Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: Babalonian on August 15, 2013, 12:11:48 PM
-
You won't be allowed to put any sort of custom object or field into an MA terrain, been there, tried that.
What can be put in one are those same things that are in the other MA terrains, namely the three types of airfields, the V base, the port, the fleet, the strat city and the tank town group. Also the land and sea spawn points, road/rail/barge objects and the shore battery.
I know there are many things players want added to the standard default MA objects toybox, but I think a dirt/grass/primitive airstrip with limited ords (nothing larger than 500lb bombs available) would I think be great (and maybe easy (ie already on hand) to request from HTC's little artistic helpers)
-
I know there are many things players want added to the standard default MA objects toybox, but I think a dirt/grass/primitive airstrip with limited ords (nothing larger than 500lb bombs available) would I think be great (and maybe easy (ie already on hand) to request from HTC's little artistic helpers)
They already exist, I remember flying in an FSO I believe, P40's versus zekes in the Pacific, and our field was an unimproved grass strip with a straw hut for a "tower."
They're just not used on MA maps. But I agree, they should be.
-
Does anyone know why the FSO/AvA requirements aren't acceptable for MA requirements? I understand AvA FSO are 2 sided, but that doesn't mean we can't have dirt runways or different bases etc. I think it would be something nice, a nice change.
Tinkles
<<S>>
-
AVA grass / dirt strips are amazing....would love to see them in the MA
-
I know there are many things players want added to the standard default MA objects toybox, but I think a dirt/grass/primitive airstrip with limited ords (nothing larger than 500lb bombs available) would I think be great (and maybe easy (ie already on hand) to request from HTC's little artistic helpers)
You say you understand why they are not allowed in the Mains and yet you ask for them anyway. :rolleyes:
Does anyone know why the FSO/AvA requirements aren't acceptable for MA requirements? I understand AvA FSO are 2 sided, but that doesn't mean we can't have dirt runways or different bases etc. I think it would be something nice, a nice change.
Tinkles
<<S>>
From what I understand, custom objects may cause problems with the game, or players computers. HTC doesn't have the time to build them themselves, and can't take the chance of the game crashing using something someone else built. Debugging something someone else built is most likely as time consuming as building themselves.
So adding custom object to the mains isn't allowed as it is HTC's bread and butter, they can't afford to have problems. Look at the trouble they had with the last update that so many people had trouble getting on. They worked hard to sort that out but there were a lot of crabby people complaining on the boards because they couldn't log in, like it was the end of the world or something.
-
The object is not a problem if HTC decides to standardize it.
What does it do for the game we don't already have?
1. - Does it require a Map building requirement change? Currently airfield objects are limited to a distance of 3\4 of a sector from each other.
2. - Is your purpose to shorten the distance between fields and fights with it?
3. - If it's not to shorten distances then are you asking for an easy mode capture object that cannot put up much of a defense?
4. - Are you looking at it as an augment object to GV bases and Ports?
What does this do for the community and how can it be a detriment to the community?
Or is that Hitech's job to figure out it's purpose in the game while being the goat for not recognizing the brilliance of this object if he rejects it? After all of these years the man must smell like the Goat of all Goats.
-
In other games there might be less players or less inventory, but the player inventory in this game is huge, I can imagine the struggle of bug-hunting giant maps with the range of inventory, possible scenarios, encounters, possible actions, over multiple numbers of maps, is just staggering. Not to say I wouldn't mind "experimental server - enter at your own risk" type of thing.
-
From the MA map designer's perspective a grass airfield with no ord bunkers at all would be a useful object to have. A forward airfield placed near to a port or V base would allow it to be defended from the air but not attacked effectively when the airfield was taken. GVs would still have cannon carrying Il-2s, Ju-87s and Hurris to deal with but fewer bomb carrying aircraft from other fields due to the locally available fighter cover. The field would probably need its own designation (i.e. F6 instead of A6 on the map) so bomber pilots would learn not to try upping there.
-
From the MA map designer's perspective a grass airfield with no ord bunkers at all would be a useful object to have. A forward airfield placed near to a port or V base would allow it to be defended from the air but not attacked effectively when the airfield was taken. GVs would still have cannon carrying Il-2s, Ju-87s and Hurris to deal with but fewer bomb carrying aircraft from other fields due to the locally available fighter cover. The field would probably need its own designation (i.e. F6 instead of A6 on the map) so bomber pilots would learn not to try upping there.
Good point and on the same theme why could there not be forward air bases that have just FH's and VH's only? Say two of each? Model them after the actual air bases that were built in haste as the fronts moved alone, be it PTO, ETO, MTO, etc. These bases could even be unable to be captured with gv spawns in every direction. Have these bases with no ordnance and no barracks. They literally would be only good for launching light fighters and gv's.
-
Any ideas how Hitech would perceive this as a drawback? There has always been requests for a smaller base object like this with fewer available rides and functions. So far Hitech has not accepted the idea for primetime.
