Building underground?

1] Making a defense maze is useless as the enemy can just make a path in the same way you made the maze.

2] Your wording "coming up under an unaware enemies base" makes it sound like there's no option to detect such an attack. If there is then it just falls down to taking advantage of a gap in your enemies' defenses, this can happen on any layer.

3] You don't need an underground layer for that, you just need a surface structure that stores aircraft.

4] Regardless of my opinion on "Rich" resources(No Thanks) the gameplay implications of putting them somewhere you describe as "safe" place is not that great, those kinds of things need to be placed in areas where you want to create conflict, like in the middle of the map between players.

5] See 4, you don't need an underground layer for this.

Mike

well an enemy will have to dig through a cave-in but it can take a while, also geothermal power would not require as much effort to reach a hot spot. Additionally a sensor can detect water and underground movement too (i think). when i say mineral rich deposits i mean like special minerals lay there.

But that is nothing that can't also be done normally with stealth and cloaking.

Whats this about cave-ins? you said "making a defense maze".

Maybe in the real world, but if the geothermal points are pre-defined as they were in SupCom it's less about having a proper realistic placement and more about making interesting map dynamics.

Well considering we can already accurately triangulate the epicenters of earthquakes I would hope so.

??? How are they special? There's 2 resources in the game, Metal and Energy.

Mike

well you could break one of your walls by exploding it causing a cave-in. and by defensive maze its like turrets can come out of a wall (but can get destroyed). in order to live underground it requires things such as power which comes from geothermal power, metal from deposits, and since metal deposits run out then that would cause a reason for mining undeground

Metal deposits run out?

Since when?

really? almost nothing is infinite, and metal is finite so it can be used up so underground has uses just like underwater will

It is in TA.

And that's not changing, so if that's the reason to go underground, then you are mistaken.

And that makes this idea a pointless addition that adds nothing to the game other then another level of play that is frankly unbelievable, impractical and defiantly not needed.

well this is not TA if you did not notice, also they will probably make another way to get metal if the make it finite

plz detail your terrible reasons that underground would not be fun cause you are making no sense

But they won't make resources finite, because PA is not only a spiritual successor to TA(technically SupCom too) but it is also being made by many of the same people that made TA and SupCom.

Mike

TA had infinite resources.

That is fact, your metal deposits would not diminish over time, nor would they ever run out.

Where ever you are getting your information is flawed.


And my ability to manage an airforce, a navy, an army, the new orbital and forces on several moving planets at the same time will be strained at best.

But adding an underground level is really really freaking stupid and contributes nothing to the game that isn't already present or is not needed at all because of misconceptions to how this games predecessors actually played out.

Hiding adds nothing.

Resources add nothing.

Stealth attacking adds nothing.

Your 'maze' type adds nothing when an enemy can also dig, making the idea pointless and into a more simple version of the normal above ground combat.

So really, instead of trying to push over our arguments, what basis of your argument that this would be a good idea is really the reason you continue to support this in spite of the contrary views you have been provided?

And before you say it "We are shooting for awesome" is not a valid argument because as for one, I defiantly don't think this is awesome, at best this is a half baked mechanic stolen from another game that didn't do very well anyway.

ok first of all your reasons are these from what i can gather:
1. you think it will be confusing
2. you think you'll get attacked from below
3. you don't like mazing
4. you hate REAL hiding (a stealth field cant hide you from a unit that is right next to it)

these are my reasons
1. it would be interesting new strategies
2. mazing for defense
3. the novelty of it
4. i would play more because it won't be cliche
5. probably new units

because in SupCom there are the resource spots right? well you can only have so many spots so underground would add to it. if underwater is being added why not underground.

P.S. how many times do i have to repeat myself THIS IS NOT TA

Describe one or two novel NEW strategies, if you please, because I can't think of any. Remember, there's a difference between a strategy and implementation of a strategy.

(I'm on the border of writing my own PSA about people suggesting features that "would be cool/fun," but I fear that it just wouldn't be in the spirit of the forums. Or very polite. :? )

New does not mean better, and not a reason to support this becuse you can say it about anything and everything.

If you can dig, then there will be no maze.

So how is it any different to normal ground combat in any way?

That's a stupid reason to add something to a standard game, as it can be a novelty to do anything that has been done before.

And this still doesn't address the point that the idea of this is still not a good one in the first place.

Building army's is cliché?

Not good enough, especially with a proper reason to back it up.

Putting resource spots underground would make no sense because you would be effectively undermining the normal resource points, making the top side ones useless.

If you need more metal spots, the go get some, not turtle economically and somehow stack extractors.

But it is based on TA, from some of the same developers as TA, done in the TA style, and intended to be a spiritual successor to TA.

So technically you are correct.

since i barely use the same strategy twice its hard to think of any existing ones so yeah. also what happens in a 40 player game huh, there is no more planets after a while so what then... UNDERGROUND!!! the extractors will help and you forgot one of my things "they already will have a underwater why not underground" also there will have to be underground walls to prevent digging into your base, and you are just pushing my argument away and not supporting a reason that tells a real downside to underground cause there are already going to be layers so it won't overload you (unless you are challenged no offense). and by cliche i mean it's going to be almost the same where its just land, air, and water. and no other units (maybe space)

Most of your reasons for underground are things people don't want. More resources? We don't need more, we have multiple planets to colonize. And then some of ur reasons are just plain idiotic. Not to offend, but they seriously are. Novelty? Cliche?

Please answer the issues that igncom pointed out instead of saying what you like about it.

The underwater layer is really nothing like an underground layer. firstly, it is clearly visible and easily accessible from an access standpoint. This comes from it being part of the group of layers above it, sea layer has clear interactions and can be fired through in most instances, air layer can go to torpedo bombers and such so it can be fired through. You cannot overlap buildings between the underwater and the water layer.

The under ground layer requires some sort of mining device to access and is more or less a separate map there after instead of being part of the same map.

also instead of just rejecting the ideas or calling them idiotic, please form a coherent argument against them. while it might be true that we don't want these things, you can't convince a person just by claiming that other people don't want it.

ok sry if some of some of my reasons weren't the best i know. the reasons i would like it because of the fact i can go turtle (i'm a terrible offensive player), it seems like it would be fun, the way units would move would be interesting, a building with understucture would be cool (i don't think this is a reason), if they decide you have to hook certain buildings up something pipes and wires would be useful, i could look for cool things they could add in places like that (maybe in a canyon or a abyss). i had other reasons i can't remember, also if you would be ok with underground but a bit different just say it

1. When there are no more planets you take his resources from him by force. You're acting as though once someone has an extractor you can never have it.

2. Is underwater actually confirmed? I'm pretty sure underwater isn't what you think it is. Also water is clear, ground is not.

3. Everyone is supplying downsides. In fact you are even supplying downsides, you just think that they Are good reasons.

4. Yes there will be 4 layers, on MULTIPLE planets. Also, you can't see underground, making it a layer you cannot see. The other 4 can be seen by strategic zoom, but I don't see how this will work for underground.

5. Cliche? What do you want? 2 dimensional units, 3 dimensional units, and 4 dimensional units? This and is already making the maps spheres and adding orbital layers. Why are you playing Rts game if land air and sea is cliche?

It's kind of hard to form an argument against "its a novel idea" and "it wouldn't be cliche".