Practical ways to expand AH ground and sea potential.

[Arlo]

Ground units/AI and otherwise. Sea units, AI and otherwise. Order of development that doesn't overwhelm the developers but can still offer an immediate draw for potential players and benefit for the existing base (whether ma or event-driven or both).

On a bit by bit basis (whether it's a 'test the waters' thing or a dedicated plan to introduce a broader aspect to the game) I would be glad to see 2 things added:

1. a Japanese carrier

2. C-47s given 'formation' capability and various ground capture targets taking different numbers to capture (why destroy everything to white flag something when you can capture your targets intact? - Maybe, technically, it would be a third wish to see drunks engaging if dropped within a certain vicinity of each other (or a defending force being approached by invaders).

One, two or three things with what I perceive to be a degree of developer difficulty that increases in order of request.

[Saxman]

Ok, here's my two posts from the F8F thread:

Surface Fleets:

I would add several classes of each ship type, covering the Early, Mid and Late war periods, and include vessels from the four main navies (USN, RN, Kriegsmarine, and IJN). I'd expand the types of fleets as well. IE:

Carrier Battle Group - Surface fleet essentially as it is now (CV, CA and DD escorts) but remove LVTs and PTs, cannot pass within 25 miles of shore.
Light Battle Group - Surface fleet with a CVL and CL in place of the CV and CA (CV vs. CVL can be determined by tonnage. IIRC, most British CVs would be considered CVLs rather than full-sized CVs).
Bombardment Group - Surface fleet replacing CV with a BB.
Landing Group - Consisting of 1 CVE (limited plane set; TBM, F4F, FM2, A6M, B5N, D3A, etc.) 1 LST (LVTs) and escorts of DEs.

Removing landing craft from the CV and BB groups means those two battle groups will now be a bit more realistically used, especially if you increase their closest approach to shore out to 25 miles (distance chosen since that's how far two bases on land should be) for the CV, and perhaps 15 miles for the BB (should still place it in guns range of shore targets). The landing group will be able to approach close enough to deploy LVTs (with the LST acting as a VH; destroy that and the group can't launch LVTs), but the reduced AAA capability means defenders don't have to deal as much with enemy AAA OVER THEIR OWN BASE (which I know frustrates EVERYONE).

Include a couple different classes as appropriate for each ship type from each country and for each arena. Say, an EWMA American-style CV group would consist of one Yorktown-class carrier, one Brooklyn-class cruiser, and several Clemson-class destroyers (I went with the four-pipers because numbers -- 156 of those were built -- and because the four-pipers would be visually distinctive).

This would have the ADDED bonus of providing more options for scenarios and special events. Imagine a Midway scenario where the Japanese fleet is made up of Hiryu, Soryu, Akagi and [/i]Kaga[/i]-class ships vs. three American Yorktowns (have fun with those starboard-side islands on Hiryu and Akagi, kids). ESPECIALLY if the new decal system HTC added to show the chess pieces could be extended to displaying a deck number based on arena settings, instead (so Yorktown, Enterprise and Hornet could all be properly numbered).

Ground War:

Rather than introducing an FPS game for infantry, have each "Army" act sort of like a CV. Armies deploy from a new base type (Camp), which can also launch GVs. Going to the army takes you to the Command Post. From the CP, the player can either spawn in a GV from the "motorpool," or issue orders to the army itself (move to a position, entrench, or attack a position). Say, an army that's moving or attacking will be shown in groups of fire teams, say with riflemen, mortars, bazookas, etc. An entrenched army would have machine gun nests, entrenched riflemen, mortarmen, etc. I'd also give tankers the ability to "dig in." It takes so many seconds to go into effect, and once dug-in the tank can't move (except, obviously, its turret). A dug-in tank decreases its icon distance, making it harder to spot, maybe even earthen berms around it to protect it from enemy fire. In order to move again, the tank has to first take so many seconds again to take down its camo netting, sandbags, etc.

Armies can capture Fields, Bases and Camps, which would also be defended by AI ground troops (these defending troops would not be player-controlled). The number or availability of AI ground troops would be determined by the condition of troops at the base. IE, knocking out the barracks at a base means the base doesn't have troops available to defend itself (or deploy additional troops if there are already defenders spawned). Progress of the ground war would then be affected by these factors:

1) Directly attacking and/or defending infantry positions via air or ground.
2) Interdiction of supply convoys or destruction of supply depots.
3) Attacking/defending strategic positions (bridges, etc.)

The army would have a given number of troops. If enough troops are destroyed, the army is destroyed. The army is reinforced by supply convoys (which would launch from supply depots) or player-delivered supplies via air-drops, M3s, etc. The players would also be responsible for providing armor support to the ground troops.