Why has Hitech so far not accepted requests for this kind of object in the game?
-
One of their concerns is the size of the file to download. More custom objects means a bigger file size, which means a longer wait when downloading a map for starters, and probably a larger bandwith cost for HTC.
I personally never understood why the latest version of the game download doesn't include all of the updated maps in the MA rotation.
Yes, larger download, however the many of them will have to be downloaded eventually anyway.
Back to the topic -- I believe the idea to add a small dirt/grass strip provides not only an immersive aspect to the game, but has potential to be a highly tactical piece of the chessboard.
-
I don't think adding new fields would add much to the download size so long as the fields are made up of existing objects, i.e. the same type of fighter hangar, tower, fuel bunker and AA etc that are used in the other fields. These objects are already in the download. The only extra texture that might be needed is the grass runway itself, not sure if there is already one in the game. I'd guess the only additional thing that then needs to be downloaded is a small text file that tells the game which objects to put on a forward field with their rotational and X, Y and Z positions relative to each other.
-
The aircraft type should probably be limited as well. For example, I know 109s often use them (and rookie pilots dumped their planes often because of the landing gear setup) but could a P47, as heavy as it is?
-
The other problem is "front line" bases don't stay front line for long. After the first hour of the map being up they are captured by one side and then will no longer be used. What does it bring to the game? Adding things just "because" isn't going to happen, nor is because "it's different" a good reason as after the first week it won't be. So what would it bring to the game?
-
It would give some extra strategic options to MA map builders. Making the nearest airbases to TT frontline fields with no ordnance would both increase the journey times of bomb laden planes to TT and provide fighter cover. You could make a percentage of airfields along the border ordless frontline fields. This would concentrate the base taking brigade into certain areas but allow fighters to up elsewhere. Or make an ordless barrier zone of airfields to make hording more difficult, the horde takes the row of frontline fields but then has to up from fields two fields back to get at the next row of fields. Isolated ordless fields could be used as easy targets for CV attacks as well.
A similar object group they could add is a satellite grass strip that could be tacked onto other bases at the discretion of the map builder. Just a grass strip, a FH and a few AAs that could be placed near to an existing base (say within 5 miles) and would change hands with the parent airbase, V field or port.
-
It would give some extra strategic options to MA map builders. Making the nearest airbases to TT frontline fields with no ordnance would both increase the journey times of bomb laden planes to TT and provide fighter cover. You could make a percentage of airfields along the border ordless frontline fields. This would concentrate the base taking brigade into certain areas but allow fighters to up elsewhere. Or make an ordless barrier zone of airfields to make hording more difficult, the horde takes the row of frontline fields but then has to up from fields two fields back to get at the next row of fields. Isolated ordless fields could be used as easy targets for CV attacks as well.
A similar object group they could add is a satellite grass strip that could be tacked onto other bases at the discretion of the map builder. Just a grass strip, a FH and a few AAs that could be placed near to an existing base (say within 5 miles) and would change hands with the parent airbase, V field or port.
What about replacing some of the small airfields at or neat the front with these ad hoc airfields? Also, what about making them un-capturable and/or able to be bypassed? Allow for a spawn point to go behind the ad hoc field to the next field. I could see these fields be one of those "pain in the arse" situations for chess pieces that are rolling fields. If the ad hoc fields were unable to be captured, the threat of enemy fighters in the backfield so to speak would always be there. Another variable. :aok
-
I've liked this idea for a long time, the small airfields could be set up without ords and be fighter only,,, grass or concrete shouldn't matter,, originally, I thought of the bases around tank town being this way,, you could rearm a bomb laden plane there, but you have to bring it from a bigger base ,farther away, with ords first!
I've never really understood why we have the three different sizes of airbases, yet everything is available at all of them,, all of the towns are the same size around them so no extra difficulty in capturing those bases.
-
How do these small fields fit into the 3\4 sector rule?
-
You say you understand why they are not allowed in the Mains and yet you ask for them anyway. :rolleyes:
I do not, nor have I said to the contrary. :headscratch: Why would I make this thread if I didn't see any good reason not to, and without any understanding for their exclusion? ( :ahand )
From what I understand, custom objects may cause problems with the game, or players computers. HTC doesn't have the time to build them themselves, and can't take the chance of the game crashing using something someone else built. Debugging something someone else built is most likely as time consuming as building themselves.
So adding custom object to the mains isn't allowed as it is HTC's bread and butter, they can't afford to have problems. Look at the trouble they had with the last update that so many people had trouble getting on. They worked hard to sort that out but there were a lot of crabby people complaining on the boards because they couldn't log in, like it was the end of the world or something.
I think it's safe to say you are not well informed here of the nature of the situation.
I am requesting a standard (or more) terrain object be included by HTCs themselves so that unforseen problems or unsatisfactory issues are avoided. If they give us one or two of thee objects and say "this is what these are and they are OK to be uses as such in the MA terrains".
I repeat, I am asking for the inclusion of a standard object. All know examples of this object to day are custom objects, and thus the problem siince they can't be used. Only HTCs (ala grand puba Pyro and grand puba HiTech) can truely address this issue.
-
The object is not a problem if HTC decides to standardize it.
What does it do for the game we don't already have?
1. - Does it require a Map building requirement change? Currently airfield objects are limited to a distance of 3\4 of a sector from each other.
It could impact/change this requirement, forseeabley. But this question is kinda asking how many chickens are we gonna get from the eggs. You can change this rule without including any new objects, or add a new object and never change this rule. I would think the object would come first, and any changes or exceptions to this rule would come later.
2. - Is your purpose to shorten the distance between fields and fights with it?
For the aircraft that logicly can operate off these primitive/dirt strips/fields - Yes. Perhaps what may need to accompany this standard object will be a list of ac, as provided by HTCs, that can operate off these field in the MAs. Idealy, you as a pilot will have limitations at these fields that you will not expereince at the more luxurious air facilities (such as 150% fuel, or ordnance loadouts that would otherwise sink you into the mud before reaching to speeds). Without a doubt it is strictly so you can take an aircraft from a limited facility in trade for ease of location and time to combat (and this is not always a benefit in all situations, either).
3. - If it's not to shorten distances then are you asking for an easy mode capture object that cannot put up much of a defense?
This is a very loaded trick question, as many of yours are bustr. So in proper responce, I throw at you: "How long does a horde take to horde when the horde is hordeing?".... Can two or three organised/communicating players capture it, yes. Should one or two organised/communicating (but mostly observant) players defend it from such an effort, yes.
4. - Are you looking at it as an augment object to GV bases and Ports?
Augment implies replace or to upgrade existing locals, and as such no, although it may where in very small areas multiple instances of these objects exist already and serve no benefit other than to be redundent to the next. As such, and to clarify, they are primarily to be (first) unique objects that will (second) compliment the other default and standard MA objects on the pallete. Another tool in the toolbox.
What does this do for the community and how can it be a detriment to the community?
One mans detriment can be another's warm milk, and I think that actually supports the arguement for this object. For it to work well in the MAs, it will be as equal a blessing as a curse. I am stresing for a limited airfield, where the avilable ac and loadout options are limited/governed by HTCs and hopefuly a revised/added MA requirement (one not yet in existence for the non-existing standard object).
Or is that Hitech's job to figure out it's purpose in the game while being the goat for not recognizing the brilliance of this object if he rejects it? After all of these years the man must smell like the Goat of all Goats.
I'm not here asking Bionce or Jessica Simpson for the inclusion of a new standard terrain object in their product like I wish I were in my dreams... and hopefuly that makes me sane for asking HiTech/Pyro/HTCs instead. (Please :pray )
In other games there might be less players or less inventory, but the player inventory in this game is huge, I can imagine the struggle of bug-hunting giant maps with the range of inventory, possible scenarios, encounters, possible actions, over multiple numbers of maps, is just staggering. Not to say I wouldn't mind "experimental server - enter at your own risk" type of thing.
I guess it should be put out there for further clarification, I think it's a given that most people see this request as one for a limited airfield, and since this is for a standard object to be used in the MAs (hopefuly), it would make the most sence if HTCs dictated those limitations.
PS - Next AHcon I think Greebo should get a complimentry keg which I'll gladly help him empty before the sun rises on Sunday.
-
The other problem is "front line" bases don't stay front line for long. After the first hour of the map being up they are captured by one side and then will no longer be used. What does it bring to the game? Adding things just "because" isn't going to happen, nor is because "it's different" a good reason as after the first week it won't be. So what would it bring to the game?
This is a valid arguement, BUT if applied as it is to Vbases and small airfields.... I think it would justify the removal of over half the bases on most of the maps currently, just off the fact they are only useful as frontline bases and that's it.
How do these small fields fit into the 3\4 sector rule?
Rules are rules. We can speculate over the speculation of inclusion, or assume it will have to fall within that rule unless that rule is amended.
I would speculate it has to obey the 3/4 sector rule in regards to larger airfields, but in regards to GV bases, ports or other primitive airstrips it will likely only have to be 1/4-1/2 a sector away from those.
What about replacing some of the small airfields at or neat the front with these ad hoc airfields? Also, what about making them un-capturable and/or able to be bypassed? Allow for a spawn point to go behind the ad hoc field to the next field. I could see these fields be one of those "pain in the arse" situations for chess pieces that are rolling fields. If the ad hoc fields were unable to be captured, the threat of enemy fighters in the backfield so to speak would always be there. Another variable. :aok
Ah yes, my "Sattelite airfield" request. (nearby primitive strips that are uncpturable but are captured when you secure their nearby "parent" strip) One at a time, one at a time. :aok
-
I do not, nor have I said to the contrary. :headscratch: Why would I make this thread if I didn't see any good reason not to, and without any understanding for their exclusion? ( :ahand )
I think it's safe to say you are not well informed here of the nature of the situation.
