Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: Guppy35 on September 26, 2006, 03:12:13 PM
-
It's what one does while mowing the lawn and thinking about nothing. It's just another variation on ideas thrown out before I believe. The map is rough and not to scale but I think it will help illustrate the plan.
-Red fields are capturable and have fighters/medium bombers and VH.
-Yellow fields have all enabled exept jets and are the heavy bomber bases
-Purple are jet enabled bases
-the N on the map represents neutral fields.
-270 person cap in the arena. 90 person cap on each country
For the 'win the reset" crowd. Your job is to capture and hold the center isle fields and the other two N fields on your country's coast. Gotta hold all three to win the reset. Rolling the map via undefended bases isn't an issue but you've gotta work to take and hold the 3 Ns, in particular the center Isle as all three countries are after it.
There are tank corridors shown for the GV crowd. It would lead to some hopefully wide open "Kursk" style tank warfare and allows for the tankers to 'flank' the other guys capturable fields if they want to.
The heavy bomber guys in this scenario at least have to up further back and fly it hopefully a bit more realistically. Personally I'd do away with the 3 plane formations too and make it so if you want to run a mission you need more folks to do it. Deep in 'enemy' territory would be strat fuel and supply targets as well as country wide dar for the heavies to go after. Obviously with jet fields protecting them, the bombers would have more of a challenge
I'd have local dar too that can be knocked out to create blind corridors for fighters etc. I kept thinking about the set up during the B of B with the chain of radars on the coast.
Hopefully there'd be enough water for carriers and PT spawns too.
For the fighter/furballers there would be enough close fields, plus this, at least theoretically would funnel the fights to certain places on the map. I would like to believe the N fields would be constantly contested, in particular the center isle where you'd get everyone there.
Yeah I know it's goofy, but it seems like to please both the guys who like to 'win the war' and the guys who like to fly and fight, we need to funnel them into the same hot spots to have it out.
rip away :)
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/861_1159300581_wishful.jpg)
-
Guppy could you please add some 25 mile grid lines for a sense of scale?
HiTech
-
Originally posted by Guppy35
For the 'win the reset" crowd. Your job is to capture and hold the center isle fields and the other two N fields on your country's coast. Gotta hold all three to win the reset. Rolling the map via undefended bases isn't an issue; but you've gotta work to take and hold the 3 N's. In particular, the center Isle as all three countries are after it.
Guppy, I'm gnawing on your reset rules. I'm having trouble seeing "and the other two N field on your country's coast." I'm so dense.
for your substantive suggestion.
hap
-
so, you'd have to hold 3 of the 4 'N' islands?
How many fields per island?
Good work. I like it .The Idea has merit.
-
Originally posted by hitech
Guppy could you please add some 25 mile grid lines for a sense of scale?
HiTech
To be honest I hadn't thought that far, as I just wanted to put the idea out there. The included is a best guess. Math was never my subject :)
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/861_1159304969_wishful2.jpg)
-
Originally posted by ridley1
so, you'd have to hold 3 of the 4 'N' islands?
How many fields per island?
Good work. I like it .The Idea has merit.
The key in my mind is somehow funneling the fights to each other.
Say the Knits are the top left country. They'd need to hold the center island, the N field to their south and to their east.
With the capturable fields on each side of the river, it does offer the potential to build a buffer between the N field and the other guys.
But as I see it, to take and hold all three would take some serious effort and a serious cap. I don't see how you could horde this way as if you horde one, you'll probably lose another.
And lets face it, should the Knits, for example hold the N between them and the Rooks, and the N between them and the Bish, both those countries are going to have reason to go after it, and probably both would be hard at it to stop the taking of the center isle.
And how often to you have to fight both sides in one spot these days. I know it happens once in a while, but that center isle fight could be a real brawl.
-
Originally posted by ridley1
so, you'd have to hold 3 of the 4 'N' islands?
How many fields per island?
Good work. I like it .The Idea has merit.
Almost forgot. I think 1 field on the N's between the countries and 2 on the one in the center.
-
Interesting idea Guppy.... I can see some real brawls developing on that map. Can't wait to see what some of the old timers have to say about it :aok I just hope everybody keeps it civil and constructive.
-
That's getting close to the "central/neutrals" concept that made AW (pre gamestorm) so much fun, IMO. The war goes on, but action is concentrated with little room to milkrun. 3-country furballs as a common event.
