FAQ Search
Memberlist Usergroups
Profile
  Forum Statistics Register
 Log in to check your private messages
Log in to check your private messages
Moonpod Homepage Starscape Information Mr. Robot Information Free Game Downloads Starscape Highscore Table
Behold the flux of time-space!
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Discussion Pod Forum Index -> Battlescape View previous topic :: View next topic  

Poll Result
  Wouldn't scaled structures look cool?  
 
Yes, I'm tired of the 6m building producing the 22m units.
26%
 26%  [ 8 ]
Well, the entire population fitting in a building that's the same size as a single person is a bit odd.
6%
 6%  [ 2 ]
It's acceptable that units are always drawn on a larger scale than buildings.
10%
 10%  [ 3 ]
It's a function of parabolic space-time. The buildings are really 400 times larger on the inside than the exterior! Get in gear with the rest of us in non-euclidian reality.
23%
 23%  [ 7 ]
Scale is irrelevant. Quit whining.
23%
 23%  [ 7 ]
I never liked buildings anyway. Can we just have magical ice cream cones that point off the map, in the general direction the cities would be, instead?
10%
 10%  [ 3 ]
 
  Total Votes : 30  

 Author
Message
icarus
Troll
Troll


Joined: 01 Mar 2004

Location: Olympia Washington



PostPosted: Fri Apr 02, 2004 4:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

well its cinda a good idea i think thare should be two maps the tactail map ware you do the fighting and a stratigic map wich would resemble risk but in real time wich would be broken up into regons and a city would take up a hole reagon you build units in the strategic map at your citys
Back to top
View user's profile Visit poster's website
Fost
Pod Team
Pod Team


Joined: 14 Oct 2002
Posts: 3734



PostPosted: Fri Apr 02, 2004 5:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yes, that's what we are doing. This is how we are thinking the World Map (the 'risk' like map) should look like. We haven't put up any ingame shots yet.
Back to top
View user's profile Visit poster's website
icarus
Troll
Troll


Joined: 01 Mar 2004

Location: Olympia Washington



PostPosted: Sat Apr 03, 2004 2:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

yah thats what i thought but will the overland map be in real time and will citys take up hole reagons?
Back to top
View user's profile Visit poster's website
LrdSilencio



Joined: 03 Apr 2004
Posts: 3
Location: Iraq



PostPosted: Sat Apr 03, 2004 4:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I have to admit, I like the magical ice cream cone...
Back to top
View user's profile
HunterXI



Joined: 26 Dec 2003
Posts: 476
Location: Playing like there is no tomorrow.



PostPosted: Wed Apr 07, 2004 11:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

X-Fighter wrote:
I'm mildly suprised that nobody ever voted for the magical icecream cone suggestion.


why? but anyway, there could always be stuff below the building... but anyway, I dont really care that much anyway. airplane hangars are literally no more than a few yards above the actual airplanes constructed in them...
Back to top
View user's profile
X-Fighter
Troll
Troll


Joined: 07 Mar 2004

Location: ...



PostPosted: Thu Apr 08, 2004 10:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

HunterXI wrote:
hangars are literally no more than a few yards above the actual airplanes constructed in them...


Yes, that is the point, they are "above" the airplanes constructed in them, not small enough to fit inside the cockpit.
Back to top
View user's profile
Harabek



Joined: 10 Apr 2004
Posts: 94
Location: Arkansas, yes we have computers.



PostPosted: Sat Apr 10, 2004 8:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Jeez people. Making everything to scale limits the scale of the game. It may look weird to scale things down but its the only practical way to do it without sacrificing gameplay. You want the real thing? Well, this is a computer game. Sad
Back to top
View user's profile
X-Fighter
Troll
Troll


Joined: 07 Mar 2004

Location: ...



PostPosted: Wed Apr 14, 2004 2:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hm. I was playing the RTS game "No Man's Land" (http://www.nomans-land.de/english/index1.htm), pointed out in an old forum post... Was excited to see that the buildings are all of a realistic scale!
Very Happy Check it out. Very cool, but large download Confused
Back to top
View user's profile
Johnh



Joined: 06 Sep 2003
Posts: 160



PostPosted: Tue Apr 20, 2004 12:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I once played a game where you could turn proper scaling 'on' or 'off'. When off, units would not get realistically small as you zoomed out, but when on, units shrunk properly when zooming out. This made it possible to allow easier selecting when you needed it, and switch it back on to make it look purty and realistic.

An idea that I would like implemented possibly is the fact that units don't have an unlimited supply of ammunition. Tanks can't store 50,000 Armor Piercing (sp?) shells (unless you take into account that humans here have technology to contain a black hole, and all the tank needs is to contain a black hole of Armor Piercing shells, and merely extract one out of the black hole at a time, but I think this is unlikely Cool

This would also add a new level of strategy to the game. When faced with which units to build, players usually tend to build one super god-like unit, as opposed to several smaller units. But what if that super god-like unit only had 10 shots before it had to go back to base to reload, while the 50 infantry each had 400 shots before they had to go back to base? This would force players to think carefully about what they build, and would also discourage the "Lets build one big gigantic, omnipotent unit, AND DESTROY THE WORLD WITH IT!!!11!1 MUWHAHAHAHAHAHHA!!!!1!1" This would also encourage players to create a more balanced army.
Back to top
View user's profile
Poo Bear
Pod Team
Pod Team


Joined: 14 Oct 2002
Posts: 4121
Location: Sheffield, UK



PostPosted: Tue Apr 20, 2004 9:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Making ammo run out sounds like a good idea in theory but in practice it is very irritating, sometimes realism has to be sacrificed to keep it fun. A nice compromise that I'm implementing is to have supply bonuses on all units.

