Aces High Bulletin Board

General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: JMFJ on November 22, 2005, 02:23:47 PM

Title: Ground Vehicles
Post by: JMFJ on November 22, 2005, 02:23:47 PM
What is with the lack of GV's?  Is this because this game is mostly air combat sided or cause of lack of request/time from design crew.  With the T34 being virtually ineffective, it funnels everyone into the panzer(free)/tiger(should cost more perks) war.  Is this because these were the main GV's used in WWII, or just some unknown reason?  Sorry i'm not a WWII buff all I know is I love this game but there is some things that need to be expanded on (I know easier said than done).

It's very frustrating, I personally can make short work out of just about any small group of panzers (up to 6 with no risk) in one tiger, let alone if I have supplies they are way to powerfull.  I feel if they would add about 3 effective tanks (No more T34's) it would really level the playing field.  Which would in turn help expand the ground war, I think if the game involved the same concepts as the planes.  Example: Plane A has advantage over plane B which has advantage over plane C which has advantage over plane A concept, creating the circle effect.  Alot more people would enjoy that side of the game, rather than just go furball cause quote "GV's are boring and everyone drives the tigers and I don't have enough perks to drive tigers every sortie."  Imagine if all you could fly was 262, spit II, and mosquito.  Wouldn't have very diverse encounters would ya.

These are just opinions and views, and will be on my Christmas list for santa this year, along with ch pro usb foot pedals.

JMFJ
Title: Ground Vehicles
Post by: Slash27 on November 22, 2005, 02:50:49 PM
Man, you're gonna get flamed.


Short answer, its a flight sim. GVs are going to take a back seat to aircraft and game development right now. There are plenty of us who want more GVs and HTC knows it. All in due time.
Title: Ground Vehicles
Post by: Golfer on November 22, 2005, 02:51:09 PM
Well done on your first post...welcome to the club.

To understand where the focus of efforts of the development crew have been for the last years...take a look at the "Tour of Duty" aka TOD section.  They are developing a new addition to the game and are also devoting time to releasing new, improved verisons of and redesigning existing aircraft which will be featured in TOD.

At the moment development is and has been ongoing and been taking their time from adding new GVs which are not the focus of the game in the first place.

New vehicles and aircraft are introduced regularly, so keep looking for development updates and if you want to take these things up with HTC directly...

support@hitechcreations.com is their email.
Title: Ground Vehicles
Post by: SkyRock on November 22, 2005, 03:09:56 PM
JMFJ, it's good to see dweebs posting!  Keep up the good dweebery!
Title: Ground Vehicles
Post by: Hornet33 on November 22, 2005, 03:11:20 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Slash27
Man, you're gonna get flamed.


Short answer, its a flight sim. GVs are going to take a back seat to aircraft and game development right now. There are plenty of us who want more GVs and HTC knows it. All in due time.


Oh I don't know about it being a flight sim. The TV commercial I saw that got me interested, advertised the game as a comprehensive WWII combat simulation with fighters, bombers, tanks, and ships. Other than being a first person shooter it had everything.

I would never call this game a "flight simulator"
Title: Ground Vehicles
Post by: Zazen13 on November 22, 2005, 03:20:50 PM
This is a, does the dog wag the tail or the tail wag the dog debate. No offense to GV guys, ya'll are beautifull. But, all additions to the game beyond aircraft are merely to make the game more multi-dimensional and interesting. A big part of WW2 was the ground attack role of aircraft. GV's were added to a) act as AA b) act as an object for the affections of the many ground attack planes. Obviously GV's also fight each other, but that is incidental rather than the reason for their existence as is evidenced by the dubious modelling of the ground to ground dynamics in AH. GV's simply provide a potential for a combined arms approach to the strategic aspect of AH. Who knows what the future of AH holds but in this specialized niche market I would not presume to expect HTC to attempt to put serious coding effort into trying make AH more like WWII Online.

Zazen
Title: Ground Vehicles
Post by: Curval on November 22, 2005, 03:49:54 PM
There's ground vehicles in AH2?:eek:
Title: Ground Vehicles
Post by: JMFJ on November 22, 2005, 03:51:39 PM
Hornet: What do you mean i'm gonna get flamed?

Zazen: I follow in WWII that tank encounters were accidental rather than intentional.  That tank wars were rare, but I think that you'll find that records of planes furballing were even more rare, but that's what happens majority of the time in the game.  Given that the game is to be created off of actual realities of vehicles whether that be planes, bombers, gv's, or water craft.  The fact of the matter is the players aren't playing realisticly anyways.  HO's, furballs, tank town, etc...

