For Backers Only: Unit Whitebox Sheet

Scale looks perfect, not to far away like it was in SupCom where you couldn't tell the difference from a commander to a T2 unit, but larger than TA where units filled the screen. The level of detail (polygons) is perfect on the commander.

Also it is really cool seeing the construction colors on the build platforms, and the commander... uhhh man brb gota play some TA to mentally rub one out.

No light penetration == no shadow. Sorry, the unfathomable depths are totally dark.

That assumes you would want an opaque sea; for gameplay purposes this is probably not the case. Therefore, if you raise the ambient light so that subs are visible, a shadow would therefore be visible also.

Forget TGIF, now it's TGIAB (Thank Goodness I'm A Backer)

Looks cool so far

Even so, it would not make sense to have white light on a submersible. The light is going to match the colors that the medium allows. You can go with ocean colors (typically blue), or hollywood black... which is also blue.

I think these look great!

Man. I definitely spent my money on the right project.

Two quibbles, though:

1) is there a particular reason for separating land units into bots and vehicles? I've always been a bit miffed at the split in TA, since it results in a number of duplicate units and makes for a very uniform look to armies in the very early game - having to drop two factories to get that nice, cinematic mix of bots and vehicles slows things down.

2) why such square factories? I wouldn't mind an octagonal or hexagonal air factory, or a more circular launch-pad design to the rocket gantry. I realize it's easier to line them up... But the gain in aesthetic flavor would, I think, be worth it, and improve recognition.

I can't remember the pricing of units in TA (it's my favorite RTS game, but I have not played it beyond 2003) but in a credible universe, the cost of tanks would be lower than bipedal units.

The mechanics and electronics used to make bipedal robots are far more complex and so, more tech/resources demanding than tanks with wheels or tank tracks (with our current tech, we are able to make bipedal robots, but they're not anywhere near ready to play rugby ).
At least, for a given price, tank should be better armed and plated while bipedal units should be more agile and able to go through rougher terrains.

Here are my two cents about that question

The walking system alone is more complex than an entire tank.


The main reason one would want a walker is improved maneuverability over tanks. The reason we're building soldier-assisting robots rather than vehicles is because such robots can traverse roughly the same terrain.

I would say a robot has roughly an order of magnitude higher maneuverability. Note that a Tank is likely faster on flat out terrain. However both the speed in rough terrain, the amount of rough terrain and vertical slope they can handle, is much better with walkers. Walkers can simply go where tanks can not.


Walkers do have various other complexities. Like, the recoil if it has an arm-mounted gun. It would require complex systems to keep it upright and walking. However, the possible power requirements can be very low if smartly engineered: humans are very energy-efficient in their design, and a robot could go much further. This means more possibility for energy weapons (whereas tanks could fit bigger weapons).

Another option is to have the submersible artificially visible, despite the opacity/darkness of the sea; like a wallhack if you want.

Also, seas can have very different opacity levels. Sometimes you don't even see your legs when swimming, some times you see the ground as if there was nothing 10m below.
Also, all seas don't have to be water. Tar would be pitch black, mercury would look funny (though tanks could possibly drive on it, or at least submarines wouldn't work), but some other exotic seas could be interesting-looking.

A mercury filled sea? Oh heck yes! Pair it with good liquid physics and watch crap just take a dip in it and explode.

Uhh. Mercury is pretty much harmless, even to people. It takes a lot of effort to make it hazardous.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7Ilxsu-JlY

We could also add lights (headlights, spot lights, that sort of thing) to the models of submerged buildings and units.

That's not my point. My point is that separating these two out by factory is a great way to end up with two parallel chains of land units that have 80% duplication of function between them (which, incidentally, increases the potential for brokenness like TA's Flash). The way I see it, there should be one land factory that builds bots, tanks, and at T2 hovercraft as well. I love big expansive games with a ton of units, but they need to be diverse enough units to justify themselves. Having a T1 AA vehicle and a T1 AA bot is needless duplication: instead, you can make T1 AA a bot and T2 a vehicle, which leaves room in the unit list for craziness like flamethrower tanks and crawling bombs (both of which are favorites of mine).

Just so this post isn't a complete waste, some fabber layouts:


I have deeper design critique of a few things (easy stuff: construction striping directly on the nanolathe arms, more vertical depth and shape diversity in buildings like power generators and storage, etc. but I'll save that for when I have a chance to do some real art for it).

It's also worth remembering that there is more to a unit than just it's role, but also HOW it carries out it's role.

You can get things where, as an arbitrary example, you have a Tank from with a shorter ranged AA Beam, so it can get to where it's needed faster, but have a slightly shorter range and also better accuracy, then a Bot frame could mount a ballistic AA weapon, with more range and damage, but with more opportunity to miss and a lower overall speed.

And there are still more factors that can be brought into play, thats the great thing about the simulation system, there are so many variables to play with and you don't been to devolve into things like armor types and RPS balancing.

I think you're falsely assuming as well that you'll want to build both tanks AND bots all the time. Part of the Goal of having one big unit pool is variety, the way I look at it, the ultimate goal is that 2 players can be using different strategies, but never having to build the same unit(s) as thier opponent.

Mike

Let's face it, I'll still play and love the game no matter what. I'm just hoping to see it streamlined a tiny bit. Fewer fabbers and fewer needlessly overlapping roles makes it easier to add in units later and have them be intuitive to use in play. Obviously it's not my call, but I'm curious about the rationale behind the design.

Aluminium, pre-treated, timelapse video.

I hope you never try to prove the harmlessness of mercury by taking some on a plane.
Could be a cool AA weapon for PA: mecury dust cloud.