Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: Babalonian on August 20, 2013, 02:59:18 PM
-
Lots of talk on the boards for some changes lately it seems. Here's another. Started today with reading this thread http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,352503.105.html
That thread and others have made me think of this idea more than once. Everytime I try to think of a suggestion for this topic, I find my mind looking to fill the the wide open gaps/spanses in between bases/spawns, where the action at times at these bases is already adequatley concentrated and focused, but often lacking in-between.
Part 1: Can we get a test Arena to test new (maybe bold/extreme) MA ideas in? Icon adjustments, weather, AAA lethalities, 8-cv task groups, etc.. Understood - first the new ideas, then the testing, but the process of getting some foundation out there to start with and developing up as you go was sucessful when applied to the new achievement system.
Part 2: Sea convoys. Some water maps just have too much open/unused space. I think the arena's theme (early, mid or late war), the ratio of the map's water to land, and current state/health of the strats could be interpretted by some codeing to spawn/maintain some convoys within the game. To the red guys their purpose would be lucrative targets, but for the friendlies something beneficial should come from keeping a convoy alive or protecting it (and may be a good reason to toy around with it in a beta - find a nice balance).
Part 3: Task group composition stacking/destacking. Nuts-n-Bolts being players can elect to utilise a standard task group, or to (somehow) increase the number of ships within it and thus its strength, or to (somehow) divide its strengths/ships and conquor. IE: A standard task group spawns, you can steam it straight to the front or if you sail it to within 5-miles of another friendly port and it gains a heavy cruiser (and if ships are damaged, repairs some). IE: you have a large healthy task group and rondevou with a large convoy, so it gives you a second task group, or if your task group is in bad shape it helps repair it. I would love to see it in action, or more accuratley which strategy will work best: the same old "get the CV into action ASAP" or "take the time to build up the task group into a floating fort knox" one or to work in conjunction with a nearby convoy (where the convoy gets protection, task group gets logistics/support).
Part 4 (the big one): Apply the CV cource mechanics (controlable by a player on the team, able for a single person to take command of, limits of how close to X you can make the cource) to GV and PT boat spawns, but obviously single-point. If limits were in place (can't set within 2-miles of enemy town/field/strat, can't set over 50-miles away from the base), how bad would this be? It would make the GV and PT spawn points more versaitle and useful for whatever an individual or group of individuals wanted to accomplish (flank a base, start a spawn on spawn fight, deploy PT boats 1/2 ahead of the enemy CV within visual distance of your control tower).
I think some map creators/editors would still like to be able to set some permanent spawn points, but I think the majority will love the time this feature saves them when the location/position of every single spawn point is no longer 100% their responcibility/chore to place.
Another reason I want to see experiments with this idea is that it could replace all the permanent spawn points (and that the map creator would need to designate) and provide each base with only one forward spawn point. The good and bad (and why I can think of no better way than to test it in action) is each base has a movable spawn point, and only one (besides a default/hangar).
Could be interesting, but its all speculation. IE: Capturing surrounding and smaller fields before just hordeing the prized large/keystone field in the area will provie your side with a very notable advantage in that immediate area. Want to log in tonight at 7pm and be rolling in panzers down your enemy HQ's main street with your squadies before 10pm?... now that might be possible on any map and on any night with a couple/few well thought base captures. How often is an enemy field currently taken with a friendly PT/LVT boat spawn?... Maybe a refinement of such a feature could even give task groups better control of their LVT/PT boat spawns without first trying to beach the CV as close to the objective as possible.
Lastly, I think it's one of the longest standing tounge-in-cheek request on these boards, but if the foundation can start being laid for it with changes like these (or better, I can hope), then perhaps player controlled submarines could be introduced and not too far behind.
-
Lots of talk on the boards for some changes lately it seems. Here's another. Started today with reading this thread http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,352503.105.html
That thread and others have made me think of this idea more than once. Everytime I try to think of a suggestion for this topic, I find my mind looking to fill the the wide open gaps/spanses in between bases/spawns, where the action at times is already adequatley concentrated and focused.
