Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: bagrat on July 14, 2010, 08:35:55 PM
-
if anyone has ever played the game risk, this is kinda generally the same excect 1 individual doesnt have as much authority over the entire country, anyways what if on mondays the map was reset with randomly scattered country airfields amongst the 3. The countrys will be fighting 3 ways alot more instead of just at the merge of 3 countries.
the 3 countries will be attacking each other from all angles and as they all duke it out for personal territory..... anyway the idea is having a map start with 3 countrys airfields all scattered amongst each other, yayy or nay?
-
The airfields would eventually merge again and form borders like we have now.
-
Creative idea. I wouldnt mind seeing something like this implemented. The problem would be the strat/supply system. How would the strats and supply system work if the borders dont exist?
-
What I predict would happen is most of the win the war types would start near their HQ and just steamroll everything close. And they'd be hard to stop since there would be less likelihood of having a nearby base available to support, which would disincent anyone from defending. So in the end you could end up with less combat and more steamrolling undefended bases than by having a defined front.
I could be wrong, of course.
-
You know he is on to something. If you removed the strat system and imposed a 12 hour window, that could be a hell of a lot of fun. I would not close the other arena such as TT, so bomber guys can do their thing. Hell I like that idea.
-
+1 i personally think its a great idea and would also help out with ones situational awareness.
-
The airfields would eventually merge again and form borders like we have now.
but not necesarily with the same equal strength, 2 countrys may rule and the 3rd scattered with 5 base clusters every where. it could just not have a hq?
-
you could still have a hq and 3 untakeable bases around it for each country, in fact it would probably be better.
-
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3340/3519464264_5242fa4d79.jpg)
-
you could still have a hq and 3 untakeable bases around it for each country, in fact it would probably be better.
Yes, but it could take the fun away from people who like to capture bases. Still need to have a little bit of something for everybody. :aok
-
Yes, but it could take the fun away from people who like to capture bases. Still need to have a little bit of something for everybody. :aok
lolmeh, +1 on OP though ;)
-
lolmeh, +1 on OP though ;)
Well, I don't necessarily agree on the base-takers' philosophy, I still remember doing it and having fun. And I know a large amount of players like to join in on these missions to go take bases. They shouldn't be shut out because a large number of people on the forum don't agree with the way they like to have fun. That's just my personal opinion. :aok
-
Well, I don't necessarily agree on the base-takers' philosophy, I still remember doing it and having fun. And I know a large amount of players like to join in on these missions to go take bases. They shouldn't be shut out because a large number of people on the forum don't agree with the way they like to have fun. That's just my personal opinion. :aok
Sorry about the 'lolmeh' bit, it was the only thing I could think of at the time (excuse: was cold and just woke up :P). I agree with what you said about getting enjoyment from that part of the game, but I'm honestly not sure how having three uncap's around the HQ would help. Perhaps a solution could be to make most of the bases uncapturable, but leave TT (or its equivalent on a given map) capturable. If so, you would allow for the TT bases to switch hands, thus giving the base-takers something to work at, whilst the HQ would give other players an objective to destroy (and provide a target for the big bomber missions), and the rest of the map could be used for base to base combat.
Here's an idea of what it might look like:
(http://i241.photobucket.com/albums/ff100/Yossarianace/ahss701.jpg)
-
I like this! Talk about a cage match! FUN FUN FUN :banana:
-
I like this! Talk about a cage match! FUN FUN FUN :banana:
WWE massacre. Watch as wrestlers perform death defying leaps and bone-crushing slams, incredible counters and much much more!!!
AH TRANSLATION:
WW2 furball. Fly as a plane, take off, BnZ, out-turn the noobs, vulch, HO, and all that good stuff everyone just loves so much. :D
-
WWE massacre. Watch as wrestlers perform death defying leaps and bone-crushing slams, incredible counters and much much more!!!
AH TRANSLATION:
WW2 furball. Fly as a plane, take off, BnZ, out-turn the noobs, vulch, HO, and all that good stuff everyone just loves so much. :D
I envision much more! Bombers/escort missions, NOE's, GV assaults, offense, defense, CV attacks, CV's sunk, and much much more! FUN FUN FUN :aok
Admittedly some will have trouble dealing with this sort of chaotic setup.
-
I like the idea. +1 :aok
A truly random arrangement might put several bases for one side close together. But that wouldn't garuntee anything.
-
I like the idea. +1 :aok
A truly random arrangement might put several bases for one side close together. But that wouldn't garuntee anything.
I actually think the arrangement would have to be very carefully chosen. With the example posted above, I tried to:
a) give each country a roughly equal number of bases (+/- 2).
b) if one country had a particular base sandwiched between two enemy bases, then make sure that each enemy country has a base in a similar situation.
c) give the bases closest to the HQ to that country, whilst ensuring that each country has a base on each HQ island.
Of course, if HTC were to actually adopt this, I'm sure there would be some other factors to consider, seeing as they're probably the only ones who actually understand all the dynamics of the AH gameplay.
Some other things that I think should be considered are that most bases would need to be airbases, not ports or vehicle bases. Otherwise you'd just get V-bases and ports continually being trashed by bomb****s and dweebs like me in B-25s. Vehicle spawns would probably need to be adjusted as well, to try and keep things roughly balanced.
Another possibility for an arrangement like this would be dedicating areas of maps to GV fights. I've seen this on some of the bigger maps (like that 512x512 one which has the basic layout of Oceania), but with this idea of scattering the bases around, you could take one corner of a map and just dedicate it to GVs, with little impact on the overall battle. For example, in that layout I posted above, if you took the bottom two rows of sectors and perhaps the four central bases in the row above that, and made them all V-bases, you could have a zone of the map dedicated to GV fights, and pretty much immune to interruption by fighters or bombers (since any airborne enemies would probably choose to attack the V-bases nearer to the airbases, for the sake of convenience).