Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: MRPLUTO on July 12, 2003, 08:17:12 PM
-
Well, I wish I could figure out how to upload an image from my computer, but I can't. And this BB won't let me delete my own post. So I'll just have to use lots of words instead of one picture.
I think the problem with the big maps like Pizza, Trinity, and BigIsles is that they try to use all, or almost all, of the available map area. But when the dimensions of the map are increased from 256 miles square to 512, the area is increased by 4 times! Yet these larger maps were designed to accomodate an increase in players from about 250 to 500, only a factor of 2X. The result is too low a density of aircraft and the inevitable increase in the number of milkruns.
******
Solution:
Put land only in an area equal to a doubling of the orginal smaller maps. Leave the outer edges for 50 miles around ocean, from which fleets can suddenly appear to launch attacks on enemy shores.
MRPLUTO VMF-323 ~Death Rattlers~ MAG-33
-
Yes the red X can be annoying sometimes.
-
LOL!
-
Originally posted by MRPLUTO
Put land only in an area equal to a doubling of the orginal smaller maps. Leave the outer edges for 50 miles around ocean, from which fleets can suddenly appear to launch attacks on enemy shores.
MRPLUTO VMF-323 ~Death Rattlers~ MAG-33
Cool idea.
culero
-
MRPLUTO, I think the same way. We have maps with 250+ fields now, when we really only need like 100-150 for the number of players we've got. I like your idea of having a huge ocean all around the edge. Hmmm, I'm almost tempted to try making something like that.
-BH
-
Bullethead,
I'm glad to hear you're "almost tempted to try making something like that". I hope you and many others will. I would, but for the life of me I cannot figure out how to use the terrain editor.
*******
Help please, with posting image on BB
In my computer's "My Pictures" folder is a file called "maptheory1". Can someone tell me what I should do to post it here? Please be very detailed; an obvious step to you probably would never occur to me.
MRPLUTO
-
mrpluto go to http://www.onpoi.net/ah and upload the picture there
-
not sure about CV's randomly popping up. But a map like Bigisles, has alot of bases around. I thought it would be better if the middle area just had one big sea, with all the CV's spawning into it, instead of even more islands. and only have the 3 "slots" with the islands between them. Also that way, it kinda removes the all vs all in the center islands.
(http://www.webb291.freeserve.co.uk/Pictures/Aces/mod_bigisle1.gif)
(tell me if its too big filesize, and ill compress more)
with that idea, you lose alot of bases, and can have Open sea to have CV vs CV battles (that i like).
oh, and Pluto, email me the pictures on VMF thingy, ill host them and post them if you want :)
-
I didn't mean to imply that fleets would "suddenly appear" in the literal sense of spawning. I just meant that there would be all this water around your country and a fleet or two could approach undected and suddenly launch an invasion in a totally unexpected location.
MRPLUTO
-
Mr Pluto,
Count me in agreement!
The map size jump to 4x is too big a jump. during a really full prime time its workable, but if you in an off peak time, its just way oversized. it becomes milkrun city out of boredom.
The suggestion of keeping the map size, but packing it together is a great one. It would even push fields closer together which might spawn some better game play.
I consider that a Mid-sized map and would be excellent.
-
Originally posted by Overlag
(http://www.webb291.freeserve.co.uk/Pictures/Aces/mod_bigisle1.gif)
Welp...
Looks like this would be a really big SFMA terrain with islands. Like the SFMA, all the action would be on the edges and would rarely be all 3 countries fighting unless a reset was near.
BTW, though the size of the map is 4 times the small maps, the number of fields is only about 3 times.
-
Originally posted by MRPLUTO
I didn't mean to imply that fleets would "suddenly appear" in the literal sense of spawning. I just meant that there would be all this water around your country and a fleet or two could approach undected and suddenly launch an invasion in a totally unexpected location.
MRPLUTO
problem is, that never seems to happen, people who command CV's seem to want them to hug the coast as if they will fall of the side of the earth once they cant see land :p :o
-
MRPLUTO said:
I'm glad to hear you're "almost tempted to try making something like that". I hope you and many others will. I would, but for the life of me I cannot figure out how to use the terrain editor.
