Glider insertion, also how I would like AA guns to work.

No, it isn't a form of foreplay for air force pilots, it's a suggestion for when aircraft are implemented.

To start out I'll explain a system of how I'd like AA guns to work, so that I can then explain these gliders and how they make sense.

For a start, AA guns should require a radar to operate properly. Any AA structures placed around a radar should get a large range increase, and the radar itself should have a large radius of detection for aircraft, probably three or four times that of the current tank detection radius, as the air maps will be much larger and aircraft move much faster.

It follows that placing a few AA emplacements (and I would say have AA emplacements be bigger and more expensive than the standard turrets, like the size of an armory or something and costing 150/200 or even more each because this system requires that they be very potent, but offsets it with something else as I will explain) around a radar (and by extension, probably a base) provides effective area denial to any aircraft.

Now this mechanic does not make aircraft useless, because radars and AA turrets are both large and expensive, so you wouldn't be able to put them at every base you make, and certainly wouldn't be able to follow tanks with them, so this stops aircraft from being able to devastate a base unless you use absolutely massive numbers of them, and it also gives the ground combatants another target to destroy, either kill/sabotage the radar to cripple their air defences, or go for the turrets themselves, either one has its perks and both produce slightly different effects.

In addition to this, I would like to see the introduction of a glider, basically you load it up with infantry and you can then insert it into an enemy base, it wouldn't get picked up by radar or automated AA guns, but you could still target it with manned AA weapons. The glider itself would provide some of the capacities of an APC, it rearms you, and may even let you spawn (though that would be subject to balancing, perhaps have it researchable). It basically allows infantry to attack the enemy base without requiring an APC to drive across the map, tanks to break down the enemy front line, or destroy their air cover to facilitiate a transport ship drop. The downside is that you don't get any heavy support with it, and it is fragile and prone to being destroyed if discovered.

Some things I am not sure about are how it is brought onto the field, and how it is controlled.

What I'm thinking is that each side has 'glider entry points' defined in the map, and when you go to requisition a glider, you can choose a point for it to enter from, then would be on the edge of the map and the glider would appear at them, invisible, then fade in over a few seconds, which would both look OK and not cause problems, the people on the glider could have a fade in from black effect on their screens to go with it.

To fill the glider, I think the squad system can be used, a squad leader can to to an air factory and requisition a glider for a fixed price instead of a vehicle, then all the nearby members of his squad (to prevent him from pulling people out of vehicles or in combat on the other side of the map, which would be annoying) will teleport into the glider and the leader gets the controls. This is basically like a party bus except it's more automated. As a caveat, however, I think they should require a commander confirmation, as otherwise every idiot would buy one, and the nature of the gliders means that they require some ability to control and also you wouldn't want lots of them out there. So either have the commander buy them for a squad, or have a confirmation box appear for the commander when one is requested, whichever is less annoying for the comm.

The controls of the glider should be more or less normal fixed wing aircraft controls, except the glider constantly loses height and does so faster if you slow it down, the speed can be regained by taking the airbrake off but this should mean that the glider has a limited range and can't be re-used once it lands.

As to landing a glider, the system should work so that if the wings hit anything, they break off and the glider loses control, however if this is on the ground it should not be a problem, as the glider will simply skid all over the place but come to rest in a more or less usable position. The glider should take damage from impacts, but it would require a full speed impact into something to actually kill it, so you can land the glider in a forest as long as you slow it down first and don't drive straight into a tree.

I'm basically taking a lot from company of heroes, but I quite like the idea and that is actually how gliders work to a degree as far as I know, and I think it would be a lot of fun for squads who use it, and it would also be a cool mechanic in general. And it doesn't make the dropships useless because they are reusable, harder to kill, and can transport tanks.

Anyone got anything to add?

 

So you're trying to nerf something thats not in the game yet?

 

How can I nerf something that isn't in the game yet? Do you realise that that is logically impossible?

I rephrase my last point.

Does anyone have anything constructive to add?

 

It wouldn't make much sense to me to have a respawn point. I think that the glider idea should be researched in either physics as an upgrade to the existing drop ship, making it impossible to see on the radar like the current stealth aircraft bomber the Black Hawk.

Possibly have this in some way hinder the speed or acceleration or something of the aircraft to make it more paper, the downside of having stealth is that if you are spotted, you are pretty much screwed.

