NOTA 1.82 - Page 19

NOTA 1.82

Moderators: Thor, PepeAmpere, smartie, Moderators, Content Developer

RavingManiac
Posts: 81
Joined: 18 Jul 2007, 07:06

Post by RavingManiac » 29 Sep 2007, 04:11

How about limited ammo for planes?
0 x

User avatar
MadRat
Posts: 532
Joined: 24 Oct 2006, 13:45

Post by MadRat » 29 Sep 2007, 04:46

RavingManiac wrote:How about limited ammo for planes?
Most of them do already because to fire off weapons it typically steals then from the fuel.
0 x

RavingManiac
Posts: 81
Joined: 18 Jul 2007, 07:06

Post by RavingManiac » 29 Sep 2007, 15:02

I meant separate fuel and ammo systems
0 x

User avatar
MadRat
Posts: 532
Joined: 24 Oct 2006, 13:45

Post by MadRat » 29 Sep 2007, 16:01

Its on the MTR in the feature requests forum.
0 x

User avatar
Thor
NOTA Developer
Posts: 291
Joined: 05 Mar 2006, 10:26

Post by Thor » 15 Oct 2007, 13:30

MadRat wrote:I really like the fuel on the planes. The fuel is a little much for some of the units. You should think about crippling the short range fighter-bombers to strikes within a 10x10 map and then the long-range fighter-bombers around 50% more range. Then you can justify bombers over these fighter-bombers, where bombers at 4-6x the cost get easily across a 20x20 map.

I really like those anti-tank laser bombers. They could seriously use slower speed, though, because they are pretty devastating to tank columns. The fighters and fighter-bombers, except in rare circumstances, should never come close in range. And the peep has no limit to fuel, is that intentional??

What would seperate level 1 fighters in air-to-air from level 2 could be weaponfuelusage when they fire their missiles. Maybe allow two shots to exhaust the fuel supply entirely, no matter how close to base they begin. Would give an awfully powerful insentive then to get up to level 2 for air defense as a result.
Setting fuel too low can cause problems, since the size of maps is so small relative to the speed of a plane. For example, think of the time it takes for a plane to take off and land after being built, or to turn around after an attack run, compared to the time it takes for the plane to fly across a small map. Obviously in reality the maneuvering time would be almost completely insignificant compared to however many hours of fuel a plane carries, but in game the maneuvers might take 1/4 of its total fuel. It would probably end up being quite frustrating as planes would spend most of their time flying to and from base rather than fighting. The planes with the lowest fuel in nota are gunships, with 90 fuel, and that can already be a bit frustrating at times and makes them much less reliable, since you can't count on them not turning back for fuel at inopportune times.

To make planes have a meaningful max range like you're saying, I think you would have to either make a custom fuel system somehow based on distance rather than flight time, or simply design the game from the ground up with a larger scale in mind. I don't know how practical the second option would be for spring, maybe it could be done by making everything smaller, making planes slower, and using big maps. The Supreme Commander engine would probably be perfect for that kind of mod though.

Peepers used to have fuel, but it was really pretty pointless so they just have infinite fuel, same with air transports.
0 x

RavingManiac
Posts: 81
Joined: 18 Jul 2007, 07:06

Post by RavingManiac » 15 Oct 2007, 15:04

I still think air transports need to have fuel. Otherwise, using air transports to rush sabot towers to the enemy's base at the start of a game from across the map will be an overpowered tactic.
0 x

User avatar
Guessmyname
Posts: 3301
Joined: 28 Apr 2005, 21:07

Post by Guessmyname » 15 Oct 2007, 15:26

I still think you should scale everything down by one (you'd have to halve a lot of things though: speed, accel/brake, detection radii and weapon ranges etc)
0 x

User avatar
Fanger
Expand & Exterminate Developer
Posts: 1509
Joined: 22 Nov 2005, 22:58

Post by Fanger » 15 Oct 2007, 16:49

Yeah, I have found that giving scout planes, or tranpsorts fuel is not exactly helpful or useful..

However my suggestion in regards to reducing effective range, is not to reduce the overall fuel cost, but increase the amount of fuel it takes to fire the aircrafts weapons.. Take your gunship for example..

You increase its fuel total to 180, but also double, or triple the fuel use of its weapons.. This makes the manuvering have less of an effect on travel distance, but makes combat have more of an effect. To me this seems a better compromise given that aircraft use relatively small amounts of fuel unless they are in combat, in which case they use it up real fast..

