Crude and simplistic...

[Nash]

...but here's kinda how I see Skurj's strat idea working.

    http://modena.intergate.ca/personal/cwharton/sbm/stratpage.htm    

There are obviously many issues related to a strat system like this, and I don't address any of that. I just wanted make a quick visual so you can see what something like this would look like. I think this system would be great for the strat types *and* the furballers, as it broadens the variety and scope of workin' the system, while taking the absolute focus off of disabling, capping, and vulching fields as the only means for advancing your territory.

It probably wouldn't be neccessary to replace our current capture system altogether, because I think that system and this new strategic overlay could work in tandem. All it does is broaden the options each country has of advancing - creating contested areas no longer neccessarily right on top of airfields, and expanding the role of some of our strategic aircraft and ground units.

For the Combat Theater, remove the field capture element and you have a dynamic and "historical" strategic system for that arena as well.

One pretty cool thing about this is... you can get rid of country icons on the map altogether. While it would *still* be a 3 sided war, all you would know is your occupied territory. Everything else is enemy. It would *feel* like a two country war. And country gang bangin' may only happen by chance, not design.

[ 08-20-2001: Message edited by: Nash ]

[Voss]

Nash, I got nothing but a blank page when I attempted to visit your hyperlink...

 

[Effdub]

Link worked for me.

Very neat!

Effdub

btw, I'd like to know who won - Rooks or Bish?? Nash, add more frames to complete he story!  

[Nash]

Roger that Voss... Because it's VOODOO strat. So deeply intermeshed that it can't be SEEN with the naked eye. Get it?

 

Kiddin'.

Hmmm... that's weird. Works for me. I'll look into it.

<edit>
Ahh cool ok thanks Eff (hi buddy!   )

[ 08-20-2001: Message edited by: Nash ]

[SOB]

Works for me, IE5 here.

[Saintaw]

Nicely done Nash, although, i can already hear the "well that port should still be ours, we have 12 planes there and they only have 11!..." (Or add other lame whine...)

I like the fact that there'd be more strat targets though & somehow, maybe  the ability for it to influence the local economy would be nice too (well... plane spawning   )

We gettin trains soon, I wonder if that'll have an influence or another...

[the_hegemon]

I like the idea a lot, but I think that you should still be required to get troops on the ground at a location in order to capture it, strat stuff included.  Airpower alone does not take territory, you have to have people on the ground.

If one side were to launch an air attack, maybe the region around target could be turned to red or yellow, or some other color, to indicate that the area is being fought over and that there really is no definable frontline there at the moment?

Maybe also vary the number of troops required to capture a target with the number of buildings, etc. left standing.  So if all you do it destroy the anti-aircraft defenses, it will take a lot more troops to capture a facility intact than if you were to destroy everything there(and presumably kill most or all of the defenders in the air attack)

[Ghosth]

Great idea in theory nash!

One concern, I know that currently terrain designers have to stay within a 40,000 object limit. Now that may seem like a lot, but go count all the objects at a single small field.

6 AI acks, 2 mannable acks, 3 FH, 2 BH, 1 VH, 1 VH ack. Barracks, maproom (2 objects) radar, 4 fuel, 2 ammo bunkers. Plus something like 20 taxiways, 1 runway, 5 hanger pads.

So for one small field your running around 50 objects minimum. Adding a lot of strat targets, roads, rails, is going to put a LOT of strain on designing maps. The ETO map for example is already pushing the 40,000 limit.


Keep promoting it however! HT is a smart guy, he'll figure out a way!

[SKurj]

Awesome Nash!!! thanx +)

I was knocking around the idea of trying to put something on a webpage too.

That looks good up until today's additions +)
For those that like to read.... go check those posts, they address facility capture.

An Alternative to the base capture thingy..

SKurj

[ 08-20-2001: Message edited by: SKurj ]

[Regurge]

I'd love to see strat like that.

The Ancient Art of War in the Skies is an old WWI strategy game that incorporates alot of what your talking about. You can advance the front lines by bombing it directly (has local, short term effect), or by hitting supply depots, villages, and cities (broader, long term effect). You can also reduce the enemy's available aircraft by bombing his factories and airfields.

You can get this game for free here:  http://www.theunderdogs.org  (thanks to fscott for finding this)

I was playing it this weekend and even though its old its still fun. And i was thinking how I'd like to see the same strats in AH. And in AH the front line could be made of a series of VHs.

[ 08-20-2001: Message edited by: Regurge ]

[Tilt]

Originally posted by Nash:
...but here's kinda how I see Skurj's strat idea working.

   
[ 08-20-2001: Message edited by: Nash ]

I am totally in favour of this sort of approach... to me its the epitimy of what we should be about strategically.

Airfields being able to be captured permanently only by the movement of the front line to allow logistics to reach them..............

Facilities being captured without logistic support being unusable until the road / rail link is established back to relevant logistic supply points......

Key points  at logistic intersections being capturable (Cities & towns).

Cities have  associated logistic supply and manufacturing centres....... usually with local vehicle spawning facilities (garrisons)which must also be captured.

Roads provide a permanent undamagable (except for their bridges) supply route but with slow  delivery rate of logistics.

Railways provide faster supply routes but can be damaged.

Bridge / rail repair is via a timed delay since damage (time to be determined)occurred.

Ports provide logistic sea routes between each other but the delivery rate is only equal to roads.

Airfields are linked also to key facilities and their logistic sources by local towns.

Tilt

[Voss]

IE 5.5 and I still get a blank page...

The Internet hoodlums are squelching you.  

 

[AKSWulfe]

Voss, do you have Macromedia Flash Player 5 installed?

If not, it won't display.
-SW

[Zigrat]

the one problem id have is id rather have a tactical war as ewll as strategic. in falcon 4 (which works awesome with rp5 now) you can either bomb the fek out of the enemies supply and production system, or you can interdict the tanks in the field. both work nicely.

really i think the ULTIMATE flight sim is when something like falcon4 becomes a MMOG. I wouldnt even see the need for manned ground units, just model them on an AI level, but with the ability to run interdiction or strategic strikes. if you intedict the enemy, then your own (friendly) forces will run over the reduced strength troops. if you kill his supplies, the enemy cant upport his units, and the run out of gas etcera.

[SKurj]

Zigrat.. the fluid front represents the ground war.  It just doesn't do it with AI units which is not possible.
You can do the supply interdiction, you can kill his communications, you can cutoff his bases.
read my thread...

SKurj