Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: oboe on July 18, 2021, 11:10:45 PM
-
What would you guys think of an MA terrain based on real-world geography (although not to scale)? Typically a game designer would make sure each side has identical territories, and we see that a lot in MA terrains. But they can be very abstract looking. Do you think anyone would appreciate a more real-world looking terrain, where a player could for example, up heavy bombers in England and fly a mission to bomb Berlin? Or fight for control of North Africa, and mount an invasion of Italy?
I don't know anything about MA terrain design, and even less about making a terrain, but how do you guys think this terrain might play out? Would it even work? Its a 9x9 size terrain, so a bit smaller than the typical 10x10 MA terrain.
(https://i.imgur.com/3lG1jY9.jpg)
-
I think real-world geography can be made to work for an MA terrain, but it presents challenges. In your example, the Red/Green and Red/Yellow fronts are much more populated than the Yellow/Green front, and the Strats are not equally accessible to both enemies. (Also, the center frontline fields are too close according the the MA rules. but that is easily changed.) You can disregard symmetry, but that creates "orphan corners" where one team has limited or unequal access to fights and captures.
I've used Artik's Makeahmap software to convert real-world geography into MA terrains, using Google Earth to find geography that lends itself to base layout symmetry. (Northco, Crags, Badlands, and Reefs are examples. Although some modification of the geography was required -- to adjust coastlines and add islands -- they are mainly based on the real world.)
-
Kong is correct, I also have used MakeAHmap from Artik, an excellent program btw. At this time I think the more pertinent questions is how many MA maps will Hitech allow. As I recall Kong has several maps already submitted and I have 3. I suspect Hitech is just too busy to review them at this time, hopefully the map reviews will move up on his ToDo list. :aok
-
Kong is correct, I also have used MakeAHmap from Artik, an excellent program btw. At this time I think the more pertinent questions is how many MA maps will Hitech allow. As I recall Kong has several maps already submitted and I have 3. I suspect Hitech is just too busy to review them at this time, hopefully the map reviews will move up on his ToDo list. :aok
I could think of 5 maps right now that need to go which would be very beneficial and replaced with these new maps would probably create a decent uptick in players, especially on the weekends.
Crater, Buzzsaw, BowlMA, Mindnoa, Smpizza. These maps should be replaced with maps that are more suitable to today's players and #s. I find these maps to always have the lowest #s during off hours and can really hurt #s when on for more than 1 day.
-
The current map list.
0, 'sfma2016'
1, 'riftval'
2, 'fjordma'
3, 'grinder'
4, 'baltic'
5, 'montis'
6, 'mindnao'
7, 'bowlma'
8, 'smpizza'
9, 'buzzsaw'
10, 'craterma'
11, 'oceania'
13, 'ndisles'
14, 'northco'
HiTech
-
Hitech, is there a limit to the number of maps in rotation?
-
What would you guys think of an MA terrain based on real-world geography (although not to scale)? Typically a game designer would make sure each side has identical territories, and we see that a lot in MA terrains. But they can be very abstract looking. Do you think anyone would appreciate a more real-world looking terrain, where a player could for example, up heavy bombers in England and fly a mission to bomb Berlin? Or fight for control of North Africa, and mount an invasion of Italy?
I don't know anything about MA terrain design, and even less about making a terrain, but how do you guys think this terrain might play out? Would it even work? Its a 9x9 size terrain, so a bit smaller than the typical 10x10 MA terrain.
(https://i.imgur.com/3lG1jY9.jpg)
Oboe..........I first saw this post this morning. And after seeing it, I am now at my keyboard by the way at 5:45PM I like the idea very much. I like the thought. The terrains for the three countries would be awesome ( the world divided into 3 Teams. Deserts, Great Lakes Oceans et.al.) It would be time consuming to make but not impossible. Major Rivers could be included with Barges resupplying and the occasional Rail Road. The possibilities that you have brought up for this terrain are endless.
Well thought Oboe!
Hajo
-
Hitech, is there a limit to the number of maps in rotation?
No
-
Don't we already have a number of "real world" maps that are used for special events?
-
Don't we already have a number of "real world" maps that are used for special events?
We do, but these terrains are two-sided vs three-sided. And tend to cover smaller real-world areas.
The real-world based MA terrains I can think of are Baltic, Mindnao, and Northco.
