Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: Arlo on April 12, 2013, 12:07:34 PM
-
It is seldom that I throw in a new wish (and oft I play devils advocate, regarding other wishes) but, and let me preface with my having no clue about how hard this would be to code, what about expanding the role of drunks in the game?
Right now our paratroopers/mobile infantry have but one job (and they do it rather well) - capture a maproom. What if they could be coded to maintain either a defensive or offensive perimeter? The option would be selected at the time of loadout (capture/perimeter). On a defensive footing, they could be distributed around town to perhaps intercept invading paratroopers. On an offensive footing they could be dropped anywhere on the map to attack enemy ground vehicles when they get within a certain range (I reckon this would require coding a bazooka or panzerfaust). Another possibility would be a minefield loadout (with a set period of time before it disables itself).
It would also be cool to see the drunks skinned by the delivery vehicle country of origin.
Eh, just a thought. No crisis without. :D
-
It would also be cool to see the drunks skinned by the delivery vehicle country of origin.
Huge +1 on this last comment!!
-
Did....that....just....come.. ..from....my....ole....pal... .....Arlo? :huh
Well, what a fantastic fab-a-listic idea! :x
+1
:D
-
I know. It was kinda like a weird aberration thing. I need a beer. :D
-
+1
-
The easiest thing HTC could do to implement an actual role for troops in AH is to code certain kinds of troops to "attack" certain OBJ's. Meaning, having infantry attack auto ack, engineers attack buildings, and commandos capture map rooms. Etc. The implementation would be all the same as current troops being let out to capture the map room except now when they are let loose they'll run towards the nearest auto ack, town building, etc. Have them be immune to auto ack fire.
-
Have them be immune to auto ack fire.
I wouldn't go that far.
And (again, not from a programmer pov) ... couldn't the paratroops be coded to stay in a static position (like V supplies) and attack targets that enter their proximity? :)
-
The easiest thing HTC could do to implement an actual role for troops in AH is to code certain kinds of troops to "attack" certain OBJ's. Meaning, having infantry attack auto ack, engineers attack buildings, and commandos capture map rooms. Etc. The implementation would be all the same as current troops being let out to capture the map room except now when they are let loose they'll run towards the nearest auto ack, town building, etc. Have them be immune to auto ack fire.
Except for the immune bit I like this option. I think defensive troops could be modelled to defend towns. They would have to be released to occupy town buildings from which they shoot at sappers or other troops and light vehicles.
-
Awsome idea, but like any awsome idea, it can be easily exploited unless theres a specific time cap on the lives of the troops, in this case. Which would make the awsomeness of the idea redundant.
Maybe something more subtle is required?
The best ideas that make it in, usually are.
-
Like the mines, I reckon a time cap is just the natural order. Probably about as long (if as long) as average repair times. Maybe that could be linked somehow.
-
This has been discussed before, in detail.. I remember even HT said he kinda liked the idea..
Never nailed down the form it would take tho..
I always liked the Idea of "GV Bailout"..
Carrying a Thompson and 2 Bazooka shots.. Or MP40 and two Panzerfaust.. Or a Sten and PIAT..
Or PPsh41, and Panzerfaust, (I am unaware of a Russian produced, rocket propelled AT device in WW2)
That would be good for starters, and would serve to get things moving..
-
I always liked the Idea of "GV Bailout"..
Ok .... but why? We already have troop delivery systems - goon, LTVA, M3, SdKFz. Even a jeep can now carry three (I'm not sure why - I guess HT was increasing the troop delivery systems and this was considered a potential supplemental).
Our unit base for ground troops is 10. Currently it is animated but this appears to be superficial (though very cool). The capabilities of this unit are still singular in nature. They never fire a shot, run into a map-room and if enough get in they take a town. Very straightforward and efficient. They can be eliminated with ground or air fire. Only natural. If their function can be altered, again, it would only be natural that they can fire, as well. And it may be programmable as to what they can fire - carbines, rifles, sub-machine guns do come to mind. As a static periphery defensive unit (though in game terms I suppose this would be an 'exotic weapon') they can believably set up a machine-gun nest or possess limited anti-tank capability (essentially tread poppers ... which retains tactical viability). As others have mentioned, perhaps use could be further enhanced (sophisticated) to include capture of other buildings rather than just a map room (though this could lead to it being actually harder to take a town - imagine 'over 50% of the buildings must be captured to take a town'). Then a re-determination of how any many drunks it takes per structure. Already a rather simple idea is becoming complicated.
