The Unit Cannon

Parading on a high house won't win you any friends.

Your solution is poorly thought out and only adds to the dominance of using a teleporter in PA, so no I hardly think this idea is worth it's merit.



What we need is automation of logistics in order to properly use mass transport tactics, of which only have to contend with AA as the transports are never in the orbital layer long.

And you aren't hearing other more wild ideas for planetary invasion, because people don't like repeating themselves, a quick google search of the forum will reveal literal thousands of ideas posted over the years. The drop-pod/multi unit transports being the most popular.

My suggestion is what it has always been, one yo didn't bother to search for before claiming that I am not constructive.

Is to make the transport a one way transport that is designed to get troops from planet A to planet B automatically.

A orbital launcher set to auto-build transports, then can be set to have a off load or drop off point, however once a transport it built, it won't launch from the orbital laugher until it is loaded with units, allowing a player to set a factory to the orbital launcher so units will automatically try to load in.

Once loaded the transport launches towards the targeted destination, and unloads the cargo, making the logistics of moving troops hand-off once set up, feeing them to do other things, or to assist the launcher with more launchers to increase the amount of units sent at any one time, and thus allowing the player to move their entire army though the orbital luncher if they have enough to me the demand of arriving troops.

The army moves to the target continuously as the player wants, letting them pursue other tactics while the landings continue, making the invasions easy.

You're just doubling down ... you can't admit that you made an illogical and hypocritical position can you? Unbelievable. You are being so obtuse.

Your example of Civilization trailer is so far fetched. We all know what a Civ game is, there is about 10 of them and they have been pretty much the same core concept since the 1990s when the first Civ game came out. You are grasping at straws.

Lets Recap:
Lets say a game said you could fight with thousands of units across planets and in the trailer it showed tanks, bots, and planes. If the game only had 1 ground unit, would you say it was just a visualization? Sure it wasn't specifically mentioned, after all they only said "units" or would you say that planes were implied?

Lets say a game involved destroying planets and it showed an asteroid blowing up a planet. If you could not blow up a planet with an asteriod, would you say that it was just a visualization or an implied gameplay element? After all the Kickstarter says: "...create vast armies with which to annihilate enemy planets." According to that sentence units destroy planets, so if there was only a unit that could dig to the center of a planet to blow it up, would you say that it was just visualization or an implied gameplay element?

@cptusmc

Please explain how I was being hypocritcal, or illogical? All I said was that the trailer was clearly a visualization, and that if in some other far off dimension it hadn't been... It'd still be able to pass off, as most trailers aren't exactly like the game either. Trailers are for building hype, at least that's what they've come to.

Not to mention- what if someone didn't know what a Civ game was? What if it was some new guy and he saw the trailer on TV and was like "Wow, that looks pretty cool" And then he buys the game... Finds out the game is quite different than he ever expected.

did you just call the com the Commanding Officer

Talking to you is like explaining what I do at work to my dog. First off, please read my last 4 comments that I quoted you in, maybe when you read what I wrote you will understand how you are being a hypocrite and illogical. The post directly above yours literally illustrates this.

If you were to apply your "visualization" logic uniformly to all other consumer products it would be a hypocritical position. I am making the assumption that you don't apply the same logic to other products because that would be an extreme minority view supported by like 5 people on Earth. It is a view that take the position that there is no such thing as overt or implied advertising, which is illogical and ridiculous.

I'm going to copy and paste what I have above: Lets say a game involved destroying planets and it showed an asteroid blowing up a planet. If you could not blow up a planet with an asteroid, would you say that it was just a visualization or an implied gameplay element? After all the Kickstarter says: "...create vast armies with which to annihilate enemy planets." According to that sentence units destroy planets, so if there was only a unit that could dig to the center of a planet to blow it up, would you say that it was just visualization or was there an implied gameplay element?

I'm sorry, but this is a funny example. Lets say you have a perfume advertisement that says that it smells like nature and it has images of flowers and trees. Wonderful right? Now you get the product and it is literally pig **** in a bottle. Well, pigs are in nature, and they didn't say that it was going to smell like flowers. Your position would say that this is OK. The product is marketed to imply that it would smell nice like flowers, not all-natural pig ****.

Oh like a person who never lived on Earth before or didn't know what Google is? If that is the case, than they need to take personal responsibility that they are an idiot and purchased a product without looking into it. That person should immediately take an introductory class to life. On a serious note, unlike PA, there is plenty of information, both historic and market-tested data about what type of game Civilization is. If an individual has the information at their finger tips and chooses not to act upon it, it is there own fault. Again, your being obtuse.[/user][/user]

This is getting ridiculous, with that argument the person buying the natural scented perfume is at fault, as he needed to go research the product before falling to an advertisement that implied the product was different than it was.