-
Back in the day there was talk about real world maps being uneven. That raised a couple of ideas that didn't see daylight, either because there was no good tools or no map-makers.
The first one was to search for areas that could be divided to three balanced "countries" - one of those was the Great Lakes where two wedge shaped areas meet a lense shaped one.
The other idea was to take a real area and copy it around a center point to a three point star so to say. Thus each country would be similar but the fronts wouldn't be mirrored. Think about the Italian or Iberian Peninsulas tripled and rotated like a three leaf clover. All the geographic data is already available so there'd be quite a small amount of work in the transition areas.
-
Yeah I think a real-world location that is divisible into 3 almost identical areas is very difficult to find. There will always be differences and variations, my thought was that it might be possible to allow for the differences to exist, as long as one country's shortcomings were made up for by advantages in other areas. Was trying for rough equivalence, instead of perfect equality. Don't know if it's possible in a real world setting though. I was taken by the thought of being able to lift off of real-world locations, and hit real-world targets.
Here's another real-world location attempt I made, 4 years ago; I got about as far as I did on the ETO terrain:
(https://i.imgur.com/kwacIeV.jpg)
In this terrain, both the Orange and Green navies are divided between two sea areas, while the Yellow navy is a concentrated force. The Green navy at least has the ability to shuffle fleets between either sea, while the Orange Navy is at a decided disadvantage. Also the Caucasus Mountains provide something of a natural barrier between Yellow and Orange, although locations of spawn points could compensate for that. Still, aircraft would have to fly higher to cross the border between Yellow and Orange than they would between the other two borders.
What I like about this one though, is the Fuel Refinery placed at the actual location of the refineries at Ploesti in Romania.
-
The first one was to search for areas that could be divided to three balanced "countries" - one of those was the Great Lakes where two wedge shaped areas meet a lense shaped one.
I uploaded a map of this area several months ago, modified for 3 countries, its called 3points. If you have any suggestions or issues, let me know. Was hoping Hitech would put into rotation, or let me know if there were any issues.
-
Question on the original map posting. Why so far north and south and not further east and west to include Germany?
-
Question on the original map posting. Why so far north and south and not further east and west to include Germany?
If I understand question correctly, the answer is I think the map must be square, so I can't have a longer E-W dimension than the N-S one. Regarding Germany, it is included. Unless you mean why not include the whole of Germany in the Yellow shaded country? Answer to that is I was trying to roughly get same land area in each of the shaded counties. If I push further East, the area containing England contains too much sea and not enough land.
-
I got confused by the shading. Guess I should have had another coffee before I posted.
Good stuff!
-
Yeah I think a real-world location that is divisible into 3 almost identical areas is very difficult to find. There will always be differences and variations, my thought was that it might be possible to allow for the differences to exist, as long as one country's shortcomings were made up for by advantages in other areas. Was trying for rough equivalence, instead of perfect equality. Don't know if it's possible in a real world setting though. I was taken by the thought of being able to lift off of real-world locations, and hit real-world targets.
Here's another real-world location attempt I made, 4 years ago; I got about as far as I did on the ETO terrain:
(https://i.imgur.com/kwacIeV.jpg)
In this terrain, both the Orange and Green navies are divided between two sea areas, while the Yellow navy is a concentrated force. The Green navy at least has the ability to shuffle fleets between either sea, while the Orange Navy is at a decided disadvantage. Also the Caucasus Mountains provide something of a natural barrier between Yellow and Orange, although locations of spawn points could compensate for that. Still, aircraft would have to fly higher to cross the border between Yellow and Orange than they would between the other two borders.
What I like about this one though, is the Fuel Refinery placed at the actual location of the refineries at Ploesti in Romania.
Oboe, jst anothe thought on you suggestion for a map. You mentioned Poesti.
How about targets such as Krupp Steel amongst other targets on the world map? Imagine, leading a flight of Bombers over Germany and Japan to damage military production facilities! The targets if hit and damage is totaled up could effect the targeted counties military production. A good target for Bombers. Military production facilities would have to be defended. They'd be more important in the game as to the current strats do now. Along with cities of course. Peenemundee, et.al. the possibilities are endless. I believe it would bring more aircraft sorties to the game. GVs could be used to take cities once bases are captured in enemy territory.
Just another thought that could be expanded on. <shrugz>.
-
Wow. Very cool. Very good points brought up by all on this thread. I love the idea of real-world terrain, but the points about bases, position, sizes, are fair from a game play perspective. yet, maybe for AvA arena these would be good one week maps?
