Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: LtHans on March 31, 2002, 09:36:38 PM
-
That is my question.
Personnally I don't think the WHOLE game has to be even-even with ground vehicles. Far from it. This is a flight simulator first.
However, ground vehicles do need something...anything. Right now they spawn in the wrong places, and have nothing for cover to fight in.
I would prefer to see a handful of "battle fields" in the game that are capture points, yet are designed mainly to cater to ground vehicles and have 2D treelines and some farm buildings. Place spawn points at either end for enemy and friendly units specifically.
But I'm sure that my idea is not the only one. What's yours?
-
I'd implement something similar to what it's being done right now for the buffs.
At the moment, if you take a GV from a spawn point to a base, you can make little if no difference (unless you are taking a M3, of course), while a jabo plane can deack the whole field and vulch for a while.
I would make it possible for a player to control a whole platoon of 4 Panzers, M8s or Osties (M16 or M3 are fast and unbalancing enough to stay out of this) so that the chances of getting to the target are higher and more appealing for the GV drivers.
Just my € 0.02
Daniel
-
1. Make them able to climb hills better.
2. Remove the black distant dot that lets you spot GVs about 6K away.
-
Make them able to "conquer" the terrain, that is, to place spawnpoints closer to the enemy base.
Example:
A panzer advances towards and enemy field, at some point it places a spawn point. If the panzer or other friendly ground forces keep alive near the new spawn for 20 mins, the new spawn point is actived and replaces the previous one.
-
agreed they need to blend into terrain a bit better a nice thick forest or two would help also
-
Add a network of roads, towns, Bridges, hedg rows, farm fields, dense forests, deciduous trees which provide a canopy to hide under, meadows, etc.
Roads allow vechiles to travel faster and up hill and through dense forests.
Roads and Towns provide something to patrol, hold, and attack.
Towns provide cover for vechiles.
Allow towns and bridges to be destroyed.
Add a SeaBee or an Engineering unit... which can build or rebuild bridges.
And along with the same idea as previously posted, can build a "Base" for launching new vechiles.. or build air strips to launch aircraft (limit the type of aircraft that can launch from these fields). There should be draw backs to these kind of bases. For example once built they have to be resupplied every 15 minutes via C47/M3 with cargo ... otherwise they go POOF. So a steady supply of C47s is important. Interdiction by the enemy allows them to destroy these bases by killing the C47s and M3s re-suppling the base.
Engineering units should be perked big time and limited to the number that are alive at any time in the game. Let's start the bidding at 500 perks.
Add some fortifications around air bases. These open fields where any GV can roll right in are BS. Anti-Tank gun implacements, on the high ground.
-
I think the main reason that more terrain features are not implemented is because of performance issues. A lot of people play this game with 'less-than-top-end' computers and adding forests and/or ground structures would make a very large hit on the framerate.
I really like the SeaBee/Engineer idea. That would put a completely new strategic spin on the game. It would also help promote teamwork to a point above where it is right now.
-
Originally posted by 8ball
I think the main reason that more terrain features are not implemented is because of performance issues. A lot of people play this game with 'less-than-top-end' computers and adding forests and/or ground structures would make a very large hit on the framerate.
I really like the SeaBee/Engineer idea. That would put a completely new strategic spin on the game. It would also help promote teamwork to a point above where it is right now.
Hey, by any chance did you play CK (Warbirds early beta) under the name 8bal?
Back to the thread....more ground cover, more vehicles added, all put into one big happy separate arena called "Ground War, no Milk-running Aircraft bombing Dweebs allowed!" (That would include me!) ;)
-
>>if you take a GV from a spawn point to a base, you can make little if no difference (unless you are taking a M3, of course), while a jabo plane can deack the whole field and vulch for a while. <<
I disagree based on what I have seen in the arena. GVs in cooperation with Buffs can disable a field quickly, and they are also annoying. Picture an FP which will not go pop even after being hit with ehhs or rockets. M16s are similar and both seem to be impervious to machinegun fire. So whaddaya want?
