Author Topic: When the battle ground is not the origin base  (Read 755 times)

Offline Tilt

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7358
      • FullTilt
When the battle ground is not the origin base
« on: September 20, 2004, 07:18:47 PM »
I hear lots of stuff about bases being closer or further apart..............

Thinking out side the box lets think how conflicts can happen between bases...............


How could conflicts be focussed away from bases at fulcrum points that progress/regress the local war without being directly attritional for bases?
Ludere Vincere

Offline BlueJ1

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5826
When the battle ground is not the origin base
« Reply #1 on: September 20, 2004, 07:43:27 PM »
would need something like a tank town for a   group of enemy and friendly bases. This would cause Jabos to kills gvs. And fighters to kill jabos. And Bombers to kill FHs. And the food chain continues.
U.S.N.
Aviation Electrician MH-60S
OEF 08-09'

Offline DoKGonZo

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1977
      • http://www.gonzoville.com
Re: When the battle ground is not the origin base
« Reply #2 on: September 20, 2004, 09:10:19 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Tilt
I hear lots of stuff about bases being closer or further apart..............

Thinking out side the box lets think how conflicts can happen between bases...............


How could conflicts be focussed away from bases at fulcrum points that progress/regress the local war without being directly attritional for bases?


What if half the bases were replaced with the cities from the other half the bases. Then add a map room to each remaining base. To take a base, you need to first capture it's associated city, and then take down all hangars and get troops into the base's map room. You have half as many bases, but it requires two captures to take it - and one of these will be a sector away to remove the vultching.

You could also obviously have nice tank battles around these cities and there'd be enough distance between bases to remove the base spawn-camping threat.

     -DoK

Offline SFCHONDO

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1817
When the battle ground is not the origin base
« Reply #3 on: September 21, 2004, 01:36:06 AM »
Interesting Idea
        HONDO
DENVER BRONCOS    
   
  Retired from AH

Offline Kweassa

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6425
When the battle ground is not the origin base
« Reply #4 on: September 21, 2004, 07:02:37 AM »
Seems like we agree on a lot of stuff!

 I've also given a lot of thought about this as well - AH MA is in essence territoral combat. But what if the territorial occupation and advance, was achieved by something else than airfield captures? What if it revolved around cities and more Vbases and road systems and etc??

 IMO that'd make the MA really fun.

Offline Tilt

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7358
      • FullTilt
When the battle ground is not the origin base
« Reply #5 on: September 21, 2004, 08:57:25 AM »
Yup my thinking too............

populate the terrain with towns which must be taken to advance a front...............

Think of a way of making it so that taking a base is only interesting if you hold several towns around it.......or key towns feeding ..... ie you have moved the front to a point to where the base may be captured.


There are several ways of tackling this depending upon how much work HTC would wish to put in..............

My favourite right now would be to make "spawn roads" for GV's such that spawning along a road is amatter of clip board clicking on a town (when in the tower). to arrive at a town periphery. This town must be on a road connected directly or via other towns (belonging to your country) to your field.

Once you have captured towns enroute to an enemy field you can then capture it (or if you already have done it with para's you can now use it)

But ideally IMO the target is to move towns away from fields and make their capture a requirement to "win the war"

AC's spawn the usual way and conduct an air war over towns where air fields are further apart.

Naval stuff is as before but we add towns between fields on islands.
« Last Edit: September 21, 2004, 09:01:08 AM by Tilt »
Ludere Vincere

Offline Kweassa

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6425
When the battle ground is not the origin base
« Reply #6 on: September 21, 2004, 09:11:11 AM »
Here is a comprehensive compilation of all of the ideas I've suggested about the strat over the years. In a sense, it is simular to the current strat system, and yet, radically different in some areas.

 I don't expect anything like this might be implemented anytime soon(perhaps never), but this will give a good example of how the overall map, and the strat system can be placed in a more logical and "realistic" manner.

 The key points of this suggestion, is the "pathways" one may follow to advance or retreat, and how a battle might occur somewhere outside the individual field, revolving around the capture and occupation of strategically important key points of the map, rather than bases themselves.

----------------------------------------

1. The Default System



 The above, is the current strat system in work. An individual "zone" is very large. Penetration into the strat objects such as refineries and etc, are almost impossible.

 A central "Zone Field" commands the strat resources, and the capture of the field will enable the controlling side the command of the strat objects - which means the deprived side, will be unable to replenish strat objects on individual fields for a much long time. However, there is no true logistic concept as well as a logical road system.

 The V-Base spawn points are quite arbitrary and illogical in many aspects.


 Then, how would one introduce a logistic system as well as a logical road system without hurting the overall gameplay of AH MA?



2. The Building of the Road



 We start out with the building of the road system. A logical, but quite simplifed and not very complex network of roads is placed over the whole area.

 In AH2, there is already a "road" in work. However, this is a very limited implementation placed in only small areas near fields. However, in a more or less realistic warring environment, the most important aspect of territorial combat revolves around the control of the roads.

 Essentially, the laying of the road network is expanding what is already present in AH2 - and with perhaps a few more extra goodies, to encourage people that the roads mean something. For instance, only at these roads, will GVs travel at its full speed. A Panzer will travel its full 25mph when over a road. Over a flat stretch of bare land, its speed will be limited by 3~5mph off the top speed.


3. Laying out Vbases and Towns



 This is in essence, the heart of the new system. While my intentions clearly remain with AH2 as an air-combat sim, that does not mean the basic system cannot be modified to resemble much m ore of the real warring environment.

Basically, the whole field lay-out begins with a ground-war as the most important aspect of them all, when it comes to territorial capture and occupation.

 As you can see in the picture, VBases are first laid out in key positions of the road. Major junctions, mountain passes, bridge heads, and etc.. Vbases, are always near the road.

 Between the Vbases, exists a chain of towns along the roads. These towns are the most important terrain objects so far. These towns, are the limits of where a Vbase can spawn vehicles to. In other words, only upto the point where the town is under a country's direct control, may a Vehicle spawn to.

 For instance, imagine the attacking side launches vehicles from the green Vbase at 10.12 sector to the Vbase at 9.12 sector and captures it.

 Where would the attackers go next? At this point, the attackers that have captured the Vbase at 9.12.8, will only be able to spawn upto the town at 9.12.2.

 Only when they attack this town, and capture it to gain control of it, will they able to gain more options in their advance. Once the control of the town at 9.12.2 is gained, they may spawn to the next "link" - the town at 9.12.1, the town at 9.13.2, or drive further into the Vbase at 8.12.6.

 The town, has detached itself from the airfields, and has been transformed into a link between the road system, which the players must gain control over to allow further advance.


4. Placing Airfields and Cities



 Once the basic road network, and spawn links via towns have been finished, the airfields and cities are laind out. You will notice that a total of four cities exist in this area, where in the default scheme, only one city existed.

 The airfields are laid out roughly 25 miles apart. Some are near roads and towns, which means those airfields may be attacked from enemy GVs if the enemy advance gains control of nearby towns. Others are relative far(7~8miles+) distances from the town, which in MA gameplay is considered too far a distance to travel with GVs.

 The Cities, are laid out in important junctions where multiple roads join, or in the midst of an area where a lot of vbases or airfields are places. Total four Cities have been placed in this area.

(contd.)
« Last Edit: September 21, 2004, 09:13:49 AM by Kweassa »

Offline Kweassa

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6425
When the battle ground is not the origin base
« Reply #7 on: September 21, 2004, 09:11:50 AM »
(contd.)


5. Building the Logistics Line



 The Cities are important. They are essentially upgraded, heavily fortified versions of towns.

 These cities, are at the heart of the logistics line to the combat fields. The green dotted line, overlapping much of the road system, is the logistics line.

 From the cities, departs a truck convoy to each of the fields. When these convoys arrive at a field or town, damaged objects and hangars and such, are repaired.

 The logistics line, follows the road system in 95% of the case. The logistics lines, will be cut off, if the enemy gains control of the corresponding towns that provide the link to the city.

 For instance, the logistics line to 9.12.8, will be cut off, if the enemy captures the town at 9.12.2 before capturing the Vbase itself.

 The airfield at 9.12.4, has two logistics line coming into it from the east and the west, following the road. If the enemy manages to capture the towns at 9.12.1 and 9.12.2, the logistics line will be cut off at that field. Objects, including hangars and stuff, will stay down for a very long time when that happens.

 Ofcourse, the airfields and vbases can be captured independantly. But the towns are as much(if not more) important - as they not only provide a road link to allow advance, but also control logistics. A field where the logistics lines are severed, will be soon dried up and dead.

The City itself, may also be captured.

 If the city is captured, the side occupying the city will control the logistics, to the extent of the logistics line. If by some miracle, an attacking side captures the city at 8.13.6, that alone will not do them any good, if there is no logistics line stretching outwards from the city, that they control.

 The cities, are the heart of logistics and the road system. It is essentially a gigantic town combined with a VH.

 Preferabbly, the city will have multiple VHs inside it allowing defenders to spawn. It will be much more heavily guarded with flak and ack. Whether one side advances or not, will be determined by if they can capture the city or not.

 An alternative, is razing the city to the ground. If a city is 100% destroyed, the logistics function will stop for a set time, until the city is rebuilt.

 It will require something like 50 troopers inside the map room of the city within 5 minutes, (all the city buildings need not necessarily be down, unlike towns) to be captured.

 The extent of the logistics lines from one city, forms a zone(white dotted line). In the default strat, this whole area was one zone. In this suggestion, this area is divided into four zones.

 Large battles will revolve arround the city under siege. (I hope..) The city is the most important center of an individual zone, that directly controls rebuild times in the form of logistics.

 The logistics can be disrupted by destruction of the whole city, or be captured for the attacker's use, if the city is captured.

 The road to attack, leads to the city.


6. Implementing Overall Strat



 In the above pic, you can see an old relic of AH1.

 Depots(Squares with "D"s, highlighted in yellow) are again, here. These depots, control the respawn time of the city buildings.

 It is not shown in the picture, but the old country strats like the refinery and radar factories and etc, are grouped near the HQ. When these factories are fully functioning, the depot will automatically collect the resources and move it to the city by rail(light blue line).

 Then from that point on, the resources at the city, when the city is functioning well, will be distributed by the logistics line via trucks.

 Thus, another way to stop a city from functioning well, is to destroy the depots. But you will notice that the depots are in the deepest parts, at a position where its closest to the HQ. It will not be easy to reach.

When a City is captured, the control of the depots change to the side which captured the city. The resources from the capturer's country strats, will be collected at this depot.

 The clever thing about the depot position, is when the attackers capture the city, the depot is now at the furthest from their own HQ - making it vulnerable to attack, from the defenders trying to liberate the fallen city.
 
 

 So, if the country strats, grouped near the HQ is busted, the depots cannot collect resources, and the logistics are also disturbed(but this is highly unlikely unless a reset phase).

 Most usually, logistics will be effected by above mentioned factors - road systems and town links.

 ....
« Last Edit: September 21, 2004, 09:17:09 AM by Kweassa »

Offline Kweassa

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6425
When the battle ground is not the origin base
« Reply #8 on: September 21, 2004, 09:24:19 AM »
Basically, the above idea is a map designed with focus to how a real war might transpire.

 Like I said, I have no intention of transforming AH into a GV sim. It is only meant to give some basic logic to attacks and defenses, that the advance and retreat of a country, is achieved through control of key positions in the map - which are roads and junctions, and logistic centers.

 The numbers of fields, compared to the old system, may have decreased a bit. However, this will not in anyway make an advance any easier or defense any harder.

 The whole aim of it all, is to make the target of air strikes, and places for air superiority, somewhere else than airfields. GVs will not spawn some clandestine, 30, 40, 50 miles via a weird, long, spawn indicator. There's no such thing as capturing obscure bases thanks to wierd spawn points.

 The advance from the ground will need to catch up with the advance of the air, in order for a side to advance well.  And the key locations which needs to be suppressed/destroyed, in order to advance, will not be the fields.

 It is the towns, and most importantly the master city, that needs to be captured in order for a side to really drive into the heart of the enemy lands.

Offline DoKGonZo

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1977
      • http://www.gonzoville.com
When the battle ground is not the origin base
« Reply #9 on: September 21, 2004, 09:34:26 AM »
My only issue with your idea is it still allows for GV attacks on airbases. Which, while realistic, provides just too great a risk of giving us back the things we dislike in the current MA.

If the only bases are airbases with GV's which can spawn out towards the nearby cities, then that lets GV's duke it out over there. It allows for the food-chain to work itself out someplace other than over an airfield.

Once the city is taken, then obviously an airbase is at risk. But at least the conveyor belt won't be right on top of them. The defender will need to maintain control of the airspace and then try for a counterattack.

It's also a simple system. YOu can't take A23 until you first capture C23. Easy.

But overall I think it's the right direction. The gripe about reducing the number of bases all along is that it's "too far to get to a fight." Well, not if you put the cities where you took bases away and made those required captures before you can take the base.

     -DoK
« Last Edit: September 21, 2004, 10:21:59 AM by DoKGonZo »

Offline Tilt

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7358
      • FullTilt
When the battle ground is not the origin base
« Reply #10 on: September 21, 2004, 09:54:20 AM »
Very much my thoughts kweassa.......

I think it would be unwise to "leap" to such a system  but essentialy the spawn road is the key..........


I think that given GV's will thern only be able to spawn along the spawn road  to, or via ita own towns (until clearing a road for acces to a base) then all bases should also be on roads or near enough that they can be accessed from the spawn road.

Then its up to the terrain designer to space stuff out appropriately.

Further bases captured without routes to other freindly bases should be unusable......... indeed they  could be made uncapturable until such a logistic route was present.

Re your use of cities and strat depots............ I must admit I mourn the loss of depots. They sort of did what we try here.

However a 1st stage implementation could leave stuff just as it is with present zone masters and  strat in place.

Cross roads would be fun areas...........