What would you guys think of an MA terrain based on real-world geography (although not to scale)? Typically a game designer would make sure each side has identical territories, and we see that a lot in MA terrains. But they can be very abstract looking. Do you think anyone would appreciate a more real-world looking terrain, where a player could for example, up heavy bombers in England and fly a mission to bomb Berlin? Or fight for control of North Africa, and mount an invasion of Italy?
I don't know anything about MA terrain design, and even less about making a terrain, but how do you guys think this terrain might play out? Would it even work? Its a 9x9 size terrain, so a bit smaller than the typical 10x10 MA terrain.
(https://i.imgur.com/3lG1jY9.jpg)
-
Oboe, jst anothe thought on you suggestion for a map. You mentioned Poesti.
How about targets such as Krupp Steel amongst other targets on the world map? Imagine, leading a flight of Bombers over Germany and Japan to damage military production facilities! The targets if hit and damage is totaled up could effect the targeted counties military production. A good target for Bombers. Military production facilities would have to be defended. They'd be more important in the game as to the current strats do now. Along with cities of course. Peenemundee, et.al. the possibilities are endless. I believe it would bring more aircraft sorties to the game. GVs could be used to take cities once bases are captured in enemy territory.
Just another thought that could be expanded on. <shrugz>.
I like your thinkin', Hajo! I think I placed the City strats at locations of London, Rome, and Berlin for that reason.
GrandpaChaps, yes, its probably more suited to a 2-sided War like in the AVA. After all, in the MA I could up a flight of Lancasters or B-17s from England, bomb Berlin, but be shot down by defending Spitfires of Thunderbolts. That would be an immersion killer that could be avoided in the AvA arena.
-
Oboe, jst anothe thought on you suggestion for a map. You mentioned Poesti.
How about targets such as Krupp Steel amongst other targets on the world map? Imagine, leading a flight of Bombers over Germany and Japan to damage military production facilities! The targets if hit and damage is totaled up could effect the targeted counties military production. A good target for Bombers. Military production facilities would have to be defended. They'd be more important in the game as to the current strats do now. Along with cities of course. Peenemundee, et.al. the possibilities are endless. I believe it would bring more aircraft sorties to the game. GVs could be used to take cities once bases are captured in enemy territory.
Just another thought that could be expanded on. <shrugz>.
The thing that bugs me about this idea, you never hear anybody ever say, "You know what would really be fun? Logging in to find your side's production facilities decimated by the enemy through no fault of your own and having to deal with the repercussions of it."
Wiley.
-
The thing that bugs me about this idea, you never hear anybody ever say, "You know what would really be fun? Logging in to find your side's production facilities decimated by the enemy through no fault of your own and having to deal with the repercussions of it."
Wiley.
Nailed it!
-
The thing that bugs me about this idea, you never hear anybody ever say, "You know what would really be fun? Logging in to find your side's production facilities decimated by the enemy through no fault of your own and having to deal with the repercussions of it."
Wiley.
They could be resupplied brought up in strength in a reasonable time. Not anytime soon such as 15 minutes. Naturally after being destroyed or hit the game using time would begin to rebuild.
Our problem is we have an MA mentality. Wiley I know you gents...I'm pretty sure we think the MA is only a place to practice what we will be doing in events. To me the MA is where I go for a short period to actually communicate with friends I've had for a long period of time in AH and AW. The MA to me is only a 15 min sortie. I flew in FSO for quite a period of time with Fencers 334th and yes also with JG/11. Both I enjoyed immensely not only the people but the history of what we were trying to create. I am wishing to add a Map such as Oboes to involve some history in the skies in the MA. It's only one map and IMHO it will reduce the basetaking debacle. Air Fields on all sides could be designed to be placed into a very difficult area to be captured. Unless some GV bases could be taken...........also placed in a difficult area to take we, won't have a hoard of GVs swarming a field. doing this we could have more realistic mech war activities. No spawns next door to a base. A GV Mission could be set up with a myriad mix of gvs and yes....they will attack together and permit columns of GVs to actually battle as they did realistically. GV bases can in some areas of the map be placed so that the GV people could battle it out! Sometimes we don't see the whole picture because of what we see in the MA on a daily basis. Can you see a Tank battle at Kursk, the deserts of North Africa? This would be fantastic imho. There are many possibilities on this terrain that would be exclusive to all players. This is only one map and may well draw new players into the game because of the history and realism of what air to air and tank battles really were. As of now we have nothing like it. Quite frankly the MA is boring to me. Rinse and repeat. Also the endless possibilities of what Naval Fleets would be able to accomplish. Can you imagine a CV group stationed in the Great Lakes, Baltic and Black Sea? Think big! The map would be a HUGE undertaking! Fjords? Are you kidding me? A place where German Navy Vessels were hidden? Midway? All possible on one map. Think Big! It could be an endeavor that would attract more players not only to the map but to the game. It will take long time to develop (Map) but deserts, other continents such as Australia........it can be done. Don't base or limit your thinking on the current set up in AH. Think of a huge FSO or even scenario. As a community we can manage and change what we can do with this map.
