Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: HaHa on December 21, 1999, 07:07:00 PM
-
I've mentioned this before. Having spare planes that people will end up flying in hangers and lined up next to runways.
I suggested that if all the spare planes of a particular type were destroyed then people couldn't fly that plane (until they respawned).
However, if you can't do that whats the chances of just putting some planes around the field? I personally would love the chance to dive in on a field and strafe 5 fighers lined up next to the runway... Or be flying overhead in a b17 and blow some purty planes to smitherenes (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif). As far as I know, no online flying sim has done this yet - AH could be the first (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
You have my vote. Vulching is a way of life for some of us.
Would it not be great to have targets to KILL (hands begin to sweat] while waiting for the nest suckker to plane up!!!!
-
Hmmmmm,
Hit HQ = no radar till it rebuilds
Hit barracks = no troops till it rebuilds
Hit Fuel = restricted fuel til it rebuilds
etc....
We see it can be done!! :-)
But what happens if enemy straf all planes?? Use the least popular plane? Take off from another base?
Central
Dickweed FG
http://bombergroup (http://bombergroup)
-
Good question
I see this is where the ground defenses will be finding their home.
Ground manned ack and ground vehicle AA
will give added deminsion in trying to take over a base.
Vehicles can give defense as planes like the blds. are rebuilding.
Meantime air support will need to come from another base.
Once again calling for a more organized sim and less lone rangers.
Gotta excellent possibilities.
dakota
[he who flies as Ubberguy]
[This message has been edited by dakota (edited 12-21-1999).]
[This message has been edited by dakota (edited 12-22-1999).]
-
What would you vulch then when you run out of planes? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
But ahh, can I say "Closed field", which would ruin up those unbelievable repops of spits who tries to strafe paras on their final approach to bunker (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
HaHa,
Lined up along the runway? You mean in the same fashion as the Soviet air force was 'spread out' along the runways for the Luftwaffe to strafe into near extinction at the commencement of Barbarossa?
Lining up aircraft along the runway was done only when there was no danger of attack, otherwise each aircraft was secure within fortified shelters, or at least camoflauged.
------------------
129 IAP VVS RKKA
-
Good idea ! With maybe few tweaks.
OK, planes should not be lined up near the runway. One good 190 pass could then neutralize whole airfield (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
But planes should be there, scattered, even camouflaged. New planes could arrive to the field in some reasonable amount of time, and only if there are routes for this.
What this means is that there would be no endless runway respawning. One can take off from attacked field. But if he loses the plane, the plane count for that field lowers.
Until new ones can be brought by ground routes, or even flown to the field (this might be fun too).
And yes, ack should be more dense then, maybe ground vehicles, small arms fire etc.
-
Let's see if I understand the direction this thread is taking...
Planes become a new target. Once all planes are destroyed, base closes. Specific plane types are represented, and destroying that types ground representative renders that plane unavailable at the field (all others still available until their plane on field is destroyed).
Example: You attack field. Wanting to suppress field defense, you attack the Spit an Nikki planes in their revetment. Now Spits and Nikki's can't launch. All other planes available.
I would even suggest a way to "rearm" a field. In the above scenario, perhaps a Spit landing on the runway and exiting intact could re-equip the field with Spitfires?
Sounds like some good ideas floating here... (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
Spare planes on the airfields would be a big frame rate hit. It's very unlikely that we'll do that.
------------------
John "SUPERFLY" Guytan - Art Director
HiTech Creations
"The Artist Formerly Known As MONKEY"
-=HELLFIRE=- SQUAD
-
Superfly, but would they have to be actual "plane" objects? Or could you build less detailed "field planes" (ie many less polygons, and generic in nature) that are just the same as any other target at an airfield.
I really like the idea of a way to reduce the "defensibility" of a field. Instant regen, unlimited lives defenders gets really old after a while.
Keep it going guys, great strat idea.
------------------
Vermillion
WB's: (verm--), **MOL**, Men of Leisure,
"Real men fly Radials, Nancy Boys fly Spitfires ;) "
-
One B-17 or B-26 can bomb a base, destroy all the toy planes and no one can take off from there. Forget about any other strategic targets on the base, except maybe ack, that is if base capture is the intention.
Seven B-17's can limit a whole team from flying.
Sheesshh.... (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Put five dirt fields around every main base, of which 2-3 of the 5 are random "Dummy Fields", and I might like this idea.
Merry Christmas!
Mino
[This message has been edited by Minotaur (edited 12-22-1999).]
-
Not necessarily Minotaur. What it would mean is that:
A. Buffs have a real chance to do some lasting damage, thereby increasing incentives to buff, and;
B. Forcing fighters to address buffs in an organized manner. Failure to do properly defend against buffs will lead to disastrous results.
To a certain extent these elements already exist, but this might take it to the next level. I'm not a buff driver, but I'm all for anything that makes buffing more viable (within reason). Besides, a low-level run on the revetments in a 190 could be fun... (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
dolomite;
cc
Thanks for your reply. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Now I envision most fighters grabbing to 38k. Patroling the unstable skies at this altitude (Everyone loves to fly the 109), buff hunting. Or, I imagine fighters (Nice role for the P-51) making high speed "Lighting Runs", braving base ack, destroying the NME BUFF "Toy Airplanes". Plus knowing if you fail, you get the chance to fly for another team or just log off for awhile.
