Ground Warfare - Snipers, Mobile Artillery, Towers and Walls.

Discussion in 'Balance Discussions' started by eroticburrito, April 22, 2014.

?

Like these ideas?

  1. Yup

    76.2%
  2. Nup

    23.8%
  1. KNight

    KNight Post Master General

    Messages:
    7,681
    Likes Received:
    3,268
    I think it's far less simplistic than a system where ALL Tanks need to be functional at a specific Task while Bots another specific Task.

    Having more variance within Bot and Tank units is important because it creates depth, especially if/when we get to the point where there are MORE differentiating factors between units than just speed.

    Mike
    Last edited: April 23, 2014
  2. optimi

    optimi Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    572
    Likes Received:
    652
    Kind of on topic: I think Uber should do an experimental playtest with the unit health doubled/tripled, with damage kept the same, to see how that feels.
    stormingkiwi likes this.
  3. stormingkiwi

    stormingkiwi Post Master General

    Messages:
    3,266
    Likes Received:
    1,355
    How?

    Think about virtually any strategy game.

    You always have a distinction between building cavalry/infantry; vehicles/infantry; frigates/cruisers, etc.

    Think about the games that involve factions - the factions are generally built around a grand concept.

    I am talking about playstyle rather than all bots must have a specific role.

    What on earth do you mean it would create death?
  4. KNight

    KNight Post Master General

    Messages:
    7,681
    Likes Received:
    3,268
    Whoops, meant "Depth".

    I'm not saying Both Bots and Tanks need to go about the same roles the same way, but I don't think we should be limiting specific roles to specific Chassis most of the time. This is especially important when terrain plays a bigger role in how units perform, for example with Tank and Bots both have "artillery" units but the Tanks have Low Arc and the Bots have High Arc and you're fighting over very hill-y terrain, you wouldn't want to bring the Tank Artillery, you'd want the Bot Artillery instead.

    And what about Amphibious units? should only Tanks get those? Only Bots? no of course not, you can apply that to both sides(different types of Amphibious movement too no less!)

    Things do need to be different between Bots and Tanks but we can't try to draw a neat little box around the Specific Things either one can do, we need to look at all the different ways things can be done and assign them as widely as possible.

    Like I said I don't mind the Idea that Bots have "better/more/different" options for raiding, but it shouldn't be ALL they do.

    Mike
    eroticburrito likes this.
  5. stormingkiwi

    stormingkiwi Post Master General

    Messages:
    3,266
    Likes Received:
    1,355
    I'm not talking about "limiting specific roles". I'm talking about a broad concept for the chassis. Other than just "Bots look like this, and vehicles look like this".

    Think infantry and cavalry in Rise of Nations.
    Infantry: Slow, cost effective (cheap) and easy to mass.
    Cavalry: Faster, more fragile, more expensive.

    You can make an entirely infantry army. You can make an entirely Cavalry army. Or you can make any kind of hybrid.

    If horse archers were slower than light infantry, there would be absolutely no reason to use them over regular archers, which are also slower than light infantry, but have more health for their cost.

    Yes, they may be "faster" than their infantry equivalent. But the cavalry equivalent of their counter is faster again. So you are better off just building more foot archers and spending the extra on heavy cavalry, which neither the light infantry nor the light cavalry can deal with.

    We're talking about the roles that units play in a diverse army.

    The way I'm approaching this is by considering that there are two independent factories, not 1 factory that produces all the units. An all - bot army is effectively one faction. An all vehicle factory is the other. And the 50% hybrid is the third. And that's what you often see in strategy games - one faction takes one concept to the extreme, the other takes a different concept to the other, and the third is often a middle ground.
    Last edited: April 25, 2014
    eroticburrito likes this.

Share This Page