(Aces) High Seas - The Next Generation

[Babalonian]

Lots of talk on the boards for some changes lately it seems.  Here's another.  Started today with reading this thread http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,352503.105.html

That thread and others have made me think of this idea more than once.  Everytime I try to think of a suggestion for this topic, I find my mind looking to fill the the wide open gaps/spanses in between bases/spawns, where the action at times at these bases is already adequatley concentrated and focused, but often lacking in-between.

Part 1: Can we get a test Arena to test new (maybe bold/extreme) MA ideas in?  Icon adjustments, weather, AAA lethalities, 8-cv task groups, etc..  Understood - first the new ideas, then the testing, but the process of getting some foundation out there to start with and developing up as you go was sucessful when applied to the new achievement system.

Part 2: Sea convoys.  Some water maps just have too much open/unused space.  I think the arena's theme (early, mid or late war), the ratio of the map's water to land, and current state/health of the strats could be interpretted by some codeing to spawn/maintain some convoys within the game.  To the red guys their purpose would be lucrative targets, but for the friendlies something beneficial should come from keeping a convoy alive or protecting it (and may be a good reason to toy around with it in a beta - find a nice balance).

Part 3: Task group composition stacking/destacking.  Nuts-n-Bolts being players can elect to utilise a standard task group, or to (somehow) increase the number of ships within it and thus its strength, or to (somehow) divide its strengths/ships and conquor.  IE: A standard task group spawns, you can steam it straight to the front or if you sail it to within 5-miles of another friendly port and it gains a heavy cruiser (and if ships are damaged, repairs some).  IE: you have a large healthy task group and rondevou with a large convoy, so it gives you a second task group, or if your task group is in bad shape it helps repair it.  I would love to see it in action, or more accuratley which strategy will work best: the same old "get the CV into action ASAP" or "take the time to build up the task group into a floating fort knox" one or to work in conjunction with a nearby convoy (where the convoy gets protection, task group gets logistics/support).

Part 4 (the big one): Apply the CV cource mechanics (controlable by a player on the team, able for a single person to take command of, limits of how close to X you can make the cource) to GV and PT boat spawns, but obviously single-point.  If limits were in place (can't set within 2-miles of enemy town/field/strat, can't set over 50-miles away from the base), how bad would this be?  It would make the GV and PT spawn points more versaitle and useful for whatever an individual or group of individuals wanted to accomplish (flank a base, start a spawn on spawn fight, deploy PT boats 1/2 ahead of the enemy CV within visual distance of your control tower).  

I think some map creators/editors would still like to be able to set some permanent spawn points, but I think the majority will love the time this feature saves them when the location/position of every single spawn point is no longer 100% their responcibility/chore to place.

Another reason I want to see experiments with this idea is that it could replace all the permanent spawn points (and that the map creator would need to designate) and provide each base with only one forward spawn point.  The good and bad (and why I can think of no better way than to test it in action) is each base has a movable spawn point, and only one (besides a default/hangar).  

Could be interesting, but its all speculation.  IE: Capturing surrounding and smaller fields before just hordeing the prized large/keystone field in the area will provie your side with a very notable advantage in that immediate area.  Want to log in tonight at 7pm and be rolling in panzers down your enemy HQ's main street with your squadies before 10pm?... now that might be possible on any map and on any night with a couple/few well thought base captures.  How often is an enemy field currently taken with a friendly PT/LVT boat spawn?...  Maybe a refinement of such a feature could even give task groups better control of their LVT/PT boat spawns without first trying to beach the CV as close to the objective as possible.


Lastly, I think it's one of the longest standing tounge-in-cheek request on these boards, but if the foundation can start being laid for it with changes like these (or better, I can hope), then perhaps player controlled submarines could be introduced and not too far behind.

[Tinkles]

Lots of talk on the boards for some changes lately it seems.  Here's another.  Started today with reading this thread http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,352503.105.html

That thread and others have made me think of this idea more than once.  Everytime I try to think of a suggestion for this topic, I find my mind looking to fill the the wide open gaps/spanses in between bases/spawns, where the action at times is already adequatley concentrated and focused.

Part 1: Can we get a test Arena to test new (maybe bold/extreme) MA ideas in?  Icon adjustments, weather, AAA lethalities, 8-cv task groups, etc..  Understood - first the new ideas, then the testing, but the process of getting some foundation out there to start with and developing up as you go was sucessful when applied to the new achievement system.

