Author Topic: Update to Strategic System?  (Read 1227 times)

Offline Volron

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5798
Update to Strategic System?
« on: January 14, 2010, 05:49:28 PM »
First of all, I would like to apologize if some of these/all of these have been mentioned before, but 200+ pages to look through under wish list is a tad rough. lol  I guess you could call this consolidation.

There are some changes I would really like to see done to the current strategic.  The first of which would be the addition of Radar Installations.  Using the Trinity Map as the example, if I were to up out of an airfield at the edge of the map, once I get 300ft above ground (I believe that's when a dar bar shows, it's been a while so someone correct me if I am wrong), a dar bar would show.  My dar bar could then be tracked all the way inbound.  Something tells me that during World War 2, the radar range didn't cover 500 miles, assuming each sector in Trinity map was 25 miles. lol  Again, it's been a while since I was on so I don't remember sector size of Trinity or any of the other maps now that I think about it. :(
2 size types of radar installations could be used, a small one and a large one.  The large one will have a range of 4 sectors around it while a small one would have half of that (this is just an example).  Both installations could have greater con (short ranged radar) detection range, seeing as they are dedicated dar installations and if you were to take the zone field it's tied to, it would come under your control.  Hitting them would knock them out for an hour and they are not resupplyable. The towers for the long range dar, would take 1 500lbs bomb while the short range dar would be as it is now or maybe a little tougher, like 250?  The installation complex would be spread out a little, forcing someone to either take friends or make more than one pass in a run, to knock it out.  Since you would have large and small dar installations overlapping, it would not create a HUGE gap in the dar network if an installation was hit, but you could sneak some aircraft through the gap or just make them think "What is going on here?".  With the addition of dar installations, you could take away dar on the small airfields and halve the dar on medium airfields and vehicle bases.  The large airfields could keep their current dar range, making the dar installations more important and useful.  The CV could have the dar range of a small installation and maintain it's current con dar range.

A second addition would be Rail yards.  These could be hit, which would affect the resupply of bases and installations in their assigned zone.  They would be decent in size in that you would need more than one pass or some help, to knock it out in one run and there would be 2 per zone.  As they take damage, it would increase the time it would normally take to resupply, meaning at certain percentages, it would tack on an addition 15 minutes to the down time of bases and installations (this is just an example).  Once it is knocked out (0%), nothing would be resupplied and the rail yard will stay down for one hour.  Resupply would not resume until the rail yard has returned to at least 25% (assuming that part of it was hit, then later the rest of it).  So if some people hits half of it, then 30 minutes later, someone else knocks it out, supply ability would be down for a total of 30 minutes.  At which point, half of it would respawn and supplies would flow once more.  Using the dar installations as an example, a group of people knock out a dar installation while another group hit the rail yards for that zone. The total down time for the installation would be 2 hrs.

A third addition really isn't an addition, but a change, and likely a coding nightmare.  Ports should have dry docks put in and if hit would stay down for one hour, and are not resupplyable. There would be 2-4 per port and would take maybe 2k per to destroy them.  Puffy ack would be put in as well, to help in defense of port.  So if a carrier is sunk but it's home port dry docks were destroyed at the same time, the total down time of the carrier would be 1 hour and 45 minutes. (this is assuming the CV respawn is 45 minutes)  The ships docked at port could also affect what the fleet would respawn with.  Currently there are 2 CA and 3 DD docked when looking at current map.  Change that to 1 CA and 4 DD's and make it to where, if some or all of those were sunk, your fleet would respawn minus those ships.  The down time for the docked ships would be 30 minutes.  If I remember correctly, there are 6 DD's and 1 CA that tag along with the CV.  So if all the ships are sunk at the port when the CV respawns, it will only have 2 DD's for defense.  The ships docked at port, would be as tough as they are when out at sea, so it would take a little effort to sink them.  To beef up defense of the port, the docked ships would add some of their anti-air power to defense of the port.  The CA would add 4 guns low level ack and any puffy it would normally put up in defense of CV and the DD's would add only 2 guns to low level ack.  None of these guns can be manned.
The other function of the dry docks would be to allow players to repair and replace ships.  Meaning, the ships out at sea, minus the CV, would not respawn unless you took the fleet to a friendly port with a working dry dock.  The status of the ships at the port used, would affect whether or not you would get the fleets CA (assuming that it was sunk at sea) back or not, meaning if the CA is sunk at the port when you dock the fleet, you would not replace the CA the fleet lost.  When you get the CV near the port, an option to "Dock Fleet" would appear but you will have to be in command of the fleet for it to show up.  The fleet will then disappear for 15 minutes while repairs and replacement takes place, after which the fleet will respawn at the very least, with ships at 100% health.  If the dry docks are hit while the fleet is docked, it will NOT affect the time it remains docked or damage/destroy the docked fleet.  If the fleet is docked when the port is captured though, they would gain control of that fleet when it respawns.

