hand to hand fight units

You can't get under the firing arc of a typical tank or kbot. And since your melee bots have about the same DPS to HP ratio as any other equal cost kbot or tank it just comes down to numbers. So what was the point of using melee units when you could have just used tanks?

BZZZT! Faulty premise.

Melee units are tougher, cheaper, and more damaging by default. This is necessary for them to compete against ranged units. Design 101.

Nope.

This is why they cannot compete.

But aside from the amount of handwaivium needed to make them work they don't add anything to the game that you can't get from any fast raiding type unit or land mine. And given the amount of animation needed to make them not look stupid I don't think making melee units would be a good use of the limited development resources.

Why can't you get under the firing arc of a typical tank or kbot? (Unless you meant "because that's how they've always implemented it up until now", of course)

Tanks still come with a mounted turret on top of an engine/propulsion system, so they can't logically shoot straight down. Using that model, you can have a reasonable system where units in melee can't use their guns, while still being attackable. To get rid of the melee units, you'd need to take them out with another unit, which of course would come with a risk of splash-damage on your own stuff.

You can find a way if you want to. It's clear that some people don't want to find a way for whatever reason, which is fine of course, but that doesn't mean it wouldn't be possible to melee properly in a game like this. That said, I don't really care either way, I'm just saying it can certainly be done and can certainly be cool.

Because turrets can aim down. So can kbots. And most guns don't do splash damage in TA style games.

It is possible to put them in the game and make them work. But its not practical. Nor is it worth the dev resources to do so when a fast tank and a mine layer could do the same thing for less RL time and money. As I have said before, let the mod makers address it.

Then you're still imagining really big melee bots, because at some point they can no longer point further down. There's a dead angle for tanks. It's less (or non-existant) for bots, but hey, that's just another thing to differentiate them on.
(Not to mention that you can sit atop a tank turret, where it can definately not reach)

Like I said; it might not be worth the development resources (probably isn't) but it can be made practical if you want it to. The game informs what is practical, not the other way around.

Then you're still imagining really big melee bots, because at some point they can no longer point further down. There's a dead angle for tanks. It's less (or non-existant) for bots, but hey, that's just another thing to differentiate them on.
(Not to mention that you can sit atop a tank turret, where it can definately not reach)
/quote]

two problems here:

-the dead angle for tanks exists. However, that dead angle is a very small space just around the tank. Which means you have to get through the firing arc to get in this, which means you get shot at.

-super small melee units are by standard game design very weak units. thus, the tank would easily destroy them.

Yes. Essentially you're saying melee units don't work, and need to be buffed to work. However, you could take the melee frame and add a gun and have a superior unit in every way.


The reason i am against Melee units is because it's out of place. If you want melee, play SC or some medieval game.

From a game design perspective, a melee unit requires quite a few animations to look non-stupid and thus costs more than a regular ranged unit.

and lastly: in the chaos that a big battle will be, melee units will look like Minecraftian Deathpunchers while more bullets and explosions still provide a degree of "actual killing going on".

Design 101 would teach you to consider all variables for balance rather than just one type of unit, making them tougher, cheaper and more damaging would make them too good against static defenses and other buildings.

Getting shot at (and killed) is not a problem. After all, those shots could have been directed at a high-value target as well, instead you're shooting at some fast, cheap little bot-thing. I could live with that (melee or not; it never hurts to see heavy tanks shoot light, fast targets. That's only working out in your favor.)

Also, I'm not sure how often you think the tank can shoot, but I doubt it could stop a dozen shredder bots before they close in melee, and once they're inside the very small dead arc, they're safe from it.

It's pretty much literally the same as saying that a short-ranged fast raider could never work because a heavy artillery unit would easily destroy it due to its higher firepower and range. We all know how that one works out in practice, right?

Honestly, taking any design class at all should have taught you there's zero problems with that. Also playing any RTS at all should have revealed that your statement is completely false.

Any bot too small for a turret to aim down at is also too small to do enough DPS to be a threat to the tank before the tank 5 feet away blows the melee bot to bits. Unless we are talking about land mines.

If an entire class of units requires massive quantities of handwavium to work then there is something very very wrong with basic premise of the class. Because without a sword and armor made of pure handwavium no melee unit can do more DPS than a ranged unit while being cheaper and tougher/faster.

Also, given that it takes far more dev time and money to animate a kung fu bot than a tank with a gun what is the point of spending tons of time and money making a melee unit when you can get the same game play effect from two or three normal units with specialized roles.