Part 1: Can we get a test Arena to test new (maybe bold/extreme) MA ideas in? Icon adjustments, weather, AAA lethalities, 8-cv task groups, etc.. Understood - first the new ideas, then the testing, but the process of getting some foundation out there to start with and developing up as you go was sucessful when applied to the new achievement system.
Part 2: Sea convoys. Some water maps just have too much open/unused space. I think the arena's theme (early, mid or late war), the ratio of the map's water to land, and current state/health of the strats could be interpretted by some codeing to spawn/maintain some convoys within the game. To the red guys their purpose would be lucrative targets, but for the friendlies something beneficial should come from keeping a convoy alive or protecting it (and may be a good reason to toy around with it in a beta - find a nice balance).
Part 3: Task group composition stacking/destacking. Nuts-n-Bolts being players can elect to utilise a standard task group, or to (somehow) increase the number of ships within it and thus its strength, or to (somehow) divide its strengths/ships and conquor. IE: A standard task group spawns, you can steam it straight to the front or if you sail it to within 5-miles of another friendly port and it gains a heavy cruiser (and if ships are damaged, repairs some). IE: you have a large healthy task group and rondevou with a large convoy, so it gives you a second task group, or if your task group is in bad shape it helps repair it. I would love to see it in action, or more accuratley which strategy will work best: the same old "get the CV into action ASAP" or "take the time to build up the task group into a floating fort knox" one or to work in conjunction with a nearby convoy (where the convoy gets protection, task group gets logistics/support).
Part 4 (the big one): Apply the CV cource mechanics (controlable by a player on the team, able for a single person to take command of, limits of how close to X you can make the cource) to GV and PT boat spawns, but obviously single-point. If limits were in place (can't set within 2-miles of enemy town/field/strat, can't set over 50-miles away from the base), how bad would this be? It would make the GV and PT spawn points more versaitle and useful for whatever an individual or group of individuals wanted to accomplish (flank a base, start a spawn on spawn fight, deploy PT boats 1/2 ahead of the enemy CV within visual distance of your control tower).
I think some map creators/editors would still like to be able to set some permanent spawn points, but I think the majority will love the time this feature saves them when the location/position of every single spawn point is no longer 100% their responcibility/chore to place.
Another reason I want to see experiments with this idea is that it could replace all the permanent spawn points (and that the map creator would need to designate) and provide each base with only one forward spawn point. The good and bad (and why I can think of no better way than to test it in action) is each base has a movable spawn point, and only one (besides a default/hangar).
Could be interesting, but its all speculation. IE: Capturing surrounding and smaller fields before just hordeing the prized large/keystone field in the area will provie your side with a very notable advantage in that immediate area. Want to log in tonight at 7pm and be rolling in panzers down your enemy HQ's main street with your squadies before 10pm?... now that might be possible on any map and on any night with a couple/few well thought base captures. How often is an enemy field currently taken with a friendly PT/LVT boat spawn?... Maybe a refinement of such a feature could even give task groups better control of their LVT/PT boat spawns without first trying to beach the CV as close to the objective as possible.
Lastly, I think it's one of the longest standing tounge-in-cheek request on these boards, but if the foundation can start being laid for it with changes like these (or better, I can hope), then perhaps player controlled submarines could be introduced and not too far behind.
I like all parts of this post. They give more diversity to gameplay, and improve areas of aces high that have been lacking for a while.
BIG +1 :aok
Tinkles
<<S>>
-
I am interested in where all of this goes except the S.S. Tongue In Cheek. :D
-
hi
i have wished bevor that squads should be able to use here own cruisers. If noone of the squad is online the crusers ship right back to the next port and will stay there. If one of the squadis is online its able to control the cruiser and over the option to let gunners join.
this will bring some traffic into the see erea and lots of parking ships at the ports :-).
cu christian
-
Just 3 things needed, to spice up the Naval warfare aspect.. For Starters anyway..
#1 Separate invasion fleets, to get the carrier AWAY from the shore..
