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
Hades Tank Equipment
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Discussion Pod Forum Index -> Battlescape View previous topic :: View next topic  
 Author
Message
varus



Joined: 18 Jun 2004
Posts: 3



PostPosted: Fri Jun 25, 2004 6:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

One thing you need to keep in mind though, is that warfare is in constant evolution. Yes, you can shoot high explosive missles extremely long distances to knock out flamethrower tanks. But, on the other hand, there are technologies for shooting down those missiles. [Think the first gulf war, and the SCUD/Patriot missile duels]

So, equip your Hades with flamethrowers, and give a couple Cerebrus anti-missile systems, and there you go. The Hades cooks anything that gets close, and the Cerebrus down any long-range explosives. (If it is not planned for the game, could you add anti-missile and/or anti-artillery systems? They're not exactly weapons, except maybe against infantry, but they would still have very useful applications, especially if we can use them as a distraction to make someone THINK they are under attack, while the real missile/artillery units sneak up on the rear)

(also, for Darth Dallas - those 'gatling-gun things are called anti-aircraft guns, and have existed [at least in crude forms] since the World Wars)
Back to top
View user's profile
Darth Dallas



Joined: 18 Oct 2003
Posts: 411



PostPosted: Tue Jun 29, 2004 4:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well, I knew they were always around in some incarnations, but from what I saw in those WWII documentaries, I've only ever seen those 4 barrel cannons they used on fighters and such. I don't know if they were in the same family of cannon or not, but those were cool looking too (I think they were flak cannons or something).

Anyway, its interesting to see how things evolved over time like that. Sometimes there were large gaps between one version and another simply because they couldn't get them to perform right. Heh, if you can't tell already, I'm a History Channel fan Smile I like Discovery Wings as well. Another example of something I find interesting is how with the advent of some weaponry like those cannons, it can give so called obsolete platforms like the C-130 a new lease on life on the battlefield converted over from being largely transports into gunships. What clips I saw of those in action over Afganistan and Iraq make them seem much more intimidating than they ever were in the past.
Back to top
View user's profile
jollyreaper



Joined: 20 Jun 2003
Posts: 181



PostPosted: Tue Aug 03, 2004 1:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I like the idea of variety but there is the danger of having too much. This will become clear in playtesting, so I may be happily proven wrong here. If not, the problem could be that you have such specialized units, it's very tough to get them into position to hit certain targets without moving them into range of something that can demolish them. A lot of people like the idea of rocks-paper-scissors strategy but it can end up taken to unrealistic extremes. Some units are very good in dual-roles. Anti-aircraft systems are classic for this. The German 88 field piece, intended for use against aircraft but incredibly deadly against Allied armor. The Russian ZSU-34 track-mounted anti-aircraft cannon, bad news for airplanes and even worse news for infantry. In Chetznya(sp) the Russians would use the cannon to engage rebels hiding in the upper stories of apartment blocks, too high to engage with a tank's cannon or machine guns but perfectly situated to fire RPG's down at the vulnerable top armor and engine compartments.

You may find it useful to consolidate certain weapon classes to make for a tighter game.
Back to top
View user's profile
Darth Dallas



Joined: 18 Oct 2003
Posts: 411



PostPosted: Tue Aug 03, 2004 3:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
You may find it useful to consolidate certain weapon classes to make for a tighter game.


True, not to mention what unit could have whatever weapon. You could further tighten things up along the lines of other things it carries that aren't weapons. Not necessarily in lower numbers of components here (that is, non weaponry), more like whether or not the slots support them for that hull class. I'd be happy with having lots of unit types to explore with in terms of designing something without having one being too much more uber than the next.

I still like to have reasons to perhaps go with an inferior hull type of something rather than always deploying something huge that has it all. For me its all about what other components distinguish one thing from another, not just what gun it has.
Back to top
View user's profile
jollyreaper



Joined: 20 Jun 2003
Posts: 181



PostPosted: Tue Aug 03, 2004 4:10 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well, we still know too little about the game design to even begin speculating. There's plenty they could be doing good, plenty they could be doing bad, but until we know for sure, we don't know squat! Smile
Back to top
View user's profile
SqurielLord



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



PostPosted: Tue Aug 24, 2004 12:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

What about sucide tanks packed w/explosives?

They mightt be a little expensive adn not to useful...and thats not to good considerign all teh terrrist bombings...