That or we could just give this whole idea to the scout, and have scouts be the newest important class when it comes to flight. Having scouts with radar stealth will be imperative to any infiltration mission. This will revitalize the usefulness of scouts, as will the vehicle speed increase.

As far as extended the current radars range, not more than 50%. Radars currently have a huge range as it is. Placing them in forward positions will be more important. I think to resolve the issue of having the range extended, make a mark time. That way, if the enemy passes through a radar zone, they are automatically targeted either for a certain period of time or until they are out of direct sight of any auto AA turret on the map that is locked on to them. That would make low flying aircraft a strategic importance. If people want radars to have direct vision of the target to track it, then we can just say that the radar picks up electromagnetic frequencies as well and triangulates it or some smart sounded stuff like that. Doesn't need to be true necessarily, only a small handful of people will get it, and only 1% of those people will actually be annoyed about it.

Other ideas would be to bring back the "This is only a spawn point for a squad and only if there is a squad mate in the vehicle" idea. except only apply it to this particular vehicle.

Thats about it for now, i might think of something later.

 

It makes as much sense as having an APC as a spawn point does, and it's also more fun as long as it isn't unbalanced.

And as I said, it isn't about radar stealth, it's about making the thing impervious to automated AA fire.

Restricting the AA autoturrets to this role makes fighters and manned AA weapons more important, as it should be, because this is a multiplayer game so players should be doing most of the fighting, turrets exist only to guard a base, and with this setup that is what they do, for the most part.

Radars do not have a large range, they're about a quarter of canyon in terms of coverage, and canyon isn't a very large map, if you're going to have maps eight times the size of the grid, that's going to need a lot of radars if you don't massively boost the detection range, at least for aircraft anyway.

 

I still like the idea of leaving a built in immunity to AA fire, but rather having the radar stealth skill up of the scout have that effect.

AA auto turrets will most likely be used to hold key front lines, and less so at bases.

I would like to see more maps that are really strung out either between islands or with wide open impassible areas (at least to land vehicles) to create choke points. that way having a string of radars across a decided front makes it more important. Also, if the enemy is smart, they will have scouts sab those radars, and then jeeps with engineers will be necessary cause they will be flying all over the place.

I agree that Automated AA turrets should be limited, but I doubt that they will be placed in bases, maybe 1 just in case, but rather they will be behind but within range of all the major fighting, at least close enough to force any transports to land short of the front.

other things that could help balance the radar coverage would be Line of Sight (LoS) radar and Electromagnetic Detection (EMD) radar. Line of sight will have an extended range, but be blocked by terrain, where as EMD would have a defined range where no matter what, it can detect the vehicle. The name is arbitrary, just the idea of it is important.

To fit in more with your idea, have LoS radar be standard, and gliders do not come up on the LoS. While gliders are gliding (not using the engine), they maintain a constant speed, and are undetectable by EMD radar upgrades.

You could also add a way to detect radar coverage on the mini map for the scout class.

anyhow, Spawning in the glider would be alright if it was easy to see. with the name glider, i imagine this thing would have a huge wing span and be difficult to miss. Add to that slow moving, and accelerating would be picked by by any radar, that would be mostly balanced.

 

The point I'm trying to make here is that aircraft is not in the game yet and so you do not know the impact (or the lack of thereof) on the game play. So you suggesting that AA turrets require radar, or that manned AA guns should be in game, or we should have something that will annoy the fuck out of the comm due to constant ninja attacks is ridiculous.

penis.

</rant>

 

Well I was more thinking having the thing be quite big, but have the wings snap off if you hit something, although I wouldn't object to having the wings stay around after they snap off, either on a long timer or dependant on the main body to stay alive. That would add to the visibility.

Basically when you land it, you have to trade off the health of the glider against the stealth of the glider, you can land it in a sparse forest but risk damaging it heavily, or you can land it in the open but risk being easily seen by anyone who comes along.

I was sort of envisioning that the emplaced AA guns would be to defend bases (and forward bases) while the mobile AA weaponry on vehicles and infantry would keep the front line secure, the downside being that they aren't as reliable as the automated guns are.

You could still hold down large areas with the AA emplacements, you would just have to build either a few emplacements scattered around the place, or you could centralise them into dedicated AA bases, with something like two or three turrets, a radar, some wall, and some ground defences each, which should cover a wider area and be more resistant to raiding bombers (as they shoot them down before they get into range, whereas the emplacements alone would shoot at them while they are attacking) but you also lose a much larger area if the base is destroyed.

