Reactive buildings

Mines were visible and targetable on radar in TA.
Mines were very ineffective.
I don't see a problem with you always building mines either.
It can be an important part of the game if you want it to be that.
In XTA mines are useful but you don't see them in every game.

They can be effective versus human players.
I don't agree that they are crazy hard to balance.

We don't know if there will be cheap units that will be suitable as "mine fodder" in PA.
Even if you could destroy mines with AoE weapons. Do you think you will have time to play minesweeper in a real game?
Mines could also be placed "underground" where they can't easily be destroyed but would require some dedicated counters like mine-clearing vehicles or anti-mine weapons.
Hovers might activate mines. Even today there is mines that feel the presence of a large metal object and explode when they are above them without actually having to step on the mine.
If hovers don't activate then fine. Hovers could be immune to mines. Could be specific to hovers. No problem in that.

In TA mines were slow to build, and required a dedicated builder which was a vehicle, making it unsuitable for non-flat terrain.

Most mines were effective on a 1-1 unit ratio in most other respects other then the nuclear mine, which would take long enough to build that you would be easily spotted, but you would never be able to build enough mines to out do the production of actual units, making them a unwise choice from the start.

Placeing down each mine was a tedium that the game could have done without, espically when considering the vehicle that needs to build them needs to get there.

And finally, the power drain, why spend the power of such a poor weapon?


If mines were however changed to allow them to be quickly built, and with no power drain, then you would effectively destroy the point in using a ground assault, because even with radar coverage you would be spending the time ensuring that you eliminated the field, or could risk losing units to a weapon that required no skill, and at no great cost.

It is effectively an unneeded addition that didn't add to the game in any worthy way.

I agree that mines didn't work out well in TA but just because TA had bad implementation of mines doesn't mean that mines in general are not suitable for a strategy game.

Mines were discussed in this thread:
http://forums.uberent.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=61&t=36844

I see no reason why we should derail this thread into a discussion about mines.

Mines can be implemented in a lot of ways but the argument should but what gameplay effects that are wanted from having mines rather than having mines or not.

I don't think that mines are a necessity in PA.

I think we can agree that a mine isn't a building, and hence off topic.

Dear X&X who thinks everything is bad:

