Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: Oddball-CAF on June 01, 2011, 11:39:44 PM
-
From an article on ECommerce PR News :
Quote by "Dale Addink" ;
"Finally, animated paratroopers used to capture bases, have been added to the new version, a key tool for players to capture territory.
This is the first step towards a vision of integrating AI infantry and paratroopers into a more pronounced role in the game," says company CEO Dale Addink. "Aces High is about player- to- player combat in planes and vehicles and it will continue to be that. AI personnel will add a new layer to the immersion level of the game environment. Whether it is infantry fighting for territory or support personnel manning guns or refueling planes, it will add a lot to the online experience."
A very fascinating idea, adding infantry to the mix. I would take it a step beyond that and
allow the -players- to be that infantry. My personal thoughts on this would be to have
only particular areas of the map be able to utilize such an option. Perhaps terrain
other than the boring, same old , cookie-cutter types we're so accustomed to now.
I can see it now.... an M3 loaded up with ten -human- soldiers, armed variously with
bazookas, BARs, M1s, grenades.... Escorted by several tanks, the troops disembark
about 500 yards shy of a town, and begin working their way towards it. Perhaps some
combat engineers in another M3...
The possibilities are endless and I wouldn't imagine that it would impose any strain
on the servers.
Then enemy in those designated towns could contribute to its defense as well.
Hell, we've already got the gamey crap of guys bailing and fighting off/killing
dozens of (cough) well armed paratroopers with a single .45. How hard could it be
to implement these new "infantry" troops?
I would think it to be MUCH easier than designing a tank or plane from scratch and it
would add a much needed tactical aspect to the game now that the operational / strategic
level stuff is merely a thing of the past.
As for being strafed, bombed, etc... well, that'll have to be planned out ahead so that
there's some friendly air cover around to minimize/negate that stuff
From there, perhaps some small jeep towed ATGs or cannons...
Hell, we could try it out in one of the lesser utilized arenas/servers, play around with it
some, fine tune it, and see how it plays out. What's the harm in trying?
It's apparent something similar is in HTC's plans, here's a little nudge perhaps. :)
Regards, Odd
-
would be cool. :devil
-
´maybe perk certain armament? yeah a few days ago on desperation to protect a field i bailed out and went inside the map room to kill the troops, pretty stupid image a pilot with a pistol killing a bunch of soldiers arming thompsons. i thougt overthere "hey what if in a c47 when someone "joins" you they can be one of the paratroopers arming one garand rifle or a thompson if he has the correct rank/perk also this one couldnt go thru the walls and such. but then again it could have some abuse SO to change that the player would have to joing the c47 while it is still on the runway.
-
Would be awesome. I wondering when it would come around. Also, perk the big guns and allow the M1 Garand, possibly MP40, etc. And then we could deploy troops also to defend the base. How about "z" to aim?
+1
-
I believe HT mentioned some time ago, that he would like to have the players become the infantry to capture the base. When the time comes to "drop troops", players from both sides can spawn a new reality inside the main AH reality and it would become a FPS fight to capture/defend the maproom.
Perhaps AI infantry is the next step towards this...
-
Oh, hell no.
-
If anything, I'd like to see the infantry be able to be dropped further away and way points set for them to travel to the map room/command bunker.
Adding in the FPS aspect does not appeal to me.
-
sounds like you want to play COD.....?
-
It is a question of time and space. Planes are 100 times faster than infantry. Infantry spawns would have to be on top of the maproom.
On an FPS model:
Would individual players have to enter maproom and tower out?
Would individual soldiers have to join an M3 or C47? Then sit there while in transit?
Maybe an RTS model where a player controls a squad would work. But time and space remain issues.
The OP's idea is cool, but I don't see how to implement it into the game.
-
sounds like you want to play COD.....?
COD is actually pretty cool, IMHO.
I don't think an FPS platform would work in this platform, though. I think element sized operations would work, maybe ratio based ie attackers vs defenders, mutipliers based on equipment deployed, etc.
I don't think it's an easy thing, however.