Now who's being hypocritical? Your two arguments literally just clashed into each other.

Honestly I don't even feel like trying to debate anymore as I'll never change your opinion, and you'll just continue to just dismiss what I say as hypocritical or obtuse when you do the same **** things. Or at least did right there.

I don't want or care for a unit cannon. IMO its a stupid gimmik that won't play or balance well. Give me a T2 factory with expensive jump jet units for planetary raids and I think orbital will be golden.

Well it's either storage or PGen. In any event: the argument that they look different ingame is moot. This is a discussion that's primarily about mechanics and function, not about aesthetics.
If the UC looked completely different to the one presented here or in the kickstarter vid, I don't believe many would care, as long as it would be functionally the same building.

You are correct, this is ridiculous. I did not make my perfume example indicate that it was on the market for a long time (just as PA has not been on the market for a long time), you made that part up. But lets say it was, than you are correct, not only would the example not make sense to the topic but the individual would also be at fault because they should have done research on the product. By the way, thanks for reinforcing my rebuttal to your Civ example ... its OK, you don't have to admit it, but we both know.

Exactly, you will get defensive cherry pick information, make stuff up, and ultimately run from the conversation because you can't admit that you made an illogical and hypocritical position. Hahahaha.

Sure, believe what you want, but I will of course disagree. Face the facts, your two arguments completely contradicted each other. You can laugh and gloat all you want, won't change my opinion, and I can't change yours. No point in arguing over silly things. The perfume didn't have to be on the market for long at all, there just had a be a review of it, from anybody.

Unit cannon wasn't promised, the video was just a pitch. You assumed it was promised; now you're mad, doesn't affect me.

Edit: To be honest I just feel there's no real point in continuing the argument. I stand by what I said, and I can see why you'd misunderstand the trailer, but if I can't change your opinion, and you can't change mine... what would be the point in arguing? It's just wasting both of our time bickering over something like this. Hope maybe you can see what I mean.

They do act ffunctionally different though, the launcher in the KS required you pick up a unit and place it on there with an aestreus and then launch it into orbit. The nuclear missile launcher also acted different as it created projectiles like the catapult. (I'll admit the only evidence I have for this is when nukes were initially introduced and used that model)

You think the unit cannon would be a nightmare to balance? Just look at the metal planet laser, that thing is extremely game breaking, more so than a unit cannon would be.

The asteroids and metal planets aren't supposed to be balanced, they destroy planets and end games.

The only balance factor to them would be improving invasions.

And not necessarily by unit cannons, what ever they would possibly end up being, if not just another interplanetary nuke situation where they can magically do and go everywhere.

Nah the balance factor would be making them more expensive. Because currently as it stands, nukes take longer to produce than a planet does to fire.

Is that a problem with the hallys and catalysts, or a problem with nukes?

Be making all nukes interplanetary, they were forcibly made ultra expensive to compensate, and I feel that is completely unjust.

Hallys are fine, they take the planet they move with them into death, so it's a trade off, and that doesn't always annihilate a whole planet.

Catalysts require more work, but then again they have only just been introduced.

The dev's believe that if a player is able to produce the catalysts to win, then the cost of getting to that position is enough to warrant the effect.

While there can be a counter balance to lasering a whole system in one minute, overall, yes, you should never leave a metal world uncontested, it is THE strategic point.

Anyone who thinks that what is promised at the beginning of software projects always makes it in the final product doesn't understand software production. Or just the production of anything in general. Things get cut, projects fall behind, life is complicated. The depth of your disappointment about this is dumbfounding.

Well actually, most people really don't understand software development.

Hell most people aren't even that well trained in the use of a computer!


So frankly, yeah no doubt they don't understand.

How have none of you cannon fanatics realised yet that it was was always a bad idea because it allowed players to bypass the orbital sphere completely? Yea, lets just add this unit here that renders obsolete an entire layer of player interaction and all the other assets we already made.

And if you say "oh then we just make unit cannon fire drop-pods that have to spend x amount of time in the orbital sphere", how is this any different from the mechanics we have now?

Features get cut from games all the times. Sometimes for lack of resources, sometimes for technical reasons, sometimes for gameplay reasons. I believe uber cut the unit cannon for the latter after their own internal testing and prototyping. They most definitely already have the art assets for the dahm thing including the wreckage model.

Seriously,
1. Learn to use teleporters
2. Don't create stupid systems that obviously will end in stalemates. herp derp
3. Death lasers, halleys, gas giants, and nukes are in the game for a reason.
4. Don't area patrol the entire godahm planet with land units

yea, screw the unit cannon. I want my dropships.

I understand software development completely. Actually, I to the point where I make it myself, and I know enough to not include something in a trailer that I have no actual means of implementing.

They should of thought about that before hand before giving us the whole "oh so sorry it got cut" spheal.