base turnover: guns vs hangars

[The Fugitive]

In essence (if we take your worldview to be correct) you need to change the mentality of a generation of new players. I don't agree with you (there really aren't enough new players on to foist a new paradigm on us, are there?) but let's say for a moment you are right. What do you think ought to be done; and, more importantly, why do you think it would work?

Not trying to change anybody's way of playing, or mentality.

example, to capture a field.

Basic plan, drop 3klbs on VH to take it out. Using attack, or low level hvy bombers carpet bomb the town. Take out ack at field and vulch until troops get in.


Adjustments to the game.

Bump the damage to take out a VH to 10klbs and allow only a certain number of vehicles out at a time. This leaves the option to drop a VH available. It also gives GVers a chance to FIGHT in vehicles, but only on a limited bases so that vehicles cant over whelm and attacking force. For every ATTACKING GV, the limit on the defenders side goes up one also. Say the limit is 3, most likely wirbles and Osties. If the attachers bring GVs, the defenders can still keep the 3 air defense but can roll a tank for the attacking tank.

Add a safety bubble over the field so uppers can not be vulched. Once they leave that bubble they no longer get the protection of it and so cant run back to it and hide. This give defenders a chance to get to a fighting speed with out having to up from a different field taking the time to get to the attack. It only protect this upping, ack would still cover those trying to hide, but attackers can still drop the ack to chase defenders back through the field doing away with their "hiding spot".

Adjust hvy bombers so that they can not release bombs under 10K feet. If you want to dive bomb with bombers you still have the medium bombers and the hvy are back to the lvl bombing roll they are designed for. Having groups of hvy bombers to level a town in a single pass will now need an escort creating more instances for battle. Medium bombers can become fighters after they drop creating more fights down low.

If dropping troops from a vehicle, make each troop count as a half. This way one goon takes a town, of 20 troops from M3s and jeeps take a town. This will put more goons in the mix, again needing cover and generating more fights.


after adjustments.....example, to capture a field.

Basic plan, drop 10klbs on VH to take it out, or not and deal with a number of wirbles. Using attack, or low level medium bombers, or high level hvy bombers, carpet bomb the town. Take out ack at field and suppress out bound aircraft until troops get in.

See, not much has changed. You still have the options you had before and still follow the same basic "plan" but the changes made force players to fight more, not just blow through. It gives defenders a chance to fight AT the base instead of flying TO the base to be too late. If defenders are fighting to save the base, attackers will have to fight to GET the base. All it does it put the COMBAT back into the game, which it what I think is sorely missing.

Many other things could be done. Add perks for a player posting a mission. Add perks for players completing the assigned attack in the mission (assigned to drop radar, 5 perks if you get it). Add perks for completing the mission. Add perk to defenders stopping the attack for 10 minutes after the first bomb drop. Create incentives to bring back the missions, the fighting.

Make it so you have to climb to 3500 feet before your bombs will arm. This makes the NOE still possible, but it will give the defenders a bit of a warning because everything carrying a bomb will have to pop up to 3500 before they can drop.

You can still run NOE, you can still try to jumpo from town to town grabbing base after base as quickly as you can, you can still call missions on the fly. It doesnt take anything away, it just makes it easier to follow the new rules to accomplish the same things. The new rules just guide players into interacting more and so create more opportunities for combat. 

[Ciaphas]

Adjustments to the game.

Bump the damage to take out a VH to 10klbs and allow only a certain number of vehicles out at a time. This leaves the option to drop a VH available. It also gives GVers a chance to FIGHT in vehicles, but only on a limited bases so that vehicles cant over whelm and attacking force. For every ATTACKING GV, the limit on the defenders side goes up one also. Say the limit is 3, most likely wirbles and Osties. If the attachers bring GVs, the defenders can still keep the 3 air defense but can roll a tank for the attacking tank.

I don't think limiting any asset is the answer.


** Refer to the bottom of this post for the answer

Add a safety bubble over the field so uppers can not be vulched. Once they leave that bubble they no longer get the protection of it and so cant run back to it and hide. This give defenders a chance to get to a fighting speed with out having to up from a different field taking the time to get to the attack. It only protect this upping, ack would still cover those trying to hide, but attackers can still drop the ack to chase defenders back through the field doing away with their "hiding spot".

They can also get to "fighting" speed by launching from a another field. No need for spawn invincibility. Look at it this way, you have a decision to make when your field is under attack. You can either A. Launch from the field that is under attack or you can B. Launch from another field, get the proper posture and engage the enemy on your terms. Either way you have a decision to make and you must live with that decision. If you chose to launch from a capped field and get upset that you are now padding someones score, you have no one to blame but yourself.