-
+ 1
flak
-
<---------------Combat Engineer (Airborne/Air Assault/Sapper School) would love to see something like that captured....maybe Engineers that have to plant an explosive charge to destroy the map-room??? Say 8 Soldier, 1 Sapper, 1 LT. Good Idea :aok
-
<---------------Combat Engineer (Airborne/Air Assault/Sapper School) would love to see something like that captured....maybe Engineers that have to plant an explosive charge to destroy the map-room??? Say 8 Soldier, 1 Sapper, 1 LT. Good Idea :aok
Wouldn't there be debate over who's LT? Out of the soldiers shouldn't one guy carry anti-tank weapons and one be a sniper (anti-troop and can take cover in destroyed buildings?)
-
Good idea and it sounds like a lot of fun. But I won't hold my breath.
-
Let's get the M1911 .45 to work well first. It doesn't have a 21 round magazine, it has a 7 round magazine. To have the same amount of firepower, it would need a reload animation (technically two, one in which there is a round in the chamber, and one where the slide locks back). Then we need iron-sights as well, which would require two animations (entering and exiting the sights). Recoil (and its associated algorithm) would also be necessary, along with all the associated sounds of pulling magazines in and out of the magwell, pulling the slide back, flipping the safety on and off, releasing the the slide, and grabbing magazines from the pilot's vest.
-Penguin
-
The Human controlled will give more purpose to those in jeeps who have troops that can fight instead of the AI ones that are easy prey and either stand there like :O or run to map room. It give more purpose to light vehicles that are deployed in anti-troop patrols.
Let's get the M1911 .45 to work well first. It doesn't have a 21 round magazine, it has a 7 round magazine. To have the same amount of firepower, it would need a reload animation (technically two, one in which there is a round in the chamber, and one where the slide locks back). Then we need iron-sights as well, which would require two animations (entering and exiting the sights). Recoil (and its associated algorithm) would also be necessary, along with all the associated sounds of pulling magazines in and out of the magwell, pulling the slide back, flipping the safety on and off, releasing the the slide, and grabbing magazines from the pilot's vest.
-Penguin
We can use "z" to go in and out of iron sights.
-
Actually, the current FPS system that one can find in games like CoD, CS, BF, would work fine.
Movement:
W-Run forward
A-Run backward
S-Strafe Left
D-Strafe Right
Stances:
Z-Go to prone
X-Crouch
C-Stand Up
Shooting the Enemy:
Left Mouse Button-Shoot
Right Mouse Button-Aim down sights (can be a toggle or click and hold, based on preference)
R-Reload
Mouse-Adjust camera angle
And as a special bonus, an easter egg that requires the player to hit the keys in the correct order to have the character hold the gun sideways and make it gold colored, with rap music in the background.
-Penguin
-
And as a special bonus, an easter egg that requires the player to hit the keys in the correct order to have the character hold the gun sideways and make it gold colored, with rap music in the background.
-Penguin
How about customizing it after getting enough kills? Using perks to buy sights, scopes, better guns, etc?
-
Sounds just like CoD (not necessarily a bad thing, CoD has advanced the field of FPS games to an extent). I meant for it to be something that those with a lot of free time on their hands to discover.
-Penguin
-
And the towns could have powerups, like quad damage, or double jump. And we could have additional clothing and uniform options based on number of kills so people could tell by looking how awesome we are. We definitely would need to be able to fit the 1911 with scopes and magazine extenders. Maybe a shoulder stock as well, and a barrel extender/compensator.
Vehicles should also be able to be customized, and we need rings above the airfields we can fly through to reload our weapons and fuel, as well as quad damage and afterburner powerups. And we should be able to customize our loadouts. Want a 4k bomb on a spitfire? It should just cost some perks. Want JATO rockets on your Brewster? Just costs perks. Want sunglasses and a fancy hat? Perks and a minimum rank.
Yes. These are all things that would greatly improve the gameplay and should immediately be implemented. And then I will lay down with some snakes. Poisonous snakes.