The issue with AW (and why it was changed with Gamestorm) was the AW servers couldn't handle that much concentration, with the big numbers playing at that time, before they choked.
Even better would be winning the war based on the time those central bases were held during a month :)
[edit: This is the only type of setup that gets me interested in the "strat" (actually localized tactical ops passed off as strat) game typically found in these sims. And I'm a big strat guy otherwise. I virtually stopped being a flight sim strat player during gamestom-era AW and then in AH because there seemed to be no real point to taking some nondescript base in the middle of a huge map that may not impact gameplay until a reset two days later when I'm not even online. Again, just my individual perspective as a "what can I do while I'm on today for whichever country I'm flying for today" type of player.]
Charon
-
Make that 3 fields in center.
-
i really like this idea a lot.
-
I think you're onto something here:aok
-
Old timer:noid Ya thats Dan in a nut shell:aok :aok
-
What's the name of that water body? "Klingon BattleCruiser Pond" ? :p
-
Given the sheer size of the AH sectors (25 miles), I'd say the bases are too far apart. If built to a smaller scale, that sort of map and ruleset has a lot of potential. Charon compared that to an AW map (and I believe Dan may have been inspired somewhat by AW), but keep in mind AW sectors were only about 12 miles across.
With the advent in AH2 of multiple arenas with smaller player populations and (in some) much slower aircraft, the use of smaller distances between airfields is as important as ever.
I'm aware that the image posted is a "concept" image; in a production arena I'd also expect to see some differentiation between country coastlines and such so they don't look quite so obviously mirrored.
I also liked the idea of placing three N fields in the central section instead of one.
J_A_B
-
:aok
-
Originally posted by J_A_B
Given the sheer size of the AH sectors (25 miles), I'd say the bases are too far apart. If built to a smaller scale, that sort of map and ruleset has a lot of potential. Charon compared that to an AW map (and I believe Dan may have been inspired somewhat by AW), but keep in mind AW sectors were only about 12 miles across.
With the advent in AH2 of multiple arenas with smaller player populations and (in some) much slower aircraft, the use of smaller distances between airfields is as important as ever.
I'm aware that the image posted is a "concept" image; in a production arena I'd also expect to see some differentiation between country coastlines and such so they don't look quite so obviously mirrored.
I also liked the idea of placing three N fields in the central section instead of one.
J_A_B
That's best guess on size. I was really only trying to illustrate the idea. I want bases closer, but the biggest thing for me is to change to goal from complete take the map land grab which to me seems to encourage attacking empty fields.
If the goal for all sides was to take and hold something like the Neutral fields, it would seem to push the players towards fighting each other and would involve both the base takers and the dogfighters.
I wish one of the good map makers would take a shot at it.
-
Only problem is, as of right now we can't have neutral fields
-
can this be fixed?
The dynamics are very interesting
-
HT and company could do anything, but the effects on gameplay are kind of an unknown. They seem to give a good deal of thought to the unforeseen effects when considering new ideas.
I have to say, I think this is an interesting one.
-
Looks a lot like the old AW map. I likes.
-
Love the concept. Hope it can be implemented. :aok
-
Look like a mix between DeathMatch and CTF (capture the flag)
good idea
-
I like having the idea of fields that don't affect the 'war win', heck, if it was implemented it would make our current maps alot more viable.
In each corner of each map you could make a few fields not count in the reset equation, and have an early war, mid war, and late war furball zone. Then the rest of the landgrabbers could do their own thing outside the box.
-
Ok..do a search...i have been suggesting maps with uncapturable fields for ever..thank you so much for putting one down in a map form and getting this attention!!!
limit number of capturable bases..have uncapturable fiter town and tank towns for quickie action for guys who dont have alot of time to fly. NO RESET!!!! instead rotate 4-5 INTERESTING maps with varying terrain and whoever occupies the most capturable bases "wins" at tiemof rotation.
real strat targets please (yes i mean LA7, spit 16 factories) etc that give the strat guys other interesting trgts besides base taking...(i.e. further you hit a trgt behind enemy lines ..more points for the damage!)
oh and while im dreaming....fiter town needs more then 1 field apiece..maybe 2 parralel to support each other vs pesky vulchers etc. do i hear unkillable ack :D
and..if im not out of line...raise the caps please?:D
-
Originally posted by FALCONWING
Ok..do a search...i have been suggesting maps with uncapturable fields for ever..thank you so much for putting one down in a map form and getting this attention!!!