You can spawn and respawn to your hearts content in GVz. Is there another advantage HT hasn't seen which will make GVz any more uber than they ought to be?
-
I just want to add one thing before going on with my post.
I do not want vehicles to replace planes at all. The game should still be primarily air combat. It is a flight sim.
I think the main reason that more terrain features are not implemented is because of performance issues
This is very true. From looking at World War II Online I can tell you that flying over a terrain made for vehicles is not good. Combine that with the idea proposed by Mandoble of using the whole terrain and you get a nightmare (sorry Mandoble, but I don't like your idea).
There does need to be vast ammounts of terrain that is flat, featureless "green desert". This keeps the frame rates high.
What my idea was is there should be a few areas where the reverse in true. Places where there are lots of vehicle spawn points in close proximity and cover for hiding in. Ground combat is 2D warfare, and therefore you must use the terrain to full advantage. Air to air could take place on a map with no terrain other than flat ground and I seriously doubt anybody would say it ruined the game.
1. No teleport spawning.
2. Cluster several vehicle bases near each other.
3. Add 2D treelines and a few buildings.
4. Some other fluf perhaps to round out any rough edges. I won't get into those right now.
Untill then ground combat doesn't really work in AH at all. It just seems like an idea that wasn't taken seriously. I don't like seeing the work that has been done so far go to waste.
-
the forests how they modeled in Dawn of aces will be nice they looks like GV can hide below them
-
Let me address this on two levels, tactically and strategically. Tactically, I’d like to see the long distance dot reduced in size, but augmented by dust trails when the vehicle is moving or firing. I would then like to see roads such that the vehicles climb hills better when driving on a road. This would be coupled to a new vehicle autopilot feature that would essentially guide a vehicle down the road without operator input. It would operate such that the player would guide the vehicle onto the road, getting it more or less lined up with the road, then hit a button to engage “auto.” It would then keep the vehicle on the road, so long as the vehicle speed wasn’t too fast for the curves in the road. “Auto” would also maintain speed as best as it could for the gear and slope of the road, perhaps automatically downshifting for the driver when the road becomes too steep. Any stick movement (if in the driver position) or rudder input (when in the gunner positions) would disengage the autopilot.
Strategically, I’d create a mobile base, represented by a large column of vehicles/guns/tanks that could roam over the countryside in the same way fleets move over the oceans in AH. As with fleets, these would be mobile spawn centers for gv’s. The mobile base would represent a field army, and they could have waypoints set for them in the same way as fleets. Your vehicle perk points would be used to determine who was in command of the field army (i.e. able to control its movement). Just as fleets must stay at least five miles from shore, field army (FA) waypoints could not be set to bring the FA any closer than five miles from a base, city, or factory. Likewise, the waypoint checking algorithm would check to see that the terrain is passable before accepting waypoints (no driving the FA up shear mountain cliffs). FA’s would respawn at or near the troop training strat facilities. Under the new strat system soon to be implemented (multiple and capture-able strat zones), each zone would have one FA. Capture the strat zone and the FA becomes yours once it’s destroyed in the field (just as fleets become yours after capturing their associated port and sinking the flagship).
An FA would consist of a column of tanks (the equivalent of the VH; destroy it and no GV spawning), a battery of howitzers (man-able in the manner of ship guns), some mobile AAA vehicles (again, some man-able as well as some automatic), and a supply train of trucks. Some of these supply trucks would be fuel bowsers (kill them and reduce fuel), ammo trucks (kill them and reduce ammo load outs for spawning GV’s), and troop trucks (kill them and…well, you get the idea). As with bases, these units rebuild very slowly; however, player resupply drops can reduce downtimes. What do you think?
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Hey, by any chance did you play CK (Warbirds early beta) under the name 8bal?