Some towns could be situated next to bridges...........
Ludere Vincere

Offline Easyscor

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10908
When the battle ground is not the origin base
« Reply #11 on: September 21, 2004, 02:31:43 PM »
Map concept

I’ve been working on a very small two country proof of concept map but it’s slow going while I learn the terrain editor.  I’m staying within the constraints of the existing system and figure additional bells and whistles can be added when the new editor comes along.  Obviously the map isn’t ready.

Visually, the first things you will notice is most of the small airfields have no town or map room near them and the small fields are mostly along the perimeter of the territory (zone).

The next thing you will notice is the zone master looks something like a real City.  It has a large airfield, port, factories, at least one City tile, the zone master town plus most of the towns and map rooms from the small airfields and a supporting GV base with no remote spawn points.

All medium size fields and all the large fields, except the zone master, are the familiar standard field + town setup.  The medium and large fields are primarily spotted along the access line, or roads if you will, between zone masters of neighboring territories.

Vehicle bases are placed along the drawn map supply roads and the roads actually connect between the bases.  The vehicle bases provide an alternate ground assault route to the zone master as well as branches to the capturable fields.  All vehicle spawn points are placed on/near the roads to reinforce the idea of travel.

Convoy spawn point are placed near the large and medium airfields or any small field with a town along the way but not in such a way that a single player can camp and stop supply shipments to all the small airfields.  I don’t expect many attacks on the convoys and I’d like it to reinforce the idea of supply.  I’m concerned about the length of time it will take the first supply trucks to reach their destination as this would leave a very large gap in the supply chain when the map is first loaded, I may have to abandon the idea.
_____________________________ ___
Game play:

The concept is to capture a whole territory and then mop up the enemy’s remaining large and medium size bases.  The zone bases are a bear to capture with all the AI ack and flack but that’s as it should be and as the attackers begin capturing the towns linked to the small fields, the territory begins to fall.  The zone base provides a phased, stacked, focus for all the strat guys, bomber raids and then Jabo and GV battles among the buildings.

When I said phased, stacked focus, I envisioned large bomber groups hitting the zone base and it’s strat targets early while jabos, GVs and fighters work to capture the bases leading up to the approach to the zone base.  Initially, the gameplay over the zone base would be at higher altitudes but as the attackers move in, I would expect huge furballs as the base is laid to siege.  There is a risk the attack would stall but I think it would provide enough gameplay to keep everyone happy.
_____________________________ ___
Other details:

The medium and large fields along with the vehicle bases are captured to form a push into the enemies territory and access to attack the zone base.

The small fields and uncaptured medium and large fields provide the means to counter attack or launch fighter sweeps in defense of your territory. They also provide the radar towers to find fights and give advanced warning of attacks unless suppressed.

Small fields without towns can spawn GVs from the hanger but have no remote spawn points and have no enemy spawn points in the neighborhood.  These fields are safe from GV vulching and capture to balance the heavy activity aimed at the zone base and can be used to launch counter attacks to threaten the neighboring enemy territory.

Solo players can up jabos or bombers and suppress the frontline bases or cap or attempt to help capture one of the enemy medium or large bases just like they do now.  I expect some of the small fields and all the medium and large fields to be the focus for the furballers and b&z players just as now until a zone base is in play.   Groups of players can organize large bomber missions to flatten the zone bases and if they don’t see enough players in the mission they can divert to a medium or large field. Groups of  fighters can organize escort or fighter sweeps.  GV battles should remain as they are now until a zone base is in contention and then it should provide a heck of a battle similar to tank town except there is actually something to capture.

Once the attackers take the zone base, the defenders are faced with suppressing the newly captured small fields that just changed sides and trying to recapture the zone base from the fields they still own inside the captured territory.

_____________________________ ___
My biggest concerns right now is whether I can place the towns and factories close enough together to look natural, then how it will play out.

Road, Depots and the other ginger bread could be added if the system works the way I expect it too.
Easy in-game again.
Since Tour 19 - 2001

Offline Easyscor

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10908
When the battle ground is not the origin base
« Reply #12 on: September 22, 2004, 01:09:07 AM »
Well I can't put the towns and factories as close together as I'd like with the current editor but it still look pretty good and should work alright for the test map.
Easy in-game again.
Since Tour 19 - 2001

Offline B17Skull12

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3839
When the battle ground is not the origin base
« Reply #13 on: September 22, 2004, 01:20:44 AM »
kweassa.

1 thing.

to many objects on on a map causes bad fps.
II/JG3 DGS II

Offline Kweassa

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6425
When the battle ground is not the origin base
« Reply #14 on: September 22, 2004, 01:39:47 AM »
Not really!

 The only real increase in object numbers are the cities. The towns have been detached from the airfields.

 Count the numbers of towns in the suggested scheme, and you will see that they are roughly the same with the default scheme. Only the City has been increased; one city to four citites, but all of the refineries and stuff have been grouped moved towards the HQ - their overall numbers have decreased.