Aces High is a vibrant game that offers players many avenues for enjoyment, but its in-game missions are much more bland than they could be. Indeed, every mission follows the same set structure:
* Plane choice
* Load out
* Home Base
Once the mission is launched, all incentive for following the planner’s design is, essentially, voluntary and imaginary. Since perk points are independent of missions, and text buffer “success” is defined as kills or damage, rather than completing your mission, players have no incentive, for example, to merely drive away an interceptor from the bomber stream. Instead, the individual is “better off” by chasing down the interceptor and killing it.
This is not necessarily a bad thing, as people should not be forced to play a certain way, but I do think the game would be more fun and fresh for more people if this were not the only option to reach quantifiable success.
I propose overhauling the in-game mission editor. When someone attempts to plan a mission, the very first box they should check is either:
[Default]
or
[Advanced]
Checking “default” will bring the planner to exactly what we have today, with the same exact functions and outcomes. People won’t be forced to learn new things if they don’t want to.
However, should a person wish to, they could check “advanced,” and this would bring up a new clipboard screen. On this screen would be a set of options for the type of mission to be planned.
For example:
[ ] Bombing Run
[ ] Base Capture
[ ] Fighter sweep
[ ] Naval attack
[ ] Area Defense
[ ] Ground Assault
[ ] Resupply Run
The basic idea is that a mission planner commits to a mission objective and a set of victory conditions to determine if the objective is met before it is launched. All players who participate in the mission receive a perk point reward based on how well those victory conditions are met (as opposed to the current system wherein they receive perk points based on their individual actions regardless of the mission).
For example, let’s pretend you check “Bombing Run.” This would then bring up an additional list of options. These options would each be arrowed and open a drop-down menu. By selecting “Bombing Run,” the following drop-down menus might be available:
* Escorted? (Yes/No)
* Primary target? (A scrollable drop-down list of the various available targets—may need to break this into further subdivisions to avoid a truly massive list)
* Secondary target? (Another scrollable drop-down, in case the primary target is destroyed, etc., before the mission reaches it).
*Acceptable Bomber Casualties? (0 – 100% in increments)
*Acceptable Escort Casualties? (0 – 100% in increments)
Selecting “100%” for either would make the mission victory conditions easier to accomplish, but would also result in less reward (perk points). I do not know the exact formula that should be used, but for illustrative sake, let’s use the following:
IF acceptable bomber casualties=%0 THEN perk reward=10
IF acceptable bomber casualties=%50 THEN perk reward=5
IF acceptable bomber casualties=%100 THEN perk reward=1
In this example, escort fighters would not be required to shoot down a single enemy plane to get a reward. They would merely need to get the bombers home (determined when the last living bomber lands). If they did get kills, they would get more perk points, but even the worst shot would get a reward for being part of a successful team.
A similar formula could be used to determine how many points are given for destruction. First of all, you’d select the target. Let’s pretend it is a city. Second of all, you would sign up for desired damage (1 – 100%). The less damage you attempt to inflict, the less points you can receive (again, in this example, 1 – 10). You could also stand to gain more points by attempting to take out more difficult targets (more for a HQ than for a front line base’s city, for example).
This same basic idea could be applied to the other mission types. A fighter sweep, for example, might have the following sub-options:
* Sectors? (Allow the planner to select up to four or so)
* Primary alt? (0 – 5,000 feet, 5,001- 10,000 feet, 10,001 – 15,000 feet, and so on)
* Secondary alt? (Same as above)
* Primary Target? (Bombers or fighters)
* Secondary Target? (Reversed)
* Acceptable Casualties? (0 – 100%)
In this instance, the amount of perk points awarded could be based on:
1. That a primary target was destroyed
2. That actual casualties were at or under the acceptable limit
3. The relative danger of the sectors (ie, what is the friendly to enemy ratio? Bad odds would give better perks and encourage people to seek combat).
All other mission types would follow a similar outline specified to its type.
In essence:
You select your target, victory conditions, and acceptable casualties ahead of time. IF you accomplish these victory conditions, and do so while keeping your casualties to an acceptable percentage, THEN you get perk points. IF you do not, you do not lose anything, but you do not gain those perk points.
Forseen Issues
The greatest issue that I can foresee is the usual problem with “spies,” or other players out to ruin everyone else’s fun. The default system helps (but doesn’t cure) this problem by keeping objectives secret until the mission has launched, and having to sign up for a specific objective prior to launch may make disruptive behavior easier.
My solution is to allow the option make missions private, and allow access to only certain squads, should the planner choose. Another drop down menu with the squad names would be present, and if they are selected, a player in that squad would see the following message in their text buffer:
“SYSTEM: Vudak has invited 71 Squadron to a mission.”
This would notify players in that squadron that there is a mission available to them. They would go to the normal missions tab on their clipboard to join it, should they so choose.
A player could also opt to have the mission open for all to see. Perhaps a drop down menu for “Private?” (Yes or no)
I believe this system could:
1. Promote combat, by giving an added incentive for fighter sweep missions against bad local odds;
2. Promote replayability, by adding new challenges a player could voluntarily impose on himself;
3. Decrease the need for a large group to gang up on one plane to try and be the one to shoot it down, because with certain missions perk points could be gained without needing to shoot anything down;
4. Promote attacks on a wider range of targets (instead of being worthless, or merely a “qualitative” challenge, attacks on strat could now have a quantitative measurement of achievement). This could also have the effect of decreasing hording, since taking bases or shooting down planes would no longer be the only visible measures of success.
5. Help newer and less skilled players feel like they are a useful part of a team
6. Promote more authentic WW2 combat (though NOT require it).
No one would be forced to do anything, and no one would be punished for refusing to do something. This would simply increase one’s options while not taking away a single part of the traditional game play for anyone else.
Thoughts?
