Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: Mustaine on April 14, 2006, 09:30:46 AM
-
i posted the original quick mock-up here:
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=175156
after some comments and suggestions i have revised it to this current state.
here is a pic of the basic layout. taking a queue from HiTech's posts about attack points, i tried to spread them out. there are 3 main attack points to each country, 1 "furball" area, 1 mid alt area, and 1 high alt area.
the same rules of the map apply. the colors are each countries home territory. the darkest color represents a terrain that is mostly low lying, and all bases below 1K. the middle color represents mostly mid altitude terrain, much like on the MINDANAO map. the bases in this section would be betweek 2K and 4K, though some of the hills may reach 7K. the lightest color represents the high atl section. reminisent of the AKDESERT map it will have many canyons, and high mountians. all the bases will be between 5K and 7K with no basees runway altitude over 7K. some of the mountians will peak at 25,000 but mostly around the edge of the map. just somethign pretty to look at. the center GV town will have 15K+ walls like on the trinity map.
the map has 73 fields per country. breakign down as:
4 Ports
4 TG groups
17 Vehicle bases
28 Small airfields
14 Medium airfields
6 Large airfields
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/180_1145024186_jbbowl.jpg)
this second picture shows the zones and the vehicle spawns. it looked too cluttered to show for the main picture.
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/180_1145024194_jbbowlfullview.jpg)
all of this is just a planing stage. here is the *.PSP file i have been using to work on this.
http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/180_1145024172_pspfile.zip
how's it looking now? any suggestions? HTC folks, what do you think?
PS> the file is called JBBowl because i originally came up with the concept 3+ years ago as JB73 along with JB42 working on a map to "seperate" the furballers and the strat guys. it is kind of an homage to JB42 getting me into the game and his squad. that's also why there are only 73 fields per side. i guess that can be changed if needed, just was kind of neat.
-
2 quick things I notice --
First, the Furballers will still complain that there is no true "fightertown" (defined as a three-way fight) because the bases are too far apart in the middle with the 15K mountains in the way. Your FT areas will make the furballers chose which country to go against. Not a big deal in my personal book, but since I appear to be the first to respond, thought I would get it out there. They would probably advocate making the center island larger, pulling a small airbase inside the 15K mountain ring. That might actually set up a viable third assault route to boot. I don't know if HTC would go for that (totally isolating FT/TT), but it's a thought.
Second, there seems to be few vehicle spawns anywhere except to-from v bases. Especially in the high field zones, there seem to be few spawns that go across the battle lines, making all the GV fights linear. This may have been your intent, and there is nothing "wrong" with fields that depend solely on aircraft, but the lack of points will make it harder to cross-defend with GVs in a vulch or hoard situation.
I guess a third thing, which is more a question -- are 6 zone bases necessary? It may just be that I am not used to looking at maps from this scale / perspective, it just seemed like a lot. If you want to give "strat guys" meaningful targets, fewer and larger zones might be better.
All in all, looks good, love the concept.:aok
-
i see what you are saying about the vehicle spawns, to be honest i put them in quick and just preliminary. it got so cluttered i gave up lol. i am also not sure on what HiTech and CO's thoughts are on vehicle spawns. should there be tons and tons?
as far as zones, thats another uncertanity. first, how many bases can 1 Zone support? i think the 6 zones actually may promote more fighting for the zones. more of an objective than meaningless base capture, but i could be wrong.
thanks for the comments :aok
-
Yep, you need an FT just like the TT in there. No vehicle spawns into or out of it, 30K ring of mountains around it.
You can have vehicles, just put big, uncrossable canyons between the FT bases. Thus the vehicles are for defense only. If folks want a tank battle, they can use your TT.
That ought to do it.
-
Originally posted by Mustaine
as far as zones, thats another uncertanity. first, how many bases can 1 Zone support? i think the 6 zones actually may promote more fighting for the zones. more of an objective than meaningless base capture, but i could be wrong.
