Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: SKurj on August 16, 2001, 09:37:00 PM
-
Just been doing some thunkin....
Instead of base capture: Have a ermm how shall i say... fluid front. For this to be effective, many more strategic targets etc may have to be implemented, along with supply etc.
As a team attacks another the more damage they do to the opposition's strategic system, the further the "fluid front" moves into the enemy territory. IF the front extends far enough to encompass an enemy base, that base becomes the property of the attacker.
This basically represents the ground war, and the effects of the strength of airpower.
Strategic bombing would then have a place. Lazer guided weaponry would be a thing of the past with larger blast radii, and carpet bombing serving a purpose. Cities could be bombed and a morale adjustment made which would move the front as well.
Base bombardment would still exist, just no captures possible. The C47 could be used to fly troops/supplies to one of your own bases under siege to strengthen it.
I think a system resembling ideas like above might really help to motivate. It may be complex to put into place, and I'd imagine, it would be a system that would take quite awhile to balance properly, but it would make Aces unique in the strat department.
Whadda ya think?
Please.. this idea has undergone changes, read all my posts in this thread before commenting.
SKurj/Molson
[ 08-27-2001: Message edited by: SKurj ]
-
i think we'll see more of this as the game evolves. it's a great idea. it is good to start thinking of how it should be now and i'm sure htc is already toying with ideas.
-
This sounds very cool to me. It would be a nice change of pace to have territory move forward and back based on something broader than just focusing assets on these individual airfields (it's a bit one dimensional as even bombing cities etc. still only really affect airfields).
I can see bringing up the clipboard map and having this translucent overlay indicating the current "fronts", and watching the ebb and flow in certain areas based on what's going on in that region. I'm no programer so I will stop talking now. :)
[ 08-17-2001: Message edited by: Nash ]
-
You got the idea Nash +)
Yes the overlays would be good. With this system, and many more installations the game could really rock +)
I have alot more to add to this idea, and unfortunately not enough time to type it right now, work calls...
SKurj
-
This really sounds great, <S> Skurj It might be a bit to Strat orientated for the MA but it is exactly what we are crying out for in the Combat Arena it satisfies the "Base Capture" brigade and also the "Strat" brigade, I would really like to see this.
TTFN
snafu
-
Okey time to expand some more on this idea:
Strat layer:
A strat resource point system containing several different areas which affect gameplay in different ways.
Supply: This would include railyards, ports, bridges, convoys (wet or dry). A team's supply score is based on the condition of their supply system. The higher the score the quicker the auto rebuild time. As a team's supply network is damaged by its opponent killing convoy's, bombing railyards, ports etc, the supply score goes down.
Players have the ability to supplement the supply system, by driving supplies etc to repair bridges, ports etc. (need a truck and spawn points in cities for them as well as a defensive vehicle, m16 for example) Of course railyards and ports would be close to cities/towns.
Morale: A team has a morale score, the better a team is doing (dishing out more than its receiving) the higher this score, the faster a team rebuilds, and develops(more later). A team's morale will drop when the team is not doing so well, as well as when friendly civilian targets are being bombed (cities/towns) Morale points contain a modifier. each team starts with a morale of 50% for each 10% the morale score increases a small modifier is applied to Production scores, Supply (affecting auto rebuild times). If morale scores DROP.. to reflect the unique ideas of the Axis in ww2 R&D gains a small modifier. The lower the morale the quicker R&D scores rise. NOTE: The losing team will get new planes and vehicles quickly, however with limited production once developed.
Research & Development: Teams have R&D centers, at the start of a campaign, each country has one. These centers are responsible for introducing new planes/equipment. The R&D score constantly increases, unless the facilities are bombed. At predetermined point levels a new aircraft or vehicle type is developed. Initially it is a perk ride. Once the new unit has been developed, a factory must then be built, until the factory is finished, the new unit is a perk. Once the factory is complete, the unit, depending on what it is(262 for example would never be free) becomes free.
Also as the point level reaches #### points, more R&D centers will be built.
Production: Factories, storage depots etc. Each team starts with basically the factories now in AH. The production score also increases over time, based on the level of output of the factories. A damaged factory, increases the production value much less than one at 100% production. Any factory at 25% or less shuts down until repairs are complete. If the factory is completely destroyed a penalty of an extension in rebuild time goes into effect. If a factory manages to maintain 100% production for XX amount of time, a supply depot is built. If a factory is bombed which has built a supply depot, the production levels do not drop until the supply depot starts to run dry. The supply depot will run dry in 1/2 the time it will take to auto rebuild a factory from 25%.
