 |
Author |
|
 |
|
Flumpaphone
Joined: 18 Sep 2003
Posts: 86
|
 Posted: Fri Jun 11, 2004 1:34 pm Post subject: Hades Tank Equipment |
 |
|
wow  The range of equipment on display here for the Hades tank certainly looks impressive! Just to look at it brought out the inner child in me: reminded me of the blue and green plastic soldier kits I used to have when I was ten! The Hades looks really imposing too! I would not like to be in an infantry squad facing that collosus. I noticed you mention you are remaking the Cerberus to be more in keeping with the Hades - Can't wait too see it, I like the Cerberus shape, but the new Hades tank has a better overall style to it. I was not so keen on the old metal look the Cerberus had.
I've gotten really excited now looking at those tanks, and thinking of the variations I could make!
Any chance of flamethrower units too? |
|
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
 |
|
Fost
Pod Team
Joined: 14 Oct 2002
Posts: 3734
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 11, 2004 1:48 pm Post subject: Re: Hades Tank Equipment |
|
|
| Flumpaphone wrote: | | Any chance of flamethrower units too? |
Oh yeah! Definitely! I want to try out some flamethrowers as both side guns and as a larger main turret.
Come to think of it, if anyone has ideas for equipment for any of the units that show up in the dev diary, they are welcome to post. Battlescape is laid out in a way that make it easier to add small items such as this, so we are hoping we'll be able to add even more types of equipment after release. |
|
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
|
|
icarus
Troll
Joined: 01 Mar 2004
Location: Olympia Washington
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 11, 2004 1:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
BBQ tanks!  |
|
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
|
|
Fost
Pod Team
Joined: 14 Oct 2002
Posts: 3734
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 11, 2004 2:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| icarus wrote: | | BBQ tanks! |
Haha! Yeah, maybe the troopers could get a morale modifier if the flame tanks stop for a while and cook them a few sausages  |
|
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
|
|
Bobacles
Joined: 17 Mar 2004
Posts: 123
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 11, 2004 2:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Gas! Either smoke, or really strong tear gas.
Smoke would provide a protective cover which blocks sight. You could be using it to either hide an army, or make it look like you're hiding an army. As long as your opponent doesn't know, you got the advantage.
Infantry would have reduced effectiveness while in a tear gas cloud. It'd have the similar effect of reduced morale. To counter the effects of tear gas:
1. Extra supplies could be needed. It'd represent the equipment needed to handle the gas.
2. Units have special equipment, as an optional accessory.
3. A special unit may have protection, as a function of that unit.
4. Just use tanks!
Infantry which are protected from tear gas, won't be affected by it. But they'd also have to be weaker/supply hungry/can't use certain guns, to balance it. |
|
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
|
|
Fost
Pod Team
Joined: 14 Oct 2002
Posts: 3734
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 11, 2004 3:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bobacles wrote: | | Gas! Either smoke, or really strong tear gas. |
We already have smoke launchers as a piece of equipment (you can see these on the front of the tank hunter variant in the dev diary). How these will work in practice is something we are still thinking about (and will probably have to do in game testing to get working in a sensible fashion)
At the least, it should provide a defence modifier against certain weapons; kind of like how modern tanks use smoke to guard against laser guided weapons. Using it to hide in would be cool, but could potentially require a lot of smoke - there's always the problem with rendering smoke -too many transparent sprites can cripple even modern 3d cards. The same might apply to using gas as a weapon: it might be better off as a targeted weapon, like a gas grenade launcher. If it was just released and vast quantities and blown across the field, then it could end up making the game run at 1 frame per second  I'll have to try it out using the 3D particle system - Goober is still integrating it into our engine though...
