Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: RODBUSTR on October 08, 2016, 12:27:20 AM
-
No way would any CO or gun crew leave trees up around gun emplacements.......silly.
-
No way would any CO or gun crew leave trees up around gun emplacements.......silly.
Even the Duke is unhappy.
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/2296_5_large_zpspuwixmdp.jpg) (http://s1002.photobucket.com/user/barneybolac/media/2296_5_large_zpspuwixmdp.jpg.html)
"Ya gotta about a 150 foot killing area here Captain.
First thing id do would be to cut that back another 300 feet."
-
Sure makes it hard to use wirbs to defend a field because low aircraft apporching can not be seen till they are right over you because of the trees. If a friendly wants a wirb to clear his 6
and the bad guy is low enough it is hard to hit him till it is to late.
Even the Duke is unhappy.
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/2296_5_large_zpspuwixmdp.jpg) (http://s1002.photobucket.com/user/barneybolac/media/2296_5_large_zpspuwixmdp.jpg.html)
"Ya gotta about a 150 foot killing area here Captain.
First thing id do would be to cut that back another 300 feet."
-
Or at least after a few passes, the leaves stay down,that you shot off lol Maybe explodable trees to clear them out for a bit? Timed like supplies? Just thinking
-
Are trees still invincible? I was hoping AH3 would allow for gvs to fire upon objects in the terrain and interact with them. Destroy a tree and it's down for 12 hours, or some such. Same thing for aircraft bombs. Adding another layer of immersion. Somebody wishlist that chitt.
People say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one
-
Are trees still invincible? I was hoping AH3 would allow for gvs to fire upon objects in the terrain and interact with them. Destroy a tree and it's down for 12 hours, or some such. Same thing for aircraft bombs. Adding another layer of immersion. Somebody wishlist that chitt.
People say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one
Coz tracking the status of millions of trees will have no foreseeable impact on the server or clients :rolleyes:
-
I wouldn't mind seeing town ack guns moved onto the hills surrounding the town (at least a few).....Too easy to roll up behind LOS with the hill and deack town in a GV
-
I wouldn't mind seeing town ack guns moved onto the hills surrounding the town (at least a few).....Too easy to roll up behind LOS with the hill and deack town in a GV
I actually like that feature. The old set up wouldn't allow a gv to get anywhere close to town before getting turreted.
-
LoL..... You might not be knowledgeable on how things work when it comes to coding. But that is ok. Just pay!
Coz tracking the status of millions of trees will have no foreseeable impact on the server or clients :rolleyes:
-
You are running into the problem with building terrain objects for the game like a town, or building a terrain to place those objects on. There is a balance between helping the attacker and helping the defender. Field guns and AI guns could be setup by the tactical manual on these objects by WAFFLE so tanks could never get near the town, unless players from that country chose completely to ignore the flashing base and town while the attacker destroyed the guns by attrition. The attackers would not have any fun trying to take fields with tanks, and that is a chunk of monthly change Hitech would be in danger of loosing.
Once you start building terrains you catch yourself being pro attack or defense in your outlook for base placement as you look from your player perspective. Terrain topography, and how you look at the purpose of GV spawns becomes an interesting dialog between your good and evil self. Today I caught myself looking at port placement as a resource I had to protect at all costs instead of how much action can I generate for players without making the defense of the port a depressing prospect.
When WAFFLE made the new base objects he had to balance attack and defense against helping players get off their collective and fight. The gun placements didn't make a lot of sense until recently. They appear to be pro attacker to get the enemy close enough to have a fight.
-
LoL..... You might not be knowledgeable on how things work when it comes to coding. But that is ok. Just pay!
Maybe some of us do know quite a bit more than you think, maybe some of us also understand the inherent challenges in not just the code but storing those arrays of data and the scalability required for updating the client information. Maybe someone of us have done coding and have worked in IT for more than 30 years and understand the reality of the situation.
-
Maybe some of us do know quite a bit more than you think, maybe some of us also understand the inherent challenges in not just the code but storing those arrays of data and the scalability required for updating the client information. Maybe someone of us have done coding and have worked in IT for more than 30 years and understand the reality of the situation.
I would have just told him, "No way..... Get outta here". :D
-
I would have just told him, "No way..... Get outta here". :D
You would have been right :-D
-
You are running into the problem with building terrain objects for the game like a town, or building a terrain to place those objects on. There is a balance between helping the attacker and helping the defender. Field guns and AI guns could be setup by the tactical manual on these objects by WAFFLE so tanks could never get near the town, unless players from that country chose completely to ignore the flashing base and town while the attacker destroyed the guns by attrition. The attackers would not have any fun trying to take fields with tanks, and that is a chunk of monthly change Hitech would be in danger of loosing.
Once you start building terrains you catch yourself being pro attack or defense in your outlook for base placement as you look from your player perspective. Terrain topography, and how you look at the purpose of GV spawns becomes an interesting dialog between your good and evil self. Today I caught myself looking at port placement as a resource I had to protect at all costs instead of how much action can I generate for players without making the defense of the port a depressing prospect.
When WAFFLE made the new base objects he had to balance attack and defense against helping players get off their collective and fight. The gun placements didn't make a lot of sense until recently. They appear to be pro attacker to get the enemy close enough to have a fight.
I'm saying the current down setup is very much Attacker sided(like you a trying to tell me it is but I already said it), as far as the ground game is concerned....the base is very much man gunned sided which is another issue.
I do like that there are more buildings so 1 tank can't white flag it as easily but it is still way too easy to get a tank into town.
I actually like that feature. The old set up wouldn't allow a gv to get anywhere close to town before getting turreted.
I never had a problem with this unless I was in a whirb/osti or M18....most tanks can eat those rounds pretty easily for a decent amount of time.
And in that is the problem....Osti's or whirbs can easily get in to a town now and disable all ack because they wont shoot until they are right on top and which point it is easy to kill those guns. Sherman rocket tank can fire rockets from outside line of sight of all the guns right now and kill all but the too close guns...which just takes a peak to kill with main gun.
Plus the first thing attacking tanks do when they white flag a town is go up on the hills to have a better angle on incoming tanks....Buff town guns vs ground attack is what I'm saying in the short.
-
Really easy to park a m4 with rockets on those hills, spray softening rockets everywhere and finish it with HE.
I like the guns though where they are.. another reason some gun hero might have to hop out of his shell and come do something about it.