The as new factories go up for new planes and vehicles they are added into the equation as well. If an aircraft factory is bombed to below 25% of its production (no supply depots for aircraft factories), the plane type it is assigned to produce becomes a perk. (amount of perk depends on aircraft type) Once the factory is rebuilt to 100% again, the aircraft becomes free. If the factory is bombed to anything more than 25% just its production input score is affected.
Shipyards could also be added, and affect warship production.
What do the points mean?
To apply this to the Fluid Front... At the start of the war, the front is equadistant from both HQ's. As startegic targets such as factories, the supply system, cities etc are damaged the front moves GLOBALLY away from the HQ doing the damage towards to damaged team's HQ. Well that means the front moves in basically a straight line... Targets such as AIr bases, Army bases, when damaged affect the front nearby directly! The front adjacent to the base moves toward the damaged base along part of its length. If the front is close enough such that bombardment of the base results in the front encompassing the base, it falls into enemy hands, and the attacker takes over the base. The freshly taken base will NOT auto rebuild until it has been rebuilt once by the players transporting supplies, materials, defences etc in. Therefore any base that is damaged when it is captured, stays that way if it is not resupplied by the players for the 1st time.
Ok hell this is long, sorry guys
More ideas to follow....
SKurj
[ 08-17-2001: Message edited by: SKurj ]
-
Perhaps an interesting twist to this is to start limiting plane/vehicle numbers from different airfields based on the current state of the countries infrastructure.
[ 08-17-2001: Message edited by: Vruth ]
-
Tis the only one worth reading +)
SKurj
-
More additions...
This system would create more diversity in mission choices.
One I envision is the implementation of spies. A player chooses a suitable multicrew aircraft, flies into enemy territory, and drops the spy off somewhere. The spy then reports all enemy activity in the sector which he is in. Any enemy facilities become visible on the map, supply routes also. The production values of any facilities also become available in the strat screen as well. I haven't decided if a spy will stay in place indefinitely or perhaps a "roll of the dice" is implemented every 30 minutes to see if he gets caught.
Any spy dropped within the HQ sector, reports status on all enemy production, supply, and morale. He alos reports the type and sector location of all facilities of the enemy. NOTE: he is only able to report that for example, a spitIX factory is in sector 9,11 at 100% production. Not the exact location which a spy in the sector would be able to report.
The HQ spy data would all be displayed on the strat screen. An HQ spy would also do the roll of the dice, however with a MUCH greater chance of being caught.
Errmm also... HQ is NOT visible on the map, unless a spy is in sector. Perhaps a randomizer could be implemented that would move the HQ at each map reset.
Radar...
Ok this setup perhaps suits a CT style arena more than the MA.. I'm not sure. Anyways for MA type usage: basically the same as now with a few adjustments. When HQ is hit the first thing to dissappear is Bar dar. Once the HQ is flattened, dot dar still exists, BUT only near the base at which the player took off. Even in the tower the player can only see the dot dar for the base he is currently at. Now if the base dar is also hit then no dar at all. It makes little sense to me that killing HQ effectively takes down every dar station... we don't have EMP in the game do we?
For the CT, No bar dar unless within friendly territory or within LOS of friendly territory. Dot dar from radar installations along the defensive front. When destroyed dot dar is down for that region only for XX amount of time. Dot dar also from fields.(not sure whether or not it should just be from the players home field and dar stations, or all fields and dar stations...)
The inflight/tower map is dalayed, and is a snapshot. Player hits map key, a still map with contacts etc is displayed which may have been accurate at some point in the past, be that 2 mins or 10. Cons are displayed with heading, and possibly approx alt. Delay could be either random or an arena setting.
Ahhh fingers gettin tired... hope i not wastin all my time +)
SKurj/Molson
[ 08-17-2001: Message edited by: SKurj ]
-
Brilliant idea Skurj but don't get carried away with stuff like spies and such. :)
If you want to keep your mind busy on it maybe think of how HTC would go about solving a bunch of related issues... like when a train is en route to some place that suddenly falls into the hands of another country. Etc.
Also a big no-no on limiting plane selection through strat - leave that to the perk system.
