Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: Mister Fork on January 19, 2018, 12:15:13 PM
-
Here me out on a couple of points...
- We all play a game that has excellent realistic elements of aircraft combat, some pretty good tank engagements, base defence, strategic and tactical bombing, even tiny PT boats... and other elements of WWII game warfare.
- The sea, however, really hasn't been touched upon. Sure, we can hop in the naval gun positions, but it always seems like you're at the whim of whoever controls the task group.
- What if you want to haul around something bigger than a simple PT boat? What if you wanted to control your own destroyer and cruise around the harbours? What kind of impact would three of four player controlled destroyers cruising around their harbour have if a numpty tried to bring a CV group into your area? What if that same CV group had 4 or 5 of their own player controlled destroyers as escorts?
The question is: if you want to add another 1-2000 players to your gaming base (or more)- do you do it by changing the game dynamics and attracting a larger audience base, or do you add a new airplane like a Beaufighter? Cause we all know adding a new airplane or updating a old model will not bring them in droves right?
And of course, subs would be a proper add-on later... just to even it out... :x
(https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/upload/iblock/82d/Screen_150121_145325.jpg)
(http://www.subsim.com/ssr/dc/review6.jpg)
(http://www.subsim.com/ssr/dc/review16.jpg)
If we want Aces High to live, do we need to evolve into a bigger game than just airplanes and tanks or do we tweak what we have?
-
We'd need more water intensive maps and Bustr has convinced me that the requirements from HTC pretty much prohibit such (close ground bases all over the map for multiple fast action furballs). Spawnable DDs from ports would be rather chaotic and redundant (there are, after all, shore batteries available on maps and, apparently, design approval also prohibits doubling or tripling up on them - how do spawnable DDs fall into that mindset?
-
It's just a bigger PT boat (heavily perked, me thinks), or at least it could be to start with. PT: full throttle and helm control? Check. Multiple and varied gun positions that can be fired individually slaved? Check. Torpedoes? Check. Add another player to gun for/with you? Check. Take the PT code/script, slap a new 3-D mesh and skin over it, and redefine the number and types of gun positions. I wouldn't necessarily introduce it in the MA immediately, but would be interesting to try it in an Events arena. Remember the "Evil Con" missions? HiTech introduced one-day only new "vehicles" (giant pizza guy or the sheep with twin 50-cals, to name just two) that were player controlled. Only those attending the convention could select them off the vehicle selection menu (or even see them on the list), and they were available for a short window of just a few hours. So, this is not as hard as some seem to think. So, the main issue with adding player-controlled DDs or other ships is how it affects game-play, not technical difficulty. You don't need to make it a new 3-D model for the trial run; just use our existing destroyer model.
I would just like to see some entirely new element added to the game. :salute
-
I'd settle for trainable/fireable DD torps. :)
-
I remember the RV-8's with laser Gatling guns on them. Got mega perks for shooting 1 down.
-
They did alien clawships one time too. Those were hairy to fight.
-
I don't see how this could be perked. More than likely, the AA will be just like gunners on a bomber, which means no Otto. If perked, it is very unlikely anyone is going to use her very much after the initial release since it's so very easy to take out a DD. But even if you gave her the ability to use Otto, I still don't really see a justifiable reason to perk her. Again, so very easy to sink, and I think a separate DD spawn would be best. There is an underlying problem with the idea in general, and that is the current destroyed/not destroyed damage system in place. It's possible this is the reason HiTech hasn't added subs yet.
Either way, I'm curious to how they would go about doing this. :headscratch:
+1 :aok
-
Watching Hitech and Waffle make the BB an independent surface ship with a bridge, making the cruiser or the destroyer into one is up to Hitech if it is worth it in his mind. I doubt it would take much, the better question comes down to, is it worth it.