So why not expand based on what the players like/want rather than "CONCEPTUAL" and "UNINFORCABLE" realities.  If you think they should stop expansion of tanks cause tank fighting was rare.  Then they should limit fuel and get rid of drop tanks to reduce the capabilities of furballing, cause that was even more rare?  This wouldn't make sense, because I too enjoy furballing.  Design around what players appreciate while keeping it within the boundaries of what was available not what actually happened/reasons of existence.

I don't totally understand your view to hold back something cause it doesn't interest you, I don't say they shouldn't of made the spitXVI and instead make a sherman tank, I say make both, or make the sherman next.

JMFJ
Title: Ground Vehicles
Post by: Mustaine on November 22, 2005, 04:09:24 PM
Quote
Originally posted by JMFJ
Hornet: What do you mean i'm gonna get flamed?
flamed means insulted and made fun of on a bulletin board.

the scarstic somments in this thread could be considered mild "flames"

it is just mostly chest puffing on the internet.
Title: Re: Ground Vehicles
Post by: Karnak on November 22, 2005, 04:15:16 PM
Quote
Originally posted by JMFJ
(No more T34's)

T-34/85 would be a great addition.  I still don't understand why they added the T-34/76 instead.
Title: Ground Vehicles
Post by: Furball on November 22, 2005, 04:21:54 PM
this is Aces High

not Aces Crawl Around in the Mud
Title: Ground Vehicles
Post by: Hornet33 on November 22, 2005, 04:37:09 PM
I didn't say you would be flamed. I was quoting anouther person who posted.
Title: Re: Ground Vehicles
Post by: viper215 on November 22, 2005, 04:45:21 PM
Quote
Originally posted by JMFJ
)/tiger(should cost more perks)
 





no way
Title: Ground Vehicles
Post by: Zazen13 on November 22, 2005, 04:52:26 PM
Quote
Originally posted by JMFJ
Hornet: What do you mean i'm gonna get flamed?

Zazen: I follow in WWII that tank encounters were accidental rather than intentional.  That tank wars were rare, but I think that you'll find that records of planes furballing were even more rare, but that's what happens majority of the time in the game.  Given that the game is to be created off of actual realities of vehicles whether that be planes, bombers, gv's, or water craft.  The fact of the matter is the players aren't playing realisticly anyways.  HO's, furballs, tank town, etc...

So why not expand based on what the players like/want rather than "CONCEPTUAL" and "UNINFORCABLE" realities.  If you think they should stop expansion of tanks cause tank fighting was rare.  Then they should limit fuel and get rid of drop tanks to reduce the capabilities of furballing, cause that was even more rare?  This wouldn't make sense, because I too enjoy furballing.  Design around what players appreciate while keeping it within the boundaries of what was available not what actually happened/reasons of existence.

I don't totally understand your view to hold back something cause it doesn't interest you, I don't say they shouldn't of made the spitXVI and instead make a sherman tank, I say make both, or make the sherman next.

JMFJ


I never said tank battles were rare in real life. My point was from a marketing and implimentation point-of-view. HTC could mess the game up trying to be too many things at once. The bread and butter of HTC and AH is and always has been Air Combat. There are games of a similiar nature that were designed from a concept stage to have a visceral ground combat experience, Aces High is not one of those. AH is and has always been from the concept stage to the present an Air Combat Game, drawing on WW2 combat aircraft for it's subject matter. GV's were added after the fact and in a fashion that was designed to compliment rather than be a wholesale replacement for the air combat aspect of gameplay.

While I agree in theory a game should be everything possible all the time HTC faces daunting constraints of design, coding, implimentation and balance factors that are very complex. To say simply adding more vehicles would make AH a compelling ground pounder game is niave. AH would need totally re-worked design concepts to have the ground war facet be anywhere close to the air war aspect in terms of playability and have any semblence of fidelity to realism. That is not to say this or something like this may not occur in the future of AH, but the implimentation will likely be a piece-meal, slow, and gradual process of product evolution if it does.

Zazen
Title: Ground Vehicles
Post by: JMFJ on November 22, 2005, 04:58:42 PM
Hornet: I follow that you weren't pointing at me just quoting it, I was just curious as to what slash meant by that.