I think I did, but I'm not completely sure. I know I played Fighter Ops, which was a beta for some online WW2 flight sim but I don't remember which one :confused:
-
I've thought of that mobile army "aircraft carrier fleet on land" idea too.
It's not a bad idea. I would like to throw my two bits in with it and change it from a constantly moving army formation into something more like the real military movements. Leapfrogging/overwatch.
Use two formation, not one. Rather than keep the whole unit moving as one like a fleet, split it into two parts. One moves forward and abruptly stops and digs in. When it is done, the second unit packs up their guns and drives forward past the first unit out into the front and then stops. and the process repeates.
The stopped unit would have heavy AA guns and artillery setup. The same types we see now. The moving unit (using existing halftrack models and such) only have .30 and .50 caliber machineguns. Add to that if the unit moving is shot at it should stop and dig in.
I still advocate for 2D treelines though.
Hans.
-
Originally posted by LtHans
I've thought of that mobile army "aircraft carrier fleet on land" idea too.
It's not a bad idea. I would like to throw my two bits in with it and change it from a constantly moving army formation into something more like the real military movements. Leapfrogging/overwatch.
Use two formation, not one. Rather than keep the whole unit moving as one like a fleet, split it into two parts. One moves forward and abruptly stops and digs in. When it is done, the second unit packs up their guns and drives forward past the first unit out into the front and then stops. and the process repeates.
The stopped unit would have heavy AA guns and artillery setup. The same types we see now. The moving unit (using existing halftrack models and such) only have .30 and .50 caliber machineguns. Add to that if the unit moving is shot at it should stop and dig in.
I still advocate for 2D treelines though.
Hans.
The leapfrogging would be a lot more difficult to program. If you really want realism though, the Aces High engine really isn't going to provide that for ground combat. It is geared towards flight, as it should be, and really doesn't have the capabilities to support extensive ground combat.
-
The leap-frog idea would be fun to watch, but would indeed be difficult to program. With the FA idea, it would use a good deal of the existing code for naval fleets, and so would be much quicker and easier to implement. One issue to be addressed is, do you allow a FA to stop when it reaches the last waypoint on its course, or have it keep moving (patrol and loop course) continuously. Again for ease of programming the latter is probably preferrable. A second issue is, what happens when two opposing FA's come in contact with each other. With fleets, the two sides completely ignore each other. I've always thought this rather silly, but suspect it was to minimize the need for AI to control the fleets' guns. The easiest response for FA's meeting unexpectedly would be to have both simply come to a halt within five miles of each other and send a "Enemy army detected" message on their repective country channels. The two armies would remain stationary until one side or the other was destroyed, or until one side or the other enters a new set of waypoints that takes their army away from the enemy army.
-
Originally posted by LtHans
That is my question.
I like the roads / high ways idea enabling better speed in rough terrains and on hills.........
I like the mobile spawn point idea but am afraid it'spretty much impossible without major re writing some pretty core stuff.....
I would like to see artilery.....mobile howitzers or Russian Katyusha rocket launcers.......... all our GV's are really battle field stuff (Fighters) it would be good to see some gvs that could lay down massive (inaccurate) carpet bombardments. (like our heavy buffs should)
These are the units that should then be deployed in "formation" like our heavy buffs may soon be.
Tilt
-
Originally posted by Sabre
.
Strategically, I’d create a mobile base,
An FA would consist of a column of tanks (the equivalent of the VH; destroy it and no GV spawning), a battery of howitzers (man-able in the manner of ship guns), some mobile AAA vehicles (again, some man-able as well as some automatic), and a supply train of trucks. Some of these supply trucks would be fuel bowsers (kill them and reduce fuel), ammo trucks (kill them and reduce ammo load outs for spawning GV’s), and troop trucks (kill them and…well, you get the idea). As with bases, these units rebuild very slowly; however, player resupply drops can reduce downtimes. What do you think?
