Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: BaldEagl on March 26, 2011, 11:39:55 AM
-
It would be nice with the new changes to the GV's to add a little more realism; camo netting and the ability to dig in.
It might work something like this: Each tank/vehicle is equiped with the ability to do one or the other once per sortie. Once employed it takes a set amount of time, maybe 5 minutes to complete during which time the tank is vulnerable as the crew is busy employing this. If danger approaches the employment can be aborted and the crew returns to positions but the one use is gone.
Once employed the camo net takes on the look of whatever terrain it's on although without 100% coverage. I know that there's no level below ground to dig into so rather than digging the crew trows up a berm around the tank creating a hull down position.
Just a rough idea.
-
no offense baldy, but why the desire to treat a tank like a fixed position gun?
-
no offense baldy, but why the desire to treat a tank like a fixed position gun?
Because once your in the battlefield it often is.
-
Because once your in the battlefield it often is.
only in ah...i don't camp so that's why i asked... :D
fyi, camo netting only shielded guns from being spotted by aircraft...ground units could still spot them by various methods.
-
Camo netting could keep aircraft from seeing your icon? :-)
-
Camo netting could keep aircraft from seeing your icon? :-)
now that would be useful... :lol imagine all the net covered tanks rolling across the fields :rofl
-
Also good for setting up ambushes along travelled routes and gives you some independence from terrain in where you want to set up.
-
I like it. +1 Maybe something to spend GV perks on? :headscratch:
-
I like it. +1 Maybe something to spend GV perks on? :headscratch:
Camo netting could keep aircraft from seeing your icon? :-)
Love it!!! Now THAT would be a great addition!
-
+ :aok
-
+1
-
This same mechanic was used to suggest towed field guns, e.g. by M3's. Vulnerable deployment/pack up, M3 going off to scout/spot (using similar "driver/gunner" position scheme as in bombers) etc.
-
Camo netting could keep aircraft from seeing your icon? :-)
Guess Ill just have to fly lower ;D
-
no offense baldy, but why the desire to treat a tank like a fixed position gun?
because in real life it did become this at times <S>
-
because in real life it did become this at times <S>
:neener: only when fortifying fixed positions...like a base, not on open battlefields
-
Ideally camo would only work if stopped, as OP noted should have put up/take down time of at least a couple of minutes. Getting strafed at that point could/should kill your crew, leaving you a tank with no one to drive.
Once camo'd it should ideally remove the icon entirely, or lower it. Giving the tank a better chance to stay alive.
As to digging in, why do you think soldiers dig foxholes?
It doesn't help them charge or attack at all.
But it does help keep them alive, especially when getting hit by Artillery.
Same for digging a tank in, protects the vulnerable area's, especially by artillery.
-
now that would be useful... :lol imagine all the net covered tanks rolling across the fields :rofl
I would have it that once the tank is mobile, the icon then becomes visible
+1 to the idea
-
I really like the removing the icon part for camo netting. Wish I'd thought of that but that's why you post here and get ideas flushed out.
Five minutes might be a little long to wait to employ. I'd probably shorten that to one or two minutes. As to take down time I'd just say as soon as you move it's gone. I did intend netting to be used only while stationary.
The current re-arm mechanism might be modified to accomplish some of this. If you employ then move or fire during employment it aborts and you have used it up for that sortie. If already employed firing allows it to remain but as soon as you move it dissapears.
-
Perhaps have jeep crews come by to deliver/put up the netting and have to stay within a certain distance while it is being prepared. Leave a fair amount of time that if they choose to go this route, it will leave them vunerable
-
Stick em in vehicle supplies. You would either use em to reload or to deploy camo.
-
:neener: only when fortifying fixed positions...like a base, not on open battlefields
Okay so how is it inaccurate if you are defending your base and you dig in?
-
I like the idea of camo netting and no icon, but make sure that muzzle flashes can help
in revealing the position of firing tanks.
-
I like the idea of camo netting and no icon, but make sure that muzzle flashes can help
in revealing the position of firing tanks.