A fourth addition would be Fighter, Bomber and Vehicle factories.  These would be located near the main HQ and would be rather larger and tough to knock out, maybe 1-2k per building.  That means you really won't be able to do much damage alone.  You will need the help of others to knock out one of these factories.  As each factory takes damage, the perk price starts to go up.  Once the factory is at 50%, you can no longer use perk rides.  When the factory is completely destroyed (0%), you will be limited to Mid-War era aircraft.  For the case of the Vehicle Factory, you just lose the ability to use the Tiger, Sherman and the T-34/85 at 50% and below.  These factories will be down for 1 hour and are not resupplyable.  But, since they will be rather large complexes, you won't have to worry about a single player ruining your day. :lol  You could make the size of the complex around 25% - 50% of what the Capital City is now.

A fifth addition is a series of changes.  The current City setup is a very large city with the standard factories inside the city.  This should be changed to where this city is in the HQ zone at all times, but the other zones would have what we use to have for city and factories.  This would eliminate the need to code a city "retreating", then later returning, when it's zone field is taken/recaptured.  The HQ zone would have the Capital City and 2 rail yards, while the sub zone would have the old set up for it with the addition of 2 rail yards.
Another change would be, once a HQ has been knocked out, it will stay down for 1-2 hrs and is not resupplyable.  But, there will be 2 HQ facilities, the main one we have now and a sub on inside the Capital City.  This should put a little more worth into the HQ.
For some maps, you can swap out the River Barge for 2-4 Freighters with 1 or 2 DD escorts and for all maps, slow down the truck convoys and trains a tad.
Flak over targets seems to be a tad light, especially over the Capital.  For a target like that, one would expect heavy flak considering the value of target.  The following could have light ack, Ports, dar factory, troop training. Medium ack would be in ord and AAA factory, the smaller zone city, rail yards and the main HQ.  Heavy ack would be in the refinery, Capital and Fighter, Bomber and Vehicle factories.  When I mentioned the factories individually, it was intended that these factories were in a sub zone and not in the Capital.  The Capital would put up heavy ack on it's own, with the refinery putting up a light ack in added defense.  The sub HQ would also put up light ack as well.  The other factories inside the capital would rely on the Capital's anti-air battery's.

I get the feeling I am leaving something out, but likely it will come to me AFTER the fact.  :mad:   :lol

I'll probably catch a lot of flak for this post, likely on, others have brought it up in the past, and probably on the amount of reading to be had.   :lol
Quote from: hitech
Wow I find it hard to believe it has been almost 38 days since our last path. We should have release another 38 versions by now  :bhead
HiTech
Quote from: Pyro
Quote from: Jolly
What on Earth makes you think that i said that sir?!
My guess would be scotch.