Infantry ops would be nothing other than lame unless they started from scratch for the entire game engine and maps. Other than that, it's a grand idea.
Wiley.
-
How about infantry ranks? An I meant like just something like the different historical loadouts, different stocks (if there were), scope, or special sights earned throughout your combat as an infantry soldier.
-
COD is actually pretty cool, IMHO.
I don't think an FPS platform would work in this platform, though. I think element sized operations would work, maybe ratio based ie attackers vs defenders, mutipliers based on equipment deployed, etc.
I don't think it's an easy thing, however.
certainly is, I have a blast when I play it...but I don't play Aces High for that type of action,and wouldn't be all that happy if they turned this into that type of game.
-
^-- agreed on that. I would lose some interest if AH went the way of that "other" game that tries to combine ground and air action together.
-
Here's my idea.. have two versions of Aces High:
(V1)The first version is what we play.. and pay a monthly fee for. We get to fly planes, dogfight, attack with armor.. and all that. This would still basically stay the same.
(V2)The second version is a FPS and would be free.
This is how it would work. A base in V1 will be white-flagged and troops out. Once the troops enter the town's perimeter, it spawns a ground battle in V2. Players waiting in a queue in V2 get to fight against each other inside the town... attackers from one country trying to get to the maproom in the town, and defenders trying to kill them all and keep them from getting there. The ratio of attackers vs. defenders would be dependent on the percentage of each country's TROOPS "factory". If the attackers make it to the maproom alive, the base it taken. If not then the base take fails. Keep in mind that the planes and tanks from V1 will not be able to interact with V2 (not even able to see each other.. maybe only a progress bar type thing), however V2 players will be able to see V1 players dogfighting over the town or divebombing the base, etc.
For example: Rooks attack a Knight base and get the town white-flagged. Rooks' Troops are at 100%, but Knights' troops are at 60%. There just happens to be 160 people online in V2 so it distributes them so 100 are Rooks and attacking, and 60 are Knights and defending. Maybe make it so that the country with a higher AMMO percentage gets better weapons (or more ammo)... The war continues until a certain percentage of the attackers make it into the map room, until all V2 troops are dead for either side, or until a certain amount of time has elapsed.
Granted, the FPS war won't be nearly as involved or detailed as games like COD, but it will BE 100% FREE! People playing the V2 version will be seeing the dogfighting and bombing and the planes all having fun and that will ultimately entice them to play (and pay for) the V1 version!
In the time period between base takes, players in the V2 game can play single or multi-player missions that may or may not be related to the V1 version at all. When a base take is taking place, then those missions are put on hold, and they are required to join in on the base taking missions... after which they can return to their previous missions.
If there aren't enough people online in the V2 game when troops are let go, then normal V1 rules (10 troops into the maproom) takes precedence.
What do you guys think?
-
´maybe perk certain armament? yeah a few days ago on desperation to protect a field i bailed out and went inside the map room to kill the troops, pretty stupid image a pilot with a pistol killing a bunch of soldiers arming thompsons. i thougt overthere "hey what if in a c47 when someone "joins" you they can be one of the paratroopers arming one garand rifle or a thompson if he has the correct rank/perk also this one couldnt go thru the walls and such. but then again it could have some abuse SO to change that the player would have to joing the c47 while it is still on the runway.
they are both .45s :D
-
How about the "secon version" is free to users of AH Tigger?
-
Or maybe HTC could make the paratroops smarter--so while they proceed to the maproom they will also target and fire upon any enemy pilots within a certain radius of their route.
And maybe the first one to the maproom tosses a grenade inside first to kill any pilot lying in wait inside.
I agree its not realistic what a single pilot armed with a .45 can do now.
-
HTC wants FPS involved in AH someday... just give them time guys <S>
-
^-- agreed on that. I would lose some interest if AH went the way of that "other" game that tries to combine ground and air action together.
Agreed. I'd rather see AH continue to focus on air operations - more planes, more realistic terrains, maybe expand to a Korean war version.
