Construction Ahead... planning stages

[Tinkles]

Just my opinion, but is spreading the town out like that a good idea?  Would you change the percentage of town being down in order for capture?  Will having guys with lower end PC's not being able to crank up ground detail and detail range hinder them seeing all of these small details on a field? Frustrate them?

I rarely take bases, but I want to keep the food chain around the game so I have something to shoot at.

Again, looking at all possible aspects of the game.  I'm sure there will be much more feedback to come in this thread.

Would a MOTD in the MA directing the entire player base to come check this out for more opinions be worth it?  A lot of the land grabbing types I see in the game i rarely or never see on these boards.

The population of the game seems fragile right now, and I would hate to see something that doesn't appeal to the majority of the game, which at this point is land grabbing and GV'ing.  Being a furballing type I could care less as long as you keep the game populated. 

Randoms thoughts, not enough time to type the rest out.  <S>

I have a computer that barely meets the minimum requirements for Aces High (hoping to change that soon). Anyways, graphics wise it wouldn't hinder any lower-end systems unless a horde was there (20+). If I understood HTC correctly the way the terrain and environment is processed/loaded will be smoother for all systems and easier for the lower-end systems to handle.

I don't think it is safe to jump to conclusions yet on whether or not this will be the same ole same ole (hoards etc) to get base capturing done. I do like the change of the layout, instead of everything being clumped up into one town, it's more branched out, and in my opinion, looks more realistic.

I think that having everything spread out makes it so players have to be more precise in their attacks, instead of just 'drop in this general direction and hit something' that you can currently do with the current town setup.

I agree with Caldera's last sentence of 4 radar towers. Each tower down would take a percentage of the ring 'down' or cripple it on a side. (So if you have one tower at each corner, and the Southern Tower is taken out, then the radar circle is shortened on the Southern side by a percentage).
Then when all 4 are taken out, no radar for X amount of time.

My suggestions on the yellow dots (top left corner) either addition fuel depots, or perhaps a railyard (or construction on half-finished tanks), like we have at ports right now, with the cv's "getting repairs".  Not so much essential for base capture, but something unique to bomb, or if you want put a value on it with a slight downtime increase to something on the base *shrug*.

I really like this new layout, all the mannable guns are spread out in STRATEGIC POSITIONS, and actually look like they can be used in an effective manner. Town buildings are no longer clumped together for easy white flags, and the spawns are very nicely placed. Not too far, yet not right on base, and the guns placed in positions that give the chance of defense without being overpowering.

Very nice job guys, I am really looking forward to this 

[Chilli]

Some variation will be a nice change, the layout also makes it look like it will take more coordination to capture a base. This might not be a good thing since as far as I can tell, the only country with any kind of coordination for base taking is the bish.

Here is the RUB.....

Changes in the game system (I am wildly excited about), but will they take into the account for the most part there is no General for either country?  Let me decode that last question.  If base capture becomes so ramped up that only large missions or "hordes" will enjoy success, then you most likely will see a lot of lopsided maps, folks logging off because of too few choices to spawn, and worst of all more battles fought on the BBS than on these beautifully constructed enhanced battlefields.
Suggestion:  Brand new concept, abandon the turf war all together.  Make it a war of attrition = Successful attacks on bases, certain buildings, or targets reduce the morale, resources, communication, resupply lines or some other strategical explanation for the win the war goal.  This way each country gets to keep all of their fields.  At some point a bomber or jabo run to the two opposing HQs or any of a number of scenarios that would involve more than just a handful of players to seal the deal and ideally promote Air Combat.

[Arlo]

Here is the RUB.....

Changes in the game system (I am wildly excited about), but will they take into the account for the most part there is no General for either country?  Let me decode that last question.  If base capture becomes so ramped up that only large missions or "hordes" will enjoy success, then you most likely will see a lot of lopsided maps, folks logging off because of too few choices to spawn, and worst of all more battles fought on the BBS than on these beautifully constructed enhanced battlefields.
Suggestion:  Brand new concept, abandon the turf war all together.  Make it a war of attrition = Successful attacks on bases, certain buildings, or targets reduce the morale, resources, communication, resupply lines or some other strategical explanation for the win the war goal.  This way each country gets to keep all of their fields.  At some point a bomber or jabo run to the two opposing HQs or any of a number of scenarios that would involve more than just a handful of players to seal the deal and ideally promote Air Combat.

~~~~~~~~~~~Velly intervestink!~~~~~~~~~~~

[Max]

I hope the new bases will be placed on NEW MAPS 

[Iraqvet]

It looks great. Keep up the good work. I like that it will bring a new fighting dynamic to the game as far as the lay out of the fields go. From the Gv approach to attacking filed right down to how town will have to be taken down now. You will still will always have the people who complain that its going to encourage the opposition to drop all the Fh's, BH's and VH....well yeah most missions do that. What I like is the fact that it looks like it will be more challenging to get a white flag, as the town is more spread out that it was before. Town as it is now basically needs two good salvos at both intersections of town and its white flagged. New layout will not make it that easy anymore.
Keep up the good work and press on 

[Waffle]

Good Morning,

Again, just waxing out loud here - kicking out ideas, nothing set in stone.

In my head, the property lines / hedge rows would be more like sparse tree/shrub lines. Not like the current impassable hedges we have in the town now.

In regards to the spawns being not equal in distance to the map-room, I think that's really a moot issue, as currently it's the same way in game. You can spawn into a base from one way and be right on top of town, and some you have to drive over and across the airfield to get to town. It all depends on the luck of the draw on your countries spawn into a base when you're attacking a certain field.

As far as how hard it is to capture a base, we do have variables for the amount of town that has to be down in order to capture, which can be adjusted.
 
One idea was to have less town buildings for the medium / small /vehicle bases. Currently there is around 100 buildings in the town, which is what I was planning on for the large airfield. So maybe have 75 for the medium field, 50 for the small field, and 35-40 for the vehicle base. That would set up hierarchy of difficulty on capturing fields, which is something I'm not sure we would want to do.

We're still in discussion on how to do the road / rail system, So I really have no clue how that's going to turnout. The supply depot on the drawing was an idea on where to have the supply convoys terminate.

I'll tag this one as wishlist:

     One thing I would like to see done in regards to base supply would be to have a large rail yard / distribution center for a zone of bases. Trains would leave the city for the distribution centers, then convoys would truck supplies from the distribution centers to the airfields.  Destroying / damaging the Distribution center would slow down the resupply to the bases it supplies. If you kill a destroy a train heading to a distribution center, you would hinder the supply time for all of the bases that are supplied by that distribution center, as well as the rebuild time of the distribution center. Destroy a convoy and you hinder the supply to the field it was traveling to. This would make distribution centers and trains regional targets that need to be protected. I would also like to see dots for trains / convoys on the clipboard map when you have them enabled. Or maybe once a friendly gets within a certain range of train/convoy, it would show up as a dot for a period of time.

Another thought I had, is for base capture. if all auto ack / manned guns would have to be down, or just town guns. For this layout, I'm leaning towards town building only having to be down for capture. If you can get a goon or m3 in, and you or your troops don't die in the crossfire, you sir, deserve a medal. We'll have to discuss that one.

Like I said before, just kicking out ideas - nothing set in stone.

[Changeup]

That looks awesome.

[Bino]

Very nice, Waffle!  Thanks for the preview!   

[wpeters]

Good Morning,

Again, just waxing out loud here - kicking out ideas, nothing set in stone.

In my head, the property lines / hedge rows would be more like sparse tree/shrub lines. Not like the current impassable hedges we have in the town now.

In regards to the spawns being not equal in distance to the map-room, I think that's really a moot issue, as currently it's the same way in game. You can spawn into a base from one way and be right on top of town, and some you have to drive over and across the airfield to get to town. It all depends on the luck of the draw on your countries spawn into a base when you're attacking a certain field.

As far as how hard it is to capture a base, we do have variables for the amount of town that has to be down in order to capture, which can be adjusted.
 
One idea was to have less town buildings for the medium / small /vehicle bases. Currently there is around 100 buildings in the town, which is what I was planning on for the large airfield. So maybe have 75 for the medium field, 50 for the small field, and 35-40 for the vehicle base. That would set up hierarchy of difficulty on capturing fields, which is something I'm not sure we would want to do.

We're still in discussion on how to do the road / rail system, So I really have no clue how that's going to turnout. The supply depot on the drawing was an idea on where to have the supply convoys terminate.

I'll tag this one as wishlist:

     One thing I would like to see done in regards to base supply would be to have a large rail yard / distribution center for a zone of bases. Trains would leave the city for the distribution centers, then convoys would truck supplies from the distribution centers to the airfields.  Destroying / damaging the Distribution center would slow down the resupply to the bases it supplies. If you kill a destroy a train heading to a distribution center, you would hinder the supply time for all of the bases that are supplied by that distribution center, as well as the rebuild time of the distribution center. Destroy a convoy and you hinder the supply to the field it was traveling to. This would make distribution centers and trains regional targets that need to be protected. I would also like to see dots for trains / convoys on the clipboard map when you have them enabled. Or maybe once a friendly gets within a certain range of train/convoy, it would show up as a dot for a period of time.

Another thought I had, is for base capture. if all auto ack / manned guns would have to be down, or just town guns. For this layout, I'm leaning towards town building only having to be down for capture. If you can get a goon or m3 in, and you or your troops don't die in the crossfire, you sir, deserve a medal. We'll have to discuss that one.

Like I said before, just kicking out ideas - nothing set in stone.

+1


The one thing I worry about is the town. I think it needs to be further away from town.  I know on the maps were town is adjacent to the airfield, it takes a lot more people to take which is not a bad unless people call horde.  Second reason I think for this is the fact that historically it would be idiotic to build a military base right on the edge of town for security reasons. The reason that a air base has a fence and guard post around it is for the fact of security and to prevent sabotage.   Any way who wants the bloody civilians to walk out of there home on to the taxi way


Other than the historical reasons it looks great.  And remember I will stay no matter what happens to the town. Just my thoughts that we could have something more historical..

By the way I love the train idea.


Keep up the good work.



P.s  Could we have a flag that will actually wave instead of looking like it is on the moon.

[Sunka]

I love the Air field and town incorporated together.
It will add a new element to what we see now (horde comes in, destroys town as fast as they can ,Don't touch the air field ,take base)

Love all the new ideas Waffle, looks great keep it coming.
 

[FLOOB]

Name the bases after players.

Or name them after erotic cinema performers.

[The Fugitive]

I think moving the field away from the town while being a bit more realistic would help moving the fight away from the field, but is a 4 mile square big enough to do that?



Would an 8 mile tile be better?

I also think 4 radar antennas would be better as well. HTC already has a system in place for losing "parts" of a commodity like ammo and fuel, adding radar to that system might not be too tough.

[Zoney]

Thanks for sharing Waffle.  i like a whole lot about this map.  I would also like to see bridges, that are destroyable along rail and truck routes.  Knock out the bridge, traffic backs up, slowing down resupply times and creating long lines of vehicles and trains ripe for the straifing from my beautiful 190A8.

Luftwaffe Uber Alles !

[craz07]

Waffle how about turning the vbases into pretty much towns for all intents and purposes.. yes towns with lots of structures to demolish in order to make them surrendur and capture!! However, gv's and manned guns will be available to mobilize and defend the towns..  airfields in the vicinity will have to scramble and fly in to successfully defend bombers or strafers, what have you..

[Lazerr]

Thanks for sharing Waffle.  i like a whole lot about this map.  I would also like to see bridges, that are destroyable along rail and truck routes.  Knock out the bridge, traffic backs up, slowing down resupply times and creating long lines of vehicles and trains ripe for the straifing from my beautiful 190A8.

Luftwaffe Uber Alles !

I like Waffle's idea on the resupply structure.  I also like the idea of making it 3 dimensional and being able to destroy large bridges easily seen from 5-10k.