The tiger is equal in advantage to the 262, it is so advantageous that if everyone could afford to drive them they would....all the time.  The reason the tiger is probably not perked so high, is that with the lack of vehicles it doesn't make sense.  But the fact that It can single handedly hold off a vehicle base, from any gv attacks seems overkill.  No tank should be able to hold off 4+ panzers in practical application.  So I guess I feel since it can, it shouldn't be so free to use.  Just like 262's cost so much it's rare to see them.

JMFJ
Title: Ground Vehicles
Post by: JMFJ on November 22, 2005, 05:17:57 PM
I realize that I am obviously the monority in my views so i'll keep my maw shut about it.  Bummer I thought there would be more support for GV's than what is responding.  Well I guess I'll just spend my efforts rather than posting on this subject, instead working on shooting down all of you guys who posted in disagreement with me. hehehehe

JMFJ
Title: Ground Vehicles
Post by: Karnak on November 22, 2005, 05:25:21 PM
New GVs will come, of that I have no doubt.  We need a Sherman and I recall Pyro saying that we'd see a T-34/85 whenever the Panther V gets added.  Remember, one of the biggest improvements going to AH2 from AH1 was to make the ground detail for GV fights much, much better.  I am sure they didn't do this with no intention to utilize it.

There is more to come for sure.
Title: Ground Vehicles
Post by: pdx22 on November 22, 2005, 05:41:37 PM
What about the Churchill?
Title: Ground Vehicles
Post by: Slash27 on November 22, 2005, 06:08:42 PM
Quote
Originally posted by JMFJ
I realize that I am obviously the monority in my views so i'll keep my maw shut about it.  Bummer I thought there would be more support for GV's than what is responding.  Well I guess I'll just spend my efforts rather than posting on this subject, instead working on shooting down all of you guys who posted in disagreement with me. hehehehe

JMFJ



Many people enjoy GVing who arent going post or dont bother with the boards.
Title: Re: Ground Vehicles
Post by: ace31st on November 22, 2005, 06:13:49 PM
Quote
Originally posted by JMFJ
It's very frustrating, I personally can make short work out of just about any small group of panzers (up to 6 with no risk) in one tiger, let alone if I have supplies they are way to powerfull.



Wow, im in envy of a guy thats probably played this game for 1 week.
Title: Ground Vehicles
Post by: jaxxo on November 22, 2005, 07:51:56 PM
" i'll keep my maw shut about it" I knew it a MAW shades account trolling on BBS! Nice slip up :rolleyes:

Just kiddin bud..Welcome
Title: Ground Vehicles
Post by: MOIL on November 23, 2005, 03:51:27 AM
Quote
Originally posted by Furball
this is Aces High

not Aces Crawl Around in the Mud

Which is a name not a description
Title: Ground Vehicles
Post by: Larry on November 23, 2005, 05:53:42 AM
You want a ground war try WWII online you wanna fly a plane play AH.
Title: Ground Vehicles
Post by: Hornet33 on November 23, 2005, 11:36:38 AM
Whats wrong with being able to do both at the same time?? I'm a hard core flight sim guy. Started out with Falcon 1.0 and the original MS Flight Simulator, and I have played most "flight sim" games since then. I also have played most tank sims out there. This game got me hooked BECAUSE it has both. I can fly a fighter or bomber or go drive around in a tank in the same game. It's great. So bring on more GV's
Title: Ground Vehicles
Post by: uberhun on November 23, 2005, 12:04:18 PM
Gv's are an important component of this sim. It is a necessary evil, for the overall immersion qualities this game has. Hence base taking, suppresion, and defence. Is it a primary flight sim? Yes. But, it is also a WWII based game that has all the primary vehical components. I think in time we will see more gv's coming into play from a development stand point. I got on because of the fact that WWII online did not have aircraft and it was not a first person based sim. All you dedicated ground guys don't worry HTC has all in mind in development thats what make this game as enjoyable as it can be!:aok
Title: Ground Vehicles
Post by: JMFJ on November 23, 2005, 01:08:01 PM
Larry: No offense intended, just being forthright.  I wish you and some of the other posters who are going to extremes with your posts would read what I suggested in my previous posts before you respond.

At no point in any of my posts did I say I want to transform aces high into a gv focused game.  I as much as anyone love that the planes are the focus, and respect that the gv's, bombers, field guns, cv, & boats are secondary.  I said I wish they would add 3 tanks to the game not 20, to help create some diversity.  So your not getting the same repeat battles over and over, so there is not such a jump in effectiveness between the two main vehicles being driven panzer & tiger.

I'm just trying to open discussion over possitive growth in the game, positive growth for all aspects of the game.  I find it frustrating that some of you want to hold back the growth of the game.