Nice ideas anyway |
|
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
|
|
icarus
Troll
Joined: 01 Mar 2004
Location: Olympia Washington
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 11, 2004 8:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fost wrote: | | icarus wrote: | | BBQ tanks! |
Haha! Yeah, maybe the troopers could get a morale modifier if the flame tanks stop for a while and cook them a few sausages |
mmm  plasma flamers gives it a nice ioniesd taste |
|
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
|
|
Shug
Joined: 05 Jun 2004
Posts: 19
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 12, 2004 5:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| How about ports for troops to fire out of, when the Hades is serving as a personnel transport? It'd make the APC a lot less vulnerable |
|
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
|
|
Darth Dallas
Joined: 18 Oct 2003
Posts: 411
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 13, 2004 1:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
One thing you might try looking into too with the smoke/tear gas thing (how ever you think it might be workable with vid cards like you mentioned) would be the direction of the wind in a given scenario. It might put a damper on your assault if all that stuff is blown back on the army that dispatched it
Ah yes, flamethrowers. Gotta love incendiary weaponry, even just the ones that fling streams of fire. I'd like to see different variants, not just the kind that might be a replacement for the side infantry cannon types. Perhaps too you could have the main guns fire some kind of larger incendiary that blankets a wider area than perhaps the side gun flamethrower might. Maybe air support units could have a napalmish thing they drop too 
*resmumes Beavis "fire" chant*
This also conjures up ideas on what other troop garb types might be. Could weigh them down significantly if your investing in flame retardant suits and protection against biological weaponry for soldier units that might otherwise not need them depending on missions. |
|
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
|
|
BluePhoenix
Joined: 08 Jun 2004
Posts: 96
Location: Between Georgia and Cuba
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 16, 2004 12:41 am Post subject: Re: Hades Tank Equipment |
|
|
| Flumpaphone wrote: | | Any chance of flamethrower units too? |
Well, there is a problem with flame throwers my father (who is a military buff and served as a firefighter on board a navy carreir) pointed out: most weapon systems these days fire extremely powerful missile from so far away, you can't even see it. Against such an enemy, a flamethrower would be useless. Even infantry has the use of long range anti-tank weapons. Flame throwers require you to be close. So here we see an inherent problem: defining the line between not realistic enough, and too realistic. In a realistic naval battle, guns would be used almost totaly for missile defense. The battle would consist of sending out fighters and firing long range missiles. While it involves strategy and isn't boring to those involved, such battles arenn't exactly action game material. On the other hand, who would buy the game if it were so unreaslistic that the elite "ninja" unit could defeat a aluminutanum armoured tank with an iron sword? Okay I would because it would be kinda fun and amusing, but most people wouldn't. Well, probably. |
|
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
|
|
Fost
Pod Team
Joined: 14 Oct 2002
Posts: 3734
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 16, 2004 7:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| BluePhoenix wrote: | | defining the line between not realistic enough, and too realistic. |
I think that hits the nail on the head really. There does seem to be an obsession these days with 'realism'. You have to remember that the objective is to make a fun game, and not to simulate modern day warfare; which lets face it, is not fun. I think more importantly than realism (or rather it's essentially what we mean by realism) is that the world we create sets up rules and sticks to them. Ignoring the rules created for your stories' 'universe' is one of the most common failing of all moderntypes of media. |
|
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
|
|
icarus
Troll
Joined: 01 Mar 2004
Location: Olympia Washington
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 16, 2004 10:13 am Post subject: Re: Hades Tank Equipment |
|
|
| BluePhoenix wrote: | | Well, there is a problem with flame throwers my father (who is a military buff and served as a firefighter on board a navy carreir) pointed out: most weapon systems these days fire extremely powerful missile from so far away, you can't even see it. Against such an enemy, a flamethrower would be useless |
flame frowers are origonaly for atacking intrenched infintry and lighting things on fire |
|
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
|
|
Darth Dallas
Joined: 18 Oct 2003
Posts: 411
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 16, 2004 1:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Yep, look at instances where we've witnessed them used. In 'ol WWII war documentaries and such, we see them burning out entrenched positions like foxholes, pillboxes, trenches and the like. True, you may not see them employed in modern warfare these days that much if at all, however it is a close quarters type of weapon (if your talking the handheld variety troops carry).
I think the problem with flame throwers used in modern warfare is that it can be er uh, somewhat indescriminate Its not exactly a pinpoint accurate weapon, and I wouldn't call it a typical load out for a mission involving taking captives for instance.
Not to mention its probably a bit barbaric for today's sensibilities, but we are talking about the digital realm, and let's face it, fire is wicked-cool |
|
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
|
|
BluePhoenix
Joined: 08 Jun 2004
Posts: 96
Location: Between Georgia and Cuba
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 16, 2004 7:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Darth Dallas wrote: | | Yep, look at instances where we've witnessed them used. In 'ol WWII war documentaries and such, we see them burning out entrenched positions like foxholes, pillboxes, trenches and the like. True, you may not see them employed in modern warfare these days that much if at all, however it is a close quarters type of weapon (if your talking the handheld variety troops carry). |
The tank versions were the coolest.
Anyway, that's the thing though. Most modern warfare isn't close range. Most modern warfare is all about "whose missiles have the longest range".
The Japanese ship the Yamamoto(sp?) was the most powerful battleship ever built. It fired rounds the size of small European cars (slight exageration). But, since naval warfare today is missiles and fighters jets, those great big powerful canons would never be used today. (I'm still kinda disappointed the Yamoto sunk, I would've been awesome to see)
So flamethowers would be useless...in a real battle. In a game however, with the right balancing, they can be very useful and fun to use. |
|
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
|
|
Darth Dallas
Joined: 18 Oct 2003
Posts: 411
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 21, 2004 3:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I just think it comes down to how they're designed, then of course how fun or not they are to use in the game. I see some peoples' points though, realism be damned! I do like it when I can get it, but if a cool enough balance isn't achievable, I'd just as well go with game play.
About the battleship analogy, yep, air carriers pretty much made them obsolete. The thing about them though is that they served a very limited role in battle, therefore they weren't very versatile - they're intimidation factor is nice though Carriers are just more versatile, however both served another purpose as the backbone to any fleet and had to be protected. Now its all about speed in getting your units to the arena the fastest with appropriate ranged weaponry and close support stuff if its ever needed.
Speaking of close support weaponry, I do love those automated gatling gun things they have on ships now that take out arial targets like planes and missiles - now those are shweet. If you saw the latest Jack Ryan movie with Ben Affleck, they show those in action. |
|
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
