Projectile blockage gameplay discussion

As I have played alot of SpringRTS engine games like Zero-K which has the most advanced projectile physics gameplay in a largescale RTS I have seen. Men of War propably have more advanced projectile physics but it is more like an RTT than an RTS.

Projectiles typically pass through your own units in TA and SupCom.
Do note however that projectiles didn't pass through allied units in SupCom which made it harder to combine forces as you risk hitting your allied units if they came infront of you. You could give the ally your units to avoid this to some degree atleast.
If projectiles can go through your own units I think they should pass through friendly units aswell in a teamgame with fixed teams.
I'm not sure how it should work in a Free For All game with dynamic alliances where you can ally and brake alliances.

SpringRTS games can choose if projectiles pass through friendly units or not.
Weapons Line of Fire check terrain and can be set to avoid friendly units and features(wrecks, trees and such).
Friendly unit blocking makes micromanagement much more complex as enemy units can take cover behind friendly units for example.

When there is a friendly unit between the attacker and the target in range the decision where the attacker should move to gain Line of Fire is not trivial.

• Should the attacker move to the left or right?
  Should the attacker path straight against the enemy and stop to fire as it passes the friendly unit?
  Should the unit move to the closest spot where it got free line of fire?

In Spring games custom formations(formation line draw) mitigate this somewhat as the players can keep units on a line to attain maximum firepower without units blocking each others Line of Fire.

Gameplay design that can decrease the need of micro in a game where friendly units block Line of Fire:

• Arcing trajectories.
  Long range in relation to unit size.
  Line draw formations.
  Unit automatization or AI.

What I suggest:

• Projectiles should pass through own and allied units.
  In an FFA with dynamic alliances projectiles should also pass through allied units.

What I would prefer:

• Friendly units block Line of Fire.
  Long ranges.
  Group AI that keep units on a line and maximise firepower.

I don't mind if PA will have friendly fire blocking, but there are also some cons about it:
1.It will make the most of your units unable to fire behind the walls.
2.It will cause some difficulty in unit balancing, since curving-fire units can form into deathballs but direct-fire units can't.
3.Less units be able to open fire at the same time would make the graphics a little less exciting.

I'm not a fan of friendly units blocking eachother's fire, as it tended to result in a bit too much micro for me in ZK. If it is implemented, at very least the units should be smart enough to stay out of eachother's line of fire.

The question is, can the units be made smart enough to be effective without micro despite friendly fire?
If yes, then friendly fire should be on, as it adds interesting ways to differentiate units and their roles. Balance problems shouldn't be unsolvable, and terrain becomes more important. I doubt that walls/terraform would become that less useful, as it could still be used to block unit path and cover non-offensive assets like, say, generators.
If not, it's not worth the extra micro.

You can still have walls around units where the units just fire above the wall.
Offcourse this opens another can of worms.
Collision volumes, point of fire and point of targeting.

Like at what point should units aim at? Is it good that you can sourround a turret with walls so that you obscure the point of targeting while the point of Fire is above the wall making the turret able to fire but the the wall still block incoming fire?

Although you usually get the same problem with amphibious units exiting water which can be pretty important.
It isn't fun if your com can fire at the enemy com when it exits the water but the enemy can't return fire at it.

If you look at TA and Zero-K units with arcing weapons typically have slow projectiles and/or is innaccurate making them easy to dodge. In that regard arcing units are simply different with different strengths than direct line of fire weapons.

The more friendly fire, the better. FF would have fixed T1 tank spam in supcom.

It more likely would have changed to T1 artillery spam.

still cause ff. Running scouts into enemy arty balls would have been a legit strat.

Make smarter units.

I feel this would solve many problems.

Also, does anyone else feel like SupCom when compared to TA had units shooting across the map?

Gameplay in SupCom became very fast paced when compared to its predecessor, and this might not be something we necessarily want in PA.

How do you guys feel about the speed of SupCom? While I know you can adjust it, the 'normal' speed it generally how the game is played.

I dont think it would have changed the game so much as tanks arced quite alot and SupCom units generally had long ranges compared to unit size. With proper Line of Fire check it might hardly make any difference at all.

Fun fact:The UEF ACU shots will hit friendly units in vanilla SupCom if they are in the way.

Do you refer to every map? I think that is pretty map dependant if it is a small map, big map or such.
Also what would you like to do with the extra time? Dodge more shots?

I refer to the general pacing of the game, with the extra time I intend to think and plan.

To create strategy.

Having played the original Ground Control, I can confirm having friendly fire in an RTS game can be a real pain in the *** if the unit AI isn't up to speed. On the other hand surprise flank maneuvers became hilariously effective.

Personally I doubt this would be a problem for an RTS in a day where context sensitive AI is rather a rule than an exception.

This is very offtopic but you would need to define how slower pacing creates more strategy.
Sirlin think that strategy is very important in fighting games and FPS aswell. What combos you use in Street Fighter against different characters or how you control the map in Quake and choose different weapons are very strategical decision.
I guess you can make the argument that theese strategies are canned and have to be learned and practiced rather than thought out in a game.
Although the same applies to most high level RTS games as you simply have know when to choose what strategy and how to react to enemy strategies.

I guess you can argue that a game is more strategic when you can focus more on deploying strategies than executing them.

Your points are good, and I understand what you mean.

We should strike a balance between implementing strategy and executing, Something I personally feel is rushed in SupCom, but I guess that's up for debate.

Figuring out how to react to a enemy strategy in a RTS game is a bit more difficult than in FPS or fighting games, there are usually more possible choices in a specific situation and that would require you to think more carefully.