Get the help files and ask for help in the editor forum. That's how I got it to work. I'm by no means an expert, though. I can slap together tiny maps that work for H2H, buff target practice, etc., but I'm utterly terrible with getting the contours to look good. I'm working on that, however. Just takes practice with BMP2MAP.
Back to your suggestion, I see you really put some thought into it before you posted up. Today I messed around with your idea some. I calculated how big a map I'd have if I made a circle with 2x the area of a small map. Voila, I get a circle that's 50 or so miles short of the edges of the big map grid at the cardinal points, just like you suggested :).
So now I've got an idea for a map layout to fit in that circle. It would have about 120 total bases of all types. That would put it right about in the middle between your typical existing small and large maps. Basically, 2x the playing area and 2x the number of fields of a small map, and 1/2 of each for a large map. I think that would be a good fit for typical arena numbers. And it definitely is not nearly as daunting a project as the full-blown large map.
There are a couple of issues, however, that make me hesitate to really start on this. First is, would HTC want a map of this description if I made it? Second, how much work done now would be salvageable once AH2 comes out? Maybe I can bother NoBaddy to let me use whatever he's gonna update Trinity with ;).
But I need the practice and a project so I'll definitely do something along these lines. Who knows, I may get the hang of BMP2MAP at least :)
In my computer's "My Pictures" folder is a file called "maptheory1". Can someone tell me what I should do to post it here? Please be very detailed; an obvious step to you probably would never occur to me.
You gotta have the picture uploaded to some site on the internet. If your ISP gives you webspace, just upload it there. Don't worry about putting it in a fancy webpage, just store it in the space they give you like it was another of your HDs. And remember where you put it, because that gives you the URL of the picture. The URL will look something like this:
http://my.webspace.provider/myusername/mypicture.jpg
Once you've done that, you open the box here on this board to type in a message. Use the vB code to include an image in your post. In the upper left corner of the message box there's a link to the vB codes, but all you do is put the following where you want the pic to appear in the text:
{img}http://my.webspace.provider/myusername/mypicture.jpg{/img}
Only you use square brackets instead of curly brackets.
-
Pluto's map:
(http://www.webb291.freeserve.co.uk/Pictures/Aces/pluto.gif)
:)
-
IMHO, with just 50 miles of outer ocean the CVs would be hunted down and sank in short order. The map shown above would produce a definite two sided war.
I don`t know at what times you are playing, but again, IMHO the problem is not with the big maps, they are a solution. The problem times are on the small maps.
-
Overlag, Big Thanks!
About the map:
* The light blue area is the size of a small map, to give you a sense of scale.
* The red dots are suggested airfield locations. There are 37 of them. Along with them I'd suggest 7 or 8 vehicle bases and 6 ports with 4 carrier fleets and 2 heavy cruiser fleets. Plus 3 economic zones.
* All the big islands and a few a the smaller ones are real islands. It will save time in creating a map if existing landscapes can be downloaded, I believe. In the upper left going clockwise are: Iceland, the Falklands, Baffin Island (above it is Novaya Zemlya and below is Tasmania). At three o'clock are Honshu (Japan's main island) and Cuba on the outside. South of Cuba and Honshu are Jamaica, Haiti, the Domican Republic and more of the Carribean. The large land mass in the south is western Alaska, and the one in the west is eastern Siberia (Kamchatka peninsula area). The three islands in the center are New Guinea, Hokkaido (Japan), and New Zealand's North Island.
* I hope the fields are close enough for furballers.
================
Jackal,
CVs will have far more space to hide on this map than on our current maps. I don't see CVs being hunted down and sunk in short order unless they get too close to a base. Not many 40-mile sink the CV missions in AH, especially when enemy doesn't even know CV's location.
Why would this map produce a two-sided war? Please explain.
MRPLUTO
-
The only problem ive seen people complain of because of large maps is excessive flight time to action caused by large distances between bases. I dont personally agree with this being a problem unless its a constant occourance which I dont find it is in the Bigisles map.I really like bigisles, hate pizza and dislike trinity some. guess its 'horses for courses'
Another one is the excessively high mountains of trinity and the symetrical and uninspiring layout of pizza with its stupid mars like valleys etc.
So as i see it it isnt the scale of the maps its the features therein!
