Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: Vudak on July 20, 2011, 03:28:56 PM
-
Currently, strategic victory in Aces High is determined exclusively by the percentage of bases owned. Although this is a tried and true concept dating back to the days of Air Warrior, it also has its limitations, and tends to funnel game play in predictable ways, thus limiting opportunities for a wider range of experiences within the MA.
Under the current setup, there is very little reason to attack anything other than a frontline base. One rarely sees deep penetration missions featuring bombers at altitude with escorts, and the primary reason is that there is no point (other than roleplay). Indeed, whereas half the reason of paying for an airforce is to be able to strike behind enemy lines, in Aces High, such a thing is seen as "wasteful" or "useless." A game about WW2 air battles seems to require a special event to see a massed, escorted bomber raid. I place blame on the game's emphasis on airfields as the primary objective.
I propose that the airfields be realigned as secondary objectives in that suppressing or taking them will help a country complete their new primary objectives: the destruction of enemy infrastructure, industry, and logistics systems.
Whereas now one country must possess a certain percentage of airfields to "win," under my system, a country must destroy a certain percentage of targets (initially) deep within enemy territory. Capturing airfields will still be useful, as they will reduce flight times to said targets, while suppressing airfields will have the effect of hogtying defenders. Further, airfields could be one type of target too. They would just have a smaller mathematical effect on the outcome (the exact math would depend on total targets and airfields naturally, but something along the lines of 1/20th of an industrial targets value, which in turn might be 1/20th of the total victory threshold).
To win, a certain "victory threshold" must be reached, and this is based on the percentage of targets destroyed. This would propel deeper-ranged targets to a level of prominence, and encourage the sort of tactics necessary to successfully reach and attack them (higher level approach, escorts, screens, teamwork, tactics, and strategy).
An attack on an industrial, infrastructure, or logistic target will have two purposes. The first is to contribute towards the total threshold needed to secure victory (each target would be worth a percentage of the total destruction needed). The second would be to make attacking successive targets easier. Here are two first-draft examples:
Ammunition Plant
A successful attack on an ammunition plant would cause flak batteries to fire less high. At game's start, a nation's flak would fire in 4 zones: 0-7.5k, 7.5-15k, 15-22.5k, and 22.5-30k. At game's start, each nation has four ammunition plants. When each is destroyed, a layer of flak is taken away (so the first destroyed ammo plant would make flying over 22.5k safe from flak, the second would clear the zone of 15k+).
Divisional H.Q.'s
An attack on a division H.Q. (troops) would decrease the amount of troops needed to capture a base. At game's start, each base would require 4 C-47 loads to capture, and each nation would have 4 Divisional H.Q. buildings. For each H.Q. destroyed, one less C-47 would be required.
Please note that these are just rough examples. The specifics can change however one sees fit. The point is to give there two purposes to attacking a deeper target: inching closer to the victory threshold, and making successive attacks easier.
Now, suppose a target is destroyed. Can it be rebuilt? Yes, via a simple A to B to C logistics system.
A--Origin: Cities and factories send out supplies to marshaling yards. If the city or factory has previously been damaged by raids, it sends out supplies less quickly.
B--Marshalling Yards: decides where to send supply trains to rebuild damaged infrastructure (this could even be player-controlled, as with CV's). Will load trains and send them on to their destination. If the marshalling yards are damaged, trains will be dispatched less quickly.
C--Destination: The ammunition factory, divisional H.Q., city, factory, etc. that has been damaged/destroyed and is in need of supply.
In the meanwhile, these trains are destructible and can be targeted by player aircraft.
Ordinance and fuel restrictions as they currently exist in game (I do NOT advocate "punishing" players more so than already happens) could be tied in to this system as well. I think ENY should remain numbers based.
I believe that such a strategic system would give Aces High much more depth while remaining simple enough to learn quickly. It would add to the game, without taking away anything from it. No one would be forced to play a certain way, either. Furballers could remain content in the MA fighting each other between airfields as always, while strategy gurus could get together and plan truly decisive raids. Historical types would get to relive the pages of all the books they've read about WW2 air combat, while quick action seekers would still be able to take off and quickly find a fight at a nearby airfield.
