Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Open Beta Test => Topic started by: Nosara on May 14, 2016, 10:39:03 AM
-
There is a lovely river near the rook city and a VH that would be a great place for a bridge. Please think about adding more bridges in similar set ups. It would be great to have GV fights for bridge heads.
Great job on the AH3
I5. 3.2 8m ram
GTX-950
Running fine.
-
make bridges/trees destructible!
-
make bridges/trees destructible!
Not a programmer, but I would suspect that would greatly increase the work for the GPU/CPU making it impossible to run with out a super computer. In a map like Crater I would guess well in excess of 3 million trees, each requiring a unique identifier, a status flag and the subsequent data base to keep track of them all, and that is just the beginning. Bridges might be work able. :old:
-
Not a programmer, but I would suspect that would greatly increase the work for the GPU/CPU making it impossible to run with out a super computer. In a map like Crater I would guess well in excess of 3 million trees, each requiring a unique identifier, a status flag and the subsequent data base to keep track of them all, and that is just the beginning. Bridges might be work able. :old:
Bridges can be made to be destroyed simply by the terrain designer, but it is not a good game play construct to have them be destroyed. The point of bridges is to have pinch point to create ground battles. If they simply can be destroyed it would instantly end the ground battle.
Trees are a technical issue simply because of the quantity of them and then being able to have an id for them to keep track of the damage.
HiTech
-
Is that why other games arenas and player numbers that can be hosted at one time, are so much smaller than ours?
-
what if there was a special tree type that only occurred near bases/areas where gvs would operate, that would be destructible. this would vastly lower the amount of trees needed.
-
what if there was a special tree type that only occurred near bases/areas where gvs would operate, that would be destructible. this would vastly lower the amount of trees needed.
I need to ask why you wish to have them destructible?
HiTech
-
they simply can be destroyed it would instantly end the ground battle.
This is why we have air planes! :x
:airplane:
-
Bridges can be made to be destroyed simply by the terrain designer, but it is not a good game play construct to have them be destroyed. The point of bridges is to have pinch point to create ground battles. If they simply can be destroyed it would instantly end the ground battle.
Trees are a technical issue simply because of the quantity of them and then being able to have an id for them to keep track of the damage.
HiTech
Is it possible for destroyable bridges be integrated into road/rail/supply system, away from GV spawn points and likely battle areas, so destroying them wouldn't interfere with GV battles? In addition to strategic bombing of enemy resources, I think interdiction of enemy supplies by bridge destruction could add an interesting mission type.
I'm looking forward to hearing how the road/rail/supply system is going to work. I used to like locomotive hunting. Will the cities get RR switching yards to bomb/damage?
-
Would have liked some bridges to be capturable.
Configure it like a very small GV field (or like the old depot). Leave a standard VH, Map room & 2 x 37mm objects/ but configure the other objects to be more "road side" in nature. Hanger spawn and two other "road" spawns. No FH.
-
Is it possible for destroyable bridges be integrated into road/rail/supply system, away from GV spawn points and likely battle areas, so destroying them wouldn't interfere with GV battles? In addition to strategic bombing of enemy resources, I think interdiction of enemy supplies by bridge destruction could add an interesting mission type.
I'm looking forward to hearing how the road/rail/supply system is going to work. I used to like locomotive hunting. Will the cities get RR switching yards to bomb/damage?
If destroying the bridge stops transports, why ever would you need to go hunt the trains or trucks?
HiTech
-
If destroying the bridge stops transports, why ever would you need to go hunt the trains or trucks?
HiTech
That's a fair question. They did both in WWII, I think. Maybe some bridges were too well protected to attack, or too well-built to be knocked down? Or maybe they didn't want some bridges destroyed because they knew they would be needing it themselves before long?
I think US fighter escorts on the way home from some missions were giving permission to drop to the deck and seek targets of opportunity (which were often trucks and trains).
I'd just like to be able to perform the same types of missions in AH as were done in the real War, and have them aid my side's war effort in some way, without becoming unbalancing or ruining other people's fun/fights. For me, more types of missions, types of targets leads to more ways to have fun in the game.
<S>
-
Would have liked some bridges to be capturable.