Just a thought
Hajo
-
Unfortunately, you'd either need massive numbers to support that kind of gameplay, or people who are extraordinarily committed to the idea. Couple that with the way most gamers don't want that level of commitment/being told what to do, I just don't think it would be possible.
I'd love to see ginormous battles too though. The old bigger FSOs were a lot more fun IMO than the current 1 or 2 targets being defended setups. I still like what's there and there's not much to be done for it, but it's better when it's bigger.
Wiley.
-
Would you guys say the main problem with Strats is that they are easier to attack than they are to defend? That is, it's much more likely to find a buff-oriented player with the time and ambition to launch a group of heavy bombers, climb to 30K, and attack opposing strats than it would be to find a few players who are willing to man interceptors and climb up to 30K to try to knock the buffs down? Especially when there is no penalty for bomb-and-bail tactics, its just not worth the effort of most players to defend strats?
And further, this is why on some maps, all the strats are gathered together and placed in the furthest corner away from the opposing sides?
I don't have an answer for that, but I think it might help to create some kind of penalty for bomb-and-bail, and to introduce a heavy downdraft above say, 25K, to keep buffs at a reasonable altitude? I think another problem is VBases near strats. Its difficult for a single pilot to shut down a VBase, but not difficult for a single player to attack nearby strats and siginificantly damage them, impacting the whole opposing country.
Hajo's mention of Peenemunde gave me another idea. Maybe a new kind of base could be created, a 'V1 launch site', complete with the ramp style launchers, support vehicles & buildings, etc. Normally these bases are present on the map, but inactive. But as a country's strats are depleted, it would start to spend more and more resources to develop and deploy these weapons. So maybe at if a strat is destroyed down to 50%, for example, the county's V1 bases become active and start firing V1 missiles (AI controlled of course, say 1 missile every 15 minutes) at the nearest enemy strat target. The missiles could have visible icons and travel at 350 mph, and show up on a country's radar display, so it would not be impossible to find them and shoot them down.
Or, a side's pilots could mount airstrikes to take the launchers out. And as a county's strats are destroyed even further, the launch rate of V1s could be increased, maybe a V1 fired every 5-10 minutes?
-
Oboe you nailed it. The possibilities are endless. This map I think would not have to be inserted into the rotation forever. It could be inserted initially into the rotation to see what people think.
It could also be inserted into it's own Arena.
As to the bombing of strats it appears the only time it does effect the arena is in the morning US time. Bombers usually range free will at that time usually because of the low number of people.
Most of that time no one usually decides to defend the strats. So they can be bombed to death. I think in the world map in the evenings US time there would be more time spent defending manufacturing
Turning a morning milk run to a long distance attack based on realism and defense of same being more important. Make it more profitable in perks to hit a manufacturing target and be successful
then bombing a fields city which is much easier to do. Again, just a thought. What's wrong with bombers and escorts in a mission? What wrong with defensive missions being launched from different
bases and in more than two types of fighter? We've gotten lazy. The MA is a first person shooter.
-
I think the answer to defending against strat runners and having more fun is to enable 163s at the bases around the strats.
If I see a 163 is available within a sector of the sighted bombers I'm after them, however, I'm not gonna take the time to take an a8 or a jug up and climb while chasing them across the map.