The more I think about this the more I like it and the more it seems do able
I think it would have to follow "roads" or terrain routes..... which as you say could simply be factored by a "permissable gradient" algorithm.
Would be neat if it speeded up and slowed down as it went down and up permissable gradients.
I would allow it to go any where else other than over water (it will need bridges for rivers)
Indeed they could be forced to follow "grass" tiles in the tarrain which would then be de cluttured to allow free passage.........
We could even go one further and make the way points simply town to town with the army commander only able to stop or change the destination point en route....... the army would then follow the grass tile route to its target.
I think it would have to spawn attack vehicles, tanks, Ostwinds, m3/16 ETC etc rather than consist of them..........
it would use a spawn point within the column and other "local" spawn points already set for the nearest freindly field
just use the trucks for different field logistic attributes
some carry spares/parts (VH)
some troops (Barracks)
some ammo as you say etc etc
It would have to stop to use its Howitzers, stop even longer and general field artillery becomes available 88mm man ggun. It would have AI 7.62 machine gun fire from its trucks and jeeps whilst on the move.
Number of FA per sector would be a terrain build variable........
They could be linked to the now defunct depot as the CV's are linked to ports.
Tilt
-
Someone nailed my thoughts, the Hill thing. I couldn't beleive my eyes when I saw M3s struggling to make it up a hill and were doing it in reverse.
I wish the Panzer's cannon actually did some damage to buildings and such...5 hits and the church is still up, meanwhile a guy next to me in an Ostwind mowed it all down with ease.
Those are the turn offs for GVs....if those got some improvement, I'd be in them more often
-
I agree, LePaul. I'd be in them more often too, if only the trip wasn't such a waste of time (30 minutes to get anywhere, 45 if there's a hill, and then you shell and shell and shell to do minimal damage to any strategic targets.
Best time I had in a tank was the last ToD my squad took part in (Stalingrad?). It was 2 against 6, a real nail-biter. The next day on the BBS we find out that the forests and cities we were hiding in were not visible to the enemy's FE, and vice versa. Unfortunately this means there is no "strategy" to tanking in AH.... just drive and shoot (oh yeah, and watch out for shrubs).
All of the above suggestions are good, but they would require a MAJOR overhauling of the terrain engine and would mean MASSIVE frame hits on even high-end systems.
However this revised list would be extremely easy to implement:
1. Climb hills better
2. Reduce the distance dots (but dust trails, smoke visible when driving, shooting)
3. Make ammo more logically effective
4. limit FP's to AA only
5. Add more vehicles... perk tanks, jeeps/trucks towing artillery, etc. (how about making a mortar crew an M3 option?)
-
Tilt:
I think it would have to spawn attack vehicles, tanks, Ostwinds, m3/16 ETC etc rather than consist of them..........
Yep, that's what I meant when I said "mobile spawn centers for gv's" above. When I said " An FA would consist of a column of tanks..." I meant that the column of armored vehicles would be the object controlling player spawning of vehicles (the same as the vh does at stationary bases. Destroy all the armored vehicles in the FA column and you disable spawning for player controlled vehicles. I like the suggestion to make it so the FA would have to stop to fire heavy arty. Nice addition to the concept.
Sabre
-
All the comments about "Easy/Hard to program" ought to be dragged out into the street and shot.
You don't really know if it is hard or easy or not. HiTech and Pyro know, but they seem to never post on the forums.
A better strategy is to simply discuss what you would like, and let the programmers themselves figure out how to do it.
Like I said, I want some passable (not great, just passable) ground vs ground combat opportunities.
-
Well, the open tops, like the Osty would make lovely flower pots. The closed stuff, like the Panzer, are probably better as door stops or simple yard art, sorta like the pink flamingoes you see people sticking in their grass.
-
Convert the actual Vfields in large fields heavily defended with ack and with a lot of hangars. Place some VFields far from enemy airbases and place spawn points near capital targets like large towns, etc. The ground guys need a chance to fight somewhere panzer vs panzer with minimal aerial interference.
