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
OOA Special weapons?
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Discussion Pod Forum Index -> Battlescape View previous topic :: View next topic  
 Author
Message
Pithlit



Joined: 24 Sep 2004
Posts: 24



PostPosted: Sat Oct 23, 2004 11:52 am    Post subject: OOA Special weapons? Reply with quote

Pllanning to do out of area special weapons like in GC2 or Generals?
or will any weapons you can use in the game have to be on teh current battlemap?
Back to top
View user's profile
icarus
Troll
Troll


Joined: 01 Mar 2004

Location: Olympia Washington



PostPosted: Sat Oct 23, 2004 1:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

well way back when
moonpod thougt thay could give battlescape an overworld map
we descued orbatal supperwepons and IBCMs but thay whave since decided not to have an overworld map in V1 (but thay will in V2+)

our idea was to have orbatal supperwepons act like the genaral powers in CACG or god powers in AOM

orbatal supperweppons would only work when the satalite is above the horison and might run out of ammo or nead to recharge
IBCMs would be one use only but you can use them whenever

you would have to ajust the orbits of satalites from the overworld map and missle have to be armed and built from citys and bases

of corse whitout a overworld map we cant have eather but thare is always v2 to look forword for


Last edited by icarus on Sun Oct 31, 2004 7:06 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Visit poster's website
Pithlit



Joined: 24 Sep 2004
Posts: 24



PostPosted: Sat Oct 23, 2004 5:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I see, but couldnīt it be made, even without a world map?

in the planning/recruit phase you could by these OOAs instead of units (and they would be pretty expansive according to what they do)
And in the mission you could select them from a menu and fire them, after that they have to recharge or are gone, whatever it is.
This way we wouldnīt need an worldmap with nitpicking stuff like arranging the flightpath of a satelite but having a simple point click interface wich does the same job.

For erxample your Orbital laser.
You have bought/build the sat before the mission (in camp mode, maybe it comes availiable a certain amount of mission time after ordered or after a certain amount of world time, whatever there is,
in Skirmish mode you start wih it uncharged. now when it is chared up fully, you can set a target for it via the interface.
When you do so, you see a holo trajectory on the gound, wich projects the flightpath of the sat. when you think its in the right position you can hit the fire button and it burns a 5 sec high power paser beam in the groud (while moving farther on its flightpath)
of course you can change the path if you like, if the target has moved.

Similar methodes would be availiable to all special weapons, but some options would be limited of course, like redirecting the target point of an OOA artillery strike, after you have fired it Razz
Back to top
View user's profile
icarus
Troll
Troll


Joined: 01 Mar 2004

Location: Olympia Washington



PostPosted: Sat Oct 23, 2004 6:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

you could probably get a WMD in unit buy mode but it would cost a lot of unit points
Back to top
View user's profile Visit poster's website
Poo Bear
Pod Team
Pod Team


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



PostPosted: Mon Oct 25, 2004 5:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yes "special weapons" are being considered (ignore Icarus) the idea on the table is that over time players gain access to special "battle favours" from HQ. These are collected throughout the game and then charge up over time and based on your performance. So if you are doing well (i.e. completing missions) and hold an "orbital strike" award then eventually you will be able to call down death from above. Other possibilities are special reinforcements of elite stormtroopers to save the day. The "voice of the emperor" which temprarily rouses your troops into a battle frenzy. High altitudes air strikes, nuclear strike and chemical attacks are also possibilities and might be useful in ballancing a match.

You should be able to select units that can have these type of attacks anyway, but if you don't then perhaps you can even out the playing field by calling on HQ for help.
Back to top
View user's profile Visit poster's website
Degraine



Joined: 01 Sep 2004
Posts: 27



PostPosted: Mon Oct 25, 2004 7:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Kind of like Command saying 'Okay, you've done pretty good so far, so we're going to give you some new toys to play with. Don't abuse 'em.' then.

That would discourage turtling tactics that were raised as a possibility of drawing out matches, too. Red Alert 2's superweapons had that exact purpose.
Back to top
View user's profile
BloodWarLord



Joined: 21 Oct 2004
Posts: 49
Location: OMG LOOK BEHIND YOU!!!!! no jk



PostPosted: Tue Oct 26, 2004 5:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

that HQ favors idea is nice, but wouldn't it be like better if HQ said something like "We have invented a new type of weapon, we are transmitting the data for how to build it now"
that would be pretty nice if they gave u like a nuke or something....haha
________
ELECTRONIC CIGARETTES


Last edited by BloodWarLord on Tue Feb 15, 2011 2:58 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Visit poster's website MSN Messenger
BluePhoenix



Joined: 08 Jun 2004
Posts: 96
Location: Between Georgia and Cuba



PostPosted: Fri Oct 29, 2004 2:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Why is everyone of the mindset the nuclear weapons are the end all be all answer to every problem in the game? The idea is to win the war, but if you've rendered the entire surface of the planet uninhabitable then is it really a victory? Besides, using a nuclear weapon would blind your own troops, if not kill them with the shockwave. Nuclear weapons are powerful yes, but power always comes at a cost. Personally I wish warfare had never moved beyond swords and such, because back in those days you had to at least see the face of your enemy, and that makes it more difficult to just classify them as unhuman. Warfare (and terrorism for that matter) is too easy as anyone with a working finger can kill people, no skill, discipline or courage required. If the kids at columbine had had no choice but to use a sword or a knife and thereby get their hands dirty and even see the faces of people, and more importantly put themselves at personal risk, that probably would never have happened. But I am ranting.
Back to top
View user's profile AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
icarus
Troll
Troll


Joined: 01 Mar 2004

Location: Olympia Washington



PostPosted: Fri Oct 29, 2004 3:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

but it will be fun to see a n00b try to use a nuke in close quarters combat
Back to top
View user's profile Visit poster's website
BloodWarLord



Joined: 21 Oct 2004
Posts: 49
Location: OMG LOOK BEHIND YOU!!!!! no jk



PostPosted: Fri Oct 29, 2004 5:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

BluePhoenix wrote:
The idea is to win the war, but if you've rendered the entire surface of the planet uninhabitable then is it really a victory?