Thank you uberhun for the inside scoop, that was the answer I was fishing for.

ace31st:  Take note I'm not bragging I'm stating my experiences I realize that I spend more time in GV's than most.  Compared to some I am a newbie (been flyin just over a year), I'm average in my fighters at best.  But I think you will find in open GV battle I can hold my own against just about anyone in the game including awsomo, frylock, cyclic, Shawk, simjoace, etc......  Most of these top GV'rs drive tigers exclusive, and that is how they pad there score to stay on top of rank lists.  If you looked at my stats/ei stats in the scores board you will see that in the past 3 months I've ranked in the top 15, which i'm sure i'll do this month too (I had to stagger my time with elk an deer hunting in aug & sept).  If you were to spend some time further investigating, you would find that 95% of my kills aquired are in a panzer not a tiger.  Show me another top 10 ranked GV'r that can say the same.  It wasn't until this month that I started driving the tiger regulary.  Reason being that it is hard to out rank someone in kills per hour when they're in a tiger and your in a panzer 95% of the time.  So if people are going to cheesball in tigers every sortie then so am I.

JMFJ
Title: Ground Vehicles
Post by: SkyRock on November 24, 2005, 10:11:53 AM
Quote
Originally posted by JMFJ
Hornet: I follow that you weren't pointing at me just quoting it, I was just curious as to what slash meant by that.

The tiger is equal in advantage to the 262, it is so advantageous that if everyone could afford to drive them they would....all the time.  The reason the tiger is probably not perked so high, is that with the lack of vehicles it doesn't make sense.  But the fact that It can single handedly hold off a vehicle base, from any gv attacks seems overkill.  No tank should be able to hold off 4+ panzers in practical application.  So I guess I feel since it can, it shouldn't be so free to use.  Just like 262's cost so much it's rare to see them.

JMFJ

Of course, history didn't allow a tiger to fight a panzer, unless captured ones were used, but a single Tiger alone was used many times late in the war to defend an entire area.  If it was strategically placed, it was very effective in holding off many tanks at once.  Lets say if it was placed where no hits could be marked on its vulnerable spts, then it sat there and could take many, many hits before being disabled.  It was very well armored and the big gun didnt play!
Title: Ground Vehicles
Post by: Masherbrum on November 24, 2005, 11:42:24 AM
Aces High is NOT a Flight Sim, it is a WWII Combat Sim.  Well, according to Dale anyways.  I'll stick with the Developer of the game.

Karaya
Title: Ground Vehicles
Post by: BlueJ1 on November 24, 2005, 11:54:10 AM
Quote
Originally posted by Slash27
Many people enjoy GVing who arent going post or dont bother with the boards.


Exactly. We all have fought the good fight, and most of us have realizedour wants are on the back burner. So we will just sit back and relax and wait.
Title: Ground Vehicles
Post by: Lye-El on November 24, 2005, 02:15:10 PM
Quote
Originally posted by BlueJ1
Exactly. We all have fought the good fight, and most of us have realizedour wants are on the back burner. So we will just sit back and relax and wait.


Well, wait anyway. ;)
Title: Ground Vehicles
Post by: Furball on November 24, 2005, 02:30:36 PM
YES!!!!!!!!

we need more GV's for Tour of Duty!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

We cant have a Tour of Duty combat sim aimed at the 8th Air Force over western Europe in 1943 WITHOUT GVS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

we MUST have a japanese tank and more russian tanks to make this work!!!!!!!!!!
Title: Ground Vehicles
Post by: Schatzi on November 24, 2005, 02:36:43 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Furball
YES!!!!!!!!

we need more GV's for Tour of Duty!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

We cant have a Tour of Duty combat sim aimed at the 8th Air Force over western Europe in 1943 WITHOUT GVS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

we MUST have a japanese tank and more russian tanks to make this work!!!!!!!!!!


Furball, dear, .... are you feeling well? :D
Title: Ground Vehicles
Post by: Furball on November 24, 2005, 04:38:36 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Schatzi
Furball, dear, .... are you feeling well? :D


just fine :D
Title: Ground Vehicles
Post by: MOIL on November 24, 2005, 08:50:45 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Furball
YES!!!!!!!!

we need more GV's for Tour of Duty!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

We cant have a Tour of Duty combat sim aimed at the 8th Air Force over western Europe in 1943 WITHOUT GVS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

we MUST have a japanese tank and more russian tanks to make this work!!!!!!!!!!