limit number of capturable bases..have uncapturable fiter town and tank towns for quickie action for guys who dont have alot of time to fly. NO RESET!!!! instead rotate 4-5 INTERESTING maps with varying terrain and whoever occupies the most capturable bases "wins" at tiemof rotation.
real strat targets please (yes i mean LA7, spit 16 factories) etc that give the strat guys other interesting trgts besides base taking...(i.e. further you hit a trgt behind enemy lines ..more points for the damage!)
oh and while im dreaming....fiter town needs more then 1 field apiece..maybe 2 parralel to support each other vs pesky vulchers etc. do i hear unkillable ack :D
and..if im not out of line...raise the caps please?:D
I agree with.... a BOP:eek: :D
-
Very interesting concept Guppy - especially for the low numbers areanas.
I'd love to see this put to the test.
Only problem is, as of right now we can't have neutral fields
OK then we can work within the system. Try this instead:
double fields:
The "N" fields are made of 2 close towns with a maproom in each. Lets say the two N countries are bish and knits and so, at reset, one town will be bish and the other knit. These are in practice bases with no vehicles or planes enabled, just a town.
acks:
Maybe setting up some manned acks there would be fun - lots of manned acks and auto acks inside the towns. This will make high alt carpet bombing the best way to clear both acks and buildings. Fighter strifing when cities are fully up would be madness, but they can clear out what's left after bombings. Making the two towns close next to each other means that you can't hide in your acks when the other town is shooting at you - players can ack-hug only when you have both towns.
I hope this will encourage a massive high alt bombing campaign as the first stage and sending in the JABOs only as a second stage to kill the last buildings and hunt GV.
triple tank town
The center island will have 3 of those "capture towns" with spawn points for GV around them comming from farther back V-fields or bases. That way, attacking non-capture fields is important to stop GV assults. This is in practice a triple "tank town".
The down times for acks and buildings would have to be looked into.
-
Guppy very good idea. Reminds me of AW with some great alterations.
Well thought out and presented. Like it!
-
Hitech, Guppy's idea is very close to what I was suggesting a few days back.
Great work Guppy - hope it can be brought to fruition. Let me know if I can help you out in any way. :aok
-
Very interesting idea, I'd scale the map grids down about 75% for mid and late, 50% for Early to compensate for aircraft speeds.
Randomize the terrain and base placement a little to make it seem more natural, you could put the bomber bases closer if you upped the alt of the terrain around them..
not sure about the jet bases though... maybe one near HQ instead of 3.
All in all a very interesting concept. Thanks Guppy.
-
Gruppy: Just want you to realize there is nothing in the AH arcathecture to support your concept of the war win.
-
Originally posted by FALCONWING
real strat targets please (yes i mean LA7, spit 16 factories) etc that give the strat guys other interesting trgts besides base taking...(i.e. further you hit a trgt behind enemy lines ..more points for the damage!)
[...snip ... snip]
and..if im not out of line...raise the caps please?:D
:aok
hap
-
Originally posted by Dichotomy
Can't wait to see what some of the old timers have to say about it. [/SIZE]
Grabbing my cane and stepping to the podium...
Overall layout reminds me of beta arena. It looks like it will force some heads-up fighting, other than that I don't care too much about the other details.
In other words, I like it.
-
Originally posted by Edbert
Grabbing my cane and stepping to the podium...
Overall layout reminds me of beta arena. It looks like it will force some heads-up fighting, other than that I don't care too much about the other details.
In other words, I like it.
Ed, I wouldn't be surprised to learn that the changes have a 30 to 90 day "evaluation period" attached to them. Your "beta arena" comment prompts me to suppose.
hap
-
Originally posted by Raptor
Only problem is, as of right now we can't have neutral fields
If the central N-Island had 3 bases, and the outer three N-Islands had 2 bases each, then this would not be an issue. At the game re-start each country would occupy one base on the central Island, and one base on 2 of the 3 outer islands.
Just have to change the concept from neutral bases to neutral islands/territorries (a territorry is considered neutral untill all bases in it are controlled by the same country). The reset win objective would be the same, Have complete control of all bases on the central island, and the 4 bases (2 each) on your 2 outer islands.
HiTech would just have to code a custum win/reset rule into the game for this map that would look at who controls the Neutral Territories.