#2 A way to land Tanks over the Beach.. (LCT Mk2 holds 6 GV's, would be my choice)
#3 Player spawnable Destroyers, so you can cover the Landing force with AA, and close Naval Gunfire..
That would lite the fire for sure!
-
I give my blessing to all of these suggestions :rock +10
Right now Naval warfare is a sink or swim situation. It would make a realistic ivasion force with cv a way from the shelling cruiser and cv. It would be better also for snapshots. :banana:
-
Absolutely should have a separate invasion fleet, with a BB for shore bombardment, a landing ship to act as a mobile GV spawn, and possibly an escort carrier (CVE) with only a limited selection of lighter aircraft to provide air defense.
-
Absolutely should have a separate invasion fleet, with a BB for shore bombardment, a landing ship to act as a mobile GV spawn, and possibly an escort carrier (CVE) with only a limited selection of lighter aircraft to provide air defense.
I've always been a proponent of this:
1) CV Group - Task Group as it currently exists, however remove LVTs and PTs. Restricted to operating no closer than 25 miles of enemy fields.
2) Bombardment Group - Replace CV with a BB. Add float plane scouts (OS2U Kingfisher, F1M "Pete", etc.) and remove all other vehicle/aircraft spawns. Can close halfway between 25 miles and current minimum approach distance.
3) Invasion Group - 1 LST (LVTs/PTs) escorted by 1 CVE with limited plane set (TBM, SBD, F4F, FM-2, Seafire, Sea Hurricane, A6M, B5N, D3A) and a couple DEs. Respawn triggered by loss of LST. Can close within the current range of shore as current CV groups.
-
I refer to you my "mobile strats" suggestion last week, merchant ships, minesweepers, single destroyers etc...
-
Absolutely should have a separate invasion fleet, with a BB for shore bombardment, a landing ship to act as a mobile GV spawn, and possibly an escort carrier (CVE) with only a limited selection of lighter aircraft to provide air defense.
Maybe fighters with limited ord capabilities?
-
(http://imageshack.us/a/img13/728/64el.png)
(http://imageshack.us/a/img546/9726/dxgb.png)
Use CV fleet to support.
-
New Jersey class? :huh
And I'm still of the opinion that invasion forces should be separate from capital-scale vessels.
-
For simplicity sake, let's consider 2 fleets per port.
Port 70:
Task Force 70A = CV fleet
Task Force 70B = Invasion/BB fleet
By default, these task forces (a fleet) would have parallel courses, staying together (what an ack mess that could be).
However, each task force can be commanded individually (have to be, actually) allowing for operations independent of
each other.
Attacking and capturing ports would take on a higher priority, I imagine. As would defending them.
-
New Jersey class? :huh
And I'm still of the opinion that invasion forces should be separate from capital-scale vessels.
Capital scale vessels participated in both invasions and ship vs. ship engagements.
-
Just 3 things needed, to spice up the Naval warfare aspect.. For Starters anyway..
#1 Separate invasion fleets, to get the carrier AWAY from the shore..
#2 A way to land Tanks over the Beach.. (LCT Mk2 holds 6 GV's, would be my choice)
#3 Player spawnable Destroyers, so you can cover the Landing force with AA, and close Naval Gunfire..
That would lite the fire for sure!
Your #3 is one reason why I want to push for my original post's #4. I just didn't want to jumble it up with my furthest-reaching imagination. If player controlable ships get introduced (destroyers, subs, light cruisers, etc.... hell, I'll even say it, floatplanes!... but let us focus on the foundation first), how can a player deploy/spawn it defensively, offensively or somewhere in between?... and oc how can they recover/land it as well?
Capital scale vessels participated in both invasions and ship vs. ship engagements.
Fact for thought: The allies and Eisenhower with confidence in their planners and advisers (and a conservative estimate) were prepared to most-surely loose one major battleship but likely at least two in the invasion of Normandy, of the 6 total participating in it (3 US, 3 GB).
Back on topic: I think one step at a time, but yeah battleships should be cool someday in AH, and the use of capital ships in the invasions was unquestionable.
