Um, I'm going to be annoying, and post my viewpoint, in brief.
There is no way to make AA at all realistic, and have it be AA.
If you want to play a realstic RTS set in the uber-future... um, I could make one, I guess. I doubt if you'd want to play it for more than 10 minutes, though, because:
1. One side would be dumb, and build a land army, with a fancy base. It'd have PWaweOme tanks, and lots of UbER planes, and kewl robots that went "clank, clank" as they roamed around with their giant Deth Ray beams.
2. The other side would just drop large rocks from orbit and kill the dumb people.
I'm sorry, but using the words "AA" and "realistic" in the same sentence makes me want to hurl things. It's a game, not a real depiction of warfare. Period. Get over it. The more I read about this concept, the more obvious it is that you know zero, zip, nada, nothing about real war. IRL, we use tanks and soldiers because we're basically a moral culture, and we don't want to cold-bloodily murder everybody. Not because that wouldn't be the most efficient thing to do. The far-off future of OTA, where two Commanders land on some unpopulated planet and then duke it out with little vehicles and stuff... was, and is, and will always be ... really stupidly unrealistic. Fun, yes. Depiction of anything remotely likely to Actually Happen (i.e., "realistic")... no.
Absolute Annihilation Realistic v0.2
Moderator: Moderators
One thing that always struck me as odd in TA is that lasers don't fire into air. They'd be the ultimate antiair weapon! You could even shoot at nukes with them. http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/abl/
But the game is somewhat unrealistic in the supply department anyway, what transfers the energy from generators to buildings? Or the "metal" from mexxes? What creates the missiles at the missile-firing vehicles? (They don't seem to run out of ammo!)
One has to decide a level of realism and depth one settles to.
It'd be interesting to discuss though what would war with self-replicating robots be like, for example on the moon.
One reason about the unrealism of the scale is that if units were in realistic scale, they'd be so tiny the user interface would have to deal with them as icons. In a way, the current units are already fancy icons representing the units. The time is compressed too.
This is probably still an interesting excercise. Eventually someone could do research and design a realistic replicating robots strategy/tactical game...
But the game is somewhat unrealistic in the supply department anyway, what transfers the energy from generators to buildings? Or the "metal" from mexxes? What creates the missiles at the missile-firing vehicles? (They don't seem to run out of ammo!)
One has to decide a level of realism and depth one settles to.
It'd be interesting to discuss though what would war with self-replicating robots be like, for example on the moon.
One reason about the unrealism of the scale is that if units were in realistic scale, they'd be so tiny the user interface would have to deal with them as icons. In a way, the current units are already fancy icons representing the units. The time is compressed too.
This is probably still an interesting excercise. Eventually someone could do research and design a realistic replicating robots strategy/tactical game...
-
unpossible
- Posts: 871
- Joined: 10 May 2005, 19:24
trouble is it's sheer weight of numbers...little robots replicate and swarm. the bigger swarm wins through attrition, unless they can mass toegther and have some abstract value/ability aside from firepower - eg shielding/jamming etc etc.bamb wrote: This is probably still an interesting excercise. Eventually someone could do research and design a realistic replicating robots strategy/tactical game...
then you just represent this as different units and you're back to a traditional RTS
. shame really but i don't think mass replicators would make for a very user friendly game. all the units could look unique and have different functions, but i think there would need to be something akin to research (or just numbers/mass) that would allow the production of new abilities. and you'd need mex factories.
-
GrOuNd_ZeRo
- Posts: 1370
- Joined: 30 Apr 2005, 01:10
I think the best way to go is semi-realism, that's what all realism based mods are doing.
Currently i'm experimenting with more realism in WD to see how it is in terms of gameplay.
I do strongly recommend making level 1 tanks more useful, since they are medium tanks after all, they are ballanced to be more light tanks. (in OTA anyway).
I support this mods though, Realism FTW!
Currently i'm experimenting with more realism in WD to see how it is in terms of gameplay.
I do strongly recommend making level 1 tanks more useful, since they are medium tanks after all, they are ballanced to be more light tanks. (in OTA anyway).
I support this mods though, Realism FTW!
Aagh: nobody said that this mod will be "battlefield simulator" and every "World Leader" should use this to train its soldiers. This mod will be *MORE* ralistic than AA.
It is posiible to give units biger range so why dont try? I know that if you wuold like to do realistic "nuclear missile" you have to play on 600000x60000 map, becouse range is very, very big.
i wonder what project managers responsible for OTA said when they were developing that game. "No, we woldnt make airplanes thatshoot during flight - its too ralistic. Dont make 3d units - its too realistic. Dont make tanks shooting during move - its too realistic. We dont want to make things that nobody did before. Lets make another clone of warcrat"
more mods is better for spring!
i dont like FF idea but i dont post on FF topic posts "please, stop developing this mod. you dont know nothing about fighting in the space." Some peple like FF, some like AA and some like OTA. I'm sure that some people wold like RAA.