P.S. - I like this alot, should improve strategic game play and give a reason for furballers and toolsheaders to play nice and interact in and around the neutral territories.
Also whenever a country gains control of the central Island (owns all 3 bases on it) the other 2 countries should double team the heck out of them. This could be just the thing we need for side balancing. Probably the country with the highest number of players online will control the central island, and it would only make sence for the other 2 countries to concentrate their efforts on the country that controls the central island.
-
Originally posted by hitech
Gruppy: Just want you to realize there is nothing in the AH arcathecture to support your concept of the war win.
Ahh well, so it goes :) I was just throwing the idea out there to see if it could stick.
There has to be a way within the current framework of AH to drive the different styles of play together
-
Originally posted by Guppy35
Ahh well, so it goes :) I was just throwing the idea out there to see if it could stick.
There has to be a way within the current framework of AH to drive the different styles of play together
The Hitech team would just need to modify the lines of coad that award a reset win. This shouldn't be that hard to do, especially for the talented programers that Dale has!!!!! :) :) :)
-
Originally posted by Guppy35
Ahh well, so it goes :) I was just throwing the idea out there to see if it could stick.
There has to be a way within the current framework of AH to drive the different styles of play together
I like it. It kind of reminds me of a large scale version of the old AW PAC terrain. The fields in the center were capturable, the outer fields weren't. It channeled much of the action to the center.
-
Originally posted by hitech
Gruppy: Just want you to realize there is nothing in the AH arcathecture to support your concept of the war win.
At the risk of correcting a cod I think there is although we would have to change the means a little.............
1) take the extreme islands and actually make them part of the land mass however they must be accessable from water. (OK thats cosmetic)
2) dont put fields on the these 4 area but put towns and map rooms for air fields that are alternately placed on the main land masses
3) lets call these concentrations of towns Battle zones. We have one big battle zone (3 way war) in the middle and 3 smaller battle zones (2 way wars) we can mix in some capturable vehicle fields and may be the odd port per start country in each battle zone.
4) the alternate air fields which do not have towns and maprooms in the battle zones have them located in the rear with the HQ strat. The HQ strat area would have an additional layer of air fields that would ring the HQ area as guppy's map.
5) each country will have 4 strat zones 1 x HQ, 1 x central, 2 x outer .
6) cities and some other strats would be mixed in with the other stuff in the central and outer battle zones.
7) So when a side captures a town in a battle zone it aquires a field inside enemy territory
HOWEVER
8)That field only has rides enabled for the original owners By capturing it you get local radar and some AA. You deny the opposing side use of it. To get it back thay have to recapture the town in the battle zone that they just lost.
9) some air fields in the first layer have towns and map rooms in the HQ zone. Providing a constant access to the battle zones.
10) some vehicle fields and ports could be placed along the coastal regions with spawns between them and to the first layer of inland air fields. These ports and vehicle fields would be with their own map rooms and capturable to provide land based porkage of those inland fields.
11) equally the first layer of inland fields would have gv spawns to the coastal ports and vehicle fields.
12) except for these coastal skirmish areas Air conflict therefore never moves far away from the battle zones.
13) When a side loses the equivilent of 2 battle zones worth of air fields plus some ports/vehicle fields then the threshold for end of war kicks in and the side with the greatest number of fields wins. ( as now)
All this can be done with existing architecture...............
It forces the main conflict for each country over 3 areas (one of which is a 3 way fight) of focus.
It allows skirmish conflict on the coastal regions plus a sea based war out of the ports.
It provides for sustained Gv conflict.
It provides for deep and short range bombing agin strat and towns and fields.
It removes the main conflicts away from the air fields.
It removes the need to vulch in order to capture.
It allows some airfields to always remain close to the battle zones.
Any country losing two of the three battle zones forces a reset
-
Having said all the above I must say that it returns game play to a type found in AW4W.
It would be quite different from standard arena moving front game play we have now.
In this model sides are weakend as they lose fields but their front line (once past the coastal regions) remains....... albeit thinner than before.
Placement of at least one virtually uncapturable field (one with its town and map room deep in the HQ area )close to each battle zone is critical to allow a side to still fight over a zone if it has lost all of it and begin to re capture some of it back
Some of the aspects of deep bombing still remain and give incentive to squad operations.
Strikes on the HQ will have to have travelled a long way and will be rare but a feat non the less.
