Weapon Ranges as Hard Limits (currently) vs probabilistic limits

Currently, as far as I can tell, weapon limits are absolute. The weapon can hit anything within the range accurately (if it's not moving), and it can't hit anything outside of it. Period.

One outcome of this I find frustrating is, for example: If you have a single Sheller (range 160) rolling up against a line of 10 Advanced Laser Defense Towers (range 120), the laser towers do not even have a chance to fire. They just sit there and get destroyed.

I can already hear the answer, "You should have built Pelters. Or responded by bringing in planes or tanks." And all that is true, sure.

But in real life, weapon ranges are not hard limits, they are "effective ranges". In other words, the range in which you can be very effective with that weapon. You CAN shoot further, you just won't be as accurate or do as much damage. You *can* hit a tin can at 500 yards with a .22 rifle, but you won't be shooting 99% accuracy and a lot of the power of the round will have been lost to air resistance by the time it gets there. Of course, with laser weaponry in theory the damage degradation would be very slow, but targeting sensors can certainly have effective ranges.

EDIT: In this post I explain my idea, with math:
https://forums.uberent.com/threads/...probabilistic-limits.55594/page-4#post-853772

Anyway, my suggestion is this: It would be cool if units and structures could fire some amount of distance beyond their stated maximum range, just with lowered accuracy and perhaps damage too.

I think I have seen this in at least one RTS game but I can't recall which one. (EDIT: It was TA, and I can't believe I forgot that)

So....all your doing is increase the range all around and introducing Firing Randomness to all weapons plus some arbitrary damage reduction?

Mike

Technically, yes, but not in a way that will matter in most combat situations. The range at which the probability of a hit reaches 0 should NOT be shown on the map, only the existing maximum EFFECTIVE ranges should be shown, as it is now.

In defense planning, for example, the extra range should not be counted as adequately defended territory because the lowered accuracy and damage means you'd have to build so many more of whatever you're building that it erodes the cost efficiency of the defense structures to begin with.

All that would change is that in situations where small range differences are being exploited (120 vs 140, or 140 vs 160, for example) the short side has a chance to win as long as it outnumbers the long side sufficiently. I think that is more realistic.

I know some people would have the exact opposite argument - "Knowing the units and exploiting range differences is strategy and it's how to win the game." And that's a fair point as well, though it definitely involves micro-management of units which I thought was not supposed to be prevalent in PA.

If it won't matter in most situations, then why add it?

Yeah this is a good point. I would love it if they made it function this way. All it requires is some level of accuracy. It would also allow the creation of units with low accuracy but high damage and vise versa.

How about, for the same reasons that mountains have snow on top of them, power reactors have little spinning parts, waterfronts have tides, and factories have arms that move around and exit ramps that deploy and undeploy?

These things do not "matter" ever, at all, as in they do not affect combat or the winner of the game. But they're still in there, and look very cool. Having some shot accuracy randomness at long ranges would look cool and also have some effect in combat.

I like this too.

You can't compare the two thought, as you said, one has NO effect and the other does, they are different.

Especially when something has an effect on gameplay, you need to justify it in the context of the gameplay.

Mike

Except the things you describe don't effect gameplay and what you're proposing does effect gameplay.

Fair enough. I think that this change would make the game better because it would make weapons behave more realistically and make the micro-strategy of exploiting small range differentials less effective. I think that both of these things would be an improvement.

The AI seems to exploit small range differences a lot. It will move an army past a line of defense just barely out of range, or stay just out of firing range and pick off turrets and units. It's harder for human players to do this since enemy weapon ranges are not shown and neither are unit weapon ranges (which can differ from visibility range).

Certain types of roles would really benefit from this being available. For example, battle tanks. Giving their main gun decreasing accuracy with distance makes tank wars about more than creating the densest tank ball. Having them be somewhat less accurate while moving also makes a very soft defender's advantage even among identical units. In conjunction with a limited turret traverse speed, tanks would be less able to hit fast moving targets at close ranges, but would be inaccurate at their maximum ranges. Mechanics like this make for a soft changes in effectiveness that makes the unit a lot more interesting. The important thing is to make the effect simple and clear to the player. Such as showing a hard maximum range, for a start.

