Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: whels on March 28, 2004, 10:28:59 AM
-
Right now there is no real reason to take a medium or large base
over a small base, xcept for maybe spawn points for GVs. I propose to change planes available at bases based on size of field
Small(reprecents frontline base nearest battle)
Fighters: all xcept 262
Bombers: Buffs like A20, mossi, TBM, Kate , no medium or large buffs.
Medium field (2ndary front line)
Fighters: all
Bombers: all xcept hvy(17s Lancs)
Large. all planes available.
closer u get to your HQ the more Med n Larg fields you have.
when map is reset new, front lines are all small fields, with 1 or 2 medium fields within 40 miles of front lines, with 1 or 2 large near them.
this layout makes which base u take more important. do u take
another small fighter only field or do u go for the near medium field to get bigger Buffs. could be tacticly important to your fight.
the field size can be more med n larg as u go deeper into enemy
land.
whels
-
I agree with all of this. It would certainly add to the realism. Most bombers during the war had to take off from paved runways due to the sheer weight of the fully loaded planes. And if it rained.. studmuffineddaboutit.
While fighters were light enough that they could take off from just about any semi smooth surface.
Problem is this was simlilarly tried in AW and eventually changed cause too many people where whining that they couldnt take bombers off from a dirt (small feild) runway.
In the end people dont really want realism. They want conveiniance :rolleyes:
Originally posted by whels
Right now there is no real reason to take a medium or large base
over a small base, xcept for maybe spawn points for GVs. I propose to change planes available at bases based on size of field
Small(reprecents frontline base nearest battle)
Fighters: all xcept 262
Bombers: Buffs like A20, mossi, TBM, Kate , no medium or large buffs.
Medium field (2ndary front line)
Fighters: all
Bombers: all xcept hvy(17s Lancs)
Large. all planes available.
closer u get to your HQ the more Med n Larg fields you have.
when map is reset new, front lines are all small fields, with 1 or 2 medium fields within 40 miles of front lines, with 1 or 2 large near them.
this layout makes which base u take more important. do u take
another small fighter only field or do u go for the near medium field to get bigger Buffs. could be tacticly important to your fight.
the field size can be more med n larg as u go deeper into enemy
land.
whels
-
one thing that would be real cool. but we will probably never see.
Is if as you say front line bases be small bases but have these bases eventually become larger bases based on how long the current country held them. Say a full day/night or I should say Dusk/dawn cycle for each upgrade.
say after 1 cycle a small feild becomes a Med feild. after two it becomes a large feild.
If a base is totally porked it would revert it back to the lowest grade of being a small feild. If all FH are destroyed it becomes a Med feild. or something along those lines
This would simulate improvements and degradations made to a feild over a period of time due to building or being under constant attack.
I know it'll never happen. But its a thought
-
RAF/USAAF airfield layouts during WW2 were usually like this:
Single runway (small base) = Fighters only
Two runway (medium base) = Fighters & Light bombers
Three runway (large base) = Heavy bombers etc.
-
Drediock, no offense, but that is a bad idea.
As it is right now, suicide porkers can completely screw up what's available at a base for a short period of time. Add in your idea and suicide porkers can screw up a base permanently for a few days. That would not be good.
However, change the time to 2 days till a base evolves, and make it so that it can't devolve back down, it would be a great idea.
However, porkers will still be able to limit the usage at a field severely just like they can now.
-
restrict buff pilots .. not a good idea.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Drediock, no offense, but that is a bad idea.
As it is right now, suicide porkers can completely screw up what's available at a base for a short period of time. Add in your idea and suicide porkers can screw up a base permanently for a few days. That would not be good.
However, change the time to 2 days till a base evolves, and make it so that it can't devolve back down, it would be a great idea.
However, porkers will still be able to limit the usage at a field severely just like they can now.
Never said I wasnt flexable with the idea :)
Thing is if the porkers pork it they also destroy its use for them also if they take it. Tis would provide less incentive for a country to kill off the hangars when going for base capture.
And I didnt mean real time days I ment AH days or the current dusk/dawn cycles inasmuch as we no longer have a night
-
I actually like this idea due to it's realitic nature. Another thing if you wanna keep those porkers out make ack lethal at anything below say 5k or so. Force the Jabo pilots to learn higher alt drops if they wanna pork a base. No racing through at minimal alts with little to no damage.