Actually capturing a field with a town/ map room in the HQ area would be a squad mission "par excellence" it could be easily re taken but would be an exhibition of squad skill and organisation none the less or indeed it could be a horde activity but not one that could be sustained.
-
HT, you're the guy who has seen what alternate configurations do to game play, so you've seen the effects of uncapturable fields, etc.
IF the mechanics would allow AH to do this kind of thing -- capture the flag wins, uncapturable deep bases, bombers only at some, etc -- would you anticipate negative gameplay problems? Or, is programming the only barrier to an otherwise good idea?
PS Not that programming is a small deal by any means...just exploring the limits of our creativity....
-
Originally posted by Guppy35
It's what one does while mowing the lawn and thinking about nothing. It's just another variation on ideas thrown out before I believe. The map is rough and not to scale but I think it will help illustrate the plan.
-Red fields are capturable and have fighters/medium bombers and VH.
-Yellow fields have all enabled exept jets and are the heavy bomber bases
-Purple are jet enabled bases
-the N on the map represents neutral fields.
-270 person cap in the arena. 90 person cap on each country
For the 'win the reset" crowd. Your job is to capture and hold the center isle fields and the other two N fields on your country's coast. Gotta hold all three to win the reset. Rolling the map via undefended bases isn't an issue but you've gotta work to take and hold the 3 Ns, in particular the center Isle as all three countries are after it.
There are tank corridors shown for the GV crowd. It would lead to some hopefully wide open "Kursk" style tank warfare and allows for the tankers to 'flank' the other guys capturable fields if they want to.
The heavy bomber guys in this scenario at least have to up further back and fly it hopefully a bit more realistically. Personally I'd do away with the 3 plane formations too and make it so if you want to run a mission you need more folks to do it. Deep in 'enemy' territory would be strat fuel and supply targets as well as country wide dar for the heavies to go after. Obviously with jet fields protecting them, the bombers would have more of a challenge
I'd have local dar too that can be knocked out to create blind corridors for fighters etc. I kept thinking about the set up during the B of B with the chain of radars on the coast.
Hopefully there'd be enough water for carriers and PT spawns too.
For the fighter/furballers there would be enough close fields, plus this, at least theoretically would funnel the fights to certain places on the map. I would like to believe the N fields would be constantly contested, in particular the center isle where you'd get everyone there.
Yeah I know it's goofy, but it seems like to please both the guys who like to 'win the war' and the guys who like to fly and fight, we need to funnel them into the same hot spots to have it out.
rip away :)
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/861_1159300581_wishful.jpg)
OK...how in the heck did you draw that map on your lawn mower?:D
Secondly i like the idea. It what games like BF2 and AA and several other conquest games have been doing to some extent.
Nice idea...For the 'win the reset" crowd.
"Your job is to capture and hold the center isle fields and the other two N fields on your country's coast. Gotta hold all three to win the reset."
how long woulds said country have to hold possesion? Other games have "Tickets" or spawn alotments of sorts. Or is it intant win?
I do think it would be fun...But only if you like a massive battle. i.e. Most will see it the same as old MA. (Picks, Gangs and so on)
If you pour something into a "Funel" where does it all end up?
-
Simaril: Havn't realy given this map much thought.
But with drastic play changes like this map, it very rairly turns out like the designer expects.
But you guys should be able to come up with some of what will happen, just start thinking like below.
If I wish to win this war what would I do.
If I wish to go screw with a country what would I do.
If I wish to furball what would I do.
If one country is out numbered will it be difficult capturing the N fields?
What will happen once all the red fields of 1 country are taken, and one country is split from other.
-
Which ever team gets the top left corner will be lucky. Seems to me reset teams only come from the bottom and the right side. Never the left.
-
Deleted
-
Originally posted by Mugzeee
OK...how in the heck did you draw that map on your lawn mower?:D
.......snip........
I bet he didnt draw it at all...he mowed the lines onto his lawn!
-
To win the war I guess I would capture red bases first, killing Hangars.
Then I would try for one N base.
It could work on a country but I can't do that against the other country while holding the other N base. Even If I do that the center N base would be impossible to get, as the two other countries will gang me instantly.
this map could be a blast without the N fields, I like the idea of disabling some plane types. Even without the N fields the reset would be very hard I think.