I am requesting a standard (or more) terrain object be included by HTCs themselves so that unforseen problems or unsatisfactory issues are avoided. If they give us one or two of thee objects and say "this is what these are and they are OK to be uses as such in the MA terrains".
I repeat, I am asking for the inclusion of a standard object. All know examples of this object to day are custom objects, and thus the problem siince they can't be used. Only HTCs (ala grand puba Pyro and grand puba HiTech) can truely address this issue.
So in over ten years of this game HTC has not added a new "base model" such as a grass airfield, I wonder why? :headscratch:
Could it be that they don't want to take the time it would require to make these new elements because they think other things are a bit more important? Hitech has said before they he will not add something just for the sake of having it. Of course he was talking about engine management then, but what would adding a grass field ADD to the game? Another field to be rolled by the horde. And don't say a restricted field that you can only up fighters, no bombs because HTC has NEVER been about limiting anything.
So why take the time and put forth the effort to add a few new fields? Oh and who would up date all the maps? They don't just "place" themselves. More time and effort, for what, a grass field?
-
So in over ten years of this game HTC has not added a new "base model" such as a grass airfield, I wonder why? :headscratch:
Could it be that they don't want to take the time it would require to make these new elements because they think other things are a bit more important? Hitech has said before they he will not add something just for the sake of having it. Of course he was talking about engine management then, but what would adding a grass field ADD to the game? Another field to be rolled by the horde. And don't say a restricted field that you can only up fighters, no bombs because HTC has NEVER been about limiting anything.
So why take the time and put forth the effort to add a few new fields? Oh and who would up date all the maps? They don't just "place" themselves. More time and effort, for what, a grass field?
Fugi,
I've lately argued pro with you on this issue in many cases. I once asked for a similar object though, but, with time in the forum and the game, I'm more concerned with unintended consequences versus evolution in our closed system. That's why I asked the OP to play his own Devils Advocate. One of our greatest failings in asking Hitech for things, is only presenting our personal wants and needs in our best perceived light thinking that will sell it. We rarely take responsibility for both sides and enumerate those positions showing we have considered the overall fun of the paying customers and not just what we want.
The OP's object wish is kind of a neutral thing in the sense, at any time it could have been updated to the game as an after thought. If it is a simple code function of spawning a limited number of rides and landing them. With a limited number of destroyable facilities on the ground to put it out of action. It probably can be updated into maps with a Hitech only tool to incorporate it. He may already have one in some format after 20 years of coding for air combat games. I cannot conceive of a Master Coder being without a master's tool box full of tools. More likely it's if he wants to do this.
The real question, is there a need for this to improve the fun of the arena experience that Hitech sees? Players are bottomless appetites, willing to receive anything for it's simple novelty of the moment. Sharks with lasers, Claws, tiny planes with chain guns, giant squids, mother ships, whatever next new ride for about 2 weeks. And don't forget the global impact a single M3 suddenly had on capturing towns after Hitech changed that.
-
So in over ten years of this game HTC has not added a new "base model" such as a grass airfield, I wonder why? :headscratch:
So I asked. Shoot me. :neener:
Could it be that they don't want to take the time it would require to make these new elements because they think other things are a bit more important? Hitech has said before they he will not add something just for the sake of having it. Of course he was talking about engine management then, but what would adding a grass field ADD to the game? Another field to be rolled by the horde. And don't say a restricted field that you can only up fighters, no bombs because HTC has NEVER been about limiting anything.
You have some points, particularly about limiting sandbox style gameplay in the arenas. However, this is at heart really asking for an aditional tool/toy for us to use in the sandbox, and I hope that point is clear. And yes, this probabley isn't the most important thing on their plate. However, I know a couple of his favorite artistic helpers whom he recruits for skin and art work for recently aded content, have made these object before and maybe already have a couple done or almost done.... in short, I would be more surprised if they said yes and then only used in-house development time and resources to make it themselves.
So why take the time and put forth the effort to add a few new fields? Oh and who would up date all the maps? They don't just "place" themselves. More time and effort, for what, a grass field?
Probabley would need to update at least one map with the new object for us to enjoy utilising it if it were to be released. Most likely you could just replace on some maps every third Vbase in the long strings of interconnected vbases for a quick fix, or add them next to existing bases. Change will have to happen sooner or later, objects get changed and added regularly and it wasn't too long ago all the maps received an update to the strats. recently there was a lot of talk started on these boards in regards to main arena maps, with I felt like a strong undertone by many players asking HTCs to invest development time into new MA maps because relying on the players isn't satisfactory enough (or to make it easier for players to make maps so more get submitted, but both were the predominent opinion). I think it would be something special to see a few new in-house maps released by HTCs, maybe also releasing some new standard arena objects, but what most likely will continue to happen is they will try to support and assist those who can independently contibute their artistic talent and time to teh process. As such, it behooves them to listen to the community and their talents (me, I'm just a talker, but Greebo here is definetley slated by HTCs as a doer) and maybe add things to the pallete that they want for creating MA terrains.