This is not only cheaper and easier to develop but by splitting the roles into separate units you force the player to make choices about their force composition. This leads to better emergent game play and tactics. That is far better game design than just deciding that melee units are magically made from super metal that nobody thought to also use as tank armor.

Rock, Paper, Scissors (Melee, Ranged, Static Defenses) is boring.

Why? Is this some kind of arbitrary limitation on smaller vehicles you thought up?

Because tanks just aren't that tall. In fact they are generally shorter than bots since they don't have legs with a series of articulated joints needed for walking.

But it's not. Stop making things up.

Short ranged units have been very successful in RTS games. They're not an issue.

Yes, RPS is boring. I don't need to make anything up to say that. I'm sure a RPS iPhone app will sell like crazy cause its so fun and allows for such deep strategy.

I never said short ranged units were bad. There is nothing wrong with them. But melee is not ok. It is a special class that needs silly things to make it work if the game as a whole isn't designed around it.

And given the amount of dev time and money needed to just put it in the game at all, nevermind balance it, its just not worth the effort of including. The fact that units in Starcraft can't fire while moving is the *only* reason that melee works there. This is a silly kludge on the part of the Starcraft devs.

If you think about it, outside of dedicated long range role units like artillery and tac missiles very few units in TA and SupCom differentiate themselves on range at all. Most tanks, bots, ships, and aircraft generally have very close to the same range as every other unit of the same type. Even bots and tanks are generally very close together.

This is because you just don't need range as a differentiation factor very much. Unit HP, speed, DPS, cost, and natural weapon dynamics are already more than sufficient to make for great emergent tactics and game play.

LOL, if you believe that you should get your money back, the class you took is obviously a scam. The one I attended was taught by several people from the games industry who work/worked on commercial titles, some of who I ended up working with, and no one I know from the games industry would believe, let alone teach, that you shouldn't consider all the variables for balance.

I can think of none that would prove my statement false, all the RTS games I know of that have both ranged and melee units use stop to shoot mechanics to balance melee units, and/or have to have a special case for building armor that reduces melee damage. There are very good reasons why melee units do not appear in RTS games that heavily use ranged weaponry as I and others have been pointing out.

Usually those games have stop to shoot mechanics that allow for short range units to catch up to ranged units while they are shooting with relatively little effort. In something like TA, SupCom or PA (I'm assuming), where units can shoot while moving, a melee unit would need to be buffed considerably to be useful against any ranged units, of course such a buff would make the melee unit completely OP against anything slow or stationary, which to balance correctly involves special case nerfs and buffs (like melee is bad against buildings) that complicates things in a way that is hard to make obvious to players. You will find that T1 artillery is heavily favored in SupCom because of it's range advantage and I've frequently seen matches where a couple of T1 artillery make a huge mess of large numbers of shorter range units (getting 30+ kills each) simply by exploiting the extra range difference, units with no range wouldn't stand a chance without being OP.

BZZZZT. You're assuming a damage type is needed.

You are correct in that a short range unit's speed plays a huge part in where it excels. Short range units HAVE to be faster than the targets it aims to kill, otherwise it can not reach the target. This would naturally make fast units good against average speed, and slow units would have difficulty against anything that isn't stationary.

You are at fault for assuming it's some kind of game design issue. On the contrary. Units excel where their attributes make the most sense. That is how good design works.

His assumption is correct. A damage type would be needed.

And even if a melee unit can catch a ranged unit it will be nearly dead by the time it finally closes the distance because the difference in speed won't be that great unless the melee unit is just stupid fast. But then you run into the issue of it killing static defenses too well again or just running right past them into the base and ignoring them completely. Which once again necessitates a damage type or some other silly kludge to fix. Especially when the first role is already filled by long range artillery and the second role is already filled by aircraft.

Tiberium Sun had to implement pavement for this very purpose to counter NOD's tunneling transports and prevent them from bypassing all base defenses. They had an entire building that served no other purpose than to counter a single movement type of a single unit possessed by only one faction. It was a silly kludge and anything that would allow melee to work would also have to be equally silly.

And fast units can't be strong against average speed units in direct combat when they can't have better HP to DPS ratios. Fast units can raid better but they cannot stand up to heavier units in direct combat without greatly superior range. Unless they are made of pure handwavium of course.

The fact that units only excel where their attributes make the most sense is the most basic reason why melee isn't practical without silly kludges to let it work.