Author Topic: Bring mechanized "task" groups to AH  (Read 352 times)

Offline Sundog

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1781
Bring mechanized "task" groups to AH
« on: August 31, 2002, 01:58:30 AM »
I was thinking about the ground battle and how long it takes to drive tanks from VH Fields, i.e. using spawn points. On constructing large terrains, there can be ALOT of spawn points for GV's which need to be added.


What I have thought about, and am posting here for feed back, would be to have fewer "VH's", make them "larger" Vehicle Depots, then, have "Mechanized "Task" Groups" (MG), Similar in execution to the Naval task Groups we have now. They would, of course, be limited in terms of the terrain they could navigate, with regard to "slope" This would be to make "mountian" ranges and forests impassable. Of course, single tanks could pass through the forest, but not the group. Just as the Naval TG gives you a "touching" the shore warning, the MG could have a special terrain map 'pop' up (Which would be generated when we construct new terrains) which would sort of be a semi-transparent "grayscale" overlay showing "traversable" areas in light gray and and "Impassable" terrain in dark gray to make setting the waypoints user friendly. The end of the last waypoint would be the "stop" point. So you could park the MG at a 'staging area'. It would NOT be able to close within four miles of an enemy field or factory.

Just as with Naval TG's, the MG would have mannable AA vehicles (think of M-16's as part of the MG where you can man the turret). They would also have 'mobile' spawn points with them in the same manner that CV's launch PT's, the MG's could spawn GV's. That way it becomes more difficult to "know" where spawn points are and keep hammering spawning vehicles and the MG allows some protection for GV's win they do spawn, just as the Naval TG protects the PT's when they spawn.

I would probably have "Five" or "Six" key vehicles, some heavily armored, like a staff car, a "mobile" HQ, etc, such that, once these "key" vehicles were destroyed, five minutes after, just like the sinking of the CV, the MG would re-appear at it's "Home Depot".

To me, that would make the Terrain Editors job much easier, and would allow country commanders to have more flexibility in how they prosecute a ground war. It also makes choke points, such as bridges, more important tactically/strategically as well.

A cool variation on the MG would be to have a special "MG", similar to those used in the desert war in North Africa, which would be "Air Support" MG's, such that a country commander could place one deep in behind enemy lines and it it would include a sort of 'mobile' hot re-arm pad (Air support vehicle) that if you were within 50 yds of it, it would re-arm and re-fuel you, or allow pilots of damaged aircraft to receive a safe landing behind enemy lines.
« Last Edit: August 31, 2002, 02:00:44 AM by Sundog »

Offline SKurj

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3630
Bring mechanized "task" groups to AH
« Reply #1 on: August 31, 2002, 08:22:58 AM »
Its a good idea but......

What about the big rocks, and trees?

We don't have forests... everything is covered in trees or some other obstruction ready to beat the snot outta your AFV at the slightest provocation.

SKurj

Offline Sundog

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1781
Bring mechanized "task" groups to AH
« Reply #2 on: September 01, 2002, 03:20:05 PM »
I should have stated that this would be tied in with the updates to the terrain HiTech was speaking of in his wargamer interview (I.E. - Forest's like in IL-2). As for the current forests and rocks, the game/TE knows where all of those are already, so it still wouldn't be a problem. Not to mention, in the TE we can make each tile anything we like, which is what we do now to make sure that tanks don't drive over rough terrain.

So in that regard, none of those issues would be insurmountable. :)  Now, if we get the hedgerows and treelines mentioned in the interview, etc, will we be able to place roads separate from the re-supply roads which would create ways across/through them?

Something else to consider is, if they add the features as mentioned in the Wargamer Interview, they won't have to have some patches of ground be 'bumpier' than others. The actual forests make ditching into them a 'not so good' proposition, which is why they made the ground bumpy in the first place (i.e.-so planes couldn't land 'anywhere, at least, without breaking). However, if hedgerows, etc, are added, now all of the ground can be 'game smooth' for GV's, so they can weave around the forests, etc and it still forces flyers to find an 'open' field to ditch in. It's the best of all possible worlds. It's getting your cake and eating it too. You gotta like that :) At least, if my guess is right anyway. I'm hoping it is, because it adds ALL kinds of possibilites to the terrains.
« Last Edit: September 03, 2002, 09:17:49 PM by Sundog »

Offline marauder

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 223
Sounds good to me... but
« Reply #3 on: September 02, 2002, 03:08:25 PM »
when it comes to the AH terrains there unfortunately isn't really anything in the way of bridges right now. Too bad 'cause taking out strategically important bridges by air or with GV's would be fun (and a big pain in the bellybutton to opponents using their GV's:D ).
BTW: "MG" is already taken in AH; in the AH aircrafts gun descriptions that you see while doing plane + load selection in the hanger;)
God put me on earth to accomplish a certain number of things. Right now, I am SO far behind, I will never die!

Offline BenDover

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5803
Bring mechanized "task" groups to AH
« Reply #4 on: September 02, 2002, 06:22:44 PM »
you know what?

Thats so crazy, it might just work;)


ps, marauder, there was a bridge in nuttz's tunisia terrian, it had just one major bug (which was fixed btw), bullets went through, so Hitech told him to remove.
But my point being, bridges ARE possible

Offline Sabre

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3112
      • Rich Owen
Bring mechanized "task" groups to AH
« Reply #5 on: September 03, 2002, 10:20:45 AM »
For those who haven't seen it, read the 2002 interview with HiTech at "The Wargamer."  http://www.wargamer.com

He talks about bridges, cover and concealment, artillary, etc.

By the way, I agree whole heartedly, Sundog.  I want to see mobile field armies too.
Sabre
"The urge to save humanity almost always masks a desire to rule it."