I say a simple (and I know, saying 'simple' in context to coding may be not so much) addition works best for 'starters.' Troops are already static when dropped too far from a map-room (or at least they were in previous incarnations of my spotty experience with the game over the years). If they could be code-enhanced to kneel in a circle for, I dunno, 15 to 30 minutes and shoot at any enemy icon that comes within range then you have something more like true paratroops or mobile infantry (minus the 'mobile' once they are dropped). Give that unit (or 'exotic weapon') a load-out of one anti-tank weapon (2 troops) one machine-gun nest (2 troops) and 6 rifles and you have a basic 'squad' so to speak (and ten troops do a lot in AH). Drop them in a tree line and they may be hard to see (an ambush - though I suppose their 'P' icons may give them away - do they still have 'P' icons?). Drop them on the other side or a ridge - a nasty surprise for a tank about to come over one. Drop them around the outskirts of your own town and temporarily beef up security there (not sure if a limit within a certain space on the map is achievable).
I anticipate that goon targets would increase by a factor of 20% or more. :D
-
Didn't HT mention a plan for the future a couple months back that would add some sort of playable ground element/FPS? Where instead of just AI troops you had player troops as well?
-
Didn't HT mention a plan for the future a couple months back that would add some sort of playable ground element/FPS? Where instead of just AI troops you had player troops as well?
Dunno. Didn't see his post. But I'm not talking about player infantry. That sounds like much more than what I'm suggesting. Personally, I'd rather drop off the troops and go onto other things. :)
-
So, as mentioned back in April, the role of drunks (AI ground units) could possibly be enhanced. Their method of delivery would remain the same, being dropped as paratroops or delivered via ground transport, but the options of 'capture' or 'static perimeter' could be selected at the time of loadout. Through the 'static perimeter' option they will dump much like supplies. Perhaps they could take kneeling positions. Enhance the weaponry carried by the squad (add a bazooka - team required 2, add a Browning auto). The squad may be dropped out in the open but it may be better to drop it in a town (friendly, for additional defense) or in a treeline (setting up potential ambush) for additional cover. Their icons could be subdued or limited in range (perhaps to the same range they would have on a target). Multiple squads could be dropped up to company strength within a certain distance. If dropped within range of enemy drunks, they may engage each other. Give them a time limit of 30 minutes.
And there would be better reason to skin the uniforms to match the vehicle that delivered them .... with further reason to model the JU-52.
(http://www.airports-worldwide.com/img/wikipedia/aircraft_863525390.jpg)
-
It is seldom that I throw in a new wish (and oft I play devils advocate, regarding other wishes) but, and let me preface with my having no clue about how hard this would be to code, what about expanding the role of drunks in the game?
Right now our paratroopers/mobile infantry have but one job (and they do it rather well) - capture a maproom. What if they could be coded to maintain either a defensive or offensive perimeter? The option would be selected at the time of loadout (capture/perimeter). On a defensive footing, they could be distributed around town to perhaps intercept invading paratroopers. On an offensive footing they could be dropped anywhere on the map to attack enemy ground vehicles when they get within a certain range (I reckon this would require coding a bazooka or panzerfaust). Another possibility would be a minefield loadout (with a set period of time before it disables itself).
It would also be cool to see the drunks skinned by the delivery vehicle country of origin.
Eh, just a thought. No crisis without. :D
Would they be zombie defenders -1 +1 only if i could have a submachine gun , bazooka ,grenades
-
Would they be zombie defenders -1 +1 only if i could have a submachine gun , bazooka ,grenades
Not enough room in your cockpit.
-
Not enough room in your cockpit.
beowulf m16 :D
-
It is seldom that I throw in a new wish (and oft I play devils advocate, regarding other wishes) but, and let me preface with my having no clue about how hard this would be to code, what about expanding the role of drunks in the game?
Right now our paratroopers/mobile infantry have but one job (and they do it rather well) - capture a maproom. What if they could be coded to maintain either a defensive or offensive perimeter? The option would be selected at the time of loadout (capture/perimeter). On a defensive footing, they could be distributed around town to perhaps intercept invading paratroopers. On an offensive footing they could be dropped anywhere on the map to attack enemy ground vehicles when they get within a certain range (I reckon this would require coding a bazooka or panzerfaust). Another possibility would be a minefield loadout (with a set period of time before it disables itself).
It would also be cool to see the drunks skinned by the delivery vehicle country of origin.
Eh, just a thought. No crisis without. :D
:airplane: +100! But to expand that a little easier, I would suggest that we be allowed to drop or land troops as close as 1 mile from edge of town, and those troops would all take different direction to map room! I just see it now, 2 sets of troops, 20, all released at the same time and guys in jeeps trying to hunt them down and kill them.
