Fun as watching grass grow

[Tilt]

The objective is worked toward by the adoption of a winning strategy, which in turn is supported by the adoption of tactics, which in turn are supported by material and personnel assets. The quality of the personnel assets may be ( in the case of an air war) defined by the proficiency they display when performing ACM. The quality of the material assets may be defined by the potential lethality of a plane when all its combined characteristics are considered.

In AH this material asset is subject a handicap related to the theoretical balance of numbers of personnel assets between sides. This is called ENY.

[Skyyr]

Um, no. I'm the one that understands the difference between 'tactics' and 'strategy.' I was explaining to you that your use of terms is wrong. Air superiority (air supremacy) is where one side holds complete control over the opposing force and is, as such, a desired strategic goal. But you seem to be confusing that term with ACM, which is another thing altogether. ACM is not strategy (although if you want to pretend it is, whatever makes you comfortable). ACM is (again) 'air combat maneuvering.' There's not only books written about it, the term is all over the internet with explanation.

And ENY is a balancer, plain and simple. It is not related to ACM, tactics or strategy. It is a game tool.

You can define a goal to be anything; the fact you don't understand this shows a lack of understanding for the entire post your previously wrote.

The players are complaining of a lack of balanced play when ENY hits, combined with further negative mechanics when the HQ is down. If we set the goal on making sure that neither side has an advantage when ACM is considered, then the ability to balance ACM for both sides (and therefore a focus on ACM) functionally becomes the goal.

Further, in a pure air-to-air victory context, ACM and its related combat components are the only strategy. At the end of the day, the majority complaining here are complaining about the air-to-air combat. ACM is the only strategy by which air combat can be won (barring anti-air mechanisms, which we do not truly have here).

The irony here, of course, is that you're arguing to be an authority on something that can very easily be proven in the game. I've fought you, and your skills did not seem to align with the level of proficiency you seem to imply through your rather long and innocuous posts. Now, I could have caught you on an off day, and I'd be more than happy to go to the DA with you so you could show me the extent of your skills. I'm 99.9% sure I know how this will end for you, but I'm willing to let this play out in the name of fair chances.

And no, this isn't some sort of measuring contest. You see, ACM is a unique field of study in that those who can speak authoritatively to it have to have a full understanding of it (example: you cannot argue the effectiveness of how well a Ta 152 stall fights against hard data showing otherwise if you can't demonstrate it yourself firsthand). It is quite literally a combat science. So, for you to claim that you understand the difference between strategies and tactics as they apply to ACM is quite entertaining for me, as I've studied ACM for 16 years across numerous sims and used to write ACM articles for a sim site for several of those years; I've also read the majority of air combat reference books and everything I've encountered, in addition to my own experience, contradicts the blanket statements you've made regarding tactics and strategies. Both are dynamic, and none can be defined until they are put into action towards a defined goal.

Point being, you're painting yourself as an authoritative subject on ACM (albeit quoting Wikipedia), so I'd like to see your experience in action (well, see it again and see if it's any different than last time). Sound good?

The objective is worked toward by the adoption of a winning strategy, which in turn is supported by the adoption of tactics, which in turn are supported by material and personnel assets. The quality of the personnel assets may be ( in the case of an air war) defined by the proficiency they display when performing ACM. The quality of the material assets may be defined by the potential lethality of a plane when all its combined characteristics are considered.

In AH this material asset is subject a handicap related to the theoretical balance of numbers of personnel assets between sides. This is called ENY.

And that is the core underlying problem. The ENY system assumes a blanket level of play with a blanket level of player skill. For an average player, this sometimes works. For players who are above average, or at least understand the dynamics of ACM, this is blatantly biased and very easy to abuse.

[guncrasher]

So how should we revamp the ENY system in order for it to fairly address the effectiveness of air-to-air combat.

eny and effectiveness of air to air combat have nothing to do with each other.  most of the best players fly high eny planes.

semp

[Arlo]

You can define a goal to be anything; the fact you don't understand this shows a lack of understanding for entire post your previously wrote.

Um, I'm not trying to define anything but the terms you're using in an effort to get you to use them right or to use the right ones.

The players are complaining of a lack of balanced play when ENY hits, combined with further negative mechanics when the HQ is down. If we set the goal on making sure that neither side has an advantage when ACM is considered.