Just imagine the cener island with the three Vfields, but with a large city in the middle of the island and the 3 VFields being large fields, hardly closeable by jabo strikes. Now divide the big central city in three sectors. Each one initially controlled by each country. Give each VH three spawn points in different possitions into the city's country sector, and let the ground forces to fight for the entire control of the city.
Now imagine a larger scenario where each country has several large cities. Each city surrounded by three AIRfields and divided in several sectors. Each sector having one map room (only M3 can take these map rooms) and three VHs (6000lb to destroy each one) surrounded by hvy acks (make it a hell for bombers to fly over it) and small cal acks. If you take a large city (a really hard task), automatically, the three enemy surrounding air bases pass to your control. To conquer a city you need to take all its sectors and you will need hvy use of ground forces to accomplish that.
Each sector may be controled by a different country, but the city itself is owned by the original owner until some one else conquers it.
Now reward the conqueror contry with perk bonuses for taking an entire enemy city.
Note: Large cities may also be composed by several smaller cities placed very close and linked by roads.
-
All the comments about "Easy/Hard to program" ought to be dragged out into the street and shot.
I respectfully disaggree, LtHans. I believe it was HiTech himself who commented once that player suggestions that took into consideration the current capabilities of the game (i.e. the code) stood a better chance of being given serious consideration. While none of us outsiders know all the nueances of the code, we can deduce much by looking at how things are implemented now. Fleets are a good example; these are nothing more than the "field army" idea implemented on a two dimensional surface. Plus, many of those who participate in these discussions have some programming experience.
-
Mandoble , i like that much but osti efectivnes vs pnzr must go to maximal detrackin and no more turet kill
-
Agree 100% Minus. But dont forget that a panzer can, normaly, kill a flak from more tha safe range.
-
Originally posted by LtHans
All the comments about "Easy/Hard to program" ought to be dragged out into the street and shot.
Well I do know a bit about programming, and it isn't really hard to figure out what will require more programming than something else when you know the basics of how programming works.
-
I am a software architect and virtually ANYTHING can be programmed, BUT at what cost.
The latest patch that HTC delivered, fixed a framerate issue ...(Increased FPS with code optimization around trains and convoys in the new terrains - We optimized this section of code to work better with the objects ONLY in visible range).
Just a slight introduction of new logic and code around what would APPEAR to be a simple set of routines to run convoys/ trains down roads/tracks, set a lot people off into a tizzy about reduced framerates. Could you imagine what might happen to the framerates and the pissing and moaning if HTC were to introduce rolling armies !!!
This is in no way a dig at the programming capabilties of the HTC staff and how they can move AH forward, frankly, I am awestuck at what I see when flying AH. There are slick minds at work here ... very slick !!! My point here is, what would APPEAR to be a simple task may not always be the case. Change one line of code (the right line) and the ripple effect can be devastating. Rolling armies would not be a simple task.
I would have to disagree that the simulation of a rolling ground force would be the same as the CV. The CV, from a realistic viewpoint, has nothing to avoid as it moves thru the water and it never stops, while a rolling ground force would have to deal with the trees, shrubs, ponds, hills, etc. to gain the same realistic viewpoint. Would the rolling ground force ever stop ? The programming effort on something like this I think would be enormous and if the realism could not be achieved, then I would not introduce it to the game.
I have to agree that all these ideas are great, but lets keep in mind that AH is an Air Simulator with extra added attraction of limited ground support. I would have to say that with the newest release and the new spawn points for GVs, I have seen a lot more GV activity and GVs playing a more important role in base capturing than I had ever seen before. It is possible to take a base with just GVs.
I have to agree with the other posters ... having to back up a hill in an M3 or having a shrub take out a vehicle is not right. Make the vehicle bases more difficult to conquer (1 ack and a VH). Add some more/different vehicles.
