Control of a destroyer

[Oldman731]

The players had no part in the death of Air Warrior.

While mostly true, there was an underlying current of unrest because the staff started to change flight models based on popular objection, rather than on flight test data.  The P-47 comes to mind.  That may be what EskimoJoe's thinking of.  I was worried that the same thing was happening here when the Brewster model was "adjusted" based on community insistence, although I think people did come up with some data to support the changes.

- oldman

[Hungry]

If the game was updated by what the players wanted, it would be dead like Air Warrior 20 years ago.

I was actually referring as much to the current state of opinions shown on this board as anything, no consensus, its obvious some would still be playing AH1 if they had their way. 

Growth through innovation, growth through modernization, growth through product development.  The planes must stay true to their real life counterparts or at least as much as possible, that is the charm of AH.  However gameplay is another matter, many have said its stale, but even the slightest mention of change is met with this endless point - counterpoint beat down.  I truly feel for HT from a business standpoint.

[Mister Fork]

I've been advocating for a player-controlled Destroyers for 10 years in Aces High. 

It would be a game-changer for sure - and if done well, it would open up the game to include the navy types who would then also love our CV's, Battleships, and then for them to hop into the Corsair's, Zekes, Zero's, Hellcats, and other Navy planes. I think it would completely revive our shrinking player base...

...but WTF do I know about MMO? 

[Hungry]

I've been advocating for a player-controlled Destroyers for 10 years in Aces High. 

It would be a game-changer for sure - and if done well, it would open up the game to include the navy types who would then also love our CV's, Battleships, and then for them to hop into the Corsair's, Zekes, Zero's, Hellcats, and other Navy planes. I think it would completely revive our shrinking player base...

...but WTF do I know about MMO? 

Agreed 100% and that would separate us from the rest, a Naval component with a highly accurate Air component!!!

ps where does HT find the Naval component expertise?

[Wiley]

Why does the game have to be everything to everyone?  Why does it need yet another thing to keep people out of the air?  There are good, focused boat and submarine games.  Why not play them?  There are good, focused tank games.  Why not play them?  There are good, focused FPS games.  Why not play them?

Why does everything have to be mashed into one game instead of picking a focus and delivering a superior experience in that aspect?

Minecraft seems popular.  They should add some construction and mining aspects to the game.  That would bring people in right?  Player created housing seems popular in other games.  Maybe we should add that too?  I just saw a listing for Mechanic Simulator 2016.  They should license that and add in Mechanic roles for all the vehicles.  That would add to the game I'm sure.

As far as paralysis by analysis, I wouldn't worry too much about it Hungry.  Anything on this board that's not from Hitech is pretty much just noise as far as affecting the direction of the game.  If he sees an idea he likes, he uses it.  If he doesn't like it, he doesn't.  Whatever either side of the discussion has to say doesn't amount to much other than possibly fleshing out the idea.

Wiley.

[Hungry]

Why does the game have to be everything to everyone?  Why does it need yet another thing to keep people out of the air?  There are good, focused boat and submarine games.  Why not play them?  There are good, focused tank games.  Why not play them?  There are good, focused FPS games.  Why not play them?

Wiley.

Wiley I understand, the recent posts along these lines has been how to attract new players, this could be a way.  Yes until the new crowd gets here it very well would / could detract from the air war, but at some point doesn't the risk if you will need to be taken to grow the crowd and ensure the future for AH?  We want them here not in those other games.

[68EZPkns]

I never intended to suggest a destroyer could be taken from a task force, way I imagine it would be spawned from ports only, with several spawns in diff directions out into the middle of the water. And has been suggested before about having diff task forces, a bombardment TF with a BB and Hvy cruisers with DD escort. And a CV TF with a Atlanta class Lt Cruiser and DDs. The bombardment should have spwnable LSTs with limited Gvs,no tigers and whirbs. Just Shermans and M16s,M3s.

[Hungry]

"In World War II, aircraft carriers were not the only ships to launch and recover aircraft. Cruisers and battleships each carried a few small floatplanes. Most were Curtis SOC Seagulls or Vought OS2U Kingfishers. Curtis SO3C Seamews and SC Seahawks also saw some use in the war"

I hope that's accurate, I can envision a destroyer launching from base (port) with its scout planes up looking for the enemy CV.  In turn I can see the destroyer from the CV group breaking off to intercept the incoming destroyer, its own scout planes trying to find the enemy destroyers location

[68EZPkns]

Why does the game have to be everything to everyone?  Why does it need yet another thing to keep people out of the air?  There are good, focused boat and submarine games.  Why not play them?  There are good, focused tank games.  Why not play them?  There are good, focused FPS games.  Why not play them?

Why does everything have to be mashed into one game instead of picking a focus and delivering a superior experience in that aspect?

Minecraft seems popular.  They should add some construction and mining aspects to the game.  That would bring people in right?  Player created housing seems popular in other games.  Maybe we should add that too?  I just saw a listing for Mechanic Simulator 2016.  They should license that and add in Mechanic roles for all the vehicles.  That would add to the game I'm sure.

As far as paralysis by analysis, I wouldn't worry too much about it Hungry.  Anything on this board that's not from Hitech is pretty much just noise as far as affecting the direction of the game.  If he sees an idea he likes, he uses it.  If he doesn't like it, he doesn't.  Whatever either side of the discussion has to say doesn't amount to much other than possibly fleshing out the idea.

Wiley.