Weapons that spray, like certain types of antiswarm weapons also benefit from distance-based inaccuracy, but in a different way, because they get more accurate against a swarm at longer distances, where they will hit something. Shell and rocket artillery could also get less accurate with increasing distance, up to their maximum range.

Variable inaccuracy with distance would be a good mechanic for a variety of different units. But it's not necessary for all units. A close combat bot, for example, might as well just have a hard cutoff.

This sums what what I was gonna say really.

Mike

Well, I like the idea. First it would allow you to maneuver and build structures under enemy fire, something that would make a battle more dynamic and interesting for both parts. Who better understands limits and point of strength of each weapon deployed on the field have more chances to win. That's not bad at all, it makes the experience richer.

Secondly I believe that artillery shouldn't be so precise as it is now, specially the big cannons (Pelter and Holkins) and specially at the extremity of their fire range. Also, those weapons should have a minimum range within which their accuracy should drop dramatically.

Yes, of course, those aren't graphical details. Those things change the gameplay. In a way that personally I wouldn't dislike.

Honestly, I don't think this would change much. Instead, your Sheller (range 320) would roll up against a line of 10 Advanced Laser Defense Towers (range 240), and the laser towers would still not have a chance to fire. The only difference is that the Sheller would be doing some fraction of its damage output due to attenuation, and it would have reason to move right up to the edge of their outermost attack range.

That is, unless you want all weapons to have unlimited range...

You raise a good point, and I should have addressed this earlier.

I do realize that this will occur, but the difference is that if, before, the Sheller could pick off the entire tower line in 1 minute, now it could take 5 or 10 minutes if it stays completely out of range for the laser towers because at that distance the Sheller has very low effectiveness. If the Sheller moves in closer to where it has maximum effectiveness, then the Laser Towers now have at least a chance of hitting it.

I sound like a broken record but I really like the realism of this. Of course in a game where sentient robots are replicating armies with nanites and moving planets around there will be many things that are not "realistic"... But shot accuracy that varies with distance seems like it would fit well with the type of simulation PA is doing (similar to its predecessors).

Hard limits and perfect accuracy seems especially strange at long distances. Take the Catapult, for example. It can hit anything within 500 distance units with 100% accuracy. You want 501 distance units? Sorry, that's absolutely impossible, and no Catapult would even attempt it because it's so crazy."

I think I just remembered that Total Annihilation did this. Correct me if I'm wrong, I haven't played it in at least 10 years, but:
1) I recall the Bertha being very inaccurate at long range
2) When you used walls of Dragon's Teeth to protect Sentinels it would block *most* of the fire from Flashes but some of the Flash fire would still make it over the wall, showing that each round had a random height.

Ummm how is it arbitrary??? That's what happens to any projectile over distance.....

Well, you told it yourself... they're robots

Because a cannon doesn't do LESS damage the farther it flies, a Bomb doesn't explode with less force the farther it fell.

Mike

You're correct TA did just that. But the actual engagement range wasn't extended, shots that missed their targets at maximum range would continue traveling a bit. Some times you were lucky enough that an enemy unit happened to be in its path. I do like your idea of a less effective range but methinks artillery would become more op as the splash damage of a holkins is no joke. And with the soon to be implemented super arc of artillery those rounds wouldn't travel beyond their effective range, laser bolts and plasma shots however......

Explosive shells don't lose their effectiveness correct, but my quick second post explained that. Like I said I don't see it being to great an implementation on artillery, units with such an arc are going to have a maximum range end of story. Once again though lasers and plasma rounds........

If a dox fires on a unit at the edge of its range and misses the rounds just disappear??? Like it hit the dirt.... was this advanced piece of technology aiming at the enemy units feet ? Doubtful. So it would make sense the projectile continues some distance along its path before dirt diving