I would like to see HTC fix/improve what is already there first and then move to the "blue sky" room.
Many great ideas come from my customers, and out of our "blue sky" sessions, but at the end of the day, you have to decide what will it take to implement new ideas (resource) and at what cost. These are our major determinig factors for improving our product and I am sure they factor into what HTC will do with AH next.
I enjoy this game and its playability and have full faith that HTC will continue to improve AH, "in the air and on the ground".
-
The GV's in AH are wonderful! I love em! The GV's are in fact why several friends of mine have decided to take a good look at AH. Not that they want a Ground War game but they wanted something extra in a flight sim that would be fun and interesting when the flying was bad, either because of numbers or just having a bad night flying.
But we dont need to be adding a whole bunch of stuff which will start taking away from the Flight Sim. An awsome flight sim with very nice extra features to add some flavor to the game is what we have and I love it :cool:
That said:
Add some roads, towns and bridges but no major forests or anything that will cause a big hit on Frame Rate.
Add more vehicles like some Shermans, T34's, Panthers & Tigers (last 2 perked of course) along with maybe even some mobile Arty such as Priests and Wespes. Or if not indirect fire Arty then some mobile direct fire arty such as the SU-152. Also I see no reason the Whirlwind couldnt be added as well. Yes we have the M16 & the Ostwind but why not give one other option on the AAA side? Ok, perk the whirlwind if you like. And why not have the German halftrack? It was actually a superior Halftrack to the M3.
Lastly a more realistic combat model. I hit an Ostwind with 2 75AP rounds from a MarkIV the other night and he still sat there. Then a plane comes in, strafes him and HE got the kill! ONE hit from a Hi-Velocity 75 is gonna turn that Ostie into a pile of junk. 20mm & 30mm can of course also tear up light armoured vehicles like Osties, M16's, M3's and the like but kill a tank? Knock treads off, knock out engines and with a TOP hit on a tank take one out but a simple calculation of "Ok thats 8 x 20mm hits on the tank at xxx damage = a total damage of y"?? It seems that AH does take into consideration where the rounds hit (ie engine out, turret, tracks off) so unless a 20mm or 30mm hits in the Top that tank and its turret are still gonna be able to fight. But a MarkIV with his front facing an Ostie?? Only a LUCKY track hit is gonna stop it and even then the Ostie is still going to end up dead.
So any addition to the GV's that doesnt negatively impact the Flight sim will be a very good move indeed. :D
-
Slapshot:
I agree that adding these mobile armies as I have suggested would not be a trivial exercise, and would have to consider the framerate issue. My point is there are similarities in how the CV's operate and how the notional field armies (FA's) would operate. Thus, you would not be starting from scratch in implementing them. New subroutines would be required, but many would only require modification. This was my other point, that when making suggestions it's germane to consider how difficult the implementation will be, how much work might be involved.
I personaly believe we'll see something like the mobile FA in the future. It would almost certainly be less work than adding submarines, which are already on HTC's development schedule. Personally, I'd rather have this idea implemented before subs, simply because ground forces integrate into the game more directly than submarines (though I still want subs, too:)). The spawn point system we have now for GV's is a clever stop-gap measure to provide medium-range mobility for them, but it's still too predictable and inflexible. Indeed, they must be built directly into the terrain, at the moment. The low density of GV's on our virtual battlefield makes greater mobility and flexibility of employment of GV's highly desireable. I think the FA could provide that with a reasonable level of effort. Again, just my opinion, and based on admittedly limited visibility into the code.
Sabre
-
The game Command and Conquer had a vehicle for setting up Mobile Command Centers. Maybe this is a possibility for AH, but I am not sure how it could be implemented.
Air drop or ground vehicle convey possibly?
-
Supply convoys are allready using roads and railroads , it should be quite easy to replace them with armored convoys :rolleyes:
Air drop or transport is another question...