Hi, First post on here - so sorry if ive not searched this properly - I think I have! Wouldnt it be cool if particular fixed buildings, such as big/little artillery had different ammo types, which affected different types of units differently? I.e. small artillery could change between attack/defence mode, in attack mode, it could use normal shells, just like in Sup Com. But in defence mode, it could do something like EMP? or something to slow enemy units down so the point defence can tackle them easier? I think this would be quite useful when a land based "big" unit, or group of smaller units is attacking and hoping to overwhelm a smaller defensive outpost. where there is say only 2 point defence and 1 arty (which I tend to use to respond to cruisers etc. which are attacking my costal mass points) I don't think something like this should be applied to many defensive buildings and the fire mode should affect the energy consumption/fire rate, and when it is changed, its a manual (you gotta work to make the most of your defence if you notice an attack that warrants some changes to your defensive lines) Just a thought. Mike
This is what I would class as an operational level activity. As in below tactical/micromanagement. So unless the artillery manages this it's self, then I would say this is a bad idea.
ok, I was just trying to think of a way to make it a bit more balanced - maybe if there were certain ranges the different ammo types worked within? i.e. if distance >=5 && <maxRange use normal shells, but if distance <5 use emp, or some similar logic? meaning that when the unit its attacking is within say point defense range, it will use emp, otherwise use normal shells?
Yeah. Its not really the idea I have a problem with, but the implementation that won't revolve me having to do it manually or having to worry about it much.
If you have Ammo Types that offer distict differences to how the Arty Performs, why not just make more Arty units and spread the ammo types among them? Mike
Thats not a bad idea - but usually my defensive areas are pretty tight, so having 1 building fulfil multiple roles is space saving
Why build three things to three jobs when one thing can do three jobs just as effectively. Double click > select all units > click cycle ammo Drag box on half of units > cycle ammo
first of all drop down menus and their other implementations are the way of the future above cycling. Furthermore you would have no idea what the shots coming towards you will do when they land. Instead when you see a unit you should know what its going to do.
It's the same reason you don't see 3 ammo types on any standard unit. Each trait has a different VALUE to it.
A lot of modern short assault rifles are designed to take different kinds of ammunition now so you don't have to carry extra kinds of guns. What about tanks that carry grenades, missiles, the main cannon with several different shells, multiple machines guns.
As previously stated, it makes identification for what you can expect difficult. Not to mention unnessecary micro. Modern assault rifles are irrelevant. While what you said is true, ammo types are just not needed in this game.
Gameplay over Realism. You can say it's easy all you want, but you're not looking at the big picture if you do. Give every unit Ammo types(because according to you it's easy and realistic!) and suddenly you have a few things happen; A] You can build anything you want regardless of your opponent because you have an ammo type to deal with any threat. B] Unless all units share the same Ammo types, it becomes much more of a hassle to manage, just like having Starcraft2 Sentries and High Templars in the same control group and need to Tab between them. Not to mention it creates this horrible level of redundancy. As I said, if the ammo types are distinct enough, they should be thier own units, otherwise you end up like with SupCom2, where late game you don't need AA because there are AA turrets on non-AA units. Mike
Ammo types are important for distinctly different targets like Flesh, Armor, and Wood. Everything in PA is pure robot.
Some of the reasoning posted is not well justified. Various types of modern artillery have been able to fire normal explosive shells, extended range explosive shells, illumination shells, incendiary white phosphorous shells, cluster munitions, anti-armor seeking munitions, anti-personnel or anti-armor mines, chemical weapons shells, and, in a brief absence of common sense, small nuclear weapons. Oh, and artillery can do direct fire as well. Most of these sound rather useful, even in the distant future. As for "readability", I am invariably reminded of the person in a classic Far Side comic whenever people start fixating on it. I have great faith in the ability of the team at Uber to make any units and weapons they decide to have sufficiently distinguishable. The simplest reason not to have artillery ammunition types is likely also the best reason not to have it: it would be too difficult to balance.
I don't recall anyone saying multiple ammo types ISN'T Realistic, myself merely argued that Gameplay > Realism. Mike
Ammo types exist in the real world because making custom weapons is hard, but custom shells are easy. In PA, making custom weapons is easy. There is no need for any weapon system to use suboptimal ammo. Even if one weapon COULD use different ammo types, it would mean complicating its ammo fabber and reducing efficiency on all fronts. A redesigned and optimized weapon could do the same job better. Perhaps the only unit that has ever used custom ammo is the Commander. Both the d-gun and overcharge count as special "ammo types" that are not normally produced by the gun. Their power comes from energy storage.
