Brains vs. Brauns

[Jake89]

(however you spells 'brauns' i dunno)...

So, quite obviously, this is about strategy and power. Everyone likes to have a lot of powerful troops, but many also like to trick their opponent into defeat. The powerful units have already been discussed a bit, so why don't take a knack at stategic units and possibly a strategic power/artillery? (something big that doesnt move i guess)

My ideas:

Laser Tower - a stationary tower that can shoot a laser at enemy units.

Mirror Armor - for tanks/mechs. You take 1/2 normal damage from lasers and it bounces the laser back at the opponent.



What if you could lay explosives around your base, then build laser towers within that barrier, so when enemies arrive, the laser fires at them, conciquently causing the explosives to detonate? Or maybe this concept could be used in a mission?

[Poo Bear]

artillery are my favourite - the most powerful attack in the game yet also the weakest most expensive unit.

1. they cannot fire while moving
2. they have no real armour to speak of
3. they can only move slowly when in transit
4. they need support vehicles to function properly i.e. carrying ammo
5. they need spotter vehicles and/or high elevations to achieve their extreme range
6. they are expensive so you don't get many

If you can get the enemy clustered together with their own guns out of range you can win without taking a single hit. If the enemy works out what you are up to and finds you artillery battery he can win with just a few infantry squads or a well placed missile.

Well - that's how it should be ideally anyway.

[icarus]

[Darth Dallas]

Perhaps so, but I think he was referring to a cost of some kind with relation to powerful artillery pieces. If these pieces are capable of extreme destruction, I think its only logical then to break down its role into supplimentary requirements, because in the end, it all comes back to balance.

[Jake89]

nice.. nice... I'm actually very interested in combo attacks...

Fire type attack on an oil mining device... *BOOM* makes a nice explosive, but gets rid of useful resources...

A plane drops remote control mines over an area and a dummy unit is placed on the side of the mine feild facing away from the enemy camp. Enemy units come and see it, start to fire, and BOOM. (can you tell I like explosions? )


(On a side note, could you possibly have someone in the game who talks like icarus? PLEASE? Just for kicks? Anyone playing it who is from the forums would know IMMEDIATLY who the charecter is mimicing! )

[icarus]

i beleved thay mentioned that a long time agoo but i cant find a link

[Jake89]

I kinda figured someone must have mentioned it at some point, but you know what they say: "The squeeky wheel gets the oil."

[Fost]

'Or gets replaced'

[Degraine]

Damn, and here I thought this post was going to be about physics.

It'd make a damn good pun title though.

[icarus]

the last thing we nead is a physicks dusction


rember the tank VS jet thing

[smerles]

[Poo Bear]

When balancing the game it may indeed become apparent that the only penalty artillery need is extremely slow movement and fire rate, we shall see.

Something that occurred to me about balancing a game is people approach it in two ways:

1. make all the units very similar, it's the easiest thing to do and the most likely to stop any problems in play. It leads to all the units feeling the same. You get this with a lot of rts games i.e. level1 units are all similar, but then research lets you upgrade to level2 which again are the same really but significantly harder than level1, so your opponent has no choice but to upgrade or lose. An entertaining arms race ensues, each side wondering how long they can leave it before attacking, how much research they should do?

Ex: artillery is a little weaker than a tank, a little slower, shoots a little further and does a bit more damage. If you weren't expecting to face artillery and the opponent had completely focused on it then it probably wouldn't matter too much. With units like this it would be very hard to select a "bad" army, as any unit combinations would probably stand a good chance against any other.

2. make the units very different, but ensure there are always multiple choices to combat any single unit. This is difficult to get right and it makes the learning curve steeper for the beginner but ultimately it should be more rewarding. It allows different unit choices to fundamentally affect how the game unfolds.

Ex: artillery are hugely expensive, take an age to dig in, cannot fire until dug in, need support vehicles to work optimally and need spotters to achieve full range. If they catch your units unprepared in the open and tightly grouped they can wipe them out in seconds. If your units are widely dispersed, use cover, have long range anti-artillery missile backup, you deploy jamming (stops the spotters calling targets) or you have a number of fast attack bomber aircraft waiting then the tables can be turned.


A lot of people might actually find a type1 game more enjoyable, it is harder to muck everything up and usually most battles would last quite a while and be a drawn out slog to the last man. A type2 game could be over very quickly and you could make mistakes resulting in an embarrassing total defeat without hitting a single enemy.

Ex. you spend every penny on tanks and a few fast scout jeeps. The jeeps find some lightly defended supply trucks at the end of a valley, the trucks are only just in range so they haven't seen your jeeps. You form up the tanks close and charge at the enemy down the narrow valley. It turns out out there are a large number of artillery units on a hill behind the trucks using spotters hidden in the trees nearby who have also mined the valley floor you are charging down. Game over.

[smerles]

[Poo Bear]

type 2

[smerles]

Yay!