Kaktus29 Posted October 4, 2013 Posted October 4, 2013 I was thinking how could we resolve the issue of MP game that is more WAR oriented than battle oriented, .. WAR usually last at least 3-5 days which we cannot simulate in a 2-3 hours MP battle.. So, would you be willing to have a dedicated server that would run 24/7 and store "sessions" (that last up to 4 hours) and after a session is done a person/programmer or whatever who would get paid (yeah, i thought it would be better for the WAR mp to have a pay per use idea to eliminate children that give up the moment they get shot) would get the results of the session stored into the map and carry it to another session which can happen after the 15 minute break or at some other date arranged by the members of the WAR MP campaign. What i would like to see is manpower and efficiency simulated in Airports, so if a strike on the airport is done, and you damage/destroy the fuel trucks stationed there this would mean re-fueling the plane would last 80% longer, or 300% longer to simulate the difficulties in delivering jet fuel from storing area to parking plane area.. and if fuel stores get bombed than this gets even harder since fuel will be supplied by road (trucks) or by air (air supply-thus the need for transport planes) .. If the airport gets bombed, airstrip especially you could use your "manpower" of stationed technicians, workers etc, to patch the strip but that would diminish their ability to service the planes that are already in the airport waiting to be repaired, serviced etc.. So, all in all, a DCS: Airport manager where you have oversight of machinery at disposal (fire-trucks, mechanical tools to do airplane stuff with it, plus actual service technicians -stationed in warehouses and hangars doing the "work"-who can be killed if airstrike bombs the place and they are not evacuated in time.. This all comes along nicely in the WAR MP event, with multiple "4 hours sessions" since if lets say BLUE force uses planes in high frequency (after landing soon they go up etc) this would make the need to service the plane much higher, more expensive and also risk damage to the plane if you exceed the "safe" limit for the plane. Also you get to decide which airports will be your major ones, and which your secondary one, do you want to disperse it all equally but reduce effectiveness in logistics since you have to supply many airports at the same time? or increase effectiveness in the one major airport with all the gear, and planes and efficiency you can hope for but risk a total catastrophe if major airport assault succeeds ? Same logic should go to the Ammo depot area's that you can design where to be at and how big and all the ramifications of such a decision that befall your side would follow. Rules would be after 4 hour session stops all the planes in the air at this time AND in friendly territory get "force landing" at closest airport regardless if its armed,logistically supported or not-meaning if you try to push the limit and fly at the danger closing 4 hour mark you risk starting the next session with a plane at an airport isolated and without fuel etc and the plane being a sitting duck or having to wait to refuel the jet in longer times and so on and so forth. This is where the 2D comes into play.. for the WAR MP to actually make sense we have to avoid the 3D actual combat for all 4 hours since its not needed, we would have a F10 key oversight if you will, where a Leader or couple of "leaders" would decide what to do next: -maybe send Recon to get general overview where the radar emissions are coming from, -maybe send recon armored units to the village where hostilities are expected to measure the response needed to deal with the threat? -especially interesting would be the mind game of when to launch the strike on the enemy or if you are defending when to defend and how (SAM traps+fighter intercept+diversionary strike teams behind enemy lines-if you are defending). All this would be logistic intensive, every operations costs: FUEL, MANPOWER HOURS, TEAR&WEAR of machines(tanks, trucks, planes especially). Using dumb bombs makes the plane re-arm much faster with less overhaul needed when finally plane goes to maintenance while using more expensive stuff-missiles, etc, would require longer maintenance, more manpower costs etc.. what is MANPOWER use in this situation? It would be a currency of sort, like in one medium equipped airport you have 250 people working there (20 engineers, 60 mechanics, 20 truck drivers/fire department, 20 ATC people, 40 maintenance guys for radar stuff on airports, etc etc) .. When you use hi-tech gadgetry you spend manpower to do those stuff, mount them on planes, overhaul planes, repair them, deliver fuel to planes, deal with emergency issues like getting a damaged plane off the runway to hangar, unload CARGO from Air transport planes OR trucks delivering stuff to the airport.. so, imagine a scenario you bomb the runway, now you need to stitch it up fast to be able to use it again, all this costs so and so manpowers, meaning when you manage to do the runway you will have little of manpower to get as many planes ready to fly.. this would simulate the logistical problems in organization after such a successful airstrip attack and using the airport 100% successfully afterwards with all the planes stationed there. All the logistic lines can be traced, bombed by enemy, if you get supply by road then this can be stopped by interdiction missions (targeting trucks on the road), or by sending military ground units in certain large towns, crossroads and this would simulate a CLOSED route, if you close enough routes the airport is cut off, then only air transport is left which can be attacked obviously by fighter planes.. This UI would be used for ground units as well, as you use them, wear-tear simulated, maintenance needed, and increase in percentage of failures occurring if you over-use the manpower and stretch the logistics in order to capture a village to eagerly and too fast without the support line and logistic catching up to you. Overview: 2D world map, where you move stuff on the map (making this airport more important than other one etc( but this changes would happen in "real life" -switches to 3D and be simulated in game time like, you say you want to put 20 planes from this airport to that one-this would take 30 minutes to prepare the planes and 30 minutes to fly there and land" ..would exert so much manpower etc.. same with ammunition depots for planes, tanks etc..).. of course the time would "fly" faster in 2D in preparing stages, when action is bound to happen (enemy contact,either ground or Air or both) 2D stops with fast time and goes to real time where you can take over the tanks or jump into A-10, Su-25, F-15 etc.. but still would have to wait realistic time of plane arming, refueling, ATC etc.. Since this WAR MP is based on "sessions" lasting 4 hours it would mean there would be an usual FLOW of things, like most likely there will not be a major assault in the last 10 minutes of the session as it will not be in the first 10-30 minutes .. the beginning of the session used for preparing strategy, moving stuff and calculating what is more useful and not, later ending stage used to consolidate for next session, and the middle part used for the actual bombing, attacking, defending etc.. ) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- what do you think? to tell you the truth, i don't care one way or another as long as we get a MP that is more WAR oriented and less Battle oriented.. a situation where 3-5 days of continued fighting occurs with consequences of each battle, destroyed tank, warehouse, bridge visible in the end..
Flagrum Posted October 4, 2013 Posted October 4, 2013 DCS: Warlords A Real Time Strategy Game :thumbup:
Recommended Posts