Now, I would NOT eliminate the ability to capture bases via C-47s and other troop carriers. HOWEVER, bases behind enemy lines would suffer penalties, such as:

1) Unable to repair itself/doesn't receive AI supply convoys.
2) Random enemy AI troop spawns at the perimeter (you're behind enemy lines, do you REALLY think the enemy isn't going to try to take it back)?

That means that if players capture a base behind the lines, the PLAYERS have to take responsibility for defending it.

[Saxman]

An addendum on the army:

One option would be to treat the army like an RTS, so the player commanding the army can move and place individual units (say, at the company level, so maybe the "Army" is actually more like a "Regiment" instead. For gameplay purposes, mortar and machine gun sections, and artillery batteries would be treated like a separate company).

Maybe give the "commander" a map screen with the position of all friendly units that he works from. Enemy ground units can be "marked" on the map either by contact between the enemy and part of the "Army," or if overflown and by aircraft like the Storch (maybe add the L-3 Grasshopper as an Allied version).

Oh, and require that anyone managing an army must first take command of the army to be able to do so.

[Arlo]

An addendum on the army:

One option would be to treat the army like an RTS, so the player commanding the army can move and place individual units (say, at the company level, so maybe the "Army" is actually more like a "Regiment" instead. For gameplay purposes, mortar and machine gun sections, and artillery batteries would be treated like a separate company).

Maybe give the "commander" a map screen with the position of all friendly units that he works from. Enemy ground units can be "marked" on the map either by contact between the enemy and part of the "Army," or if overflown and by aircraft like the Storch (maybe add the L-3 Grasshopper as an Allied version).

Oh, and require that anyone managing an army must first take command of the army to be able to do so.

As nice as both posts above sound (and I can honestly dig most of what you've covered) what rating would you give on a scale of 1-10 in developmental difficulty if all of it was adopted as a goal/ How long do you think it may take? Is there something that can be envisioned that could perhaps be introduced in piecemeal form? Something where each new element improves the game without having to take an extreme amount of development and coding (like the new graphics engine) and the players are left waiting in anticipation for such a long time that they become discouraged?

[Saxman]

Frankly, I'd rather see as much as possible implemented whole rather than in pieces. It would be much easier to make sure it all plays nice together that way.

PS: Can you edit your subject in the OP? It's complaining every time I try to post because it's too long.

[Arlo]

Frankly, I'd rather see as much as possible implemented whole rather than in pieces. It would be much easier to make sure it all plays nice together that way.

When it comes to introducing game-play elements and objects it may actually be best to do such piecemeal. The player base receives a sense of continual development. This is already a tried and proven method with positive response. Working on a large, demanding and intricate large-scale change to the game is not a guaranteed method to avoid coding gremlins and player migration (I wouldn't be surprised if it actually increases the chances). But we're merely discussing a difference when it comes to how major changes should be practically introduced.

Carrier task forces exist. Tactical deployment changes involves developing code that can consistently apply limitations or new abilities to all maps that accommodate AH ships.

Invasion fleets would then have to have the coding currently in place. This may (likely will) require coding to help the maps differentiate the two types of task forces.

You have battle-wagon TFs that will also have limitations when it comes to shore boundaries. But they may also require an better/more advanced ship to ship and long range ship to shore targeting code.

The behavior of drunks is currently a simple code involving them running into a map-room if they are dropped close enough. An AI battlefield where drunks behave differently depending on a number of circumstances and options selected by the players may involve complex targeting and reaction coding. Tying the AI troop availability and replenishment to barracks objects and 'troop factory' objects adds more.

My methodology involves:

1a. Code/model an object/element (let's say an IJN CV).
2a. Code a second CV TF that features the new CV in place of the Essex class.
3a. At this point, several maps may require adjusting (but this is going to happen soon to all the maps with the terrain adjustment).

One element added. Players (especially the event players) have immediate (or at least more timely) immersion improvement gratification. One down for the big pic with players receiving the benefit of the change. 30 days? 60 days? 6 months? I honestly don't know but I suspect it would be less than attempting to introduce even one more element alongside.

Next piece ....

1b. Code/model 2 BBs (one Iowa/one Yamato).
2b. Code 2 battle-wagon TFs - hold off on implementing map limitations.
3b. Map adjustments.

And so forth. Each element seeing the light of day bit by bit. Current player base enjoying the additions. A lure for surface fleet game fans. Other ships added to increase the variety of fleet combat over time. Perhaps a break to introduce more elements for ground battle as we go. Perhaps (*gasp*) some planes (Junkers JU-52 - again for immersion) added alongside these element or in between.

At this point, players once again appreciate continual development (and the 'easy-to-bore' ones might have less tendency for such).

Other than that, I think our 'in the end' vision of what can be added to the game to make it more immersive is quite a lot alike. 

