Author Topic: What would you do to make the ground vehicles more useful?  (Read 397 times)

Offline LtHans

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 366
What would you do to make the ground vehicles more useful?
« on: March 31, 2002, 09:36:38 PM »
That is my question.

Personnally I don't think the WHOLE game has to be even-even with ground vehicles.  Far from it.  This is a flight simulator first.

However, ground vehicles do need something...anything.  Right now they spawn in the wrong places, and have nothing for cover to fight in.

I would prefer to see a handful of "battle fields" in the game that are capture points, yet are designed mainly to cater to ground vehicles and have 2D treelines and some farm buildings.  Place spawn points at either end for enemy and friendly units specifically.  


But I'm sure that my idea is not the only one.  What's yours?

Offline CyranoAH

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2304
What would you do to make the ground vehicles more useful?
« Reply #1 on: April 01, 2002, 02:38:33 AM »
I'd implement something similar to what it's being done right now for the buffs.

At the moment, if you take a GV from a spawn point to a base, you can make little if no difference (unless you are taking a M3, of course), while a jabo plane can deack the whole field and vulch for a while.

I would make it possible for a player to control a whole platoon of 4 Panzers, M8s or Osties (M16 or M3 are fast and unbalancing enough to stay out of this) so that the chances of getting to the target are higher and more appealing for the GV drivers.

Just my € 0.02

Daniel

Offline Dux

  • Aces High CM Staff (Retired)
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7333
What would you do to make the ground vehicles more useful?
« Reply #2 on: April 01, 2002, 08:17:10 AM »
1. Make them able to climb hills better.

2. Remove the black distant dot that lets you spot GVs about 6K away.
Rogue Squadron, CO
5th AF, FSO Squadron, Member

We all have a blind date with Destiny... and it looks like she's ordered the lobster.

Offline MANDOBLE

  • Parolee
  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1849
      • http://www.terra.es/personal2/matias.s
What would you do to make the ground vehicles more useful?
« Reply #3 on: April 01, 2002, 08:29:32 AM »
Make them able to "conquer" the terrain, that is, to place spawnpoints closer to the enemy base.

Example:
A panzer advances towards and enemy field, at some point it places a spawn point. If the panzer or other friendly ground forces keep alive near the new spawn for 20 mins, the new spawn point is actived and replaces the previous one.

Offline keyapaha

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 561
What would you do to make the ground vehicles more useful?
« Reply #4 on: April 01, 2002, 09:15:55 AM »
agreed they need to blend into terrain a bit better   a nice thick forest or two would help also

Offline DmdNexus

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 901
What would you do to make the ground vehicles more useful?
« Reply #5 on: April 01, 2002, 12:31:01 PM »
Add a network of roads, towns, Bridges, hedg rows, farm fields, dense forests, deciduous trees which provide a canopy to hide under, meadows, etc.

Roads allow vechiles to travel faster and up hill and through dense forests.

Roads and Towns provide something to patrol, hold, and attack.

Towns provide cover for vechiles.

Allow towns and bridges to be destroyed.

Add a SeaBee or an Engineering unit... which can build or rebuild bridges.

And along with the same idea as previously posted, can build a "Base" for launching new vechiles.. or build air strips to launch aircraft (limit the type of aircraft that can launch from these fields).  There should be draw backs to these kind of bases. For example once built they have to be resupplied every 15 minutes via C47/M3 with cargo ... otherwise they go POOF. So a steady supply of C47s is important. Interdiction by the enemy allows them to destroy these bases by killing the C47s and M3s re-suppling the base.

Engineering units should be perked big time and limited to the number that are alive at any time in the game. Let's start the bidding at 500 perks.

Add some fortifications around air bases. These open fields where any GV can roll right in are BS. Anti-Tank gun implacements, on the high ground.

Offline 8ball

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 102
      • http://www.derstuhl.com
What would you do to make the ground vehicles more useful?
« Reply #6 on: April 01, 2002, 12:39:07 PM »
I think the main reason that more terrain features are not implemented is because of performance issues.  A lot of people play this game with 'less-than-top-end' computers and adding forests and/or ground structures would make a very large hit on the framerate.