Would be fun and add something else interesting to the game!
-
THIS IS EXACTLY MY IDEA.
I came up with this months ago, Instead of just a squad, make it a battalion, make squads actually have to drop multiple loads of paratroopers and provide proper CAS. This would make an awesome way to add more CAS roles :old:
-
+1
I would also suggest the load out for the goon, LTVA, M3, SdKFz be different as well. Goons carry 12 troops, while GV's carry the 10 needed to capture the base. :banana:
-
three words:
First Person Shooter
-
three words:
First Person Shooter
Three more:
Different wish thread. :D
-
This has been discussed before, in detail.. I remember even HT said he kinda liked the idea..
Never nailed down the form it would take tho..
I always liked the Idea of "GV Bailout"..
Carrying a Thompson and 2 Bazooka shots.. Or MP40 and two Panzerfaust.. Or a Sten and PIAT..
Or PPsh41, and Panzerfaust, (I am unaware of a Russian produced, rocket propelled AT device in WW2)
That would be good for starters, and would serve to get things moving..
STEN and PIAT?? So the Brit modelled troops wouldnt be able to hit anything, their STENs would empty their mags on touchdown, and the PIATs would fire one round that doesnt go far enough to avoid fragging the firer, and then be incapable of being recocked because none of the troops would be strong enough :devil
-
Im pretty sure this idea has been suggested several times in the past.
My guess is that programming the drunks behavior is not a huge deal, the problem would probably be whether the drunks would be controlled on the player side or the server side.
If the drunks are tied to players PC then you have all the lag issues of that player affecting the drunks and subsequently other players.
If they are tied to Htc servers, then it would be a drain on the system. From what I can tell, the game is designed to be as passive a system as possible on the server side to prevent such a drain.
-
It would also be cool to see the drunks skinned by the delivery vehicle country of origin.
That is a nice idea. The problem is that the same vehicles are used by all countries. We have but 1 troop carrier plane which is an American one. German paras uniforms would be great but will not fit the plane. Same situation for the ground troop carriers - they are all allied.
As for troops AI - please dont!
The less AI in the game the better. I could grind my teeth and agree to a FPS game within AH with player troops, which may actually attract more players to AH, but I do not like the idea of AI that does anything more complicated then making a bee line to the map room.
-
That is a nice idea. The problem is that the same vehicles are used by all countries. We have but 1 troop carrier plane which is an American one. German paras uniforms would be great but will not fit the plane. Same situation for the ground troop carriers - they are all allied.
Methinks you quoted the edited quote by another poster. I also added:
.... with further reason to model the JU-52.
As for troops AI - please dont!
The less AI in the game the better. I could grind my teeth and agree to a FPS game within AH with player troops, which may actually attract more players to AH, but I do not like the idea of AI that does anything more complicated then making a bee line to the map room.
The static drunk option would be an easier option for infantry tactics in Aces High. Granted, there would be no mobility once dropped into position, coding offensive capability within a set perimeter would probably be taxing enough (though maybe the same coding used in aa could be applied). Adding non-AI infantry would change the game, radically, overnight. Yes there would be an influx. Perhaps enough Private Ryans would log on to fill all three main arenas to the max, transforming the game from being primarily a flight sim with vehicle and ship combat as additional secondary options ..... to a variant of WWII online (oy). While this may represent a revenue increase, the veteran players who came to Aces High because it's the best WWII air combat game/sim online will get the shaft. With the AI infantry option, I'd venture not so much. My take, anyhow.
-
Actually I think I would prefer AI on a modified (read limited) "commander" type platform rather than FPS.
There are loads of FPS stuff out there and this game is really FPV (vehicle....... be it ac or gv) combat. Troops are really a weapon that can be deployed from vehicles in that context.
-
Actually I think I would prefer AI on a modified (read limited) "commander" type platform rather than FPS.
There are loads of FPS stuff out there and this game is really FPV (vehicle....... be it ac or gv) combat. Troops are really a weapon that can be deployed from vehicles in that context.
My thoughts/feelings, exactly.
-
+1 for more active troops.
-
Actually I think I would prefer AI on a modified (read limited) "commander" type platform rather than FPS.
There are loads of FPS stuff out there and this game is really FPV (vehicle....... be it ac or gv) combat. Troops are really a weapon that can be deployed from vehicles in that context.
Yes, like Command and Conquer. I agree. I tried that game. It was fun, but not incredibly addicting. Added to AH, it would set the stage for much larger battles and a better strategy game.
