Vehicles ?

[Bullethead]

Pyro said:
>>>>>>>>> There'll be a bunch of vehicle bases scattered around the terrain that will minimize driving distances and let countries occupy a lot of territory. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Sounds cool.  With AW's most infamous tanker of all time, HiTech, behind this, I'm sure the ground game will be well done <G>.

As to the scattered garages, will they have to all be captured individually or will they go with ownership of the nearest airfield, or some combination of both?

Roblex said:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Bullet, not a flame , but you need to bear in mind that this map was thrown together just to give the beta somewhere to be <<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Sure, I know.  And there ain't no vehicles now so there was no need to make a map for them.  I was just tossing that out at the risk of stating the obvious, so that future map makers would keep that in mind for when we do have vehicles.

-Bullethead <CAF>

[Ozymandias_KoK]

So sayethe the Bullethead:
 

As to the scattered garages, will they have to all be captured individually or will they go with ownership of the nearest airfield, or some combination of both?

Ozreckons the ownership of fields should related to status of some sort of target outside the field.  Usually airfields weren't captured 'cos Joe Crunchy came up and said "I claim this land for Spain!" and planted a flag.  Nopers.  Them pilot boys saw Joe Crunchy in the distance and said "I'll be back in a second, I left something in Paris" and before you know it, everybody decided somewhere other than here was a much better place to be.  Make capture related to say, taking of a bunker line nr the field.  Since the troopers don't have any say in where they get dropped, this shouldn't be a problem for them.  And have little defending Billy the Wondergrunts struggle valiantly for the possession of their bunker they spent so farking long digging.  Just seems to an oz that problems associated with airfield capture (vultching and the low alt fights) would be reduced by shifting the priority away from the fields.  Put's less emphasis on the field itself.  Sure, you can jabo the crap out of the field, but that should just prevent or slow people coming up.  If you have to bomb and supress the local earthpigs to capture anything, then you have something more approaching reality that should also yield better fights in the air, due to less focus on the field itself.  Just a thunk...

------------------
TKoKFKA-OZDS-

[Camel]

Good thunks  

[Bullethead]

Ozspeaks:
>>>>>>> Ozreckons the ownership of fields should related to status of some sort of target outside the field. <<<<<<<<

Good idea.  But it strikes me that it would be a good idea to have a halftrack or something that could carry the stormtroops to the bunker thingy.  After all, most ground changes hands cuz somebody walks or drives to it instead of being kicked out of an airplane  .  And this halftrack could also, of course, substitute for a C47 in airfield capture.

-Bullethead <CAF>

[Ozymandias_KoK]

You know, ozthunk about that, but one of the stated possible objectives for airborne troops DOES happen to be airfields.    Had to re-route in mid-spout ozdid when that occured to him.  But definitely, we don't want them to have to walk (tho the majority did in WWII) 'cos it'd take too long.  Ozreckons with good terrain planning then using ground vehicles to cover the distance would not be too bad.  But still maybe reserve C-47s for possible deep insertion missions might be cool too.  Maybe abstract the number of troops per halftrack/truck to be larger, so that in general they would be the preferred method of transportation.  Then if you did lose a field to airdropped crunchies, yer local ground troops might get pissed off (since nobody can fly them in beer anymore), hop into thier own vehicles and attempt to re-take the field.  Then the nme pilots need to prevent them from reaching their newly acquired field, either by attacking the relief column (which could be sponsored by Rolaids), dropping additional crunchies off at the field, or preferably both.  At least it gives everybody something to do.

------------------
TKoKFKA-OZDS-

[Mark Luper]

These are some really cool thoughts on strategy and a game like that would keep me immersed for long enough to possibly endanger my 35 year marriage to a wonderfully understanding wife!

HOWEVER... I once heard from a great man, one who programs such games and injects in them the stratagies that make it interesting, that one of the biggest mistakes a game producer can make is to make a game with other games in them. The fighter jocks want a game that includes dog fighting and the occasional jabo mission, that is one game. The buff pilots want an immersive experience flying bombers and generally blowing up things on the ground, that is another game. Now these two games complement each other in overall strategy assuming the objective of the whole game is to take ownership of territory. When you start adding the variables of a ground war along with possibly a sea born war things get really complicated.

I think it will be neat to have ground vehicles to mess around in, tanks to blow up other tanks and so on, but to make it strategicaly important may make the game so complex that it would ruin it. Remember, this is Aces High. An aircraft sim...


MarkAT

[This message has been edited by Mark Luper (edited 10-09-1999).]

[Teapot]

MarKat said:"HOWEVER... I once heard from a great man, one who programs such games and injects in them the stratagies that make it interesting, that one of the biggest mistakes a game producer can make is to make a game with other games in them."

The difference here (I believe) is that as an on-line game, most of the elements of strategy are supplied and implemented by humans. There is no real need, other than to create the environment, for AH to craft a strategic aspect into the game. If they create a plausible world, the strategic element will grow and spread to accomodate their world.

I agree with your assessment with regard to boxed sims however  .

[Pyro]

B-Town - I'll take you up on that offer.

Bullethead- Vehicle bases will be able to be captured separately from airfields.

Six-pk- Not sure what vehicles we'll eventually have.  I imagine we'll have an assortment of tanks, halftracks, jeeps, armored cars, and some other specialized vehicles.  What I don't know.  HT likes jeeps.  I think an M8 Greyhound would be a hoot.  It can go pretty fast and that 37mm in the turret could be dangerous when raiding airfields.  Flakpanzers like the Ostwind, Wirbelwind, and one of the self-propelled 88s would be fun.  Rocket trucks could be a blast too(no pun intended).  I'm sure we'll have no shortage of suggestions when we get there.

You will be able to crew different positions BTW.  It wouldn't be much fun to drive a tank somewhere and not be able to shoot anything with it.

Also keep in mind that the vehicles we implement in the game and their roles are ancillary to the air combat.  That doesn't mean they'll be useless, they just won't be the focus of the game.



------------------
Doug "Pyro" Balmos
HiTech Creations

[Rendar]

Will it be possible to drive your vechicles off cliffs?  It would be cool to go really fast in the MB and ram into the enemy, pushing him/her off into the precipice.

------------------
rendar
F/S R.A.F. Squadron 303 (Polish)

[Six-pk]

   
Excellent Pyro! Thank you! Go Htc GO!!


------------------
SixPack in AH
Six-pk  in WB
450th Bombardment Group (Heavy)
The 'Cottontails'[/b]
www.dtccom.net/~cottonbg/                  

[B-Town]

Ok Pyro,
Just tell me what you want and I will see if I can get it for you. If you want me to scan in some pages of that RAF Test Pilot spec book then tell me what aircraft you want and I will see what I can do. With regard to cockpit pictures and all. I have a digital camera so it will be no problem for me to upload them to you.

Just tell me what you need.

------------------
1st LT Chris "B-Town" Bradbury
332nd Flying Mongrels
Guard Dog's FL

[eagl]

Remember that realistic weapons effects would consequently require realistic numbers of opponents...  There are several kickass light cannons available for AAA, tanks, etc, but dropping 8 troops out of a C-47 doesn't exactly provide a realistic number of targets for such a kickass weapon.

If AH is going to have realistic ground weapons, it'll have to have realistic numbers of ground troops.  It's up to HT and Pyro to balance the relative lethality (kickassedness) of the weapons and the numbers of ground troops we can see, while maintaining reasonable framerates.  I simply can't see 50,000 troops being individually modelled within a few square miles, but that's the kind of densities you had during beachhead invasions for example.

Damn it's hard to proofread when typing while intoxicated...


------------------
eagl <squealing Pigs> BYA
Oink Oink To War!!!