Scratch the idea.
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 12:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

a suicide truck would be better
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: Tue Aug 24, 2004 8:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Something that works in a similar way but is a bit more palatable - the one shot tactical nuke launcher. Very expensive, very vulnerable and you only get one shot, but if the enemy are all packed together you can do some real damage. Another idea would be to make impact site a permanent no-go area for the duration of the match.


p.s. did anyone else think C&C:Generals lost the plot with the whole allies vs. terrorists, chemical weapons and suicide bombers running at your tanks. Really left a bad taste in my mouth and spoiled what was otherwise a cool game. For some reason it seems ok in counter strike and rainbow six, but with C&C it just struck me as an out and out blatant attempt to cash in. <rant ends>
Back to top
View user's profile Visit poster's website
Degraine



Joined: 01 Sep 2004
Posts: 27



PostPosted: Wed Sep 01, 2004 5:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I didn't like C&C:G for a couple of reasons, although the whole terrorist vs. the US of A thing seemed a bit in bad taste. I remember watching the 'Victory in deeeeeaaath!' cinematic and thinking to myself, 'Holy ****, they actually managed to get away with this?'

That and some of the units moved TOO DAMN SLOW. Someone mentioned elsewhere that SC's units tend to move fast. Well, that's how I likes me strategy games. Waiting for everything to be built is bad enough, but having a coloumn of tanks crawl as fast as snails towards your intended target (and getting shot at in the meantime) is about as fun as watching paint dry.

*cough* <end rant>

Anyway, back on the subject of Hades equipment. I see there's anti-air weaponry, but are there any anti-missile (ATG or GTG) countermeasures? The launcher could probably go in the same slot as the smoke launchers (adding more customisation options, rather than having a Swiss Army Echidna tank).

Also, the one-shot uber-missile sounds like a neat idea. It reminds me of the Thunderbolt (?) from Mechwarrior. Remember, there are no new ideas, just new ways of packaging them. Or however that quote goes.
Back to top
View user's profile
icarus
Troll
Troll


Joined: 01 Mar 2004

Location: Olympia Washington



PostPosted: Thu Sep 02, 2004 5:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

of corse thay got away whith it
its caled the eliment of seprise

but i aggrey the GLA was just a cheep atempt to chash off of amricans revenge fantasys
Back to top
View user's profile Visit poster's website
Degraine



Joined: 01 Sep 2004
Posts: 27



PostPosted: Thu Sep 02, 2004 11:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Actually, I meant the company that released CnC:G (EA Games), getting away with creating a game that has terrorists in it, when references to the Libyans in Back To The Future have been edited out of post 9/11 airings on TV.

Why the ESRB (or whatever the ratngs board for games in America is) didn't come down on them like a ton of bricks is beyond me. But no matter, that's not the subject of this thread.
Back to top
View user's profile
r000000b
Starscape Jedi
Starscape Jedi


Joined: 10 Jan 2004
Posts: 63
Location: Staffordshire



PostPosted: Fri Sep 03, 2004 9:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

how about:

An interference device that makes missiles targeted within a range less accurate.

An item (enemy heads on sticks or a spangly blue ray) that decreases the moral of enemy units near it

A camouflage device that makes the unit harder to hit but only if its already in cover

Repair/first aid

Thermal (or whatever) imaging so it can shoot into cover with no negative modifier

surveillance rockets, shoot over a hill to see whats there, see where it flies over or where it lands

Coffee machine. all nearby infantry move faster, (and twitch more)
Back to top
View user's profile
icarus
Troll
Troll


Joined: 01 Mar 2004

Location: Olympia Washington



PostPosted: Fri Sep 03, 2004 9:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

r000000b wrote:

Coffee machine. all nearby infantry move faster, (and twitch more)


Twisted Evil C0000FfI3!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1111111111111111 Twisted Evil
Back to top
View user's profile Visit poster's website
ragnarok



Joined: 05 Jun 2003
Posts: 34
Location: Madison Heights, MI



PostPosted: Sun Sep 12, 2004 9:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

a thought about flame throwers, you could have a flame "gel" that sticks to things and burns out after a specific time, depending how much the unit was covered with. the reason I say let it be a flaming gel is that it could effect some unit weapons. guns and such have to cool down if they get too hot, you could have units decrease the offensive power of others by covering them in napalm; even if it's a heavy armor unit that wouldn't be seriously hurt by the attack

also: napalm motars and such. I want to fling fire into the sky and watch it turn my enemy's position into a lake of burning pain, from which they never emerge.
Back to top
View user's profile AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
icarus
Troll
Troll


Joined: 01 Mar 2004

Location: Olympia Washington



PostPosted: Mon Sep 13, 2004 3:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

plasma would be beatter
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  Next
Page 2 of 3

 
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