** Refer to the bottom of this post for the answer

Adjust hvy bombers so that they can not release bombs under 10K feet. If you want to dive bomb with bombers you still have the medium bombers and the hvy are back to the lvl bombing roll they are designed for. Having groups of hvy bombers to level a town in a single pass will now need an escort creating more instances for battle. Medium bombers can become fighters after they drop creating more fights down low.

Heavy bombers flew sorties below 10k, ask the Japanese. Some sorties for the B-17 were flown around 7k and probably lower. To add an altitude drop restriction (higher than the required drop alt currently set by HTC) to heavy bombers is not going to help the game.



** Refer to the bottom of this post for the answer

If dropping troops from a vehicle, make each troop count as a half. This way one goon takes a town, of 20 troops from M3s and jeeps take a town. This will put more goons in the mix, again needing cover and generating more fights.

I do agree that it should take at least 20 troops from any method of school bus delivery. I think that the required 10 troops is just to small of a number. I think that changing this number to 20 would help shape a new dynamic with regards to the methods used to take bases. A bit more planning would be needed as the the troops, while important and a key part of base captures, troops are simply an after thought when attacking a field and it would serve better to make them a part of the tactical planning.

***situational awareness is key***

[The Fugitive]

I don't think limiting any asset is the answer.

Limiting things controls game play. ENY limits things a bit, a zone ENY would do a much better job. An attacker dropping the VH is limiting the GVs for the upcoming battle.

They can also get to "fighting" speed by launching from a another field. No need for spawn invincibility. Look at it this way, you have a decision to make when your field is under attack. You can either A. Launch from the field that is under attack or you can B. Launch from another field, get the proper posture and engage the enemy on your terms. Either way you have a decision to make and you must live with that decision. If you chose to launch from a capped field and get upset that you are now padding someones score, you have no one to blame but yourself.

and by the time you get to the field that is under attack it is more often than not a lost cause. They either have complete air superiority or troops are running just as you dive in. You have to remember that many players have run the same missions so many time they could do most of it with their eyes closed. Practice DOES make perfect.

Heavy bombers flew sorties below 10k, ask the Japanese. Some sorties for the B-17 were flown around 7k and probably lower. To add an altitude drop restriction (higher than the required drop alt currently set by HTC) to heavy bombers is not going to help the game.

Yes they did, pretty much once Japan was down to 12 planes and they were busy loading them up as Kamakazi's. Which by the way is completely beside the point. We are not at war, we are PAYING to PLAY a GAME.

I do agree that it should take at least 20 troops from any method of school bus delivery. I think that the required 10 troops is just to small of a number. I think that changing this number to 20 would help shape a new dynamic with regards to the methods used to take bases. A bit more planning would be needed as the the troops, while important and a key part of base captures, troops are simply an after thought when attacking a field and it would serve better to make them a part of the tactical planning.

Leaving the goon at 10 troops makes the goon a 'preferable" way to get troops in as you only need the one. This helps get more players out of M3s and into the air. Bring back the old radio call..... "PROTECT THE GOON!!!!"



Players have found and exploited a number of "loop holes" to make the game easier and to avoid battle. This is not the way the game should be played. Here is the main part of the HTC web page...

Welcome to the best WW2 and WW1 combat experience online!with less and less combat as players continue to look for ways to avoid it.

GET STARTED!
- With the best combat flight simulator that less players use because it is easier to sneek bases in GV or resupply one under attack
- Engage in land, sea, or air combat sometimes!
- Create your own missions that nobody joins!
- Form a squadron...or a clan!
- Find action 24 hours a daynot any more, plenty of dead times now
- Participate in historical scenarios2 maybe 3 times a year. FSO had 147 last night, last year 187, 193 the year before

Free download. Free 2 week trial.
No credit card required for free trial.

Numbers are dropping steadily, something has to change. I think players are getting board much quicker these days because everyone is trying to play such a watered down version of the game. Players are not going to change other than to look for a MORE watered down version so HTC will have to "guide" players back to what puts the excitement in the game, combat. 

[rvflyer]

I have an idea to repair field guns. You have to at least go to a hangar and hook up to one with  jeep and drag it out to the spot where the damaged one is. Kind of like picking up supplies only it could be a field gun then take it out and drop it at the correct spot. Same with guns in town.

theoretically what's easier to repair?

A hangar will take a while to rebuild, AAA can be rolled to a field during capture by invading forces. Sure, it's a bit unrealistic on the scale but not outside of the realm of possibility.

There are so many implied actions happening behind the scenes. To have them carried out by a player would cause one maybe two bases to be captured a day.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ciaphas]

I have an idea to repair field guns. You have to at least go to a hangar and hook up to one with  jeep and drag it out to the spot where the damaged one is. Kind of like picking up supplies only it could be a field gun then take it out and drop it at the correct spot. Same with guns in town.