To repeat, ONLY HTCs/Pyro/HiTech have the power or ability to aproove ro consent default terrain objects. If they choose to they could invest time in creating it, or they can ask someone they regularly talk to for contributions. If they choose to they can change some existing maps and/or create completely new ones. But the sum of all things in this thread is that if we want this addition, creative talent or time investment on their part is the furthest from the issue, just consent and then a request at the very least.
-
Our current capture objects act as focal points to generate combat. Our map makers have leeway in their logic and intentions to how they are fixed around the map. Hitech allows for a certain number captured by your country, accidentally or by design, then the map resets bringing up a different map. Hurray for that country at that moment. In the next moment with a new map, everyone is back to an equal potential to do or achieve whatever they want in a new empty sand box of toys strewn about it.
Do we need new objects, or do we need new processes? Or both? Or does the last 13 years prove the test of time to the core process in effect? Our imaginations.
I don't know if discussing the process is as beneficial to change as nibbling at bits and parts of it almost at random. For Hitech it may be of more benefit to allow us to spitball like this ad nauseam as a passive sensor he can gauge our temperament from time to time.
Time has shown we get bored but, still remain playing this game. Kvetching seems to be a positive relief valve for many of us. We are still here in the face of glacially slow change. In most cases everyone wants only their change while vetoing everyone else's. Makes Hitech's job easy, all he has to do is Mod us if we get out of hand kvetching at each other. This forum's name of Wishlist is a bit misleading. I suspect it would be better named "Enter at your peril, Kvetching Ideas Fight Club".
Very rarely do we question our individual change wish as a group of engineers would be required in a cost analysis meeting in front of the CEO. We usually do it like the department meeting where it's dog eat dog entertaining our bosses unspoken need to divide and conquer.
When everyone hates everyone else's ideas, Hitech doesn't have to take us seriously unless it's something he's been thinking about long before we got involved. And just like landing a kill string, you don't land anything helping other players make their kills even if it gets the crappy map you are on gone.
-
In the beginning HiTech created a flat sandbox, and Fugitive decreed it was good for that is how it has always been and should always remain.
Then HiTech added airfields, vehicle bases and objects of war with which to play in the sandbox. Fugitive decreed it was good for that is how it has always been and should always remain.
Then HiTech added strats and an abundance of armaments. To which Fugitive decreed it was good for that is how it has always been and should always remain.
Then a lowly player beseeched HiTech for some trifle alteration. To which Fugitive decreed "HERESY!" that is not good for that is not how it has always been and should always remain. For I, Fugitive, am the self-appointed oracle to communicate and interpret all of HiTech's thoughts, motives, and cryptic posts.
Then HiTech made a trifle alteration. To which Fugitive decreed it was good for that is how it has always been and should always remain.
-
So in over ten years of this game HTC has not added a new "base model" such as a grass airfield, I wonder why? :headscratch:
Could it be that they don't want to take the time it would require to make these new elements because they think other things are a bit more important? Hitech has said before they he will not add something just for the sake of having it. Of course he was talking about engine management then, but what would adding a grass field ADD to the game? Another field to be rolled by the horde. And don't say a restricted field that you can only up fighters, no bombs because HTC has NEVER been about limiting anything.
So why take the time and put forth the effort to add a few new fields? Oh and who would up date all the maps? They don't just "place" themselves. More time and effort, for what, a grass field?
Your post has merit.
Babalonian's has merit.
Bustr's has merit.
I support having grass airfields and dirt fields etc. I understand HTC not using their short and valuable time to create something like this. It would be nice for them to chime in at some point and give us a thumbs up or down on whether or not these could even be implemented into MA maps.
As for doright. Don't insult. You are in violation of a rule. #4 "4- Flamebaiting, flaming, being abusing, being disrepectful, trolling, spamming or posting to incite or annoy is not allowed. If you cannot make a positive contribution to the thread, then just stay out of it."
As to Fugitive, Bustr and Babalonian is it possible to come to a peaceful resolution on this? :salute :cheers: :cheers:
Tinkles
<<S>>
-
Your post has merit.
Babalonian's has merit.
Bustr's has merit.
I support having grass airfields and dirt fields etc. I understand HTC not using their short and valuable time to create something like this. It would be nice for them to chime in at some point and give us a thumbs up or down on whether or not these could even be implemented into MA maps.
As for doright. Don't insult. You are in violation of a rule. #4 "4- Flamebaiting, flaming, being abusing, being disrepectful, trolling, spamming or posting to incite or annoy is not allowed. If you cannot make a positive contribution to the thread, then just stay out of it."