"Victory at all costs!" - Winston Churchill
________
Easy Vape Reviews


Last edited by BloodWarLord on Tue Feb 15, 2011 2:58 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Visit poster's website MSN Messenger
Poo Bear
Pod Team
Pod Team


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



PostPosted: Sat Oct 30, 2004 8:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

BluePhoenix wrote:
Nuclear weapons are powerful yes, but power always comes at a cost.


Yes, exactly. I know a lot posters are obsessed with the pretty lights and the big bang (and who isn't?), but i'm more interested in provoking thought and emotion through consequences. It is an idea that is probably impossible to implement but wouldn't it be great if using these weapons was an option yet it carried this enormous threat to all players. The idea that you can permanently affect (did I get it right Weeble?) the style or flow of the game from that point on.

Some ideas:
1. Negatively effects (Weeble?) your own morale.
2. Permanently contaminates parts of specific battlefields (the assumption is the player will revisit the same battlefield a few times).
3. Excessive use makes a battlefield totally inaccessible.
4. Contaminated battlefields effect available unit choices.
5. As the player uses nukes the AI starts to use them too.
6. If it escalates beyond a certain point the game ends prematurely (even though you might have been winning) with a "nuclear winter" type scenario.
7. Once nukes start being used, more powerful versions come along to help with the escalation.
8. The area and power of contamination is unpredictable, you could end up doing more damage to your own troops.
9. Once pandoras box has been opened you will have to take one, if you don't the AI will and hten what will you do?
10. Nukes are the most powerful weapons available and can easily get you out of trouble if you're cornered or outnumbered. This is the one and only reason why they would be so attractive, why not just take one with you just in case, you don't have to use it, honest Twisted Evil

Sounds doable, but it's a lot of effort to implement something that would most likely result in a negative player experience. Still, a nice thought experiment anyway.
Back to top
View user's profile Visit poster's website
Weeble
Starscape Jedi
Starscape Jedi


Joined: 25 Apr 2003
Posts: 1143
Location: Glasgow, Scotland



PostPosted: Sat Oct 30, 2004 11:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Poo Bear wrote:
The idea that you can permanently affect (did I get it right Weeble?) the style or flow of the game from that point on.

Yes. Very Happy
Poo Bear wrote:
1. Negatively effects (Weeble?) your own morale.

No. Sad Either "Negatively affects..." or "Has a negative effect on..."
Poo Bear wrote:
4. Contaminated battlefields effect available unit choices.

No. Sad Either "...affect available unit choices," or "...have an effect on unit choices."
Back to top
View user's profile Visit poster's website MSN Messenger
icarus
Troll
Troll


Joined: 01 Mar 2004

Location: Olympia Washington



PostPosted: Sat Oct 30, 2004 11:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Poo Bear wrote:

2. Permanently contaminates parts of specific battlefields (the assumption is the player will revisit the same battlefield a few times).
3. Excessive use makes a battlefield totally inaccessible.
4. Contaminated battlefields effect available unit choices.
5. As the player uses nukes the AI starts to use them too.
6. If it escalates beyond a certain point the game ends prematurely (even though you might have been winning) with a "nuclear winter" type scenario.


woa are you talking about v1 or v2 thought the hole global simulation part was gonna be in v2

also just cause you have unleashed nukler winter doenint mean a game over it just means you are gonna have to adapt to a world whith out sunglight
(crops must be grown in greenhouses, and you might want to buy coats for your troopers)
Back to top
View user's profile Visit poster's website
BloodWarLord



Joined: 21 Oct 2004
Posts: 49
Location: OMG LOOK BEHIND YOU!!!!! no jk



PostPosted: Sat Oct 30, 2004 1:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Poo Bear wrote:
Yes, exactly. I know a lot posters are obsessed with the pretty lights and the big bang (and who isn't?), but i'm more interested in provoking thought and emotion through consequences. It is an idea that is probably impossible to implement but wouldn't it be great if using these weapons was an option yet it carried this enormous threat to all players. The idea that you can permanently affect (did I get it right Weeble?) the style or flow of the game from that point on. get you out of trouble if you're cornered or outnumbered.


*Points to My Previous Post*
________
Ferrari 456 history


Last edited by BloodWarLord on Tue Feb 15, 2011 2:58 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Visit poster's website MSN Messenger
BluePhoenix



Joined: 08 Jun 2004
Posts: 96
Location: Between Georgia and Cuba



PostPosted: Sat Oct 30, 2004 10:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Those aren't bad ideas PooBear. Though limiting resources would be a good option if it was a resource gathering game (ie. You would lose so many workers, resource gathering in contaminated areas would be cost prohibitive).
You could also arrange it so that units have to move through certain points to get to a battle field, and if the most direct route is contaminated, you either have to go around (and lose time and give the enemy an advantage) or go through and waste tons of points getting radiation proof vehicles to allow your troops to make it through.

EDIT: Just remember that "affect" is a verb, and "effect" is a noun (like "sound effects")
Back to top
View user's profile AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Discussion Pod Forum Index -> Battlescape All times are GMT
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2

 
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