Love the idea though... would love to see something like this implemented.
-
Trying to think of a way of adding a communications network.....
Communication "relay" structures could be laid out on the map, like a power grid, with a radio building at each facility and base which is connected to the relay structures, which eventually tie into the HQ.
As long as the comms building is undamaged an alarm system exists at that facility. If the building is damaged, the alarm system is delayed. If destroyed, no alarm at all, and no damage reports available on the strat screen for either team. Production numbers yes, but no info as to % of AA down, % of defensive force out of action(facilities given a supply of troops), % of ammo left etc etc
And no Bar Dar from anything which has comms down. I am relating Bar dar to ground sightings.
Some redundancy should be built into the grid, but with care whole sections of the comms grid could be taken out. However!! all bases/facilities that are connected can at least communicate with each other. If a player is at a base which has been cutoff from HQ, yet is still connected to some nearby facilities, he loses Bar Dar functionality everywhere except within the connected group.
To tie this in with dar stations... if the dar stations are cutoff the player is unable to access their info.
Gettin too complicated mebbe.....
Don't think it would be complex to learn. Players maight have to read a tiny bit to learn why sometimes they don't see much on dar etc.
In a way it makes the game simpler. Every target has importance. There are lots of reasons to bomb. The furballers will always have 2 close fields more than likely, and whether they like it or not, by shooting down enemy planes they are contributing to their teams strat efforts.(every kill = global team points)
The strat guys will likely have a field day! The realism boys will be all giggly, because realistic mission profiles may have to be flown for a team to succeed!!
Oh yeah, destroy an enemy field without the front encompassin it, and the field just rebuilds on auto quite slowly unless the players resupply it.
SKurj
-
actually Nash, strat does and doesn't limit plane selection. This system I believe replaces the RPS. Its up to the players themselves to get that next ride they like. To do so, they have to defend their countries R&D and production facilities.
I always liked the airwarrior idea of plane factories....
The strat and perk systems work together in concert..
SKurj
-
Train/convoy enroute to a base which falls into enemy hands. Train arrives, is captured, and ceases to run unless there is a friendly(ex-enemy) base or facility which is connected to the base. If so the train runs its new route.
The train could simply be destroyed, and one more added to the capturing teams network.
If the trains all originate in the same spots, perhaps the new train would just depart from there to its new destination at the time of capture.
It gets awkward if trains are running big loops serving several facilities/bases.. And it gets cluttered if every base/facility has its own train/convoy...
SKurj
-
One prob is that once a country goes downhill, it will have a harder and hardr time fighting back.
A country with 14 players down to 3 bases will have say 3 times the rebuild times of the two gangbanging countries who have 40 players each.
-
Yeah Stsanta, its more designed around a 2 country CT type scenario
SKurj
-
Always lookin for opinions...
SKurj
-
i LOVE this idea--HTC!!! HIRE THIS GUY!!! HE'S A GENIUS!!! HE'LL 'consult W/ STRAT AND MAP ELEMENTS!! HIRE HIM!!
-
I like the basic idea. My favorite part of the game is bombing and attack missions anyway. Arado would also become much more usefull too.
-
Further thought....
When a base is captured.. In reality when forces pulled out of a base they often left booby traps etc as surprises for the captors. When a base falls into enemy hands it automatically collapses. All buildings etc are destroyed.
Captured cities/towns offer no bar dar in their respectives sectors, representing the disgruntled population +) Captured bases however do.
As a team's front moves farther and farther away from its HQ, supply problems arise... For each new facility/base etc that is captured the supply score DROPS for XX amount of time. And of course all captured bases have to be player supplied the first time.
Factories that are captured contribute NOTHING to the capturing forces. Captured towns and cities also contribute NOTHING to the captor. Each city could be given its own defensive force of XX amount of troops, and AA, and individual morale score. If the front encompasses a town, an area of resistance surrounds the city (aka Battle of the Bulge) For every XX amount of damage inflicted upon the city X amount of troops are killed, and morale drops. The attacking forces must destroy all AA, all enemy troops, and drop troops to capture the city/town.
When the front encompasses the city, its communications hookup is still active to friendly forces, until the attacker captures the city, regardless of whether the radio building is 100% or not. If the city is not encompassed by the front, and the radio building is destroyed then communications are cutoff. If the city is encompassed while the radio building is down, communications reopen as soon as the city is surrounded.