As to Fugitive, Bustr and Babalonian is it possible to come to a peaceful resolution on this? :salute :cheers: :cheers:
Tinkles
<<S>>
I would also like primitive strips with maybe 2 fh's and 1 vh with 1 ammo bunker so they can be shut down easier than a main field. Maygbe even regulating how much fuel you could take and disallowing larger ord packages at these fields would be worth looking into aswell.
also check rule 5.(dang it tinkles you just made me a hypocrite by me posting this)
-
I would also like primitive strips with maybe 2 fh's and 1 vh with 1 ammo bunker so they can be shut down easier than a main field. Maygbe even regulating how much fuel you could take and disallowing larger ord packages at these fields would be worth looking into aswell.
also check rule 5.(dang it tinkles you just made me a hypocrite by me posting this)
:lol
<<S>> sir
Hope we can get these primitive airstrips, would be a nice touch.
Tinkles
<<S>>
-
I wouldn't care if they didn't change the base layouts, I'd just like to see a primative texture for the small bases. The standard perfect manicured lawns and nice concrete runways are just boring. For me it's just aesthetics...but it would be a nice change.
-
As for doright. Don't insult. You are in violation of a rule. #4 "4- Flamebaiting, flaming, being abusing, being disrepectful, trolling, spamming or posting to incite or annoy is not allowed. If you cannot make a positive contribution to the thread, then just stay out of it."
Odd that you don't find sarcasm as a positive contribution.
It's a much more valuable contribution then endless iterations of 'it can't be done because that is not the way it is done now' comments. For HiTech knows, software is carved in stone, and hardware is etched in silicon (oops more sarcasm).
Now to make a more topical comment.
To stay fresh and avoid tedium a game (even based on simulation) needs an important element of warfare, which is adaptation. Every change needs to be adapted to. Defense adapts to change in offensive strategy and tactics and vice versa. The physics of flight are invariant, gravity is invariant. There are endless iterations of guns with wings or tracks, but for the most part the envelope of strengths and weaknesses of historical combinations has already been established, adapted to, and only minor tactical changes are required for any new air or ground vehicle that falls within that envelope.
So change must come from the sandbox. Small satellite fighter fields is one of those changes. We already have small satellite vehicle fields so it is not a request without precedent. It is a worthy of the wishlist, and serious consideration and discussion. It would also be a map specific change, so the effects on gameplay can be easily determined without a change to every map in the rotation.
Dynamic satellite fields, that spawn and despawn with changing and random conditions of the front would also be interesting.
-
you can have the ground crew that goes with the rest of the primitive whachamajingy's...
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-No1YZgMGFIg/T4xVgh06dRI/AAAAAAAAAIA/FF9KhG7Uhhc/s400/caveman001.jpg)
:neener:
-
Doright,
I warned you not to steal my meds from the POTW locker room. See what you have become. Now this game has two really dumb smart people like my wife accuses me. Here's the dumb smart people test since you took my meds.
If you are at work trying to figure how to get your project wrapped up before years end. What do you do first?
1. - Seeing that Saturday the 25th is open. Schedule the day for your team?
2. - Seeing that Saturday the 25th is open. Call your wife and see if she has anything planned for Saturday the 25th you should know about.
3. - Put together the schedule, go to the next team and management update meeting on the 22nd and offer the 25th as an excellent way for your team to get caught up once again? They were happy with all of the other weekends being used to wrap up the project before the year's end and the incentive bonuses in their pockets.
Management called my wife, an HR AVP on speaker phone during the meeting, and asked her to tell me what day Saturday the 25th was. I am the dumbest smart person she has ever met. Doright stop stealing my meds man. You are confusing the nice people in this forum. I was relying on you to be the smart face of POTW.
-
you can have the ground crew that goes with the rest of the primitive whachamajingy's...
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-No1YZgMGFIg/T4xVgh06dRI/AAAAAAAAAIA/FF9KhG7Uhhc/s400/caveman001.jpg)
:neener:
They look no better than the group at our hangar... wait, are those stone tools in their hands?... correction, they are better.
-
There is a very simple and valid reason for adding crude, unimproved forward air fields that cuts to the heart of why many (dare I say, most?) of us got involved in this game, and Warbirds and Airwarrior before that. To wit, immersion. A great many facilities that were called airfields were little more than grass or dirt strips carved out of jungles or forests. The operations center was an abandoned cottage and the maintenance hanger was a tarp stretched between some trees. Sand-bagged gun pits provided point defense, and everyone lived in tents. I'd like to see such objects added to the MA, if for no other reason than it enhances immersion, and hence player enjoyment. To use an analogy, great movie special effects without a compelling, well-acted story is pointless. However, take a good story, with decent acting, and layer on great special effects and you have a blockbuster that people see again and again in the theater.
Now from a game-play perspective, it is reasonable to ask if these forward airfields should have limited or unique capabilities from our normal fields. Personally, I'd like to see that. Indeed, our current model of "any a/c from any field (with the unique exception of the Komet) is anti-immersive (just made that word up :) ). Why not replace the small field with the grass-strip variety, and limit it to twin-engine a/c and smaller (plus GVs)? Maybe for each medium or large field, you have a couple of forward airfields nearby. Not every map would have to use this scheme, but allowing them would add some freshness to game play that has become somewhat stale and repetitive. :salute
-
There is a very simple and valid reason for adding crude, unimproved forward air fields that cuts to the heart of why many (dare I say, most?) of us got involved in this game, and Warbirds and Airwarrior before that. To wit, immersion. A great many facilities that were called airfields were little more than grass or dirt strips carved out of jungles or forests. The operations center was an abandoned cottage and the maintenance hanger was a tarp stretched between some trees. Sand-bagged gun pits provided point defense, and everyone lived in tents. I'd like to see such objects added to the MA, if for no other reason than it enhances immersion, and hence player enjoyment. To use an analogy, great movie special effects without a compelling, well-acted story is pointless. However, take a good story, with decent acting, and layer on great special effects and you have a blockbuster that people see again and again in the theater.
Now from a game-play perspective, it is reasonable to ask if these forward airfields should have limited or unique capabilities from our normal fields. Personally, I'd like to see that. Indeed, our current model of "any a/c from any field (with the unique exception of the Komet) is anti-immersive (just made that word up :) ). Why not replace the small field with the grass-strip variety, and limit it to twin-engine a/c and smaller (plus GVs)? Maybe for each medium or large field, you have a couple of forward airfields nearby. Not every map would have to use this scheme, but allowing them would add some freshness to game play that has become somewhat stale and repetitive. :salute
:airplane: Excellent Point! I have felt that we have to many "small" airfields on all the maps, so why not delete 5 from each country and replace with "forward" bases, limited to single engine fighters and a handful of GV's, with no spawn point to another base! What I would envision is a "grass" or "dirt" strip, with one "outhouse" and no ords. Well, maybe some 500lbers for GV hunting by single engine fighters! I am not a computer "whiz" as many of you know, but wouldn't eliminating some of the small fields remove some of the "load" on personal PC's?
-
:airplane: Excellent Point! I have felt that we have to many "small" airfields on all the maps, so why not delete 5 from each country and replace with "forward" bases, limited to single engine fighters and a handful of GV's, with no spawn point to another base! What I would envision is a "grass" or "dirt" strip, with one "outhouse" and no ords. Well, maybe some 500lbers for GV hunting by single engine fighters! I am not a computer "whiz" as many of you know, but wouldn't eliminating some of the small fields remove some of the "load" on personal PC's?
And where would this "forward" or "front line" bases be? On the front line I assume..... but that is only when the map is first brought up. An hour later one country has double the number of "grass fields" and the neighboring country has lost them. An hour later and the grass fields become unused bases behind the front lines.
Again, I just don't see adding another "field" just because it looks different. Restricting what is available at this "field" is another no-no. People pay their $15 to fly what they want when they want it. HTC has NEVER been about restricting anything unless if crippled game play (fuel can no longer be porked to 25%).
-
There is a very simple and valid reason for adding crude, unimproved forward air fields that cuts to the heart of why many (dare I say, most?) of us got involved in this game, and Warbirds and Airwarrior before that. To wit, immersion. A great many facilities that were called airfields were little more than grass or dirt strips carved out of jungles or forests. The operations center was an abandoned cottage and the maintenance hanger was a tarp stretched between some trees. Sand-bagged gun pits provided point defense, and everyone lived in tents. I'd like to see such objects added to the MA, if for no other reason than it enhances immersion, and hence player enjoyment. To use an analogy, great movie special effects without a compelling, well-acted story is pointless. However, take a good story, with decent acting, and layer on great special effects and you have a blockbuster that people see again and again in the theater.
Now from a game-play perspective, it is reasonable to ask if these forward airfields should have limited or unique capabilities from our normal fields. Personally, I'd like to see that. Indeed, our current model of "any a/c from any field (with the unique exception of the Komet) is anti-immersive (just made that word up :) ). Why not replace the small field with the grass-strip variety, and limit it to twin-engine a/c and smaller (plus GVs)? Maybe for each medium or large field, you have a couple of forward airfields nearby. Not every map would have to use this scheme, but allowing them would add some freshness to game play that has become somewhat stale and repetitive. :salute
You know, I never thought of it that deep beyond "it would look good/nice/pretty", but you're right about the immersion factor. Thank you a ton for that/your contribution.
:airplane: Excellent Point! I have felt that we have to many "small" airfields on all the maps, so why not delete 5 from each country and replace with "forward" bases, limited to single engine fighters and a handful of GV's, with no spawn point to another base! What I would envision is a "grass" or "dirt" strip, with one "outhouse" and no ords. Well, maybe some 500lbers for GV hunting by single engine fighters! I am not a computer "whiz" as many of you know, but wouldn't eliminating some of the small fields remove some of the "load" on personal PC's?
On select maps (I'm thinking of the ones with "maximum # of bases" size), I'm sympathetic and really just don't like seeing a daisy-chain for miles/sectors of real-estate of only all-vbases or all-small airfields. I think a primitive strip could 1)substitute and 2)influence more/variety of action in these areas on these large maps.
On smaller maps though... maybe not replace but add them between and off to the side of a couple bases at most (or not add them at all, these maps are very small/finitely-balanced).
-
And where would this "forward" or "front line" bases be? On the front line I assume..... but that is only when the map is first brought up. An hour later one country has double the number of "grass fields" and the neighboring country has lost them. An hour later and the grass fields become unused bases behind the front lines.
Again, I just don't see adding another "field" just because it looks different. Restricting what is available at this "field" is another no-no. People pay their $15 to fly what they want when they want it. HTC has NEVER been about restricting anything unless if crippled game play (fuel can no longer be porked to 25%).
Funny you'd mention that Irony. :devil I only hear it brought up anytime a newer player asks "what are the fuel strats for" and the default respone of "just something to look purty in the game as it burns" isn't enough for them.
Yea.... the Aces High Fuel Strats are proposing to rename themselves the Acs High Dust Farms at the annual conference this year. Talk about adding something useless for the sake of just adding something in the game (tounge-in-cheek). All your hard work and at best you limit fuel to 75%. 25% might of been too severe, but 50% might justify the real estate the fuel strats occupy (nevermind the effort to drop a bomb on them or resupply them).
Alright, not to go off-topic any further. Nothing personal, or wrong with agreeing to disagree on this Fugi, but it helps the conversation.
I think the field should, on very very large maps, substitute other fields, again only on very large maps, but most maps I am hoping do not get touched (or need to be touched up) because of this decision. That alone can be a huge deal breaker.
I really want this object included though, and at the least just put in the toolbox and approoved for future use by HTCs.
The second issue/step would be do we want to see it on every single map, or do we want to see fields substituded on current maps with this object, or do we want to see it added in addition to other field on current maps. That answer can be no, but achieving a yes in the object inclusion will at the least give us something to look forward to in newer maps. And that's all I want here, is the first step. Your concerns and arguements over the next step I also concede are very very valid, but are dependent on map design.
-
IMO we do not need object orientated ( with grass run ways and buildings etc) " forward fields" ..... For game play all we need is the ability to land AC supplies to make places where our ac can land and rearm and refuel.
From a terrain view point all that would be needed is flat places where ac could land and be rearmed/ refuelled by a visiting C47.
Forward fields were very often not fields with hangers or permanent buildings. They were simply grass runways where ac would be flown in prior to deployment. Commonly used by the VVS and LW also used by the RAF during late June 44 in Normandy... Indeed Hawkinge and Lympne were used this way on occasion during BoB.
To limit any abuse it could simply be a function of a C47(player manned) being parked such that ac landed in range could collect such fuel and ammunition as game play permits. IMO this would be limited to fuel, mg rnds, cannon rnds and rockets.
-
IMO we do not need object orientated ( with grass run ways and buildings etc) " forward fields" ..... For game play all we need is the ability to land AC supplies to make places where our ac can land and rearm and refuel.
From a terrain view point all that would be needed is flat places where ac could land and be rearmed/ refuelled by a visiting C47.
Forward fields were very often not fields with hangers or permanent buildings. They were simply grass runways where ac would be flown in prior to deployment. Commonly used by the VVS and LW also used by the RAF during late June 44 in Normandy... Indeed Hawkinge and Lympne were used this way on occasion during BoB.
To limit any abuse it could simply be a function of a C47(player manned) being parked such that ac landed in range could collect such fuel and ammunition as game play permits. IMO this would be limited to fuel, mg rnds, cannon rnds and rockets.
A supply that could be delivered from a C-47 , and re supply a plane could be delivered anywhere!, no need for a grass strip! Say a pilot loitered to long,, to far away from home and needed fuel to make it home,, land and have a goon fly to you? Sounds great,,
-
:aok +1
-
Perhaps what is needed is a bit of a redesign of the way that "bases" are set up. Currently, we have vehicle bases and ports that just need to be de-acked and have troops brought in, as well as airbases with towns that must be de-acked and "white flagged" before troops are brought in.
What I envision is something a bit more like this: Instead of bases being the center of attention, there are population centers of various sizes. The current town-sized population centers would just have a base or two, perhaps a vbase and a fighter field, or a lone midsize airfield, or a port and a vbase, etc. A larger town could have three or four fields in various combinations, and then there would also be little cities, that could have up to and including a large airfield, two small airstrips, two vbases, and a port. The purpose of these bases would be to defend the population centers: a larger town/city would logically need more bases to defend it. The strats would stay largely or entirely the same.
This is just the kernel of an idea, there are numerous details to be worked out. I just think that it would be a good change in a game that I often hear complaints of stagnation about. This change would have several positive effects, including being much more realistic than the current model and the fact that it would be a total re-working of the "win the war" strategy, which would bring novelty to the game.