Now that you say that, it is something you do not have mapped out yet -- the city, AA factory, Training, Ammo Factory and Refinery that would go with each zone. You would need six of each, I think, with six zones, which is why I posed the question originally. For someone who wants to use strategic bombing to influence the war, it seems to me to be too many of each target. Then again, it would make for milkrun targets too, so I don't know which would be better for a bomber enthusiast. It would definitely make the map look a lot more cluttered.
It could channel the strategy of the land grabs a little more, as zone bases are usually hotly contested. OTOH, it may dilute those fights since the zones are smaller and each is therefore less meaningful.
Bah! I'll just shut up now. I see how this is a major undertaking. I have only been thinking about it for five minutes, and my head hurts. for your efforts!
-
Build it and they will come. Looks good.
-
I like it
-
I Like the basic field layout, I Think I would change to 4 zones per country instead of 6 .
I Would also change your elevations to not just raise water to the back. But wrather from the original front lines to the back.
HiTech
-
I see you circled fields that were close and in general good idea. However the fields are close in pairs but when you move north are south they are far apart.
-
Awsome map, good job.
What needs to happen next to make mustaine's map a reality?
JMFJ
-
Originally posted by hitech
I Like the basic field layout, I Think I would change to 4 zones per country instead of 6 .
I Would also change your elevations to not just raise water to the back. But wrather from the original front lines to the back.
HiTech
you mean like valleys going back across the front, with higher bases backing them up? if so i think i follow.
I'll make a revision this weekend.
-
Yes so either from the Land front or accross water you are attacking up hill.
HiTech
-
gotcha. thanks.
i got some ideas already. will make REV 3 for monday.
-
Don't forget the FT.
It's discrimnatory to put a TT on every new map without a corresponding FT.
Thanks!
-
Looks fun, I say go for it. :)
-
I dont know if anything else has been written on this subject, but why are the maps all designed to be of equal strategic advantage for all countries?
Why dont we have maps that might put one country or two in a hot spot? Just to see if they can fight their way out of it. Then when a wars won, we rotate another country into the fire. :t
A map more asymmetrical would be nice.
-
seems like a cool idea, mabe the team with the "hotspot" would get less and less space as they did worse in up coming maps if they kept on doing badly and at some point get completely eradicated so that it was down to say the rooks and bish after like 3 country bouts, this may call for smaller countries to make the game move.
or speed it up a bit;
Wouldnt it be cool if you could destroy a country and it would stay away for one conclusive round?
So who ever loses the most land in the first bout is non existent for the second battle.
example, battle one rooks get the hammer, round 2 its down to the knights and bish, say the knights win, and there is some sort of different cause and effect system developed in terms of rewards and such.
This would force the players that were on the defeated country to join one of the 2 remaining teams, this would get those who just have to be a certain chess piece to mix it up a bit and enjoy some diversity. This would probably keep fools from filling up channel 200 with accusations since one would realize they would probably be fighting with that person on the other side frequently. Animosity between countrys is the problem we have in real life, why have that in a game? on the flip side, those who really want to be with that chess piece would have more incentive to fight more effectively as a team if they knew they would have to pack their bags if they got defeated.
It would be neat to have some big experiments with this kind of stuff in the ma to keep things dynamic, maybe there will be some experimentation once tod comes out, its understandable that htc doesnt change something fundamentaly that isnt "broken" since its the bread winner and its working just the way it is.
-
Originally posted by muzik
I dont know if anything else has been written on this subject, but why are the maps all designed to be of equal strategic advantage for all countries?
Why dont we have maps that might put one country or two in a hot spot? Just to see if they can fight their way out of it. Then when a wars won, we rotate another country into the fire. :t
A map more asymmetrical would be nice.
Why dont we have maps that might put one country or two in a hot spot?
Because the team that lands in the "hot spot" will piss and moan incessantly. Sorry ... but I don't think that it would fly with HT ... afterall, he has to listen to the complaints.
Can you imagine playing a game of chess and you start without your Queen and Knights ... doesn't sound like too much fun to me.
-
We already have an assymetrical map, Mindanao.
I've been here since 2000 and I think the Western country has lost maybe once, the NorthEastern 3-4 times, and the SouthEastern a jillion times.
-
The HQ in the western country is 1 sector closer to the front than the HQs in the other 2 countries.