Friendly forces can supply the city under attack with supply drops by transport aircraft or using vehicles which will slow down a city's fall.
For the new factories to be built: I envision a series of random tiles generated at map change well behind the lines which are dormant facilities. I dunno how the coding works, perhaps they could just contain destroyed facilities. Once activated they auto repair.
I think these ideas would result in quite a looong war, perhaps that would work well in the CT. Players would score points by how much damage inflicted. If they shoot an enemy fighter down X points awarded, an enemy bomber 2*X points, and perhaps a small bonus if the pilot of the fighter aircraft is captured or killed. Bomber crews all recieve damage points for the bomb run, and all recieve the points for any fighter kills, however only the gunner who scored the kill recieves the actual "kill".
Gooney drivers of course recieve points, as well as perk points which they are able to assign to ANY category they wish. (fighter,bomber etc) perhaps they choose which category they wish to score it as prior to leaving hangar.
More ideas +)
SKurj
-
Tryin to come up with ideas to prevent a steamroller effect takin place...
Supply: The farther a base is away from HQ the slower the rebuild time. The more bases a team has the longer rebuild time also. If a team has fewer than it started with its rebuild time at bases will decrease due to shorter supply routes. Porking its supply convoys etc will still slow down the auto rebuild tho.
R&D: The better a team is doing, the slower its R&D score increases (what do we need new aircraft types for? we are winning. say the politicians +)
Base capture revisited: When the front encompasses a base that base does not automatically fall into enemy hands. Its Supply is cutoff (no auto rebuild) and all facilities at the base must be destroyed and troops dropped before it can be captured.
If a base or city has been encompassed but not captured, any damage inflicted on that area, does NOT affect the fluid front at all.
Bombing: Bombs made less accurate, larger blast radius. All bombs dropped within the facility perimeter are scored. Any that actually destroy a building recieve a modifier based on the building type. A facility cannot be destroyed unless the buildings are destroyed. What I am tryin to say is, 10,000 misses yet within the perimeter cannot destroy the facility.
Rockets score if they hit (not neccessarily destroy)a structure or vehicle.
I think this will give the Dive Bomber a better place in AH. With bomb inaccuracy increased with altitude. If buffs wanna fly at 30k, they'd better bring more planes and carpet bomb.
The extreme visibility range I think needs some adjustment in AH, its too easy to fly at 30k and spot that C47 at 3k below u.
Would also add to immersion.
Yeah Yeah I know shaddup already...
SKurj
[ 08-27-2001: Message edited by: SKurj ]
-
Sounds like fun! Now all HTC has to do is write the code :eek:
-
It sounds like a freaking blast....Im game :D
-
Skurj,
I think the "fluid front" idea is a really sharp twist to the base capture idea. The global and local front concept is an excellent way to capture effect of tactical and strategic offensive efforts. C47 resupply is a great way to limit base "ping-pong" and create supply line effect.
This could possibly could be implemented over the top of the current strat system where HQ hurts radar, city hurts rebuild, etc. Goons running to maproom would have to be modified so you could only get resupply points on a disabled base recently captured.
But I can't imagine how complex the equation(s) would be to calculate who owns what base on a 2-dimensional grid (jarbo's brain hurts thinking on this one)
Nevertheless, I really like the thoughts along this line
-
I really like this idea, SKurj! :) My only question is, has anyone at HTC acknowledged this thread, yet?
Do they think it's possible in AH's future?
Enduro
-
Skurj,
I really like these ideas. I think the fluid front concept would add an incredible angle to the game!
:)
-
Excellent IDEA!
Very good! This idea has much more realistic aspects in comparison to the current system.
-
boing
-
I like it!!
Dont know exactly the hell it would cause HT to implement it...But it has excellent potential. And it would also steer us all away from the "cap the town and base...move on" mind set. I also like the options it would present for ways to play the game. It would be ever expanding and you would have to start paying major attention to all details around you. Excellent idea all the way around!!!
-
Had quite a similar discussion a couple of years ago with some AW buddies on this same subject. R&D, production, morale, partisans and and guerilla warfare. I must say I'm pretty impressed, SKurg.
A detailed working strat system is a scenario dweeb's dream. From what I've seen, AH shows more potential in this than AW did. Working trains goes a long way towards this goal. Ship convoys and lone fast merchant ships will too, eventually, I reckon.