Something like:

1. If a unit is within range of a supply truck his combat effectiveness is 100%.
2. If he isn't in range, but his own personal ammo hasn't run out then his combat effectiveness is 100%.
3. Otherwise his combat effectiveness is 50%.

That would make using supply trucks, maintaining supply lines and configuring units with extra supplies all important gameplay techniques. It would avoid the odd situation where you run out completely and sit there looking stupid while being pounded.
Back to top
View user's profile Visit poster's website
Bobacles



Joined: 17 Mar 2004
Posts: 123



PostPosted: Tue Apr 20, 2004 11:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Something like:

1. If a unit is within range of a supply truck his combat effectiveness is 100%.
2. If he isn't in range, but his own personal ammo hasn't run out then his combat effectiveness is 100%.
3. Otherwise his combat effectiveness is 50%.

Hmm... so if I cut the supply lines to the godzilla unit, I can finally kill it? Sounds like it'd be a cool thing to have in strategy.

I wonder, instead of being 100% or 50% effective, if units would have values in between. Like, a unit that just got a supply truck will take a minute to get back to 100%, and vice-versa. A unit in a poorly supplied force might have 76% effectiveness.

Also, will supply trucks just have to be there, or will they make trips like peons?
Back to top
View user's profile
Poo Bear
Pod Team
Pod Team


Joined: 14 Oct 2002
Posts: 4121
Location: Sheffield, UK



PostPosted: Tue Apr 20, 2004 3:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Still an embrionic idea, but...

I would have thought you would want to have some trucks in your army for general supplies and maybe some others paired up with special vehicles. So a missile tank works best if its squad contains at least one truck full of spare missiles.

When attacking a new city the first thing to do would be to setup your supply trucks, medics and engineers somewhere safe. Maybe with a few guard units and some artillery. This ensures your army is fighting at maximum effectiveness and everyone is happy.

Then you would want occasional visits by supply trucks just to keep everything topped up. That would mean always having a path back to your own territory open (perhaps going through allied territory is ok).

If a territory between you and your army gets attacked then no more supplies get through it. If your in game supply vehicles get nailed then you will need more regular supply visits from home. Either way you are more likely to run out and then combat-effectiveness / moral / damage / whatever, all gets worse.

But you never just stop firing - thats bad.

To keep it simple supplies, medics and engineers in a battle with you just give everyone some appropriate bonuses. Perhaps you can see them if you click on a squad. So you don't have units running around everywhere trying to get repaired, fed or fixed and you don't have support units getting in the way (what the hell is that medic doing? Tell him to get back!).

Off-map supply does require a physical truck to travel from your territory to the battle front (hence your opponent can cut you off) and meet up with your supply trucks (or units if you have no supply trucks). This is another good reason to have supply vehicles and keep them back away from danger, off-map supply vehicles will come on from the closest map edge to deliver their cargo.

The nice thing is initially you don't have to care about any of this, just grabs some units and start fighting. Hopefully over time you would learn the importance of supply and modify your army configurations and strategies to take advantage of the bonuses it could bring.

Also adds possibilities in battle, if you're being attacked by superior forces then send out a few scouts and see if you can find his supply base.
Back to top
View user's profile Visit poster's website
X-Fighter
Troll
Troll


Joined: 07 Mar 2004

Location: ...



PostPosted: Tue Apr 20, 2004 5:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

A thought on firing without supplies...

If a unit manages to run out of supplies, perhaps have them stuck on some secondary weaponry... say everyone is issued either a (strong)limited round pistol and a blade, if an officer/hero, or a limited round rifle and a weak energy-based pistol if not.

This way, you'd still be able to fight, in slowly degrading levels of damage(primary>backup with limited ammo>unlimited weapon), but supplies would still matter, and be a useful utility for combating superior forces.(Otherwise, you get un-fun things like the big, bad artillery still shelling you, but just "not quite as badly." Rolling Eyes )

The limited backup weapon would have a relatively short range, but perhaps 2-10 times as much ammo as the primary. The unlimited back up would be null-range(hand-to-hand).

Also, it'd be fun if you could optionally intercept supplies, rather than just destroy them. This would take more work(get there, kill everyone but purposely *dont'* damage the goods, then drag them back without getting killed), but it means you could possibly come home with some new and useful weapons to study/use against the enemy.
Back to top
View user's profile
StreetZ



Joined: 28 Jun 2003
Posts: 4
Location: Kansas City, Missouri



PostPosted: Tue Apr 20, 2004 8:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

My two cents:
I like how Hegemonia handled unit selection and organization. When you built a unit, you would actually construct a squad of units. Building a fighter would actually construct 6 or so fighters as a single entity. The bigger the unit you built, the fewer in the 'squad'. So battleships were in a squad by themselves. Durring combat, the 'squad' would move together and attack the same target, but each individual ship could be destroyed reducing the overall effectiveness of the group. If you wanted to replenish the ships in the group, you could return it to base and build replacements that automatically joined the existing group. This allowed you to replace untis without having to pay the cost for a whole new squad. If you were to do something similar with BattleScape, you could keep proper scaling because the greater numbers of small units in a squad would add to it's size, making it easier to find and select. For example: Building a basic soldier would actually produce a squad of 10 soldiers, building a buggy would actually construct a squad of 5 buggies, and tanks would build in pairs or as solo units.
Back to top
View user's profile AIM Address
icarus
Troll
Troll


Joined: 01 Mar 2004

Location: Olympia Washington



PostPosted: Wed Apr 21, 2004 3:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

you should at least have it so each city or base had it own resorce stockpile so you have to farey resorces between them this would be attomated but you could cut saply linse makeing it easy to besege citys
Back to top
View user's profile Visit poster's website
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Discussion Pod Forum Index -> Battlescape All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Page 2 of 3

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group