Lokasenna
Posts: 9297
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: JocMeister
quote:
ORIGINAL: Feurer Krieg
Not saying you are right or wrong - just my thoughts. Hope you don't mind!
I don´t mind one bit. 
Its hard to try and get my core thinking across. Partly because I´m not really sure how to put it into words. As I see it its not a JFB vs AFB issue. Its a GAME issue effecting both sides in a negative way. The "fun factor".
I´ll try to explain a little bit more. Sorry if it sounds confusing and is a bit of a rant.
We pretty much already established that trying to gain air superiority is not a achievable or worthwhile goal against a competent Japanese player right? So the best way is to play defensively (with some exceptions of course that was mentioned earlier) and avoid combat. This means reverting back to 42-43 allied tactics of jumping in and out. Or relying on a huge CAP that makes it not worthwhile for the Japanese player to try something. But this is where the problem begins as I see it...
Whats the best tactics for a Japanese player at this point? Defensive right? No need to waste planes and pilots on tackling a massive CAP with thousands of planes. Just sit back and let the allied player come to you. After all you have superior numbers and to some extent better planes. All you have to do is stay defensive.
So now you have two sides that both play defensively. No side have any incitement to do something and that is the core of the matter. Its an unintended flaw in the game design. On several occasions now we have had thousands of fighters just a few hexes from each other. I´m not questioning the fact of the situation. I´m questioning whether or not this is how we want the game to be?.
I think there are several reasons for this. One is the Japanese air force vs the Allied. One side is forced to fight defensively due to the nature of things while the other is forced to do so because of limited numbers.
Another problem as I see it is defense vs offense. (Basically what Michael said in an earlier post) Its very easy to put of a massive CAP over a base with hundreds if not thousands of planes. But its almost impossible to do the same on the offense unless you have a level 9 base within 2-3 hexes which seldom happens. This works reasonably well in the early game when numbers isn´t that high. Sweeping with a 25 plane squadrons against 100-150 fighters is still doable. But when you try to sweep with 25 planes against 500-1500 planes its just suicide. This is probably a much bigger problem than PDU ON/OFF. Basically defense is too powerful compared to offense.
This is just one of many issues I think the game suffers from. But this community is unique in the way that while every other multiplayer or online game community realize their game have to evolve with the players and new tactics/tricks/gamestyle, this community shuns and despises any kind of change. You arn´t even allowed to discuss perceived balancing issues or change. As soon as you try to raise a discussion, concern, or thought you will get instantly slammed. This is what will destroy the game in the end. The time span is just much longer than other games because there are no other games out there that take years to finish...
Personally this will most likely be the first two and last two games for me. Human beings will always push the boundaries of what is possible. In this game the boundaries have been pushed so far (on both sides) that the end product just isn´t much fun. This game needs to adjust to these extreme situations in order to stay fun and competitive in a way that makes people want to play it. If it doesn´t people will stop playing it in the end. But this will never happen with this game because there is a very vocal minority (I hope its a minority..) that abhors change and refuses to see the need for that change and balancing to happen.
Look at how many players that has disappeared over the last two years. How many new players have come to fill that void? Look at the number of AARs and posts on the forum. Now tell me if you think we are heading in the right direction...
Turned into something a bit off topic I think. But the heart of what I´m trying to get at is in there somewhere.
The bolded part, right at the beginning there, is actually where I disagree with you. I think the results you've posted here show that, if anything, you have a mild amount of air superiority, even globally, due to superior airframes. Fighter-to-fighter, anyway. He certainly doesn't have superiority over you. And since our perspectives differ starting at the premise, well...
Edit - Another point where I disagree: the underlined part - you have an incentive to play offensively. You have to take ground. He has to defend it. If you play defensively, you won't win. Push forward, establish your local air superiority. Because you can have overwhelming air superiority in one or two places if you really want it, and if you set it up. If this means you have to island hop and can't leap frog because he's doing his job defensively, fine - shouldn't that be what happens in a good game anyway? And this is where time comes in. You've got what, 8 months left to get to 2:1?
Just keep pushing forward, make Japan suffer moderate defeat after moderate defeat. A hole in the ship here, a hole there, and eventually it will sink (...the ship is his ability to resist...). If he keeps meeting you on your pushes, eventually he's going to be ground down so far that he won't have any teeth left. That's the whole point of this war!
< Message edited by Lokasenna -- 12/11/2013 4:32:45 PM >
|
Printable Version
RE: Battle for Okinawa! - 
for my first serious shot. Next time I'll play with it On, as my perception is that Realistic R&D is the norm around here. 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread