Future Army suggetions.

[LtHans]

Ok, on Wargammer.com HiTech had an interview where he dropped some info about upcoming additions to Aces High in the future that adds infantry.

Also he mentions that he realises that players want to fight their equivalents, aka fighter vs fighter and tank vs tank.

So, I have some suggetions.

1.  Tanks don't have a use right now.  They're supposed to be able to attack straight into the teeth of the enemy. Going with that clause that we want tanks to mainly fight other tanks and vehicles, there should be armybase vs armybase fights.  The armybases should be vulnerable to tank assaults, while airbases should not.


2.  The lack of cover.  I know trees were just added, but they're still not good enough.  There needs to be detailed cover between remote spawn points and the targets you teleported towards.  Thats the only places you find tanks anyways.  There isn't much reason to clutter up the rest of the terrain with the stuff.  As I said above, this should be armybase vs armybase.

3.  Some sort of system to prevent two-way teleporting.  Only one side should have the ability to teleport tanks in.  Since this is a flight sim that trigger should probably be some sort of thing you attack with tatical fighter-bombers.  Untill one side strikes the target, they cannot go on the offensive.  From what I understand of army combat, tanks cannot attack without fuel, yet the tanks in AH don't use fuel at all.  Ergo, change the army base fuel tanks to be the trigger that allows the enemy to attack you, since your not on the deffensive untill your fuel is back up.

4.  Infantry.  Ok, so we know we're getting them sooner or latter (I'm guessing latter).  I suggest that the capture points resemble army bases, ringed 360 degrees in an anti-tank minefield (no antipersonel mines though), and on top of a small hill.  There should be gun bunkers, trenches, and a few underground tunnels, but not 100% underground.

The minefield should keep the tanks out of the infantry combat area, and being on top of a hill should protect the combat area from direct shelling.

Stuff like that.

Hans.

[janjan]

Tanks need to be:

almost invulnerable to AA vehicles, AA roboguns and aircraft guns

they should be able to be knocked by other tanks, bombs, rockets.

If our Pz Iv is not hard enough to withstand osti 37mm gun (which it should , at least HO), maybe we need Panther or JS to give tanks a purpose.

[Greg 'wmutt' Cook]

I think that range is the key element that is not modeled correctly in ground vehicle combat.  I don't think that the rounds we fire loose any kinetic energy as they fly.  If you were to park you shiney new Mk IV in the parking space next to the other guy's Flackwagon, that 37mm would tear it shreads pretty quick.  But at 2,000 yards, they would bounce off a Yugo. (actual results may vary, example used for dramitic effect, do not attempt without adult supervision)
The ranges that we engage each other in our tanks is way longer than what was common for the types of tanks we are driving around in.  It was common practice for U.S. M4s to get within 300 yards before opening fire, and then they wanted to be at least to the side if not behind the Mk IVs.  (After the welding instead of riveting problem was addressed, the German armor crews found that they too had to get up close to assure a kill)
So I think that the only way to truely make a more accurate tank versus tank experience would be to factor in range for the munitions.  Of course, this opens a whole can of nemotodes.

[janjan]

I just read that in tank vs. tank combat it took as many as 17!!!! hits in AVERAGE to knock out a tank. OK that sounds a bit high but it took a lot of hits anyway.

And those were tank cannons shootin. Our tanks are way too easily knocked.

If you have read Rudels book you also know that although he killed tanks as a regular basis by 37mm stuka guns, there were almost none other flyers that were accurate enough to actually knock heavy tanks by guns. The hits had to hit the right spots, not just generally.

[LtHans]

Well, either Pyro or HiTech dropped a hint one time that one of their ideas was to have a seperate arena with just a tank game in it, no airplanes.  This other arena would be different software speciffically designed to represent tanks better, terrain better, ect.  Ships and planes can be in one arena, vehicles and infantry in another.

Now, I have thought about the same thing many times myself.  What would I do if I were a game designer and want tanks, infantry, ships and planes all operating in the same game?  Some of those simulations need very differrent requirements out of the computer.  Splitting them up into different games running in different arenas doesn't sound bad.  I thought of doing the same thing if I didn't think they would work well in the same game.

....Provided you can make them interoperable somehow.  Mainly, they are both using the same strategic system.  You change the strategic system in one arena, the other is changed the same way.

The bad news if you split it up like that you lose some of the interaction between them.  Obviously you cannot do close air support of tanks and troops if you can't see them.  It may end up that the strategic system is the only way to interact at all.

I have no idea if splitting them up is a good idea or not.  It really depends on getting enough army players together to handle the ground fighting.  Right now I don't think we have that, and don't beleave that will change any time soon.

So, I think we may be stuck with second rate army and naval sims in a first rate flight sim's arena.

Still, that doens't mean we can't make them better.

Hans.

[GRUNHERZ]

It didnt take 17 hits of German 75mm or 88mm to knock out any tank....  

It could and often much much more take that many USA 75mm hits to kill a Tiger.