Any body but me, dislike trying to manuver at 38k against a plane that is quite comfortable there and shoots back like a Damn Porcupine? Drop a wing 5 degrees too far and down to 30k you go. "Grabbing" to high altitudes, is not really the funnest thing I enjoy about AH. Sorry! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/frown.gif)
What is so wrong with a "Good Ole Furball"? Lots of action, stress, enjoyment and yes lots of taking off with no landing. Agreeably not so realistic, but I am not sure where exactly realism figures into any of this anyway. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
The elements you describe, IMO are already in the game. This "Toy Airplane Concept" seems to me would have more of an unbalancing effect. I believe many other facets of the AH strategic game would need to be changed, for it NOT to have a significant unbalancing effect.
However, I would be willing to try it. Sounds interesting. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Merry Christmas!
Mino
-
SUPERFLY,
Let's take Leonids statement
____________________
each aircraft was secure within fortified shelters, or at least camoflauged.
------------------
and Vermillions +
_____________________
[ Superfly, but would they have to be actual "plane" objects? Or could you build less detailed "field planes" (ie many less polygons, and generic in nature) that are just the same as any other target at an airfield.]
Combine those to reinforced hangers and or camoflage [eye candy but light on graphics]
The auto regeneration is the weak spot in these sims,
You would give more options And objectives to some one coming on line.
I would have a hoot flying BEHIND enemy lines to hit a base to keep the buffs down
while the bros are defending what left of our front base.
Currently you have to destroy the whole base to stop them, so the sim is usually controlled by the number of pilots flying.
Just makes more strat to the game, expecially for the squad boys.
dakota
[he who flies as Ubberguy]
[This message has been edited by dakota (edited 12-22-1999).]
[This message has been edited by dakota (edited 12-22-1999).]
-
Those are some good ideas. If we did do that the planes would obviously have to be less detailed. We will eventually add more field structures. Camo nets would be a good way to do something like that. Ultimately, the strat all comes down to Pyro and HT.
------------------
John "SUPERFLY" Guytan - Art Director
HiTech Creations
"The Artist Formerly Known As MONKEY"
-=HELLFIRE=- SQUAD
-
Just replace the sheep with aircraft and you'd have an entire air force at each field (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
------------------
C.O. Phoenix Squadron
www.users.bigpond.com/afinlayson/index.htm
'feel the heat .......'
-
It all comes down to polygon count. Get two many polygons that need to be generated and you end up not meeting minimal frame rate times. They could make it super detailed with planes lining the runways, but would you be willing to accept a frame rate of 10, or less?
------------------
129 IAP VVS RKKA
-
And, ultimately, that's the rub, isn't it?
If you want to make a less-than-laserguided bombsight work, you need to make target-rich areas, but if you do that, you'll take a frame rate hit.
The idea is, a single buff couldn't shut down a field for very long if there were plenty of things that needed blowing up. But if there were plenty of things that need blowing up, a single buff's FE wouldn't handle the hit.
Then again, a field with simple polygons and object density approaching that in the cities might do the trick.
I for one would get in a buff more often just for the joy of crushing mustangs on the ground.
-
IMHO, having aircraft on the ground brings one other element into the sim - the possibility of low level surprise strafing attacks on airfields similar to the 'rhubarbs' of WW2, or VF-17's 'Statue of Liberty' play.
Have available aircraft in revetments... doesn't matter if they are just generic aircraft shapes. These aircraft can be destroyed by strafing or bombing. No kills should be awarded for these aircraft (thereby avoiding the tendency for the furball to move to ground level to rack up quick kills). Once these generic aircraft are destroyed, the field is closed to air operations, unless other aircraft are ferried in.
Combine this with a 15-30 second ack delay for attacks below radar level and you're on to a good thing.
------------------
C.O. Phoenix Squadron
www.users.bigpond.com/afinlayson/index.htm
'feel the heat .......'
-
how about randomizing damage form bomb hits?
-
Mino
That's why HTC would make thick cloud layers over the base, making the 17s/26s have to come to a lower alt to bomb. Right HTC? :-))
Another thing mentioned here is don't make the bomb drops so accurate. Although the norden bombsight was pinpoint accurate, plenty of buffs missed their targets.
Case in point is Ploesti, B17 force #unknown, 136 B24s. 7-8 months earlier 177 B24s all missed target.
Well, actually it was smoke cover which kept them from being successful. :-(
Central
Dickweed FG
http://bombergroup.com (http://bombergroup.com)
-
You don't have to have many more polygons than you have now. Make one plane icon for each available type (representative of the variants later), or even just 4 generic planes (representative of aircraft strength of 25, 50, 75, and 100% strength). Knock those out and nothing launches. No magic C47 full of defending troops, no endless Spitfires. It really doesn't have to be too complicated.