Not really. The players are complaining that they don't get to fly their favorite planes when ENY kicks in. The players further complain that when the HQ is down they can't find a fight. The actual exasperation factor is low numbers. Somehow, players aren't understanding that logging off in exasperation isn't going to make numbers rise. What you're trying to spin that into sounds like you're trying to impress us all with some words you picked up along the way that make you sound authoritative in this discussion (while ignoring all the simple basics of).

Further, in a pure air-to-air context, ACM and its related combat components are the only strategy. At the end of the day, the majority complaining here are complaining about the air-to-air combat. ACM is the only strategy by which air combat can be won (barring anti-aircraft mechanisms, which we do not truly have here).

ACM is not strategy. ACM is tactics. You can use it when you're attempting to be a part of your team's strategy. But strategy is actually the plan a team undertakes to win a map (or an Air Force uses to win a war). I can explain it to you but I can't understand it for you.

The irony here, of course, is that you're arguing to be an authority on something that can very easily be proven in the game. I've fought you, and your skills were absolutely lacking. Now, I could have caught you on an off day, and I'd be more than happy to go to the DA with you so you could show me the extent of your skills. I'm 99.9% sure I know how this will end for you, but I'm willing to let this play out in the name of fair chances.

And no, this isn't some sort of measuring contest. You see, ACM is a unique field of study in that those who can speak authoritatively to it have to have a full understanding of it (example: you cannot argue the effectiveness of how well a Ta 152 stall fights against hard data otherwise if you can't demonstrate it yourself). It is quite literally a combat science. So, for you to claim that you understand the difference between strategies and tactics as they apply to ACM is quite entertaining for me, as I've studied ACM for 16 years across numerous sims and used to write ACM articles for a sim site for 6 of those years.

Sound good? I'd love to see your experience in action.

Thats a lot of wordsmithing just to basically end up challenging me to the DA because in 16 years of 'studying ACM' you don't know the difference between the terms 'tactics' and 'strategy' and you think beating me in a duel will mean you won't ever have to admit that. I had fun the day that four of you fought me and another guy who kept taking off from a field you were capping. Honestly, you were the only one of the four that could shoot us down without it taking a dozen passes. Very good. But that will never make tactics = strategy anymore than it will make you good at writing ACM articles even after you double your '16 years of impressing others by writing about ACM or any other number of terms you apply randomly in a discussion.'

Yeah, I'll duel ya. But you better let me do the post-writeup so it'll make sense.

[Tilt]

So how should we revamp the ENY system in order for it to fairly address the effectiveness of air-to-air combat.

I have never really seen ENY achieve anything other than massage the opinion that there should be some sort of handicap when there is a side misbalance.

The idea that ENY actually limits a sides "success" when these numbers are in play is also false.

Allthough when we have local small combats ENY may deny a player his preferred ride. Which may disadvantage him in a one v one engagement.

The idea that there is a mass  movement between sides due to ENY i that rebalances numbers is in my opinion false.

Indeed side switching is throttled by a time delay to make it quite tedious. This originally to limit migration to the winning side prior reset. Now de motivated by a time required on side prior to reset before perks are earned.

Further in my opinion there is not a real problem if sides are unbalanced. One side wins the others lose.... However the combat/game play endures.....

Actually the most times that numbers misbalance spoil game play is due to local horde tendencies. Not so prevalent now but we still see local horde activity that may or may not be a function of the inter side misbalance.....

E.g. Three sides each with 80 air borne players may find that one side is able to mass 40 players to attrit then attack then cap then capture field after field etc. if the opposing side is only motivated to put some 10 to 20 players locally agin this " horde" then there would seem to be a local inbalance.

In this instance  ENY is useless..... And rightly so. If one side organises itself well then it should enjoy the full reward.

If one side has twice the numbers of others then they should be able to employ this to full advantage I don't see ENY bringing any thing except a limitation of choice.

The one exception to this is logistics ( and HQ vulnerability) we would not want this higher number side to simply flatten all the strat and spoil game play from the lower numbered side due to poor access to combat.

I would suggest that Logistic re supply should be harder ( slower) for sides with more fields and faster for sides with less fields.

[Arlo]

The idea that there is a mass  movement between sides due to ENY i that rebalances numbers is in my opinion false.

That's because players are apparently more stubborn the the orneriest breed of mule. They just aren't gonna do it, even though the design is plain as day (maybe even because the design is plain as day). That being said, I still say make overwhelming hordes have to win a map with lower end gear. Those crying and logging off might grow a pair if they aren't enabled and coddled so much (meaning the whole community could use a shot of John Wayne). 