MrPluto i like the realistic look to your map but have you not taken notice that you have some places where there are hundreds of miles between bases? If you say that light blue area is a small map size , take a look at how much open ocean lies between even the central area: looks like at least 150 miles which is like 3 or 4 sectors.Far to distant for the majority of quick fix players.Laz would be horrified i think! :D
I would think this map would really suit a CT like arena IF it had the high numbers of MA or perhaps a scenario with a full compliment of players signed up. As an MA map it would cause many many whines of 'too long a flight'
What is good about it is that it has open areas for fleets but i think you need to have some areas where fighting could get intense and fight times are short AS WELL AS the longer/wider ones.
I'll post my idea for a map and you can pick holes in mine:D
-
Originally posted by Jackal1
. The problem times are on the small maps.
i feal the same
its fine in the morning (here) when theres 120 players online. but when theres 100 per SIDE its hard work on a small map...
Why does everyone hate flying more than 10miles to a fight anyway? ;)
-
Originally posted by Overlag
problem is, that never seems to happen, people who command CV's seem to want them to hug the coast as if they will fall of the side of the earth once they cant see land :p :o
But if you take the CV more than three miles offshore, all of the kamikaze battalions who want to be able to dive into an enemy base and be back overhead with a fresh ordnance load two minutes later would get discouraged, because they'd have to fly five or ten minutes to get to their target -- they might even have to *GASP* coordinate their attacks so the field doesn't start coming back up before they can pork it again...
-
ok ive made the picture and its not to scale or anything but its to show the general idea behind the concept: (As a guide to scale the small bases would average around 15 to 25 miles apart, Id like at least some small bases to be 15 miles apart for the furball guys :D laz in particular ;) hehe)
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/ah_98_1058190250.gif)
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/ah_98_1058190963.gif)
heres a cut and paste of my previous desription (tried to explain without a pic)
To add a little to my idea of a possible change in the way the strat is handled I had a thought today about how to change the way the strat affects areas.
I got to thinking about how games like Risk work and i suddenly thought of how this could be applied to our game.
The idea is to have zones where you have a capital city,local factories to that city, local large bases close to city and as you get further away you have smaller bases where defences steadily get weaker.On a single map you place 10 to 16 capitals so that at any one time one country has the extra city and therefore better resources. (This keeps things unstable and encourages WAR hehe)
The idea here is to make it possible for any country to own JUST one capital zone in order to be able to wage a decent war.
If you capture 2 or more capitals this rewards your country (perhaps more aircraft models available or better fuel supplies or even new weapons like V2 Rocket bombs or whatever )
The capitals would require total destruction in order to be open to attack and capture.This would mean in order to capture the capitals you literally have to use bombers to do it.However the much smaller and less defended bases and small towns further out from the capitals are easily taken and so change hands more often.This will hopefully mean the quick fix guys fight around the capitals and can essentially ignore the big picture war but at the same time they can help(by keeping enemy forces busy) the strat types who are trying to close down industries and take the capitals
Industry at these capitals is of utmost importance and is HEAVILY defended by AAA .It should require a large number of bombs to damage but AT THE SAME TIME once its hit it STAYS hit a long time. These factories should be placed in areas where they are easier to defend than to attack, ie on high mountainsides/hills or in valleys where to approach them you are FORCED to fly over many bases and AAA.
This is how a capital capture will work.
First you must capture a high percentage of bases in the capital city zone.(remeber there would be many zones on each large map)
You now need to subdue the population by destroying the capital in order to take it BUT the local factories running at full speed will resupply damaged city areas VERY quickly.Basically this will result in damage done by bombers to the capital quickly being repawned because the industries are running full speed.
SO as attacker You then will need to damage local industry in order to slow considerably the resupply of the capital.Now this should be a hard and dangerous job (due to static AA defence let alone enemy pilots)
BUT and this is the big but, ONCE you have hit these factories you will have a LONG time(several hours even) to make further missions and finnish the job rather than the present way it is (where by the time you land everything you did manage to bomb has respawned.) The idea is to make the destruction of industry a highly difficult task but one that has a great deal of reward in that when you damage it it takes a damn long time to repair and leaves local enemy cities and bases vulnerable to capture.
Once Local Factories are all destroyed or are 75% or more damaged this causes resupply to SLOW or even STOP to the capital (and local bases). before this figure is reached resupply is fast and normal.(perhaps moderately affected by damage
(50% of your capitals factories destroyed? well guess what your whole surrounding bases/cities get resupplied 25% slower!!)