I would have to disagree, although would be nice.

YES (as you state) we should just have tons and tons of fighters to furball over some make believe target.
Of course all the Festers, AKAK's, kappa's, Savage's, Furball's, Stangs, Shawks and many,many other ace pilots will pretty much destroy anyone that gets within striking distance, but this all sounds fun.
Title: Ground Vehicles
Post by: DoKGonZo on November 25, 2005, 02:18:13 AM
Quote
Originally posted by Masherbrum
Aces High is NOT a Flight Sim, it is a WWII Combat Sim.  Well, according to Dale anyways.  I'll stick with the Developer of the game.


Then they better fire whoever named the game.
Title: Ground Vehicles
Post by: MOIL on November 25, 2005, 04:58:36 AM
"Then they better fire whoever named the game."


It's just that, a NAME, not a description
Title: Ground Vehicles
Post by: Furball on November 25, 2005, 10:46:49 AM
Quote
Originally posted by MOIL

YES (as you state) we should just have tons and tons of fighters to furball over some make believe target.


when did i say that?
Title: Ground Vehicles
Post by: Max on November 25, 2005, 11:44:50 AM
JMFJ, welcome to Aces High and the HTC UBB!

The GV v AC debate has been going on since day one.

 Keep in mind a couple of things, Hitech, Pyro (HTC) and a lot of the folks here all date back to Air Warrior, which began as a DOS air sim back in the days when 9600 baud was lightening fast speed. While AW went on to incorporate GV's  into the scheme of things, 99% of the players were in planes.

At which point HT launched HTC and AH went open beta,  there was a "ground/mud" market emerging from the WW2OL sim. Although the majority then and now, of HTC subscribers prefer air combat, ground and naval artillary were brought into the game. The AC/GV balance will probably shift somewhat once Tour of Duty goes live. Until then, keep in mind that HTC is a very small company with limited resources which has managed to create and sustain a top notch product at a very reasonable rate.
Title: Ground Vehicles
Post by: DoKGonZo on November 25, 2005, 01:45:46 PM
Quote
Originally posted by MOIL
"Then they better fire whoever named the game."


It's just that, a NAME, not a description


Wow. Do you work in the press office of the White House?
Title: Ground Vehicles
Post by: hubsonfire on November 25, 2005, 07:28:28 PM
GVs are an afterthought. Amusing, but an afterthought nonetheless.
Title: Ground Vehicles
Post by: storch on November 26, 2005, 03:39:53 AM
Quote
Originally posted by DoKGonZo
Wow. Do you work in the press office of the White House?
actually he works in back at a chinese laundry in san francisco.
Title: Ground Vehicles
Post by: EN4CER on November 26, 2005, 10:33:15 AM
Patience young padawan. More GVs will come. I anxiously await the arrival of the M4A3 Sherman and the Jagdpanzer IV as do others. Would be nice too if HiTech added M26 Pershing to counter Tiger. Youll be surprised how many squads now participate and rely on GV tactics to capture bases LTARs, SEs, Dirty 30, and of course DEA. Despite its name the game format to me has always been a WWII combat simulator Air, Land, and Sea. Theres more to the ground game now then the average player realizes. Funny, I never hear the Ground Pounders picking on the Flyboys its always the other way around.

Gateway 700 Series Desktop Loaded - $2,750
Optonline Account - $40 a Month
CH Products Joystick - $105
CH Products Throttle - $105
Aces High Account - $15 a Month
Putting a 75mm round (with your Panzer) in the cockpit of some fighter jock that just tried to bomb you and watching him cry on 200 Channel PRICELESS.

Anyways welcome to the forum JMFJ.
Title: Ground Vehicles
Post by: MOIL on November 26, 2005, 05:31:37 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Furball
when did i say that?


Just commenting on the "YES" part of the post. Not so much the amount of planes, sorry should have clarified.:o
Title: Ground Vehicles
Post by: MOIL on November 26, 2005, 05:38:11 PM
Quote
Originally posted by DoKGonZo
Wow. Do you work in the press office of the White House?

Funny how you can go buy or download IL2 Sturmovik and Oh, WAIT, the NAME of the game is IL2 Sturmovik, but yet there are numourus different kinds of planes in the game & GV's  Not just IL2's.........  hhhhhmmmmmmm
Title: Ground Vehicles
Post by: DoKGonZo on November 26, 2005, 07:10:37 PM
Quote
Originally posted by MOIL
Funny how you can go buy or download IL2 Sturmovik and Oh, WAIT, the NAME of the game is IL2 Sturmovik, but yet there are numourus different kinds of planes in the game & GV's  Not just IL2's.........  hhhhhmmmmmmm


Your brilliance leaves me speachless.
Title: Ground Vehicles
Post by: Masherbrum on November 26, 2005, 08:54:00 PM
Quote
Originally posted by DoKGonZo
Your brilliance leaves me speachless.


