More detailed strat

[DoubleEagle]

I was thinking that a good change to the way the game was played would be to have vastly different games based around what kind of strategic system they use.

I should also point out that I am not suggesting we get rid of the system we have.  Let us just add more types, and then put them into the rotation.  I just think that capture the base is fun, but it isn't the only game in town.  After all, most popular multiplayer games have several types of game modes to choose from.

Have one map scheme based around island hopping, complete with two types of fleets.  Carrier fleets we already have, but add invasion fleets that have cruisers and cargo ships, and allow LTV spawning, plus the ability to stop.  Disable LTV spawning from Carriers.  Have lots of fleets.

Another strategy idea is to have a map based around fixed airbases, but moving armies.  They operate just like carrier fleets do, except they move on land, and let you spawn as tanks instead of carrier planes.  This might require that we include more terrain types other than land and sea so that even an army will not let you set a waypoint path across a steep mountain.  I.E. good land, bad land, and ocean.  The AI guns would shoot at other ground units, but as an AI army "fleet" moves into range of an AI base, then mutually assured destruction would mean the base wouldn't go down unless players intervene and tip the balance.

One more type might be a war on supply lines.  The entire point of the game is to destroy the enemies infrastructure.  You bomb factories and bridges, sink cargo ships, and strafe trains and river barges.  The first to a fixed amount of tonnage destroyed wins.

Sky Pirates.  Add zeppelin aircraft carrier task groups and enable them in a WW-1 arena.

[Pigslilspaz]

Liked a lot of those ideas, specially the island hopping one. +2

[DoubleEagle]

Yeah, Island hopping campaign.  A map made up of mostly carrier groups.  I wouldn't think it would even require any real changes, just a map of ports, and maybe a few normal airbase.

Personally the one I really would want is the ground army "task groups" in place of the teleporting to the front line system in use now.  You could even have artillery in play, if you can change the way it works so a "fleet" of army units just stops and digs in when it "touches" the edge of an enemy base, converting into a spawn point that looks like tents and trucks.  Then you could man the 105mm artillery guns just like you do with a shore battery or cruiser turret.  Obviously you would need a spotter (and a random number to modify their aim hidden from the players so they don't make charts and spreadsheets to be able to shell without a spotter).

I would hope this would also make the ground game a bit more obvious, and concentrates all of the tanks into a smaller bit of dirt where you might actually get a true land battle regularly instead of the exception.  I shoot down planes all the time.  I can't count on getting into a tank battle at all.  If you get rid of tank teleporting and operate out of an army besieging an enemy base, or defend your base that is under siege, then you will probably see a lot of army units in a small area.

I'm not even sure you would need to have an army "task group" free roam around the map with user defined waypoints.  Use a network of roads instead, aka pre-fabricated waypoints that also happen to be roads and intersections.  Bombing a bridge in the middle of nowhere doesn't happen now, but if you can drop a bridge to halt an army convoy coming down the pike to your base, you would.  You can still pull a surprise attack if you route the re-spawned army through the rear areas and then into an enemy base instead of by the shortest route.

I don't like the teleporting system in place now mostly as the ground units just pass each other in space.  If we're attacking their base, and they are counterattacking ours, we never actually see each other.  We're dividing up the army guys between every base.  We need to change things to concentrate the army players.

I can't be any worse than the frustrated navy pilots who want a good carrier vs carrier battle, but only get them on rare occasions.  I'm one of those as well.

[Volron]

Sounds painful to coad.  But on a side note, very interesting idea's.  Got my attention with the supply war...

I would assume that the Army Groups (AG) would have a home base they march out of?  How would this AG be "built" (Like how the CV group has the CV, 2-4 DD's and 1-2 CA's)?  Wiping out the AG would force it to respawn after x amount of time at their Home Base or would it be similar to the CV groups in that you just have to destroy one thing in the AG to force respawn (which I hope would not be the case)?  Would being in command of the AG allow you to do artillery strikes against things providing the AG has that ability?

The Island Hopping idea would likely bring in the introduction of the Battleship and possibly the Submarine.  The Supply War may use the Submarine depending on Map.

And now for a doozy, what about something that involves a combination of the Island Hopping and Army Group ideas?  THAT would be a Titanic Tuesday map for sure...

[DoubleEagle]

I can't comment on how hard or easy things would be to code.

The idea to change from a free roaming army to one that uses roads is simply to avoid having to program pathfinding.  I wouldn't want to see a convoy of tanks and trucks driving overland just go up a sheer cliff, or bother trying to program how they veer around trees and such, or cheating and just let the AI units ghost straight through obstructions as if they didn't exist.  If you can only follow roads, you have a lot more control, and then it just becomes the problem of the guy who has to make the map to not make a silly map.

I would assume that mobile army groups would absolutely have a place they start from, which should probably be something you can capture.  After that, the army marches out to the front, and you can route it down the fixed pathways of the roads grid to where you want it to go.  The major crossroads locations would be the capture points of the game.  Towns with an airport.  Big towns with big airports, ect.  When it runs into the problem that the next location on it's route is enemy held, then it stops just before entering the crossroad location, converts into an immobile army camp of tents, parked trucks, foxholes with AA guns and AT guns, artillery guns, and player vehicle spawning is enabled.  Then you jump there, pick your favorite tank, and spawn on site and drive over the hill to take down the enemy AI guns and bring in the 10 troops.

Surprisingly I think this might actually both reduce the amount of tanks in use overall, but paradoxically ought to increase the numbers of them seen in the immediate vicinity.  You would only see players in tanks when there is an active siege to take a crossroads town with it's obligatory airport.  It's reducing the

If you want trade convoys to attack, well just have pathways that cross water.  An army could cross an ocean by going to a port, then be sent across the ocean, but now they are in the form of a convoy of cargo ships going along a convoy route if you will.  That might make U-boats worthwhile in the game, as you could spawn one and head to the likely routes an army will be crossing the ocean, rather than searching the whole ocean in vain.

[Raphael]

great ideas and a really cool perspective on new gameplay immersion.

cool

[Weirdguy]

I'm all for getting rid of teleporting tanks.  I never liked that aspect of it.  Yes, I know it got rid of the problem of how to get to the enemy base by skipping ahead, but the current setup for the arenas don't do tanks justice.  They get used too little for the job they were intended for, destroying the enemy army, and you don't really seem to see tank battles that much.  Usually you are attacking an airbase, and they might spawn their own tanks to defend, but the VH is one of the first things to go on any decent attack.

The main issue I have is that TWO separate battles are going on for any pair of bases.  One to attack their base, and a completely 2nd battle to defend ours at the same time.  That means for a map of 30 fields, there are actually 60 tank battle locations.

[321BAR]

I'm all for getting rid of teleporting tanks.  I never liked that aspect of it.  Yes, I know it got rid of the problem of how to get to the enemy base by skipping ahead, but the current setup for the arenas don't do tanks justice.  They get used too little for the job they were intended for, destroying the enemy army, and you don't really seem to see tank battles that much.  Usually you are attacking an airbase, and they might spawn their own tanks to defend, but the VH is one of the first things to go on any decent attack.

The main issue I have is that TWO separate battles are going on for any pair of bases.  One to attack their base, and a completely 2nd battle to defend ours at the same time.  That means for a map of 30 fields, there are actually 60 tank battle locations.

only way to keep the tank battle aspect going strong would be to move spawns back a bit. ever try driving a tank 20 miles up a mountain just to attack a base? tanks in game max at 25 26 35mph. thatd mean most of an hour (or more) to GET there just to die. even with the current setup you have problems timewise sometimes. the battle is too far in some cases and on some maps you CANT move the spawns anywhere <S>

[Weirdguy]

I recall how WW2 Online tried to overcome this (and we can sort of claim the guys from Cornered Rat Software as our own since they all started working on Warbirds with Pyro and HiTech).

In that MMO they had a set of 3 spawn points.  Two military bases on either side of a town.  If your side owns all three, then you own that bit of map, and the frontline shifted towards the enemy.  You would then be given the nearer of the two military bases of the next major map section, usually another trio of spawn points of two camps with a town in the middle.

What could be done is somewhat similar.  In any pair of bases, only one of the two should have the ability to teleport spawn to the enemy base.  They're on the offensive.  Have a camp that at the teleport site where you appear out in the woods in AH.  If you can destroy it and capture it, then the situation reverses and you can teleport spawn to the enemy.

That should get rid of the double ground battles that is diluting the tank population across too many locations.

I may even suggest not letting every base have teleport spawning enabled at the same time.  Just like the original idea posted, this idea is to concentrate ground war to increase the numbers of players in a land battle to make it a true land battle.  Just let the players pick which base they want to enable teleport spawning at using a menu, and like the carrier group a senior ranking player can "assume command" and pick if there is an argument or two players keep switching it because each has their own ideas.

You won't have the moving army group to bomb, but you also won't have the dead time of no ground war at all during the period that can happen with the moving army plan.  I mean, take carrier ops for example.  While a carrier group is still sailing towards the enemy, there are no carrier ops.  If you like naval aviation, you are SOL most of the time.  I can see a moving army camp would have the same thing.

I do see the idea of having a moving army group as a way to have recon planes like the the A6M Rufe, PBY or Fiesler Storch have a use in the game.  If you fly one, then you can use a camera feature (bomb sight type of thing) and spot an enemy carrier or army and mark them on the map for your whole faction to see it.  I think half the reason there are no carrier vs carrier battles is that you never really know where they are.  We could have recon planes to fix that.  Some recon planes are just re purposed fighters anyways, such as P-51's, Mossies, and bombers.

[1Boner]

I always thought it would be fun to allow the PT boats to use rivers.