[Saxman]

I don't see why you'd need to create separate TG types for an American carrier and a Japanese carrier. If an American TG and a Japanese TG are going to have the exact same capabilities (ship types, closest approach to shore, etc.), with the only differences being the capabilities of the individual ships THEMSELVES (IE number and types of guns, the amount of damage they can take, etc.) just set it up so when the map designer creates a TG he selects what class of CV, CA, DD, etc. to use.

So like I said: You only need to have 3-4 TG types: CV, CVL (and CV vs. CVL could both fall under CV, anyway), BB, LST. Then just set it up so the map designer determines the specifics of what classes that get used.

[Arlo]

I don't see why you'd need to create separate TG types for an American carrier and a Japanese carrier. If an American TG and a Japanese TG are going to have the exact same capabilities (ship types, closest approach to shore, etc.), with the only differences being the capabilities of the individual ships THEMSELVES (IE number and types of guns, the amount of damage they can take, etc.) just set it up so when the map designer creates a TG he selects what class of CV, CA, DD, etc. to use.

Not types. Actual object layout. The current CV TF has the Essex object. If an IJ CV object is modeled then a second type of CV TF exists. Not in form and function (layout) but in object composition.
With new objects come new fleet compositions to select for maps. If I'm wrong in this then a map designer can correct me.

Never-the-less, the game receives benefit for each ship added. With the IJ CV, Pacific events get an immersive platform for the players at time of launch and recovery. Good to add the moment it is modeled.

With the battleships, I envision 2 models added as opposing units (even though the Iowa class and Yamato never met face to face - should just one strategic or tactical decision been made differently they could have and I feel that also a balancing opportunity,as well). A German and British BB being modeled later opens up both an Atlantic match up and even a Pacific match up with the British involved.

Cruisers (one per nation) may be optional based on the amount of player fleet activity seen wih the CVs and BBs added. (I anticipate it will be noticeable.)

I agree, as I've stated in the past, that an AI ground war would be a good option (rather than a FPS). But even if there is a FPS element added (lots of coding there) I envision opposing drunks, much the way you do. I would add C-47 formations (that, i would think, should be an easy code). What many bring up is the troop map-room capture numbers that HTC has stated would be kept to the maximum number of paratroopers one player could drop (I've never seen the post but enough players have referenced I accept it as the case). If that's the case and AI troop function remains the same then map-rooms would surely be adjusted to a 30 drunk capture. At least in phase one. If a second phase is implemented where troops can capture individual buildings in a town until a certain percentage is achieved, then that would challenge the status quo (i think) - for wouldn't a likely percentage be at least 51% (and I don't see the size of towns decreasing). Captures would indeed requite more troops.

Now, if there are no defenders, I suppose troops could actually go from house to house but shouldn't at least one troop be left behind in each house/building to retain capture status? I don't remember the actual number of buildings in a town but if we say that 80 is the norm then it would take 41 troops to take a town (unopposed with no guns for defense left up). If friendly troops are dropped/bused in then a battle ensues. This could mean that one stick of 10 troops dropped manages to kill just one invader but otherwise is wiped out and the town is no longer white flagged. I find this fair enough. The advantage goes to the defender. BUT ..... a plane swoops down and takes out just one building and the town goes white flag again*.

The rules are easy enough to develop. The code that makes it work?  I dunno. In this instance, however, we are simply changing the dynamics of invasion/capture - adding more of a boots on the ground feel.

1. Air transport formations.
2. Captureable objects (town buildings) with more troops needed (players used to easy captures may not like this so much).

However - those 2 steps alone bring a big dynamic change.

Baby steps - giant leaps (all in how one perceives it).

*Unless they had the bad luck of blowing up a town building that was already captured (building blows up - the invading soldier in it dies). Kind of a c-shoot there.

[Saxman]

Not types. Actual object layout. The current CV TF has the Essex object. If an IJ CV object is modeled then a second type of CV TF exists. Not in form and function (layout) but in object composition.
With new objects come new fleet compositions to select for maps. If I'm wrong in this then a map designer can correct me.

As I think about this, I keep going back to the strategy mode mission building in 1942: You specified you wanted a task group and added it on the map. Then you went into the TG settings and selected the specific ships.

I see the same thing here: Mapmaker specifies he wants a CV fleet on the map. He then goes into the fleet object and specifies the actual composition.

There's no reason there should be a need for separate "Essex" Task Groups and "Hiryu/Soryu/Shokaku/Whatever" Task Groups.

And I definitely think it's important to add more than just one ship per type per country. We shouldn't have Essexes and Baltimores in the EWMA, while the Fletchers are REALLY borderline and depends on where the cutoff between EW and MW is (so like I suggested, use Yorktowns, Brooklyns and Clemsons).

Likewise, there should NOT be Iowas in the EW or MW arenas. I'd even argue against Yamato and would advise keeping her for LWMA as she didn't see much in the way of forward-deployment until that period.

