The World of Aces High

[shotgunneeley]

OK, this may be one of those "What are you smoking?" wishes but here goes:

The arenas are set up as if Ferdinand Magellan had discovered that the Earth was indeed "flat", like a sand box. My wish is to set up the maps of the world similar to how we all know it - round. This would greatly enhance the possibilities for fights and raids as the threats could come from all sides rather than from the current front lines. All that would need to be done to simulate this would be to map edges continuous, meaning that if you pass through the eastern border, you pop out on the mirrored position inside the western border.

The negative side I see to this is that players may perceive this to be gamey, allowing enemies to unexpectedly jump from one end of the map to the other. In reality though it would be just as if the world of AH was round instead of flat. Think of it like how Siberia and Alaska are at opposite ends of the world in a projection map, but on a globe they are only separated by the 50 mile wide Berring Straight. No one in Alaska would fly around the world to land in Siberia, why should we do this in game?

Food for thought.

[Tracerfi]

WHAT ARE YOU SMOKING    AND SORRY COULD RESIST

[caldera]

+1   Think how much better Trinity could be...

[Eric19]

+1 shotgun love the idea man

B29s could circle the globe at 36k without any worry lol

[titanic3]

Maps would need to be reworked because then you can fly from your uncapturable base to the other side's strats or HQ in a extremely small amount of time (on some maps).

[Volron]

With our current maps, it would be too easy to run NOE Mossy 16's/Lancs and knock out someone's HQ.  The HQ's would have to be moved more inland to help with this.  On small maps (EX: The Grinder and Uterus), where would the HQ go, unless you make the map bigger?  On the larger maps, like Trinity, there may be plenty of room to move the HQ's inland a couple of sectors.  The retreating/advancing factory bit may have to go (or at the very least, must be redone) with this implementation as well.  This all will require an overhaul of current maps and some maps may become bigger, like The Grinder and to some extent, Trinity, to balance it out.  This wouldn't bother me though.

With that being brought up, I like this idea.   The war will definitely be a little more interesting.

[WWhiskey]

+1

[Cjpedrido]

+1   

Would certainly be another way to bring new life to the current "same 'ol, same 'ol" frontal wars.

vSKYDIVE
Devils=v=Brigade

[Chilli]

This idea for the AvA by Jimson works much better IMHO:

I am toying with a map concept for AvA that could have most major theaters going at once.

There would be a wall separating the two halves to keep zeros out of ETO or MTO etc.

To make it work, it would be skewed, stretched and totally out of scale, but it still might get done someday.

In fact the word "BRILLIANT!" comes to mind.  Look below, one could find European Theater planesets in Europe (of all places  ) and only find Russian planesets on the eastern front.  Pacific Theater action in the Pacific no less 

Skewing the world map and arranging bases and planesets accordingly PRICELESS 

Possible improvements???  Scale Europe and Pacific Islands down so as to more closely resemble a skewed globe.  For instance English Channel would only have space for 1 base on each side, however the channel width would be skewed to keep historic feel. All of Europe and Asia would be visible and skewed according to areas of historical action.  An entire chain of Pacific Islands may only be represented by 1 or 2 bases, etc.

[shotgunneeley]

+1   Think how much better Trinity could be...

That's exactly the map I was thinking about. Right now most maps are set up for conflict to start in the dead center and radiate outwards. With this wish our options greatly increase to include attacking/defending just about any edge of a country.

+1 shotgun love the idea man

B29s could circle the globe at 36k without any worry lol

That's the one thing that has me worried is players amassing safely within their own country to get 30k+ just to hop over a sector, blow it to smitherenies, and get back with little risk involved. This is especially problematic because currently most of there are alot of high alt bases, uncapturables, and HQ/Strats located in the rear of the country and players would ultimately be bypassing a lot of work and effort to hit them.

With our current maps, it would be too easy to run NOE Mossy 16's/Lancs and knock out someone's HQ.  The HQ's would have to be moved more inland to help with this.  On small maps (EX: The Grinder and Uterus), where would the HQ go, unless you make the map bigger?  On the larger maps, like Trinity, there may be plenty of room to move the HQ's inland a couple of sectors.  The retreating/advancing factory bit may have to go (or at the very least, must be redone) with this implementation as well.  This all will require an overhaul of current maps and some maps may become bigger, like The Grinder and to some extent, Trinity, to balance it out.  This wouldn't bother me though.

With that being brought up, I like this idea.   The war will definitely be a little more interesting.

Right all of the important stuff would have to be placed in the center of a country. What this wish does is make the center of the country the furthest point from conflict rather than the rear like we currently have.

This idea for the AvA by Jimson works much better IMHO:

In fact the word "BRILLIANT!" comes to mind.  Look below, one could find European Theater planesets in Europe (of all places  ) and only find Russian planesets on the eastern front.  Pacific Theater action in the Pacific no less 

Skewing the world map and arranging bases and planesets accordingly PRICELESS 

Possible improvements???  Scale Europe and Pacific Islands down so as to more closely resemble a skewed globe.  For instance English Channel would only have space for 1 base on each side, however the channel width would be skewed to keep historic feel. All of Europe and Asia would be visible and skewed according to areas of historical action.  An entire chain of Pacific Islands may only be represented by 1 or 2 bases, etc.

That looks great for the AvA, but for the MA I don't know if too many people would like to be geographically tied to a specific plane set. That's kind of the main draw to be able to up whatever, whenever, where ever. The MA's thrive in the unrealistic. In the map you posted could you fly through one edge and pop through the opposite edge?

[Chilli]

Sorry, but I disagree.  I think the little red and green arrows work the way the game should.  None of this around the world in an instant. 

I get what you are trying to accomplish, but the map creators are able to channel fights in a number of ways.  It is the territory grab that replaces that.  So, basically no one really knows how the terrain will play until it has been in rotation a few hundred times.

To give an example of the kind of players we are working with, a common practice in wee hours and low numbers is for bombers to get up high and fly around unmolested from one end of the map to the next.  Unless you are the bomber, very boring and not what I pay 15 bucks a month to play online for. 

If I didn't want anyone to engage me, I would just download the game and play offline.  Just my two cents (probably two cents more than needed). 

And yes, the Main Arena could benefit from the skewed map even without the limited planeset.  What the addition of the global map in the AvA does however, is ADD areas where a broader crossection of planes could be played with a single terrain.

[B4Buster]

I think it's a fantastic idea, but one that would only work if the player base was much larger.

[kvuo75]