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
Non-infantry units
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Discussion Pod Forum Index -> Battlescape View previous topic :: View next topic  
 Author
Message
X-Fighter
Troll
Troll


Joined: 07 Mar 2004

Location: ...



PostPosted: Mon May 10, 2004 1:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Er, I don't hate the french, but they're kind of unpopular in America. I know very few Americans who aren't either indifferent or angry towards them, for a variety of obscure reasons. It's very odd, although I personally am pretty much okay with France.

As far as my idea nobody seems to like, I guess it's actually off-topic for this thread, but was in reply to Poobear's off-topic post, so I guess I'll move it someplace else.

And it's not a M.O.L.E. tank! STOP IT ICARUS! There is no "tank" afterwards, it's a "mobile offensive loam excavator", translated: "dirt-digging attack vehicle". You don't call something a "vehicle tank". Make up your own darn acronym for it if you insist on continuing. :mutter:

Ps. Er, and the idea would be for it to be a kind of "overlay" map to the world, so it'd be using current map-space, but have a sub-level. Atleast, that's what I meant, although I suppose cavern maps wouldn't be too unrealistic, although it'd be more "fog of war" areas between caverns than "black space", as ideally you'd want to be able to tunnel through walls and such, creating new paths/caverns as you go, unless you had something with "pod digging" capabilities, which would be used for spying utilities(things that travel in a "pod" underground, by simply moving dirt around them, more like "swimming" through it than standard tunnelling, thus leaving only re-sorted dirt as a trail, not a tunnel).

It actually would be alot of work to get the pathing AI, the trackability and functionality of player-carved tunnels, proper graphical display of player created tunnels, and so forth. If anything made the first cut, it would be the "pod" types only(they could, in theory, work very similar to "invisible flying units"), which aren't quite as cool as the full-blown tunnelling concept.
Back to top
View user's profile
Fost
Pod Team
Pod Team


Joined: 14 Oct 2002
Posts: 3734



PostPosted: Mon May 10, 2004 1:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

X-Fighter wrote:
It actually would be alot of work to get the pathing AI, the trackability and functionality of player-carved tunnels, proper graphical display of player created tunnels, and so forth. If anything made the first cut, it would be the "pod" types only(they could, in theory, work very similar to "invisible flying units"), which aren't quite as cool as the full-blown tunnelling concept.


Yeah that's a pretty good description of the issues involved. I'm not even sure exactly how you could represent underground tunnels. Battlescape is going to use a quite steep perspective- something we've actually had a lot of internal discussion about. Essentially we are convinced rts games play best like this, but we also know that most publishers these days sell rts games by using low camera angles (from which the game would be totally unplayable), a tactic I'm sure works. It might hurt our pockets, but we are convinced this is the right design choice.

Tunnel combat would be more likely possible in some kind of first/close third viewpoint, but the game would cease to work well as an rts.

Then again, maybe it could be done in a far simpler way, with switchable layers, or some kind of hud overlay?

All sounds a lot of work for one set of units, but interesting still...
Back to top
View user's profile Visit poster's website
Darth Dallas



Joined: 18 Oct 2003
Posts: 411



PostPosted: Mon May 10, 2004 5:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I know I've hyped this game a dozen or more times already Smile but X-COM used something similar to what your talking about. Granted, I don't know if your using a similar perspective (with the map kinda tilted or whatever). In any case, there was an up/down button you could click on in the menu that showed where your units were by "level" in any given battle.

i.e. 0 is ground, 1 is the level your units started on (had to leave ship first. If units didn't have hovering ability, they immediately would go to the 0 level when disembarked. If they could hover, they maintained their position at 1 unless changed by the player to have 'em land on 0 ground or go to 2 or 3 skyward)., then 2 and 3 marked the next levels of altitude.

The map was simple. It had a general layout of what could be seen (within the units' eyesight/scanning range). When the up/down arrows were clicked, you could find your units easily because they were represented with glowing yellow blobs, and the enemy were glowing red blobs. Clicking on any part of that overlay map, whether its a unit of yours, an enemies or just the landscape, that action would take you to that position on the main game map instantly.

The only hangup I could envision with this system though is if its going to be a real-time game, one might forget at which "layer" they left a unit or three if they didn't think to click the up/down button from time to time.

Though I liked that mapping system, one thing that did bother me was that on the main game map, if you were currently on map level 0 looking at one unit, you could not see a unit that was one square away and hovering at level 1, 2, or 3. The only way you could see that unit to move it was to either cycle through your units on the graph, or do the click-map up/down thing to bring it up (then clicking that particular glowing yellow blob representing it to go to it).

That said, with many games, there is a learning curve to some degree. Nowadays whenever I might go back to it, I know the commands so well I could execute something like that in a couple of seconds. With games like that that I've fallen in love with, you find yourself willing to find out how something works.

I just think that if you were going for some kind of "terrain layering" in terms of unit positioning, I think it should be simpler to just have all your units displayed on the map without having to cycle through them by "map layer". (I'm speaking of the overlay map type of thing here, not the main battle map as in X-COM).

Clicking on one should take you to it, regardless of whether its on the ground, under it, higher up on the mountains, or hovering over a supply convoy or something as that had, only I would have preferred to have seen all my units on the main map no matter their positon/altitude.

