Unit size and weapon range

I hope I was the only person felt that way, the weapon ranges are too short for the units' size. Especially naval units.

Toyed with leviathans lately?

I feel the ranges on those are very long indeed.

i voted "no" - weapon range does indeed not match weapon size. this has occurred to me before, so i just went to wiki for the m1 tank as an example;
32 feet long, with a main gun that "exceeds" a range of 2 miles (10,000 feet). my quick skimming didn't find the actual range. so just based on that absolutely minimal range, we're talking a ratio that's over 300x the unit's length. so yeah, proportions are a bit off in PA.

that said, I don't think they should change it. it's a game and it's built for FUN, not as a simulation or for realism. case in point: the solar system. have you paused to realize just how absurdly disproportional the planets/sun and the size of the orbits are? but if they were realistic, the game wouldn't be much fun at all.

This is a common theme for RTS. I think would be cool to have realistic ranges but that has completely different gameplay in a Simulation based RTS as Line of Fire gets obstructed by mostly everything. Like you place a laser turret on a hill and it could reach as far as the horizon and easily into orbit unless the atmosphere disperse the laser beam too much.

Given that we have tiny cartoon planets, it makes sense to have tiny cartoon weapon ranges. In my opinion. ^^

Arguing from a realism pov makes zero sense. I voted "no" because I argue from a aesthetics pov and say that weapon ranges as short as they are, are not visually appealing to me. Imo in SupCom it's just fine. By no meass the ranges are realistic in SupCom. But that is not wanted anyway - they look right, and that is what matters.

i agree, the weapon ranges do "feel" a bit short, but I overlook that in the blind belief that there's some magical formula Uber has applied for the greater good of overall gameplay and balance.

I like the short range of units. Of course, some units like the leviathan must have a long range, but aiming for 1:1 proportion would be an error.
Gameplay wise, it would force for you to be always at the maximum dezoom to be able to see at what your units are shooting.

The weapon range seems ok for me.
It's just the units that are far to big ;-)

I'm sorry but wow, that necro.

exactly the opposite feel.

Just imagine the units as being smaller if it really bothers you that much. The problem with SupCom in my opinion is that you play pretty much the whole game just looking at the icon overlays because it does not benefit you to get in close to see what is happening. This is fine and all, but when you're trying to market the game it's very difficult because you either zoom in and see the battles (which is not a true way of playing) or you zoom out and lose all of the cool graphics.

If anything I'd argue for smaller weapon ranges so that you're zoomed in more often.

LOL [A completely useless, non-value adding, post]

Maybe they aren't tiny cartoon planets, maybe the units are the size of mountains

Realism and are fun aren't necessarily mutually exclusive, I would however advocate prioritising the latter.

One possibility would be to scale the units and factories down considerably, then increase their ranges up towards more realistic. That way you wouldn't have tanks shooting half way across the map. If this was done, another thing that I think would go well with more realistic ranges would be more realistic projectile velocities.

welp go take that over there, see how much sucess your opinion has : https://www.google.fr/search?client...&oe=utf-8&gfe_rd=cr&ei=H1_-U4CnH4-G5AajwIDAAg

This really gets to how big you think the maps should be.

Making units smaller and slower-moving has the effect of increasing the effective size of the maps because it takes more time for units to get places.

Why? I don't wish to sway anyone's opinion but yours, and you're here.

much luck to you then I'm the one who made that thread.