As I communicated to Arlo about his idea for an ocean dominant terrain with around 9 task forces per country, it won't work. He wanted to put islands at the boarders of a 10x10 MA arena and have all the task groups steaming inside of 250sq miles of empty space. At 30mph, that is a little over 1 sector travel per hour. Without land with close airfields, boredom would have the place empty most of the time that terrain was up if Hitech allowed it to go into rotation. You need land so you can "balance" the available play for "all" of the paying customers. Otherwise, to get some of the wish's I've seen in here to work, Hitech will have to force his paying customers to do things they didn't pay to do. Which would also mean he would have to force me to build terrains other than the way I want to. Or any single one of you with your pet wishes would have to try and force me to. None of you seem's inclined to build terrains so, who is going to make your wish come true even if Hitech changes some objects available to the terrain editor??
For the last year I have been building terrains placing tests in them to understand how to relieve transit time boredom and help players get into activity sooner. There are other factors in our game play of player density and critical mass to generate sustained activity. Closer airfields and funneling ground combat with air initiatives helps achieve critical mass versus salting the terrain with vBases and running spawns between them. Task groups take 30mph to get anywhere at some later time period so they are an adjunct to combat creating alternatives for activity once every 1-2 hours. Allowing an independent destroyer at 30mph is to do what, just because it's neat?
The terrain I'm currently working on has a test of task force combat in it. Our competitors have small arenas compared to our MA open world. So just like I placed a tank furball arena in the center of one terrain and a furball arena in the center of another. I'm testing ship combat with a ship furball arena.
This is the ship furball arena in my new terrain. I will enable both task group types and you guys can see how some of this wishing will turn out. It may give Hitech feedback concerning the issue like I'm trying to observe. Because ships travel at 30mph in the MA, if you want to furball with a destroyer, you will need a tiny pond like our competitors arenas. Anyone ever notice most of the time our admirals in our three countries do everything they can to have their task groups avoid fighting other task groups? There will be no place to run and avoid a fight or bombers, or PT's, or jabo. Chances are good the real combat activity in that pond will be capturing the ports and all the task groups instead of ship to ship combat. That is the path of least resistance and greatest reward which is how this game is played today.
(https://s20.postimg.org/xbgih4ni5/medtst264.jpg)
-
i love the cv and the bb fights, but i think with bustrs map that is currently up has made me a lil sick of the boats. seems that every fight that breaks out the cv and the bb is there and it turns in to a whack a mole contest with the red guys staying in the boat ack only to pop out for the one enemy plane that dare gets near it until the bb can get the fighter hangers down and a high cap started on the base. for instance we had a decent little fight going with the rooks tonight from 61 to 63, the boat shows up and poof all the guys are in or really close to ack of the boat. after several trip in to get popped by ack and hungry planes i move to the knight fight at a4 guess whats there a boat guess what going on, if you guessed they were running in and out of the ack you are right, moved to a6 gues what was there a boat and you know the rest.
i am not against boats again i love a good cv fight and its fun sneaking a base at times with them but the constant use of a rolling field ack fighter is wearing on me severly at this point.
-
The terrain is called "Oceania" because it's inspired by the New Guinea and Solomon's islands area of the Pacific. That area during WW2 was filled with task groups on both sides of the conflict. You can always organize your countrymen with "your winning personality" and capture the required bases to flip that map. It has 4 more days before it's rotation is up.
It's one of many in the queue with different setups like the next one I'm producing is primarily land based. I tried a furballing area for players like yourself in the center of Oceania, it's kind of telling that it is either a cricket farm or griefers capture the place because the map room is on the field and no GV spawns right next to the field. Just so the furballing little energizer bunnies won't be disturbed by those badd old tankers. Seems the furbunnies really only want to pick and HO undisturbed by ships.
RiftVale inspired by the East Africa Great Rift Valley under construction. The ships will not be allowed out into the secondary lakes.
(https://s20.postimg.org/ecn9z7iod/medtst265.jpg)
-
teehehehheheheeheheheh I see what you are saying there.
I'm not insulting or putting it down at all. it just gets old after many days of every fight that breaks out winds up over the boat. and its on all sides. I think its one of the best maps for all involved in playing the game, just saying the boat usage for rolling ack and puffy is getting a lil long in the tooth at this point.
there was a awesome fight at I think 83? last night for about 2 hrs, boat showed up everything went gv. again 103 was awesome fight for about an hr boat showed up kaput the air fight.
and all I was saying is we should be careful of the amount of rolling (floating) ack fields we are adding. the ideas are great and again I love a cv battle hell I will hold a gun for 15min just to make sure I get a shot in on the nme battle group. just don't want steroid induced pt boats all over the place destroying air combat.