I think an invasion fleet would be a good idea, but if player controlled, how can it be adequatley player protected.... maybe a beta with them is necessary, because my fear is that such a test will show that the invasion fleet will rarely wander far from the additional and superior protection of the carrier fleet (or rather: that we're spliting up one asset into two, but it will still be used 90%+ of the time as a single combined asset... if true, then why divide he assets in the first place?...).
I am honestly surprised how many ideas people have on this subject, and even more so that nobody has been objecting (I wrote a lot of ideas down, I was sure one would flop). I think variety/flavors of fleet is also on the table, but after the foundation for it has been settup, IE my thoughts in my original post with idea #3 (Variable Task Group Compositions, or Task Group Ship Stacking/Destacking (like a card deck)). If that egg gets cracked first, then I would love to think of how many different way we can cook the omlet ("variety and flavors").
-
(http://imageshack.us/a/img845/5268/khwe.png)
Replacing the cruiser with an escort carrier is a fundamental change in game dynamics. A carrier
task force that loses it's CV would still have the CVE to support air operations until a re-spawn. This
reduces overall TF firepower but gives a limited time of continued base of operations for airborne planes.
There could be a possibility of making the jeep carriers only capable of providing rearming, and successfully
landing a sortie with no aircraft spawning capability. This would make the CV the juicer target still even
with it being the flagship that causes TF re-spawn.
This may also require combined TF (full fleet) operations for invasions if heavy opposition
is anticipated (as often would be the case). With the CV distance limitation the invasion TF would require
carrier aircraft already airborne and rotating over it to provide protection.
If player manned destroyers become spawnable from the TFs (with 4 drones still in place) then some degree
of additional protection is afforded.
So far, this would require modeling escort CVs, BBs, player commanded DDs and possibly landing craft.
P.S. If there are BB TF slug outs then the CV TF, if present, may ought to consider backing from the fray.
P.P.S. I would further recommend making the flagship the only spawnable point for DDs, PTs and amphibs
thereby reducing the chances of a flagship-less fleet spawning infinite DDs and such once it is essentially
'taken out of commission.'
-
(http://imageshack.us/a/img845/5268/khwe.png)
Replacing the cruiser with an escort carrier is a fundamental change in game dynamics. A carrier
task force that loses it's CV would still have the CVE to support air operations until a re-spawn. This
reduces overall TF firepower but gives a limited time of continued base of operations for airborne planes.
There could be a possibility of making the jeep carriers only capable of providing rearming, and successfully
landing a sortie with no aircraft spawning capability. This would make the CV the juicer target still even
with it being the flagship that causes TF re-spawn.
This may also require combined TF (full fleet) operations for invasions if heavy opposition
is anticipated (as often would be the case). With the CV distance limitation the invasion TF would require
carrier aircraft already airborne and rotating over it to provide protection.
If player manned destroyers become spawnable from the TFs (with 4 drones still in place) then some degree
of additional protection is afforded.
So far, this would require modeling escort CVs, BBs, player commanded DDs and possibly landing craft.
P.S. If there are BB TF slug outs then the CV TF, if present, may ought to consider backing from the fray.
P.P.S. I would further recommend making the flagship the only spawnable point for DDs, PTs and amphibs
thereby reducing the chances of a flagship-less fleet spawning infinite DDs and such once it is essentially
'taken out of commission.'
If that's to accurate scale, +1 just for the challenge of landing and TO on it (not to mention even hitting it with a bomb from higher/safer altitudes).
-
If that's to accurate scale, +1 just for the challenge of landing and TO on it (not to mention even hitting it with a bomb from higher/safer altitudes).
Didn't go far enough into the ship comparison to scale it accurately. It's basically the same scale at the cruiser with it's bow lopped off. :D
-
Here's a more accurate scale comparison:
(http://imageshack.us/a/img6/3844/3ols.png)
-
You have some original ideas, but if I understand #4 correctly, you are allowing a single "high ranked" player to control where all the rest of us spawn our GVs. (Pardon me if I misunderstand your suggestion). If that is what you are proposing, I don't think I'd like it much being told where to spawn.