Part 2: Sea convoys.  Some water maps just have too much open/unused space.  I think the arena's theme (early, mid or late war), the ratio of the map's water to land, and current state/health of the strats could be interpretted by some codeing to spawn/maintain some convoys within the game.  To the red guys their purpose would be lucrative targets, but for the friendlies something beneficial should come from keeping a convoy alive or protecting it (and may be a good reason to toy around with it in a beta - find a nice balance).

Part 3: Task group composition stacking/destacking.  Nuts-n-Bolts being players can elect to utilise a standard task group, or to (somehow) increase the number of ships within it and thus its strength, or to (somehow) divide its strengths/ships and conquor.  IE: A standard task group spawns, you can steam it straight to the front or if you sail it to within 5-miles of another friendly port and it gains a heavy cruiser (and if ships are damaged, repairs some).  IE: you have a large healthy task group and rondevou with a large convoy, so it gives you a second task group, or if your task group is in bad shape it helps repair it.  I would love to see it in action, or more accuratley which strategy will work best: the same old "get the CV into action ASAP" or "take the time to build up the task group into a floating fort knox" one or to work in conjunction with a nearby convoy (where the convoy gets protection, task group gets logistics/support).

Part 4 (the big one): Apply the CV cource mechanics (controlable by a player on the team, able for a single person to take command of, limits of how close to X you can make the cource) to GV and PT boat spawns, but obviously single-point.  If limits were in place (can't set within 2-miles of enemy town/field/strat, can't set over 50-miles away from the base), how bad would this be?  It would make the GV and PT spawn points more versaitle and useful for whatever an individual or group of individuals wanted to accomplish (flank a base, start a spawn on spawn fight, deploy PT boats 1/2 ahead of the enemy CV within visual distance of your control tower). 

I think some map creators/editors would still like to be able to set some permanent spawn points, but I think the majority will love the time this feature saves them when the location/position of every single spawn point is no longer 100% their responcibility/chore to place.

Another reason I want to see experiments with this idea is that it could replace all the permanent spawn points (and that the map creator would need to designate) and provide each base with only one forward spawn point.  The good and bad (and why I can think of no better way than to test it in action) is each base has a movable spawn point, and only one (besides a default/hangar). 

Could be interesting, but its all speculation.  IE: Capturing surrounding and smaller fields before just hordeing the prized large/keystone field in the area will provie your side with a very notable advantage in that immediate area.  Want to log in tonight at 7pm and be rolling in panzers down your enemy HQ's main street with your squadies before 10pm?... now that might be possible on any map and on any night with a couple/few well thought base captures.  How often is an enemy field currently taken with a friendly PT/LVT boat spawn?...  Maybe a refinement of such a feature could even give task groups better control of their LVT/PT boat spawns without first trying to beach the CV as close to the objective as possible.


Lastly, I think it's one of the longest standing tounge-in-cheek request on these boards, but if the foundation can start being laid for it with changes like these (or better, I can hope), then perhaps player controlled submarines could be introduced and not too far behind.

I like all parts of this post. They give more diversity to gameplay, and improve areas of aces high that have been lacking for a while.

BIG +1 

Tinkles

<<S>>

[Arlo]

I am interested in where all of this goes except the S.S. Tongue In Cheek. 

[chris3]

hi

i have wished bevor that squads should be able to use here own cruisers. If noone of the squad is online the crusers ship right back to the next port and will stay there. If one of the squadis is online its able to control the cruiser and over the option to let gunners join.

this will bring some traffic into the see erea and lots of parking ships at the ports :-).

cu christian

[RngFndr]

Just 3 things needed, to spice up the Naval warfare aspect.. For Starters anyway..

#1 Separate invasion fleets, to get the carrier AWAY from the shore..
#2 A way to land Tanks over the Beach.. (LCT Mk2 holds 6 GV's, would be my choice)
#3 Player spawnable Destroyers, so you can cover the Landing force with AA, and close Naval Gunfire..

That would lite the fire for sure!

[wpeters]

 I give my blessing to all of these suggestions +10

 Right now Naval warfare is a sink or swim situation. It would make a realistic ivasion force with cv a way from the shelling cruiser and cv. It would be better also for snapshots.