It'd be nice to have different AAA at the fields so you could somewhat control the crazy jabo/low level bombers. Make it so there is coverage of a wider spectrum of altitudes. Yes this forces game play to an extent but it would make it more realistic. It's a bit unrealistic to allow them to cruise across the field and cause extensive damage and only have them maybe lose one drone if that.
-
all these ideas are good and would perhaps make the sides work togeather a bit more.Varying the ack its places and amount would also help as well as the positin of the hangers.
I think changes are need and can be done on new maps a little at a time
-
Problem is guys, the vets of WWII had thier whole lives to fight the war. We ar playing a game when we can spare the time from our whole lives. Thus making things realistic and playable are two different things.
-
Originally posted by mars01
Problem is guys, the vets of WWII had thier whole lives to fight the war. We ar playing a game when we can spare the time from out whole lives. Thus making things realistic and playable are two different things.
Bingo;)
-
Originally posted by MoRphEuS
Bingo;)
but when they died they didnt reup or get to log in another day.
bases would be spaced for meduim n large so that u would be
close to frontline action, but not THE frontline, unless u lose
bases.
but we need a reason to take a specific base other then what
GV spawns it has.
whels
-
Originally posted by mars01
Problem is guys, the vets of WWII had thier whole lives to fight the war. We ar playing a game when we can spare the time from our whole lives. Thus making things realistic and playable are two different things.
LOL and their whole lives often equated to what? 3 missions.
This would be no worse then loosing Dar as we have it now and most bombers take off from at least two bases back anyway. Well those that are smart do. lol
And it would be a tough job for even the hoard warriors to reduce ALL the bases in a two base radius.
But really we're talking hypothetically.
Nice and fun to talk about but I highly doubt we will ever see.
-
Originally posted by whels
Bombers: Buffs like A20, mossi, TBM, Kate , no medium or large buffs.
Reapeat after me:
The Mossie is a fighter.
The Mossie is a fighter.
The Mossie is a fighter.
The Mossie is a fighter.
The Mossie is a fighter.
The Mossie is a fighter.
The Mossie is a fighter.
The Mossie is a fighter.
The Mossie is a fighter.
Dammit.
-
I like the idea of limiting buffs to larger fields. Also how about a fourth type of field, a forward airstrip? This would have no aircraft hangars, just a short grass/dirt strip, some AAs, a reload pad and maybe a VH.
Also as has been said before, make the AAs much harder to strafe.
-
Originally posted by Greebo
I like the idea of limiting buffs to larger fields. Also how about a fourth type of field, a forward airstrip? This would have no aircraft hangars, just a short grass/dirt strip, some AAs, a reload pad and maybe a VH.
Also as has been said before, make the AAs much harder to strafe.
Good idea Greebo. In Britain during WW2 they'd have Relief Landing Grounds and alternate dispersed airfields to the main field so that they could land if their airfield was bombed. This also allowed aircraft to refuel and take off if necessary. A compromise could be that the forward airfields have one grass strip like how you describe. Of course they'd have to be the ability to disable flight or limit the aircraft available there (perhaps something like only 4 or 5 types of aircraft, all low perk aircraft, e.g. P40B, Spit I/Hurri IID, 109E, A6M2, 202 etc). Alternatively, and I don't know how you could implement this, limit each pilot to choose only one aircraft from that field during XX time period.
-
Sorry, I didn't make myself clear. My idea was for NO aircraft to be available at the field. Planes would have to take off from a nearby field but could use it as a refuelling/rearming point.
One or two guys could defend it and use the pad to top up during lulls. Alternatively a low level sneak mission might take it relatively easily and use the pad to press on into enemy territory.
-
LOL you guys:rolleyes:
My point was, most of us cant dedicate our lives to playing a game. If you think in terms of real war you are limiting the game for guys that can only log on for a few hours here and there and just want to fight.
There needs to be a balance between the two.
-
I like th e forward air strip idea. But don't scatter them so much they are just alert beacons. Use them in conjunction with zone bases. They are available to the country that controls that zone.
No flashing, no planes, no gvs. Just make it a place to land wounded planes with a rearm pad. Don't make it something that can be captured and try to kep all of them outside any radar rings.
