Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: grizz441 on August 05, 2011, 08:46:20 PM
-
An idea I've been kicking around...
Basically what I propose is a capturable "Supply Yard" which is zone linked to a certain number of bases, depending on the size of the map. On this small map and for the illustration of this example, I have linked it to 4 bases as shown below. The Supply Yard is denoted as S1 and the 4 Blue Arrows show the corresponding bases that it is linked to.
(http://i379.photobucket.com/albums/oo237/grizz441/newidea.jpg)
The Supply Yard will control the rate at which all base related operations are supplied. If you control the supply yard, all your bases run at normal operation, i.g., town buildings down 45 minutes, hangars down 15 minutes, ord down xx minutes, etc. Whatever the current settings are. If you don't control the supply yard however, all linked bases suffer a severe resupply penalty, and I would propose it be as much as two times as long, i.g., town buildings down 90 minutes, hangars down 30 minutes, etc.
The Supply Yard itself would not have spawns into it and would likely be mostly an aerial fight to secure this piece of territory. The Supply Yard would not be heavily fortified and would only have 4-6 auto acks and 2 player controlled acks. It would only require 10 troops to capture, with the maproom located in the center. As soon as it is captured, all acks are replenished for the new side and resupply penalties are set immediately to all enemy zone bases linked to it. The resupply penalties take effect to objects destroyed after it is captured, not before.
Benefits of this Idea
-Increased strategy and game play immersion. As soon as the supply yard is captured, it will be important for the other side to begin plotting recapture attempts, while the side that just captured it will attempt to defend it while also exploiting the advantages of having secured this territory by bombing hangars taking down towns and capturing bases at an accelerated pace.
-Consistent flow of COMBAT. A furballers wet dream. There will always be heavy combat at and around these supply yards. Fights will not simply "dry up" in a volatile manner at which they currently often do.
-More dynamic mission planning. High number missions can now split their forces in a more reasonable manner in a multiple target offensive mission and also defensive missions.
-A consistent "ebb and flow" style of game play.
Disadvantages of this Idea
-Possible unforeseen unbalances based on certain map configurations and base layouts. Kind of hard to predict until you see how it plays out.
-You tell me
More combat, Check. More targets, Check. More Strategy, Check. More ways to use teamwork and be rewarded for the effort, Check.
My belief is that this would be dually fun for strategy guys as well as furball guys.
Ready for a Big Minus 1 from Corky and WrongWay. :)
Discuss.
-
Town buildings being down for over 2 hours? :huh
That seems like a pretty long time.
Coogan
-
Hmmm...capturable strats, just like we had in Air Warrior 3.
ack-ack
-
Town buildings being down for over 2 hours? :huh
That seems like a pretty long time.
Coogan
That's because I can't add 45 +45. It should have been 90 minutes.
-
-1
-
I like, but why no GVs? You could easily throw some anti-tank guns around it and GVs would add that much more to the immersion of the fight and would possibly bring IL2s.
People complaining about bomb tards, go take out ords.
-
I like, but why no GVs? You could easily throw some anti-tank guns around it and GVs would add that much more to the immersion of the fight and would possibly bring IL2s.
People complaining about bomb tards, go take out ords.
Because its focus is on aerial combat and strategy. The no GV's thing is in my opinion a better game play choice for this but obviously that's just my opinion. The GVs could still attack bases or drive there from far away spawns if they want, but I wouldn't want GVs dominating over the aerial intent of the idea.
-
You're describing the old Depots from AH1, 2002-03. I miss them.
-
LOL when did I become the evil Satan of Grizz ideas?
Anything that focuses combat is good by me. Seems to me it's too easy to reward avoiding a fight right now.
-
LOL when did I become the evil Satan of Grizz ideas?
.... Seems to me it's too easy to reward avoiding a fight right now.
QFT
-
That's because I can't add 45 +45. It should have been 90 minutes.
:aok Then I like this idea.
Coogan
-
Because its focus is on aerial combat and strategy. The no GV's thing is in my opinion a better game play choice for this but obviously that's just my opinion. The GVs could still attack bases or drive there from far away spawns if they want, but I wouldn't want GVs dominating over the aerial intent of the idea.
Terrible idea. No matter how much in control of the skys you are, you only hold the ground your soldiers stand on. Also, supply depots were usually guarded by soldiers, not pilots. If you want to have pilots guarding the base, ok. But since they're not trained to operate anti-aircraft guns, the ack should have a slower rate of fire, and be much less accuate.
On a less sarcastic note, since this would be a large instilation, supplying the area covered by a Corps or an Army, perhaps up the number of troops needed to capture it? Say 20-30 instead of the usual 10.
-
I like the idea of needing more troops to cap, would say more like 15-20 rather than 30.
-
I like the rough idea, but the beauty is always in the detail. Rather than go back to something that AH had previously I would;
Make it a railyard / storage facility.
The size of ndisles TT object but run railroads around the terrain to each nearby field.
Trains that spawn every 15 minutes like CV's do, destroying them prevents normal resupply but they have a mannable ack wagon. These can be captured quicker if destroyed if not however long it takes the train to complete it's journey back to the railyard.
GV's would be able to spawn in.
Link the capture to the amount of object buildings destroyed like a town. Make it 90%
I would have a combination, of puffy, autos, soft guns and anti - tank guns.
Hopefully this would resemble a kind of small FPS map, where a large number of ground and air forces would be required to capture it.
the air battle overhead would get a little heated too.
I think a small issue as it stands now with the lack of any strats to fight over is the fight is always attacking/defending an airfield. If one side loses the fight it ends up over the airfield and people like juggler get really pissy when they end up getting vulched/picked over and over again.
-
+1
Also adding on to Bruv's idea have a rail yard that can launch trains. If one train is strafed out then it won't appear for another 15 minutes to resupply. Like what happens if you bomb a cruiser or CV in port. (CV just spawns on fire)
-
We had this exact thing in AH1 for a while they were called depot's it was actually a town with an officers tower and a couple of manned guns nothing could spawn from them but the couple of manned gun positions.n They did indeed influence the strat flow to the fields they were connected to.
I know that I used them on the Niemen map and made them capturable but cant rem if the were captuarble in the arena maps.
I think at the time there was a limit on the number of "fields" a terrain could sustain so IMO the use of depot was not fully utilised. These same maps also had railway stations that were not capturable but controlled the rate of supply to strat facilities.
I have been a long term suporter of depots / supply yards indeed to me the war should be about capturing towns and depots which control the logistic supplies to "fields" which become "unusable" (many ways to model this) when one side loses logistic supply to a field and gradually more "usable" when another side (or even the original side) re enstates said flow.
-
I like the rough idea, but the beauty is always in the detail. Rather than go back to something that AH had previously I would;
Make it a railyard / storage facility.
The size of ndisles TT object but run railroads around the terrain to each nearby field.
Trains that spawn every 15 minutes like CV's do, destroying them prevents normal resupply but they have a mannable ack wagon. These can be captured quicker if destroyed if not however long it takes the train to complete it's journey back to the railyard.
GV's would be able to spawn in.
Link the capture to the amount of object buildings destroyed like a town. Make it 90%
I would have a combination, of puffy, autos, soft guns and anti - tank guns.
Hopefully this would resemble a kind of small FPS map, where a large number of ground and air forces would be required to capture it.
the air battle overhead would get a little heated too.
I think a small issue as it stands now with the lack of any strats to fight over is the fight is always attacking/defending an airfield. If one side loses the fight it ends up over the airfield and people like juggler get really pissy when they end up getting vulched/picked over and over again.
ya lets make it really big and hard to capture! That way all those player that look for the easiest and quickest way to do anything will totally avoid the area and it will become another place just like the depots and citys we have now. :x
-
+1
only prob i see is with the added downtime to town buildings it could make it uncaptureable meaning you take base 1 base 1 is down for 90 mins(town building wise) becuase you dont own the supply yard so after it has been white flagged by the attacking team all the defending team would have to do is use remaining air cover to de ak and run troops and base is taken back within 15min
and no gv's is kind of a nice thing you wont have fighters and bombers flying at 100 ft trying to drag u over tanks/flaks
but all and all sounds pretty nice
-
only prob i see is with the added downtime to town buildings it could make it uncaptureable meaning you take base 1 base 1 is down for 90 mins(town building wise) becuase you dont own the supply yard so after it has been white flagged by the attacking team all the defending team would have to do is use remaining air cover to de ak and run troops and base is taken back within 15min
Heaven forbid that the base takers be forced to actually defend their new base for awhile... :rolleyes:
-
Heaven forbid that the base takers be forced to actually defend their new base for awhile... :rolleyes:
... add resupply it themselves.... seeing as they were the ones to pork it into un-useability in the first place.
-
Great idea, I have noticed that the vast majority is always concerned that ord is dead or radar is dead, they will have to fight to defend that now.
great idea!
-
I like the idea in principal but broaden the area somehow. Further Krup is right, give the GV's a bone as well. Far too large of concentration of players in one area will result with this current setup. I can already get that on any given night on either the Rook or Bishop Front. -1 current form
-
I like the idea in principal but broaden the area somehow. Further Krup is right, give the GV's a bone as well. Far too large of concentration of players in one area will result with this current setup. I can already get that on any given night on either the Rook or Bishop Front. -1 current form
Fair enough, I just said 4 bases as a starting point. Could be 6 could be 8 idk what the magic number is. I don't think spawn points into the supply yards is a good idea at all.
-
Great idea Grizz :aok +1
-
Fair enough, I just said 4 bases as a starting point. Could be 6 could be 8 idk what the magic number is. I don't think spawn points into the supply yards is a good idea at all.
This will be an Army level compound. Its not like the Army Group commander or the Prime Minister is going to call the local commandant and say "What the hell were you thinking, ordering your soldiers to defend against an enemy attack?!? Did you recieve any orders telling you to tell them to do that? Now next time this happens, I want you to sit there with your head up your arse and pretend its not happening!!!".
Give the GV'ers a bone. You already have places where its near impossible for GV's to mount a sucesfull attack without massive support. Its called an airfield.
Base it around a railyard and let it launch both trains and truck convoys. For island bases, have a small airstrip on the edge of the complex and have it launch a flight of C-47's.
For capture to happen, the living quarters area of the base must be completly destroyed (more and more spread out, smaller groupings of Barracks than on a field. Say 20 barracks in all?), and 20 troops must enter the map room uninjured. Maybe have the maproom a little ways away from the barracks?
-
just reenable the old zone system ...
-
This will be an Army level compound. Its not like the Army Group commander or the Prime Minister is going to call the local commandant and say "What the hell were you thinking, ordering your soldiers to defend against an enemy attack?!? Did you recieve any orders telling you to tell them to do that? Now next time this happens, I want you to sit there with your head up your arse and pretend its not happening!!!".
we have no "Army Group Commander" or "Prime Minister" so i don't forsee this being a problem :aok
-
we have no "Army Group Commander" or "Prime Minister" so i don't forsee this being a problem :aok
Really? I thought we must.... Or at least there are a few guys in the game who THINK they have been given the position... :rolleyes:
-
I like the strategic value of the target, may need some tweaking though. Remember the map that had the towns located a great distance from the airfields. Instead of these being towns, they could be supply depots where the convoys and even manned vehicles carrying additional field supplies and even vehicle supplies must spawn.
I would really like to see AH get out of this low aircraft straffing business to capture a base :mad: It brings a horde to a field to vulch the one guy who thinks he will be fast enough to zip to the town and successfully hit the ONE troop that had the friggen key to the maproom. :rolleyes:
Taking the fight away from the airfield would encourage the 2 weekers to subscribe after their free trials. As it is 2 weekers are just fodder for the horde. However, "the collective" will argue that in order to grab territory, masses of equipment must descend onto a defenseless field and assimilate its inhabitants. :ahand
You could even expand the supply chain introducing new vehicles and new animation by advancing spawn points (another popular wish list request). :angel:
-
I think the problem with multiple fields around single depots is that killing / capturing a depot takes out supplies to multiple fields and stuff starts to revert back to strat zones with key fields (depots /supply yards) in the middle.
IMO there should be a network of depots/supply yards across the map joined by roads upon which are also featured towns (sames towns as of now) fields are joined to this network at the end of roads usually from towns sometimes from depots (in the case of some vehicle fields and all ports).
