Damage systems?

The whole point of a nuanced armor system is to make differences between units that all have instant shots and 100% accuracy. Without them, Starcraft would have had 5 unique units per race. That's not the case in a simulation driven environment.

There is enough depth to be had between planet niches, multiple altitude layers, small guns, large guns, stupidly large guns, and farkin' asteroid bombs. You don't need to have silly things like armor piercing or anti-light weapons to accomplish anything other than unit bloat.

Those mechanics are used to enforce a rock-paper-scissors system, since most games lack true simulation based units (as mentioned before: perfect, instant aim and blithely ignoring shot-blocking terrain features). These mechanics are unnecessary in a more simulation-based system: rather than ham-fisted forced strengths and weaknesses (piercing damage is better against armored units and worse against unarmored because... well otherwise your unarmored units would be useless), you have natural strengths and weaknesses (big guns are slow to aim and fire, allowing smaller units to dodge them, rockets and flak are better against air because of tracking capabilities and damage radius respectively). Both options are viable, and it comes down to personal preference.

Personally, I've always been a fan of the simulation-based games, and never took a shine to the *crafts and their ilk.

An AP round used against an unarmored target is likely to blast straight through it, doing less damage because most of the energy of the round is 'wasted', rather than sticking around inside the target.

You want as much energy as you can get in the projectile, but not quite enough to punch straight through -- you want to bounce around inside the target to really mess it up, not just punch holes.

(Of course, when we're talking about human beings, generally something that strong will kill you anyway, but...)

Mrknowie makes a good point; games that employ armour/damage types are often RPS balanced.

To the best of my knowledge, PA won't be balanced that way. Or at least it will only be in a very soft meta-balance kind of way.

The kind of things I think of when people talk about adding depth are things like:
Terrain vs unit types
Effects of terrain on direct fire and arcing shells
Projectile damage vs rounds per minute vs firing cost
Target tracking speed vs unit speed/maneuverability
Line of sight vs projectile range
Direct fire vs area of effect damage
Strategic and tactical weapons and countermeasures
Radar, cloak, stealth etc.
Teamwork and diplomacy

Just a few ways to add depth to a game without introducing flakey armor type bonuses.

Also it's probably a better idea to show the differences in units through the simulation rather than just stats in the background because it would allow people to see in front of them exactly what's going on.

So for example in Starcraft you have to explicitly tell someone "Some units can shoot at land and air targets, but since they aren't specifically anti air units they do less damage." When someone asks why their ultra tanks aren't shooting down the flying bat things as well.

But in Sup Com you can see a T3 spy plane zoom over your base, and then a ground unit fires a single laser or missile at it. The spy plane moves so fast that it outruns what's being shot at it. The player can immediately see that their shot went wide or that the plane is outrunning their missiles. The question of why something isn't working is answered in the very instant they see it happening.

And you can work around the "spy planes are faster than missiles" defense by being clever. You can send your own planes to attack them from the front, so you fire your missiles at them while they are flying directly at your missiles. Or you can try to nail the spy plane while it's turning around and going slower.

Is it realy nessesary to have different weapon types and armor types if all the units are robots? (Well technicaly its not confirmed that all the units will be robots, but it seems likely).

The game would be pretty boring without different types of weapons. :lol:

Sigh, you know i meant different damage types. :roll: