Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: Tank-Ace on August 14, 2011, 03:54:24 PM
-
With realistic ranges, what effect do you think it will have on the game? Should it be in the 105mm range or the 155mm range? Should they get some form of land gunner mode? How about they just get a range and a bearing to a target and have to aim the gun themselves (with the inherent inaccuracy due to the size of a degree of fire at extended ranges)?
Thoughts, ideas, suggestions for implementation?
-
Artillery was a man in the field type of warfare. Since no land battles with troops in AHII don't see much use for it.
-
Artillery was a man in the field type of warfare. Since no land battles with troops in AHII don't see much use for it.
tank suppression?
-
I was thinking more along the lines of the 8"er or the Calliope. You could use it to hit towns, hangers, and even ships.
Imagine a CV sitting off shore, shelling the base rather than upping planes to stay undetected. Unbeknownst to the carrier group, a battery of K18 150mm heavy cannons was recently stationed there for costal defense. At the commander's orders, the guns fire, shells impacting the side of the cruiser.
-
Without realistic rangefinding and correction capabilities, I don't think it would be much use.
-
tank suppression?
Again it was a man in the field that was near by giving locations for tanks to be ranged.
-
Again it was a man in the field that was near by giving locations for tanks to be ranged.
So, what? C-47?
-
So, what? C-47?
Possible as a choice.
All you need now is a guy to up & fly over to an area covered in tanks with no fighter cap & work in conjunction with the field artillery units & hope no one shoots your spotter down as he is trying to give grid locations.
Good luck with that mission.
-
sounds fun
-
If the big boys can be brought in to AH, such as the US 155mm, Soviet 152mm, British 140mm, etc, where the ranges are further than 6000 yards AND destructive enough to level houses like the 8in naval guns we currently have in game, then I say it would be a good thing.
Otherwise, I think it is best to stick with more of a "indirect fire support/infantry cannon" type weapon similar to the LVT-4 75mm "pack howitzer". The SdKfz 251/9 has the 75 mm L/24 low velocity gun, nicknamed "Stummel" ("stump"). We already have the platform so adding another variant would be as easy as it gets.
Or... study and learn the 45 degree launch on the current SdKfz 251 28cm rockets. ;)
-
Possible as a choice.
All you need now is a guy to up & fly over to an area covered in tanks with no fighter cap & work in conjunction with the field artillery units & hope no one shoots your spotter down as he is trying to give grid locations.
Good luck with that mission.
That's why I propose they add these:
(http://a5.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/261774_2223427671292_1415742882_32588236_2689696_n.jpg)
and have them enabled from V bases, out of the large hanger......
I think you'd find they would be used far more than you'd expect, even without arty, but just for general GV spotting....
I'd fly that! :aok
-
To begin, wrong section.
That said, I was thinking about guns this weekend. Take the fight at V90 on Compello. The spawn sat higher than the base. If you had a SP, you could have ranged the base from the spawn, like we used to with the old sight model. The bursting radius would be much greater, and if you were interested in dropping the guns, VT fusing would be awesome. To pull this off you would have to embrace combined arms, have airplanes and tanks to cover the SPs. Fire can easily be adjusted, we do have icons after all.
The question is: Would other players be willing to protect SPs while they went to work, or would they just end up as hanger queens?
-
Seeing as protecting the guns would involve placing wirblewinds near high-value targets that would attract aircraft, or going out and killing enemy tanks, I think you could get people to do it.
And remember, some of the guns we're talking about had a range of 10-15 miles, or about 23k. IMO, we should have a land gunner-style system for these. You can get a bearing and a range to a target, but its just going to be a general range. Say, to where you shell will hit somewhere within 1000 yds of the given range and bearing, even if you're not aiming exactly at it?
-
We need something like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katyusha_rocket_launcher
"The weapon is less accurate than conventional artillery guns, but is extremely effective in saturation bombardment, and was particularly feared by German soldiers. A battery of four BM-13 launchers could fire a salvo in 7–10 seconds that delivered 4.35 tons of high explosives over a four-hectare (10 acre) impact zone. With an efficient crew, the launchers could redeploy to a new location immediately after firing, denying the enemy the opportunity for counterbattery fire. Katyusha batteries were often massed in very large numbers to create a shock effect on enemy forces. The weapon's disadvantage was the long time it took to reload a launcher, in contrast to conventional guns which could sustain a continuous low rate of fire."
-
Well to have all this stuff you must get rid of vehicle icons 1st!
JUGgler
-
We need something like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katyusha_rocket_launcher
"The weapon is less accurate than conventional artillery guns, but is extremely effective in saturation bombardment, and was particularly feared by German soldiers. A battery of four BM-13 launchers could fire a salvo in 7–10 seconds that delivered 4.35 tons of high explosives over a four-hectare (10 acre) impact zone. With an efficient crew, the launchers could redeploy to a new location immediately after firing, denying the enemy the opportunity for counterbattery fire. Katyusha batteries were often massed in very large numbers to create a shock effect on enemy forces. The weapon's disadvantage was the long time it took to reload a launcher, in contrast to conventional guns which could sustain a continuous low rate of fire."
M4A3(75) Calliope.
-
I do believe it would be an interesting addition to add more to the ground war. We do have tanks but we do not have much in the way of infantry. Instead of capturing a town, could you imagine if you had ground infantry and defensive barriers, etc..
-
M4A3(75) Calliope.
Nah, not even close.
-
Back in the old H2H I made a terrain that used shore batts for artillery. Each side could shell a custom-built city in the middle of the terrain where tank battles were taking place. Was very fun, especially if enemy GVs happened to come in vis range of one of the arty bases. Imagine a tank zigzaging as 4 shore batts blasted away at him from a half mile away. Good stuff. :aok
-
lol, sounds like it was a blast.
-
They way i see it, with carrier battle groups with naval artillery, tanks, and various ground vehicles in the game, this is more than just a dogfight sim game. It is a combined arms warfare simulation game which is what makes me want to play this game again. I haven't played in a long while but I'm looking forward to starting up again. I cannot currently because I'm stuck at Fort Sill with terrible internet.
Yeah it's called aces high but there aren't very many games that pull so many aspects of warfare together on such a large scale. I see no reason for the field artillery to be absent from this game. There is a lot that they can provide in terms of combat capability as well as add to the teamwork element that I love about this game.
Guns can provide fires to destroy enemy airfields, cities, and factories. They can provide fires to neutralize enemy tank and troop carrier formations. This may be difficult, but this game is not an EZ mode game. This ability will come from player skill and experience. And really important is their ability to provide fires to suppress or destroy enemy anti-air weapons. They can also provide smoke screens to allow friendly units to advance and obscuration fires to limit the enemy's ability to be accurate and possibly force them to displace from a defensible position.
Of course they will be a vulnerable target in open field. but this can be solved through team work. Players could hop into anti-air assets to stay near the guns and defend them from enemy air. This could also be accomplished by air assets patrolling overhead. I'm sure enemy aircraft will be looking for the ground craft destroying their assets. I'm not sure how the naval artillery works in this game but the artillery should use an observer. This could be done using aerial as well as ground observers consisting vehicles players already use. Give a arty unit a location to hit and provide corrections to hit the target.
The way I see artillery implemented is by introducing the M7 Priest or equivalent type self propelled artillery pieces to keep things simple. Another more complicated way but i think cooler war would for the player to take control of a fire direction control vehicle. He would drive it to a desired firing point, orient it on his desired azimuth of lay and click an emplace button or something and this would spawn a number of guns. maybe 4 which would be controlled by the player.
I really hope this game includes some sort of artillery to improve to combined arms warfare aspect of the game that is already awesome.
Thank you for your time and i hope for further discussion of this topic.
Aegis88
King of Battle :salute
-
As it is right now I can't tell you how many times over the years I have been on a channel with the gun bunnies on the cruiser giving them spotting assistance on the old towns while flying over above AAA range. The CV group was at least just a tiny spot on the distance from shore and we were attempting to either have a GV run in on the town or had C-47's inbound to it.
-
As it is right now I can't tell you how many times over the years I have been on a channel with the gun bunnies on the cruiser giving them spotting assistance on the old towns while flying over above AAA range. The CV group was at least just a tiny spot on the distance from shore and we were attempting to either have a GV run in on the town or had C-47's inbound to it.
^^^^ This.
One of my fondest memories of AH was when I was calling out range and direction for the cruiser gunners that were firing blind over a hill onto an enemy base.
I pulled into a left turning orbit (F4U-1D I think) just above ack range as the rounds came screaming in.
The reason that this was one of my fondest memories was due to the fact that the immersion factor was immense. Imagining myself over some Pacific hell-hole calling out "Short 200 left 100" and then having the corrected rounds impact on target was awesome fun. I'd volunteer for that job anytime. :rock
Oh yeah, big +1 for arty and the necessary FAC role it would create.
-
Possible as a choice.
All you need now is a guy to up & fly over to an area covered in tanks with no fighter cap & work in conjunction with the field artillery units & hope no one shoots your spotter down as he is trying to give grid locations.
Good luck with that mission.
Get some smoke rockets and some spotter craft, maybe even a PBY in here. :rock
-
We need something like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katyusha_rocket_launcher
"The weapon is less accurate than conventional artillery guns, but is extremely effective in saturation bombardment, and was particularly feared by German soldiers. A battery of four BM-13 launchers could fire a salvo in 7–10 seconds that delivered 4.35 tons of high explosives over a four-hectare (10 acre) impact zone. With an efficient crew, the launchers could redeploy to a new location immediately after firing, denying the enemy the opportunity for counterbattery fire. Katyusha batteries were often massed in very large numbers to create a shock effect on enemy forces. The weapon's disadvantage was the long time it took to reload a launcher, in contrast to conventional guns which could sustain a continuous low rate of fire."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2SLvtP6KMUM
-
To artillery, I think it'd be neat, however I think it's kind of against what they're going for in here. I've noticed a few spawns have been changed, and also the targeting system for GV's has changed due to there being areas where a few tanks w/ HE could function as an artillery battery and take down bases from 5K+ out. Not sure if it was any of the reasons behind the changes, but I've seen enough complaints on 200 when it's happening to venture a guess it could have been...
-
had an idea for how they could be aimed.
Give them land-gunner mode, but have accuracy go up the longer they sit there. If they relocate, they (the crew) only have a rough idea of where they are and hence only a rough idea of the range to target.
-
With realistic ranges, what effect do you think it will have on the game? Should it be in the 105mm range or the 155mm range? Should they get some form of land gunner mode? How about they just get a range and a bearing to a target and have to aim the gun themselves (with the inherent inaccuracy due to the size of a degree of fire at extended ranges)?
Thoughts, ideas, suggestions for implementation?
If they add anything to the game it should have realistic performance. The only restrictions that should be put on them is whatever perk system adjustments needed to prevent them from throwing the game out of balance.
Artillery would be a great addition to the game.
-
I'm sorry but if i can rack up about 5 kills in 20 minutes by shelling 8" shells on a spawn while having a spotter then why not have a 105 155 battery do the same? :aok
-
I'm not against artillery in the game per se. My only question would be, would it not be slightly overpowered to have an extremely powerful land-based artillery battery that resides somewhere in a 30 square mile circle?
I'm just envisioning the guy with way too much time on his hands driving for a while and then shelling the heck out of an airbase from the top of a hill miles away with practical impunity.
It seems to me it would need to be implemented with some kind of way of seeing where it's coming from. My first thought is make it like the ship artillery where you can see the shells coming in, but that also makes the guy a sitting duck...
Wiley.
-
It also makes the guy more likely to use his artillery as it was historicly used (a long-ranged, area support weapon). If he wants to take his hummel, drive upto the town, fire two rounds, and then immediatly get popped by an M8, then thats his concern not mine.
-
@ Wiley's last comment:
It just makes it more of an issue for those not wanting to participate in the combined arms approach to the GAME. I wouldn't waste my time in a self propelled gun just to get smoked within firing 5-10 rounds that were ineffectual at worst and barely damaging the base/town at best.
FAC/Spotters and people working together would make that aspect of the game work and work well. Just as it would with people on the opposite side doing the exact same thing.
-
I've been thinking on it, and I believe an elegant solution to it would be to have the impact craters show direction. Basically have the higher bank on the impact crater away from the direction it was fired, and if possible have it be a longer impact crater the lower the trajectory is. Basically a long oval crater would be close, a rounder crater would be far.
It might be a teeny bit gamy, but I like that a lot better than having tracers all the way. A possible compromise (not sure if this would be easier or harder to coad) would be to have a tracer show up say 1000 yards from impact. This would also give some directional indication without saying 'ARTILLERY BATTERY HERE!'
I'd be curious to see how it worked out. I could see a well organized group of say, 4 GVs and a spotter doing a lot of damage with a couple wirbles, an artillery battery, and a tank possibly for cover.
Wiley.
-
I've been thinking on it, and I believe an elegant solution to it would be to have the impact craters show direction. Basically have the higher bank on the impact crater away from the direction it was fired, and if possible have it be a longer impact crater the lower the trajectory is. Basically a long oval crater would be close, a rounder crater would be far.
It might be a teeny bit gamy, but I like that a lot better than having tracers all the way. A possible compromise (not sure if this would be easier or harder to coad) would be to have a tracer show up say 1000 yards from impact. This would also give some directional indication without saying 'ARTILLERY BATTERY HERE!'
I'd be curious to see how it worked out. I could see a well organized group of say, 4 GVs and a spotter doing a lot of damage with a couple wirbles, an artillery battery, and a tank possibly for cover.
Wiley.
or you can listen for the long range THUMP, follow the tracer, and triangulate his position and kill him...
-
or you can listen for the long range THUMP, follow the tracer, and triangulate his position and kill him...
Hmm... Hadn't taken audio into account. That could work just fine too. Actually, if it was just a normal tracer like a tank round, that might be good enough. The streams from the CVs IMO would make it too easy to trace back. A normal tank style tracer wouldn't be as obvious...
Wiley.
-
Hmm... Hadn't taken audio into account. That could work just fine too. Actually, if it was just a normal tracer like a tank round, that might be good enough. The streams from the CVs IMO would make it too easy to trace back. A normal tank style tracer wouldn't be as obvious...
Wiley.
:aok
-
or you can listen for the long range THUMP, follow the tracer, and triangulate his position and kill him...
Wonder how effective counter-battery fire would be. I mean (depending on the size of the shell) you're going to need at least a near-direct hit to damage or kill an SPG.
-
Wonder how effective counter-battery fire would be. I mean (depending on the size of the shell) you're going to need at least a near-direct hit to damage or kill an SPG.
or just up an M3/75 and go shoot his butt...
-
Assuming land mode is a non starter
The vehicle has an additional spotter POV (to the commander, gunner & pintle) which can be released from the vehicle (e.g pressing "O" when stationary) and can be "walked" to a position where the spotter can see the intended target.
If the vehicle is a long way from target this is gonna take some time but (just like the dedicated bomber pilot who ups way behind freindly lines to gain alt) its the price that has to be paid for being able to spot for a field piece located well to the rear.
The player can move between the various POV's just as he can now but the spotter is only mobile when the player is at that POV and the Artilery is only mobile when the POV is there. Either is stationary and vulnerable when the player is not there.
Whenever the spotter stops for some silly reason he always looks through his binoculars and continues to do so until he starts to move again.
The artilery can only be fired from the gunner position or the commanders position but only the gunner sees the range and direction of the gun.
Gunner fires and the player changes to the spotter POV. Notes the impact point through his binoculars and returns to the gunner POV to adjust range and direction and fires again............. rinse and repeat.
Spotters and vehicle are seen as drunks and vehicles are seen now (by other players) with what ever icon setting is prevelent. However when another player looks directly (and it has to be directly) at the location of a stationary spotter he is rewarded with a "flash" of reflected light from the spotters binoculars (even when the sun is not ideally positioned for this) no matter what the range (provided there is no hard objects between)
This is a temporary flash and the other player has to look away then look toward the spotter again to get any subsequent flashes.
Any shell hitting either a town object or a field object causes the town icon or the field icon to flash twice and then stop flashing unless hit again or unless enemy vehicles or aircraft are with appropriate range.(actually this would work for CV based gunnery as well)
If the spotter is killed thats it he is lost...... there is no replacement (except perhaps for the re arm pad?) The only POV's remaining are the commander, gunner and pintle. If the artilery piece is lost/destroyed then the spotter POV could remain but will not have any access to another gunner POV.
-
Tilt, that seems like a major handicap. You're asking the players to choose between a muti-day sortie to walk their spotter the 7 miles to the target so they can aim accuratly and remain in relative safety, or a short-ranged, short-lived sortie so he can go into battery in a timely manner.
If he can only move when his spotter is in the vehicle, the handicap is certinally to much.
-
If he can only move when his spotter is in the vehicle, the handicap is certinally to much.
He can only move the spotter (independant of the vehicle) when the POV is the spotter. Other wise yes there is a penalty to having both xtreme range and a spotter and that is the time it takes to put the spotter inplace.
in game this is a choice the player can make..........the player may also choose to place the artilery behind a hill and climb the spotter to the top of the hill and look at the target thru his binoculars.
-
But you're suggesting the actually artillery unit should still be able to move without the spotter? If not then I don't see how this would work. You're saying that artillery should get 0 chance for survival unless hes using it as a direct fire weapon.
And really? Making the spotter walk 7 miles if someone wants to be realistic in his use of our cartoon equipment?
-
But you're suggesting the actually artillery unit should still be able to move without the spotter? If not then I don't see how this would work. You're saying that artillery should get 0 chance for survival unless hes using it as a direct fire weapon.
And really? Making the spotter walk 7 miles if someone wants to be realistic in his use of our cartoon equipment?
When the player changes his/her POV to the commander position then the vehicle can be driven as normal. Changing the POV to the spotter POV then the vehicle will slow to a stop (with engine running if not properly switched off).
When the player is in the spotter POV it may be walked (or run?) as a player walks or runs a chute now. If you want to walk the spotter 7 miles at walking pace interpesersed with runs (via WEP limited to 10? minute duration and a period to recover) then it takes the appropriate period to get there.
This period would be subject to what speed HTC model walking and running pace at.
-
You do realize your encouraging their use as direct fire weapons?
-
You do realize your encouraging their use as direct fire weapons?
It s not my opinion................. but if they were so used then they become vulnerable to direct return of fire as they should be.
-
I agree player controlled spotter and land modes are a bit gamey. Forcing players to rely on other players for fire control is more realistic and also works prevent any unbalancing that artillery might inflict.
As someone else suggested, there should be more strategic and more cooperative play built in as a requirement or what we end up with is just another Xbox game.
If they do it right, they will program a spotter with a pair of binoculars that can be inserted by vehicle or c47 para drop.
Locating enemy artillery is a non issue. You frequently have to rely heavily on aircraft to defend against enemy armor, why should it be any different with artillery. If your getting shot at, send someone to find them or put a spotter on the highest hill in the area.
BTW, we are suggesting here that artillery be deployed in unit strength to single players are we not? I would go so far as to include an AA vehicle with each unit for defense.
-
Maybe the thing to do would be to have an artillery battery function along the same lines as a CV. Moves around the countryside, spawns from a base somewhere.
Wiley.
-
I'm not sure if giving a full battery to each player is a good idea. With 4-6 guns per battery, 5 players gives you between 20-30 guns with a striking range of 8 miles with the Hummel and 14 miles with the M12.
I say yes to the batteries if they're guns in the 105mm range. Single units if they're in the 150mm range.
-
(http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c292/owktree/Aberdeen%20Visit/ab_flak18_w2_ge.jpg)
http://flic.kr/p/2ex5Mg
-
Ivan we already discussed this in game, remember? Some spinless marine lifeform will never get out of it.
If you mean using it as artillery, I might as well up a Tiger.
-
Ivan we already discussed this in game, remember? Some spinless marine lifeform will never get out of it.
If you mean using it as artillery, I might as well up a Tiger.
:rofl I remember but still I think it's an idea for large airfields to have a couple of these.
I'm sure some would auger into this but could this even stop the vRooks now. :t
(http://i262.photobucket.com/albums/ii99/Unplugged24/at.jpg)
-
Post in a different topic then, I'd like to keep this one on target.
-
Post in a different topic then, I'd like to keep this one on target.
It's 2 post not derailing. In Pyro's word's " Don't be a dick."
-
I was talking to a Vet at my local bar here a while back. He was an artillery gunner in West Berlin in the 70's. Being naieve I said, "You're so damn close, artillery seems kind of worthless in a traditional sense..." His reply was that they spent hours every week practicing direct fire in their guns. He also stated he held a record for rapid fire in war games with the European forces with 8 for 8 in under a minute. Pretty cool guy, but just stating direct fire's not out of the question, nor gamey.
It would be sweet to get some jeeps with recoiless rifles on 'em:
(http://operatorchan.org/v/arch/src/v36117_US%20WW2%2075mm%20M20%20recoilless%20rifle%20on%20a%20Jeep-%201949.jpg)
-
I'm not sure if giving a full battery to each player is a good idea.
Artillery rarely operated in wartime as a single piece for the same reason it would be silly to do it that way here, because it would be ineffectual and of little use. What good is a single gun going to do trying to take out a town or tanks?
Even six guns is not going to be a game changer. It would probably take them just as long to take down a town as a good 8 inch gunner from a cv. That gives a fair amount of time for an alert to go out and a couple of aircraft to find them and shut them down.
Artillery is an area effect weapon that has no advantage unless it is in unit strength. And I don't see it getting used in overwhelming numbers; even less so with only a single gun per player.
If only allowed a single gun, you would have to have 6 guys to have an effect. Ask any bomber pilot how easy it is to find 6 guys to go on a mission. That's why we have bomber formations now.
With 4-6 guns per battery, 5 players gives you between 20-30 guns with a striking range of 8 miles with the Hummel and 14 miles with the M12.
That would be an awesome thing to see and a realistic addition to the game. And if a group with 30 pieces went on a mission it would be no different than a group of bombers on a low alt raid.
It's not like artillery is difficult to put out of action. They are vulnerable to light machine guns, light bombs and rockets; so the threat you describe is minimal. And it would give tank drivers something to do other than go from a spawn point to a base. M8s and jeeps would be far more valuable and effective in game.
-
Well first off artillery shouldn't be trying to kill tanks, its not what they were designed to do and its not something they did very effeciently. You'd do far better to have a group of tanks and protect you
Asside from that, I'll admit you have a point. If its not too hard to coad this, then perhaps put a slight perk price on a batter? 30 guns will make short work of hangers which could be a major issue. I would hate to see Chewie, the vTARDS, or even my own countryman Jaryo with a battery of 30 M12s under his command.
-
Well first off artillery shouldn't be trying to kill tanks, its not what they were designed to do and its not something they did very effeciently. You'd do far better to have a group of tanks and protect you
Asside from that, I'll admit you have a point. If its not too hard to coad this, then perhaps put a slight perk price on a batter? 30 guns will make short work of hangers which could be a major issue. I would hate to see Chewie, the vTARDS, or even my own countryman Jaryo with a battery of 30 M12s under his command.
I didnt suggest otherwise. But arty fired on anything they were ordered to and did have good effect on armored units. If I am not mistaken I believe I read that early in the war artillery saved the Soviets because their armor was not on par with the Germans or there was a shortage of it. Something to that effect.
Anyhow, what you see as a potential problem, I see as a game changer. I see some better strategic action coming into play here. I see fire bases and "pork chop hill" battles.
I see an end to spawn and die battles over the same spawn point terrain where players know every little crevice by heart. I see armored missions moving to destroy a firebase getting ambushed in valleys.
I dont know anything about artillery shell accuracy. I would imagine if a rifle round can have 2 inch group at 600 to a 1000 yards, an artillery round could have huge groupings at 8+ miles. My point is, I don't think artillery was all that precise. With a good spotter and 6 pieces (1 battery) firing on his mark, I would think you would be lucky to get one hit from the salvo.
Even with 30 pieces firing, Im guessing the grouping would be about 4 times larger as opposed to 4 or 5 times denser if you follow. eg 5 batteries of 6 = a shell dispersal about 4 or 5x larger than the shell dispersal of a single battery. And that's ONLY if all 5 of them were lucky enough to be on target in the first place.
If you only had one spotter, and he was calling out a single fire correction for 5 batteries and one was a hundred yards off target, another was 300 yards off target, and another 1000 off, it's likely only the closest battery gets any hits when a 100 yard correction is given.
And by forcing players to rely on other players as spotters we double the inherent human error and eliminate the gamey aspects like land mode. Which is the way it should be.
It wouldnt be any harder to code a player controlled convoy of artillery pieces than to code a drone convoy of trucks. The real work would come in building the 3d model of the guns, the vehicles to pull them, the ballistics, etc.
There would be issues in making the guns visually adapt to any given location, especially if the terrain is not flat. One solution to this is to have fire bases added to the maps permanently. Lots of them.
Arty batteries could still set up at other locations on the map if the terrain is flat enough though.
I would prefer that they build so many FBs, ground vehicles had to fight their way from fire base to fire base all the way to the enemy fields and towns instead of using the gamey spawn system we have now. Essentially having a conventional front line that moves as you gain control of every fire base between you and the enemy towns.
Fire bases could remain vacant until players decided to set up shop there.
Fire bases should have AA guns of different types or arty batteries should include an AA vehicle or gun.
-
Sure its no harder to coad than drones.... if you don't mind them ignoring trees and burms anyway. But I think you're imagining something closer to WWIIOL with the firebases. If you make GV's fight their way through the Seigfried Line every time they want a fight, you'll just kill the GV aspect of the game.
And how would you give firebases AA if they're neutral untill someone sets up shop? Would they fire impartially at all sides? No offense intended Muzik, but if you want WWIIOL, go play WWIIOL.
-
Are you wanting to lob shells into a spawn area?
-
No, I'm wanting to lob shells at a CV :banana:.
-
Sure its no harder to coad than drones.... if you don't mind them ignoring trees and burms
As I said, "the real work..." These are not drones and they would work just like any other gv. drive into a tree and you're going to stop.
And how would you give firebases AA if they're neutral untill someone sets up shop? Would they fire impartially at all sides?
If you want me to lay out every single detail as to how this would work, you could just ask. I didnt think I needed to do so.
First off, I never said they would be nuetral. I hadnt given it too much thought because it is less of an issue than designing the arty batteries and adding FBs to the map. But since you asked, here is how it could go.
Fire bases could, would, or should replace vehicle bases.
GVs could, would, or should spawn from FBs. The distance between spawns would likely not be much farther than they are now.
FBs could be nothing more than random flat spots all over the map, possibly with nothing more than a map room for buildings.
FBs could, would or should be easily taken once overrun, with no requirement to drop dozens of buildings for a capture.
It could be coded that front line bases are automatically populated with arty until a player chooses to occupy and use it, or it could be a player made decision like where to move a cv. (minus the rank requirement) Or how ever works best.
If the enemy sneaks past front line bases, and reaches a FB that is unoccupied all he has to do is run troops and it is theirs although I think there should be zone control acquired before the base can spawn GVs or other vehicles. Only when that base is on or behind the front can it spawn GVs. Until then, all you get is what you brought.
Multiple FBs all over the map would allow more flanking type warfare and allow GVs to use the 80 or 90 % of the terrain that currently goes unused while keeping players in the same old battle zones day after day.
I'm sure there is more I could add, but I'll let you tell me what that might be.
If you make GV's fight their way through the Seigfried Line every time they want a fight, you'll just kill the GV aspect of the game.
I thought the fight is what we were here for....but we dont want to "fight our way to find...a fight?" :confused:
I dont play WW2 online so I have no idea what kind of problem you are referring to. If spawns are scattered all along a front line and they are spaced about the same distance as they are now then I dont see the GV aspect doing anything other than get better and more interesting.
In fact one of the worst of the gamey aspects of this game, spawn camping, would stop being a big problem because there would be other spawns that might be a bit more of a drive, but not unbearable and a camper couldnt shut you out of a fight.
As a matter of fact, if a GVers main objective is to have a good GV fight, it seems this method should be better. He would be in a constant battle to push forward. I foresee a much more strategic type of fight as well. If all they want is to bum rush a town and get a quick capture, then I guess, not so much.
-
All I'm saying is that if you have them behave as normal GV's, you'll need to have them self-navigating to some degree, or have them proceede in a tight single-file line behind you. Otherwise you'll spend more time getting your GV drones through the trees than you will firing.
With how Aces High is set up right now, making a frontline of easily captured firebases and lines centered on main bases like GV bases, airfields, and ports, would just be a waste of time IMO. If they were counted as war win bases and you leave them as nothing but a maproom, then they're too easy to capture. a late night horde could easily roll the map. Increase the defenses and you've just made another vbase.
If, however, you have them be nothing more than forward possions, and independent of the war win bases there would be no real reason to use the ones that aren't right infront of the base you want to capture, and you have what is essentially a glorified spawn point. +1 eventually, but not with the current system.
As to fighting issue, you seem to have some false ideas about the average lemming in Aces High. Most just want to find a double spawn, camp it, and get their perkies. They'll fight to camp it, but they won't fight just for the sake of a fight. The exceptions are NDisles, and Tank Town island, the large one with 3 GV bases and an airfield.
-
All I'm saying is that if you have them behave as normal GV's, you'll need to have them self-navigating to some degree, or have them proceede in a tight single-file line behind you. Otherwise you'll spend more time getting your GV drones through the trees than you will firing.
The convoy would follow your lead vehicle precisely as if they were driving in your tracks.
With how Aces High is set up right now, making a frontline of easily captured firebases and lines centered on main bases like GV bases, airfields, and ports, would just be a waste of time IMO. If they were counted as war win bases and you leave them as nothing but a maproom, then they're too easy to capture. a late night horde could easily roll the map. Increase the defenses and you've just made another vbase.
A hordes effectiveness is determined by the effectiveness of their enemy, not the game.
You are discounting this idea based on "what ifs" instead of finding solutions. If you have a specific scenario you think would make this impractical then say it and I will offer a possible solution.
You will never know how this will work in practice until you try it. But to answer your concern, I didnt say they would count as "war win" bases.
If, however, you have them be nothing more than forward possions, and independent of the war win bases there would be no real reason to use the ones that aren't right infront of the base you want to capture
You are missing the point here. You dont get to spawn next to the enemy air bases or vehicle bases anymore. This is not checkers, you dont get to jump 100 miles of terrrain or the opposition. So here are a few changes I could have mentioned earlier.
-There is a matrix of spots all over the map that allows ANY country to set up fire bases.
-Perhaps every country will be allowed a certain number of "constantly occupied" (guns are already present and instantly usable) FBs.
-Perhaps players can arrange the constantly occupied bases within their controlled territory in anticipation of enemy movements.
-FBs do not show up on the map and abracadabra...Reconnaissance aircraft now have a place in the game and players have to do some planning and strategic maneuvering to fight the war.
-You cannot spawn from your air field all the way to the enemy town as the current system allows, Every mile of territory must be gained through movement of forces.
-There are two ways to take an enemy airfield and town.
1--You must fight your way across the ground terrain taking FBs and VBs as you go OR
2--you might try to sneak a base with an air attack. Either way you risk being flanked or surrounded so you better have a good plan.
As to fighting issue, you seem to have some false ideas about the average lemming in Aces High. Most just want to find a double spawn, camp it, and get their perkies. They'll fight to camp it, but they won't fight just for the sake of a fight. The exceptions are NDisles, and Tank Town island, the large one with 3 GV bases and an airfield.
Believe me, I am well aware how people game the game.
In case you dont realize it, people are not going to be able to memorize all their favorite camp spots as easily as they used to because we will be using more of the AH terrain and not the same "hotspots" that get used every single map rotation.
Plus the ability for the enemy to spawn from several different locations all within a reasonable striking distance from your attempted spawn camp, will force a move and shoot warfare. If you drive to within camping distance from an enemy spawn, you would not only be subject to the multiple spawns I just described, but also from multiple artillery positions. So I think spawn camping would be a thing of the past and any GV warfare would require a coordinated and planned effort to move into enemy territory.
With FBs being numerous and somewhat easilly taken out, I foresee them being taken out and popping back up with such irregularity and frequency it will be a challenge to coordinate and time attacks so that you can effect a movement of the front line. This would also seem to lend itself to a fast moving constantly changing fight or a stalemate that requires better coordination to break.
And I foresee pilots attempting to support ground forces having their hands full reconnoitering the surrounding terrain watching for FBs being set up rather than those occasions where a horde has superior numbers and their air cover leisurely spots for spawn campers. In other words, another strike against spawn campers.
-
Interesting
-
I like the idea, but I don't think it would work very well. The bases that are constantly controlled would have to be permenatnly set or you will see arguing over them like we have with CV's now. If you let rank be the determining factor in controll and placment of the firebases, you'll have dweebs chaning sides to keep resistance away from their main line of attack.
And how would the firebases work. Could you spawn there, with them acting as bases with very light defenses? Or would they just be a random spot where theres a few 37mm's and maybe a 17lber or two? If they're just capturable gun emplacments then I really don't see much of a point, as you'll remove GV's as an effective attacking force, due to the lack of rapid deployment, with the main airfields and bases still being your main objective. Unless you can spawn up from them, I can easily see GV use dropping to near zero.
A better solution might be to have main fields that are just a center of strength. You still get the guns and the multiple hangers and such, but they're capturable in the same way that firebases are. The only advantage a field gives you are heavier defenses, and (with an airfield) the ability to launch aircraft as well. This would mean that the strength of a base's defenses comes from the defenders, and not its difficulty of capture.
-
I like the idea, but I don't think it would work very well. The bases that are constantly controlled would have to be permenatnly set or you will see arguing over them like we have with CV's now. If you let rank be the determining factor in controll and placment of the firebases, you'll have dweebs chaning sides to keep resistance away from their main line of attack.
That same thought occurred to me, but if they wanted to remove the cv from the game for those same reasons, would you agree with that?
Ultimately it's up to htc to decide how to control things like this. I think the rank control of cvs is ridiculous and I have suggested alternatives before. As for the constant control base, if they did use the same rank system, then maybe a player only operates one out of the 20(? or so) that belong to his country. If they send 20 spies, they get steamrolled by the numbers.
And how would the firebases work. Could you spawn there, with them acting as bases with very light defenses? Or would they just be a random spot where theres a few 37mm's and maybe a 17lber or two? If they're just capturable gun emplacments then I really don't see much of a point, as you'll remove GV's as an effective attacking force, due to the lack of rapid deployment, with the main airfields and bases still being your main objective. Unless you can spawn up from them, I can easily see GV use dropping to near zero.
Gun emplacements are permanent fixtures and very frequently cant get shots do to terrain or obstacles. There is no way that they will be a substitute for mobile armor and the artillery wont be accurate enough to stop GV use.
Lets start with the constant control base. Yes, it should have multiple means of defense plus it should have 2 or 3 artillery batteries up for player use just as field guns are now. It should also have room for 1 or 2 more mobile (player driven) batteries.
Once the guns are destroyed they will stay down for __ minutes.
Yes, they ARE bases with light defenses.
Yes you can spawn GVs there. When I said that there would be multiple spawns for GVs, this is what I meant. They can spawn from any FB. I also think that the current vehicle bases could still serve a purpose as well and would remain in their current locations as some kind of "zone" object.
Once a constant control base is shut down, it stays down for ___ minutes. When that time is up, it comes up at that same base it was destroyed at unless that base was captured.
Then, either a message goes out over country channel announcing system: Fire Base 23 is available for deployment. Player pulls up clip board and selects it to place it at any unoccupied FB. Or it is auto deployed to a unoccupied FB close to its previous location.
A better solution might be to have main fields that are just a center of strength. You still get the guns and the multiple hangers and such, but they're capturable in the same way that firebases are. The only advantage a field gives you are heavier defenses, and (with an airfield) the ability to launch aircraft as well. This would mean that the strength of a base's defenses comes from the defenders, and not its difficulty of capture.
I dont see there being any hangers or buildings at FBs. That is just a lot of unneeded objects to put on the map. I think it would look really cool if we could have tents and sandbags so that it looked like a temporary firing position that it is, but I am trying to be conservative believe it or not.
If any buildings or objects are a must have on a FB it would be a map room and possibly one hanger for shutting down the spawn temporarily. Maybe a farm house could serve as a FB destructible just as it might have in ww2.
The reason I suggested an easily captured FB was exactly that, It should be the strength of the defenders, not the task that stops the enemy from moving forward. And we want to be able to see some quick successes, not see hours of stalemate like you see now.
It just occurred to me, that there should only be one way to shut down vehicles from spawning at a FB. Taking it with troops.
The only exception to this is cutting a FB off from the front. For example taking a FB in the middle of enemy territory does not allow you to start spawning vehicles from there. It must be on or behind your country's front line or a string of bases that your country takes in a push through enemy territory.
Perhaps the purpose of the vehicle base as zone object would be to allow vehicle spawning from surrounding FBs even though that VB might be cut off from the rest of your bases.
-
I was also thinking that para-frags would be a great addition to the game and an effective arty suppressor.
See, I'm a fair guy, If I give you a way to build it, I will give you a way to blow it up.
-
Perhaps have the maproom in the center, make a peremiter of sorts with barbed wire and sandbags like you suggest. A single large tent in place of the VH. It takes 2000lbs of ord to destroy and will stay down for 5 minutes. Its easy to destroy, but isn't crippling like killing the VH's at a regular vbase.
And good idea for the surrounding of an FB. You can't spawn vehicles up if its cut off from both the zone base (perhaps have that represent Brigade HQ?) and the main body of your 'army'.
But I don't think bases (airfields in particular) should be much more difficult than an FB to capture. If you want to keep that airfield, well then you have to defend it, you can't rely on the auto ack and town buildings to buy you 10 minutes of time to let you decide if the fight is better over at some other base.
-
But I don't think bases (airfields in particular) should be much more difficult than an FB to capture. If you want to keep that airfield, well then you have to defend it, you can't rely on the auto ack and town buildings to buy you 10 minutes of time to let you decide if the fight is better over at some other base.
I agree with this. The only reason they made airfields and towns so hard to take was to provide extra time for fights to take place.
If the time it would take to go from base to base is what i imagine, I don't think they need to be that hard to take any longer. There will be plenty of action just getting there.
What they could do is perhaps put more defensive positions in and around towns and bases as if the defending army had dug in as the enemy approached.
So while it may be a little more difficult to attack a town or base, they could eliminate the need to blow up buildings as means of drawing out a fight.
Put a vehicle hanger in town to allow spawning in the town and as the only building that needs destroyed.
-
While working on a terrain I'm making, I remember seeing a machine gun on a tripod. Perhaps we could get those, in town and at the FB's as both manguns and auto guns.
Drop the troop requirment at FB's. the MG's will be perfectly capable of killing those.
-
I would like to point a few things out.
Artillery's primary function is as an area effect weapon to soften a target. otherwise it only Delays and Harasses. Artillery is mostly effective against infantry in the open and even then it is even more effective at keeping a soldier in his fox hole pinned down.
That being said we have no infantry in this game. What we have are drones that make a b line to map room at 30mph like ants on crank heading to a picnic.
This game is a WWII mass multiplier combat flight game designed to simulate the WWII Fighter pilot experience. At one time everything in this game revolved around the fighter pilot. Dale has even said that a time or two on the boards. Even though that is less true today it is still some what in effect. It's the fighter pilot that has the least concessions to reality in the game. are bombers accurately simulated in this game ... heck no in fact I think the bomber is the least accurately simulated craft in the game. Bombers are nothing more then a targets for fighter pilots.
Artillery is very in-effective against armored vehicles. Artillery would have to make a direct hit or at least a very near hit (within a few feet) to destroy a tank. Artillery can kill and maim (take them out of the fight) infantry in the open up to and even beyond 20meters. Artillery is almost useless against target in the water as it would require a direct hit. Artillery is very inaccurate and requires some one to tell them where to shoot. Think about how hard it is to hit and kill tanks with ship guns ... most land based artillery is indirect fire and weaker then ship fire.
Your basic infantry man is trained to call for and adjust fire (artillery). However its the forward observer (13f) who is specifically trained and tasked at it. He unlike the 11x series soldier is an expert at calling for fire. the smallest true artillery peace is a mortar (some may argue it is the grenade launcher). A basic infantryman is familiarized with the company level mortar however it's the 11c (mortar maggot) not the 11b (ground pounder) that's actually trained to fire the mortars. the big guns are fired by the 13x series MOSs in the army.
Now artillery is an extremely Complex critter. I have been trained to call for fire and I have been familiarization with the m224 (60mm) m29 and m252 (81mm) as well as the m30 (107mm from my Mech inf days). I have trained on and qualified expert with the m203 grenade launcher and been trained on the mk 19. I honestly have a hard time figuring out how the two systems work together (calling for fire and actually aiming and firing the weapon.) as the grenade launcher does not implement a two party system like mortars and big artillery guns do.
My Father in law is a an old Vietnam Area 13F. He knows far more about it then I do and we have occasionally traded notes and stories. To the best of my knowledge the only "simulations" that have artillery in them are First person shooters. Of those only bf1942 bf2 and Far cry 2 have anything like artillery or mortars in them. Far cry 2 can't even come close to remotely simulating a mortar. The battlefield series is probably the best and closest I've seen to it but even it is way off on accurately simulating it. (Note: I have not played WWII online).
At best Artillery in the game would simply be click on map to aim and then fire the gun/guns. At best it would take an entire artillery barrage to destroy one or 2 troops in a paratroop drop (out of 10) a vehicle out of a convoy or a jeep or two out of a huge rushing hoard of a direct GV attack.
It would be about the same as shore batteries and ship guns without direct fire capability. I don't think it should be in the game mainly because it really would have no purpose other then simply giving aircraft something else to shoot at and it would be impossible to defend itself. We already have AAA guns.
I do believe there are a couple Army 13x type vets in the game and on the boards. That could better explain how Artillery works better then I can and why it really doesn't belong in the game. at best it would be ineffective yet fun for a time or two then it would never get used much. basically a novelty at best.
Here are some wiki articles that may help
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artillery
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barrage_(artillery)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forward_observers_in_the_US_military
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mortar_(weapon)
-
Ummmmm..... have you ever set foot in an 8" gun :noid? I'll say that a cruiser is probably one of the best town killers in the game, and damn effective against hangers if you have a good map or someone spotting from an aircraft.
-
.'
Artillery's primary function is as an area effect weapon to soften a target.
Really? I think Ive hear that somewhere before.
This game is a WWII mass multiplier combat flight game designed to simulate the WWII Fighter pilot experience.
That is correct!
At one time everything in this game revolved around the fighter pilot. Dale has even said that a time or two on the boards. Even though that is less true today it is still some what in effect. It's the fighter pilot that has the least concessions to reality in the game. are bombers accurately simulated in this game ... heck no in fact I think the bomber is the least accurately simulated craft in the game. Bombers are nothing more then a targets for fighter pilots.
This is not even close, and demonstrates the misconceptions you have that led to the false conclusion you just gave.
I have also heard something about hitechs desire to focus on air combat and not a simulation of the war in general.
I can imagine that years ago when he started creating his first simulation, he only had fighters. It would have been nothing but a big furball. And then it got boring so he added a ground war to add more variety to the game.
The fighter pilot experience doesnt start and end with a dogfight. Whether it was a purposeful decision, an accident, or by demand, he added a ground war and bombers because anything less woud be a poor example of an air combat game.
Let me make this clear before I even say it or the twits are going to have a spazz attack..."GETTING SHOT AT IN THE AIR IS NO LAUGHING MATTER" ----BUT---- it in many ways it was the lessor of the dangers they face.
A pilot could bail out of a damaged airplane, what he faced after that had the potential to put his life at risk every minute of every day for days, weeks or years on end. He could land in shark infested waters, spend weeks floating in it waiting for rescue, be captured and spend years subjected to torture and starvation. Hell they were even told to watch out for head hunters. They could get lost and never be heard from again. The list goes on.
There are a few that would be happy if this game was nothing than a furball. Most wouldnt.
Air combat was born out of a need to win a ground war. The ground war is not a negotiable or insignificant aspect anymore and never will be and the richer and more detailed it gets, the richer and more detailed the air war gets.
I couldnt imagine going back to a time when there was no anti-aircraft in the game or a possibility you might accidentally fly over a flak panzer. That IS what being a fighter pilot was about.
are bombers accurately simulated in this game ... heck no in fact I think the bomber is the least accurately simulated craft in the game. Bombers are nothing more then a targets for fighter pilots.
Your perception of bombers might have been accurate if you said they arent used historically. Bombers suffer their fate in this game because of the way they are used, not because of the modeling. If ever people worked together, and flew their aircraft EXACTLY as they were historically, then you would see the same types of results found in ww2.
Artillery is very in-effective against armored vehicles. Artillery would have to make a direct hit or at least a very near hit (within a few feet) to destroy a tank.
Which explains my suggestion for "batteries"
Your basic infantry man is trained to call for and adjust fire (artillery). However its the forward observer (13f) who is specifically trained and tasked at it. He unlike the 11x series soldier is an expert at calling for fire. the smallest true artillery peace is a mortar (some may argue it is the grenade launcher). A basic infantryman is familiarized with the company level mortar however it's the 11c (mortar maggot) not the 11b (ground pounder) that's actually trained to fire the mortars. the big guns are fired by the 13x series MOSs in the army. Now artillery is an extremely Complex critter. I have been trained to call for fire and I have been familiarization with the m224 (60mm) m29 and m252 (81mm) as well as the m30 (107mm from my Mech inf days). I have trained on and qualified expert with the m203 grenade launcher and been trained on the mk 19. I honestly have a hard time figuring out how the two systems work together (calling for fire and actually aiming and firing the weapon.) as the grenade launcher does not implement a two party system like mortars and big artillery guns do. My Father in law is a an old Vietnam Area 13F. He knows far more about it then I do and we have occasionally traded notes and stories.
What does any of this have to do with our conversation? Self promotion? Your an expert? That's cool.
I have ZERO real life experience with artillery and if you had given any of this information when it was actually warranted and NOT told us you were an expert or your personal history, I would have taken your word for it because I'm quite sure you are capable of talking intelligently on artillery and bull dung is usually pretty easy to spot.
This is a game, and we are discussing how to add a "condition" that existed in ww2 that had an effect on all types of flyers in ww2, however indirectly that might have been.
That condition might be an artillery unit that threatens or stops a ground offensive and it needs to be taken out by air. Or an arty unit supported by AA that presents dangers to air operations in the area. And considering most of our dog-fights occur far below historical altitudes that is a significant risk.
And as far as I'm concerned there could be 50x the amount of AA scattered throughout the map. If there was, then you might get the more historically accurate flying altitudes you mistook for "inaccurate bomber simulation."
At best Artillery in the game would simply be click on map to aim and then fire the gun/guns.
That's just flat out wrong. It could be done exactly like it was done in RL. Spotter, coordinates, and "fire for effect."
At best it would take an entire artillery barrage to destroy one or 2 troops in a paratroop drop (out of 10) a vehicle out of a convoy or a jeep or two out of a huge rushing hoard of a direct GV attack.
Dont you think you should determine the barrage strength before you determine what the casualties will be? So how many guns are in this theoretical fire team of yours? Because, I believe 30 guns and a good spotter would be pretty devastating. I dont know, I am just a civilian, you army boys must just stand there when 30 howitzers line up on you.
It would be about the same as shore batteries and ship guns without direct fire capability.
In RL neither of those things were a "click here if you want to play cannoneer" type situation. How many of the ships guns usually get occupied during a cv raid in the game? 3? 6? As opposed to 50 that might have been used by a RL task group.
The point you just graciously made for us, is that it wasnt the shell size, the accuracy, or the location (land or water) of the artillery unit that made the most difference. It was sheer volume. And if Im not mistaken, that lesson is taught to artillerymen in training. Isnt that what you call "area effect?"
I don't think it should be in the game mainly because it really would have no purpose other then simply giving aircraft something else to shoot at and it would be impossible to defend itself. We already have AAA guns.
Did you even read the rest of this thread? Because I think we made a good case for it's use in the game.
You all but said it yourself. Artillery is not a sniper rifle. It's strength is not in accuracy, it is deterrence. It presents a threat that must be dealt with exactly as it was in RL.
In the game it presents opportunities to use aircraft as they were historically. It presents a way to give attack planes more use in the game. It presents an opportunity to force people to recon an area and use strategic movement instead of a "Half-Life" spawn and die fight that we have had for 20 years. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.............
-
This is not even close, and demonstrates the misconceptions you have that led to the false conclusion you just gave.
I think this is one of the earlier times Dale has brought this up.
My assumtion is you belive the game should be a WWII simulator. I do not belive that Aces High should be a WWII simulator,and it shows up in our description of what aces high is on our home page. Aces High primary purpose is an ACM simulator that uses WWII aircraft. At times AH will be used as a WWII simulator but this will be in senario base functions and other events.
Your perception of bombers might have been accurate if you said they arent used historically. Bombers suffer their fate in this game because of the way they are used, not because of the modeling. If ever people worked together, and flew their aircraft EXACTLY as they were historically, then you would see the same types of results found in ww2.
I think you misunderstood me. I'm not referring to 5K b24 raids or Kamikaze Lancstukas. I'm refuring to why the bomber is in the game. It is in the game to give the fighter a challenging historical adversary to shoot at and a reason to shoot at it. Think about it, how accurate is it, that one guy can control (fly) and bomb with 3 aircraft at once as well as control all the guns on those 3 aircraft? Why is in the game? this one step from being point a point and click liek an RTS. This game is not a Bomber simulation - but it can be but that depends on the players. The purpose of current bomber set up is give the fighter pilot player the simulated experience of what it was like to engage a formation of fully crewed bombers without requiring that many players to crew them - if the game required 1 player each for the Pilot, the bombardier, and each of gunner position for each aircraft we simply wouldn't see bomber formations in the DA and would also have a negative effect on the scenarios. Dale has even pointed this out in one of his early post as to why Pilots can man guns. Requiring an additional player to man the guns on a bomber was unreliable most bombers would be defenseless in the game and few people would fly them.
Which explains my suggestion for "batteries"
With this I assume your NOT wanting mobile artillery like flying artillery (jeep towed artillery piece) or Self-propelled artillery, Hummel, Wespe, SU-85, M7 Priest. You want fire base like, fixed artillery.
Even firing an artillery salvo or even a barrage from a battalion or brigade level artillery battery at a single moving tank the likely hood of me destroying or even damaging that tank is coin toss probably less then 25%.
Now firing the same salvo or barrage at tank battalion I will probably destroy 3 or 4 tanks and damage probably around 3 times as many. the best tank killer in the game would still be a bomb or rocket from a fighter/bomber or an AP tank shell.
Even shooting at a stationary tank a spotter may have to make a few adjustments which is easily defeatable if the tank has cover, moves fast enough to get out of area of effect, or worse yet the spotter is detected and engaged.
What does any of this have to do with our conversation? Self promotion? Your an expert? That's cool.
Actually I'm pointing out while I'm not an expert as a 13F is I do have a working knowledge of artillery and have actually gotten to call for fire a time or two. SO I do have real world experience with it.
I have ZERO real life experience with artillery.
But you want it without really knowing anything about it? and when some one who does know something about it tries to tell you it really won't bring anything to the game and is fairly useless without infantry in the game you nearly insult them.
-
This is a game, and we are discussing how to add a "condition" that existed in ww2 that had an effect on all types of flyers in ww2, however indirectly that might have been.
Non- Anti Aircraft Artillery from a fixed based had no effect on flyers in WW2 other then being a target to protect infantry which we again do not have in AH.
That's just flat out wrong. It could be done exactly like it was done in RL. Spotter, coordinates, and "fire for effect."
You have already stated you have "ZERO real life experience with artillery" so how the heck do you know this? Even I have Problems understanding certain aspects of artillery fire and I have been trained.
Dont you think you should determine the barrage strength before you determine what the casualties will be? So how many guns are in this theoretical fire team of yours? Because, I believe 30 guns and a good spotter would be pretty devastating. I dont know, I am just a civilian, you army boys must just stand there when 30 howitzers line up on you.
Barrage is defensive type of salvo. The number of guns brought to bare on a target are determined by the Targets type size and strength as well as the availability of guns that can be brought to bare on the target. At best when hitting troops in the open your only going to get a 20% casualty rate. Troops dig in maybe 15% less for armored vehicles. This is the Softening effect. It also delays and harrasses movong units and and suppresses fixed units keeps their heads down and in their possitions. depending on the gun type they can also shoot High Explosive, air burst (A flack shell that explodes just above the ground) incendiary (whilly pete), and flare rounds. The best artillery do in AH is HE and Smoke.
The size of the unit like a battery depends on the type unit and type of gun. A Howitzer battery (Company) in 7th ID and 101st I think is 6 guns 5 guys per gun plus support and command. A Mortar section in the same units infantry companies is 3 sections each made up of 2 guns 2 guys per gun plus a section leader and team leader. This could change from unit to unit. When i was in a mech infantry unit mortars where in the battalion level rather then company, and the an Artillery battery consisted of 8 guns.
-
Again
Everything in this game revolves around joe fighter pilot. In real war it revolves around the Basic General Issue JOE infantryman. Even in today's modern military everything revolves around the infantryman.
ACES HIGH HAS NO INFANTRY! therefore there is almost no reason to put Artillery in it. people basically just wanta shell Air fields and spawn points from bases with artillery on them or new special Fire Bases. The concept of shelling and Airfield from an Airfield or a fire base is unrealistic. A good example of Artillery being used against an airbase is the Battle of Khe Sanh. All of the Artillery brought to bear on Air field by the NVA was brought in by vehicle or carried in by infantry. Most of it was mortar fire carried in by Infantry.
1) the artillery used to shell fields and fixed bases is almost always carried by the 11c infantry types towed behind vehicles like jeeps or is Motorized artillery (In modern times they can be airdropped from a c130 and sling loaded from a helicopter) . and most artillery is crewed by 5 people per gun.
2) the big artillery bases are set up to support infantry and assist in defending other assets like airfields from mostly large infantry attacks. artillery's primary function is soften a target regardless if its infantry battalion dug in, a platoon on the move, a tank column, a convoy, or an airfield.