-
+1
-
Then it would create more dogfights, as planes rush to provide cas for their troops in the field. They would have to be supplied (storches) , protected from air attacks (fighters=furballs) reinforced (goons), and much more. IL2s and a20s will have good CAS roles. It would make the game more intersting if you included large scale operations like invading an island with multiple v and a bases, we could have invasion fleets, beech heads, everything would require supply convoys and supply ships. More air combat would be needed, it would be awesome. Then we could have players who are apart of squads be given M1 carbines call in the runs and the Storches could be FACS. ;) :D
-
Possible combination upgrades:
German goon and German paratrooper skins:
(http://i1197.photobucket.com/albums/aa433/arloguh03/NonUS%20WWII%20Paratroopers%20and%20transports/German/dhm0770_zps7d6d2458.jpg)
+
(http://i1197.photobucket.com/albums/aa433/arloguh03/NonUS%20WWII%20Paratroopers%20and%20transports/German/1280014446-wwii-reenactment_394520_zpsccebaa61.jpg)
Russian goon and Russian paratrooper skins:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f9/Lisunov_Li-2_Soviet_AF_Monino_1994.jpg)
Lisunov Li-2 (Modified C-47?)
+
(http://i1197.photobucket.com/albums/aa433/arloguh03/NonUS%20WWII%20Paratroopers%20and%20transports/Russian/x_95a63c23_zps3be992a9.jpg)
British goon and British paratrooper skins:
Ok .... it would be a Dakota (C-47)
+
(http://i1197.photobucket.com/albums/aa433/arloguh03/NonUS%20WWII%20Paratroopers%20and%20transports/113_rd_zpsc939846d.jpg)
Italian goon and Italian paratrooper skins:
(http://i1197.photobucket.com/albums/aa433/arloguh03/NonUS%20WWII%20Paratroopers%20and%20transports/Italian/s82arditiparacadutisti7wz_zpsf8d834c8.jpg)
SM.82
+
(http://i1197.photobucket.com/albums/aa433/arloguh03/NonUS%20WWII%20Paratroopers%20and%20transports/Italian/Italy-1942DecTunisiaCaptain184thParachuteDivision_zps4f22de39.jpg)
Japanese goon and Japanese paratroops:
(http://i1197.photobucket.com/albums/aa433/arloguh03/NonUS%20WWII%20Paratroopers%20and%20transports/Japanese/p1_zps0c0c604c.jpg)
+
(http://i1197.photobucket.com/albums/aa433/arloguh03/NonUS%20WWII%20Paratroopers%20and%20transports/Japanese/Japanese_Paratroopers_1944_zps95c887c2.gif)
Not that it would necessarily require modeling the aircraft. Since three of those nations operated versions of the C-47 there could just be skins that also change the skins of the troops, perhaps. Although I would like to see the JU-52 modeled. The SM.82 could be modeled alongside the SM.79.
Another alternative could be a skin dropdown selection near the drunks themselves ... or a radio button selection.
I wouldn't see much need for all this without expanded roles for the drunks, though.
And I could see a reason to allow formations for goons.
:D
-
Additional inspirational pics:
Fallschirmjäger
(http://i1197.photobucket.com/albums/aa433/arloguh03/NonUS%20WWII%20Paratroopers%20and%20transports/German/wittstock_zps2c449528.jpg)
My caption for the above "A week before Germany surrendered the Fallschirmjäger began practicing a new jump."