I think that shifting the primary objectives away from the front line would make this game much more diverse and fun.
Well, that's it in a nutshell. Tear it to shreds :)
Edited because for some reason " is replaced with a '?' when transferring from Word...
-
Excellent idea.
On the other hand, I'm not sure if HTC (currently) has the resources to implement such changes, they already have hard time with simple things like updating planes, fixing bugs and tweaking current system. Hell, even things like fixing BBS search takes a while.
Maybe if recent distribution deal brings more subscribers they can seriously dig into strat system.
I wouldn't want to see another "Combat Tour" like project.
-
Excellent idea.
On the other hand, I'm not sure if HTC (currently) has the resources to implement such changes, they already have hard time with simple things like updating planes, fixing bugs and tweaking current system. Hell, even things like fixing BBS search takes a while.
Maybe if recent distribution deal brings more subscribers they can seriously dig into strat system.
I wouldn't want to see another "Combat Tour" like project.
Well, posting in the wishlist is like buying a lotto ticket. You do it for the week's worth of dreaming, not for your chances! :D
-
I dig it... but why not make it even more simple to calculate. Make "victory" based on "victory points". Assign a certain number of victory points to each type of target captured... example:
500 victory points required to "win": (yes... I just pulled this number out of my butt, so dont do any math on the number of bases and strats needed to meet it :neener: )
Task Force: 5 victory points
Port: 5 victory points
S Airfield: 10 victory points
M Airfield: 15 victory points
L Airfield: 20 victory points
Factory: 15 victory points
City: 50 victory points
HQ: 100 victory points
So how do you capture a factory, city, or HQ? Simple... A certain % of it must be destroyed (just as the towns have to be now)... and add map rooms to them. Dont change the math on troops needed to capture anything... and a captured factory would have the same effect as it being destroyed does now.
This will make the larger bases more valuable... right now, they are just harder to flatten. If they are WORTH more... you will begin to see fights over them, and strategic decisions made. Such as "We are being hit at small AF 213, and at large AF 224" The smart thing to do would be to sacrifice the small AF to save the large one if there werent enough forces to save both.
Do away with the radar being taken down if the HQ is captured... since that is currently the only reason to hit it aside from score padding. Being the most valuable target on the map makes it worth hitting using this method... and worth defending.
In addition... making the strats able to be captured... instead of destroyed... give the other side (or even the third side) the ability to fight to take it back.
Great concept Vudak... but I think tweaking it this way would work better... be easier to implement, and make for a wide variety of tactics to "win the war".
-
+1
How about a destructible train traveling between strats?
-
AKP, as long as the more "expensive" targets are behind enemy lines, then I'm for it :aok
I don't think you should have to capture a factory though... That would be asking a lot of the goonie drivers. It's hard enough to get them a sector or two without interception. Imagine 3-4! I understand that you want to encourage a fight over them, but there could be a fight to defend the skies surrounding the railway lines that would bring in the supplies that could bring the factories back (If "A" destroys a factory and gets the 15 victory points, but then neglects it and allows it to be repaired, they lose the 15 points, so there would be a legitimate reason for train busting missions).
-
Vudak... point taken on the goon. Its also hard enough just getting one on a normal mission. No one here wants to be "the easiest girl at the dance".
So what you are saying is that if using the point system as I stated you would need to:
1) take enough bases of the right sizes first
then
2) hit the strats and level them in order to force the opponent into submission... so that the strats dont repair themselves before you can get the remaining bases you need to win.
A 1 hour down time would need to be put into place on the strats too, and to follow up my idea about larger bases being worth more than smaller ones... each map would need a different set of victory points needed to win... making sure that you cant get enough points by just hitting the small ones.
-
Ask and you shall receive. :aok DONE!
+1
How about a destructible train traveling between strats?
