Amphib-oriented maps?

Guessmyname · Post by **Guessmyname** » 09 May 2006, 20:33

Alternatively, give the Amphib tanks (ie Crocks) Torpedo launchers in addition to their normal weapons.

Forboding Angel · Post by **Forboding Angel** » 09 May 2006, 20:49

Actually, I really appreciate this discussion. I have said for a really long time now that hovers and anphib units have issues. Seems that now someone is willing to listen.

As such is the case. My next map will be made with amphib and hovers in mind.

As far as the swampy and unit speeds and such, it doesn't work. Because the hovers suck ass, so no one ever builds them, so I scrapped the idea.

Egarwaen · Post by **Egarwaen** » 09 May 2006, 21:40

Forboding Angel wrote:As far as the swampy and unit speeds and such, it doesn't work. Because the hovers suck ass, so no one ever builds them, so I scrapped the idea.

They really suck that badly that they're not worth building even when there's an obvious mobility advantage?

IceXuick · Post by **IceXuick** » 09 May 2006, 22:08

yeah that's true. There should be lvl 2 hovercrafts!

NOiZE · Post by **NOiZE** » 09 May 2006, 22:10

Nah ... Hovercrafts are Level 1.5

and they should remain there IMO

IceXuick · Post by **IceXuick** » 09 May 2006, 22:12

mkay, dunno about their exact specs, but i haven't seen them to prove their usefulness.. also offcourse depending on maps, but i also must say, that i find most of em quite weak...

Erom · Post by **Erom** » 09 May 2006, 22:56

Egarwaen wrote:
Forboding Angel wrote:As far as the swampy and unit speeds and such, it doesn't work. Because the hovers suck ass, so no one ever builds them, so I scrapped the idea.
They really suck that badly that they're not worth building even when there's an obvious mobility advantage?

Yeah, it's sort of like, an army of hovers and an army of tanks meet in a swamp...

The hovers are all like "Micro! Micro micro! Micro around you with my superior mobility!"

And the tanks are like "Micro? Micro micro TANK SHELL TO THE FACE!"

The hover mobility advantage is just not large enough to justify the much worse cost/damadge ratios.

Forboding Angel · Post by **Forboding Angel** » 09 May 2006, 23:53

Erom wrote:
Egarwaen wrote:
Forboding Angel wrote:As far as the swampy and unit speeds and such, it doesn't work. Because the hovers suck ass, so no one ever builds them, so I scrapped the idea.
They really suck that badly that they're not worth building even when there's an obvious mobility advantage?
Yeah, it's sort of like, an army of hovers and an army of tanks meet in a swamp...

The hovers are all like "Micro! Micro micro! Micro around you with my superior mobility!"

And the tanks are like "Micro? Micro micro TANK SHELL TO THE FACE!"

The hover mobility advantage is just not large enough to justify the much worse cost/damadge ratios.

not to mention their absolutely horrible los range.

Why must hovers be lv 1.5? Why not 2? they have the be built by a constructor... Climbing up a tech tree to get 1.5 when I could have lv2? Screw that.

Egarwaen · Post by **Egarwaen** » 10 May 2006, 00:38

Hm. I was thinking in terms of using them as an alternative to hills for a chokepoint-type arrangement, but I now see the problem. Perhaps someone should post about this in the AA thread?

mongus · Post by **mongus** » 10 May 2006, 06:12

Forboding Angel wrote:not to mention their absolutely horrible los range.

Why must hovers be lv 1.5? Why not 2? they have the be built by a constructor... Climbing up a tech tree to get 1.5 when I could have lv2? Screw that.

I think Noize is talking about xta hovers.
Scout hovers are powerfull.

Almost all hover units > than lvl1 units, but not lvl2, except wombat (lrm).

Not to mention the hover const, fast builder, but only lvl1 + water stuff.

Its a risky step, the hover lab is cheaper than lvl2 labs:
1800 hover vs 2450 lvl2.

You get stronger units, the lrm.... but you wont get level 2 (mohos etc) buildings.

e: hovers are "erasing" trees they walk over, no fall animation!

Zoombie · Post by **Zoombie** » 10 May 2006, 06:37

See when a hover go's over a tree, the tree is oblivionized by the anit-matter grav flux as its pulled into the graviton waonton barito feild!

Also I was really bummed that hovers can't go over lava. I wanted to smash somone in the side in Lava highgrounds, and as such I was irritated that that time I had wasted building a hover was...well...wasted.

Dragon45 · Post by **Dragon45** » 10 May 2006, 20:16

I realyl do thinkt hat hovers could use *much* higher slopeclimb, though. The problem is that a lot of maps have water ridges too steep for hovers to be effective >_>

Forboding Angel · Post by **Forboding Angel** » 10 May 2006, 20:46

Dragon45 wrote:I realyl do thinkt hat hovers could use *much* higher slopeclimb, though. The problem is that a lot of maps have water ridges too steep for hovers to be effective >_>

a maxslope of 23 - 25 on the hovers would do quite nciely. maybe as much as 28, but that's getting pretty steep.

bamb · Post by **bamb** » 10 May 2006, 20:55

It's realistic and intuitive to have hovers not having very high slope traversal capability... after all they have no traction except propellers pushing the air.
I really wish mappers would not think about water areas being steep-walled bottomless pits, but rather that water fills some lower areas of the map.

And not solve it by having a couple of "beaches" custom-made for hovers and amphi stuff to go to/from water.

Forboding Angel · Post by **Forboding Angel** » 10 May 2006, 21:05

bamb wrote:It's realistic and intuitive to have hovers not having very high slope traversal capability... after all they have no traction except propellers pushing the air.
I really wish mappers would not think about water areas being steep-walled bottomless pits, but rather that water fills some lower areas of the map.

And not solve it by having a couple of "beaches" custom-made for hovers and amphi stuff to go to/from water.

the problem is, that if you have a map where the height is really high, your ramp has to be retardedly long to accomodate them.

An interesting thing I've noticed is that the larger your map is, the higher heights you can get away with.

Spring RTS Engine

Amphib-oriented maps?