(http://i1197.photobucket.com/albums/aa433/arloguh03/NonUS%20WWII%20Paratroopers%20and%20transports/German/tumblr_m4t3ny9vDf1qhvmqyo1_500_zpse66dba23.jpg)
(http://i1197.photobucket.com/albums/aa433/arloguh03/NonUS%20WWII%20Paratroopers%20and%20transports/German/german-paratroopers-wwii-1-72-italeri-figures-6045_zps2fc547c1.jpg)
(http://i1197.photobucket.com/albums/aa433/arloguh03/NonUS%20WWII%20Paratroopers%20and%20transports/German/dhm1412_zpsa42172ef.jpg)
(http://i1197.photobucket.com/albums/aa433/arloguh03/NonUS%20WWII%20Paratroopers%20and%20transports/German/Bundesarchiv_Bild_101I-670-7410-10_Fallschirmjaumlgerabsprung_aus_Junkers_Ju_52_zps97305728.jpg)
(http://i1197.photobucket.com/albums/aa433/arloguh03/NonUS%20WWII%20Paratroopers%20and%20transports/German/posedphotojumpMaxSchmelingGermanboxerparatrooperairbornefallschirmjagerju-52_zpscc2acb9f.jpg)
(http://i1197.photobucket.com/albums/aa433/arloguh03/NonUS%20WWII%20Paratroopers%20and%20transports/German/fallschirmjager-1-040_zps82ec7f10.jpg)
-
The Italians
(http://i1197.photobucket.com/albums/aa433/arloguh03/NonUS%20WWII%20Paratroopers%20and%20transports/Italian/sm82_sa1_zpsa129338f.jpg)
(http://i1197.photobucket.com/albums/aa433/arloguh03/NonUS%20WWII%20Paratroopers%20and%20transports/Italian/S82-TRADATE-RSI_zpsf8060659.jpg)
(http://i1197.photobucket.com/albums/aa433/arloguh03/NonUS%20WWII%20Paratroopers%20and%20transports/Italian/italian-soldiers-ww2-pictures-003_zpsaa4b2c42.jpg)
(Apparently there was an Italian version of Gomer Pyle - Gomerio Pylio)
(http://i1197.photobucket.com/albums/aa433/arloguh03/NonUS%20WWII%20Paratroopers%20and%20transports/Italian/Italain-Airborne-troops-prepare-themselves-ahead-of-battle_zpsc452339c.jpg)
(http://i1197.photobucket.com/albums/aa433/arloguh03/NonUS%20WWII%20Paratroopers%20and%20transports/Italian/folg2gx6_zps867562dd.jpg)
(http://i1197.photobucket.com/albums/aa433/arloguh03/NonUS%20WWII%20Paratroopers%20and%20transports/Italian/herring_zps49b55634.jpg)
(http://i1197.photobucket.com/albums/aa433/arloguh03/NonUS%20WWII%20Paratroopers%20and%20transports/Italian/2041_rd_zps4c04318a.jpg)
(http://i1197.photobucket.com/albums/aa433/arloguh03/NonUS%20WWII%20Paratroopers%20and%20transports/Italian/italian-soldiers-ww2-rare-pictures-001_zpsd1f4f58c.jpg)
-
The Russians
(http://i1197.photobucket.com/albums/aa433/arloguh03/NonUS%20WWII%20Paratroopers%20and%20transports/Russian/200856145912_soviet_paratrooper_1941_42__107_zpsaaa85a2c.jpg)
(http://www.lonesentry.com/articles/geronimo/geronimo_red_army_machinegun.jpg)
(http://images.yuku.com/image/pjpeg/e2e156fbae6558682eb670595e04510f24d2b0d.pjpg)
-
The Japanese
(http://i1197.photobucket.com/albums/aa433/arloguh03/NonUS%20WWII%20Paratroopers%20and%20transports/Japanese/palembang_zps66d12501.jpg)
(http://i1197.photobucket.com/albums/aa433/arloguh03/NonUS%20WWII%20Paratroopers%20and%20transports/Japanese/japanesearmyparatrooper_zps0a9939b1.jpg)
(http://i1197.photobucket.com/albums/aa433/arloguh03/NonUS%20WWII%20Paratroopers%20and%20transports/Japanese/Japanese_Paratroopers_WWII_zpseb816aef.gif)
(http://i1197.photobucket.com/albums/aa433/arloguh03/NonUS%20WWII%20Paratroopers%20and%20transports/Japanese/japanese_Paratrooper_WWII_zps4ceec612.gif)
(http://i1197.photobucket.com/albums/aa433/arloguh03/NonUS%20WWII%20Paratroopers%20and%20transports/Japanese/front26_zps0d828970.jpg)
(http://i1197.photobucket.com/albums/aa433/arloguh03/NonUS%20WWII%20Paratroopers%20and%20transports/Japanese/C__piade2660_zps2df0dc30.gif)
(http://i1197.photobucket.com/albums/aa433/arloguh03/NonUS%20WWII%20Paratroopers%20and%20transports/Japanese/WWII_japanese_paratroopers_zpsead08d6f.jpg)
-
Great pics Arlo.
-
It is seldom that I throw in a new wish (and oft I play devils advocate, regarding other wishes) but, and let me preface with my having no clue about how hard this would be to code, what about expanding the role of drunks in the game?
Right now our paratroopers/mobile infantry have but one job (and they do it rather well) - capture a maproom. What if they could be coded to maintain either a defensive or offensive perimeter? The option would be selected at the time of loadout (capture/perimeter). On a defensive footing, they could be distributed around town to perhaps intercept invading paratroopers. On an offensive footing they could be dropped anywhere on the map to attack enemy ground vehicles when they get within a certain range (I reckon this would require coding a bazooka or panzerfaust). Another possibility would be a minefield loadout (with a set period of time before it disables itself).
It would also be cool to see the drunks skinned by the delivery vehicle country of origin.