-
Hajo's mention of Peenemunde gave me another idea. Maybe a new kind of base could be created, a 'V1 launch site', complete with the ramp style launchers, support vehicles & buildings, etc. Normally these bases are present on the map, but inactive. But as a country's strats are depleted, it would start to spend more and more resources to develop and deploy these weapons. So maybe at if a strat is destroyed down to 50%, for example, the county's V1 bases become active and start firing V1 missiles (AI controlled of course, say 1 missile every 15 minutes) at the nearest enemy strat target. The missiles could have visible icons and travel at 350 mph, and show up on a country's radar display, so it would not be impossible to find them and shoot them down.
Or, a side's pilots could mount airstrikes to take the launchers out. And as a county's strats are destroyed even further, the launch rate of V1s could be increased, maybe a V1 fired every 5-10 minutes?
Most of what I've read in this thread has been "pie in the sky" perceptions into map creation, the idea of reducing "base takes", to me would be a death blow to the game. That is what generates 99% of the combat in the game today.
What excites me though, is this suggestion from Oboe, using V1's in relation to Strat status. V1's would be slow enough to allow interception, long range enough for multi-sector targets, and a counter to the existing "Strat attack cake walk". If this was generated, it would eventually lead to preemptive strikes on the V1 bases, as attacks are made on the strats. Very interesting possibilities.
-
I think the answer to defending against strat runners and having more fun is to enable 163s at the bases around the strats.
If I see a 163 is available within a sector of the sighted bombers I'm after them, however, I'm not gonna take the time to take an a8 or a jug up and climb while chasing them across the map.
:aok
Many of the maps don’t have Me163’s enabled at the bases closest to the strats.
I noticed this on either CraterMA or Oceania recently.
-
Most of what I've read in this thread has been "pie in the sky" perceptions into map creation, the idea of reducing "base takes", to me would be a death blow to the game. That is what generates 99% of the combat in the game today.
What excites me though, is this suggestion from Oboe, using V1's in relation to Strat status. V1's would be slow enough to allow interception, long range enough for multi-sector targets, and a counter to the existing "Strat attack cake walk". If this was generated, it would eventually lead to preemptive strikes on the V1 bases, as attacks are made on the strats. Very interesting possibilities.
As I think more about it, it might really freshen up game play. The V1 Base might look just like a regular GV base, but instead of hangars, you'd have 4 V1 ramp launchers, each one pointed to a different cardinal direction: N, S, E, & W. The availability of V1s here could be tied to the fuel and ammo bunkers. Maybe you'd need one Vehicle Hangar to repel ground attacks or allow defenders to spawn Wirbelwinds or OstWinds.
After launch, the V1 itself might have a smoke trail, looking like a plane does when it has a radiator leak - greyish or white smoke. That'd make it a little easier to track. Might be fun to up a Tempest or late mark Spit and try to chase one down.
And Aces High would have another game feature no other flight sim has. IL-2 does have V1 sites, but they are just targets; I don't think they actually launch anything.
The 3D model and artwork shouldn't be too bad - no cockpit, wouldn't even need moveable control surfaces. And a very simplified flight model...
-
:aok
Many of the maps don’t have Me163’s enabled at the bases closest to the strats.
I noticed this on either CraterMA or Oceania recently.
163's are only enabled at the base closest to the HQ.
-
163's are only enabled at the base closest to the HQ.
But bombing the HQ doesn't do anything from what I've read on other posts or if it does anything it's minimal impact.
I guess it makes sense to somebody to do it that way?
-
But bombing the HQ doesn't do anything from what I've read on other posts or if it does anything it's minimal impact.
I guess it makes sense to somebody to do it that way?
I agree but that is the expectation of all MA maps. :bolt:
-
But bombing the HQ doesn't do anything from what I've read on other posts or if it does anything it's minimal impact.
I guess it makes sense to somebody to do it that way?
Radar goes down for 5mins now. So that makes the other strats way more important and some are so easy to get to. More Me163 bases would help with that.
-
[quote author=DmonSlyr link=topic=403403.msg5343281#msg5343281 date=1626711060
Crater, Buzzsaw, BowlMA, Mindnoa, Smpizza. These maps should be replaced with maps that are more suitable to today's players and #s. I find these maps to always have the lowest #s during off hours and can really hurt #s when on for more than 1 day.
[/quote]
You forgot SFMA for the crap list. The bases are too far apart.
-
Radar goes down for 5mins now. So that makes the other strats way more important and some are so easy to get to. More Me163 bases would help with that.
No. Since players can resupply the factories, there isn't a need for more 163 bases. Take away the ability for players to resupply the factories, then your response would have more weight behind it. I'd even agree to a point.