idea for experimentals/larger units/ships

for larger heavier late game units with large health pools i would be kind of cool to have a modular hit point system where you can take out guns/shields/sensors ect.

example of the uses for this would be damaging an enemy ship's missile defense weapon and then targetting it with a tactical missile strike. it would also give low tier units a chance at wounding/disabling heavier weapons.

could be applied to tier 2 units to a lesser degree like slowing turret rotation speed when damaged or something.

just spitballin

Perform a search before posting ideas.

Experimentals/T3 has been discussed at great length on the forums. In short, there won't be T3 units or experimental units.

I was about to say that but his post doesn't talk about exps in particular.

read more.

thanks tatsujb i did not specify a unit type only that it be applied to units with larger hit point pools like navy.

Although that modular system sounds cool, what it will in fact do is force your opponent to micro his reactions to it, i.e. first target anti missile systems with ants, then launch tactical missiles to take it out...

Sounds cool but whilst your opponent is forced to draw his attention on doing that you are gonna be able to slam him with attacks elsewhere knowing he can't manage everthing and will inevitably lose.

In other words complexity here not so good.

Unless this complexity were managed through a weapon priority lookup table or something. That is each unit contains some entry in a database that tells it what it should prioritize during an attack. So for instance, if weapon A is okay against unit B, but is very useful against unit C, then prioritize targeting unit C while that unit type is present and in range unless the player otherwise specifies. Likewise, if weapon A is highly effective against module B, then when a unit with that module is present, then units with weapon A should target units with module B if possible.

Then why add it in the first place? If units are entirely capable of taking down a super-unit without player intervention due to a priority table and focus firing, why even let the player decide what to attack?

I'd love this applied to Metal Planets and similar super weapons though. Do you take out the exposed generators and slow the progress of the weapon's charge up? Or do you destroy the heavily defended capacitor bank, causing a chain reaction that splits the planet in half, wiping your enemy off the hulk of alien technology but taking your own army with him. Or maybe you attack the Beam Lense, causing the weapon to fire a diffuse cone of energy; with the possibility of hitting unintended targets... Like your opponent's base. Or your own! Who knows?

I like this idea for large units, but I'm pretty sure that's going to be mod territory. SupCom and TA both have examples of mods with modular damage, so I'm guessing PA will allow for similar experiments.

If you don't build the right mix of units, then how can the auto-magic super-unit destruction happen? There's still ample strategy here -- in unit/army management, not attack micromanagement though. Keep in mind that this same algorithm would probably make that super unit very keen on destroying the units that are good against it as well. That optimization would be bi-directional. As for targeting: the algorithm may say "Hey, attack the point defenses first" during an attack on an enemies base, while the player really is doing a suicide run on the enemies resources and therefore wants to target the resources. Why would you ever want to remove the ability to target from the player? We don't need to jump to the ridiculous.

So basically it's a hard counter style system. You need Unit X to take out Element Y from Unit Z.

Id rather a system that isn't based on that kind of thing, instead I'd rather a system where a unit's attributes make it work. For example Using High Arc Missile Unit X because I can find them behind a hill to avoid them getting shot at, or maybe Seafloor Amphibious Unit Z to surprise the target along a coastline.

You don't need to shoe horn that kind of gameplay in, you just make sure units have different attributes to allow them to be used in different situations and it'll happen naturally.

Mike

It needn't be a hard 1:1 counter system. It could be that each unit has attributes that it is good against, and thus for each unit in the game, having a combination of attributes, there could be multiple different combinations of units used in a
For instance: each unit could just have a listing of attributes that it is good versus, such as "air," "lvl1," etc (there could be more granularity or less in the actual implementation). Since each unit also has many different attributes, this could allow for a wide selection of units that could be used as effective counters. This still allows for optimization while also allowing you to select from many different "blends" depending on whether you're attacking, defending, flanking, countering, etc.

That is not how you proposed the system for working against large units with modular damage systems, how does Unit A do more damage to Element X vs Element Z? That's going along the path towards armor and weapon types, when TA and SupCom actively stayed away from such systems except where it is the only option(SupCom only uses them with regards to the ACU Deathblast and the ACU's Overcharge).

Mike

Full disclosure: I'm not in favour of modular super units.

That said, I'm entertaining this concept because it's more fleshed out than the pubbie "GIEF USS EXPIERMENTLS!!!1" that we've suffered through before.

On the specific topic of thatsballsy's having attributes that are good at certain things.

I wouldn't say Unit A should have bonuses/penalties damage to Module X. What I'd consider is having tanks shoot out the legs of giant robots... because they can't aim up enough to shoot the giant robot in the face.

Shooting the legs would have the effect that we all expect it to - immobilising the damn thing.

I personally agree with knight a units attributes should determine how its used. Of course this really only makes sense when there are a large variety of units with a degree of overlap between a good portion of them. Coincidentally there is only going to be one unit pool, which means the requisite large unit pool will be present. Thus no need for a hard counter system. (gods do I hate those systems... yeah Unit A does TONS of Damage to unit B but despite the fact that it SHOULD be able to kill Unit C it does NOTHING because the game says its the wrong Armor class or other BS..... [I am currently glaring at C&C IV])

Ah right, I do like this as well. Perhaps I let myself get a bit carried away I have often wanted to see a game that allowed for structure to actually come into play, such that vulnerable things such as legs are genuinely vulnerable.

I agree with this 100%. I have always hated that, but to me this is more of a question of being reasonable with your handling of the modifiers. If decisions make sense, then the gameplay works. If the decisions seem arbitrary, then the gameplay feels frustrating and annoying. I'd have to imagine that the modifiers would have to be fairly small, somewhere between reducing the damage to 75% to increasing it up to 125% or something like that. This way all shots are doing damage, it's just that some pack a little extra punch.

This is true. It may be that it would be better to avoid such small complexities.

That is still very arbitrary thought.

What I don't think you've grasped is that any kind of weapon/armor type is detrimental to the way this specific Genre works.

All the units are built from the same basic components, aside from how they are arranged and how much of each they are functionally identical. Instead of having an Armor stat, a unit just has more HP. A small and maneuverable doesn't need an arbitrary 50% Dodge rate because the unit is actually maneuverable and can turn and accelerate faster than other units. An AA unit isn't good at shooting air units just because it has a special tag in the code saying it can shoot air units, it's good because it's weapon can pitch all the way up and it's turret has fast Pitch and Yaw Speeds.

TA, SupCom and PA don't need the same kind of arbitrary rules as you find in Starcraft or Command and Conquer.

Mike

I had not thought of the implications of this with metal planets, in retrospect that is something worth tinkering with

Knight's right guys. Listen to him. We really want a unit's specialisation to be informed by its statline, its weapons and other meaningful attributes; not have a bunch of arbitrary "special rules" plastered over the top of everything.

As soon as modular damage systems come into play you have people wondering why it's only the big things that break slowly, while little things function at full capacity until death.

As soon as you think about it, the answer becomes clear; it's a tacked-on, arbitrary mechanic that means I'm always better off with small units, than big ones... at least I can rely on them not to crap out and lose the use of their main gun halfway through the fight.

---

This is not a way to resurrect the-dead-horse-that-is, Experimentals and Mega-Bots/Tanks/Ships/etc.

Hold on. Damage types are not the only kind of "special rules" a unit can have. A unit's special rules cover pretty much everything it can possibly do. That's how a unit becomes powerful in certain situations, not just against specific units.

Hovering is definitely a special rule (for example), and it lets a unit excel on marshy terrain where boats or tanks don't quite have the right of way.

Technically correct. But it doesn't make Armor or Damage types and more appealing to me.

Mike