Eh, just a thought. No crisis without. :D
:airplane: Great pic's and they show a lot of history to ponder!!
-
(http://i1197.photobucket.com/albums/aa433/arloguh03/Troop_options_zps36d8262a.png)
(http://i1197.photobucket.com/albums/aa433/arloguh03/TroopsAHII_zpscfc6977e.png)
By selecting the option of 'combat deployment' troops will set a static perimeter instead of running
to capture the map room. This has both an offensive and defensive advantage. Also, infantry ground
combat may be staged for events.
-
great idea, if added I'd like napalm in the same update.
-
great idea, if added I'd like napalm in the same update.
+1000000! :aok
-
(http://i1197.photobucket.com/albums/aa433/arloguh03/Mixed_troops_zps0569ede6.png)
;)
-
With the current ten man 'squad' in AHII, ground troop organization could extend to a 30 man platoon.
Essentially, if goons are allowed to operate in formation a play may deploy troops in platoon strength.
Furthermore, the duties of squads and platoons may be selected as 'capture' (the current function),
'Rifle' (static deployment, all rifles, 300 yd range per man), Anti-tank (2 men are assigned a bazooka -
range 100 yds) or Mortar (3 men are assigned a mortar - range 3000 yds). Anti-tank may cripple but
not destroy heavy tanks. Lighter vehicles may be destroyed. Mortars or for stand off attacks on enemy
infantry. Capture, Rifle, Anti-tank and Mortar may be mixed and matched.
(http://i1197.photobucket.com/albums/aa433/arloguh03/Airborne_Rifle_platoon_zps4734eb39.png)
If deploying troops via ground vehicle, they may only be deployed as single squads (or three man 'fire teams'
via jeep).
The time limit for troops on the ground would be 30 minutes unless re-supplied. Re-supplied troops re-start
the timer to 30 minutes. Re-supplied troops would not have lost troops replenished. The resupply area is
1000 yds from the crate and all surviving squad members will have their times re-started if even just one
falls within the resupply zone.
(http://i1197.photobucket.com/albums/aa433/arloguh03/Mech_Rifle_platoon_zps79c84aa2.png)
(http://i1197.photobucket.com/albums/aa433/arloguh03/formation_load_options_zps9e2d4d1e.png)
One of the best methods of deployment may be a circular drop. Remember, troops will stay static upon
landing. Of course, one may choose to deploy in lines, even increase the delay, if a scouting line is desired.
Troops will report to the player 'enemy ground units sighted' one the enemy is encountered. This audio
message will only be received by the deploying player. If that player logs off or disconnects without reconnecting
during the active deployment of their ground troops, no other friendly player will receive the message.
(http://i1197.photobucket.com/albums/aa433/arloguh03/circular_deployment_zps8ce73775.png)
(http://i1197.photobucket.com/albums/aa433/arloguh03/circular_deployment_ranges_zps7eaab0bf.png)
-
(http://i42.tinypic.com/2by62q.jpg)
-
With the current ten man ...
I like it. :aok
-
Signed in just to say i like your idea Arlo.....personally i don't want an FPS aspect in aces high (there are other games out there that do it in such a larger and better way....) but the different troop things you've outlined would add an interesting aspect to town/base taking / defending....+1
-
Definitely +1, but for the record, infantry anti-tank weapons can destroy the heaviest tanks with flank or rear shots. The exact details depend on the tank and the weapon of course.
-
Definitely +1, but for the record, infantry anti-tank weapons can destroy the heaviest tanks with flank or rear shots. The exact details depend on the tank and the weapon of course.
U.S. Bazookas in WWII:
World War II
Secretly introduced via the Russian front and in November 1942 during Operation Torch, early production versions of the M1 launcher and M6 rocket were hastily supplied to some of the U.S. invasion forces during the landings in North Africa. On the night before the landings, Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower was shocked to discover from a subordinate that none of his troops had received any instruction in the use of the bazooka.[16]
Initially supplied with the highly unreliable M6 rocket and without training, the M1 did not play a significant armed role in combat in the North African fighting,[12] but did provide a German intelligence coup[2] when some were captured by the Germans in early encounters with inexperienced US troops. A US general visiting the Tunisian front in 1943 after the close of combat operations could not find any soldiers who could report that the weapon had actually stopped an enemy tank.[12] Further issue of the bazooka was suspended in May 1943.
A U.S. soldier fires an M9 bazooka at a German machine gun nest, Lucca 1944.