Of course this just a suggestion..
0 x

User avatar
1v0ry_k1ng
Posts: 4656
Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 10:24

Post by 1v0ry_k1ng » 15 Oct 2007, 21:26

giving transports fuel is pissing annoying because in the middle of an airdrop having flown through ranks of AA they suddenly go "OMG LOW FUELS" and fly all the way back through it still carrying the unit
0 x

User avatar
Complicated
Posts: 369
Joined: 06 Jun 2007, 18:51

Post by Complicated » 16 Oct 2007, 01:29

Silo's damage range is appauling, DO SOMETHING :[
0 x

RavingManiac
Posts: 81
Joined: 18 Jul 2007, 07:06

Post by RavingManiac » 17 Oct 2007, 11:47

Why not have a large circle around aircraft showing how far they can get on their current supply of fuel? It will solve the air transport problem, among other things.
0 x

User avatar
Thor
NOTA Developer
Posts: 291
Joined: 05 Mar 2006, 10:26

Post by Thor » 18 Oct 2007, 04:52

Fanger wrote:Yeah, I have found that giving scout planes, or tranpsorts fuel is not exactly helpful or useful..

However my suggestion in regards to reducing effective range, is not to reduce the overall fuel cost, but increase the amount of fuel it takes to fire the aircrafts weapons.. Take your gunship for example..

You increase its fuel total to 180, but also double, or triple the fuel use of its weapons.. This makes the manuvering have less of an effect on travel distance, but makes combat have more of an effect. To me this seems a better compromise given that aircraft use relatively small amounts of fuel unless they are in combat, in which case they use it up real fast..

Of course this just a suggestion..
I don't know, I kind of like that gunships have the unique role of having short range but with better hitpoints and firepower than other aircraft, even though their behavior can occaisionally be a bit annoying. I think it wouldn't be much of a problem if it were possible to manually refuel them.
1v0ry_k1ng wrote:giving transports fuel is pissing annoying because in the middle of an airdrop having flown through ranks of AA they suddenly go "OMG LOW FUELS" and fly all the way back through it still carrying the unit
agreed
Complicated wrote:Silo's damage range is appauling, DO SOMETHING :[
You mean the nuke's area of effect? Or the silo itself? It seems fine to me. :?
RavingManiac wrote:Why not have a large circle around aircraft showing how far they can get on their current supply of fuel? It will solve the air transport problem, among other things
I'm actually pretty happy with how fuel works as it is for the most part. Changing something like this would be a lot of work and I'm not sure it would really help the gameplay, planes are already at a big enough disadvantage attacking enemy territory, and I would be wary that hard range limitations would turn every game into a defensive stalemate, since mobile anti-air isn't really enough to make up for no fighter cover.
0 x

RavingManiac
Posts: 81
Joined: 18 Jul 2007, 07:06

Post by RavingManiac » 18 Oct 2007, 11:49

You could make aircraft extremely hard to shoot down, but also very expensive. That way, while they will be able to effectively raid enemy territory, the several aircraft shot down will be a considerable loss.
0 x

User avatar
smartie
NOTA Developer
Posts: 146
Joined: 23 Jun 2005, 19:29

Post by smartie » 01 Nov 2007, 04:51

Image
0 x

j5mello
Posts: 1189
Joined: 26 Aug 2005, 05:40

Post by j5mello » 01 Nov 2007, 20:50

finally...

:P
0 x

User avatar
Thor
NOTA Developer
Posts: 291
Joined: 05 Mar 2006, 10:26

Post by Thor » 02 Nov 2007, 05:03

RavingManiac wrote:You could make aircraft extremely hard to shoot down, but also very expensive. That way, while they will be able to effectively raid enemy territory, the several aircraft shot down will be a considerable loss.
That is exactly what we're doing with strategic bombers in this next version. lvl 1 strat bombers cost about twice what they did before, but are much harder to kill. Also, they do somewhat less damage and drop cluster bombs now, so they are still good against factories and powerplants, but mostly ineffective against smaller targets. The end result is that bombers are no longer a suicidal, one-time use unit. They require more of an investment than before, but their much improved survivability means you can keep returning for repeated bombing raids over a longer period of time. Shadows and thunders also now have tail-guns, so fighters don't have such an easy time anymore either.

Here's a few more screens of the new carriers.

Image
Image
Image
0 x

RavingManiac
Posts: 81
Joined: 18 Jul 2007, 07:06

Post by RavingManiac » 02 Nov 2007, 08:28

NOTA is definitely one of the best mods out there..... except that I never see any games in the lobby..............


:(
0 x

User avatar
chillaaa
Posts: 234
Joined: 16 Mar 2005, 00:12

Post by chillaaa » 02 Nov 2007, 08:57

:O cant wait for thee next version! Carriers look awesome.

What's the expected release date?
0 x

User avatar
Thor
NOTA Developer
Posts: 291
Joined: 05 Mar 2006, 10:26

Post by Thor » 02 Nov 2007, 19:14

We've made some pretty big changes to the economy side of things also - the slow pace of the game has probably always been people's number one complaint about the mod, and I think this version does a good job of addressing that.

Release unfortunately has to wait for the next spring release, whenever that is. We still have quite a few things left to do anyway though, so that's ok.
0 x

User avatar
Fanger
Expand & Exterminate Developer
Posts: 1509
Joined: 22 Nov 2005, 22:58

Post by Fanger » 02 Nov 2007, 21:25

Any details...?

and if you ever need any help just ask..

I like the carrier it has a nice WW2 vibe going there..
0 x

Post Reply

Return to “NOTA”

cron