Your lack of humor and sarcasm leaves myself speechless.  

Karaya
Title: Ground Vehicles
Post by: viper215 on November 27, 2005, 12:04:59 AM
he he he
Title: Ground Vehicles
Post by: Furball on November 27, 2005, 03:44:40 AM
(http://www.checkpoint-online.ch/CheckPoint/Images/Challenger2.jpg)
Title: Ground Vehicles
Post by: mussie on November 27, 2005, 05:15:12 AM
Nice tank fuby, but I thought you were anti GV...?

I think that GV's play an important roll here at least to HTC... Have you looked at the number of panzers in the tour stats.


[B]TOP 10 Models By Number Of Kills[/B]

Model Kills Deaths Kills / Deaths + 1
Panzer IV H 73037 76474 1.0
La-7 31224 26245 1.2
Ship Gunner 27118 93 288.5
N1K2 25617 22506 1.1
Ostwind 23800 13866 1.7
Spitfire Mk V 20464 21373 1.0
Tiger I 18667 3248 5.7
Typhoon IB 17487 11855 1.5
P-51D 16742 17356 1.0
SeaFire 16215 15374 1.1


OK so it does not show how many were actually used and it could be a poor statistic to base the assumption on but .

The panzer got 2.3 times the number of kills the LA got....  and there are a hell of a lot of LA's in there so there must be quite a few panzers

I dont think  AH would have the same Player base with out the GV's...

Thats just my opinion though

Title: Ground Vehicles
Post by: Furball on November 27, 2005, 05:57:44 AM
Quote
Originally posted by mussie
Nice tank fuby, but I thought you were anti GV...?


to be perfectly honest, i dont really care.  i just like having fun in these threads :)
Title: Ground Vehicles
Post by: MOIL on November 27, 2005, 06:23:45 PM
Quote
Originally posted by DoKGonZo
Your brilliance leaves me speachless.

as does your ignorance
Title: Ground Vehicles
Post by: DoKGonZo on November 27, 2005, 07:30:35 PM
Quote
Originally posted by MOIL
as does your ignorance


1) If you went to CompUSA or wherever and saw a game called "Aces High" what would you expect it to be about? Maybe AH has evolved into air-sea-land, but it's brand identity - as defined by its name, logo, and artwork - is 100% air warfare.

2) From the HTC website, Game Features page: " Aces High II is a massive multi-player online combat simulation centered around the World War II air-war."

I may be many things, ignorant is not one of them.

    -DoK
Title: Ground Vehicles
Post by: MOIL on November 28, 2005, 01:24:16 AM
Gonzo:
"If you went to CompUSA or wherever and saw a game called "Aces High" what would you expect it to be about? Maybe AH has evolved into air-sea-land, but it's brand identity - as defined by its name, logo, and artwork - is 100% air warfare"

OR

I like some people (not all) will read the box and see that it states: "Aces High II is a massive multi-player online combat simulation centered around the World War II air-war."

Not: massive multi-player online aircraft dogfight simulation

Again, if using your analogy, I am to believe IL2 (because that's the name of the sim) is going to be all about flying IL2's ?

Weather anyone thinks so or not, HTC's did not change the ground aspect of the game just because they were bored. The ground game is not only important, but helps insure variety for all types of players.
I honestly believe if AH were ONLY fighters flying around dogfighting all day a lot of people would move to another sim or not sign up at all.

This genre of game is already very difficult to attract players, let alone allowing only big furballs to take place 24/7 ?  How boring do you think that'd get before people started looking elsewhere?
Current US population is 297,757,606 (that's just USA alone) and the most we can get in the MA at any one time is 4-500 people ?
I got more people than that on my block!

Do I want to see AH fail?  HELL NO, I want it to be the next biggest thing to sliced bread. All the more reason to have lots of variety and things to do.

My 2 cents
Title: Ground Vehicles
Post by: DoKGonZo on November 28, 2005, 01:56:27 AM
Quote
Originally posted by MOIL
...
Do I want to see AH fail?  HELL NO, I want it to be the next biggest thing to sliced bread. All the more reason to have lots of variety and things to do.
...