Offline Vertex61

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 101
Re: Update to Strategic System?
« Reply #1 on: January 15, 2010, 10:05:20 AM »
I guess it would be ok

+1  :aok

 :salute
~VeRtEx~

Offline Templar

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 189
Re: Update to Strategic System?
« Reply #2 on: January 15, 2010, 11:41:16 AM »
That's a pretty big meal to eat at one setting.   :O
Muhahahahhaa

Offline Volron

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5798
Re: Update to Strategic System?
« Reply #3 on: January 15, 2010, 01:35:38 PM »
As it is something about the strategic system, I wanted to make sure there was a little info to each addition/change that I would like to see.  I would think it would be better than, "I want this, this, this and that. Change this, this and this.", with no basic idea as to how/why to make the change.  :lol

Though I COULD also add a list of aircraft and vehicles to this, I wanted to keep it within an hr worth of reading, since we all know there are more than a few aircraft and vehicles that could/should be added.  :lol
Quote from: hitech
Wow I find it hard to believe it has been almost 38 days since our last path. We should have release another 38 versions by now  :bhead
HiTech
Quote from: Pyro
Quote from: Jolly
What on Earth makes you think that i said that sir?!
My guess would be scotch.

Offline Templar

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 189
Re: Update to Strategic System?
« Reply #4 on: January 15, 2010, 01:53:39 PM »
Not complaining! Lol  :salute After rererere-reading your post, I'm gonna go with +1 for all of it!  :aok 
Muhahahahhaa

Offline guncrasher

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 17323
Re: Update to Strategic System?
« Reply #5 on: January 15, 2010, 07:43:50 PM »
First of all, I would like to apologize if some of these/all of these have been mentioned before, but 200+ pages to look through under wish list is a tad rough. lol  I guess you could call this consolidation.

There are some changes I would really like to see done to the current strategic.  The first of which would be the addition of Radar Installations.  Using the Trinity Map as the example, if I were to up out of an airfield at the edge of the map, once I get 300ft above ground (I believe that's when a dar bar shows, it's been a while so someone correct me if I am wrong), a dar bar would show.  My dar bar could then be tracked all the way inbound.  Something tells me that during World War 2, the radar range didn't cover 500 miles, assuming each sector in Trinity map was 25 miles. lol  Again, it's been a while since I was on so I don't remember sector size of Trinity or any of the other maps now that I think about it. :(
2 size types of radar installations could be used, a small one and a large one.  The large one will have a range of 4 sectors around it while a small one would have half of that (this is just an example).  Both installations could have greater con (short ranged radar) detection range, seeing as they are dedicated dar installations and if you were to take the zone field it's tied to, it would come under your control.  Hitting them would knock them out for an hour and they are not resupplyable. The towers for the long range dar, would take 1 500lbs bomb while the short range dar would be as it is now or maybe a little tougher, like 250?  The installation complex would be spread out a little, forcing someone to either take friends or make more than one pass in a run, to knock it out.  Since you would have large and small dar installations overlapping, it would not create a HUGE gap in the dar network if an installation was hit, but you could sneak some aircraft through the gap or just make them think "What is going on here?".  With the addition of dar installations, you could take away dar on the small airfields and halve the dar on medium airfields and vehicle bases.  The large airfields could keep their current dar range, making the dar installations more important and useful.  The CV could have the dar range of a small installation and maintain it's current con dar range.

A second addition would be Rail yards.  These could be hit, which would affect the resupply of bases and installations in their assigned zone.  They would be decent in size in that you would need more than one pass or some help, to knock it out in one run and there would be 2 per zone.  As they take damage, it would increase the time it would normally take to resupply, meaning at certain percentages, it would tack on an addition 15 minutes to the down time of bases and installations (this is just an example).  Once it is knocked out (0%), nothing would be resupplied and the rail yard will stay down for one hour.  Resupply would not resume until the rail yard has returned to at least 25% (assuming that part of it was hit, then later the rest of it).  So if some people hits half of it, then 30 minutes later, someone else knocks it out, supply ability would be down for a total of 30 minutes.  At which point, half of it would respawn and supplies would flow once more.  Using the dar installations as an example, a group of people knock out a dar installation while another group hit the rail yards for that zone. The total down time for the installation would be 2 hrs.