-
Something along those lines, sure. 1 Hour might be a bit tight considering the distances involved to target, etc., but that could always be adjusted (even by map if need be). If there is a true railroad system, you can bump up the downtime much longer (because it will be reduced by each--vulnerable--train). If there is no such system, then the downtime would probably need to be shorter to balance.
The basic aim (which I think both our plans share) is to make attacks on something other than the most convenient target worthwhile. Right now, there is very little incentive to go after anything but the easiest target, because all targets give the same number of "points."
-
The basic aim (which I think both our plans share) is to make attacks on something other than the most convenient target worthwhile. Right now, there is very little incentive to go after anything but the easiest target, because all targets give the same number of "points."
Exactamundo! :aok
Its like we are using WWI strategy (fighting only along the front lines) with WW2 equipment.
-
Im all for some strat over haul. I would like to see real convoys too, along with Depots too. Maybe even a real sea port.
-
I would just like the strategic asset destruction to have some sort of effect as well as being able to affect it's resupply time.
As of now, it seems they always resupply no matter how many trains you kill.........or how many times you kill the same train.
-
I'm all for another, forward, layer of logistic targets. Ammo and fuel dumps, replacement depots, rail yards, bridges, and even large cargo ship convoys like on current FSO map would be fun to hit. More things to do is more fun.
-
Vudak,
There are not enough koodos in the world to describe how much I love this plan! I really hope AH uses somthing like this for the strats if they get reformed. :aok
-
sounds great but how do you propose all this attack will be coordinated? and do you know why few people dont engage in long range missions? because it takes hours, and few people have the time to log in fly for two hours and get killed by somebody that upped ten minutes before.
there's a reason why hq raids are a waste of time, they can be ressuplied in five minutes.
I'm all for trying new things, but this new idea will require a country wide coordination which is almost impossible.
semp
-
sounds great but how do you propose all this attack will be coordinated?
What needs to be coordinated in any more detail than a current mission? It's not like every target would need to be hit at the same exact time, or even in the same day, depending on resupply settings.
and do you know why few people dont engage in long range missions? because it takes hours, and few people have the time to log in fly for two hours and get killed by somebody that upped ten minutes before.
A long-range mission in Aces high could mean as few as 2-3 sectors from the front. Hardly a two hour flight. Further, many people play this game for hours on end night in and night out for years. You'd be able to find enough people to go on a mission, and those who didn't want to spend the time in one wouldn't be prevented from doing exactly what they are doing right now.
there's a reason why hq raids are a waste of time, they can be ressuplied in five minutes.
Which is a problem that this plan wouldn't necessarily share.
I'm all for trying new things, but this new idea will require a country wide coordination which is almost impossible.
It would take absolutely no more coordination than winning the war currently takes. All we're talking here is changing the ideal target from the front to the rear. Any dedicated squad could run a successful mission then as now, there would just be some reason to run different types of missions.
-
you attack some targets in the rear, they get destroyed they will get rebuilt easily either by trucks or by goons, unless you also have fighters attacking the resupply convoys/goons. while at the same time you have other guys hitting a different regional hq, will will also need more fighters to keep back resupply convoys/goons. while at the same time you also have others hitting bases. this is the kind of country wide coordination that you wont find.
sounds like a great idea, but it would really need a good field general to coordinate and give assignments to other players. in other words, impossible.
semp
-
We are doing a lot of this sort of thing in AvA these days. Week before last we had a setup where the objective was to knock out the enemy strats (cities and factories)
Players needed to capture bases to get position to attack the strats, however capture wasn't an objective itself but a means to reach the strats which was the objective.
Last week Jaeger had multiple objectives in his setup and Shifty's objective this week is to capture the enemies cities which can be done on certain maps by capturing the right bases.
Of course we have to manually tally up the win conditions, and it's just for personal satisfaction and a teamwork reward as you don't get an auto win the war message or earn perk points for a victory.
What you are asking for is a great idea but I believe there would need to be an extensive rewrite of the existing code in order to automate it and I don't think HTC would devote the time to that right now.
Hopefully, some day we will get a version that allows for more variety of strategic game play.