+500

that would be friggen awesome!!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Puma44]

God job thinking outside the box. + 1

[The Fugitive]

I have an idea to repair field guns. You have to at least go to a hangar and hook up to one with  jeep and drag it out to the spot where the damaged one is. Kind of like picking up supplies only it could be a field gun then take it out and drop it at the correct spot. Same with guns in town.

Love it!

[Ramesis]

-1

[1stpar3]

I know "An older post". Fugi, a question from your earlier posting. Why worry about FIELD ACK at all? Most bases are too far away from towns on almost all maps. I can see why some of you guys hate MAN ACK,judging by your post. Its unnecessarily putting attackers in harms way. At most, VH and Ord bunkers,to me, is all that is required on BASE. AIR base anyway. Town can be captured with WF and town ack down(8). It might be a good idea to require more damage to WF and harden guns though. I would be good with that...stop the sneak takes anyway Just wondering why you put in "Deack the field"? 

[The Fugitive]

I know "An older post". Fugi, a question from your earlier posting. Why worry about FIELD ACK at all? Most bases are too far away from towns on almost all maps. I can see why some of you guys hate MAN ACK,judging by your post. Its unnecessarily putting attackers in harms way. At most, VH and Ord bunkers,to me, is all that is required on BASE. AIR base anyway. Town can be captured with WF and town ack down(8). It might be a good idea to require more damage to WF and harden guns though. I would be good with that...stop the sneak takes anyway Just wondering why you put in "Deack the field"? 

What I dont like about the guns is just this, 5 guys in guns equals 5 LESS guys in planes. Guns are easy, I can deack a small field by myself with a plane that has only 50cals. Give me two guys as wingers and we can do it in a single pass each. Field guns are nothing.

The issue is players HIDING in the guns thats all. With the numbers as low as they are these days we need all those hiding in the guns flying a friggin plane!

[Shuffler]

What I dont like about the guns is just this, 5 guys in guns equals 5 LESS guys in planes. Guns are easy, I can deack a small field by myself with a plane that has only 50cals. Give me two guys as wingers and we can do it in a single pass each. Field guns are nothing.

The issue is players HIDING in the guns thats all. With the numbers as low as they are these days we need all those hiding in the guns flying a friggin plane!

What if folks in the guns fly sometimes also. But if they can't ever use guns they just quit. Won't you just compound your problem?

[ccvi]

Bump the damage to take out a VH to 10klbs and allow only a certain number of vehicles out at a time. [...]

Yes, but no. Making things harder doesn't create more fights. It causes bigger strikes with a harder bang, or giving up more early instead of trying to push through.

The problem is that captures are instantaneous. If a capture attempt is executed with sufficient precision and speed there is no way to defend. If attackers don't work that well (most are lazy, and don't), a robust defense can spoil any attempt by resupply or killing troops. For attackers, there is no incentive to continue an attack that is going to fail. For defenders there's no incentive to attempt defense in situations that can quickly become hopeless.

The cause is instantaneous captures, with a lot of binary randomness until that point. Hangars going down or not equals the option for local defense. Troops slipping through equals capture. A single bailed player hiding near the map room negates capture. Is it wise to continue an attack when the first hangar is about to pop in 2 minutes, making the field fully functional? Is it wise to attempt to defend when multiple M3s are reported close to town? "Wise" in the sense of the overall war-effort, time spent here, and not elsewhere. With a mostly empty map, it isn't. The game time (the only limited resource for everyone is hours played) is more efficiently spent (to achieve the team objective) elsewhere.

More bombs and M3s needed doesn't change that.

Compare to other games. Examples:
a) capture the flag. Players move in, grab the enemy flag, and bring it home to score a point. The flag-carrier may be somewhat limited in abilities to speed up the process, but usually isn't totally helpless. Nothing like the sitting duck the goon is. A defender or two in fast planes can avoid any enemy fighters and pick goons at will.
b) domination or conquest: Just getting there isn't enough. There's always a time-component included, that creates room to defend, and requires attackers to keep pushing. In AH we sneak through an invisible M3 to capture.

Captures needs an enforced slow down, that cannot be negated by throwing more at the target. For example: "more offensive than defensive planes within 1 mile of town for 10 minutes". Suddenly it makes sense for both attackers and defenders to throw in more planes. Of course, that favors the horde, but that's also true for the current system.

[The Fugitive]

Yes, but no. Making things harder doesn't create more fights. It causes bigger strikes with a harder bang, or giving up more early instead of trying to push through.

The problem is that captures are instantaneous. If a capture attempt is executed with sufficient precision and speed there is no way to defend. If attackers don't work that well (most are lazy, and don't), a robust defense can spoil any attempt by resupply or killing troops. For attackers, there is no incentive to continue an attack that is going to fail. For defenders there's no incentive to attempt defense in situations that can quickly become hopeless.

