Tool Shedding-Get rid of it.

[BnZs]

I kind of like the idea of 40 ENY fighters still being available when all the hangars are down.  Problem is, who is going to fly them?  Many players log off if ENY hits 5.0.  The net effect of this change would be practically nothing.

This would be better than nothing. But I do not understand these desires for defenders to be at an enormous disadvantage. The attackers are by definition mostly starting out with an altitude advantage, and usually a numbers advantage when the attack is first detected.

[Xavier]

Play the way I like! All other ways are flawed and NOT fun! 

Also, yet another wish blaming bombers for "killing the fun". I'm beginning to see a pattern there...

[caldera]

I do not understand these desires for defenders to be at an enormous disadvantage. The attackers are by definition mostly starting out with an altitude advantage, and usually a numbers advantage when the attack is first detected.

Base taking promotes the fights you want.  If La7s can up endlessly, it's going to require even bigger hordes to suppress the defense.


In caldera's perfect world: the bases would have much more lethal ack to allow defenders to get airborne, while still allowing critical targets to be bombed from altitude (not the ez mode 2 pass gun runs that take down ords and dar).  At the same time, towns would be totally undefended by ack and far from airfields; requiring players to go there and defend.  The defenders would have a slight advantage of shorter travel time to the town but otherwise, there would be no ack hugging or vulching.  In other words, fair fights.  Or at least fights with a chance for either side.

[BnZs]

Play the way I like! All other ways are flawed and NOT fun!  

Also, yet another wish blaming bombers for "killing the fun". I'm beginning to see a pattern there...

There is an important distinction to be made between fighting in different styles and preventing people from fighting at all, wouldn't you say? Most people who complain about a certain style do so because they got killed, whereas I'm asking for what amounts to being able to up in situations where I will probably get shot down. Very important difference.

[BnZs]

Base taking promotes the fights you want.  If La7s can up endlessly, it's going to require even bigger hordes to suppress the defense.

Big hordes? More targets. And surely such a large dar bar will attract a horde of defenders-fight on!, IF people are able to up in the first place.

As for the rest of your ideas, I dunno, they might be good in combo with my wish to cut hangar banging out of the MA. BTW, it is interesting to me that some people arguing with me on this thread think that my ideas would give the defense too much advantage and some others seem to think I want this idea in place to promote vulching of defenders-Which is it? 

[Xavier]

There is an important distinction to be made between fighting in different styles and preventing people from fighting at all, wouldn't you say?

I'll bite and answer this post.

Pissed that some guy upped a bomber and blew your hangars to pieces? Well, you could have prevented that in a lot of ways. The simplest of them all is killing ords. You can also fly a high cap or simply up a spit XIV when the darbar is a sector away.

But this is funnier 

We used to have bombing runs that went on for hours. Now you can expect the the life span of an active field to be measured in minutes before an individual from one side or the other decide to destroy ords. CVs, once the ultimate source of near instant-gratification fighting in the MA, are now lucky if they last a quarter of an hour after the enemy knows they are there.

It really doesn't matter whether it is your own ords that just go dropped or that of the enemy base you just flew to-these egg-toting grinches cut out the supply of bombers for BOTH sides in a war.

So get rid of ords busting I say. Jabo tards can still get the bizarre jollies they derive from smashing inanimate objects by taking out town, taking out guns, etc. Just make ords indestructible, so that the fun of the majority is not subject to the whims to tiny number of fun-loathing cranks in jabos or fighters. If one is not able to hit strats unless enemy ords are down to defend his own, then  one does not deserve to hit those strats anyway.

[Karnak]

This would be better than nothing. But I do not understand these desires for defenders to be at an enormous disadvantage. The attackers are by definition mostly starting out with an altitude advantage, and usually a numbers advantage when the attack is first detected.

I think the A6M2 is actually one of the best last ditch defenders due to its relatively brisk acceleration and agility at low speeds, coupled with decent firepower.

[BnZs]

I'll bite and answer this post.

Pissed that some guy upped a bomber and blew your hangars to pieces? Well, you could have prevented that in a lot of ways. The simplest of them all is killing ords. You can also fly a high cap or simply up a spit XIV when the darbar is a sector away.

As I have explained it before, bomber interception before the drop is generally not practical.  And if one's objective is to engage in fighter combat, spending one's time on attack runs or hanging out at 20K in a cannon bird deprives one of that objective just as effectively as hangar-dropping.

As for the sarcasm, you're not nearly as good at it as I am, or you would have done something original instead of copying and pasting my words.

Hangar banging, which removes the fight for people on *both* sides of it, stands alone as a bad design feature of the MA compared to other player actions, because it inhibits combat rather promoting it. Thus your re-write of my original post is quite illogical. Say I wrote "It is dark at night" and you changed it to "It is dark at day"-Your attempt here makes THAT kind of sense.  