[Sabre]

Absolutely should have a separate invasion fleet, with a BB for shore bombardment, a landing ship to act as a mobile GV spawn, and possibly an escort carrier (CVE) with only a limited selection of lighter aircraft to provide air defense.

[Saxman]

Absolutely should have a separate invasion fleet, with a BB for shore bombardment, a landing ship to act as a mobile GV spawn, and possibly an escort carrier (CVE) with only a limited selection of lighter aircraft to provide air defense.

I've always been a proponent of this:

1) CV Group - Task Group as it currently exists, however remove LVTs and PTs. Restricted to operating no closer than 25 miles of enemy fields.
2) Bombardment Group - Replace CV with a BB. Add float plane scouts (OS2U Kingfisher, F1M "Pete", etc.) and remove all other vehicle/aircraft spawns. Can close halfway between 25 miles and current minimum approach distance.
3) Invasion Group - 1 LST (LVTs/PTs) escorted by 1 CVE with limited plane set (TBM, SBD, F4F, FM-2, Seafire, Sea Hurricane, A6M, B5N, D3A) and a couple DEs. Respawn triggered by loss of LST. Can close within the current range of shore as current CV groups.

[No9Squadron]

I refer to you my "mobile strats" suggestion last week, merchant ships, minesweepers, single destroyers etc...

[Zacherof]

Absolutely should have a separate invasion fleet, with a BB for shore bombardment, a landing ship to act as a mobile GV spawn, and possibly an escort carrier (CVE) with only a limited selection of lighter aircraft to provide air defense.

Maybe fighters with limited ord capabilities?

[Arlo]

Use CV fleet to support.

[Saxman]

New Jersey class? 

And I'm still of the opinion that invasion forces should be separate from capital-scale vessels.

[Arlo]

For simplicity sake, let's consider 2 fleets per port.

Port 70:

Task Force 70A = CV fleet
Task Force 70B = Invasion/BB fleet

By default, these task forces (a fleet) would have parallel courses, staying together (what an ack mess that could be).

However, each task force can be commanded individually (have to be, actually) allowing for operations independent of
each other.

Attacking and capturing ports would take on a higher priority, I imagine. As would defending them.

[Arlo]

New Jersey class? 

And I'm still of the opinion that invasion forces should be separate from capital-scale vessels.

Capital scale vessels participated in both invasions and ship vs. ship engagements.

[Babalonian]

Just 3 things needed, to spice up the Naval warfare aspect.. For Starters anyway..

#1 Separate invasion fleets, to get the carrier AWAY from the shore..
#2 A way to land Tanks over the Beach.. (LCT Mk2 holds 6 GV's, would be my choice)
#3 Player spawnable Destroyers, so you can cover the Landing force with AA, and close Naval Gunfire..

That would lite the fire for sure!

Your #3 is one reason why I want to push for my original post's #4.  I just didn't want to jumble it up with my furthest-reaching imagination.  If player controlable ships get introduced (destroyers, subs, light cruisers, etc....  hell, I'll even say it, floatplanes!... but let us focus on the foundation first), how can a player deploy/spawn it defensively, offensively or somewhere in between?... and oc how can they recover/land it as well?

Capital scale vessels participated in both invasions and ship vs. ship engagements.

Fact for thought: The allies and Eisenhower with confidence in their planners and advisers (and a conservative estimate) were prepared to most-surely loose one major battleship but likely at least two in the invasion of Normandy, of the 6 total participating in it (3 US, 3 GB).

Back on topic: I think one step at a time, but yeah battleships should be cool someday in AH, and the use of capital ships in the invasions was unquestionable.


I think an invasion fleet would be a good idea, but if player controlled, how can it be adequatley player protected....  maybe a beta with them is necessary, because my fear is that such a test will show that the invasion fleet will rarely wander far from the additional and superior protection of the carrier fleet (or rather: that we're spliting up one asset into two, but it will still be used 90%+ of the time as a single combined asset... if true, then why divide he assets in the first place?...).  


I am honestly surprised how many ideas people have on this subject, and even more so that nobody has been objecting (I wrote a lot of ideas down, I was sure one would flop).  I think variety/flavors of fleet is also on the table, but after the foundation for it has been settup, IE my thoughts in my original post with idea #3 (Variable Task Group Compositions, or Task Group Ship Stacking/Destacking (like a card deck)).  If that egg gets cracked first, then I would love to think of how many different way we can cook the omlet ("variety and flavors").