+1
-
I like the idea of camo netting and no icon, but make sure that muzzle flashes can help
in revealing the position of firing tanks.
Either muzzle flash, or a puff of smoke, or both. Having wonder woman's invisible tank camping a spawn would not be a good thing IMHO.
-
I think a lot of what is being asked for could be had by REDUCING the icon range for aircraft to gv visual from 2.0 to less than 1000 yards. In my opinion, it is far too easy to spot an enemy gv via icon than it should be. I'd like to see more immersion added to this sim-game, and taking away the luxury of having the computer tell you what gv you are seeing 2000 yards away would be a step in that direction.
I tested different graphics settings and how it effected finding gv's from much further than the 2.0 distance. Looking for and finding that small black spec of a gv while in a plane is not effected by the graphics settings. I usually find the gv long before the icon appears.
Also, I'd like to see the icon identifier reduced to "GV" while in a plane.
-
SLoon...I really like that idea of reducing the identifier to GV while in plane.
Keep on smokin whatever it is that loons do :aok
-
So.. what's one of the boss' think? I wonder...
-
SLoon...I really like that idea of reducing the identifier to GV while in plane.
Keep on smokin whatever it is that loons do :aok
Loons do not smoke. ;) I've not found out why the product is named as it is, I simply picked the name because 1>hearing the Loon's cry-howl while fishing in Canada is like hearing the bagpipes: eerie, awesome, and hypnotic; 2> I had just learned that one of my favorite musicians (Eddie Van Halen) had a fondness for Smoking Loon; and 3> that Loons are actually quite vicious when they need to be. Oh, one last thing: 4> Smoking Loon is actually pretty damned good!
http://marketplace.donandsons.com/Brands/Smoking-Loon
Much of what gets asked for can be mimicked with much easier coding efforts. Camouflage netting???? Spending perk points??? Just reduce the icon range a bit and "puuf" the camo netting is magically granted. :D
-
Just reduce the icon range a bit and "puuf" the camo netting is magically granted. :D
There are no GV to GV icons. The elimination of icons from the air was an offshoot of the original idea.
-
There are no GV to GV icons. The elimination of icons from the air was an offshoot of the original idea.
Enemy gv's are already hard enough to spot if the background is dark enough and/or similar enough to their camouflage. Also, their ability to hide behind hills and be totally protected yet get their turret traversed enough and the sight and barrel through the hill to fire is camo net enough for me. No cloaking device needed, imo.
I still maintain that reducing the icon range for plane to gv identification be less than 1000 yards would increase "realism" and make it more of a challenge for the dive bombers.
-
:neener: only when fortifying fixed positions...like a base, not on open battlefields
Okay so how is it inaccurate if you are defending your base and you dig in?
This
Enemy gv's are already hard enough to spot if the background is dark enough and/or similar enough to their camouflage. Also, their ability to hide behind hills and be totally protected yet get their turret traversed enough and the sight and barrel through the hill to fire is camo net enough for me. No cloaking device needed, imo.
yes but some of these battlefields are almost completely flat. digging in or putting netting over a low profile GV would instantly make it more dangerous
I still maintain that reducing the icon range for plane to gv identification be less than 1000 yards would increase "realism" and make it more of a challenge for the dive bombers.
agreed
-
Camouflage skins can't be relied on when so many people don't use them or have them disabled.
-
Camouflage skins can't be relied on when so many people don't use them or have them disabled.
yes but HTC can separate skins from objects. the skin may be the same but the netting would be an object. not a skin
-
I mean the skins we have now can't be relied on to assess anything.. There's no guarantee anyone doesn't have em disabled, that you aren't showing up as a bright orange spot to them.
Enemy gv's are already hard enough to spot if the background is dark enough and/or similar enough to their camouflage. [...] No cloaking device needed, imo.
Camo netting would ideally be separate, yep. Make the shape and then texture it using recycled bits of texture from the terrain. Just like the real deal.