Configure it like a very small GV field (or like the old depot). Leave a standard VH, Map room & 2 x 37mm objects/ but configure the other objects to be more "road side" in nature. Hanger spawn and two other "road" spawns. No FH.
+1
-
This sounds like something to take up with the special events CMs and terrain builders. You are playing a two sided war in the SEA where such things matter on the score board. Or in the AI mission arena where it is a two sided war with pre set objectives. In the MA, people have enough trouble getting each other to fight, let alone giving them scooby snacks to hide out in the boonies nibbling on instead of interacting with other players. Or another variation on how something simple grows into one of the biggest unexpected determinants to capturing bases. The simple M3.
And anything vulnerable like this idea worth being a target in the MA, will be exploited as much as possible to get away with screwing the community's limited fun time they pay for. Shades of the HQ which became the poster child for how to screw 1\3 of the MA community with a single finger salute before visiting the 2nd HQ.
No one is paying to spend their night, every night, sitting in the tower watching the map waiting to go defend something that will bite them in the kester if they don't. In the SEA, that is another story and both sides will know coming into the event it is part of their score to defend or destroy those kinds of objects.
-
If a bridge is made destructable, how about dropping a certain number of base supplies to rebuild it. That way they wouldn't have to be permanently out.
-
I need to ask why you wish to have them destructible?
HiTech
it could add an extra layer of immersion, but now that I think about there's no gameplay reason.
with the beta is the graphics card going to be the biggest bottleneck, and will there be 4k textures?
-
it could add an extra layer of immersion, but now that I think about there's no gameplay reason.
with the beta is the graphics card going to be the biggest bottleneck, and will there be 4k textures?
There's no game play reason? (For "destructible bridges")
I'm sorry, but I couldn't disagree more!
I've been there. The bridge goes down and everyone leaves their GVs and goes to their next ride. The guys that took out the bridge are obviously laughing about the gnashing of teeth and whines of the GV opposition but hey, someone was silly enough not to see what would happen. That avenue of attack is dead and even if it eventually comes back, the fight has moved around the bottleneck! Usually to another side of the map!
If the attacker has done it right, he returns in time to cross the rebuilt bridge unopposed, and still laughing.
No thank you. I come for the fight. If you want to fight shacks instead of other players, there's an off-line version of the game available to you.
-
I agree with Easyscor.
If a destructive bridge would disable the spawn point for a limited time, or at least push it further away, it would add one strategic aspect in capturing fields just like taking the radar or VH out of business. The downtime should be relatively short, though, and the bridge should up similarly to the acks when the field is captured. I.E. the new owner should build it back immediately.
Then again, if destroying your own bridges were possible, disabling or moving the enemy's spawn point for a moment would be a nice defensive move especially in cases where "we" have just captured a small base surrounded with enemy spawn points.
-
Bridges can already be incorporated into any special events terrain at the whim of the map designer. For MA terrains however only HTC-approved objects can be put in and there is not yet a separate bridge object that can be used, just those that are part of a base or a strat.
I've been told a separate bridge object for MA terrains is on HTC's list of things to do and when/if it arrives I will be putting some into CraterMA. This should create some nice choke points away from the spawn areas and make for more realistic tank battles. The bridges will not be destroyable for the reasons given above.
-
can the bridge be hard? maybe it need direct hit from a bomb, or cant get get destroyed from the ground without 10 minutes of effort. comon man all that archival footage showing commanders desperately trying to destroy a bridge. :x what fun!
:airplane:
sure, fighting a timid player is fun, but bombing a bridge is my job! :banana:
-
Part of AH's future strat road and rail system is supposed to be a river that can be laid down by the map designer. Currently the only way to create a river is by using narrow strips of ocean, but this doesn't work too well in AH3 as the river can't be made very narrow without looking rubbish from altitude.
Now if these new rivers could be made as narrow as 30 feet then they could be bridged by a bridge-laying tank like a Churchill AVRE. A player-laid bridge would be fair game to be destroyed by other players and it would be a great reason to include the Churchill tank in the game.
-
I've been told a separate bridge object for MA terrains is on HTC's list of things to do and when/if it arrives I will be putting some into CraterMA. This should create some nice choke points away from the spawn areas and make for more realistic tank battles. The bridges will not be destroyable for the reasons given above.