The idea of R&D and detailed plant production (including having to think ahead - gearing up a plant to produce P-47s and then changing it to producing jets would take some resources and time of it's own)is great for some added realism to arena play but would be even better for scenarios.
As far as the "two sided" setup is concerned, in the broad scale I tend to agree (for doesn't it quite often become that by default from time to time?)but there's always been another aspect I think that many sims have overlooked and that's the political one. If 4 .... or even 6 political entities existed in an arena (scenarios have them by design) and each one had different resources available, I could easily envision alliances (no, not the "gangbanging the odd man out" type that some claim, and maybe rightly so, exists already). I'm talking alliances based on more than that. A sharing of resources and knowledge. Not for free, mind you. Perhaps one side can offer to share it's research with another side that's researching the same thing, speeding it up for both of them if they both have a different piece of the puzzle. Maybe one side has completed their research but recently they've taken some hard hits on their production and they want to "contract out" to an ally, in return the ally builds the same for themselves under license to the other. Maybe it's merely in the best interest to keep an ally in better shape to distract a foe and you want to ship them equipment.
I suppose the highest ranking players would be calling the political shots but still, I think adding the "Diplomacy" factor would add some depth for those into it. Ever play "Diplomacy"? :)
-
Good to see this one brought up once more +)
I am not so sure about bringing politics into it +) I just envision more flamewars :rolleyes:
+)
I have been playing Silent Hunter 2 alot, shipping routes with convoy's and spawn points for subs near the routes would rock AH too +)
SKurj
-
"I am not so sure about bringing politics into it +) I just envision more flamewars :rolleyes:" *chuckle*
But think about it. If there were 4 sides (or more, 6 may not be bad .... more than that might, though) then the R&D and production aspects you bring up would take on even more significance if each side could determine whether they can "officially align" with another side. Players could decide whether to sign treaties (and set them for a specific time limit), form alliances or even break them and declare war. If you shoot an ally, you suffer the same consequences as if you shot a fellow "countryman".
It would also give the side which is getting trounced a chance if there are some players on there with diplomatic skill ("We may not have alot to offer but maybe we could help tip the scales in the deadlock your side is having with the so-n-sos."). For the players who want a game with more depth, how much deeper can it get than that? And for those who don't, it'd be no skin off their noses to let the strat/diplomacy guys do their thing.
And when you think about it, how can there be more "chesspiece flamewars" than there already are? Oh, which reminds me. With more than three sides the chesspiece thing kinda goes out the window, eh? I suppose if the 4 sided arena was adopted then using card suits would be right up Ace's High's alley (Clubs, Hearts, Spades, Diamonds).
*ShruG* Oh well ... just a thought anyhow. :)
-
We could call the 4th side Queens, I can think of several flyin AH these days already
:eek:
+)
SKurj
-
Ok ... you're right. Why take this seriously? :rolleyes: :)
-
Skurj,
Not sure if this was mentioned (I read most of the posts :)) but I remember reading in an interview with HT that he wanted to create a First Person shooter at the bases....... How would this effect your idea??? If this were to tie in with HT's ideas in the future it might be an easier sale.
[ 11-25-2001: Message edited by: Jebo44 ]
-
Easily Jebo, the base/facility in question, would class as "contended" until the FPS side of the game was dealt with. So if a base has been caught on or surrounded by the front, the 3dshooter element would have to be won by the attacker before posession took place.
I apologize arlo, I don't mean to make light of your suggestions.
I am just not so sure we need "leaders"
SKurj
-
No biggie, twas open for debate and I'm aware of the proposals flaws.
Still, I'm looking forward to advanced, detailed strat -as long as it doesn't adversely affect the game in other areas. Cutting off supplies to cities, factories and bases should have long term effects causing loss of morale (in the cities), reduced production in the factories (eventually bringing it to a standstill) and limited parts and fuel at bases would eventually halt operations from there - without any damage done to them. Damage would serve to accelerate the depletion. Of course players could still elect to fly in supplies but it would be nice if the results from such runs weren't so miraculous(from what I gather). It should be quite a dedicated large air operation (ala the Berlin airdrop)to reverse the effects of a siege. Single runs should do no more than slowing down the depletion and even a small scale air convoys should do no more than keep things from getting any worse yet once the shipments stop the depletion proceeds at the level it was before the assistance.
R&D should be tied to specific rear echelon research centers for specific pieces of equipment(again the possibility of player choices).