-
With the rework HTC is doing to the way GV's are driven and used, this is leading towards inclusion of tank destroyers that where commonly dug in or camouflaged in some way or another in real life. A big +1 for both abilities from me. Also a shortened icon range for GV's viewed from the air is a great idea, but personally I can normally spot a GV in my stuka way before the current icon pops up, especially if it is on the move or firing. So a camo net would be great for hiding from prowling jabo planes.
The only thing that I would add to the discussion so far is that if camo netting is implemented and GV icon range is shortened or removed. Then add some kind of smoke marker that certain planes can drop from the air. All that combined would add a new fun way to play the game IMHO.
-
I gotta give this the "thumbs down". Both "digging in" and "camo" are two features of a
static battlefield. Given that movement to contact and/or spawning to a battle area would not
allow for either, I'm against it.
-
I'd like to see more immersion added to this sim-game <snip>
If by "more immersion" you mean, more realism, I'm all for that. So let's start by having tanks tear up any field
they go across, leaving big, easily identifiable trails on the ground, let's model cross country speeds, too as opposed
to it all being modeled as if they were on roads, get rid of the magical field repairs with "supplies" as well. Oh,
the spawn points, too. If planes can't "spawn" to another sector, why let the GVs?
Be careful what you wish for, you just might get more realism than you think you want. ;)
-
Wouldn't digging in mean immobilization? Wouldn't that make getting smoked out particularily bad news? We already have embankments at the vbases and those don't really make the tanks indestructible nor really stimy battlefield flux, and there aren't too many other valuable pieces of territory in the game where ground vehicles would gain from digging in:
Town defense: you could either set up plain defense at the town, or set up an ambush somewhere between spawn and town. Either way, esp at the town, town capture objective would make you a target similar to the Tiger today: people point it out in particular and it goes right up everyone's priority bombing list.
Fields: you're set up under even denser air traffic, with consequent odds of getting bombed. The only advantage there would be vulching or camping just out of auto ack range before starting to shell the field. Either way you end up with the same vulnerability in immobilization: marked for A2G.
Anything else? There could be more added to the ground war.. E.G random urban areas instead of nothing but open country outside of towns, fields, and strats... offroading made as rocky (maybe randomly vary it from slightly worse than it is now (definitely no long range mobile gunnery) to as bad as it used to be (you couldn't go full speed from rocking) ) as it used to be so that roads (have a handful of path choices linking any two random urban areas or towns/fields/strats so that there's some fog of war involved) regain value, and focus battles more than it is now: no concerns other than the ultimate target - fields or towns or strats.
Camo - couldn't it be made only an extension of the skin-camo functionality we already have? Meaning that it would be crafted so as to improve on the visual (literally better camo against terrain and nothing else, no icon or other gameplay mechanics powerups etc) camo we have now.
If by "more immersion" you mean, more realism, I'm all for that. So let's start by having tanks tear up any field
they go across, leaving big, easily identifiable trails on the ground, let's model cross country speeds, too as opposed
to it all being modeled as if they were on roads, get rid of the magical field repairs with "supplies" as well. Oh,
the spawn points, too. If planes can't "spawn" to another sector, why let the GVs?
Be careful what you wish for, you just might get more realism than you think you want. ;)
The right way about it is to pick and choose those parts of reality that make for fun gameplay. Roads, spawns, trails but not rooster trails you can see across the map, field supplies with a limited delay like planes have on hotpad rather than something burdensomely realistic, etc. Wheat and chaff.
-
Original post was thinking of trees and bushes in AH. By requesting to put them on tanks for "camo" the real effect is that they instantly stop all incoming shells of any shape/size. Knowing how they work in AH, it would be the ultimate power-up!
Effectively asking for super sheilds (TM, patent pending)!!!!
:noid :noid :noid
-
You would be that much bigger a moving volume.. That's not as stealthy when moving as going without camo. Just the kind of tradeoff that usually makes for fun gameplay.