I just like the idea of small facilities instead of just solitary turrets, I think they're more interesting and generally more cinematic than just the odd turret. And I like cinematics.

The idea of two radars is interesting, you could possibly combine it into one radar, where the current tank detection range is the EMD range, while the LOS range is much larger.

This would mean that if you put your radar on a high area, you get long range spotting of all targets, but your radar would still be usedful even if you put it behind a wall, it would also mean you could evade radar by flying through canyons. I actually like it quite a lot. I vote for it being included.

Basically I want AA guns to fire at radar locks from their local radar, so if you evade radar, you evade the guns, except the guns also have their own EMD range and they will still shoot at things inside them, it's just that including a radar would increase their range a lot, assuming you place the radar properly.

I do know how they will impact the game if I define the parameters for the things they will impact.

I am saying 'if this, then that' not 'things are like this, therefore this should also be like this'

Please read the post properly.

 

The idea sounds good, but honestly, aircraft are still in VERY early testing. There's no point suggesting this stuff until aircraft has been properly tested. It's going to get buried, and then if it's brought back up people will just take a piss on it because it was shot down once.

 

All I wonder is just how powerful the AA vehicles will be..

 

Then I'll shout at them.

I'm very good at being annoying, loud, and self-important. Three things which are essential for arguing with people and winning.

Besides, I don't see the problem with suggesting a balance for something before it's implemented, it would logically be the best time to do it because you can then incorporate anything required for the balance while you're developing the thing. As opposed to afterwards where you have to go back and possibly break a lot of other stuff making the changes.

 

Fixed.

 

Yeah to be honest you can justify your point as much as you want, but no amount of writing and bitching will take precedence over actual in-game testing. So don't think your opinion matters, even if you "define the parameters".

 

Yes, it *may* better to try and balance BEFORE its implemented, but what about the stuff you never though about? People will find exploits and use those. Like in crossroads. I'm sure the mapper never really though that an engineer could actually make his way up to the top by making walls on the rocks. The thought never occurred to him. Someone managed to find out that it did work (god knows how), and so an exploit was found which had never previously been though about.

So we can argue all we want but we won't find out exactly how to tweak and balance this thing perfectly because we don't even know how aircraft work because they're, obviously, not even done yet. There's really no point to any suggestion topic that has ANYTHING to do with aircraft. What we SHOULD focus on is what we have at the moment, and try to balance that. Although gliders would be fun.. weeee...

Just my 2 cents.

 

That is the most efficient method of winning an argument.

I devote considerable effort into thinking of everything, but I am aware that sometimes things slip through.

In that case, you balance after you develop it, but the benefits of trying to do as much balancing in the process are still present. By doing so you reduce the amount of balancing that has to be done afterwards.

This suggestion isn't about balancing though, it's about mechanics, the precise numbers can be defined later, this idea operates on the level of 'we have aircraft' not 'we have aircraft that move at this speed and do this much damage and are this expensive' you can change the numbers as you see fit, they don't change the nature of the idea or the gameplay mechanics associated with it.

It doesn't matter how the aircraft are balanced because you can balance this idea with them, it's the idea itself that's important.

This appears to be escaping many of you.

 

It is either a great injustice or an amazing ego that gets lines like this spoken.

While it is fine to suggest ideas, over specific examples are not good.

 

With me, it's probably both.

Things are best articulated by example, it's easier for people to understand. The numbers mentioned are relative, if the turret cost got doubled, then double the cost of the emplacements, or less, or more, whatever is balanced.

I avoid using numbers wherever possible because I am aware that without information on how the aircraft work, I can't balance for numbers, but I can balance by mechanics.

Over-specific would be if I provided exact information for all the things I mentioned, this is an idea, and as such it doesn't have any exact figures.

 

But... Gliders...
Why not just have a special really heavy engine for the transport that hides you from enemy radar..

 

Because gliders are cool and as I said, they work differently from transports.

 

Correction:
Hang-gliders are cool.

Gliders that are really just apcs with paper wings instead of wheels that attempt to do what orbital and paratrooper drops do are not only significantly less cool than the two previously mentioned, but also not innately cool in and of themselves.

Unless, of course, they're steampunk and driven by elves/gnomes/dwarves.


However, your AA gun idea I like, for style reasons at least. Though, it's also more complicated than the current turret system (from a learner's point of view), and it would also force dramatic changes on the implementation and balancing of aircraft in comparison with the ground vehicles.