A third addition really isn't an addition, but a change, and likely a coding nightmare.  Ports should have dry docks put in and if hit would stay down for one hour, and are not resupplyable. There would be 2-4 per port and would take maybe 2k per to destroy them.  Puffy ack would be put in as well, to help in defense of port.  So if a carrier is sunk but it's home port dry docks were destroyed at the same time, the total down time of the carrier would be 1 hour and 45 minutes. (this is assuming the CV respawn is 45 minutes)  The ships docked at port could also affect what the fleet would respawn with.  Currently there are 2 CA and 3 DD docked when looking at current map.  Change that to 1 CA and 4 DD's and make it to where, if some or all of those were sunk, your fleet would respawn minus those ships.  The down time for the docked ships would be 30 minutes.  If I remember correctly, there are 6 DD's and 1 CA that tag along with the CV.  So if all the ships are sunk at the port when the CV respawns, it will only have 2 DD's for defense.  The ships docked at port, would be as tough as they are when out at sea, so it would take a little effort to sink them.  To beef up defense of the port, the docked ships would add some of their anti-air power to defense of the port.  The CA would add 4 guns low level ack and any puffy it would normally put up in defense of CV and the DD's would add only 2 guns to low level ack.  None of these guns can be manned.
The other function of the dry docks would be to allow players to repair and replace ships.  Meaning, the ships out at sea, minus the CV, would not respawn unless you took the fleet to a friendly port with a working dry dock.  The status of the ships at the port used, would affect whether or not you would get the fleets CA (assuming that it was sunk at sea) back or not, meaning if the CA is sunk at the port when you dock the fleet, you would not replace the CA the fleet lost.  When you get the CV near the port, an option to "Dock Fleet" would appear but you will have to be in command of the fleet for it to show up.  The fleet will then disappear for 15 minutes while repairs and replacement takes place, after which the fleet will respawn at the very least, with ships at 100% health.  If the dry docks are hit while the fleet is docked, it will NOT affect the time it remains docked or damage/destroy the docked fleet.  If the fleet is docked when the port is captured though, they would gain control of that fleet when it respawns.

A fourth addition would be Fighter, Bomber and Vehicle factories.  These would be located near the main HQ and would be rather larger and tough to knock out, maybe 1-2k per building.  That means you really won't be able to do much damage alone.  You will need the help of others to knock out one of these factories.  As each factory takes damage, the perk price starts to go up.  Once the factory is at 50%, you can no longer use perk rides.  When the factory is completely destroyed (0%), you will be limited to Mid-War era aircraft.  For the case of the Vehicle Factory, you just lose the ability to use the Tiger, Sherman and the T-34/85 at 50% and below.  These factories will be down for 1 hour and are not resupplyable.  But, since they will be rather large complexes, you won't have to worry about a single player ruining your day. :lol  You could make the size of the complex around 25% - 50% of what the Capital City is now.

A fifth addition is a series of changes.  The current City setup is a very large city with the standard factories inside the city.  This should be changed to where this city is in the HQ zone at all times, but the other zones would have what we use to have for city and factories.  This would eliminate the need to code a city "retreating", then later returning, when it's zone field is taken/recaptured.  The HQ zone would have the Capital City and 2 rail yards, while the sub zone would have the old set up for it with the addition of 2 rail yards.
Another change would be, once a HQ has been knocked out, it will stay down for 1-2 hrs and is not resupplyable.  But, there will be 2 HQ facilities, the main one we have now and a sub on inside the Capital City.  This should put a little more worth into the HQ.
For some maps, you can swap out the River Barge for 2-4 Freighters with 1 or 2 DD escorts and for all maps, slow down the truck convoys and trains a tad.
Flak over targets seems to be a tad light, especially over the Capital.  For a target like that, one would expect heavy flak considering the value of target.  The following could have light ack, Ports, dar factory, troop training. Medium ack would be in ord and AAA factory, the smaller zone city, rail yards and the main HQ.  Heavy ack would be in the refinery, Capital and Fighter, Bomber and Vehicle factories.  When I mentioned the factories individually, it was intended that these factories were in a sub zone and not in the Capital.  The Capital would put up heavy ack on it's own, with the refinery putting up a light ack in added defense.  The sub HQ would also put up light ack as well.  The other factories inside the capital would rely on the Capital's anti-air battery's.