-
You would be that much bigger a moving volume.. That's not as stealthy when moving as going without camo. Just the kind of tradeoff that usually makes for fun gameplay.
shoot and scoot tactics would be great with camo. and great for me and my tiger (or M-18 :noid ) :D
-
I mean the skins we have now can't be relied on to assess anything.. There's no guarantee anyone doesn't have em disabled, that you aren't showing up as a bright orange spot to them.
Really? That would explain some things. Bummer.
-
Original post was thinking of trees and bushes in AH.
It was? Actually I was thinking more along the lines of a loose camo cover that took on some of the terrain coloration so that the size, shape and color didn't scream out tank but could still be discerned as such on close observation.
-
fyi, camo netting only shielded guns from being spotted by aircraft...ground units could still spot them by various methods.
Then put that effect to use -- Any GV has the abiility to camouflage itself. Camouflaging a vehicle takes X number of minutes to set up or take down, and the vehicle must be stationary. Once camouflaged, the vehicle does not show an icon to hostiles. If the vehicle moves while camouflaged, or while setting up or taking down the camouflage, it immediately becomes uncamouflaged and cannot use camouflage again until resupplied.
-
It'd be better to have to press some key or button (like the supply button) to enable moving/breaking up camo/dig in. Or a bad key stroke (with new wasd system) will cost you those minutes/supplies/camo/cover.
Both "digging in" and "camo" are two features of a
static battlefield. Given that movement to contact and/or spawning to a battle area would not
allow for either, I'm against it.
Not sure how/why movement to contact/spawning to battle wouldn't allow digging in or camo props, but you could destroy dug-in embankment with enough HE.
-
I like the ideas. With anything here some will use it to game the game, but that shouldnt stop
them from being looked at or implemented in some way if it is something that was done in RL.
-
I think it is a good idea.
I would do it like this:
-All tanks have one camo net onboard, choose the colour in hangar (green/brown (the tone will be adjusted to general colours of the map OR one with general colour which will be adjusted to colour of the surroundings (technically more difficult)).
-When you find a good spot choose the direction your gun will be facing and initialize the camo net build. During build you are not able to operate the tank for, say, three minutes. If you abort the build in emergency it will take 10 seconds for crew to get back in and you will lose the net. If you decide to repack the net it will take half of the build time to repack, if you abort the repacking in emergency you will lose the net. You do not need to have an unobstructed space since the net will build through trees, walls etc.
-Camo net will reduce the visibility quite a bit but not totally, optically, and the icon is not visible at any distance. Of course you will be visible from angle where you gun faces since there is a section of net missing. It will also reduce your SA by limiting the visibility (one option is to make a flat topped octagon and let commander have unobstructed visibility).
-Camo net will be an octagon reaching the ground all around except that there is no net on the section your gun is facing giving you some area to direct your gun without disturbing the net. If you move the gun against net there will be a sign similar to "supply" button on top of screen which will show if you are in danger of destroying the net (if you destroy the net by turning the gun you could either destroy just that section you move your gun to, or optionally destroy the whole net. Destroying the net by moving the gun would also be a good way to make more firing section but if you destroy more than 50% the net will be lost).
Just a few ideas.
-C+
-
Personally, I love the idea. I'd also like to throw in removal of tag for enemy GV from the air. Probably my biggest pet peeve in AH is that the air cons can see GVs that well.
-
This wish has merit! :aok
Plus One
-
It'd be better to have to press some key or button (like the supply button) to enable moving/breaking up camo/dig in. Or a bad key stroke (with new wasd system) will cost you those minutes/supplies/camo/cover.
Like, oh, say, starting your engine? IIRC, the video never mentioned whether you would still have the engine start/stop command. And if you wanted to dig in and camouflage yourself better, but leave the engine running for a minutely faster bugout, and you accidentally hit a movement key, then that's the risk you take.
-
HiTech Creations is not this high tech
-
Yep Shiva that sounds perfect..
-
(http://i.ebayimg.com/18/!C!jg+DQCWk~$(KGrHqMOKooEy+jC0cQWBNDgrFZ4gQ~~_35.JPG)
(http://centurion-mbt-two.synthasite.com/resources/dug%20in%20yank%20tank.JPG)