When towns or depots are captured (by enemy) such that a field is no longer connected to a depot via the road network then supplies dry up. As they dry up then flight/weaponry is limited as of now if logistic supply is established from enemy depots via the enemy capturing towns / depots and extending its road network to said fields then ownership changes.
Vehicle spawns are basically along the roads.
-
I like this concept. I also like that it is expandable and can be tailored to the specific map. Like others have said, the devil is always in the details, but first you have to start with a viable concept and this is viable.
-
I like this concept. I also like that it is expandable and can be tailored to the specific map. Like others have said, the devil is always in the details, but first you have to start with a viable concept and this is viable.
Yep I agree on the details, I just wanted to get the base idea on here.
Tilt, I thought about possibly adding to my original idea that each route to the corresponding supply yard has a railroad attached to it and by destroying the trains you can also inflict small re supplying penalties on each corresponding side, but I decided against it to simplify the intent of the idea.
Upon further reflection on GVing the supply yard, I still think it would be a terrible mistake for a few reasons:
1) Tanking would be more efficient than using air. Since there are only a few acks and no (limited?) destroyable targets, there would be little reason to bring airplanes when you can take tanks in massive numbers and bum rush the supply yard. The only way to stop that would be to take massive tanks and defend the supply yard. Anti Tank airplanes would have to fly relatively far to even be effective against the GVs and they would also fall easy prey to airplanes around the airfields and lingering near the supply yard. It would basically just turn into a massive GV war. Although if there was a commitment, GVs could drive there from a base but that might take a bit of time. Don't forget though, GV's would be completely unaffected for normal operations and the core reason for this addition is to help with base taking, so GV's would still be doing their thing on the ground helping take bases and defending bases obviously.
2) Capturing. I think it would be better if C47's are required to be used for this. Air superiority would be needed in order to capture a supply yard. Again, this ties back into the no GV spawn thing. It would be stupid and non air combat related if droves of M3s were driving to the Supply Yard. It again would only encourage ground combat.
I appreciate the input so far.
-
I take the point that enabling GV spawns risks denying AC the key role that the game should be targetting. I would agree that balance should be pro air power . I think as said above the devil would be in the detail..........
Gv spawns should not be such that they spawn so near a depot that air defence cannot get there and make a difference.......
Maybe depots should have plenty of dug in 3" artilery requiring air borne attrition prior to any GV attack being a practical proposition.
It should be expected that a "depot" would have fairly good fixed defences in comparison to a town.
Actually and in general I favour the M3 as the "vehicle" of capture but balance should be maintained.
-
I take the point that enabling GV spawns risks denying AC the key role that the game should be targetting. I would agree that balance should be pro air power . I think as said above the devil would be in the detail..........
Gv spawns should not be such that they spawn so near a depot that air defence cannot get there and make a difference.......
Maybe depots should have plenty of dug in 3" artilery requiring air borne attrition prior to any GV attack being a practical proposition.
It should be expected that a "depot" would have fairly good fixed defences in comparison to a town.
Actually and in general I favour the M3 as the "vehicle" of capture but balance should be maintained.
I agree a depot in practice would have more defense than a town. It probably needs more defense than I originally stated. But how much? And how long does the ack stay down for? I want supply yards to be very capturable, not a seemingly insurmountable task to capture them.
-
Well the nice thing about AH field guns is that they have no defence from air borne attack yet are effective them selves against gv's. Hence one solution would be to propose such fixed artilery defences that establish an effective field of fire across such a "killing field" that makes air borne attrition essential...... at this point the inter air action becomes essential whilst not totally eliminating the the ground element.
-
several comments on the "GV's will be more effective than aircraft" thing.
1) as I've said before, this will be an army level facility, which would entail many AA guns, most of the ones at such a facilty in real life would make effective anti-tank cannons as well, and many 17lbers in our case.
2) who said that there will be few destroyable objects? Its an 'effing supply depot, of course theres going to be stuff to bomb.
3) if the depot is responsible for resupplying your base, then its kind of a moot point since odds are your ordnance is going to be down for a good long time.
-
I like the idea in concept. +1
my .02 :bolt:
-
several comments on the "GV's will be more effective than aircraft" thing.
1) as I've said before, this will be an army level facility, which would entail many AA guns, most of the ones at such a facilty in real life would make effective anti-tank cannons as well, and many 17lbers in our case.