-
well, beeing able to spawn as a soldier could make the horde "tatic" be substituted by a more strategic one rigth? i mean get the horde we have today, flating the town then having the vulchers... but if we could have some resistance soldiers (fps platform?) in the town, there would need a second stage of battle to actually get the field. a ghost bombed town with a white flag and a few resistance forces doing what they can to avoid the controll of the maproom, this could evolute to the modeling of the inside of houses and things like that. having a strategic mg posted at a window, one guy with binoculars and so on....
-
and the difference to that "other" game would be that the main part of aces high still is air. since the simulation beats far the other games'
-
How about the "secon version" is free to users of AH Tigger?
No it would have to be free to everybody in my opinion. I don't feel like I'm a marketing genius by any means but being that HTC is a small company, I just don't see them cranking out life-like graphics and fighting scenes like new FPS games have to offer (No offense, HiTech.. prove me wrong on this!) This tells me that AH would not be able to compete with those other FPS games.. especially not for their target audience. I think a lot of these "kids" these days will be more than happy to accept a game with less "eye-candy" if it were free! Personally I'll prefer the "realism of physics" and HTC's attention to detail over the eye candy any day of the week, but a lot of kids these days don't see it that way - at least not at first. For the record I'm not saying that FPS graphics that HTC could create would be horrible or that the FPS gameplay would be poor... on the contrary I feel that HTC's FPS would be superior to others in many ways! I just don't personally feel that the younger generation of FPS players would agree.
The whole point in making the FPS game free to all would be to show them what they are missing because they will be able to watch GV and Air battles unfold before their eyes, and over time either they will want a part of that too, or they will talk about it to others who will want a part in it.
At least that's how I would do it if it were in my hands.
-
No it would have to be free to everybody in my opinion. I don't feel like I'm a marketing genius by any means but being that HTC is a small company, I just don't see them cranking out life-like graphics and fighting scenes like new FPS games have to offer (No offense, HiTech.. prove me wrong on this!) This tells me that AH would not be able to compete with those other FPS games.. especially not for their target audience. I think a lot of these "kids" these days will be more than happy to accept a game with less "eye-candy" if it were free! Personally I'll prefer the "realism of physics" and HTC's attention to detail over the eye candy any day of the week, but a lot of kids these days don't see it that way - at least not at first. For the record I'm not saying that FPS graphics that HTC could create would be horrible or that the FPS gameplay would be poor... on the contrary I feel that HTC's FPS would be superior to others in many ways! I just don't personally feel that the younger generation of FPS players would agree.
The whole point in making the FPS game free to all would be to show them what they are missing because they will be able to watch GV and Air battles unfold before their eyes, and over time either they will want a part of that too, or they will talk about it to others who will want a part in it.
At least that's how I would do it if it were in my hands.
wow man, that sounds like a really cool idea. seriously that migth even work.
-
^-- agreed on that. I would lose some interest if AH went the way of that "other" game that tries to combine ground and air action together.
We already to some degree. Look at the GVs and most always there is a guy waiting to help the ground. Also, I only know 1 other game that actually allows players to fly in planes and is a FPS.
-
That doesn't compare to suggesting we made a fully detailed ground war for FPS action. It takes a LOT more detail to mimick buildings, streets, trees, rocks, shrubs, etc... Than it does to fly over a flat countryside from thousands of feet above.
The level of detail required means you need smaller confined areas that balance gameplay over area. Whereas air-based sims need area over detail.
They are mutually exclusive goals and needs, and no game that is good at one can be good at the other.
Literally, mutually exclusive. Doing one precludes the other.
-
We already to some degree. Look at the GVs and most always there is a guy waiting to help the ground. Also, I only know 1 other game that actually allows players to fly in planes and is a FPS.
I know four:
Arma II
Battlefield 1942
Battlefield 2
Battlefield Vietnam
:neener:
-Penguin
-
That doesn't compare to suggesting we made a fully detailed ground war for FPS action. It takes a LOT more detail to mimick buildings, streets, trees, rocks, shrubs, etc... Than it does to fly over a flat countryside from thousands of feet above.
The level of detail required means you need smaller confined areas that balance gameplay over area. Whereas air-based sims need area over detail.
They are mutually exclusive goals and needs, and no game that is good at one can be good at the other.
Literally, mutually exclusive. Doing one precludes the other.
You'll note in my original post I specifically stated that they be limited to perhaps a single field.
What's wrong with a little playground amidst all the rest of the game? Right now, "winning the war" is
just so anti-climatic I could care less if my side wins or loses. But, maybe if the winning of that
war included infantry, assault guns, etc, working in unison it'd be a bit more exciting.
As far as servers go, hell, the MA is the only one that really gets any use. Try it out in the midwar or
early war and see what happens. It need not be graphically on par with the standard FPS
"shooters" for folks to enjoy it. As we all know, playing these things and enjoying 'em
means for the most part; suspending one's disbelief.
(http://i.imgur.com/mXbzs.jpg)
-
Here's my idea.. have two versions of Aces High:
(V1)The first version is what we play.. and pay a monthly fee for. We get to fly planes, dogfight, attack with armor.. and all that. This would still basically stay the same.
(V2)The second version is a FPS and would be free.
That would make perfect sense, investing all that time and money developing something like that and then giving it away free :rolleyes:
-
sounds like you want to play COD.....?
+1
it would be fun, bnut it would be the COD kiddies camping in their strategic spots with their uber guns so that the offenders couldnt get in.
-
+1
it would be fun, bnut it would be the COD kiddies camping in their strategic spots with their uber guns so that the offenders couldnt get in.
One word: flammpanzer. :D
-
+1
it would be fun, bnut it would be the COD kiddies camping in their strategic spots with their uber guns so that the offenders couldnt get in.
ya if they went that way.....it would have to be a separate arena, making the MA like that would ruin it for me and I would just play Oblivion.
-
+10
-
As a fan of FPSs, I love the idea of human controled infantry. The problem lays in getting troops into town. I just don't see many people waiting arround for a 15-30 min ride in a goon or M-3 to get into the action.
My solution is to have spawn points circling the town on the edge. At least 6 to prevent spawn camping. It will work like a re-arm pad, in that it reconises when a vehicle is parked on it. An M-3 parked on a spawn activates the spawn, allowing players to jump into the action. Also could have a zone over town for C-47s, paratroopers can spawn from a goon circling the town. Naturally the defenders need spawns too. I'm thinking a bunker near the maproom, as well as other buildings in town(tavern, hotel, town house). The bunker is hardened and cannot be destroyed, but the others can.
more ideas to come.
-
That would make perfect sense, investing all that time and money developing something like that and then giving it away free :rolleyes:
Yes I would normally agree with you - "free" doesn't make you any money, at least not in a traditional sense, but things are different today though.
Look at Google. They started off as a free service. I don't have to pay a cent to go to Google.com and search for something. Yet their stock is up to <GASP> OVER $500!!!
Look at Facebook. I maintain an account there (mostly for family) and I don't recall EVER giving them my CC# or writing them a check - yet their founder is worth MILLIONS as a result of facebook.
Using your logic, neither of those ventures should have been successful yet here they are! Granted they make a lot of their money through advertising, but they also make a lot through services that they DO charge for. They "lure" people in with their free services until their name is a household word, and when they require pay services that are available that's where they naturally turn.
My whole point of making it "free" is to get all of these kids into the game. The FPS ground war would be very limited (as compared to normal Aces High) and would only allow players to play in pre-set battles. They wouldn't be allowed to make their own setups or to choose who they play with. Perhaps if it took off those features could be added later on in a PAY version of the FPS game but I personally can't see it happening in the beginning.
Players in the "free" version will see tanks rolling around and planes dogfighting above them and think to themselves "HEY THAT WOULD BE COOL!" but then BAM $15 please! Since they've already seen the action and maybe even seen some of the communication they have a rough idea as to how to play the game and the strategies involved, so when they do make the transition from the FREE to the PAY version they are already (reasonably) in the know. This to me seems like a good way to get the basic training and the crack addiction processes out of the way at the same time.
In order for a PAY version of an Aces High FPS to compete with games like COD and the like, they would have to increase their graphics quality by LEAPS AND BOUNDS and compete with large companies that have TEAMS of programmers doing just this. Don't get me wrong I think HTC does a wonderful job, I just don't see them competing on this kind of a scale. A lot of people will be fine with lesser quality if it were free and the whole point of an FPS game would be to get people to join the Air wars, right!
Besides, if the FPS game did happen to take off they could always start charging for it later on. Maybe call it a free beta for two years like some other games we know.
-
AH is as far from COD and the like as it gets.....those games are produced for mass population have almost Zero reality, so they make up for it with Graphics, AH is the exact opposite it is Almost 100% reality and graphics don't mean squat, except AH graphics perform perfectly for what this game is.
I would be straight up "pissed off" if AH went the way of COD.
this is not a FPS by making AH have Controlled Infantry that is EXACTLY what it would become. and what those asking for it want.
GO PLAY COD
we probably would have less
ganging...IE 5-6 or more on one con. anything over 4 is lame and bad "tactics" (if that guy can survive a 4vs1 he deserves to fly home)
ACK running (basicly those not willing to fight it out)
HOing as a normal "Tactic"
these are the 3 things that are most commonly complained about, and the only 3 things I think "suck" about AH.
-
Using your logic, neither of those ventures should have been successful yet here they are! Granted they make a lot of their money through advertising, but they also make a lot through services that they DO charge for.
I have to doubt that either of those companies make 5% of their revenue through paid services. In fact, I don't even know of any services that either of those companies offer that you have to pay for. And considering that Google and Facebook are advertising giants, I'd say that means something.
Though there is something to be said for the whole 'play it as an FPS for free' deal, as it would serve as an advertisement for the game, and it would allow for more infantrymen to drive the classic gameplay, just with a human touch.
Just because it's FPS doesn't mean it would be CoD style, there are more 'realistic' FPS's. ArmA, OP: Flashpoint, and Red Orchestra come to mind, and I don't even like FPS's.
-
AH is the exact opposite it is Almost 100% reality
I don't buy this at all. Perhaps if you were talking only about the flight sim aspect of it, I'd agree
to a certain extent. However calling the game in its entirety "almost 100% reality" is just ridiculous.
Miraculous vehicle repairs, genie-like spawn points, vehicle speeds dictated only by the level of
incline/decline (ie: road speeds/cross country speeds not modeled).
The only difference between the late war arenas and the dueling arena is .... what? There is no
difference, really, save for the capture of bases which is done in the same, tired, old hackneyed
fashion day after day.
I personally fail to see how the limited inclusion of human-based infantry including, but no limited
to riflemen, engineers, mortar sections and bazooka/panzerschreks would do anything
except to enhance current gameplay.
The furball crowd wins because a lot of planes normally flying high and BnZing are gonna come
down lower to strafe infantry/suppress an assault, the GV guys win because their aspect of the
game has now expanded tremendously. GVs now become used (until we get some) as assault guns,
not merely spawn-camp food or spawn-campers, or town killers.
My initial point was and remains that the inclusion of infantry be -limited- geographically. Specifically,
I would like to see wars not won merely according to percentages, but to have an actual capital city
in place. THIS would be where the planes, tanks, AND infantry all come into play. "The Last Battle".
-
I don't buy this at all. Perhaps if you were talking only about the flight sim aspect of it, I'd agree
to a certain extent. However calling the game in its entirety "almost 100% reality" is just ridiculous.
Miraculous vehicle repairs, genie-like spawn points, vehicle speeds dictated only by the level of
incline/decline (ie: road speeds/cross country speeds not modeled).
The only difference between the late war arenas and the dueling arena is .... what? There is no
difference, really, save for the capture of bases which is done in the same, tired, old hackneyed
fashion day after day.
