Author Topic: Question For HT And Pyro (Read 563 times)

mussie · « **on:** August 25, 2006, 10:56:14 AM »

Hey HT Hey Pyro

I would like you to clarify something for everyone....

I read statments like "Aces High is a WWII air combat simulation" I hear this statment used when people complain about GV's and Buffs And the Strat system.....

When you started this project waaaaaaaaay back in the late 90's was it you intention to make it about WWII Air Combat with the whole strat buff and GV system being an after thought. OR did you always intend to include GV's, Buff's and the Strat System ?

Can you once and for all tell everyone exactly what AH is just for the record....?

I think it boils down to two options and as I know your busy I will number them so if you decide to respond you can just type a one or a two....

AHII Is:
1- A WWII Air Combat simulator
2- A WWII Combat Simulator

Thanks Mussie

mussie · « **Reply #1 on:** August 25, 2006, 10:58:57 AM »

Why do I get the feeling that HT or Pyro will put either
1.5
or
3

Hades55 · « **Reply #2 on:** August 25, 2006, 11:27:12 AM »

Do you have your planes ? yes
Can you fly and dogfight with others ? yes.

Well, do it, and stop trying to affect the pleasure
of the others who like the ground war (not me).

Dismiss.

mussie · « **Reply #3 on:** August 25, 2006, 11:38:02 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Hades55
Do you have your planes ? yes
Can you fly and dogfight with others ? yes.

Well, do it, and stop trying to affect the pleasure
of the others who like the ground war (not me).

Dismiss.

Hades I think you better reread my post....

I fly Fighter's Buff's, Drive GV's and bomb STRAT targets......

~~EDIT: my sig used to say I am a Furballer with a Toolsheader complex.....~~

Hades55 · « **Reply #4 on:** August 25, 2006, 11:46:14 AM »

my fault

Murdr · « **Reply #5 on:** August 25, 2006, 11:50:14 AM »

Of course Im neither of those two people. I did have a few comments though.

Just wanted to mention that HT and Pyro had the perspective of watching the very first graphically based multiplayer online game evolve from a players point of view. A game that happened to be primative WW2 flight sim.

When the technologly advanced enough to support reinacting historical scenerios of WW2, you could not ignore the role bombers played in actually causing battles to happen. If you include bombers in the game. You have to give them something to do, which means you need a strat system for them to affect.

Then there is human nature. If there is a way to kill with impunity in the game players will find and exploit it. Specifically they could land behind runway spawns and camp there effectively shutting down a field. The answer to that was the flakpanzer. Refering back to human nature...players were willing to drive those flakpanzers for an hour to enemy fields to spawn camp. Ironically the answer to the camping problem, became the new camping tool. The answer to that was the panzer.

All of this happened in AW, before WB, before AH. I guess what I am saying is that there was an existing frame work for what goes into simulating WW2 air combat, including the backgroud features that are likely need to support the enviroment.

There have been projects that strictly concentrate on the fighter aspect of air combat. I suspect that approach may be too one dimentional to grow a large player base on its own. You almost have to allow for players to do alternate tasks aside from the main theme, or it will grow stale to individual players very quickly.

With that history in mind, my conclusion is that AH meets "1" in your criteria. And that in order to cross the line to "2" you need to add FPS combat systems to the game. In other words the ground, bomber, and strat aspects of the game are requisite support features for a ww2 air combat sim.

hubsonfire · « **Reply #6 on:** August 25, 2006, 12:13:09 PM »

What Murdr said.

One of the guys from HTC had replied in another thread a few years back, but I can't find it at the moment. IIRC, the response was that AH was primarily about aerial combat, and would continue to be so, with additional vehicles and planes of all sorts added to give some depth to gameplay as a whole.

That's not the verbatim quote, but that seemed to be the basic premise. However, I would absolutely not use the word Simulation to describe any aspect of the game. With huge gaps in the planesets, substitutions in the AvA and SEA, and all sorts of compromises in the interests of gameplay, the word simulation just doesn't apply to this game, IMO.

It's almost 1, but not quite. To be all encompassing, there would have to be actual infantry, not 10 bipedal bombs for the maproom, so I'd say 2 can't possibly be right.

mussie · « **Reply #7 on:** August 25, 2006, 12:31:34 PM »

Very well said Murdr, I know back in the Airwarrior or warbirds days HT had a lot of fun with the T-34 from reading this thread...

http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=139882

Your comments make a lot of sense...

And hubsonfire...

It was with great trepidation that I opened this thread when I saw you were the last person to reply

I am quite surprised by your comments as I expected to somthing different from you (I know its my fault I have developped BK Bias)

Thankyou also for you comments....

Now if i can just ask you one question.

Who the hell are you and what have you done with Hub... ?

BugsBunny · « **Reply #8 on:** August 25, 2006, 03:25:01 PM »

HT has athorised me to give the official answer Only one choice:

1) AH ------> a game (try to have fun)