The primary consideration, in my opinion revolves around the strategic aspect of the game, a.k.a. gameplay. How will the server determine when and by how much the front moves in AHII? Given the information we’ve been told so far, it sounds as if progress in “the war” is driven by the relative success or failure of each side in accomplishing missions. This sounds similar to the way progress was tracked in Falcon 3.0. You were given an air tasking order (ATO) by your HQ, as well as a draft mission plan to work with. Often you had more than one mission objective, such that your level of success could vary. Thus, you didn’t necessarily have to achieve every objective to be awarded a successful mission. Based on your performance, the front would move one way or the other. The map displayed this using blue-shaded circles that represented areas of the terrain you controlled. Pink-shaded circles were enemy controlled areas. The circles centered on strategic points on the map, such as towns and cities, and overlapped each other in some cases. Where friendly circles overlapped enemy circles, this indicated contested areas.
My hope than is that AHII will use a similar methodology. If so, then it is reasonable to assume that some mission types will have a greater impact on the war effort than others, and that that impact will differ in how direct that impact is. For instance, if one side launches an armored attack on another, a strategic attack on armament factories will not have a direct impact on the attack underway. A JABO attack directly against the attacking column, or taking out a key bridge along its route of advance, would be necessary to thwart it. Likewise, the side supporting the attack may be required to support a paratroop drop on that key bridge, to secure it for their use. On the other hand, a successful string of strategic attacks on factories, POL, and troop training facilities might reduce the number of armored thrusts the enemy launches; it might also reduce the forces available to meet your own country’s armored attack.
As you can see, this could get pretty involved; the algorithms could include some pretty elaborate logic for generating and scoring mission. My guess is that the initial A/I will be pretty simple, but to be a success in the long run it will have to grow and grow quickly. That’s because people will tire of missions that are repetitive and overly simplistic. The following list represents my own thoughts on what type of missions I’d like to see in AHII:
Fighter:
CAP, intercept, close escort, bomber sweep, JABO – CAS (includes support for amphibious operations), JABO – Interdiction (forces on the move, supply depots, marshalling areas), JABO – transportation (trains/rails, supply convoys, bridges), JABO – anti-shipping, JABO – SEAD (airfields, radar, AAA)
Bomber/Strike:
Strategic (cities and factories), infrastructure (rail yards, bridges, ports), SEAD, anti-shipping, interdiction (supply depots, marshalling areas)
GV:
Attack an objective, defend an objective, search and destroy, meeting engagement, amphibious assault (a specialized form of attack)
Naval:
Surface action, PT boat ops, naval gunfire support
This is certainly not all-inclusive, but is a start. Looking at these, one can see that determining the affect of each mission type on the progress of the war can be complex; however, every mission MUST have some effect, or it doesn’t belong in AHII. That affect might be immediate, or may affect future events. Some missions could go either way. For example, taking out a rail yard can affect both strategic production as well as operations currently ongoing in the field. If AHII is to reach its goal of becoming the on-line alternative to the boxed sim crowd, it must have the same kind of depth to the strategic component of the game.