I would prefer fixed GV spawn points as currently. However the desire to reduce spawn camping is still valid. Currently we have pseudo-random spawn point offsets, but they are still pretty predictable to campers. Instead of this, I would prefer to enable players to deliberately chose one of many (20 or so) offsets to the spawn point. So if you were killed at spawn point offset "1", you might try "9" for the next instead up upping and dieing over and over again at "1".
MH
-
I've always been a proponent of this:
1) CV Group - Task Group as it currently exists, however remove LVTs and PTs. Restricted to operating no closer than 25 miles of enemy fields.
2) Bombardment Group - Replace CV with a BB. Add float plane scouts (OS2U Kingfisher, F1M "Pete", etc.) and remove all other vehicle/aircraft spawns. Can close halfway between 25 miles and current minimum approach distance.
3) Invasion Group - 1 LST (LVTs/PTs) escorted by 1 CVE with limited plane set (TBM, SBD, F4F, FM-2, Seafire, Sea Hurricane, A6M, B5N, D3A) and a couple DEs. Respawn triggered by loss of LST. Can close within the current range of shore as current CV groups.
So, back to exploring a three task force fleet deployed from a single port. I've explored 2 of your suggestions; the CV task force (albeit replacing the cruiser with an escort carrier) and the BB/bombardment task force (with the BB TF being the actual invading fleet). Your third TF, consisting of an LST, a CVE and 2 drone DEs (the LST being it's flag ship) comes off a little light to me. Being the 'point group' it would be much closer to shore (possibly operating independently if it was split from the main fleet - a bad but no doubt probably attempted tactic). Both the CV and BB TFs would become stand-off units. The CVTF would provide air strike, support and defense both in an invasion stand-off position and in deep sea stand off fleet vs fleet situations. The BB would provide stand off shore-bombardment and fleet to fleet slug-outs.
But the Invasion TF cannot afford to be a stand alone once it moves in to put forces ashore. And, as stated, perhaps it shouldn't. I would still suggest it retain a cruiser and the standard 4 drone dds, with the LST being the flagship (as you suggest). Adding a CVE to the Invasion TF might be reasonable if it merely served as a rearm pad/land sortie point. As such, the CV stand-off TF could retain the cruiser and CVE, as well.
All TF flagships would be the specific spawn points of whatever planes, vehicles or smaller escorts and PTs they spawn (CV-aircraft and player DDs, BB = player DDs, LST = landing craft and amphibs). [ I removed PTs since they should really just be coastal/island based. ]
What do you think? Simple yet adding a degree of complexity the players may appreciate? :)
-
The idea would be that unless the TG commander is an idiot, the invasion fleet wouldn't move in until the shore defenses had been softened up and CAPed by the CV group and bombardment groups. It's a way to prevent the heavy TGs from going too close to shore (addressing one of the complaints about the CVs as they currently exist, since you basically end up with enemy flak over your OWN airfield) while still having a group that can get close enough to deploy LVTs (which is what requires the close approach).
-
Yes, this always an interesting topic, with all kinds of ideas..
Lots of people support these Naval warfare ideas in general.. Although they have their own opinions on how to implement them.. By all means we should use as much as possible of the game components that already exist..
CV groups there is no real need to change.. It needs the Cruiser for the AA platform and in case it meets an Enemy Fleet.. The "I" Fleet can use the same ships for starters, just remove the carrier.. But then new ships would be needed to fill the operational requirements.. All kinds of possible wishes here!
Here are a few of my thoughts to kick around..
Invasion fleets were large, lots of ships.. They were FESTOONED with AA, very dangerous..
It would need Troop Transports APA's (like troop barracks)
It would need LSD's Landing Ships with well deck, to properly spawn the landing operation..(like VH)
Landing craft to carry vehicles to shore.. I prefer the LCT, that carries 6 GV's that can fire while on board..
The fleet would need the ability to pull up and park, before the landing operation could begin..
Bombardment ship, Cruiser for starters, eventually an Iowa Battleship I hope, nothing else would look right!