*edit* who gets the center N field when map starts ? :)
-
Deleted
-
The main thing that I was trying to figure out is how do you not make it so convenient to just roll up undefended fields. Right now there is a reward for that which means actual conflict with the other side isn't desired by some.
It's been said a bunch by folks. Why would I try and take a place that's defended. If you want to win the reset, hitting the undefended stuff is the path of least resistance, most reward.
With the goal to be to capture and hold those N fields, your first move isn't to load up a mob, kill the acks, VH and set up a vulch pattern while you kill the town to take it quick.
Instead you need to hit fields beyond the N fields, hold them down and cap the N field while trying to get the capture done.
It's going to be harder to stop the other guy from counter attacking as when that big dar bar starts moving towards the N, chances are they're going to get moving too.
With the center N field being desired by all three countries, you end up with planes from all sides battling there. And as someone said, if one country manages to take and hold two of the outer Ns on their borders, then the other two are going to be fighting like mad to not lose the center as well as trying to remove the other guy from the outer N field.
Seems like the fight would ebb and flow back and forth between the N's and if the number of players on each country is capped, you'd think it would be hard to actually pull off taking and holding three of those N's.
Again, as I said when i first posted this. I'm just wanting there to be some reason for the toolshedders and the furballers to have to interact and potentially participate in both types of play.
As an air to air guy myself, I can barely hit the ground with a bomb, and there really is no incentive to. And vulching guys in the horde over a field doesn't interest me. But knowing that there are going to be fighters heading to those fights over those N's would sure get me there to fly the CAP to cover the fighter bombers and buffs. I can see the fights getting higher too, so maybe some of those birds that AH has that perform better at alt would get more use.
At the same time the guys who like to drop bombs would know there is going to be a CAP and they might have to learn a little bit of ACM to survive.
And for all those guys looking for 'teamwork' it would take some real effort to coordinate 'winning the war". It would take all kinds to make it happen.
-
Please read this entire reply before responding sir.
Remember back when the map was reset when the losing country was reduced to like 2 bases? When the losing country was down to a few bases and the battle was condensed your problem was solved by the system that we already in place. When HT changed the value needed to win the war to like 5 bases for large maps it changed things.
Undefended bases are undefended because said defenders won't defend them, or can't. Take your pick.
(Wont) = complain that attackers keep switching targets, this excuse used by said defenders to let said bases get captured. (Translated = lazy)
(Cant)=.... whoa wait a minute chief...I am saying that "can't"= The few players that are concerned about undefended bases don't have the tools to hold a base long enough for help to arrive. i.e. ack too weak...no manable Flak Guns are among some of the major reasons.
In short, the current settings could be tweaked to aid in defending bases off the beaten path along with the addition of a few small items adapted to our current game format.
Having said all that let me say this.
I like your idea, while the concept isn’t really new, it would be new to this game and a welcome change of face. I think it would give the game a fresh feel way more so than the recent overhaul we experienced.
But from what HT said earlier i don't think we will get to experience it. :(
Thanks for putting it together and sharing with us though
:)
-
brilliant idea Guppy35, simular to what i would have wanted to do (not sure about the 3 N bases though)
and i always thought that main strat targets should be grouped, like cities and industry are in real life, with main (zone) bases around them.
-
Gruppy,Muggzee very nice well thought out posts.
But from what HT said earlier i don't think we will get to experience it.
I havn't said that at all muggzee, but my thought proccess is fairly simple.
1. What we have now works, not perfectly by any means ,but it works.
2. To implement what gruppy ask for would take a non trivial programing time.
3. Im not sure what the effects of the format change would be.
4. I need to figure out how the change will impact game play.
5. Maby ill posting some questions that will get people discussing and trigure some of my thinking so I can get a grasp on how it will play.
--Curent state.
6. Brain digesting the new information, and gains a better understanding of what gruppy is tring to accomplish.
(BTW) I like what Gruppy is trying to accomplish, only question now is does the map do that, or just have a totaly different affect.
--Later
7. Ill decide if the change would be good thing or bad thing.
8. Final step either rule it out, or start thinking when to accomplish the change.
And Mugzzee, I liked your thoughts on ACK and number of bases at the end of war.
HiTech
-
Would this be possible through map design and arena setup only?
* Each country has 3 zones and the war is won by one country capturing all 3 zone bases of another country. Total number of bases is not part of the equation, quality over quantity, and increasing the importance of zone bases.
