Handling Wreckage - The SUPER POLL

That and it was just ridiculously strong. Wreckage took way more damage to destroy than the original unit did.

To neutralize a war machine is easier than shatter it into pieces.

If you want to go down the 'realism' route, TA units had 'Heavy Armour', which was a practically invulnerable super-dense quasi-material and units were actually being destroyed by fire overloading the armour's generator, which caused the artificially compressed heavy armour to explode. This was TA's justification for having hitpoints, but this explanation did make the extreme durability of wrecks (weren't Krogoth wrecks capable of surviving multiple direct hits from nuclear missiles?) not make sense.

Why ? do RTSs have to sit at the back of the bus? is that what you think?

Please, for the love of all that is holy, stop resurrecting old threads. Yes, the search function is nice and all that, but if its a thread from 2012 just, please, ignore it. :cry:

Then people should stop telling others that there already are threads and that they should use the search function, when someone opens a duplicate thread. I'd approve; who cares whether there are duplicate threads, so long as the main page doesn't contain six of them.

The problem is that the new post(s) didn't add anything useful. Nobody gets upset when there's a cool and new contribution, ie; updated news about something that was important to the thread when it died.

Digging up something, and just throwing in your opinion isn't helpful or useful. Look at the post(s) in question, and ask yourself this; was this post beneficial to the community?

So:

Search for other threads about the subject.
Read them.
Do you have anything to add?
If yes, look at the date of the last post of the thread. Was it not too long ago; can you safely post there? Or should you make a new thread, if, for example, the last post was a year ago.

Seems a bit convoluted. I still don't see the problem with bumping old threads to add something new and useful, or with making duplicate threads to add something new and useful.

... Which, upon re-reading your post, seems to be what you're saying, too?

You know it's a good point when nlspeed911 and I actually agree on something.

I will add that some on this forum seem overly preoccupied on forum etiquette when our focus should be directed on forum content.

I voted for "Wreckage blocks ALL movement - every unit must go around the wreckage." with the caveat that such wreckage can be reclaimed for metal. I thought this game decision made some units in TA and SCFA more useful than others in the later stages of any given battle when wreckage was strewn all over the battlefield.

I don't think we need to task PA (or the game server) with needlessly complicated physics computations regarding wreckage. Let's save that for the ragdoll physics modeling and interplanetary movement/combat.

I recon what should happen is that when a unit is destroyed/structure there should be a 50% chance that there is wreckage left over. Also I think that if units go throw wreckage it becomes degraded and less chance of reclaiming it. I believe that all wreckage should be salvageable to a curtain level, but with units degrading the savage quality as they move through it or shoot at it. Also wreckage should also have the added effect of cover, so if 2 players have been battling out and left a massive field of wreckage, it would help with your defence and also be cool for use as an attack route as you would have the wreckage as a field of cover for your force.

though looking at list above I would be quite happy with any of the options.

David W

Nah, no random chance please.

If I remember correctly, if a unit was overkilled by a certain amount in both TA and SupCom, it would just explode into bits and leave no wreckage. So there should be that as well.

Pretty sure the guys said this would be a feature in one of the early live streams!

I would think that the best scenario is to only have certain buildings, like big buildings (spaceports, factories) be unwalkable when destroyed. Destroying an enemy's wall and having to then destroy the wreckage is kind of annoying, even if it is kind of working as intended (it's a wall, it's supposed to not let you by). Similarly, having a destroyed wall of mass extractors blocking the movement of your troops to the frontlines is also something that just feels dumb.

However, I do think that there is something to be said for the role of wreckage in the game. Wreckage reclamation should play a more key role. With reclaiming wreckage, I want an option for idle fabricators to automatically reclaim nearby wreckages.

So because I didn't read all the pages, I'm not sure if this was already mentioned.

My opinion would be: Treat wreckage like trees in supcom!

You are able to pass without blocking, but the wreckage would be also crushed and no longer reclaimable. This will force you to make a decision whether you still want to reclaim the wreckage or want your units to walk this 'special' (maybe the shortest) way.