The point is to make sure there is a EFFECT felt by loss of production/resupply but until this is accomplished on a proper scale (75% or more) resupply is fast and efficient so as not to annoy players , i.e. porking fuel all the time at the small bases will be pointless UNLESS factories are down)
Now the Capital city is not resupplied at full speed bombing of the city causes a much more perminant affect to the respawning of buildings.
Now as the attacker you have a capital which , when you bomb buildings, they no longer respawn in 5 mins but instead stay down fo much much longer.You now have to destroy 80% or more of the capital and once that is done you can send in the troops.
The result i would hope for is this...
All maps can now be NON symetrical. Each capital would in effect be like a little self contained country and so surroundings wont have to be the same at each capital.
If you are not into strat play there should in theory be Plenty of small base captures and fights in the areas furthest from and between the capitals.Allowing people to fight AROUND the capitals freely even take all the bases surrounding the capital but unable to capture the capital itself and its larger local bases totally, plus the large capital bases wil be hard/impossible to close for long.(fuel/ammo/hangers wont stay down long unless factories are also leveled.)
If you ARE into strat then as a bomber you can try for these industrial targets but to go in alone would basically result in an almost garenteed failed run.If you send in the big bomber missions you can drop on those factories and EVEN IF you only cause 10% damage it wont be a total failure because you can set up ANOTHER attack to ADD to your first missions damage.It might take 5 or 6 major assaults to knock out that factory enough but not even a small drop is worthless.
Once the strat guys have damaged the factories enough suddenly a capital is a possible prize. Then the emphasis of all players will be the big push for the big prize
The whole thing should be a struggle to control the MAJORITY of capitals.
Countries with the most will receive bonuses to resupply or special weapons.(or if prefered the country with only 1 capital that is almost down receive a 'desperate' bonus and they receive the vengance weapons)
Maybe a country with 1 capital resupplies at 100% , with 2 capitals it ups to 120%(or gains 20% more AA empacements) , 3 = 140%(or 40% more AA emplacements) (obviously depending on the state of their factories)
do you see what i mean? you end up with 2 differently paced capture games.
what do you think? remember too that we dont have to have the 3 countries at each corner of the map.we could for instance have it so each ciuntry starts with say 4 capitals each, these could be all over the map at different places. As each capital and zone is like a small seperate country it doesnt matter where it is or what size it is. the border to the zones is where you have close short distance fights but in theory the border can be any shape or size.
Certain capitals might be preferable to others but this is a GOOD thing. If they were all exactly the same and layed out in symetrical patterns the gameplay would stagnate badly just like Pizza seems to.
I hope you all like it especially HTC :D, im gonna post this seperately too in the hope HTC sees it.
-
Originally posted by Shiva
But if you take the CV more than three miles offshore, all of the kamikaze battalions who want to be able to dive into an enemy base and be back overhead with a fresh ordnance load two minutes later would get discouraged, because they'd have to fly five or ten minutes to get to their target -- they might even have to *GASP* coordinate their attacks so the field doesn't start coming back up before they can pork it again...
lol ;)
-
I never take ordinance. I fight other humans not toolsheds. I will leave the toolshed fighting to the insects.
lazs
-
the simple reason the big maps are boring is because they are BIG MAPS.
many bases to babysit and milk.
cut the landmass by 30%.
-
Hazed,
Thanks for your comments. I know that in some directions the distances between bases are kind of large...but "hundreds of miles"? And if you go in some other direction you'll find a base fairly close. There are some large seas that are 75 miles across or so, but there are many, many bases 25 miles apart or even less. Look at the central islands: there are quite a few close bases. The bases might be a little thin in the middle of "Plato's Republic", so maybe each country needs a couple more fields.
The most isolated fields are in the northeast, on "Novaya Zemlya"; all those fields are isolated from other fields, but very vulnerable to fleet attack. I think it's good that way.
I was thinking of lazs and wanted to make sure that no matter where the front was there would always be someplace with nearby bases.
MRPLUTO
-
Originally posted by Jackal1
IMHO, with just 50 miles of outer ocean the CVs would be hunted down and sank in short order. The map shown above would produce a definite two sided war.