Ranking players making or overiding decisions is nothing new to AH from what I hear. Players take command of task forces and change their courses on a fairly regular basis, sometimes resulting in it getting sunk a bit easier, sometimes hiding it altogether. Maybe the arena needs to automate such things and leave player controlled "higher command" decisions to scenarios only. *ShruG*
Just brainstorming with yas :)
-
bump
-
Can't believe I actually typed all this...
Anyways I brought it back when I noticed someone mention communications huts. The more I read it the more I like the rest of what I wrote....
SKurj
-
Great Idea 5 of 5 stars possible
-
Great Ideas.
How about implementing Computer-controlled GVs and Infantry that spawn at VH's and Enlistment Centers, then travel to the front and shoot it out among themselves (with the player-controlled GVs spearheading attacks etc). Kills of these vehicles would not affect the front, their fighting only "displaying" the front line. The units would go home, or simply vanish when coming too close to an enemy installation without the front moving over that installation.....
again, great Ideas. Makes you wonder where online games will head in the next years.
-
SKurj,
I like most of this idea, though I doubt that it would/could work.
While there are some great strategic minds (most of which frequent these bbs) within our community, I don't think there are enough "Team" players to make it happen.
People are more prone to group mass vulching than they are to strategic attack.
I think HTC made a huge move toward supporting that vulch mentality when they created the "Take the Town" method of capture.
That move lowered the value of strategic bombing and increased the value of mass fighter support.
Viper
-
just ideas i tossed out SKVP
I think somewhere in that mass of text might be a method to help the teams being overrun.. not sure tho its been awhile since i wrote it...
Best idea i have atm for that goal...
bases resupply slower the further from HQ they are... each sector distance from hq = 5 mins longer to supply
if minimum is 10 mins for bases closest to HQ a base 6 sectors from hq would take 40 mins for AI supplies. possibly multiple trips required to fully rebuild. this would force the team charging hard on the advance to fly supplies or sit and wait.
The team in the 'bucket' would be aided by short supply lines and rapid rebuilds...
Just a thot +)
SKurj
-
I like the idea
Cheers,
-
Could we try and not pull up threads from 10 months ago???
-
10 months old or 10 years I still think there are some good ideas in here +)
SKurj
-
Supply: This would include railyards, ports, bridges, convoys (wet or dry). A team's supply score is based on the condition of their supply system. The higher the score the quicker the auto rebuild time. As a team's supply network is damaged by its opponent killing convoy's, bombing railyards, ports etc, the supply score goes down.
As an alternative to rebuild, implement supply quantity. Each base has a given TO&E allotment of various supplies -- ammunition, fuel, ordnance -- and as players launch from that base, they deplete the base's supply. That base's supply source then makes supply runs to restore the base's inventory. When a player lands at a base, any unused ammo, fuel, and ordnance are returned to the base's inventory.
This has the effect of making the 'take off with 75% fuel, fly for five minutes, get shot down, repeat' floodrunning counterproductive, because it will chew up a base's supplies faster than they could be shipped in. It would also create an incentive for players to make supply runs, which would increase bases' inventory. The supply system would obviously become targets for ground-attack missions, with supply interdiction creating immediate effects on the fields that were being interdicted -- blowing up a fuel tank would destroy some fraction of a field's fuel inventory, making the planes taking off from that field either take less fuel or use up fuel other people want.
No, on second thought, that probably won't work in practice in the MA; I don't think people are going to consider other players' situations, and would just grab what they want from the field's inventory and take off, and if that means they take all the fuel or 20mm ammo or the last 500lb bombs, that's tough for them. It might work in a scenario terrain or combat theatre, where the supply usage can be managed; the MA is too free-form for that to work well.
-
hey look what I found...
alotta reading if you've never read it.. but perhaps the last few posts might relate to maxtor's idea # 7
Skurj
-
found?
guess you just looked at your sig and thought, "Why did i put that there? AH!!!"
-
Some real good ideas here Skurj but I think Sky Viper has a point, the average furballing, gangbanging, HOin, "don't ruin my game"in dweebo isnt' going to want to have his furballing effected by a more strategic less boring game.
In reference to what Arlo was saying, I like the idea of more sides 4 or 6 could be interesting with the concept of alliances BUT I agree I wouldn't want that to be in the hands of an elite few AH players. HOWEVER, perhaps as the battle flows and the strategic value of each team changes (strategic value being based on number of bases, number of players, supply depots, convoys...etc) alliances could be based on the teams strategic value. Example, the team with the highest value might be allied with the team sporting the lowest value. As values change, so do the alliences. Being allied might allow your team to use your allies bases. Allies might be able to resupply each other. I could make a real interesting game.
Unfortunately, I'm not convinced HTC is focused on making the game interesting when a basic furball can pay salaries and keep the lights on.
-
I totally like this concept.
Always like how you could efect the battle effort aat any base by destroying resources.
Keep up the concept would make a great addition to the combat aspect of this game
DarkHawk
-
hmmm, doesn't this sound like what AH2 will be like?
-
It may just be me, but I prefer to bomb the hangars from high altitude, then take an M16 into the base, blow up the fuel, ammo, guns, and barracks, then fly a C47 in and drop troops. :D Did that in head to head a while back, hehe...
-
so you are saying that an enemy base could be taken over by simply attacking. Well for one thing this could not make this realistic. The battle of the Buldge for instance. What about being behind enemy lines and holding off enemies. Now if the fronts were actually made into troops i could see it like this. The more you hit the less troops on a front. But, I can see ack holding off the troops. I could see a new reason for taking out guns. I could see taking over bases. Dropping troops instead of just on bases but behind a large group of enemy troops. Adding to the usefullnes of the c-47. And to transports. Also Barrack being something more uselful. Planes could strafe a front of enemy troops to clear a path for advancing troops. Or planes could to the opposite by holding them back. there you would see friendly bases behind enemy lines. Holding on by a thread making holding onto a base more than just a depending on the air but the ground. The invasion of Normandy where US troops were being strafed by German planes. They didn't help much but, what if the strafeing planes had taken out more troops maybe Germany might still be around. It adds more luck and skill to the game. Being able to be somewhat of a strategist while flying around.
-
Great Idea!!!! Might eliminate the problem of the lines of enemies to bases to base
:)
-
This sounds promising and would add a nice twist to the game!
-
it a sounds umm very err good a...
in teort it sounds a bit better than our current system but how hard would it be to code???
-
What about if both sides have equal effort? It'd be like World War I all over again, plus it'd be worse than a month on the pizza map.
-
I beleive your idea of a fluid battlefield is a good one, however it does need revisions :aok
-
Originally posted by Vruth
Perhaps an interesting twist to this is to start limiting plane/vehicle numbers from different airfields based on the current state of the countries infrastructure.
[ 08-17-2001: Message edited by: Vruth ]
Yeah, can't impede the horde with those pesky defenders.
-
Skurj, Excellent thread! I know for a fact that this is doable and actually is implemented in another online sim. (to a degree)For all the nay sayers, to have a strat system that actually means something changes little! Except that there would be much more diverse fighting,missions, tactics and immersion on how to accomplish the means to the end which is win the reset. That my friends is the goal of the MA. (read AH's mission statement)There will always be a fight for you It's being done (other online sim) I support: 1- bombers actually doing what they were intended to do...suppress factories and cities. 2- jabos doing search and destroy of lines of supply,bridges, gv convoys etc. 3- a)Fighters doing defensive CAP b) bomber escort duties c)offensive CAP etc. These few examples would be highly valued missions due to the supply systems relevance to game play. The reward for completing such missions would be demonstrated not by just personal satisfaction of completion but shown in personal score and battlefront impact as well. Maybe a bonus point system for the type of mission your on. Specially for fighters, broken down as: Bomber escort, Defensive CAP, Offensive CAP
Other thoughts,
Would be nice to see a supply vehicle or vehicles capable of setting up a mobile base that can spawn gv's. This all so is being done in the other online sim. (goodbye spawn campers) Until they find your base and kill it. Also, a grass airfield (scramble base) able to park your plane at end of runway and walk around and admire your plane skin and your buddies plane (or chat about the weather) until alarm sounds to scramble and intercept.(Obviously you'd get higher points for being at such a base)
Finally,
I'm a bomber jock and tired of bombing hangers and town. Give me a good reason to hit cities and factories. Hmmm... just maybe... fighter jocks the bombers just might not bother with your hangers any longer because of their low value. We'll leave it for the jabos. Again, skurj you nailed it! If this is ever implemented AH needs to sell stock. I'd buy! hehe