Your argument for having runaway reasoning about having tanks shoot air, then having them shoot across a solar system as a reasonable next step.
it is unreasonable for tanks to shoot air. just as unreasonable as having them shoot across solar systems.
Again you are comparing something that is totally out there with something that has been done in the past reasonably well. Saying that an extreme is the reasonable next step, it's a silly way to argue. I happen to agree with Colin, that something that can't hit a plane should never bother trying to shoot up. But what about stuff that can? And what about stuff like the static missile turret? It can shoot at planes and tanks, is there something inherently wrong with that unit?
I actually think it should only be able to shoot up. And tanks shooting at planes is an extreme, tanks shooting at orbital aircraft is not much more extreme.
No not really, but "just as unreasonable as having them shoot across solar systems." is, as was my point about it being a straw man. And with the new one barrelled laser, there is little reason to retain the missile turret shooting at ground.
This is assuming the developers want to have upgrade features for their units. An assumption that I've not seen substantiated on the forums so far.
It's just generally a bad idea to have every unit group be capable of doing everything. going dedicated bots only, or vehicle only, or air only, should never be viable in a long game. Each unit group should have inherent and unique properties that complement your force as a whole. While you do have room for much unit diversity, it is important not to fall into role redundancy (having multiple units fulfilling the same role) or if you are going to have role overlap, one unit group should be the dedicated master of that role, with the other unit groups performing a support or emergency role fulfillment function.
'Emergency role' is exactly the purpose of tanks being able to shoot air. They were incredibly bad at it in TA. Similarly, gunships could shoot other aircraft and many units could shoot ships (hell, with the right attack order, you could fling torpedoes onto the coastline). None of these were really practical uses, but it was possible if you needed to fill an emergency role with the wrong units.
Hahahaha that got out of hand quickly. My two posts are completely unrelated- Tanks being able to shoot at planes had nothing to do with bots being conceptually sound, and neither had anything to do with balance! Tanks shooting at planes shouldn't ever factor into balance, its just how we get here that matters. Either we force an arbitrary layer distinction, or have the unit's stats naturally prevent it from happening. If we rely on unit stats to prevent AA-OP-OMG tanks, then that enforces an amount of care into designing units that otherwise would be absent. It also makes sense that if a plane just happens to fly right infront of tank, then nothing is stopping that tank from blasting it into oblivion. That same 'makes sense' is why bots should be fundamentally different than tanks- because they are very, very different machines. Its often good if the players intuition about something matches how it actually performs.
Indeed, my earlier post was addressing the idea of having bots that do a tanks job and vice versa. I actually liked it when my tanks could shoot air, especially since clumping them had the cool risk/reward of both being the most effective way to try and actually hit a plane, and also the formation that made them most vulnerable to bombing.
You're falling into the trap that a Bot with lots of HP would be the same as a Tank with lots of HP. There are other differentiating factors that can be worked into them. What I take exception to is that ALL bots must be 'fast raiders that are easily killed' and ALL tanks being 'slow, hard to kill frontline support'. Those definitions are too restrictive.
What other differentiating factors do you have in mind? I'm okay with thinking of ways to change up the roles a little bit, what i wouldn't want to see is role overlap though, that usually ends with one of those overlapping options being slightly better and then becoming the only thing anyone ever spams.
For a start, size. Being able to concentrate your force into a smaller area is a major (or at least it should be) factor in whether to specialise in Bots. Packing bots into a smaller area while keeping a similar damage output to a tank makes them extremely potent as shock assault troops and ambush specialists, however it makes them susceptible to any unit that possesses an AOE attack since more units will be hit per shot. Bulky tanks on the otherhand are forced to spread out more, covering more ground as a single unit and as a massed force. This allows them to impose a wider front and control more area with the same number of units. It also makes them less susceptible to concentrated artillery, since their size and spacing becomes an advantage against AOE attacks. For another, maneuverability. This is a different quality than speed, which some might confuse it for. Tanks possess rather large acceleration and deceleration periods, increasing the likelihood of them being tracked and effectively lead when targeted, not to mention a wide turning circle when at top speed, making them a poor choice for tight spaces and rubble (or wreck) strewn battlefields. Bots have no such concerns and accelerate to top speed in a relatively short period of time, can walk across all types of terrain without hinderance and excel in tight spaces due to their 'stop-on-a-dime' turn rate. These are subtle differences; slight advantages and disadvantages that, due to the scale of the game, add up when used en-masse. They are not however 'pigeon-holed' into only performing a specific role. Rather their advantages and disadvantages are determined by the interaction of the weapon, movement and targeting mechanics. Emergent gameplay begins to ... well... emerge as these mechanics express themselves, with players making their own judgement calls on what particular units and/or weapons will perform best in specific situations. Bots become defined not by an arbitrary 'Should be good at raiding, have low health' mantra, but defined by their intrinsic inability to take up as much space as a tank can. Bots become defined in their roles due to their bipedal (or quadrupedal) form excelling at maneuverability at the cost of size. Tanks are bigger because their form; a tracked or wheeled structure in their fundamental design, allows them to carry more weight than a 'leg' can.
"Emergent gameplay" sounds like a fancy way of saying "throw some stuff out there and see what happens because we don't have an actual plan". Your argument is that bots become defined not by an arbitrary "should be good at raiding, have low health" mantra but instead by an equally arbitrary "intrinsic inability to take up as much space as a tank". Bots being small is no less arbitrary than bots being fast but weak. It's all arbitrary. I don't even have a strong preference for your arbitrary distinction vs the one currently in the game. I just want there to be one.
Emergent gameplay is a little more than just throwing numbers around and hoping. It's about designing without preconceptions. Saying that emergent gameplay is without intent is foolish however. You plan to allow the greatest number of interactions between different systems and mechanics (which is hard work) and allow function to emerge from the interaction between those systems. It's not about 'not having a plan', it's about planning to let the player form a plan for themselves, rather than forcing a preconceived ideal upon them. Bots being smaller than tanks isn't arbitrary by the way, it's basic mathematics and mechanics. Legs don't support as much weight as wheels.
Considering one of the biggest units in the game, your commander, is a two-legged bot, I find that distinction to be pretty arbitrary.
You don't want tanks to shoot at planes because it means a unit they can never hit can be used to prevent them from shooting at real threats, and also mean their turrets are facing the wrong way when they first engage.