Anyway, just thought I'd point out the only system I was marginally happy with with regards to levels, with or without terrain heh.
Back to top
View user's profile
X-Fighter
Troll
Troll


Joined: 07 Mar 2004

Location: ...



PostPosted: Mon May 10, 2004 6:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yeah, was thinking of a sort of overlay/switching thing... the concept first came in before the 3D aspect entered the game, and that mildly complicates the whole of it.

Ideally, it'd be a layer switching thing, but perhaps some special units could survey soil density for standard view HUD displays(caverns and tunnels would give the soil far less density wherever they passed). I was also rather supposing that a similar layer-switching would be possible, if you managed that, for near-space interaction(the atmosphere immediately above a region in play), with the multi-planet thing possibly comming into play later.
Back to top
View user's profile
Harabek



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



PostPosted: Mon May 10, 2004 9:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I give up. Can we just rename this topic: "What about underground vehicles?"? Confused
Back to top
View user's profile
icarus
Troll
Troll


Joined: 01 Mar 2004

Location: Olympia Washington



PostPosted: Mon May 10, 2004 9:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

if you are to use undergound veacles i geuss the best way to do it is make the map in layers surfise and subterainyin (blak bad speelin) subteranien would be the ground becomes transparent and you can see the caves and tunnels since its dark undeground fog of war would be evean tighter restrickting untis LOS and some units would be blind alltougeter like a M.O.L.E (i diddent say MOLE tank happy) wouldint beable to sea anythin while submerged (prehaps you could reasirch sonar for your digging units so thay could "hear" things maby evean units on the surfise as thay move by thare foot steps or vibrations)

you would also be able to send normal units undergound (in preexisting caves or tunnels)
Back to top
View user's profile Visit poster's website
Harabek



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



PostPosted: Sat May 15, 2004 12:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

What if vehicles could enter and exit grid space on the battlefield? It would be like a shadow version of the "real" one and you could see faint shadows of the "real" battelfield so it could be a recon tool. Of course it would be expensive to develope.
Back to top
View user's profile
Poo Bear
Pod Team
Pod Team


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



PostPosted: Sat May 15, 2004 1:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

We are considering the possibility of some up close infantry only missions, and just for icarus we'll look at setting some of them underground. I think that would be quite cool anyway and feel a bit different. We'll have to see what happens in play testing though.
Back to top
View user's profile Visit poster's website
Harabek



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



PostPosted: Mon May 17, 2004 9:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Like in starcraft? I hated those. I hate the idea of being constantly limited in rescources.
Back to top
View user's profile
Poo Bear
Pod Team
Pod Team


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



PostPosted: Mon May 17, 2004 9:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Your comment was a bit abrupt, but i'm guessing you mean you didn't like the way Starcraft effectively switches genre midway through. Let me explain. Most of the game is about resources, buildings and unit production with battles as the ultimate test of all your planning and construction. However, every now and again you are given a prebuilt small force, a specific goal and off you go. The idea is to break up the normal flow of the game and give you something different to do for a change. A lot of people however don't like having their game pulled from under them - fair enough really. Command & Conquer does the same thing. I didn't mind, but some people do.

Should be ok in Battlescape because the whole game is dedicated to fighting, there is no in game realtime resource gathering or construction. So an underground mission where you are limited to infantry is a little bit different but still the same basic game play.
Back to top
View user's profile Visit poster's website
Harabek



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



PostPosted: Tue May 18, 2004 11:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hmm.. guess it was. Embarassed Well, as long as it works. Perhaps you could expand on the infantry's abilities or have it so you can sneak around.
Back to top
View user's profile
Toren Kanesun



Joined: 06 Mar 2004
Posts: 52



PostPosted: Thu May 27, 2004 6:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Regarding tunneling tanks, C&C Tiberian Sun had them. They worked by burrowing undeground and remaining invisible until they surfaced. I never really got the point to them besides base harrassment, and they were easily foiled by laying concrete foundations in your base as well as a deployable radar. Seems too gimmicky, really. But since it was one of the few tank units avaiable, you kinda got forced into using them.
Back to top
View user's profile
SqurielLord



Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 15
Location: USA; FL



PostPosted: Tue Aug 24, 2004 12:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

hey x-fighter, whats with teh 'stella got her grove back' link? 0_o

What about air units? will we get the ability to call in airstrieks or get jets of our own? Its just you mentioned that in teh 3-part post that 1 was ground, 2 sea, and 3 was space

part 3-dropships-ODST!

Somethign cool would be a VTOL fighter, like the thropters from Dune.

Another possiblity could be making bio-units like monsters or stuff like that.

TY for your time

SqurielLord
Back to top
View user's profile Visit poster's website AIM Address
SqurielLord



Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 15
Location: USA; FL



PostPosted: Tue Aug 24, 2004 1:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

GHAAA

I hit the wrong fourm area thing! Forgive me!

EDIT_or not, it just wen tot pg 2

NM

^_^
Back to top
View user's profile Visit poster's website AIM Address
icarus
Troll
Troll


Joined: 01 Mar 2004

Location: Olympia Washington



PostPosted: Tue Aug 24, 2004 2:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

x fighter hasent loged on in years we beleve he got offended in an argument involving tanks planes and harpoons (long story) i miss him

about air units good descusions about them can be found hear
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, 4  Next
Page 3 of 4

 
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