- Small fields have fighters only (no ord or troops)
- Medium fields have fighters with ordnance, troops and medium bombers (possibly without formations)
- Only large fields have formations of 4-engine bombers and jets
* Zone bases would always be large fields with 1 medium and 1 small field less than 20 miles away. A cluster of fields isn't unusual to defend an important area.
It doesn't mean that all front line fields are small fields only, just that medium fields are limited at the front to start with (maybe one or two), and carefully placed moving away from the front. Vehicle fields would have troops to spawn into some areas of the front and those vehicle fields placed close to medium fields to make it more difficult for a single fighter to disable all troops for an area.
-
I like it. Great idea.
-
(http://www.tilt.clara.net/pics/focal.jpg)
Red dots are the towns and maprooms for red fields
yellow dots are the towns and maprooms for yellow fields
Purple dots are the towns and maprooms for purple fields
V fields and ports have their own map rooms as std.
AC, gvs and guns are enabled only for the origin country on all air fields and fleets.
V Fields and ports have gv's and PT's enabled for any ownership.
On a map this small there are no gv spawns external to the fields. But there can be several spawn points on a field.
Reset is when a side has only 13 air fields.
-
Tilt .. its appears that the yellow team is the only team that is separated from their fields buy another color ... would they not be in the hole when the map starts ?
-
SlapShot: Yellow is not the teams, just different field types. The green lines seperate the orignal team ownership.
HiTech
-
Originally posted by hitech
SlapShot: Yellow is not the teams, just different field types. The green lines seperate the orignal team ownership.
HiTech
DOH !!! :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by hitech
Gruppy,Muggzee very nice well thought out posts.
I havn't said that at all muggzee, but my thought proccess is fairly simple.
1. What we have now works, not perfectly by any means ,but it works.
2. To implement what gruppy ask for would take a non trivial programing time.
3. Im not sure what the effects of the format change would be.
4. I need to figure out how the change will impact game play.
5. Maby ill posting some questions that will get people discussing and trigure some of my thinking so I can get a grasp on how it will play.
--Curent state.
6. Brain digesting the new information, and gains a better understanding of what gruppy is tring to accomplish.
(BTW) I like what Gruppy is trying to accomplish, only question now is does the map do that, or just have a totaly different affect.
--Later
7. Ill decide if the change would be good thing or bad thing.
8. Final step either rule it out, or start thinking when to accomplish the change.
And Mugzzee, I liked your thoughts on ACK and number of bases at the end of war.
HiTech
I guess what i was tryin to say...
Looks like a hell of a lot of overhaul to impliment such an idea.
Thanks for replying.
-
Large map (drool)
"If you build it, they will come."
I like it gup.
S!
-
3. Im not sure what the effects of the format change would be.
4. I need to figure out how the change will impact game play.
I would think HT, that you could look at AW, at least the SVGA - AW4W/AOL era. The beauty of the central neutrals model was that it forced a concentration of action. The ability to milkrun was minimized, and horde tactics were minimized as well since there was driven resistance due to the map model. While this isn't entirely the same, it seems similar in principal.
The gameplay advantage is that it brings together both elements of the community (strat and furballers) and encourages cross participation. For example, as a furball player I commonly supported the strat effort because the central neutral bases provided more of the "get up and shoot" gameplay when you held one or more compared to operating from a remote country base. The strat crowd would also be encouraged to fight with this type of model because they would have to -- harder to milkrun. You reduce "path of least resistance" gameplay options.
Additonally, from at least my perspective, base capture would mean a lot more to me (and perhaps other more furballer types) in this model based on my past experience. I don't care about winning the war (never have), but taking one of the N bases (or some similar alternative) might give more a sense of accomplishment than some random base A137 on an open map with 100 other bases. What's the point (to me)? Any impact I may have had will only be felt days later at the final reset, and I most likley won't even be on at the time. However, I did get some sense of satisfaction in the "good old days" helping get one of the coveted neutral bases, or trying to hold one, because they were just more inportant due to the limited number of bases involved, their strategic position and their feeding of quick and continued dogfight action.
The early AW model was changed in the Gamestorm era (according to a discussion I had with Moggy at the time) because the server code couldn't handle much more than 60 planes in one sector and the numbers had exploded. They went to an open map format like AH, that saw virtually the same gameplay dynamics (actually worse) develop that we had in the MA after the numbers jumped a few years back.