I personally fail to see how the limited inclusion of human-based infantry including, but no limited
to riflemen, engineers, mortar sections and bazooka/panzerschreks would do anything
except to enhance current gameplay.
The furball crowd wins because a lot of planes normally flying high and BnZing are gonna come
down lower to strafe infantry/suppress an assault, the GV guys win because their aspect of the
game has now expanded tremendously. GVs now become used (until we get some) as assault guns,
not merely spawn-camp food or spawn-campers, or town killers.
My initial point was and remains that the inclusion of infantry be -limited- geographically. Specifically,
I would like to see wars not won merely according to percentages, but to have an actual capital city
in place. THIS would be where the planes, tanks, AND infantry all come into play. "The Last Battle".
ok excluding GV's....I don't play Aces High for GVing. but ya I do agree the GV's need some help to become almost 100% reality.
I still do not like the idea of human controlled infantry.
-
yup id love to wait for some poor soul to run to a town for 20 mins only to be strafed by my 190 "pawned"
-
yup id love to wait for some poor soul to run to a town for 20 mins only to be strafed by my 190 "pawned"
In my version, several M8s or Jeeps scout ahead, towards the town/city. Behind them
are a few tanks, a few assault guns, and several Whirblewinds, and an M3 with some
human-controlled AI in 'em. No running for "20 minutes" necessary.
The AI paratroopers would still be in use for the actual capture. The above stuff
is merely for augmenting the attack/capture.
The attackers will have (ideally) low flying aircraft as well to deal with planes
such as your 190. A "pawned" perhaps, but not always.
The "strafers" will have two options; spending much needed SA on looking
for ground troops or dealing with the fighters covering the ground attack; just
as it is today.
-
AH is as far from COD and the like as it gets.....those games are produced for mass population have almost Zero reality, so they make up for it with Graphics, AH is the exact opposite it is Almost 100% reality and graphics don't mean squat, except AH graphics perform perfectly for what this game is.
I would be straight up "pissed off" if AH went the way of COD.
this is not a FPS by making AH have Controlled Infantry that is EXACTLY what it would become. and what those asking for it want.
GO PLAY COD
we probably would have less
ganging...IE 5-6 or more on one con. anything over 4 is lame and bad "tactics" (if that guy can survive a 4vs1 he deserves to fly home)
ACK running (basicly those not willing to fight it out)
HOing as a normal "Tactic"
these are the 3 things that are most commonly complained about, and the only 3 things I think "suck" about AH.
You're forgetting something here. My idea isn't about making AH like COD. Aces High is NOTHING like COD. The Aces High that you and I both play as it stands right now would not be changed. The only thing that would change would be the possibility of ten troops getting into a map room and the base not being taken.
My point is that the VAST MAJORITY of people who play FPS games have absolutely no interest in a (physics) realism game like Aces High. I personally believe the reason for this is because they simply do not know any better. The whole point of my proposal is to INTRODUCE these people into this type of a game. They come in for the free FPS action and the more they get to see what they are missing as far as air and GV battles go the more they'll want to subscribe to that part of it.
When 10 troops enter a map room from our doing, in the FPS game a battle will initiate in the town with attackers trying to make their way to the maproom, and with defenders coming out of the maproom to defend it.
Aside from some text communications and seeing the results of the battles, we would see nothing different. I also feel that the condition of the strats could have an impact on the ground battles... as far as how unbalanced the sides are.. how much ammo they get.. what kind of weapons are available.. etc. It would bring meaning back to the strats if nothing else!
However on their end they'll get to see and hear all of our communications.. and they'll get to see the planes flying overhead and the tanks driving by while they battle each other. I mean seriously... how long can they watch planes dogfighting and divebombing around them.. and tanks shooting up at the planes... before they want to start playing that part of the game too?
Keep in mind this is just an idea. Hitech mentioned wanting to incorporate FPS play into the game somehow eventually. I personally feel this is a clever way to do so and to bring business in at the same time but Hitech might have a completely different opinion altogether about it.