I agree. I spend time in ship guns, GV's, Sturmi's, just about everything.

Note that "combat simulation" is a general term. Some marriages I've seen are combat simulations too.

But from a product branding standpoint, regardless of what the game has become, it's message is one of air combat. Look at the logo, the web site, and just the name.

And it does set levels of expectation. A game called "Aces High" or "WarBirds" one expects to have a high fidelity of aircraft simulation, and of everything else not so much. Likewise a lot of variety in aircraft and of everything else not so much. A game called "World War II Online" one expects equal treatment for all three branches of service.

And that was all I was saying, really.

Could AH become a more comprehensive WW2 simulation? Sure - eventually - all the core mechanics seem to be there. There are bigger gameplay issues, of course.
Title: Ground Vehicles
Post by: MOIL on November 28, 2005, 11:11:45 PM
Point made, point taken

I'll just hope that the AH we have all come to enjoy continues to grow in more ways than one.
Title: Ground Vehicles
Post by: BALSUR on November 29, 2005, 01:21:46 AM
ANy idea what it would be like if they had the Konigs tiger in the game? Dang thing is instoppable. My only complaint is the bombing of tanks.  General purpose bombs accounted for less than 2% of german armor destroyed and rockets were even less. Most of the crews ran away when they had mechanical failure or ran out of ammo or fuel. Many book authors found that stats were often exaggerated to reduce the "tiger phobia" that the allies faced. Truth of the matter is not much could hurt the tiger but attrition.
Title: Ground Vehicles
Post by: JMFJ on November 29, 2005, 11:59:42 AM
I emailed skuzzy, his reply was "as soon as the tour of duty is done.  There will be an addition to the GV's".

So to all you furballers who love to post unthought out responses, Such as read the name of the game, and it's not called aces high crawl around in the mud.

Better start learnin to drive them cause you gonna be dealin with more of em.  Those who resist will be left in the dust, the smart players will become proficient in both.

In all of history what war was ever won with out the aid of ground support?

In AH2 air war will beat the enemy into submission until you run out of gas, but ground support will take it, hold it, and eventually make ours.  I guarantee more bases are taken with m3's than c47's.  Hmmmmmm...... I wonder why cause in concept you can fly a c47 to any base you don't always have a spawn for an m3......, things that make you go hmmmmmm.


JMFJ
Title: Ground Vehicles
Post by: Furball on November 29, 2005, 01:34:48 PM
Quote
Originally posted by JMFJ

In all of history what war was ever won with out the aid of ground support?
 


bit of a ridiculous question since powered flight has only been available for just over 100 years.
Title: Ground Vehicles
Post by: Eden on November 29, 2005, 01:52:10 PM
Here is the solution

The A-40 KT


(http://img211.imageshack.us/img211/1520/a402lp.jpg) (http://imageshack.us)

(http://img211.imageshack.us/img211/1096/a4029az.th.jpg) (http://img211.imageshack.us/my.php?image=a4029az.jpg)


Aircraft History and Specification
 
In 1932, the Soviet high command requested many new concepts of the airborne warfare for aerial close-support to the army. That was included dropping an armored vehicle from the sky to support the parachute troops. The original concept was converting the 32 tons tank, T-34 into a glider and towed by a pair of Ant-20bis as tugs. In 1939, Soviet airborne force considered to try the light-weighted tank, T-60 for the experiment, and selected Antonov OKB for the glider design. The prototype was started in 1941, and was given designation A-40, KT which meant "Kryl'ya Tanka" (winged tank). The tank was lightened for flight test by removing the armament, the signal light and the tracks fenders. The first and only flight was made by tow from TB-3 in 1942. The test was judged successful with smooth landing, but the test pilot (who also performed as the tank driver) doubted that it would be lack of control if fly by the full loaded tank. As the real need was to fly in the heavier T-34, and also due to the shortage of the tow aircraft, the KT project was cancelled.
 
 Type:Experimental flying tank glider

Purpose:To explore to fly the loaded tank and down at battlefield
     
Span: 18m.

Length: 12m.

Height: 3.8m.