Corresponding upgrade of Shore Batteries, to balance the Battleship, I like the 14in rifles with a Disappearing carriage.. Or 12in coast Mortars with 360 traverse.. Both In open pits so they would be vulnerable to air attack..
Bunkers and nests/trenches near the water, for some light auto and soft guns, at all seaside towns..
Player spawnable Destroyers, provide cover for the landing force as it approaches shore, and for Fleet defense against enemy Destroyers.. Just a bigger more durable and powerful PT boat, still fairly easy to sink, but takes more than spittin at it to sink it..
-
Corresponding upgrade of Shore Batteries, to balance the Battleship, I like the 14in rifles with a Disappearing carriage.. Or 12in coast Mortars with 360 traverse.. Both In open pits so they would be vulnerable to air attack..
Bunkers and nests/trenches near the water, for some light auto and soft guns, at all seaside towns..
Perhaps each airfield/vbase should have a field artillery battery... six 105mm cannon or whatever the standard was in WWII. This artillery battery could be used in place of the shore battery, or to supplement it, as well as to defend the base from GV attack, etc. Additionally, each field should have 4x 88mm AA cannon, aimed in the same way that the 88 is currently, to provide a bracketing effect similar to the auto puffy ack, for better bomber defense.
As to fighting positions/entrenchments around the towns, I really like that idea. It would certainly make it harder to sneak troops in. Perhaps it could be set up as auto-fired rifle calibre machine gun positions, so as to minimize the amount of coding required.
-
You have some original ideas, but if I understand #4 correctly, you are allowing a single "high ranked" player to control where all the rest of us spawn our GVs. (Pardon me if I misunderstand your suggestion). If that is what you are proposing, I don't think I'd like it much being told where to spawn.
I would prefer fixed GV spawn points as currently. However the desire to reduce spawn camping is still valid. Currently we have pseudo-random spawn point offsets, but they are still pretty predictable to campers. Instead of this, I would prefer to enable players to deliberately chose one of many (20 or so) offsets to the spawn point. So if you were killed at spawn point offset "1", you might try "9" for the next instead up upping and dieing over and over again at "1".
MH
You got a few good ideas there I would like to single out and highlight. The flaw with a "high ranked" player having control can be an issue, but if so this is a current issue with CVs currently (and sometimes it is). Maybe if we can think of a way to improove/resolve that feature/issue, it will resolve that issue in both aspects.
An idea to start with from this weekend would be that at the very highest ranks, rank 58 player can take command from rank 22 when he is afk (or rank 22 from rank 5 when he is afk).
Offsets could be a great compliment to this idea though, enabling a player to chooe where the spawn is on the field of play, but giving the individual the ability to choose where to spawn within 1-2 miles of that point, and can greatly help prevent spawn camps. Then again, the player in cnotrol of the spawn point location could simpley move it (backaway or advance it so it's imediatley behind the enemies). I really would love to see it played out in a beta first before specualting too much. Players don't like to be camped, but they want to be point-blank to the action.
-
The idea would be that unless the TG commander is an idiot, the invasion fleet wouldn't move in until the shore defenses had been softened up and CAPed by the CV group and bombardment groups. It's a way to prevent the heavy TGs from going too close to shore (addressing one of the complaints about the CVs as they currently exist, since you basically end up with enemy flak over your OWN airfield) while still having a group that can get close enough to deploy LVTs (which is what requires the close approach).
A benefit with the old system and having a single high-ranked player in charge of it I guess (now I'm conradicting myself, lol). If you could build up a very strong fleet, you would probabley not want for it to be hijacked and driven within shore battery range of the nearest enemy base.
Building up and maintaining the stronger fleets can be an atractive "high ranker sport" for those who get the rank. I don't think it'll be easy though, I stress maintaining them will be a chore especially if they become prized targets.
If we're really thinking at length into the far future here for expanding water play in the game, would riots ensue if a 4th perk point category was added for Sea? Could be useful come the day of subs and player controlled fleets with multiple captial class ships in their composition. Or what about "commander perk points", so it extends to controlling things on land like movable GV spawn points?