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
Brains vs. Brauns
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Discussion Pod Forum Index -> Battlescape View previous topic :: View next topic  
 Author
Message
Jake89



Joined: 13 Sep 2004
Posts: 34



PostPosted: Tue Dec 28, 2004 1:10 pm    Post subject: Brains vs. Brauns Reply with quote

(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?
Back to top
View user's profile MSN Messenger
Poo Bear
Pod Team
Pod Team


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



PostPosted: Tue Dec 28, 2004 6:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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.
Back to top
View user's profile Visit poster's website
icarus
Troll
Troll


Joined: 01 Mar 2004

Location: Olympia Washington



PostPosted: Tue Dec 28, 2004 8:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Poo Bear wrote:

4. they need support vehicles to function properly i.e. carrying ammo


actuly modern artilary peices do not require saport veacles
the crew, prapolsion, ammo, and gun are all in one veacle
Back to top
View user's profile Visit poster's website
Darth Dallas



Joined: 18 Oct 2003
Posts: 411



PostPosted: Wed Dec 29, 2004 12:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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.
Back to top
View user's profile
Jake89



Joined: 13 Sep 2004
Posts: 34



PostPosted: Thu Dec 30, 2004 8:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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? Very Happy )


(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! Very Happy )
Back to top
View user's profile MSN Messenger
icarus
Troll
Troll


Joined: 01 Mar 2004

Location: Olympia Washington



PostPosted: Thu Dec 30, 2004 8:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

i beleved thay mentioned that a long time agoo but i cant find a link
Back to top
View user's profile Visit poster's website
Jake89



Joined: 13 Sep 2004
Posts: 34



PostPosted: Thu Dec 30, 2004 10:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I kinda figured someone must have mentioned it at some point, but you know what they say: "The squeeky wheel gets the oil."
Back to top
View user's profile MSN Messenger
Fost
Pod Team
Pod Team


Joined: 14 Oct 2002
Posts: 3734



PostPosted: Fri Dec 31, 2004 2:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

'Or gets replaced'

Wink
Back to top
View user's profile Visit poster's website
Degraine



Joined: 01 Sep 2004
Posts: 27



PostPosted: Wed Jan 05, 2005 9:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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

It'd make a damn good pun title though.
Back to top
View user's profile
icarus
Troll
Troll


Joined: 01 Mar 2004

Location: Olympia Washington



PostPosted: Wed Jan 05, 2005 10:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

the last thing we nead is a physicks dusction


rember the tank VS jet thing
Back to top
View user's profile Visit poster's website
smerles



Joined: 04 Jan 2005
Posts: 23



PostPosted: Thu Jan 06, 2005 3:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Poo Bear wrote:
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.


I don't know very much about Battlescape and if unit balancing is a thread for you already, but with all those disadvantages I think the artillery unit could be fairly useless in the game because you need spotter units, ammo supply (which is good, also modern artillery units need support vehicles with them) and even more units to protect it against everything possible. And all those units have to be as "fast" as the artillery... Maybe a better armour plus a minimum firing range could keep things balanced? The artillery still would be vulnerable to fast attacking units (because they'll manage to get under that minimum firing range) and air units but wouldn't get destroyed too easy.

Ground Control 1 for example has a good solution for this problem, the artillery got great firepower, good armour and an excellent firing range but is very slow, has a min. firing range, a short line of sight and finally it needs a little pause during two firing sequences, otherwise it would overheat. The ammo it can carry is also limited and you can't recharge ammo during a mission.
In one of the first missions (this mission is in the demo included if you'd like to try it out) you have one of those "Hog" called units and destroy some enemy outposts with it, but then aircraft reinforcements arrive and you have to flee to the extraction zone. A decision must be made: Leave the Hog behind and flee with all other units or sacrifice your poor two anti air units and some other to keep the aircrafts busy till the Hog gets to the extraction zone? Finally I decided against the Hog because otherwise I'd had to use new rookie units for the next missions.

Okay, I wrote to much Embarassed Wink
Back to top
View user's profile
Poo Bear
Pod Team
Pod Team


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



PostPosted: Fri Jan 07, 2005 6:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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.
Back to top
View user's profile Visit poster's website
smerles



Joined: 04 Jan 2005
Posts: 23



PostPosted: Fri Jan 07, 2005 1:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Poo Bear wrote:

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.


Okay, first time this might be frustrating for the tank and scout - guy, but he also got a nice look on the possibilities the game offers to him. Maybe he will accept the challenge, maybe not.

I'd prefer type2 games like Age of Kings, Homeworld or Ground Control because there are so much ways the game can be played and no match is like the match before and also you can't be rushed away after three mins of play. These games are surely harder for beginners but with a good campaign this shouldn't be a too big problem Wink
But these type2 games always had a big dev-team behind it and often there are much patches released to balance the last units...

What is Battlescape aiming for? Type1 or type2 or weren't this decision made yet?
Back to top
View user's profile
Poo Bear
Pod Team
Pod Team


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



PostPosted: Mon Jan 10, 2005 8:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

type 2
Back to top
View user's profile Visit poster's website
smerles



Joined: 04 Jan 2005
Posts: 23



PostPosted: Mon Jan 10, 2005 9:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yay! Very Happy Wink
Back to top
View user's profile
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