

Is this not the nature of war?
Is not the goal to win the map, hence winning the war.
If this was real life, would you not approach the targets in this fashion?
Believe it or not sometimes, not engaging in aerial fights, is a tactic. Stringing out the enemy fighters so the bombers can do their job.
My guess would be that the different time zones have the same groups that work together whilest other time zones go to bed, or work or school.
In the MA there are too many sides, I think. This is where AvA comes into mind. But most will not play AvA, most go to the MA where the numbers are.
I have to say that AH has done a great job at recreating actual circumstances in an air war world. They have provided what real air combat is. You are now to familiar with the game, hence the spontaneity is gone. I have this problem myself. This is why FA died IMO. AH has out lived FA due to GV's, Boats, better physics. But eventually peoples get bored. All of us cap out our skill level at some point. The bestest remain the bestest. Team play is great, but once the team finds tactics that work for them, they stick with the same old same old.

I do not think there is a real answer for this other than less realistic gameplay.
The bottom line is what is "your" end game to be?
If we could all get togather in the same warehouse, connected to the server on the same lan, at the same time, it would be different prolly.
No lag, real, real time gameplay. This would be new. Eventually you would get bored of this.
S

This NOT war, nor is it suppose to represent WAR in any way. IT IS A GAME. What happened in real life shouldn't have any bearing here other than the historical elements. You will never see ambulances in this game nor piles of bodies along the side of the roads, nor concentration camps. This is a game. War is never meant to be fair. You take ever advantage you can to save your army and decimate the enemies. War is not fun.

This is a game. Games are suppose to be fun. Games are suppose to be ..... well basically.... fair. This is why the main arena isn't 2 sided like AvA. If it were people would pile on the side with the biggest numbers just to steam roll the other side. With 3 sides it's much harder to single out just one side. So with the idea of the game being fair there should be some counter to hordes.

Yes I am familiar with the game VERY familiar as I have been here 11 years and a couple in Air Warrior as well. I still find ways to have fun, if I didn't I'd be long gone. The thing is, with 11 years here you start to see trends. Yes we have always had Hordes, I've even lead a few myself  the point is it is becoming the norm. Years ago they use to post on the boards that Friday was the "so an so groups" mega mission night and they would put together a horde. The warning worked out good because the opposing players could mount a defense and fight it out. After all the game isn't about winning the war, it's about FIGHTING for it. That could be why they call it a "Combat Game".

 

[guncrasher]

the game is about pretending to be a pilot using ww2 airplanes.  that and having a couple of drinks and telling your friends how you just fought 1 million red cons, killed them all and landed safely without a scratch.



semp