It is posiible to give units biger range so why dont try? I know that if you wuold like to do realistic "nuclear missile" you have to play on 600000x60000 map, becouse range is very, very big.
i wonder what project managers responsible for OTA said when they were developing that game. "No, we woldnt make airplanes thatshoot during flight - its too ralistic. Dont make 3d units - its too realistic. Dont make tanks shooting during move - its too realistic. We dont want to make things that nobody did before. Lets make another clone of warcrat"
more mods is better for spring!
i dont like FF idea but i dont post on FF topic posts "please, stop developing this mod. you dont know nothing about fighting in the space." Some peple like FF, some like AA and some like OTA. I'm sure that some people wold like RAA.
Wait until the new FF. I mean uhhh... shameless community plug!mynthon wrote:Aagh: nobody said that this mod will be "battlefield simulator" and every "World Leader" should use this to train its soldiers. This mod will be *MORE* ralistic than AA.
It is posiible to give units biger range so why dont try? I know that if you wuold like to do realistic "nuclear missile" you have to play on 600000x60000 map, becouse range is very, very big.
i wonder what project managers responsible for OTA said when they were developing that game. "No, we woldnt make airplanes thatshoot during flight - its too ralistic. Dont make 3d units - its too realistic. Dont make tanks shooting during move - its too realistic. We dont want to make things that nobody did before. Lets make another clone of warcrat"
more mods is better for spring!
i dont like FF idea but i dont post on FF topic posts "please, stop developing this mod. you dont know nothing about fighting in the space." Some peple like FF, some like AA and some like OTA. I'm sure that some people wold like RAA.
There's "clanking replication" besides nanoscale too. Where you might more efficiently (less factory time) build larger, more bulky units.trouble is it's sheer weight of numbers...little robots replicate and swarm. the bigger swarm wins through attrition, unless they can mass toegther and have some abstract value/ability aside from firepower - eg shielding/jamming etc etc.
How many times must i say that get over the "realistic" word. It was just something i came up with when first thinking of the ridiculously underpowered "nukes" in aa and how i wanted to change that.Zoombie wrote:I agree with Argh.
Rebalancing AA to suit your sense of fun, yes.
Rebalancing AA to be 'realistic'... well you could do that, but the games would be really quick and mostly beyond human comprehension. I mean we get to the 4000 and can't think up something beyond plasma? I doubt it.
GET OVER IT, its' only a name, it is AA modified to fit my needs. Thank You.
edit: and i will call the mod AAR from now on.
Last edited by hawkki on 03 Aug 2006, 18:51, edited 2 times in total.
I've personally just wanted to toss them out so we can force Caydr to rebalance against porcing using the units and structures. Just might take a little more work, but then...Zoombie wrote:I'm officially over it.
I also wanted to upgrade those nukes...for the longest time, acutally.
A: No more Nuke rushes
B: Faster gameplay
i swear i've been here before. oh yes. antinukes own nukes. they are cheaper and faster to build. also their missiles are cheaper and faster to buildI've personally just wanted to toss them out so we can force Caydr to rebalance against porcing using the units and structures. Just might take a little more work, but then...
A: No more Nuke rushes
B: Faster gameplay
i mean ffs 'nukes are UP' 'nukes are OP'
use some reason, 'nukes are UP because cost for cost they do X damage against Y unit which is IMBA' 'nukes are OP because they are difficult to counter'
both arguments may be BS but they are at least VALID arguments <_<
Nukes aren't an anti-porc weapon. Any decent porcer has enough antinukes that nukes are useless against them.neddiedrow wrote:I've personally just wanted to toss them out so we can force Caydr to rebalance against porcing using the units and structures. Just might take a little more work, but then...
-
Johns_Volition
- Posts: 134
- Joined: 05 Jul 2006, 21:17
I never said nukes were Overpowered, Underpowered, or indeed crappy. I also never said Anti-nukes weren't useful.
Min3Mat, stop waving your eWang, it doesn't impress me at all.
I simply meant that nukes were boring, and if you take them out entirely it might require rebuilt balance elsewhere, but the game probably would be just as enjoyable, if not more so.
The nuke rush I refer to actually occurs in team games where one guy econ and nuke rushes while the others play defense for him. If anybody thinks I still play metal maps, they're barking up the wrong tree to find a weakness in my credibility.
Min3Mat, stop waving your eWang, it doesn't impress me at all.
I simply meant that nukes were boring, and if you take them out entirely it might require rebuilt balance elsewhere, but the game probably would be just as enjoyable, if not more so.
The nuke rush I refer to actually occurs in team games where one guy econ and nuke rushes while the others play defense for him. If anybody thinks I still play metal maps, they're barking up the wrong tree to find a weakness in my credibility.
yeahh, I and Chris were playing a game on a map, don't remember which one, but he built a LOAD of anti-nukes, and I built 15 nuke launchers, I got pretty close to getting in, but he still had a lot....Egarwaen wrote:Nukes aren't an anti-porc weapon. Any decent porcer has enough antinukes that nukes are useless against them.neddiedrow wrote:I've personally just wanted to toss them out so we can force Caydr to rebalance against porcing using the units and structures. Just might take a little more work, but then...