I get the feeling I am leaving something out, but likely it will come to me AFTER the fact.  :mad:   :lol

I'll probably catch a lot of flak for this post, likely on, others have brought it up in the past, and probably on the amount of reading to be had.   :lol

can you please post the executive summary.

semp
you dont want me to ho, dont point your plane at me.

Offline mbailey

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5677
Re: Update to Strategic System?
« Reply #6 on: January 15, 2010, 07:49:29 PM »
Do you perhaps have Cliff Notes for this wish?   :D

J/K

<S>

Mbailey
Mbailey
80th FS "Headhunters"

Ichi Go Ichi E
Character is like a tree and reputation like its shadow. The shadow is what we think of it; the tree is the real thing.

When the game is over, the Kings and Pawns all go into the same box.

Offline MadHatter

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 241
Re: Update to Strategic System?
« Reply #7 on: January 15, 2010, 08:07:54 PM »
And I thought I wrote alot.  Definitely like the idea about being able to choke a base.  :aok
-MadHat
CO 81st Bomb Wing "Pogues"
"Carpet bombing is 100% accurate, the bombs are guaranteed to always hit the ground."

Offline USCH

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1713
Re: Update to Strategic System?
« Reply #8 on: January 15, 2010, 08:23:42 PM »
I admit I did not get all the way to the end in the first sitting. but it is funny when a guy writes too little he gets flamed, and when he is so informative it looks as if he is writing the great AH novel he gets flamed...

+1  :aok

Offline Tilt

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7357
      • FullTilt
Re: Update to Strategic System?
« Reply #9 on: January 16, 2010, 06:26:06 AM »
I am not sure about the game play benefits of differing radar ranges. Interesting idea thos I think it may be usefull if the captial city was given its own larger radar circle.

I agree re larger ports but for me its because of another preference of mine. I would like to see standard cites (or large towns) return as hubs in the distibution routes and where these routes are coastal so there should be a city port. Such cities /city ports would be capturable (as were the old depots).Roads (and therefore spawns) would not bypass them.  Cities may or may not have air or vehicle fields allocated to them as ports would have fleets allocated to them.

In this way the captial city could remain at the rear with the HQ.

Local logistics remain game play objectives but are not as complicated as the strat system in play from the rear. (if you own it you have it...if not you dont).

Ludere Vincere

Offline mbailey

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5677
Re: Update to Strategic System?
« Reply #10 on: January 16, 2010, 08:38:49 AM »
My comment was not ment as a flame at all, just some light humor. Actually its refreshing seeing so much thought and time put into an idea.



+1  :aok
Mbailey
80th FS "Headhunters"

Ichi Go Ichi E
Character is like a tree and reputation like its shadow. The shadow is what we think of it; the tree is the real thing.

When the game is over, the Kings and Pawns all go into the same box.

Offline USCH

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1713
Re: Update to Strategic System?
« Reply #11 on: January 16, 2010, 09:26:08 AM »
My comment was not ment as a flame at all, just some light humor. Actually its refreshing seeing so much thought and time put into an idea.



+1  :aok
quite true... and i wasnt really picking on anyone eather... just fummy how it works out... too little info people want more, too much and they dont want to read the darn thing.

