3-Dimensional Strategy

I can't think of any other RTS games that involve complete 3-Dimentional warfare, with attacks possible from every conceivable direction in space. This breeds an interesting brand of strategy. One example is that 'chokepoints' (at least between planets) will be virtually eliminated, which means you need to watch for planetary invasion from everywhere, all the time.

Anyway, Discussion?

Re: 3-Dementional Strategy

Homeworld 1 and 2.
Find them...
Play them...
Weep as you realise what you have been missing all this time.

Planetary Annihilation will not feature "true" 3D battles in the same sense as the Homeworld series. (At least... not at release.)

That is all.

Re: 3-Dementional Strategy

i love those games too; but i've never managed to end homeworld 2 --'

Re: 3-Dementional Strategy

Thanks for the tip
I'll look into those.

Re: 3-Dementional Strategy

aside from the spherical aspect, which is in this case more an UI matter, planets shouldn't be that much different than islands on a 2d maps with the orbital layer as coastal infrastructure and defences. The main difference would be that you can't intercept an incoming invasion in deep space. How much and how early you know when an attack is started against your planet depends a bit on how the intelligence side and the general interplanetary interaction are designed, which is as far as I know a bit vague up to now.

Re: 3-Dementional Strategy

I am excited to find out how the UI will actually work. The spherical nature also brings up some interesting points, however. I will be interested to find out whether there will actually be any z-axis.

In other words: I can't wait for alpha to be released

Re: 3-Dementional Strategy

Well air units won't roll along hte ground, and orbitals will be....in orbit, but it's not like you'll be able to specific for air units to fly at certain heights or anything like that.

Mike

Re: 3-Dementional Strategy

But from what I have seen, invasions from directly above WILL be possible. Which means that your average perimeter defenses for a base won't exactly cut it.

Re: 3-Dementional Strategy

Well that depends on exactly what your assumptions are and exactly what you're envisioning, I don't see how it'd effect anything drastically, only real difference from say the setup as seen in SupCom is the addition of the Orbital layer, which would require some form of defense, but the core gameplay doesn't really change.

Mike

Re: 3-Dementional Strategy

Yes, orbital drops are great, but it makes the traditional idea of a base (walls, buildings, turrets, units, ect.) nearly useless if you don't plan on getting those troops out alive. They also don't make combat '3-D', they just coax the player to make wider strategic decisions, such as attacking while the planet is facing a certain direction in relation to the sun.

If it's nighttime on the side of the planet with the base, power and heat signatures will light up on radar literally like fireworks, making the attack obvious, but harder to defend against. If it's daytime, the defending player can respond faster to any movements your units make without the help of more advanced detection methods, like radar and sonar, but they'll have to be paying attention.

The best way to counter orbital drops would be to build underground, at sea, or spread out equally over the planet. Turrets everywhere. Nuke equipped bombers for every square meter.

Re: 3-Dementional Strategy

What are your assumptions for that? We know nothing about how Orbital drops will work in game, it's still entirely plausible that AA defenses could shoot down incoming units, or that there might be some Orbital based defenses of some sort, I highly doubt they'd encourage a system when ODs can land right in the middle of a base or standing army.

Mike

Re: 3-Dementional Strategy

I think that the problem of dropping down right on a base could be solved simply by having the units slow down a lot while in the atmosphere. Not too much, just enough to give it a feeling of substance and to also give AA towers plenty of time to slaughter anything smaller than an invasion size force.

Re: 3-Dementional Strategy

So flak guns designed primarily for ripping apart light frames covered in thin metal with AOE will be sufficient to destroy any and all dropped units? Would a Surface to Air Missile suffice in destroying a bot? Sure! Why not?

But how many missiles does that SAM of yours have? Six? Twelve? Thirty? Okay, you have twelve T2 SAM launchers covering a base half a kilometer in diameter, great. All of them have thirty missiles, so you have the ability to kill three hundred and sixty dropped bots over that area. More than enough to stall any army long enough for your force to intercept, or your orbital MAC turrets to come around. Awesome.

So how expensive were those defenses in comparison to the peon army I sent? :roll:

Re: 3-Dementional Strategy

You are making lots of assumptions here, too many to really discuss.

But in the end, Gameplay is king, if AA weapons shooting down OD'd units is best for gameplay, that's all there is to it.

Mike

Re: 3-Dementional Strategy

As I said I imagine orbit will be the chokepoint.

I wish people would stop saying this without qualifying it. What gameplay are we talking about? Different styles need different things. Why would it be good, why would it be bad?

Re: 3-Dementional Strategy

You clearly didn't read my entire post did you? I clearly made the statement in regards to muzzle's comment(Thus the quote) that AA weapons shooting down ODing units wouldn't make sense. I even QUALIFIED my statement with "if AA weapons shooting down OD'd units is best for gameplay, that's all there is to it." Don't quote me out of context and then turn around and claim I'm not qualifying it. If AA shooting down Units dropping in from orbit is what is required to make for better gameplay, then do it and don't trip yourself up in 'Realism' about AA attacks Shooting down ground units.

Mike

Re: 3-Dementional Strategy

You never said it wouldn't make sense. And I don't see why it wouldn't. The units are travelling through the air.

You're still using "gameplay" as a justification without ever mentioning what kind of gameplay. What kind of balance changes do you wish to effect by having units be able to/not be able to be shot down? You're just saying "gameplay" as if it means something.

I don't see what would be bad about it and it does make sense.

Re: 3-Dementional Strategy

So changing the subject? Alright, there are a plethora of reasons why it could make sense and even be realistic, but that's not what is important. The important thing is to make good gameplay and then explain it, doing it the other way around is messy and seldom works out in the grand scheme of things.

Mike

Re: 3-Dementional Strategy

That's completely backwards.

What game are we even discussing? Look around for a second.

Gameplay cannot exist in a vacuum and should not exist in a vacuum.

You still haven't explained what you think you mean by "gameplay" here. You're just talking about it as if it's this magical end all be all godlike entity.

Re: 3-Dementional Strategy

What is your point bmb?

You wanted justification, and you got it. If shooting down Orbital Drop Pods with AA is conducive to an enriched gameplay experience then it should be done.

By "Gameplay" I'm preeeeety sure Mike is talking about how much tactical depth and fun you are having playing the game.
(Though feel free to correct me if I've misrepresented you Mike)

I'm having trouble seeing what your new objection is.