I think your logic is flawed Wiley, do really think that if all Gvs were eliminated from the game that all those players that like to tank would jump in planes? I think most would leave the game for another were they can play tanks. There is nothing about the gound game that keeps those who prefer aircraft from doing what they want to do. Personally I like to do it all.But some players fly very little or not all  and some play tanks very little or not at all. Adding another dimension to the game I see as only helping bring in more players.

[68EZPkns]

"In World War II, aircraft carriers were not the only ships to launch and recover aircraft. Cruisers and battleships each carried a few small floatplanes. Most were Curtis SOC Seagulls or Vought OS2U Kingfishers. Curtis SO3C Seamews and SC Seahawks also saw some use in the war"

I hope that's accurate, I can envision a destroyer launching from base (port) with its scout planes up looking for the enemy CV.  In turn I can see the destroyer from the CV group breaking off to intercept the incoming destroyer, its own scout planes trying to find the enemy destroyers location

Destroyers never carried any float planes,just not big enough.  But cruisers and BBs did and I would love to add those to the game.

[Hungry]

Destroyers never carried any float planes,just not big enough.  But cruisers and BBs did and I would love to add those to the game.

Thanks wasn't 100% sure

but I still like the concept

[Wiley]

I think your logic is flawed Wiley, do really think that if all Gvs were eliminated from the game that all those players that like to tank would jump in planes? I think most would leave the game for another were they can play tanks. There is nothing about the gound game that keeps those who prefer aircraft from doing what they want to do. Personally I like to do it all.But some players fly very little or not all  and some play tanks very little or not at all. Adding another dimension to the game I see as only helping bring in more players.

Nope.  I don't think that at all.  They likely would go play a tank game.  They also likely would whine a lot less about aircraft bombing them in their tank game.  At least here you'd know when you log in that, "Hey.  There are only a dozen enemies flying."

The development time that goes toward GVs and boats could've been applied to aircraft related things.  The aircraft game would be in a significantly different place from where it is at the moment if the GV and boat stuff wasn't there.

Maybe the game would be dead, but it might also be that a better aircraft experience could have brought in more people as well to fly.

Wiley.

[bustr]

CV's are currently floating airfields that drag along 8 inch gun battery's to augment for not having heavy bombers and destroyers as auto ack. The time CV's take to get anywhere with our 25milex25mil sectors is like watching grass grow compared to the numbers of air and ground sorties you can launch to have fun. On some maps you could waste your whole evening in your 1 person controlled destroyer driving around doing nothing. Unless the ports for them are required to be in places that won't survive being owned by the host country an hour after the new map flips.

Then what next? Obviously starting from the port will take all night to hunt for enemy CV and other destroyers. Unless you convince Hitech to make a terrain design requirement that all destroyer ports have up to eight spawns stretching across 10-20 sectors to get your single destroyer near the enemy and vulnerable to any kiddy with a poni and two 1000lb bombs. Or require ship combat regions with spawns just outside of them which will be vulnerable to some bored bomber driver circling the area all night waiting for task forces and single driver destroyers to spawn in.

One destroyer acting like a lone wolf is also open for abuse against fields, more likely self inflicted by the shore battery. So then what again, a squadron of destroyers from each destroyer port driven by a single player? And the game world of warships, is that another game with a very tiny arena to force you into combat? We don't have a very tiny arenas, where as some of our competitors arenas will fit into one of our sectors.

How do you account for the vast distances of our world coupled with the time to get anywhere in something as slow as your own personal destroyer? And not get towered by some bored kiddy with two 1000lb bombs while you try to get anywhere. Even if you get him, he's screaming on country about a lone destroyer for the picking. What is a lone destroyer to all the expert CV killers our game has nurtured? How long do you survive in a lone PT with them around?

[Hungry]

Bustr

Great idea, Destroyer ports, launching and destroying, PT's that can actually sink something with those torps, destroyer hunters from the air, thanks I was wondering about that, adds even more to the game, slow down though let HT get 3 finished first

[Sabre]

While the air component was and will continue to be the focus of AH, Dale planned from the beginning to add GVs, along with an FPS soldier element and submarines. The addition of the later would necessitate the addition of ASW elements, and while he never told me explicitly that this would include player-controlled surface combatants, it seemed to me to be implied in his comments about this. Bustr's arguments are not show-stoppers, but rather design challenges. As for the question of why there should be non-aircraft options at all, when there are not enough players at present, that's an easy one. I personally barely have time for AH; I don't want to spend time trying to master the mechanics of another game. So, if I'm in AH and having no luck AvA, I'll switch to GVs for a nice change. Keeps the game fresh for me. Not only that, but AvA was but a fraction of what air power did during WWII. Ground attack, CAS, supply interdiction were all part of the mix, and each presents it's own challenges. I want more options, not less, when I invest in a game as I have in AH.

As for player-controlled DDs, I'm not fundamentally against the idea. As with any new component under consideration, it depends on how it is added. Some may remember this, but I used to be part of the events team (one of the original in AH, as it happens). One of the single-frame scenarios I designed was an all-surface ship battle, using the old Philippines map. I set it up so there were 8 cruisers, 4 versus 4, along with PT boats available for spawn and a couple scout planes for each side. The battle lasted close to two hours and was great fun. Having player-controlled DDs would allow similar action. Give the "skipper" direct control of the wheel and throttle, instead of the clunky course plotting we use now, would make them much harder for the lone-wolf pilots to kill. Providing the ability to take on extra gunners to man the main guns and to augment auto-ack (the smaller calibre AA could be auto-ack), and this would be a blast!