Aces High Bulletin Board

General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: Overlag on November 19, 2006, 08:43:05 AM

Title: field layouts by era? (number of ack etc)
Post by: Overlag on November 19, 2006, 08:43:05 AM
(this is not a wishlist thread, just throwing a idea into GD to see what others think)



what about that idea?

field layouts by what era it is?

ie

EW, fields have few acks (same as old setup). Hangers, barracks, fuel and ord is all groupped together.

MW, fields have more acks and dispersion of toolsheds has started.

LW fields have ack like we have now, and the dispersion of hangers, and other toolsheds too.

that would be slightly more realistic huh?


comments?
would this even be possible hitech?
Title: field layouts by era? (number of ack etc)
Post by: rogerdee on November 19, 2006, 10:38:44 AM
this would be  a good idea  seeing how the numbers are in the different arenas

But to implement it there needs to be different maps for each arena  so they can be set different.

Personaly id love to see grass fields in early war better dispersal  and  different hanger placement.

 but that would mean redoing all of the maps well at least half of them  for the early and mid arenas.

  I would say its possiable  but for it to be done  the time factor would be against it.
Title: field layouts by era? (number of ack etc)
Post by: Masherbrum on November 19, 2006, 10:39:34 AM
Nice idea however, the toolshedders will "take the path of least resistance".
Title: field layouts by era? (number of ack etc)
Post by: Overlag on November 19, 2006, 10:46:55 AM
Quote
Originally posted by Masherbrum
Nice idea however, the toolshedders will "take the path of least resistance".


dont they now? lol
Title: field layouts by era? (number of ack etc)
Post by: Kazaa on November 19, 2006, 11:58:53 AM
Nice idea.
Title: field layouts by era? (number of ack etc)
Post by: RDSaustinTX on November 19, 2006, 12:06:02 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Masherbrum
Nice idea however, the toolshedders will "take the path of least resistance".

 
Why shouldn't they??