During the Allied invasion of Sicily, small numbers of the M1A1 bazooka (using an improved rocket, the M6A1) were used in combat by US forces. The M1A1 accounted for four medium German tanks and a heavy Tiger I, with the latter being knocked out by a lucky hit through the driver's vision slot.[12] A major disadvantage to the bazooka was the large backblast and smoke trail (in colder weather), which gave away the position of the shooter, mandating quick relocation of the squad. Moreover, the bazooka fire team often had to expose their bodies in order to obtain a clear field of fire against an armored target. Casualties among bazooka team members were extremely high during the war, and assignment to such duty, widely known as Medal of Honor work, in the face of German counterfire was typically regarded by other platoon members as not only highly dangerous, but nearly suicidal.
When the existence of the bazooka was revealed to the American public official press releases for the first two years stated that it "packed the wallop of a 155mm cannon"—a great exaggeration, but widely accepted by the American public at the time.[17]
In late 1942, numbers of early-production American M1 bazookas were captured by German troops from Russian forces who had been given quantities of the bazooka under Lend-Lease as well as during the Operation Torch invasions in the North African Campaign.[2] The Germans promptly developed their own version of the weapon, increasing the diameter of the warhead from 60 mm to 88 mm (2.4 to 3.5 in). In German service, the bazooka was popularly known as the Panzerschreck. The German weapon, with its larger, more powerful warhead, had significantly greater armor penetration; ironically, calls for a larger-diameter warhead had also been raised by some ordnance officers during U.S. trials of the M1, but were rejected. After participating in an armor penetration test involving a German Panther tank using both the RPzB 54 Panzerschreck and the U.S. M9 bazooka, Corporal Donald E. Lewis of the U.S. Army informed his superiors that the Panzerschreck was "far superior to the American bazooka": ‘I was so favorably impressed [by the Panzerschreck] I was ready to take after the Krauts with their own weapon.[18]’
The M1 bazooka fared much better on the rare occasions when it could be used against the much thinner armor typically fitted to the lower sides, underside, and top of enemy tanks. To hit the bottom panel of an enemy tank, the bazooka operator had to wait until the tank was surmounting a steep hill or other obstruction, while hitting the top armor usually necessitated firing the rocket from the upper story of a building or similar elevated position. During the 1944 Allied offensive in France, Major Charles "Bazooka Charlie" Carpenter mounted a battery of three M9 bazookas on the wing-to-fuselage struts on each side of his L-4 Grasshopper aircraft in order to attack enemy armor, and was credited with destroying six enemy tanks, including two Tiger I heavy tanks.[19][20]
Despite the introduction of the M9 bazooka with its more powerful rocket—the M6A3—in late 1943, reports of the weapon's effectiveness against enemy armor decreased alarmingly in the latter stages of World War II, as new German tanks with thicker and better-designed cast armor plate and armor skirts/spaced armor were introduced. This development forced bazooka operators to target less well-protected areas of the vehicle, such as the tracks, drive sprockets, bogey wheels, or rear engine compartment. In a letter dated May 20, 1944, Gen. George S. Patton stated to a colleague that "the purpose of the bazooka is not to hunt tanks offensively, but to be used as a last resort in keeping tanks from overrunning infantry. To insure this, the range should be held to around 30 yards."[12] The extreme difficulty of closing to grenade-throwing distances unnoticed before hitting small spot targets on an enemy tank helps explain the high mortality rate of men assigned to anti-tank rocket launcher duty.
In the Pacific campaign, as in North Africa, the original bazookas sent to combat often had reliability issues. The battery-operated firing circuit was easily damaged during rough handling, and the rocket motors often failed because of high temperatures and exposure to moisture, salt air, or humidity. With the introduction of the M1A1 and its more reliable rocket ammunition, the bazooka was effective against some fixed Japanese infantry emplacements such as small concrete bunkers and pill boxes.[21][22] Against coconut and sand emplacements, the weapon was not always effective, as these softer structures often reduced the force of the warhead's impact enough to prevent detonation of the explosive charge.[23] Later in the Pacific war, most infantry and marine units often used the M2 flamethrower to attack such emplacements.[23] In the few instances in the Pacific where the bazooka was used against tanks and armored vehicles, the rocket's warhead easily penetrated the thin armor plate used by the Japanese and destroyed the vehicle.[24] Overall, the M1A1, M9, and M9A1 rocket launchers were viewed as useful and effective weapons during World War II, though they had been primarily employed against enemy emplacements and fixed fortifications, not as anti-tank weapons.[18] General Dwight Eisenhower later described it as one of the four "Tools of Victory" which won World War II for the Allies (together with the atom bomb, Jeep and the C-47 Skytrain transport aircraft).[25][26]
^ Green & Green 2000, pp. 38–39.