I really like the SeaBee/Engineer idea.  That would put a completely new strategic spin on the game.  It would also help promote teamwork to a point above where it is right now.

Offline Ripsnort

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 27251
What would you do to make the ground vehicles more useful?
« Reply #7 on: April 01, 2002, 12:43:14 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by 8ball
I think the main reason that more terrain features are not implemented is because of performance issues.  A lot of people play this game with 'less-than-top-end' computers and adding forests and/or ground structures would make a very large hit on the framerate.

I really like the SeaBee/Engineer idea.  That would put a completely new strategic spin on the game.  It would also help promote teamwork to a point above where it is right now.


Hey, by any chance did you play CK (Warbirds early beta) under the name 8bal?


Back to the thread....more ground cover, more vehicles added, all put into one big happy separate arena called "Ground War, no Milk-running Aircraft bombing Dweebs allowed!" (That would include me!) ;)

Offline Don

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 898
What would you do to make the ground vehicles more useful?
« Reply #8 on: April 01, 2002, 01:27:55 PM »
>>if you take a GV from a spawn point to a base, you can make little if no difference (unless you are taking a M3, of course), while a jabo plane can deack the whole field and vulch for a while. <<

I disagree based on what I have seen in the arena. GVs in cooperation with Buffs can disable a field quickly, and they are also annoying. Picture an FP which will not go pop even after being hit with ehhs or rockets. M16s are similar and both seem to be impervious to machinegun fire. So whaddaya want?
You can spawn and respawn to your hearts content in GVz. Is there another advantage HT hasn't seen which will make GVz any more uber than they ought to be?

Offline LtHans

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 366
What would you do to make the ground vehicles more useful?
« Reply #9 on: April 03, 2002, 02:17:54 AM »
I just want to add one thing before going on with my post.

I do not want vehicles to replace planes at all.  The game should still be primarily air combat.  It is a flight sim.

Quote
I think the main reason that more terrain features are not implemented is because of performance issues


This is very true.  From looking at World War II Online I can tell you that flying over a terrain made for vehicles is not good.  Combine that with the idea proposed by Mandoble of using the whole terrain and you get a nightmare (sorry Mandoble, but I don't like your idea).

There does need to be vast ammounts of terrain that is flat, featureless "green desert".  This keeps the frame rates high.

What my idea was is there should be a few areas where the reverse in true.  Places where there are lots of vehicle spawn points in close proximity and cover for hiding in.  Ground combat is 2D warfare, and therefore you must use the terrain to full advantage.  Air to air could take place on a map with no terrain other than flat ground and I seriously doubt anybody would say it ruined the game.

1.  No teleport spawning.
2.  Cluster several vehicle bases near each other.
3.  Add 2D treelines and a few buildings.
4.  Some other fluf perhaps to round out any rough edges.  I won't get into those right now.

Untill then ground combat doesn't really work in AH at all.  It just seems like an idea that wasn't taken seriously.  I don't like seeing the work that has been done so far go to waste.

Offline minus

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 595
What would you do to make the ground vehicles more useful?
« Reply #10 on: April 03, 2002, 12:25:48 PM »
the forests how they modeled in Dawn of aces  will be nice they looks like GV can hide below them

Offline Sabre

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3112
      • Rich Owen
What would you do to make the ground vehicles more useful?
« Reply #11 on: April 03, 2002, 12:51:32 PM »
Let me address this on two levels, tactically and strategically.  Tactically, I’d like to see the long distance dot reduced in size, but augmented by dust trails when the vehicle is moving or firing.  I would then like to see roads such that the vehicles climb hills better when driving on a road.  This would be coupled to a new vehicle autopilot feature that would essentially guide a vehicle down the road without operator input.  It would operate such that the player would guide the vehicle onto the road, getting it more or less lined up with the road, then hit a button to engage “auto.”  It would then keep the vehicle on the road, so long as the vehicle speed wasn’t too fast for the curves in the road.  “Auto” would also maintain speed as best as it could for the gear and slope of the road, perhaps automatically downshifting for the driver when the road becomes too steep.  Any stick movement (if in the driver position) or rudder input (when in the gunner positions) would disengage the autopilot.

Strategically, I’d create a mobile base, represented by a large column of vehicles/guns/tanks that could roam over the countryside in the same way fleets move over the oceans in AH.   As with fleets, these would be mobile spawn centers for gv’s.  The mobile base would represent a field army, and they could have waypoints set for them in the same way as fleets.  Your vehicle perk points would be used to determine who was in command of the field army (i.e. able to control its movement).  Just as fleets must stay at least five miles from shore, field army (FA) waypoints could not be set to bring the FA any closer than five miles from a base, city, or factory.  Likewise, the waypoint checking algorithm would check to see that the terrain is passable before accepting waypoints (no driving the FA up shear mountain cliffs).  FA’s would respawn at or near the troop training strat facilities.  Under the new strat system soon to be implemented (multiple and capture-able strat zones), each zone would have one FA.  Capture the strat zone and the FA becomes yours once it’s destroyed in the field (just as fleets become yours after capturing their associated port and sinking the flagship).

An FA would consist of a column of tanks (the equivalent of the VH; destroy it and no GV spawning), a battery of howitzers (man-able in the manner of ship guns), some mobile AAA vehicles (again, some man-able as well as some automatic), and a supply train of trucks.  Some of these supply trucks would be fuel bowsers (kill them and reduce fuel), ammo trucks (kill them and reduce ammo load outs for spawning GV’s), and troop trucks (kill them and…well, you get the idea).  As with bases, these units rebuild very slowly; however, player resupply drops can reduce downtimes.  What do you think?
Sabre
"The urge to save humanity almost always masks a desire to rule it."

Offline 8ball

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 102
      • http://www.derstuhl.com
What would you do to make the ground vehicles more useful?
« Reply #12 on: April 03, 2002, 04:03:13 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Ripsnort


Hey, by any chance did you play CK (Warbirds early beta) under the name 8bal?

 


I think I did, but I'm not completely sure.  I know I played Fighter Ops, which was a beta for some online WW2 flight sim but I don't remember which one :confused:

Offline LtHans

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 366
What would you do to make the ground vehicles more useful?
« Reply #13 on: April 04, 2002, 02:34:51 AM »
I've thought of that mobile army "aircraft carrier fleet on land" idea too.

It's not a bad idea.  I would like to throw my two bits in with it and change it from a constantly moving army formation into something more like the real military movements.  Leapfrogging/overwatch.

Use two formation, not one.  Rather than keep the whole unit moving as one like a fleet, split it into two parts.  One moves forward and abruptly stops and digs in.  When it is done, the second unit packs up their guns and drives forward past the first unit out into the front and then stops.  and the process repeates.

The stopped unit would have heavy AA guns and artillery setup.  The same types we see now.  The moving unit (using existing halftrack models and such) only have .30 and .50 caliber machineguns.  Add to that if the unit moving is shot at it should stop and dig in.


I still advocate for 2D treelines though.

Hans.

Offline 8ball

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 102
      • http://www.derstuhl.com
What would you do to make the ground vehicles more useful?
« Reply #14 on: April 04, 2002, 02:38:44 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by LtHans
I've thought of that mobile army "aircraft carrier fleet on land" idea too.

It's not a bad idea.  I would like to throw my two bits in with it and change it from a constantly moving army formation into something more like the real military movements.  Leapfrogging/overwatch.

Use two formation, not one.  Rather than keep the whole unit moving as one like a fleet, split it into two parts.  One moves forward and abruptly stops and digs in.  When it is done, the second unit packs up their guns and drives forward past the first unit out into the front and then stops.  and the process repeates.

The stopped unit would have heavy AA guns and artillery setup.  The same types we see now.  The moving unit (using existing halftrack models and such) only have .30 and .50 caliber machineguns.  Add to that if the unit moving is shot at it should stop and dig in.


I still advocate for 2D treelines though.

Hans.


The leapfrogging would be a lot  more difficult to program.  If you really want realism though, the Aces High engine really isn't going to provide that for ground combat.  It is geared towards flight, as it should be, and really doesn't have the capabilities to support extensive ground combat.