Offline Strip

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3319
Re: Update to Strategic System?
« Reply #12 on: January 16, 2010, 10:25:58 AM »
There are some changes I would really like to see done to the current strategic.  The first of which would be the addition of Radar Installations.  Using the Trinity Map as the example, if I were to up out of an airfield at the edge of the map, once I get 300ft above ground (I believe that's when a dar bar shows, it's been a while so someone correct me if I am wrong), a dar bar would show.  My dar bar could then be tracked all the way inbound.  Something tells me that during World War 2, the radar range didn't cover 500 miles, assuming each sector in Trinity map was 25 miles. lol  Again, it's been a while since I was on so I don't remember sector size of Trinity or any of the other maps now that I think about it. :(
2 size types of radar installations could be used, a small one and a large one.  The large one will have a range of 4 sectors around it while a small one would have half of that (this is just an example).  Both installations could have greater con (short ranged radar) detection range, seeing as they are dedicated dar installations and if you were to take the zone field it's tied to, it would come under your control.  Hitting them would knock them out for an hour and they are not resupplyable. The towers for the long range dar, would take 1 500lbs bomb while the short range dar would be as it is now or maybe a little tougher, like 250?  The installation complex would be spread out a little, forcing someone to either take friends or make more than one pass in a run, to knock it out.  Since you would have large and small dar installations overlapping, it would not create a HUGE gap in the dar network if an installation was hit, but you could sneak some aircraft through the gap or just make them think "What is going on here?".  With the addition of dar installations, you could take away dar on the small airfields and halve the dar on medium airfields and vehicle bases.  The large airfields could keep their current dar range, making the dar installations more important and useful.  The CV could have the dar range of a small installation and maintain it's current con dar range.

The capability exist the SEA arenas to control the dar bar range, in the last scenario it was 25 miles. It was interesting to see large red bars appear from no where and find the enemy at altitude. I wish they would apply it to the MA, perhaps at 50 miles or so.

Strip

Offline Volron

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5798
Re: Update to Strategic System?
« Reply #13 on: January 16, 2010, 01:01:27 PM »
Something about the Trains, Trucks and River Barges:

"For some maps, you can swap out the River Barge for 2-4 Freighters with 1 or 2 DD escorts and for all maps, slow down the truck convoys and trains a tad."

More information about this, which comes to me a tad after the fact.  :mad: LOL  Has anyone noticed when you take out the locomotive of a train, the rail cars just keep on going?  It's the same with taking out the tug on the river barge convoy.  That is something I spaced when putting the idea in about the Trains, Trucks and River Barges/Freighters.  Some maps would still use the river barge as a means to get supplies to island bases, seeing as they are so small.  The point is, an update to that would be nice as well.  You take out the locomotive/river barge tug, the rail cars and barges would stop, sitting there until respawn.  Which means, it would deny the enemy those supplies.  The freighters would have some ack for themselves, 1 or 2 low level ack, maybe 1 2x .50 cal gun and a single 20mil gun?  Of course the DD's will have their full compliment of ack, including puffy.

Sorry, it's been a LONG time since I've been in a forum, so I forgot how to do quotes. lol

Tilt
A little of what you replied with, I thought of, mainly the "Port City" supply chain.  I'm glad you brought this up, it was something I was thinking about prior to the original posting, but I forgot.  *sigh*  Again, something AFTER the fact, only this time, someone beats me to the punch.  :lol  Now that I have re-read my own posting, I see that I've forgotten a lot (if not all) about how the basic supply chain would work.  Well....fiddlesticks. :furious

Strip
Well, right now you can't take out the long range radar (dar bar), just the short range radar.  That's the reason behind my dar installation idea. lol  So you could take out the long range radar, creating a small gap in the network to work over something deeper in enemy territory.  :aok  But even the change you mentioned, would make it more interesting, and easier on the HTC staff.   :lol

Well seeing as I have to leave for work in 30 minutes, I will post more about the supply chain later.  It won't be terribly long, maybe a tad short.  We shall see....  :devil  :rofl
Quote from: hitech
Wow I find it hard to believe it has been almost 38 days since our last path. We should have release another 38 versions by now  :bhead
HiTech
Quote from: Pyro
Quote from: Jolly
What on Earth makes you think that i said that sir?!
My guess would be scotch.

Offline Motherland

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8110
Re: Update to Strategic System?
« Reply #14 on: January 16, 2010, 01:07:40 PM »
As #1; DarBar is meant to represent ground observers/reports, not radar. Just as clarification.
I like 2 and 3
I doubt 4 will happen; they had a system like that in AW or WB I think, HT having played the former and worked on the latter, so if he thought they were a good idea they'd likely already be in Aces High.
5 is how it used to be up until last month. The current system is much better, although I think they need to make the targets more important to encourage more flights to them.