P.S. Not that I don't mind your suggestions. But the larger problem appears to be too much estrogen in the air or sumpin'.

[Someguy63]

eny and effectiveness of air to air combat have nothing to do with each other.  most of the best players fly high eny planes.

semp

Exactly, I understand that, hence my question.

[Arlo]

My chart from an earlier post. If I were to use it to determine the plane I'll fly as my team starts outnumbering the other side(s) and toys begin to get confiscated would probably look like this (bear in mind my favorite is the F4U-1A which is ENY 12, so I'll start at that section of the totem pole:

1. F4U-1a (ENY 12)
2. F4U-1 (ENY 25) - * 95% chance if ENY locks the -1a and the -1 is available
3. Seafire Mk IIc (ENY 15 [Eh, I'm a bit allergic to Axis rides `ceptn when my squad flies them in a scenario or FSO)*
4. P-47 D-40 (ENY 20)*
5. Spit IX (ENY 20)*
6. FM2 (ENY 25)*
7. P-47 D-25 (ENY 25)*
8. Mosquito VI (ENY 30)
9. P-47 D-11 (ENY 35)
10. Spitfire V (ENY 35)
11. P-40F (ENY 40)
12. C-202 (ENY 40)

That is, after I try to talk the squad into switching sides and, for some reason, that doesn't happen. If I'm not flying with the squad, i'velikely just switched.

[Skyyr]

Um, I'm not trying to define anything but the terms you're using in an effort to get you to use them right or to use the right ones.

Not really. The players are complaining that they don't get to fly their favorite planes when ENY kicks in. The players further complain that when the HQ is down they can't find a fight. The actual exasperation factor is low numbers. Somehow, players aren't understanding that logging off in exasperation isn't going to make numbers rise. What you're trying to spin that into sounds like you're trying to impress us all with some words you picked up along the way that make you sound authoritative in this discussion (while ignoring all the simple basics of).

ACM is not strategy. ACM is tactics. You can use it when you're attempting to be a part of your team's strategy. But strategy is actually the plan a team undertakes to win a map (or an Air Force uses to win a war). I can explain it to you but I can't understand it for you.


Thats a lot of wordsmithing just to basically end up challenging me to the DA because in 16 years of 'studying ACM' you don't know the difference between the terms 'tactics' and 'strategy' and you think beating me in a duel will mean you won't ever have to admit that. I had fun the day that four of you fought me and another guy who kept taking off from a field you were capping. Honestly, you were the only one of the four that could shoot us down without it taking a dozen passes. Very good. But that will never make tactics = strategy anymore than it will make you good at writing ACM articles even after you double your '16 years of impressing others by writing about ACM or any other number of terms you apply randomly in a discussion.'

Yeah, I'll duel ya. But you better let me do the post-writeup so it'll make sense.

Hypothetically, let's say we go into the DA together (as you have accepted): what will be your strategy to win? You'll find very quickly if it's not correct employment of ACM, you'll lose.

You see, you're trying to define ACM as tactics based on how ACM fits into the goal (or strategy) of air superiority. ACM is a tactic of air superiority/supremacy, but it is a strategy in itself. There are tactics that comprise ACM, such as offensive maneuvers, defensive maneuvers, etc. You're trying to claim that because ACM is a tactic of air superiority, it is therefore always a tactic, which is a flawed thought process. However, there's really no point in arguing this further for either one of us, as it's counterproductive and becoming a offshoot of the actual discussion. If you still disagree, then I'll agree to disagree and leave it as that.

That being said, when would you like to go to the DA? Tonight? Let me know - we can discuss specifics via PM.

-=S=-

[Skyyr]

So how should we revamp the ENY system in order for it to fairly address the effectiveness of air-to-air combat.

I think much of it should be based on E/M diagrams, assigning similar planes similar values. For an easy and straightforward fix, it's honestly that simple.

Going further, you could add ENY values to weapon loadouts and ordnance options. That way, the base plane has an ENY value based purely on air-to-air performance, while reserving the option to restrict usage of certain loadouts or ground attack options.

eny and effectiveness of air to air combat have nothing to do with each other.  most of the best players fly high eny planes.

semp

I've yet to see any "best player" that flies a high ENY plane and consistently survive against competent players in low ENY planes.

[Arlo]

Hypothetically, let's say we go into the DA together (as you have accepted): what will be your strategy to win? You'll find very quickly if it's not correct employment of ACM, you'll lose.

