Armour Bits?

Unfortunately, the fact is that immersion is absolutely achieved through solid gameplay first and foremost, then internal logic of the game mechanics outside of actual gameplay, then physics, and only then through graphics. Megaman X would still have been the awesome game it was if it had used the sprite set from the very first Megaman, but take away a single bit of polish fro its gameplay and it all falls apart. The problem i think you have is that you've been spoiled by games having just good enough gameplay overall that you don't notice when it's bad. Try playing some older games like Dragon Warrior I to see how small decisions like having to press A to open a door rather than just pushing against it had a negative effect on the game.

By the way, I'm only 19 years old and therefore too young to have played NES and that kind of stuff when it came out, and have only tried to play it very recently indeed, so you can be sure this is no nostalgia filter talking.

That's not really true. In fact I daresay solid gameplay is the last thing that provides immersion. Chess has solid well defined gameplay but chess does not really immerse me into the idea of fighting a battle.

Lots of things contribute to immersion, immersion is achieved via anything that helps suspend disbelief. This can be believable or realistic visuals, mechanics, characters, animations etc. Armour bits would add to immersion because it's not believable that units look perfectly health up until the last hitpoint and then explode. Having bits and pieces chipped off to make it look battered would be more believable and thus improve immersion.

Poor gameplay could potentially break immersion but good gameplay by itself does not create it.

Another ill defined buzzword that really means "anything I like".

I guess you're right about it not affecting immersion. I think i was thinking too much of immersion as enjoyment and not as absorption. Would you agree that gameplay is the maximum factor in enjoyment?

However, as relates to the armour bits, i think there should be some sort of effect to the unit if any visual change happens. If we go for 'the armour is being worn away until you hit the only vital component' which is just hitpoints in disguise, then the unit should get faster as its armour falls away. If we went for actual system damage (not very appropriate for a macro game like this one, though it was awesome in COH), then the machine should lose some functionalities. However that adds the proverbial giant worm can of directional armor and damage, weak points, and so much other hassle. I think that's too much to worry about when you'll be throwing hundreds of units as fodder at any point in the game.

maybe, but not necessarily.
since the focus is awesome, not realistic, if it would indeed add this much micro and break gameplay, why add it ?

Keep it simple. The biggest thing for immersion is to feel like your units are really there on the planet fighting a desperate battle against the enemy. To that extent, designating parts of the model as areas that can fall off when damaged could make for some amazing effects - actual bits and pieces during combat could go flying and bouncing around etc. A standard 'damaged electronics / machinery' texture underneath with sparks & smoke could all help that immersion factor.

For gameplay, you could track the bits and assign them a metal value - it would nicely explain why a wreck only gives you 50% metal back if the unit died after losing lots of bits.

As for the UI, any implementation obviously just needs to get out of the way of the player - assist, not obstruct. That being said, what we've seen so far is a UI in the 'just make it work' stage, rather than a polished, final UI.

I hate to take knight's job away from him, but the 'realism, not awesome' quote is used wrong here. You should read this thread for what I mean:

viewtopic.php?p=545971#p545971

Also, this would add no actual game micro as it does not force you to focus on smaller amounts of things.

you are probably right.

but think about a battle with thousands of units, and you have to deal with some of them not firing because their cannons are damaged, or not moving, not having los, moving too fast because they lost many parts... maybe that isnt the definition of micro, but it is realism that doesnt make the game more awesome. thats what i im trying to say, its my fault really, english isnt my native language and sometimes i cant express exactly what i think. sorry about that.

and about knight's definition on realism vs awesome, i kind of agree, but i think the developers meant something related to the scale of things, like distances and size of planets, stars, energy cost of stuff, orbits, gravity, this kind of stuff that would add too much complexity. but that is a different topic.

lumni, that is exactly right, this is a game about the big picture. You don't need to see yours and the enemy's troops changing their movement and functionality if the result would be the same as with just hitpoints. You should be able to skirmish all over the map without having to worry if your kbots are all safe and tucked up in their cover.

I think having a hot key to flash health bars up is a great idea. Maybe simplify the OP idea to not having lots of levels of damage and bits, but if a unit is 50%>HP>10% have some smoke or sparks or something coming off of it and 10%>HP some flames on it. That way you can (without health bars) see units in need of more serious repair and you can use a hot key to flash up a health bar at any time.

A lot of modern RTS let you quickly toggle health bars with a hotkey. SupCom's was ctrl+v I think.

alt + l

ctrl + v was for breaking the camera

i agree with you

To be fair, Ctrl-V also removed health bars

Actually ctrl+v is very useful for cinematics, removing UI features for visibility and getting excellent camera angles on a big confrontation.