I don`t know at what times you are playing, but again, IMHO the problem is not with the big maps, they are a solution. The problem times are on the small maps.
As you can see from MrPluto's pics, the idea isn't to confine CVs to narrow seas like on Pizza, but to allow them to hit any point on the map from any direction. This is an idea I really like, and it illustrates my only real problem with Trinity.
-
Originally posted by Bullethead
As you can see from MrPluto's pics, the idea isn't to confine CVs to narrow seas like on Pizza, but to allow them to hit any point on the map from any direction. This is an idea I really like, and it illustrates my only real problem with Trinity.
BH...
I seriously considered more water on Trinity. The problem is I didn't want to make it too easy for the "hide the CV" crowd. It is one of those things that I don't disagree with, strategically speaking. However, I sure as hell didn't want to make it easy either. With the map that Overlag posted, there would be a time when the hidden CVs would probably out number the CVs in use.
Hazed...
Looks like you are thinking about something similar to what I talked to HT about doing. Having clusters of close fields and then separating the clusters with a pretty good distance. One thing, would you show who owns what at the start of the map? With no indication of ownership at the beginning, it's a little hard to look at the map with an eye for balance :)
-
NoBaddy said:
I seriously considered more water on Trinity. The problem is I didn't want to make it too easy for the "hide the CV" crowd. It is one of those things that I don't disagree with, strategically speaking. However, I sure as hell didn't want to make it easy either. With the map that Overlag posted, there would be a time when the hidden CVs would probably out number the CVs in use.
I don't know exactly what you mean here, probably because I don't fly enough to see it :). Do you mean guys will see a port about to fall and drive the CV way out in the boonies where the nme can't hurt it and thus can't take it? If so, you'd think HTC could make a couple of changes that would help in that regard. Such as, putting a timer on a port capture and have the CV change ownership shortly after the port is taken (if there isn't one already--I don't know). Also, what about a "waypoint too far from land" check?
Still, that's something I hadn't thought about. The corners of the map in a MrPluto-style map would be great hiding places. So I guess I'll have to put some land there simply to prevent that from happening.
Hmmm. Too bad you have to capture so many bases to win a reset. Otherwise, these corners would be great places for furballer bases. No buffs, no bombs, no troops, no DTs, and too far away to affect or be affected by anything else. But that would make them uncapturable.
Looks like you are thinking about something similar to what I talked to HT about doing. Having clusters of close fields and then separating the clusters with a pretty good distance.
That's an idea I've been considering myself. I was thinking like a number of relatively large islands with a bunch of airfields and GV bases, and a few ports as well. Then you'd really need the CVs to get from island to island. Problem with this is, it would make factory placement a challenge.
-
Originally posted by MRPLUTO
================
Jackal,
CVs will have far more space to hide on this map than on our current maps. I don't see CVs being hunted down and sunk in short order unless they get too close to a base. Not many 40-mile sink the CV missions in AH, especially when enemy doesn't even know CV's location.
Why would this map produce a two-sided war? Please explain.
MRPLUTO
With just 50 miles the CVs will always be within 2 sectors (50 miles) of land when in the corridors. Like I say I don`t know at what times you are playing so were probably seeing this differently, but the CVs would be a piece of cake to find at all times. As to the "40 mile sink the CV missions" , they are more than frequent, that`s less than 2 sectors to get alt, just about right.
Sink one countries CVs quickly and Vavoom you have a two sided war.
-
what about the CV's surrendering... you know. When the Allies landed in Italy, the Italian fleet surrenderd (once the Italians surrenderd)..
So, if there home port is captured, they sail back to that port and once there (or within a certain distance) change to the owners country?
I dont want the CV to instantly change sides, because that would never happen...
I too, hate the people that capture CV's just to hide them. Id rather use the valuable source to do some more capturing.
-
for me.. a cv that is 2 sectors away is worthless anyway.
lazs
-
The problem with CV's are the folks that drive em....not a good idea to aim directly at the base...just makes it easier for those who practice strateeegery.
If they kept the CV 3/4 of sector away, the fight would have a chance at lasting.
You guys keep this up and I'll designate a 13th TAS member each tour to rank in the top ten....then we will truly rule the world.
-
Another thing that might be interesting is bombardment fleets. Some of the scenairo fleets are set up this way.