You see, you're trying to define ACM as tactics based on how ACM fits into the goal (or strategy) of air superiority. ACM is a tactic of air superiority/supremacy, but it is a strategy in itself. You're trying to claim that because ACM is a tactic of air superiority, it is therefore always a tactic, which is a flawed thought process. However, there's really no point in arguing this further for either one of us, as it's counterproductive and becoming a offshoot of the actual discussion. If you still disagree, then I'll agree to disagree and leave it as that.

That being said, when would you like to go to the DA? Tonight? Let me know - we can discuss specifics via PM.

-=S=-

Yay. Been awhile since I've been challenged to an honor duel because I hurt someone's feelings on the forum. Gonna hafta wait til next weekend, though. And win or lose, you're not good at defending your failure in terminology. I will only charge a flat $50.00 editing fee per article you write for us.

[Skyyr]

Yay. Been awhile since I've been challenged to an honor duel because I hurt someone's feelings on the forum. Gonna hafta wait til next weekend, though. And win or lose, you're not good at defending your failure in terminology. I will only charge a flat $50.00 editing fee per article you write for us.

You've not hurt my feelings in the least, nor do I believe in rather antiquated concepts of "honor" in a silly video game; I simply enjoy separating the people who talk about ACM vs those who actually know it. I'm rather looking forward to openly discovering which camp you fit into (or, more accurately, seeing if you still remain in the former). You can fake knowledge of air combat with a keyboard on a forum and hide behind fallacies disguised as wit, but no amount of Googling or stick-stirring can save you when it actually comes time to fight someone in the air.

[Gman]

Let me get this straight - when you beat Arlo in the DA (and you will), are you going to claim that due to that victory, your argument regarding whether or not ACM falls into "tactics" or "strategy", or whatever minutia this has been about, is won Skyyr?

Please tell me that isn't the "plan".  Demonstrating that you're better than Arlo at ACM doesn't prove that your points about how ACM/tactics/strategy/gaming theory are correct, and his are wrong.  I have no dog in that fight, I'm just saying that making statements that "you're going to separate him from those who can talk about ACM, and those that can do it", makes little sense, and only proves that you're better at ACM, and has nothing to do with a debate regarding terminology or any of the other stuff being debated.

[Skyyr]

Let me get this straight - when you beat Arlo in the DA (and you will), are you going to claim that due to that victory, your argument regarding whether or not ACM falls into "tactics" or "strategy", or whatever minutia this has been about, is won Skyyr?

Please tell me that isn't the "plan".  Demonstrating that you're better than Arlo at ACM doesn't prove that your points about how ACM/tactics/strategy/gaming theory are correct, and his are wrong.  I have no dog in that fight, I'm just saying that making statements that "you're going to separate him from those who can talk about ACM, and those that can do it", makes little sense, and only proves that you're better at ACM, and has nothing to do with a debate regarding terminology.

No; simply put, we've reached a stalemate where Arlo is using a definition for the specific application of ACM as it pertains to current military strategy, whereas I'm discussing it as an isolated field of science/combat (as it pertains purely to air-to-air combat, as in Aces High). Instead of simply acknowledging the difference and that we're discussing different topics entirely, Arlo is attempting to prove a point by going further into the nuances of air combat, much further than he has the understanding of based on what I've seen from him first hand.

Now, I could argue ad naseum and cite air combat text books (chiefly the premise for how Robert Shaw devised the concept of ACM to begin with), as well as cite the kernel requirements as outlined in Good Strategy/Bad Strategy and prove that ACM readily meets the definition requirements of a strategy. However, what would that yield? Several more hours at the keyboard? What are we actually discussing at this point?

And like I said, I'm not interested in being right; I've already posted that I can simply agree to disagree. In classic Arlo fashion, my reply was met with a straw man fallacy.

At the end of the day, we're discussing ACM and how ENY affects it. It has devolved into someone claiming knowledge of nuances of ACM and how it's classified and categorized, etc. The thing is, ACM is not something you can fully grasp, or at least speak to authoritatively, without a decent level of firsthand experience with it. At the level being discussed here, it requires a decent level of experience (and by extension, would assume gained skill), at least in regards to strategy. My challenge was to see if this skill was present, because if it's not, it would then appear to simply be a matter of someone using a keyboard and Google to try to prove a non-existent point.

[guncrasher]

Exactly, I understand that, hence my question.

what is your suggestion?


semp