The cause is instantaneous captures, with a lot of binary randomness until that point. Hangars going down or not equals the option for local defense. Troops slipping through equals capture. A single bailed player hiding near the map room negates capture. Is it wise to continue an attack when the first hangar is about to pop in 2 minutes, making the field fully functional? Is it wise to attempt to defend when multiple M3s are reported close to town? "Wise" in the sense of the overall war-effort, time spent here, and not elsewhere. With a mostly empty map, it isn't. The game time (the only limited resource for everyone is hours played) is more efficiently spent (to achieve the team objective) elsewhere.

More bombs and M3s needed doesn't change that.

Compare to other games. Examples:
a) capture the flag. Players move in, grab the enemy flag, and bring it home to score a point. The flag-carrier may be somewhat limited in abilities to speed up the process, but usually isn't totally helpless. Nothing like the sitting duck the goon is. A defender or two in fast planes can avoid any enemy fighters and pick goons at will.
b) domination or conquest: Just getting there isn't enough. There's always a time-component included, that creates room to defend, and requires attackers to keep pushing. In AH we sneak through an invisible M3 to capture.

Captures needs an enforced slow down, that cannot be negated by throwing more at the target. For example: "more offensive than defensive planes within 1 mile of town for 10 minutes". Suddenly it makes sense for both attackers and defenders to throw in more planes. Of course, that favors the horde, but that's also true for the current system.

But thats the one of the points Im trying to make. The game play has dissolved into a single quick strike mission. In and out with the capture, or move off to another front/base. Everyone thinks they are soooo smart coming up with these NOE plans, or dive bombing a town in a few TU2s to white flag it and capture it in a single pass.

The game is suppose to be about combat. Fight for the base, dont just blast through one time and then bail if you dont capture it. Your avoiding the defender that way, avoiding combat. Thats why I think they should tweak some of the game parameters. If you have to bring 3 or 4 players to drop a hanger instead of one , sure it makes for bigger attack forces, but it also makes it harder to hide that force. It also makes it harder to sweep through on a single pass because if one guy fail on his drop a hanger doesnt go down and there is more than likely not a few spare bombs around.

Now a mission needs precision, better training, more than a single pass, attackers who will have to fend off the defenders while "plan B" is put into effect. A continuous attack footing and the same for the defense. Combat.   

[ccvi]

Thats why I think they should tweak some of the game parameters.

I agree on the idea that an environment is needed that promotes a continued fight, but disagree that tweaking a few parameters would do it. Especially toughening things up has exactly the opposite effect.

An example of hangars. An impatient noob drops one fighter hangar 7 minutes before the main attack force arrives. The result is a downtime of 8/15/15/. What to do? That's an attack already gone pretty bad today, but there's still a chance to have someone on standby to re-kill it at the right moment to get the full 15 minutes. With hardened targets, that's much less possible, and attempting to pull through with the attack is much less useful than today. It is the same with buildings in town. Got things into a bad cycle, some buildings popping shortly before troops can get there. Today attackers can push through with sufficient force if not too many are being rebuilt. Toughened up buildings? Better to abort, and try another day or place.

If everything is too soft, of course, a single medium hard punch can make a field change sides in a heartbeat. With close field distances, that doesn't leave much reaction time to defend. Soft fields, long distances between fields - that did work. Attackers had a chance to pull through even if something didn't go as planned, and defenders had some time to get into a position to defend.

Now everything is being moved closer together. Short distances between fields, vehicle spawns extremely close to towns. At the same hardness of things, of course that allows fast captures. And limits the possibilities to defend. That possibility isn't restored through increased hardness. It just requires more attackers, and even worse, it makes it less meaningful to push through with an attack gone slightly wrong.

With short distances, and thus short times to the target, some mechanism is needed to allow defenders to protect the field. But that mechanism should not spoil attacks to the point that it is more beneficial to abort and attack elsewhere. Hardening would do exactly that.

Other more fast paced games (decades after the concept AH uses was invented) have that in the form of timers. With AH speeding up (by closer distances), that might work here, too. Unfortunately, it's not just one of the hundreds of existing arena settings.

[The Fugitive]

I agree on the idea that an environment is needed that promotes a continued fight, but disagree that tweaking a few parameters would do it. Especially toughening things up has exactly the opposite effect.

An example of hangars. An impatient noob drops one fighter hangar 7 minutes before the main attack force arrives. The result is a downtime of 8/15/15/. What to do? That's an attack already gone pretty bad today...........

only because todays players dont have the skill to pull it off any more. Now it just a single pass, either we get it or we dont, move on to the next one either way.

The tweaks Id like to see is to slow down that base rolling style of play. Give defenders time to get organized to make a fight of it. Of course everyone would then complain that they have to fight for a base