-
Then get off your virtual seat and build your own utopia of AH gameyness and present it to Hitech for inclusion to the MA queue. The only thing you risk is Hitech will shoot you down and no one will ever know it happened. I post pictures of my work on purpose to help inspire players to give it an attempt and to keep myself motivated over the long haul process an MA terrain requires. It's not the terrain, it's the play culture in the MA that gores your pooch because it's an open world with hundreds of combat toys everywhere you look to be used in any manner anyone chooses. Players choose to drive ships, ships don't choose to drive themselves to find specifically your fun and take it away from you. You choose to fly to confluence points of players and toys. You have a choice.
-
I have no appeal to create a map. I don't purchase a steak from the steak house to butcher and cook my own meal. I also don't criticize maps that people have made, besides buzzsaw in the beginning but after the reworks seems to be a lot better. and again to the OP I like the idea just think we need a away to keep them from controlling all the fights.
I cant get the stupid custom arena setup to work for me and anytime I ask for help or questions its normally answered with condensending remorks like "your winning personality" and capture the required bases to flip that map. It has 4 more days before it's rotation is up.
and to answer about me choosing where to fight my first choices are not over bb groups cvs and pts spawns. funny how that's where a lot of fights wind up though, and again not of my choosing and this delves way deeper into other parts of the game that has been brought up in other threads
-
Maybe we need a island based map that would be conducive to all types of gameplay? Loads of islands and airfields, ports and VH's - lots of water, and a central island to battle for dominance?
Wait a minute...
-
I don't see how this could be perked. More than likely, the AA will be just like gunners on a bomber, which means no Otto. If perked, it is very unlikely anyone is going to use her very much after the initial release since it's so very easy to take out a DD. But even if you gave her the ability to use Otto, I still don't really see a justifiable reason to perk her. Again, so very easy to sink, and I think a separate DD spawn would be best. There is an underlying problem with the idea in general, and that is the current destroyed/not destroyed damage system in place. It's possible this is the reason HiTech hasn't added subs yet.
Either way, I'm curious to how they would go about doing this. :headscratch:
+1 :aok
If implemented in the same fashion as the PT boat, which was my intent, then yes; the AA would operate the same as the PT's guns (or a bomber's). That actually makes a pretty formidable hail of fire against a single attacker (or two attackers if you take aboard another player to gun with you). It would be much tougher than a PT boat (just as a Tiger is tougher than an M3), as the damage it can absorb is much greater. Like the PT or any other aircraft, the damage model could be defined to allow any individual gun to be destroyed. Engines or rudders could also be individually damage-able. Remember too that one reason the DD's are so easy to take out is that they don't maneuver like a real DD can, but are tied to the TG. With direct helm and speed control, they could take more aggressive evasive maneuvers. Perking them would keep them from getting completely out of hand, destroying game play and frame rates simultaneously.
-
If implemented in the same fashion as the PT boat, which was my intent, then yes; the AA would operate the same as the PT's guns (or a bomber's). That actually makes a pretty formidable hail of fire against a single attacker (or two attackers if you take aboard another player to gun with you). It would be much tougher than a PT boat (just as a Tiger is tougher than an M3), as the damage it can absorb is much greater. Like the PT or any other aircraft, the damage model could be defined to allow any individual gun to be destroyed. Engines or rudders could also be individually damage-able. Remember too that one reason the DD's are so easy to take out is that they don't maneuver like a real DD can, but are tied to the TG. With direct helm and speed control, they could take more aggressive evasive maneuvers. Perking them would keep them from getting completely out of hand, destroying game play and frame rates simultaneously.
Good idea on the perk there Sabre - they would need to be to keep them from seeing a DOZEN destroyers up to attack an approaching CV
...though a battle of a dozen destroyers attacking another dozen destroyers would be kinda of epic... :x