Ultimately, I would like to see a real strat model that require attacking strat targets using traditional strategic platforms like the B-17/24 in strategic attack profiles as a fundamental element in winning the war (instead of just a way to pad score for those so driven). This could be linked to the tactical war (bases, rail, trucks barges) for a revolution in gameplay, but I imaging the codeing challenges are much heavier, the outcome harder to predict and the disruption to the community such that the current blip would be mild by comparison. Until then, this model is VERY exciting.
Charon
-
On Tilt's revision of the map, all the fields across the river from each other are in excess of 30 miles apart. On the edges of the map it's closer to 50 miles, and across the center of the map it's farther still. Fix this issue, and it has real potential. Tilt's idea of concentrating the map rooms as a means of concentrating the fighting is a solid idea, and one that should work if neutral airfields aren't an available option.
J_A_B
-
I like the idea, at least it's got the community thinking in a positive forward-looking discussion pattern.
Kinda tired of seeing "this suks", "I hate this map", "What were you thinking HT", "I'll have to delete my acct now", "I'll play but I won't like it"
Anyways, I'd love to see any new & exciting map:aok
-
I don't think it would eliminate hordes...errr not very PC of me to use that word...try "large missions" or "squad ops"", but it would force them to fight each other instead of racing to see who can capture undefended bases the fastest.
-
I don't think it would eliminate hordes...errr not very PC of me to use that word...try "large missions" or "squad ops"", but it would force them to fight each other instead of racing to see who can capture undefended bases the fastest.
Yup.
Charon
-
I like it!
-
(Jon Luc Picard) "Make it so number one.........."
-
Actually with the example I put forward you would not need a central island. Just cluster the three towns and port on the shore and let the central pool be a relatively confined space for 9 fleets.
3 based in the pool and 2 from each of the arms
This would mean that there is always "another fleet on the way" killing a cv would not stop cv activity in an area for long.
-
Originally posted by hitech
Gruppy,Muggzee very nice well thought out posts.
I havn't said that at all muggzee, but my thought proccess is fairly simple.
1. What we have now works, not perfectly by any means ,but it works.
2. To implement what gruppy ask for would take a non trivial programing time.
3. Im not sure what the effects of the format change would be.
4. I need to figure out how the change will impact game play.
5. Maby ill posting some questions that will get people discussing and trigure some of my thinking so I can get a grasp on how it will play.
--Curent state.
6. Brain digesting the new information, and gains a better understanding of what gruppy is tring to accomplish.
(BTW) I like what Gruppy is trying to accomplish, only question now is does the map do that, or just have a totaly different affect.
--Later
7. Ill decide if the change would be good thing or bad thing.
8. Final step either rule it out, or start thinking when to accomplish the change.
And Mugzzee, I liked your thoughts on ACK and number of bases at the end of war.
HiTech
I appreciate that you've taken the time to think about this Hitech. I also appreciate the responses from folks.
It's still all about trying to find a way to integrate the different styles of gameplay and make folks actually have to battle each other a bit.
And I do need to point out that the map I did was done very quickly just to illustrate the idea, not as any suggestion of a final look.
BTW. who is Gruppy? :)
Guppy being the nickname of a P38 pilot in Edwards Park's book about his time with the 41st FS, 35th FG, 5th AF. Guppy35 followed from that.
-
Originally posted by Edbert
I don't think it would eliminate hordes...errr not very PC of me to use that word...try "large missions" or "squad ops"", but it would force them to fight each other instead of racing to see who can capture undefended bases the fastest.
That's the idea. Making the masses have to deal with each other.
-
Originally posted by Guppy35
BTW. who is Gruppy? :)
:lol I was waiting for that.
-
BTW. who is Gruppy
A left index finger that slipped.
HiTech
-
Hey Guppy, I dig the map... but there's 1 thing I think it's missing...
Now, I don't think it would fit into this particular terrain all that well, however, the idea of 2 ports off in the middle of the water, with no airbases near it appeals to me, simply because you can have straight carrier to carrier battles without people being able to up a nonstop barrage of Lancs or Ju88s.
Ships exchanging shell fire, swarms of F4Fs, A6Ms, & TBMs (sry, I'm a early war junkie. plug in modern aircraft as applicable). I think it would make for some unique fights that you very rarely see on any of the current maps. Call it Carrier Town if you'd like. I think it's spiffy.
Just my 2 pennies :)