Author Topic: Suggested Changes to Add Realism... (Read 563 times)

Seagoon · « **on:** July 02, 2004, 03:40:36 PM »

Dear HTC,

First off, I want to sincerely thank you for your consistent commitment to improving Aces High. You have an excellent product, offered at reasonable rates and you have not allowed it to stagnate. Unlike many of the other games designers, you seem listen to your customer base, and implement the suggestions that have merit. You are to be commended in these things.

The following are just a few suggestions that I have been thinking about since I started playing that I believe would improve realism in Aces High. I bring them up realizing full well that you won't be able to even think about tweaks like this until all the AH2 performance issues are resolved.

AIRFIELDS

1) Bomb and Rocket Craters should have depth, and running through them should damage or wreck an aircraft. Cratering an airfield should be worth a tiny amount of perks. Field Supplies should accelerate the repair of these craters.

Rationale: During WW2 bombing an established airfield involved not only destroying the facilities but the runways and taxiways.

2) Small and Large Calibre weapons - All airfields should have a number of sandbagged MG positions available for airfield defense, whether these are the twin MG34s of German Airfields or the .30 and .50 Calibre MGs of Allied ones. At the larger airfields players should be able to man the 88mm and higher calibre ack guns.

3) Killing a Player manned ack should count as a kill and the killed player should not be rewarded for getting killed with a "successful landing."

4) Larger Airfields and Towns should eventually get a few fixed player manable Anti-Tank sites and not just AA positions. These should be SCOPED anti-tank guns (that don't elevate enough to engage aircraft) firing AT rounds. Killing a manned AT site should also be a "kill".

5) Perks should be awarded on the basis of each paratroop who successfully enters the map room, so the c47 driver who got 9 paratroops into the maproom gets the majority of perkies, rather than the guy who got the last one in getting all the perks. This would add realism and go some way towards eliminating the bad feelings that result when one player "steals" a capture from another.

NAVAL ELEMENTS

1) PT Boats should smoke when the engines are damaged

2) PT Boats should sink and not just blow-up

3) If all the elevators on a CV are destroyed, it should not be able to launch Aircraft until they are repaired.

4) Consider Adding Mines and allowing the Aircraft in the Game that historically had them to carry and drop them. This way Ports could be "Seeded" as they were in WW2.

Thanks for listening.

- SEAGOON

Kev367th · « **Reply #1 on:** July 02, 2004, 04:11:42 PM »

Good suggestions apart from #1.
Most of hte squad I am in came from WB. Apparently a favorite was to crater each end of the runway and stop all flight activity altogether, or something along those lines. With everything that is being done to ensure flight (e.g. no porking below 75% fuel), cant see this happening.

DREDIOCK · « **Reply #2 on:** July 04, 2004, 12:42:22 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Kev367th
Good suggestions apart from #1.
Most of hte squad I am in came from WB. Apparently a favorite was to crater each end of the runway and stop all flight activity altogether, or something along those lines. With everything that is being done to ensure flight (e.g. no porking below 75% fuel), cant see this happening.

I can see them not cratering the feild as alot of the feild that supported primarily fighters were simple dirt feild and the hle would simply be filled with more dirt within a very short period of time.
Now the feilds that supported the heavy bombers were another matter.
But the point is moot inasmuch as we (unralistically) do not have seperate airfeilds for bombers and fighers only

DREDIOCK · « **Reply #3 on:** July 04, 2004, 12:43:03 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Kev367th
Good suggestions apart from #1.
Most of hte squad I am in came from WB. Apparently a favorite was to crater each end of the runway and stop all flight activity altogether, or something along those lines. With everything that is being done to ensure flight (e.g. no porking below 75% fuel), cant see this happening.

I can see them not cratering the feild as alot of the feild that supported primarily fighters were simple dirt feild and the hle would simply be filled with more dirt within a very short period of time.
Now the feilds that supported the heavy bombers were another matter.
But the point is moot inasmuch as we (unralistically) do not have seperate airfeilds for bombers and fighers only

Replicant · « **Reply #4 on:** July 04, 2004, 03:15:47 AM »

There used to be proper bomb craters in AH, but as Kev mentioned, people would bomb the end of the runway and as soon as your spawned you would blow up and end up back in the tower. HTC removed this to ease frustration and improve gameplay.

Replicant · « **Reply #5 on:** July 04, 2004, 03:22:45 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by DREDIOCK
I can see them not cratering the feild as alot of the feild that supported primarily fighters were simple dirt feild and the hle would simply be filled with more dirt within a very short period of time.
Now the feilds that supported the heavy bombers were another matter.
But the point is moot inasmuch as we (unralistically) do not have seperate airfeilds for bombers and fighers only

The airfield/runway construction depended on what time period during the war. Very early war fighter airfields were indeed grass, but this was only up to about 1941, maybe 42 at a push. They introduced steel meshing for most grass airfields with concrete taxiways although this was just an interim until full concrete runways were built (some kept meshing through entire war). Fighter/Jabo/light bomber fields had concrete runways and were often 1 or 2 runway airfields. Bomber airfields were mostly concrete 3 runway fields.

Seagoon · « **Reply #6 on:** July 05, 2004, 04:17:23 PM »

Hi Guys,

Thanks for the feedback. Ok, then how about making the field and the mid-point of the runways craterable. This would allow enough space for light fighters to take off, but not enough roll room for heavy fighters and bombers before hitting a crater. It would also make landings "dicey." It would also have the potential of making the old "spawn in the hanger and then roll" a difficult proposition if the hanger areas were heavily cratered.

- SEAGOON

LYNX · « **Reply #7 on:** July 05, 2004, 05:28:54 PM »

1) Bomb and Rocket Craters should have depth, and running through them should damage or wreck an aircraft. Cratering an airfield should be worth a tiny amount of perks. Field Supplies should accelerate the repair of these craters.

As an Ex Warbirds Fighter Ops player I have seen this in action. My recommendations are... "beware of what you wish for you may just get it". Let me explain. So you bomb the runway and a con rolls but can't see the hole he is about to hit at 60+mph. His gear snaps off and he blows up. You being close get a proxy kill. Umm you think! Next time you nail the spawn point bang on. Con hits flight in twr then appears then blows up. He thinks umm some kinda bug and tries 2 or 3 times. Same result. Meanwhile you have collected 3 proxy kills. "Great " you think and repeat it over and over and share your new found knowledge with others. They in turn do it. Meanwhile the spawners are getting a tad pi$$ed off by now and seek revenge. The birth of THE SPAWNS WARS has just been concieved. A war where you wait in twr 2 to 3 min for the crator to heal or you exit game and come back in...crator no longer on YOUR system. Should anyone make you have to exit game?

After a month or so a truce is arranged over open channel (white) where runway bombing is allowed but not within 2 plane length of the actual SPAWN point. Game on you think but 1 guy isn't going to adhere to a code of conduct drawn up and agreed by 200 to 300 players. After all it's his money he's spending. He conducts his own private spawn war. His side shames him on open channel and even gives his grid ref to the other side. Where he is dispatched over and over. However, this guy changes his ID because he isn't going to be told / beaten. The Hosts are informed of this guys conduct. He is warned then eventually banned. Another ID is generated.

Another guy totally pi$$ed of with this one guys attitude opens another account and over a week or so befriends this 1 persistant SPAWN BOMBING tosser, to get his e-mail address. The VIRUS WAR begins..... <>

It gets nasty mate:mad:

LYNX · « **Reply #8 on:** July 05, 2004, 05:29:11 PM »

some how I managed to post twice...sorry all

WilldCrd · « **Reply #9 on:** July 05, 2004, 06:12:43 PM »

I seem to remember several times in AH1 when upping a 109 I would go over craters on takeoff and but my landing gear

dedalos · « **Reply #10 on:** July 06, 2004, 08:15:14 AM »

Don;t agree with #1 and perks have nothing to do with realism.

Seagoon · « **Reply #11 on:** July 06, 2004, 12:18:14 PM »

Hi Lynx,

I agree that Spawn point camping/vulching is enough of a deterrent without adding an "automatic kill" system. However, what are your thoughts about the amended suggestion that we make:

"the field and the mid-point of the runways craterable. This would allow enough space for light fighters to take off [and nullify the auto kill problem], but not enough roll room for heavy fighters and bombers before hitting a crater. It would also make landings "dicey." "

This would also add realism in that bombs that hit within the perimeter of the airfield generally had a negative effect and necessitated repair during WW2. In our current system, unless a player basically zings a strat nearly dead on with his bomb he might as well have dropped it in the sea. Additionally, a heavily bombed field shouldn't be able to roll a heavy bomber group with impunity. I think this will be especially important if and when we implement TOD.

Now I know that some might object, "but that means I might have to divert my buffs to another field or risk having them crash on landing at a bombed field" Yup, it might, but this too was historical. And yes, I think we do need to introduce - in a balanced and careful fashion - some more strategic elements.

What think ye?

- SEAGOON

Seagoon · « **Reply #12 on:** July 06, 2004, 12:19:41 PM »

Oh, btw, what about the other suggestions: 2-5 and the Naval elements?

- SEAGOON

loser · « **Reply #13 on:** July 06, 2004, 12:56:57 PM »

I agree with everything but number one too. Pretty good ideas here.

I dont think Naval suggestion 2 would work at this point. That is not to say it isn't a good idea, but as far as I know at this point the water isnt "modelled" with any "depth."

LYNX · « **Reply #14 on:** July 06, 2004, 11:05:34 PM »

I am still not keen about holes in the ground (abuse) but you make some other agreable suggestions such as manned 88's and anti tank pieces.

Having no idea about writing the program to make it happen I guess thats what the sticky bit would be.