Spring RTS Engine

http://imolarpg.dyndns.org/trac/balatest/browser/trunk/changelog.txt?rev=1186 I don't like that at all, it might be ok for ship vs ship combat, but it ruins the balance there was between ships and everything else, in favor of ships. I can't for example think of starting on Sands of War with anythin...

Nah, there's just a need for some decent naval maps. Before that even if you want to redesign, you don't have a clue what you're redesigning for. As is there's nothing wrong with playing Sands of War or Flooded Valley for example. If you want to point out a part of the game that's bad, it's air. Out...

It won't make the ships "too powerful" since everyone can easily get them - just more powerful. If you'd necessarily have to make them worse in other ways, that would be awful (since I see no fault in their current stats) but that's not really the case. Just think about whether they're mor...

2 seconds + rotating is still infinitely more than 0 seconds it takes to get an overview from a flat minimap...

How do you manage spherical maps, where you can never see everything at once? How's the UI for that?

And then having several such maps.

I don't think conships should be able to traverse in reverse, it'd make them significantly better with repair, reclaim, well with anything really. And it's less interesting when you don't have to consider facings and angles of entry as much. But it does bring an issue to mind - you cannot make out f...

Anybody in it?

I'm not treating anything black and white here... These are strategy games not rhythm games, so of course you cannot win purely by playing "fast", whatever you take that to mean - and really you cannot play fast unless you very much know in advance what you are doing. But when you said tha...

I think the point isn't that custom formations removes the need to control units, it just makes it more accessable because you don't need to be playing super fast to do it. If your opponent is playing super fast and you're not, you lose. If you want to have a game with low emphasis on mechanics - m...

I think that spring games tend to minimize the overall impact of those points. Nope. Custom formations. Your argument is invalid :-) @knorke, I don't think you understood what I meant. Of course I would lose in ZK because I'm no good at ZK. But, what I mean is that spring has a lot of built in tool...

Forboding Angel wrote:I think that spring games tend to minimize the overall impact of those points.

Nope.

Maybe tone down the height of them, in order to keep aircraft moving smoother? The visual effect wouldn't change too much by that I think, since you're looking it from top down anyway.

http://springrts.com/wiki/Category:Balanced_Annihilation Quite incompletely though, only the page on vehicles seems more finished: http://springrts.com/wiki/Vehicles Thanks, that sort of literary description is a good start. I guess I'll have to enjoy a few replays... Any favorites I should not mis...

I think the consideration here is that using screamers/mercs against enemy fighter screen is generally useless, as the equivalent investment into exponentially growing economy would pay off faster than the tower would be able to kill the screen. Why post such assumptions when I just posted hard num...

That is damn to expensive. And even it is long range, for the cost of 3 of them you make a fusion and start to spam fighter. Well. One mercury easily shoots 1 fighter every 18,5 seconds, fighter which costs 11433 E under mm economy. That makes it drain 618 E per second from enemy under these condit...

Anti-bomber tower is not a distinct purpose. Every aa tower is used for that.

I always wanted screamer/merc to be an anti-bomber tower, with the ability to "mark" targets and not shoot at one at the same time. I.e. 1) ignore fighters 2) each tower marks the target, no other tower would engage that target 3) fire. Still imperfect, but would definitely prove more use...

Not sure how increasing cost and buildtime, adding constant resource drain, reducing hp and adding the stockpile would make building these more appealing. The cases where one considers making these, it would be shooting near constantly regardless.

No matter of the (huge) gameplay differences, they're too far along with PA to make it fit into the TA setting.

It looks like you have it the way you want, but I'll go ahead and throw my feedback from when it was first implemented in ZK. (They disagreed with me) I think it would make sense to have set-target activate automatically from a manual attack command, and then get rid of the separate 'set-target' co...