Basicly a TG without a CV but perhaps several CA and DDs. These wouldnt be much good for Air Combat, But some of the Admirals in the game might enjoy sailing close to shore and firing all the guns.
I might be cool if ever country started with 2 Bombarment groups and say 5 CV groups.
-
15 CV groups and 6 bombardment task forces?
I think that would take a map with a lot more water and less land than any we have now.
But it'd be an interesting experiment/change.
-
yeah, if the seas are bigger, the TG's should be bigger and have different types.
the battleship classes, and the CV classes. Maybe 2 CV's too a TG, with only 80 planes per CV? (although ones shot down will be reset/returned to cv??)
I wonder what AHII holds for us CV lovers :)
-
I've enjoyed reading the really great comments above, but haven't had time to comment until now...
*******
Hazed,
Your map concept is an interesting one that should be explored, but I agree with NoBaddy that we need to see a map showing ownership. And, also to scale, would be really helpful.
*******
I dislike the "hide the CV" mentality, unless the CV is hiding / avoiding detection while on the way to make an attack.
If CVs and task groups are used well...and with so much water and so many islands on Plutopia they will have to be...I hope the Admiral corps will find it more benificial to use fleets carefully than not at all. To not use them would seem to put the fleet hiding side at a terrible attack disadvantage.
Toad said that I had 15 CV groups, but I actually only called for 12, four to each side. And 2 task groups to a side, totalling 6. But the more I think about it, it would be better to have 5 CVs and 3 task groups to a side. What I need to do now is show where the ports are.
Grimm,
The task groups I'm talking about are what you call "bombardment fleets". They'd have 2 or 3 heavy cruisers or maybe someday a battleship. With many destroyers as well. These are the fleets that would come in close to land troops, although CV fleets could as well.
*******
Overlag,
Your ideas about CVs going over to the other side after returning to its captured home port is a great one.
*******
Jackal,
I don't see many 40 mile sink the CV attacks because most of the time when the CV is 40 miles away the enemy has no idea where it is. Also, that far away it's not an immediate threat.
Your second point that if one side lost a bunch of fleets you'd have a two-sided war is a very interesting one that I had not considered, so I'm going to have to think about it. I will consider this idea when I place the ports. Thanks.
*******
MRPLUTO
-
Originally posted by MRPLUTO
Grimm,
The task groups I'm talking about are what you call "bombardment fleets". They'd have 2 or 3 heavy cruisers or maybe someday a battleship. With many destroyers as well. These are the fleets that would come in close to land troops, although CV fleets could as well.
Yeah, Since when did they risk CV's by bringing them 2miles to the land, just to bring troops in? good idea. the battleship/heavy cruisers would have that job..... while the CV's stay out of reach.....
*******
Overlag,
Your ideas about CVs going over to the other side after returning to its captured home port is a great one.
*******
indeed... although i hate it when people hide CV's I do understand why they do it.....its a exploit that should be stamped out....
-
Gatso-
Hope you're still reading this thread. I'm at the Con but can't send email, although I can receive it. So please fire away with the files.
-
Originally posted by MRPLUTO
Grimm,
The task groups I'm talking about are what you call "bombardment fleets". They'd have 2 or 3 heavy cruisers or maybe someday a battleship. With many destroyers as well. These are the fleets that would come in close to land troops, although CV fleets could as well.
During the past few frames of CAP, we've been experimenting with something very similar to this.
The US forces have been using three different types of fleets for Amphibious Operations.
1. CV Fleets (CV, CA, and DDs): Staying out of Harms way, launching supporting Aircraft
2. Bombardment Fleets (CAs, DDs): Getting closer to shore for Naval gunfire support
3. Transport Fleets (all DDs):
Get right up to the beach and launch LVTs.
Granted, this is a special event, so there are a number of differences, however, by and large the desired results have been achieved. Forces are able to launch amphibious attacks, withhout sacrificing their CVs in the effort. It would kick bellybutton if we had transport ships to mix in with the DDs in the transport fleets, but until then, this system seems to work.
-Sik
-
Originally posted by Bullethead
Gatso-
Hope you're still reading this thread. I'm at the Con but can't send email, although I can receive it. So please fire away with the files.
Sending now.
Gatso