3) Most indirect fire artillery used in wwII like you want is ineffective against a few tanks. Maybe a tank battalion but not a handful of tanks. Look how effective Ship guns are against tanks on the ground. Land based big gun artillery would only be slightly more effective (they aren't shooting from a moving platform) in accuracy but would also lack the punch of the big ship guns.
4) their are only 2 implementations of BVR indirect fire. (you can't see the target and/or it is not in your line of sight) the Big ship guns and Rockets from the PT boat, m4a3, and sdkfz 251. Have you tried making a rocket salvo attack on targets you can't see in this game? most damage done to an airfield or town is done in visual range with line of site direct fire shooting. The only effective system of Indirect BVR Artillery in this game is Ship guns in land mode using the map to aim which has no system to call for fire with other then "your west or right of the base". Try this against a spawn point with 10 tanks on it. With towns and fields your getting lucking, with tanks on a spawn point your winning the lottery if you hit anything.
As far as I know no consumer grade Multiplayer game that has ever gotten "Call for fire" right. My understanding only a heavily modded AA and operation Flash point used by the us army military and 75th rangers is close, otherwise the battlefield series is about as close to it as it gets and they are way off with it.
In my personal opinion with what I know of both this game and real world Modern artillery. artillery would be to complex to bring to the game and it would serve very little purpose as the game stands now. In my opinion there are far better things for HTC to spend their time and resources developing. Personally I would like a way of setting the range on rockets even something as simple as telling my what angle they are aimed at before they further implement artillery . At a latter time after we get infantry some self propelled artillery and a Means to accurately spot for and aim said artillery would be nice. Mabey even sime defensive pieces at bases would be nice after infantry is implemented - until then we have tanks. But right now ... IMHO if this were put to a vote I would vote "no".
Here are some more links on the Artillery. Be warned the Global Security Links will eventually want you to become a subscriber, and the youtube vids may have some profanity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indirect_fire
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/6-30/f630_2.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/6-30/f630_5.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/3-21-71/ch8.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/3-09-12/index.html
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/3-09-21/index.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fLsYPCVGMAY&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3juBMCxzvds&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pdZc5RfKqyA&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=fvwp&NR=1&v=uBjGyt0Ga9Q
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JzUnyAqwZic&feature=youtu.be
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HV9LojyoASc&feature=related
-
I think Mayhem is correct.
That said, if I were to think artillery should be added it would be something like this:
You take your M7, or equivalent, and head out to the point you are going to setup as your firing position, perhaps like bombers you'd get three of your chosen vehicle, following in a line. While driving you have a drone light vehicle, jeep or equivalent, following behind you. Once you have reached your firing position you hit a key to deploy the gun. At that point you can now use one of the view keys to jump into the jeep as though you were jumping into a gunner position on a bomber. You then drive your jeep to your spotting position and either by using a radio "interface" fire and adjust the guns from the jeep or jump back and forth between the M7s to fire and/or adjust aim and the jeep to observe the results.
I have no idea how a good range indicator would be worked into the game nor do I have any idea what the use of this system would be other than another way to destroy towns or bases.
My uncle's wife's father was a spotter in WWII, landing a D-Day and fighting through the Battle of the Bulge. He had some very interesting stories. Sadly, he passed away a couple of years ago.
-
I think this is one of the earlier times Dale has brought this up.
My assumtion is you belive the game should be a WWII simulator. I do not belive that Aces High should be a WWII simulator,and it shows up in our description of what aces high is on our home page. Aces High primary purpose is an ACM simulator that uses WWII aircraft. At times AH will be used as a WWII simulator but this will be in senario base functions and other events.
mayhem the game has changed alot since HTC said that. You'll notice on the front page...
High fidelity flight simulation is the heart of Aces High but it doesn't end there. A war rages on the ground and at sea. Engage enemy armor in tank combat. Protect your fleet as a gunner or make a torpedo run in a PT boat. Lead an assault in an amphibious vehicle. With over 100 warbirds, vehicles, and boats available, you have access to a vast virtual arsenal.
to add to this HTC wants infantry added into game (trying to find his quotes in the wishlist) with a FPS action somehow and also wants submarines. The game is changing and is far from the ACM sim it used to really be. since the GV update, new vehicles are being pumped out at what is now for this game an alarming rate. With all this in mind one must realize that all playable factors of the game are being worked on. And if HT gets what he wants with infantry and street to street fighting this will instantly turn into a full blown WWII Sim
-
Again
blah blah blah
I don't know how to explain it to you any better and it is pretty obvious you havent read all of this thread so you dont even know what has been proposed.
If you dont take time to read and understand the discussion, then you shouldnt be commenting on it or at least not comment like you KNOW.
I dont need to understand EVERYTHING about artillery to know that it can be simulated in a game. A simulation could be as gamey as a Nintendo game or it could be a highly detailed and EXTREMELY accurate representation of the actual thing. I dont know OR CARE how close htc decides to make it to the real thing.
Now to address your flawed logic, the fact that we dont have infantry means nothing. By your logic we shouldnt have aircraft or tanks. WHY you ask? Because they were invented to support infantry.
AND AGAIN, you seem to keep ignoring a fact that even you agreed to. Artillery is an area weapon. It is not used because of its accuracy. It is used as fire suppression, to disrupt and disorient the enemy and to soften targets. This can all be accomplished in the game. The casualty level of 25% that you suggested we might expect in the game is probably pretty close to real life expectations. But then again, that is just your flawed logic, because it all depends on how many guns are firing, how many targets they are shooting at, and how good the spotter is.
The following is a post on artillery. I do not attest to it's accuracy, but everything in this post sounds like someone who actually knows what they are talking about and includes references to back up his assertions. Unlike you.
"Test Results
The first test was conducted in 1988. Researchers confirmed that the US 155-mm HE round was a reasonable surrogate for the Soviet 152-mm HE round. An M109 155-mm howitzer battery using Soviet fire direction and gun procedures fired the test. The targets were manikins placed in fighting positions, US trucks, Ml 13 and M557 armored vehicles, and M-48 tanks. Several different computer models were used to predict results. The test was fired three times using 56 HE rounds with point-detonating (PD) and variable-time (VT) fuzes.
The resulting effects on the trucks and personnel were close to model predictions. However, the effects on the armored vehicles and tanks were significantly higher than model predictions. The model predicted 30 percent damage to armored vehicles and tanks; however, 67 percent damage was achieved. Fragmentation from the HE rounds penetrated the armored vehicles, destroying critical components and injuring the manikin crews. In addition, the HE fragmentation damaged tracks, road wheels, and tank main gun sights and set one vehicle on fire. Interestingly enough, none of the damage to the armored vehicles or tanks was the result of direct hits-all the damage was caused by near hits. This test confirmed that US Army models did not accurately portray artillery effectiveness. Direct hits were not required to damage tanks and other armored targets."
Taken from http://battlegroup42.de/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=147
And the article goes on to debunk other myths you are perpetuating.
Dont talk to me like you are an expert just because you spent a little time with artillery. Clearly you are not. Just as clear is that you know nothing about what software can and cant do.
If I knew these things without having "studied artillery" I wonder what else I might know that you dont.
-
In my opinion there are far better things for HTC to spend their time and resources developing.
And again the motive of every BBS warrior rears its ugly head.
-
Sorry but this game is not a combat flight simulator. It stopped being that at the instant the very first non-aircraft mounted, player-opperated weapon was added to the game. At that point in time it became a combat simulator with an emphasis on aircraft combat. Right now it is a combat simulator with a primary emphasis on aircraft, and a secondary, yet still sizable, emphasis on ground combat.
IMO everyone needs to stop using the argument that planes will automaticly take precedence over vehicles and ships, and that every other facet of the game should be tailored to their combat, as that is no longer correct (never was infact) and is not a valid argument. Its no more valid than a toddler saying they should get candy just because they want it.
I've even heard tell that one of Dale's favorite sports was to park a T-34 on the runway and kill upping aircraft.