^ Green & Green 2000, p. 38.
^ Popular Mechanics, January 1944.
^ a b Green & Green 2000, p. 39.
^ Piper Cub Tank Buster, "What's New in Aviation", Popular Science 146 (2), February 1945: 84.
^ Carpenter, Leland F, "Piper L-4J Grasshopper", Aviation Enthusiast Corner, Aero Web, retrieved 21 October 2011.
^ Rottman, Gordon L (2007), US Airborne Units in the Pacific Theater 1942–45, Osprey, p. 43, ISBN 978-1-84603-128-1.
^ Harclerode, Peter (2005), Wings of War–Airborne Warfare 1918–1945, Weidenfeld & Nicolson, pp. 332–33, ISBN 0-304-36730-3.
^ a b Kleber & Birdsell 2001, pp. 549–54.
^ Green, Michael (2004), Weapons of the Modern Marines, Zenith Imprint Press, p. 45, ISBN 978‐0‐7603‐1697‐9.
^ "The US Forces included Navy, Army, Army Air Force and Marine Corps". Digger history. Archived from the original on 12 December 2008. Retrieved 2008-11-19.
^ "Douglas VC-47A Skytrain DC-3". Aircraft. March field. Archived from the original on 3 December 2008.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bazooka
-
In the case of wanting your anti-tank (bazooka) team or mortar team to be dropped in a specific
order (first two/three out, middle two/three, last two/three out) there could be a drop-down box for
such a selection.
(http://i1197.photobucket.com/albums/aa433/arloguh03/positioning_zpsb2e0d6f9.png)
-
(http://i1197.photobucket.com/albums/aa433/arloguh03/geronimo_zps7acb1154.png)
-
That's awesome!!!! :banana:
-
A thought about combat engineers as well as infantry and paratrooper roles.
(http://www.fallennotforgotten.nl/Engineer%20WWII%20poster.jpg)
So far we've explored options for ground combat roles other than 10 troops running for a map-room
guns not blazing that involve static perimeter defense using rifles, bazookas and mortars. We've also
explored C-47s having a 3 plane group formation option, allowing a platoon strength drop rather than
a squad strength drop. Troops may or may not be coded to depict kneeling or dug in positions as well
as the equipment for the bazooka or mortar teams but it would be nice.
Here's a few thoughts about combat engineers. Adding an additional dimension to what is typically
encountered on the battlefield such as land mines and machine-gun pillboxes, a CE option could be
added to ground transported troops.
(http://www.ecomodelismo.com/ECO_imgArt/FORC/FORC-81014.jpg)
(http://hsfeatures.com/features04/images/sdkfz251ccw_10.gif)
(http://bp1.blogger.com/_1luLRXKoJM8/R5v0ftBue2I/AAAAAAAABxU/MYLWrDUfcz8/s400/jeep-R.jpg)
Again, bearing in mind that the renewable time limit for ground units would be 30 minutes from time
of deployment, combat engineer options of creating a mine field or pill box would be made available
at the time of load-out selection in the hangar. A ten man team could create ten tank mines or three
machine-gun pill boxes. A three man team could create three tank mines or one machine-gun pillbox.
Supplies re-set the clock.
Re-exploring the bazooka and mortar teams, the three man team could make one of one type or the
other.
(http://ransomechua.com.istemp.com/Media/tarawanotice21.jpg)
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7c/TM-46_AP-mine.JPEG/350px-TM-46_AP-mine.JPEG)
(http://216.119.96.90/d-m-propics/DIR_DRA/DRA6198/C_DRA6198_00.jpg)
-
MG teams as well.
-
MG teams as well.
Well, a machine-gun pillbox is pretty much a machine-gun team ..... with armor.
I suppose MG nests would allow more MGs at the sacrifice of the armor.
1. Rifle squad - capture (air or ground transport)
2. Rifle squad - defense (air or ground transport)
3. Anti-tank squad [2 bazooka teams + 6 riflemen/1 bazooka team if a three man fire-team] (air or ground transport)
4. Machine-gun nest squad [5 for ten troops/ 1 for three] (ground transport)
5. Mortar squad [3 mortar teams/1 mortar team if a 3 man fire-team] (ground transport)
6. C.E. Machine-gun pillbox [2 for ten troops/1 for three troops - 2 machine-guns per box] (ground transport)
7. C.E. minefield [1 per troop - replaces troops] (ground transport)
Time limit once deployed - 30 minutes - may be re-supplied (resets 39 minutes).
-
And what about an OSS squad!
Supa spies!
-
And what about an OSS squad!
Supa spies!
Already in the game.
-
Already in the game.
:banana: