Terrain engine update fantasy list

[gyrene81]

destructible trees not gonna happen...no big deal. 

[Lone82]

Do you really want to play in a wasteland after all the effort to make it beautiful by adding trees and buildings and other ground clutter to the environment! A

Liberal Tree-Hugger

[Tilt]

Do you really want to play in a wasteland 

V82 (?) spawn should look like hell on earth (most days) IMO............

[jeffdn]

V82 (?) spawn should look like hell on earth (most days) IMO............

Well, perhaps with the new high-tech HiTech terrains, it can be made to look like that

[EagleDNY]

I like a lot of these suggestions - having terrain objects able to be destroyed (even if never rebuilt until the map resets) would be nice and you would see the effects of battle over time on the various spawn areas.   I definitely think that trees and civilian structures should be able to be destroyed by bombing as well. 

It would definitely improve the ground war from a realism standpoint to have dirt roads, bridges across impassable streams or ponds, etc.  Having different vehicles be able to get through different structures might help as well - nothing gets through trees, but a tank should be able to move through brush objects that would stop a jeep.  A jeep would be able to climb hills and move through forest hexes by going round trees that would stop a tank.  Streams, MUD, swampy terrain bogs down everything - and this should be included as well.   If you can see a pond, you might not want to drive too close to it.   All this combines to create choke points, and areas where massed tank assault might be needed to get through determined defenders. 

From the terrain builders standpoint, maybe the idea is to create a set of tiles with roads and various terrain objects that can be assembled like a puzzle.   If the road points and river points are standardized a bit, and then mixed with tiles that contain impassable terrain like big rocks, mountains, swamp, etc.  then the number of maps and the variability of game play increases. 

[Sabre]

I haven't read through this entire thread, but I agree with the idea that different terrain tiles should affect GV movement differently.  This would also require the addition of a more comprehensive road system, as a GV's max speed should only be available on a road.  Indeed, some terrains should cause some GV's to bog down completely and get stuck, such as when a heavy tank tries to cross bogs and marshes. A jeep, on the other hand, could successfully navigate many of the same terrains, enhancing its usefulness as a scout/recon platform.  Learning to read the terrain before moving across it is a basic skill for armored personnel.  It would add an additional tool to the terrain designer's tool box to design more interesting opportunities for ground combat.

[Mano]

Destructible bridges kill the fight and ruin game play!

Hence my specific request for a non-destructible bridge. Two or three bridges at a river crossing would allow choke points and some tactical maneuvering. And yes, you don't need a bridge unless the terrain builder includes rivers.

Edit: I may have misunderstood your comment. Adding rivers isn't much good if they aren't around where they can be seen and used. The availability of bridges would make bases next to rivers more likely.

Good post but I see the opposite.

Destructible bridges could be re-supplied using the current model.......10 minutes reduced from rebuild time when a field sup box is dropped. If the downtime was 30 minutes.......then three M-3 could sup it and get it back up.

There can be intense GV battles around a bridge whether it is up or down. I used to play Armored Assault. Some of our best battles were during
the time the bridge was down. Tanks would line up on both sides of the gorge. When the bridge came back up tanks tried to cross that bridge. It took several tanks guarding the bridge or right on the bridge so that a tank could get across. Bridge battles can be allot of fun. They can be just as intense as when two gv spawn points are fairly close together.
I participated in some awesome bridge battles. I would really like to see them come to Aces High.

Rivers that lead way into interior of the terrain would give PT Boats access to engage low flying a/c at more air fields. The good thing about Aces High is there is something fun
for everyone.

<S>

 

[olds442]

Trees that can be brought down is really needed i think. When there is a will their is a way.

[Greebo]

A few things I'd like to see in the next version, allowable in MA terrains:

A forward airbase: No bomber hangars, no ord bunkers, no troop barracks and no vehicle hangar. Just a couple of fighter hangars, a short runway, a reload pad, some AA, fuel bunkers and a tower. It should have a lot of temporary looking buildings (tents etc.) and maybe a pierced steel, dirt or grass strip and its own "F" designation on the clipboard map. The idea is for MA terrain builders to be able to put a defensive fighter airbase somewhere, i.e. tank town, without bringing in a bunch of bombers and jabos as well. Also, apart from the base guns the only defence against GV attack would be the three AT cannon armed aircraft, so these might get some more use.

AA or AT bunkers: There could be a heavy AT gun in a concrete pillbox, and also a variety of concrete flak towers or bunkers with one or more light or heavy AA guns etc. The terrain's creator would be able to be place these like a shore battery near to a base. There would need to be some restrictions on how many and where they could be placed. Perhaps not on the same tile as the base or town, but on flat terrain and within a certain distance. Shore battery placement currently has similar rules IIRC. In-game these emplacements would show up in the guns selection screen in the same way as the shore batteries do now. Being protected by concrete they would need bombs, rockets or shells to take down. This would add a degree of variety to each field's defences and would add some interest for the terrain creator, siting AT bunkers in sneaky spots between the SP and the town etc would be fun.

Eye candy objects: A selection of stuff that can be placed into an MA terrain that has no effect on gameplay other than for visual interest and maybe cover. These could include ruined factories, groups of ruined houses, a partially sunken shipwreck, crashed and burnt out aircraft and so on. Making them already destroyed prevents anyone trying to waste ordnance on them. It also adds some sign that there is a war going on. A terrain builder could dot these about to add visual interest and also to create mini environments for GVs to fight in and around. There could be restrictions on how many can be placed near a field to prevent FPS issues.

[jeffdn]

A few things I'd like to see in the next version, allowable in MA terrains:

A forward airbase: No bomber hangars, no ord bunkers, no troop barracks and no vehicle hangar. Just a couple of fighter hangars, a short runway, a reload pad, some AA, fuel bunkers and a tower. It should have a lot of temporary looking buildings (tents etc.) and maybe a pierced steel, dirt or grass strip and its own "F" designation on the clipboard map. The idea is for MA terrain builders to be able to put a defensive fighter airbase somewhere, i.e. tank town, without bringing in a bunch of bombers and jabos as well. Also, apart from the base guns the only defence against GV attack would be the three AT cannon armed aircraft, so these might get some more use.

AA or AT bunkers: There could be a heavy AT gun in a concrete pillbox, and also a variety of concrete flak towers or bunkers with one or more light or heavy AA guns etc. The terrain's creator would be able to be place these like a shore battery near to a base. There would need to be some restrictions on how many and where they could be placed. Perhaps not on the same tile as the base or town, but on flat terrain and within a certain distance. Shore battery placement currently has similar rules IIRC. In-game these emplacements would show up in the guns selection screen in the same way as the shore batteries do now. Being protected by concrete they would need bombs, rockets or shells to take down. This would add a degree of variety to each field's defences and would add some interest for the terrain creator, siting AT bunkers in sneaky spots between the SP and the town etc would be fun.

Eye candy objects: A selection of stuff that can be placed into an MA terrain that has no effect on gameplay other than for visual interest and maybe cover. These could include ruined factories, groups of ruined houses, a partially sunken shipwreck, crashed and burnt out aircraft and so on. Making them already destroyed prevents anyone trying to waste ordnance on them. It also adds some sign that there is a war going on. A terrain builder could dot these about to add visual interest and also to create mini environments for GVs to fight in and around. There could be restrictions on how many can be placed near a field to prevent FPS issues.

I like all of these ideas.

To extrapolate further on your forward airbase idea, I have a thought. What if, when maps were being designed, bases are spread out much further, and are much fewer in number. There would only be large (and maybe medium) airfields, as well as ports. Each of these base types is attached to a larger population center. When said base is on the "front line," the designer-added surrounding "field bases" are activated, such as v-bases and your aforementioned airstrips. This would give the impression of more of a "front line" of the fight, and then rear areas with less stuff in them. Does that make sense?

[Greebo]

I can see what you mean but I'd guess HTC would be resistant to changing the game in such a way that would make existing maps obsolete, or at least would require their layout to be redesigned.

The forward airbase I described could be added to new terrains but wouldn't affect the old ones. Other than the tank town protection role I mentioned it could be used to create a sort of firebreak on a map. A row of forward airbases placed across the line of advance would be easy to take (only 2 FHs and no VH) but once captured its harder to advance beyond them (no ord, reload pads, troops, SPs out etc.) So a mission would have to come from two fields back to advance across the line. Now a map designer could place just one or two normal airbases as breaks in this forward airbase line to create a few fields that had strategic significance. These would become hotspots that would be fought over more fiercely.

[bustr]

Can destroyable vegetation be built along the same lines as any other destroyable object? If so and I've seen projections of the daunting numbers to placing that into every sector of the map. Can destroyable vegetation be a map builders localized set of objects to place around the expected combat zone max ring area of spawns and fields? Is there a smaller number set a sector can support while not killing everyone's game experience?

Or only allow destroyable vegetation around fields and towns in a proscribed manner and maximum number. As for time down, I haven't a clue. Would this vegetation even be something manned field guns can cut down or be bombed down to let gunners get a clear shot at a vehicle?

If a minimum number is possible, then I suspect as usual Hitech knows our whining greed better than we want to admit to. Even if we agreed now to a minimum amount of destroyable vegetation strategically placed. We would never stop whining for total destroyable vegetation unrestictededly placed.

[Karnak]

Can destroyable vegetation be built along the same lines as any other destroyable object? If so and I've seen projections of the daunting numbers to placing that into every sector of the map. Can destroyable vegetation be a map builders localized set of objects to place around the expected combat zone max ring area of spawns and fields? Is there a smaller number set a sector can support while not killing everyone's game experience?

Or only allow destroyable vegetation around fields and towns in a proscribed manner and maximum number. As for time down, I haven't a clue. Would this vegetation even be something manned field guns can cut down or be bombed down to let gunners get a clear shot at a vehicle?

If a minimum number is possible, then I suspect as usual Hitech knows our whining greed better than we want to admit to. Even if we agreed now to a minimum amount of destroyable vegetation strategically placed. We would never stop whining for total destroyable vegetation unrestictededly placed.

That is pretty much fatally flawed in that it presents inconsistent outcomes to player actions with no explanation as to why some trees can be destroyed and others cannot.

[USCH]

new objects submarine Pen and Rail yard!   

no one cares about 20ft of rebar and concrete. RAIL YARD!!!! And twain twacks with twains to shoot! Big long juicy trains! Not this little 5-10 car rarely seen train we have now...

Anyone have the stats on how many missions were flown on both sides bombing rail yards, and also attacking trains on the move?

[Tinkles]

Simply bumping this.