Engine: None

Max.speed: 75 mph (towing speed)

Crew: 1 (Test pilot)

Armament: 1x 20mm TNSH cannon
1x 7.62mm TD machine-gun

@
Title: Ground Vehicles
Post by: Stang on November 29, 2005, 01:54:35 PM
Quote
Originally posted by JMFJ
Better start learnin to drive them cause you gonna be dealin with more of em.  Those who resist will be left in the dust, the smart players will become proficient in both.
Maybe I'll just "learn" how to do the on the deck Lancaster drop every bomb I have on one GV and pull up bit.  I see it quite bit, seems very effective.
Title: Ground Vehicles
Post by: JMFJ on November 29, 2005, 02:19:08 PM
Furball: Alright what war was won in the last 100 years without ground support Ooooooh.....LOL.  So there can't be any confusion, WON=meaning controlling the territory in full.

Stang: Don't fly to low, or I'll have to show you this cool trick I learned in my ostwind.  It involves my cannons and your lancasters wings falling off hehehehe.  I call it "My Stang Wing Fell Off"

I don't know what's better looking forward to the new addition of gv's, or reading the furballers posts squirming over the subject.

JMFJ
Title: Ground Vehicles
Post by: BlueJ1 on November 29, 2005, 02:22:18 PM
rabble rabble rabble!!!
Title: Ground Vehicles
Post by: Dead Man Flying on November 29, 2005, 02:26:33 PM
JMFJ has sold me.  Since AH is all about actual war, and since it simulates actual war with incredible fidelity, I believe that the focus should turn to the actual heroes of modern-era combat: ground vehicles and good old GI Joe himself.  Thank you for opening my eyes, JMFJ!  For the first time in my life, I can clearly see that air combat takes second fiddle to actual, honest to God boots on the ground in a game called Aces High.

-- Todd/Leviathn
Title: Ground Vehicles
Post by: Shane on November 29, 2005, 02:28:34 PM
shaddap!  you can still have fun blowing stuff up!!
Title: Ground Vehicles
Post by: Karnak on November 29, 2005, 02:30:39 PM
Quote
Originally posted by JMFJ
I don't know what's better looking forward to the new addition of gv's, or reading the furballers posts squirming over the subject.

:lol
I'd be counted as a "furballer", but I still want to see more GVs.  Labels are a silly thing.
Title: Ground Vehicles
Post by: JMFJ on November 29, 2005, 03:07:49 PM
Sweet.....I've turned leviathn it's only a matter of time before the dark side over whelms you all muuuuhhhhhhaaaaaahhhhhaaaaaa.  That was much easier than I thought it would be to capture the furball King.  Now it's only a matter time for the rest of you.

Come on now leviathn (read my posts) I never said that gv's should take the spot light.  I just wanted some more vehicles as options to level the playing field on the ground, nothing more nothing less.  Since the anti's (I stopped using furballers) don't participate in the gv's anyways then why do you and the other obvious anti's care whether they add a gv or not?

I wonder.............Hmmmmmmmmm m............Maybe it's cause these anti's are afraid that their edge/status in the game won't be as effective as it once was.  Just cause you learned how to be a top ace doesn't mean you get to quit learning, growing with the game is one of the features that makes AH2 unique.  Even if they added 20 gv's tomarrow you think the furballing will cease to exist, highly unlikely.  I still believe that no matter how many gv's are included in the game the planes will still be the most used and probably appreciated.

JMFJ
Title: Ground Vehicles
Post by: Dead Man Flying on November 29, 2005, 03:09:26 PM
I have no problems at all with adding more ground vehicles.  In fact, I think adding more is a great idea.  I think most people would agree even if they don't use them very much.

-- Todd/Leviathn
Title: Ground Vehicles
Post by: Guppy35 on November 29, 2005, 03:16:26 PM
Quote
Originally posted by mussie
Nice tank fuby, but I thought you were anti GV...?

I think that GV's play an important roll here at least to HTC... Have you looked at the number of panzers in the tour stats.


[B]TOP 10 Models By Number Of Kills[/B]

Model Kills Deaths Kills / Deaths + 1
Panzer IV H 73037 76474 1.0
La-7 31224 26245 1.2
Ship Gunner 27118 93 288.5
N1K2 25617 22506 1.1
Ostwind 23800 13866 1.7
Spitfire Mk V 20464 21373 1.0
Tiger I 18667 3248 5.7
Typhoon IB 17487 11855 1.5
P-51D 16742 17356 1.0
SeaFire 16215 15374 1.1


OK so it does not show how many were actually used and it could be a poor statistic to base the assumption on but .

The panzer got 2.3 times the number of kills the LA got....  and there are a hell of a lot of LA's in there so there must be quite a few panzers

I dont think  AH would have the same Player base with out the GV's...

Thats just my opinion though

[/B]


Perk the Ship gunner!