• You are thinking from the wrong end. All the best ideas come from the backside.

~~~~~~~
The problem is that deployment is obnoxious. The solution is simple.

You build an artillery piece that shoots land mines!

While traditional artillery is front loaded (I.E. it does damage right away), a land mine launcher does the opposite. It peppers the field with explosive dots that take 2-5 seconds to arm(thus preventing base attack), and stay around for a long time. When a target passes nearby, it either jumps its target(magneto-doohicky), or straight up explodes (land mine). Of course these dots could also float, being super effective at air blockading.

Obviously, the role is to establish terrain dominance. Standard artillery might be less damaging, as it is built to trash bases and everything, while a mine launcher can be cheaper and more suited towards unit killing.

A base can be turned into a literal no-mans-land if the opponent neglects defenses. For example, a suppressed base would be covered in mines that kill any unit out of a factory. Base capture was never so easy!

Then why would you not use this?

Because from the looks of it you would just rush to this artillery weapon and never have to worry about the consequences.

What Bobucles described is only the mechanic, what you're referring to depends on the exact balance of the unit(s) using that mechanic.

We did something similar for BlackOps, the Seraphim got a T2 Structure that worked very similar to a TML, but basically shot mines instead.

Mike

What were your results?

Good? Bad?

Overall Good, the balance shifted a few times to get to where it is now, but I'm sure it is far from the only style of implementation that would work. The basic s is that it works like the TML structure, so it has to build ammo(for a cost) and then the player has to select where they want each bunch of mines(each missiles places like 10 mines or something in a semi-random pattern) and I think the mines only last for a couple of minutes(I think....it's been a few years since we worked on this unit and I don't play Seraphim much xD) to encourage good scouting and so that it requires the players time(but not a lot of time, this isn't SCII) to maintain the minefield.

The thing with TA/FA/PA style games that makes Minefields awkward is scale, maintaining a minefield by building individual mines is clunky, and even some smaller scale games(DOW1 comes to mind) has Mines built in Clusters, but even that doesn't solve the issue of upkeep either.

Also we really should port this over to the mine thread....

Mike

Okay I've moved the discussion over starting at this post;

viewtopic.php?p=643666#p643666

Mike

thanks mike

As for reactive buildings, I think solar collections that point themselves towards the sun would be a nice touch. As well as solar collectors that stop working during the night. (There is going to be night, right?)

And maybe metal and energy stores that have a visual effect to indicate how full they are. Like crackling energy for an energy store, or maybe a sort of glowing light.

I like the Idea of reactive buildings, can have some ambush turrets that hide when out of combat, give them a special attack box that they will only attack when an enemy is in that area (so better for that ambush). I am reminded also of SupCom 2s UEF turrets which hid their weapons when out of combat but didn't properly stealth, the interesting idea with that is the possibility of fooling an opponent, have a couple defenses with that setup that look the same when closed that keep the enemy from knowing what is inside (even when selected). another option with defenses that hide away is something i call a soft clip let me explain

a "Hard" clip is what we normally think of when we think of a clip, a weapon holds say 3 shots in a clip, it will shoot 3 times in quick succession then will wait to reload all 3 before it shoots again, basically bursts of 3.

a "soft" clip is an ability that stores ammo but does not need to, think of a weapon that can hold 3 shots and fires them all in quick succession when entering combat, afterwards however it will fire as each shot is reloaded, giving a initial burst then sustained fire. the idea was in CnC4 though poorly implemented in a game that did not have the time put into it to make it good.

so a turret may be designed that may hideaway or have special animations that allow it to store extra ammo while it is idle.

also could be interesting if there were AA turrets that would raise up for better height and better attack angle when engaging aircraft, and lowers when out of combat lowering its profile and improving defense.

some defenses could be made to armor up to lose the weapon, not always well implemented, coming to mind in Sup com 2s hunkering defenses, and CnC4s focus beam that could armor up to lose its weapon, the problem however is losing the gun isn't usually a good trade off against a target that can engage it and armoring the structures that are being focus fired takes a lot of micro and the enemy can easily switch targets, certainly this type of armor up defense should be more useable when they are attacked by something they can't shoot back at, ala anti-ground defense v. air, anti-air defense v. ground, and artillery attacking turrets without the range to return fire.

as for the solar collectors, i like the idea of them folding up when attacked for extra armor, and also turning towards the sun, perhaps even 2 different types of solar collector based on this, a traditional solar collector can fold up when attacked but its output depends more on the amount of light there is generally being optimal near the equator at noon, a second solar collector points toward the best source of light reducing the issue of where the sun is in relation, better consistency of output but weaker, Solar collectors could automatically fold at night when they can't get light.

the night/day cycle certainly throws a monkey wrench into the solar mechanics, but I have seen this in Earth 2150, The Faction known as the LC relied upon solar power to get its power, they built a solar power plant (that did not produce power on its own) that could build up to 10 solar cells that each collected 100 Power during the day for a combined output of 1k. the Production of a Solar Battery was necessary for the LC the solar batter stored all of the excess power produced during the day and would output at night of course the balance was not always easy, as the rate of charge depends on how much excess power there is, if you only had 1 plant and your base required 750 power, you would be out of power for part of the night, and thus vulnerable to opportunistic enemies up for a night raid.

well with PAs energy mechanics being very different from earth 2150's having a special battery to store power may not be that unique, if there are energy requirements for powering buildings players might be allowed to build a special energy storage that will only release power for the structures that need power to operate eg radar, defenses.

also suggest there could be a mirror Orbital Unit that can illuminate an area on the dark side to sustain power over the night or help illuminate a dark battlefield. Wind generators may increase power over night.

considering cycles and Wind generators as well as Zero-k's combined tidal/wind generators, PA could include tidal cycles, where the beaches may be flooded on certain sides of the planet, could be allow players to build a tidal/wind generator on the beach that can change depending on the tide, and as it goes in or out it can get a massively increased output due to quick moving water. and still gets wind power without the water.

certainly there are several possibilities.

How about a unit (not just buildings) hunkering down reaction to freindly incoming heavy ordinance.
for example your mechs hunch down to brace for the nuke you launched at the base they where attacking.
Or your installations dig into the soil to prepare for an asteroid impact just over the horizon.
What do you think?
If you like them,
should they be purely cosmetic or should they impact gameplay?

@OrangeKnight
Sorry for missing your post on that. As you can see, I agree with your point of view on those. Sometimes I really hate living in a separate time zone to most people on the forums when talking about things. I may have skipped your post or only remembered it subconsciously, but yeah. Credit where it is due, and in this case, it is yours good sir.