Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: save on October 14, 2013, 06:05:27 AM
-
To own a base would give you the option to resupply a new radar tower at a hill in your current radar sector.
You just need to fly in (or GV'ing) many resources, for radar to work, ack , or even a coast battery (think airliner-many trips :) )
This can be blocked by bombing the "darn thing", or just capture the field who owns it.
if you capture the main base, the radar/firebase will be shutdown.
New radar/firebases should only be knitted to terrain favourable airbases/GV bases.
Advantages as I see it - more strat, and more dynamic gameplay, disadvantage should be the coding / map-making changes.
-
So you want to be able to construct radar towers off site of a base?
I understand the concept, but in AH we already have far more radar capability than WWII ever did. I'm not sure this would be of much use and it would eat up valuable resources HTC is using for adding new features to AH.
Also, a better thing for HTC to do is to make the radar rings bigger not add more of them. I believe they tried that a few years ago (larger radar rings) in the LWA, but went back to what we have now. Actually, I wouldn't mind a change in the radar game: increase the radar radius to 15-18 miles (currently it is 11.5?), have the base flashing reduced to 8-10 miles, and increase the NOE ceiling in the radar ring to 200 from its current 65ft.
-
Also, a better thing for HTC to do is to make the radar rings bigger not add more of them. I believe they tried that a few years ago (larger radar rings) in the LWA, but went back to what we have now.
After that experience, that's one of the few things that would make me drop my subscription.
Instantly.
-
I want players to be able to construct things that are usable (it could be a radar, ack off-shore-battery, firebase, extra airfield, whatever could fit it)
It should be preset on the map for a duty.
-
So you want to be able to construct radar towers off site of a base?
I understand the concept, but in AH we already have far more radar capability than WWII ever did. I'm not sure this would be of much use and it would eat up valuable resources HTC is using for adding new features to AH.
Also, a better thing for HTC to do is to make the radar rings bigger not add more of them. I believe they tried that a few years ago (larger radar rings) in the LWA, but went back to what we have now. Actually, I wouldn't mind a change in the radar game: increase the radar radius to 15-18 miles (currently it is 11.5?), have the base flashing reduced to 8-10 miles, and increase the NOE ceiling in the radar ring to 200 from its current 65ft.
:airplane: Don't forget, "this game is not a WW2 sim, just the equipment used during WW2. If anything, just a handful of bases, called "home" fields should have radar, not all of them. I don't think that a base in Northern England being attacked, flashed on a big map, for all in that country to see though out the whole country, was the way it was!! But, again this is not a WW2 sim!
-
After that experience, that's one of the few things that would make me drop my subscription.
Instantly.
Oh no! Aces High without charts, whatever would we do?
-
:airplane: Don't forget, "this game is not a WW2 sim, just the equipment used during WW2.
Do I sense a sarcastic remark directed at the "it's not a simulation, it's a game that looks like a war" weenies? I approve :)
I understand the concept,
I don't believe you do. His concept is not about extending radar as you seem to assume. It is about adding new strategic targets and challenges to the game. Think traps and pitfalls that have to be dealt with or face a more difficult fight.
Save- I like how your thinking, but I think it would have to be more complex than that.
-
Oh no! Aces High without charts, whatever would we do?
Having a subscription is, as far as I know, not a prerequisite for making charts :old:
-
Having a subscription is, as far as I know, not a prerequisite for making charts :old:
My bad!
-
I would like to add this to the mix, remove the Dar Bars, and replace them with a 'Sighting' report of what is there, Alt, heading are they outbound, or RTB, then as they move from one sector to the next, a 2nd sighting would be needed to keep track of them, in WWII, a large bomber force could fly a long distance and not be seen till it reached the target base!.
Keep this in mind, and planes upping from a TG would not bee seen unless the ENY was there or in a position to spot, like the 'Coast Watchers', that would give a here of there mark to follow.
And as several have pointed out, the total # of radars were few and not real good, fooled by dropping aluminum strips and small scraps on metal, just ONE plane could make the ENY put every AC they had and not see a thing, then the next time they sat on the ground when it was the real thing!
1WILDCAT over/out
-
I would like to add this to the mix, remove the Dar Bars, and replace them with a 'Sighting' report of what is there, Alt, heading are they outbound, or RTB, then as they move from one sector to the next, a 2nd sighting would be needed to keep track of them, in WWII, a large bomber force could fly a long distance and not be seen till it reached the target base!.
Keep this in mind, and planes upping from a TG would not bee seen unless the ENY was there or in a position to spot, like the 'Coast Watchers', that would give a here of there mark to follow.
And as several have pointed out, the total # of radars were few and not real good, fooled by dropping aluminum strips and small scraps on metal, just ONE plane could make the ENY put every AC they had and not see a thing, then the next time they sat on the ground when it was the real thing!
1WILDCAT over/out
A good idea to work in conjunction with dar bar; I would not get rid of dar bar for this system. Too much chance for abuse by unscrupulous players contributing false reports to lead teammates on wild goose chases. Also without dar bar, this makes it way too favorable for large formations to obliterate bases before a response can be mounted for an interception.
I like the idea of a more standardized, player-contributed reporting method for sighting enemy movements other than simply using the country text buffer. Could have a broad category selection to make reports on: 1) type: single engine, two-engine, or four-engine. 2) quantity (estimated # of players, not including drones). 3) altitude, 4) speed, and 5) bearing. One safe measure to prevent fraudulent reporting could be for the system to require that at least one enemy plane must be within view range in order for the server to accept the report. Once accepted, a symbol ( say a red flashing exclamation mark) will appear in the sector of the sighting for a duration of time (5 minutes). Players can select the symbol to view the report and afterwards make a plan to intercept the threat. This could also work for CVs and vehicle movements. It would be a good way to cut down the traffic clutter on the text buffer.