I think that is an excellent idea myself.:aok
Moto61
-
Originally posted by moto61
I like th e forward air strip idea. But don't scatter them so much they are just alert beacons. Use them in conjunction with zone bases. They are available to the country that controls that zone.
No flashing, no planes, no gvs. Just make it a place to land wounded planes with a rearm pad. Don't make it something that can be captured and try to kep all of them outside any radar rings.
I think that is an excellent idea myself.:aok
Moto61
how about a C47 cargo called forward armpad.
C47 drops or lands and lets it out and it makes
a 30 mins duration forward rearm pad or even 15 mins.
-
The more you think on this whels the more interesting the idea develops. I like the C47 idea maybe drop field suppilies for ammo rearm and Field cargo would supply fuel fuel. I think 15 minutes is too short though. Why not an hour?
Use the cargo like the GVs do. 1 box per plane and it will only reload the ammo.
To recieve fuel it would take field cargo. Each box of cargo would bring the level up 25% and maybe even put a 50% cap on these rearm pads for fuel. :aok
moto61 :rolleyes: :lol
-
I think 15 minutes is too short though. Why not an hour?
This is why NOT!
the vets of WWII had thier whole lives to fight the war. We ar playing a game when we can spare the time from our whole lives. Thus making things realistic and playable are two different things.
-
Ok thats one point of view.
I don;t really get the equation of WWII vets in the mix but it probably make sense to you. After all it only a game right Jeffer.
Moto61:D
-
I don;t really get the equation of WWII vets in the mix but it probably make sense to you
Ask HiTech how he feel about playability and realism...
Im sure he's feelings won't be much further off. Tho I will remain firm on this point regardless.
Whats so difficult to understand about what Mars said?
There is a HUGE difference between real life and playing a game. This is meant to be something that is enjoyed. How enjoyable would it become to play if we had to wait hours on end for fuel?
THE SIMPLE fact remains (which is the point Mars01 was trying to make) people (most anyways) do not have hours upon hours to play. Sometimes there's only enough time for one or maybe two sorties.
-
Ok I see the point you are making now. Maybe I couldn't see the forest for the trees or I was just on a different wave length. Anyway that is a valid point and as such surely should be considered but, there is also an element even if not as large as those who play strictly for kills still view the game as a game of strategy and one that is played to be won but, this is getting off on another tangent.
It is not really worth a lengthy discussion about how we each view the game. I guess the point is I do like Whels idea and not because it is supposed to bring realism. I like it because it is another element that might help in base captures or landing a wounded pilot or plane. I'm guessng it would probably be fairly simple to do just put a VH field out minus the hangar. We can already land at VHs. Just replace the hangars with the rearm pad. And make them visible only to friendly countries like CVs are.
Moto61
:)
-
Seems to me that historically air fields were
short grass/earth (could be a GV field with an ac spawn point )
medium length "metalled"
or long for big heavy bombers.
Some ac were not suited to short or grass/earth fields
These could be modelled regardless of how many runways are in use at any field............
re forward fields are they not really just vehicle supplies dropped on flat grass land where landed AC can pick them up
-
so let me get this right
you want to restrict buff pliots
and turn this game more into a fighter pliots game or a furballers game
the idea sounds good at first but all your doing is making it harder for the few buff pliots that fly and making the MAIN more of a furballer place
very simple throw this idea under the bed till we see alot more bombers
and if you want historical then better put the night back in before this idea
-
Originally posted by simshell
so let me get this right
you want to restrict buff pliots
and turn this game more into a fighter pliots game or a furballers game
the idea sounds good at first but all your doing is making it harder for the few buff pliots that fly and making the MAIN more of a furballer place
very simple throw this idea under the bed till we see alot more bombers
and if you want historical then better put the night back in before this idea
oMG you would have to fly 5 or 10 miles more. THE EARTH IS COMING TO AN END !
if u cant afford 10 mins flight time , then u shouldnt be logged in
to start with.
lol Buffers are funny, most suicide bomb @ 50 feet cause the wont bother to learn how to calibrate, so they game it.
inconvience? lol how about us fighters haveing to up 3 sectors
from front lines cause u buff gamers suicide fuel at nearby bases.