They have been already released a few versions ago.
HiTech
-
Part of AH's future strat road and rail system is supposed to be a river that can be laid down by the map designer. Currently the only way to create a river is by using narrow strips of ocean, but this doesn't work too well in AH3 as the river can't be made very narrow without looking rubbish from altitude.
Now if these new rivers could be made as narrow as 30 feet then they could be bridged by a bridge-laying tank like a Churchill AVRE. A player-laid bridge would be fair game to be destroyed by other players and it would be a great reason to include the Churchill tank in the game.
or a short route to town, and a long route with the short route requiring a bridge that could be destroyed by attackers.
-
They have been already released a few versions ago.
HiTech
Thanks, must have missed that. I'll check it out when I get home.
-
If they simply can be destroyed it would instantly end the ground battle.
HiTech
Kinda like sinking the CV ends the really good air battles. :bolt:
-
Having checked the TE's full list of objects I'm assuming the MA-allowable bridges are the ones with river banks attached to each end, bridge0a, 1a, 1b and 2a. If so it might be an idea to include these in the list of objects that display when "Show all shapes" is left unchecked.
I had a quick look in likely threads but was unable to see any discussion on these bridge objects and I have a couple of questions.
What Object Type should these bridges be set to?
Otherwise I guess they should be set to country owned with "Can collide" and "Set to terrain alt" both checked.
-
Having checked the TE's full list of objects I'm assuming the MA-allowable bridges are the ones with river banks attached to each end, bridge0a, 1a, 1b and 2a. If so it might be an idea to include these in the list of objects that display when "Show all shapes" is left unchecked.
I had a quick look in likely threads but was unable to see any discussion on these bridge objects and I have a couple of questions.
What Object Type should these bridges be set to?
Otherwise I guess they should be set to country owned with "Can collide" and "Set to terrain alt" both checked.
Yes on can collide, object type depends on if you wish them able to be destroyed by both sides one side or no sides.
Odds are you will not set to terrain alt, because the bridges are made to be able to be used on terrain with different slopes. You will hide a lot of the bridge below ground.
Barrier = can not be damaged.
Structure = both sides can damage
Void = enemy can damage.
-
A bridge would make a grand battle. Make it capturable like a base with spawn point set up like bases. Except have to get troops to both side of the bridgehead ie twenty troops in to take, ten per side of the bridge.
You have made such pretty rivers now we need to fight for a crossing.
PS
PT spawns in river points near bridges.
-
I had a go at placing bridges in CraterMA but it didn't really work out. My idea was to bridge one of the very narrow strips of ocean in the terrain I have serving as rivers. The bridges aren't really long enough for this but I managed to get a couple placed so they looked OK in the TE. To do this I had to set them to -40 feet altitude so that the bridges and their linked hill sections sat at a reasonable-looking height above the water and land. The problem is that in the game the bridge object was sitting far higher than I'd placed it in the TE, the base of the hill was even floating clear of the ground. After loading up the TE again I worked out that while the TE saves positive alts for the bridges it resets any minus altitude to 0 feet.
I think these bridges are designed for crossing the future strat rivers, rather than to cross strips of ocean like I attempted to do. So I'll wait until the strat rivers come out and then have another play with the bridges then.
-
I had a go at placing bridges in CraterMA but it didn't really work out. My idea was to bridge one of the very narrow strips of ocean in the terrain I have serving as rivers. The bridges aren't really long enough for this but I managed to get a couple placed so they looked OK in the TE. To do this I had to set them to -40 feet altitude so that the bridges and their linked hill sections sat at a reasonable-looking height above the water and land. The problem is that in the game the bridge object was sitting far higher than I'd placed it in the TE, the base of the hill was even floating clear of the ground. After loading up the TE again I worked out that while the TE saves positive alts for the bridges it resets any minus altitude to 0 feet.
I think these bridges are designed for crossing the future strat rivers, rather than to cross strips of ocean like I attempted to do. So I'll wait until the strat rivers come out and then have another play with the bridges then.
Ill fix the less then 0 issue.
HiTech