New news... Amphib. Assault Veh. announced.

[Raubvogel]

Yes, I play some FPS games. Yes, I sometimes wish AH had some player controlled troops. FPS clientele wouldn't enhance the fighter/bomber aspect? Ground vehicles certainly do, why wouldn't player controlled troops? We already have the troop aspect incorporated, making it more dynamic by being player controlled would add something. You're also assuming that those attracted by troops would stay in troops. That wouldn't be the case. Certainly they would hop in a fighter or a bomber once in a while and provide another target in the sky. More customers=more money=more possible bandwidth and possibly lower prices. And besides, strafing troops is fun and it would make those 7.92mm MGs actually useful.

Anything that encourages growth would be a good thing in my opinion. You snooze you lose.



------------------
Raubvogel
LuftJägerKorps

[AKDejaVu]

Sorry, they add nothing to the game that the current ground vehicles don't already support.

The only purpose would be to disable the drunks?  How about manable drunks then, so you can defend yourself?  How many people do you think would be at a field for a base capture if this were possible?  Think bandwidth again.

You can kill troops already with ground vehicles, ack and aircraft.  You are only introducing another way to do it... and one that is only limited to being able to kill troops.

And growth at all costs is not a good idea.  I think that has been experienced by most people in the on-line simming community at some point or another.

AKDejaVu

[Raubvogel]

Oh, of course you're right DejaVu, how silly of me to think otherwise.  

------------------
Raubvogel
LuftJägerKorps

[AKDejaVu]

Yeah, right raub.  Whatever.

AKDejaVu

[Jayhawk]

I could see the addition of more ground targets, but not individual troops ala FPS. More like a artillery squad with place holder graphics of a jeep and 75mm. You man the artillery, but you are not the man. I would like to see roads, trains for supply routes and supply shipping. Anything that provides more choice with out impacting gameplay in an adverse way (cough). If territory was not tied to the Airbases but to occupied land (via place holder troops) the endless problems with base capture would go away and the bases would become targets but not objectives. I know this is the basis for our current system, but you would see more c47 flights and CV landing craft (amphib invasion)if they could actually capture territory with out taking an airbase over.  

[This message has been edited by Jayhawk (edited 04-11-2001).]

[Reschke]

 

Originally posted by Jayhawk:
I could see the addition of more ground targets, but not individual troops ala FPS. More like a artillery squad with place holder graphics of a jeep and 75mm. You man the artillery, but you are not the man. I would like to see roads, trains for supply routes and supply shipping. Anything that provides more choice with out impacting gameplay in an adverse way (cough). If territory was not tied to the Airbases but to occupied land (via place holder troops) the endless problems with base capture would go away and the bases would become targets but not objectives. I know this is the basis for our current system, but you would see more c47 flights and CV landing craft (amphib invasion)if they could actually capture territory with out taking an airbase over.  

[This message has been edited by Jayhawk (edited 04-11-2001).]

I think you might have something here Jayhawk.  

Even though I kind of like the prospects of a FPS addition I would like to see the addition of having supplies actually transported via ships, rail and aircraft even better for the countries.  This way you can truly have an impact on the strategic flow of a game if you intercept a supply convoy of ships headed to an island that is controlled away from one countries territory or if you intercept take out a bridge on a rail line to stop the supplies.  Or the other way around if you can help defend said supply convoy of ships with your carrier based/land based  aircraft.  

In another way what about using artillery to pull up with 105mm howitzers and shell a base then run up with your tanks and M3's in order to capture it.  As you get higher in your perk points you qualify to use SP artillery so you don't have to depend on the Jeep to pull your tail around.  

Why not have areas like fortifications aside from airbases and vehicle bases for us to capture.  I mean not all islands need to be large enough to land on or take off from to be a target.

FPS would be ok but I would rather see more ground vehicles than players as troops running around.  Maybe you could just increase the number of troops it takes to overrun a base to capture it.

------------------
ObstLt. Reschke
2/LJK Staffelkapitan
Kommandeur Jagdbomber
LuftJagerKorps

[This message has been edited by Reschke (edited 04-11-2001).]

[capt. apathy]

i think jayhawk is on the right track.

[Hans]

Well, my vote on this is you do not need to add infantry.  Vehicle combat by itself is good enough for me to represent ground combat.  We already have a good mix of ground combat units already, and with the addition of an artillery unit it is done (just add more vehicles for variety after that).

They need a better battlefield though, with cover to play in.

Like I mentioned above, the warships could use a different and more realistic gunnery fire control system, and perhaps a few different fleet types.

Hans.

[Gie]

I like the idea of separated targets, let say train stations, bridges,  radar stations (separate radar stations implemented in WB3? ).