[BnZs]

I think the A6M2 is actually one of the best last ditch defenders due to its relatively brisk acceleration and agility at low speeds, coupled with decent firepower.

It would no doubt be one of the only planes seen at base defenses in the situation we are discussing, but my point in the quoted post stands.

That some are saying "No! This will give the defense too much advantage!" and others are saying "It will let attackers vulch all day long!". It is hilarious contradiction. The latter camp though, I don't know what their problem is. If people are upping under a vulch, they are doing so because they wish to do so, it is bizarre that some are trying to twist it around like they are doing the defenders a favor by bomb****ing them out of their fight.

[LCADolby]

That some are saying "No! This will give the defense too much advantage!" and others are saying "It will let attackers vulch all day long!". It is hilarious contradiction.

They are both possibilities that depend on the numerical strength of attacker or defenders. Not contradictions.

[BnZs]

They are both possibilities that depend on the numerical strength of attacker or defenders. Not contradictions.

Have you ever been struggling to get up and into the fight with lots and lots of enemy fighters over the base, maybe getting killed a lot, and actually said to yourself, "Man, I wish some toolshedders would drop the FHs and save me from myself?" I think not.    Thus the "Your idea is bad because vulching is bad!" argument holds no water.

The "It would make the defense too strong!" argument isn't inherently stupid like the "bad vulchers!" complaint, but it is very debatable. I know that if the attackers are having to suppress defenders up until the minute troops go then by definition combat is occurring. I know that if there are people willing to up from the base and defend but cannot, combat is being impeded. It is logically inarguable.

Some people seem to be saying "Oh, but it will be very difficult to take a base if there are more defenders than attackers!". Seems to me that result is natural if offense and defense are actually in balance, and a different result occurring a large percentage of the time is a sign something is not well balanced.

[Xavier]

As I have explained it before, bomber interception before the drop is generally not practical.

Bombers at alt show a huge darbar. You can climb to them in a spit XIV in less than 4 minutes and get them before the drop.

And if one's objective is to engage in fighter combat, spending one's time on attack runs or hanging out at 20K in a cannon bird deprives one of that objective just as effectively as hangar-dropping.

Well, here's your problem. You expect everybody to play by your rules. I don't like to climb high, so nobody should. If you're one of the instant-gratification-or-nothing types, you can always take off from a vulched base or a CV under attack to die in a few seconds.

Hangar banging, which removes the fight for people on *both* sides of it, stands alone as a bad design feature of the MA compared to other player actions, because it inhibits combat rather promoting it. Thus your re-write of my original post is quite illogical.

Do you realize that there's more to this game than a big low furball? I mean, we got strats, carriers and stuff. For some players bombing hangars and other inanimate objects (because airplanes are living beings) is the fight.

[BnZs]

Bombers at alt show a huge darbar. You can climb to them in a spit XIV in less than 4 minutes and get them before the drop.

A large group of fighters also shows a huge darbar. And the distance between the bases being short, defender's don't really have much reaction time to figure out what they are up against. And when you do know they are coming, the absolutely lethal nature of defensive flex-gun fire as modeled in Aces High makes interception an unappealing proposition. (Sometimes I almost think HTC modeled this game to cater to bomber pilots, and fighter jocks are just here to pay their subs and help keep the doors open.)

Now, If the warning time and radar accuracy was more like what they had in WWII, IOW you could tell it was bombers at X altitude a long time in advance, my opinion on this issue would be more like yours.

Do you realize that there's more to this game than a big low furball?

Most of the time climbing any higher than 12K is a waste of time, you won't find any fighters higher. And sometimes it is fast as well as slow. I'm partial to the P-51 myself, as well as the Fm2.

I mean, we got strats, carriers and stuff. For some players bombing hangars and other inanimate objects (because airplanes are living beings) is the fight.

Okay, we'll say fighting "other player controlled aircraft and vehicles", just so you don't get confused anymore.

 By definition bombing things in this game is NOT fighting, because last time I looked a hangar doesn't have mad ACM or gunnery skills or anything like that. It just totally sits there dude. You might as well call buying a side of beef "hunting" as call hangar banging "fighting".

[Volron]

Whoops, missed this one.

How are those player numbers again?

With your wish, like the DA, if lucky.

[Xavier]

And when you do know they are coming, the absolutely lethal nature of defensive flex-gun fire as modeled in Aces High makes interception an unappealing proposition. (Sometimes I almost think HTC modeled this game to cater to bomber pilots, and fighter jocks are just here to pay their subs and help keep the doors open.)

Most of the time climbing any higher than 12K is a waste of time, you won't find any fighters higher.

By definition bombing things in this game is NOT fighting, because last time I looked a hangar doesn't have mad ACM or gunnery skills or anything like that.

At least you tried.