2) who said that there will be few destroyable objects? Its an 'effing supply depot, of course theres going to be stuff to bomb.
3) if the depot is responsible for resupplying your base, then its kind of a moot point since odds are your ordnance is going to be down for a good long time.
You're way too hung up on the concept that this is a real supply yard. You didn't shut down a real airfield by blowing up 5 sheds, but that's how AH works, isn't it? Tanks wouldn't have blown up aircraft on the runway as they appeared from thin air, would they? Do tanks magically appear 5 minutes away from an objective in real life? Fine, you don't like planes, but arguing that this concept would suck in the game because it's not realistic is pretty silly.
I like the concept. I don't know that it would work perfectly as is, but right now the "stragety" game in AH is simply who can be sneakier, or get more guided bombs in the air. Tying ord or troops to the resupply network, instead of sheds on the field... that has some solid potential, IMO. Focusing combat away from the fields could also give the defenders an advantage, since there's no side balancing, and you often find 5 guys trying to defend against 20 or 30.
-
ok hubs, why would HTC represent a major facility with a couple of ammo sheds, a tower, and a couple 37mm AA guns? If this is goiing to supply the ground covered by an Army, it should have strong defenses, both against aircraft and vehicles.
Puffy ack, auto guns, manned guns, 17lbers, the whole nine yards. If they do it right, GV's can be an influencial part of the fight without overshadowing the aircraft.
And how am I "hung up" on making it being a real depot? I think that if this is added, HTC isn't going to be half-assed about a major addition. They'll make it usefull, they'll make it defendable, and they'll put it all into the usual nice looking, eye-candy coated package.
-
ok hubs, why would HTC represent a major facility with a couple of ammo sheds, a tower, and a couple 37mm AA guns?
Have you seen what resupplies fields now?
-
I like the idea but make it big enough for it to take more than 2 players to be captured. and have it so it will resupply itself fairly fast. make its own buildings stay down for only 15 or 20 minutes and the ack down only 15 instead of 45. it will require a team effort to take it. perhaps 2 sets of troops instead of one.
semp
-
I had thoughts like this...but don't really know the game well enough...I like the idea of using a train for supply lines also which could slow things down....which could lead into the wish from long back of bridges that could also slow things down.....when I first started this game I'm sure fuel amounts could be affected by bombing fuel depots...I was always seeing a20's and jarbo runs (didn't even know waht a jarbo was back then)onto these....Do I remember correctly or am I talking out my a@$..
-
ok hubs, why would HTC represent a major facility with a couple of ammo sheds, a tower, and a couple 37mm AA guns? If this is goiing to supply the ground covered by an Army, it should have strong defenses, both against aircraft and vehicles.
Puffy ack, auto guns, manned guns, 17lbers, the whole nine yards. If they do it right, GV's can be an influencial part of the fight without overshadowing the aircraft.
And how am I "hung up" on making it being a real depot? I think that if this is added, HTC isn't going to be half-assed about a major addition. They'll make it usefull, they'll make it defendable, and they'll put it all into the usual nice looking, eye-candy coated package.
The point of the idea is to make something that is necessary to "wining the war" but not make it to difficult to take so that it creates fights both for the capture, and the re-capture. It will also draw the attention away from field so that defenders can up to defend. If you add a crap load of guns your going to turn them into the same type of strats we have now. Nobody would go to them and nobody would fight over them. By making things easier and more effective then players WILL attack them generating more fights.
-
I don't see the reasoning behind something that will let Chewie, the vTARDS, CJ's, or a Jayro strike mission to take the depot and one base, and then roll the others virtually without resistance because the other bases only need to be porked once to keep ord, hangers, etc, down for half and hour at minimum.
IMO, giving it no more than token defense capability would just promote the "lets do an NOE horde and avoid fighting" style of play.
OK, how about AA density a bit lower than that of a port, but heavier defenses geared toward GV's. Maybe dug-in possitions for tanks. Or atleast improved revetments, that give you complete hull coverage. If there is a ridge nearby, an anti-tank battery would be placed on it.
Nothing to prevent a stuborn (or large) group of tanks from reaching the base, but enough so that you need at least some air cover.
And 20 troops needed for capture would be good.