I do like the idea of changing capture mechanics to focus on actually holding territory and eliminating the maproom. Which for that matter, if AI (if player-directed) infantry battles were to decide territorial changes, I'd argue that you could do away with destroying town buildings entirely.

[Arlo]

There's no reason there should be a need for separate "Essex" Task Groups and "Hiryu/Soryu/Shokaku/Whatever" Task Groups.

How is the game going to know which nationality of ships to portray without the different map objects being connected to the map?

Likewise, there should NOT be Iowas in the EW or MW arenas. I'd even argue against Yamato and would advise keeping her for LWMA as she didn't see much in the way of forward-deployment until that period.

Without more participation in the EW and MW arenas, I don't see a current point in changing the TF composition, what-so-ever, in those arenas. However, for events, I could see modeling older BBs first (Pennsylvania class for U.S., Nagato for the Japanese). Perhaps model them instead of the Iowa and Yamato, using the older models throughout the war (as some were). The Iowa and Yamato could be held for later release if the player base makes a demand for them.

I'd argue that you could do away with destroying town buildings entirely.

Valid point, for capture purposes. But the bomber boys (self included, time to time) like blowing up churches, hospitals, the mayor's house and brothels.

[Saxman]

How is the game going to know which nationality of ships to portray without the different map objects being connected to the map?

Like I said, all the map object should define is that particular task group is a CV fleet, bombardment group, or invasion fleet. The rest is options specified by the map-maker. Maybe something like this:

Task Group Name:       Automatically populated to use next available field number. IE C6 = Carrier 6, B8 = Battleship 8, etc.
Task Group Type:       <Drop Down Options: Carrier, Battleship, Invasion>
Default Country:        <Drop Down Options: Bishop, Rook, Knight>
Port:                        <Drop Down>
Show Decal:              (Radio Buttons: Yes, No)
Decal Type:               (Radio Buttons: Owner Country, Text)
Decal Text:                [Text Entry Box] This is greyed-out unless the Text button above is selected.
Primary Ship Class:      <Drop Down Options: Yorktown, Hiryu, Essex, Ark Royal...> The available classes are dependent on type of TG. Primary is the ship that triggers respawn of the group if sunk.
Secondary Ship Class:  <Drop Down Options: Baltimore, Brooklyn, Hood...> If you want to tie nationalities, have it determined by the Primary ship. IE, selecting an American carrier means only American ships are available in this list.
Number of Escorts:      <Drop Down>
Escort Ship Class:        <Drop Down Options: Fletcher, Clemson...> As above you can have the primary ship act as filter.

So the object itself isn't a US task group or Japanese task group or British task group. It's JUST a task group.

[Arlo]

Like I said, all the map object should define is that particular task group is a CV fleet, bombardment group, or invasion fleet. The rest is options specified by the map-maker. Maybe something like this:

Task Group Name:       Automatically populated to use next available field number. IE C6 = Carrier 6, B8 = Battleship 8, etc.
Task Group Type:       <Drop Down Options: Carrier, Battleship, Invasion>
Default Country:        <Drop Down Options: Bishop, Rook, Knight>
Port:                        <Drop Down>
Show Decal:              (Radio Buttons: Yes, No)
Decal Type:               (Radio Buttons: Owner Country, Text)
Decal Text:                [Text Entry Box] This is greyed-out unless the Text button above is selected.
Primary Ship Class:      <Drop Down Options: Yorktown, Hiryu, Essex, Ark Royal...> The available classes are dependent on type of TG. Primary is the ship that triggers respawn of the group if sunk.
Secondary Ship Class:  <Drop Down Options: Baltimore, Brooklyn, Hood...> If you want to tie nationalities, have it determined by the Primary ship. IE, selecting an American carrier means only American ships are available in this list.
Number of Escorts:      <Drop Down>
Escort Ship Class:        <Drop Down Options: Fletcher, Clemson...> As above you can have the primary ship act as filter.

So the object itself isn't a US task group or Japanese task group or British task group. It's JUST a task group.

I have a feeling we're talking about the same thing but misunderstanding each other horribly. 

[Saxman]

I have a feeling we're talking about the same thing but misunderstanding each other horribly. 

From what you're describing, you want to make two completely separate map object types for an American CV group vs. Japanese CV group.

What I'm saying is, the map object type would just be, "CV Group."

[Arlo]

From what you're describing, you want to make two completely separate map object types for an American CV group vs. Japanese CV group.

What I'm saying is, the map object type would just be, "CV Group."

Does the drop-down selection list you describe exist or is it how you envision it would be if additional coding is applied?

[Saxman]

Does the drop-down selection list you describe exist or is it how you envision it would be if additional coding is applied?

It's how I envision it.

And obviously, this would just be for establishing the default settings on a given map. Give the CMs the ability to change the group settings on the fly for special events.