Gameplay idea: Active Cover

[[K.B.] Napalm Cobra]

Maybe rather than just dots have the solid collision sphere.

[Weaver]

okay, I'm soooooo going to get flamed for this, but:

what if forests and radar could be used for cover in a different way:
make all units and features show up on radar as blips. Since radar can't differentiate one kind of unit from another, why should it differentiate between units on different teams? Meaning this: Remove color identification from radar. This would make it a lot easier to use forests, rock piles (if they are made), and wreckage fields for radar cover. Of course, this means that automatically shooting at radar blips will have to be removed or disabled, but maybe instead the targetting facility (or targetting tag in general) can be modified so that once you build one, all moving radar blips will be ID'ed as hostiles.
Just my 2 cents

This is a very interesting idea, I like it.

Modern radar is ususally set to ignore stationary stuff, so trees and buildings dont show up. But if we apply that logic then standing still will make units dissapear off radar.

If we implemented this it would be sensible to have a switch, so that we could look for everthing including features and terrain over a certain steepness OR just moving things.

Using the targeting facility to get IFF is great too, as they are not worth building in XTA.

With hiding possible near/behind large features we could have some interesting stealth options.

As well as the very real danger of friendly fire incidents.

[Pxtl]

But at least radar should show moving targets in a different colour. I assume critters will be slightly less common than trees.

I figure 2 colours - one for "unidentified", one for "moving". Units that stop moving for a few seconds get reclassified as "unidentified" because it could be wreckage or DTs. Add another column to the "retfire/holdfire" option set to be "attack moving radar" and "attack unidentified radar".

Once an unidentifed/moving unit on radar opens fire (even off radar) it is reclassified as "hostile" until it stops moving and firing. Hostile targets are fired at with impunity.

[Weaver]

People will be shooting their allies a lot if we do this... It will make shared team play a safer option.

[FizWizz]

uh, I don't think so... allies share LoS the last time I checked.

[Weaver]

uh, I don't think so... allies share LoS the last time I checked.

I must of been thinking of OTA, I don't think I've ever played an game with allies in Spring.

[Zoombie]

So if a rock is on radar it's simply classified as a unidentified object (Grey) untill a unit spots it. Then, because its not A) A building or B) a building its left on the map. You know there's a rock/wreck/tree or whatever that is.

If its a unit its classed as a UO untill you either A) get a visual fly by (this will encourage players to have some peepers on hand) or B) it moves. Once its moved then the radar classes it as a Unit and its radar sig is a wireframe of a generic unit (cuase thats cooler then a different coloured blip). If you get a fly by then the same thing occures, exept you know EXACTLY what unit it is.

is this accivable with our resourses, and would it work?

[FizWizz]

In my opinion, units should only be 'tagged' and their identity stored in memory after a targetting facility is built. It makes sense that radar units are only used for painting targets, scouts only for spotting units, and that the Targetting facility be the only unit with automated C3I capabilities.
Actually, I would not complain if ID├óÔé¼Ôäóing units is not implemented in the first place, because it would probably mean a lot more coding to have the computer log which units have been ID├óÔé¼Ôäóed and whether they have stayed inside radar range or not. For me, it├óÔé¼Ôäós enough that moving targets are considered enemies, and the player must engage in a bit of active reconnaissance

[edit]okay, I just got hit by the obvious... Since ghosted buildings are already possible, I guess it wouldn't really be hard to tag radar targets (enemies) that are uncovered by scouts. However, I would like it just changing them from unididentified blips to team-colored blips, ONLY after you have a targetting facility, of course.[/edit]

[tanelorn]

If you want radar signatures to be more informative, I suggest instead of a wireframe (which is really taxing considering possible unit counts), instead adjust the size of the blip according to the unit size. So tanks will show as a larger blip than a little kbot. Kroggies would be pretty darn big. Air contacts could have a special blip that showed them as aircraft, such as triangles. Of course any TA player worth his salt can tell by movement speed and blip behavior which contacts are airborne.

[[K.B.] Napalm Cobra]

That and they'll be flying through the air.

[Zoombie]

Thats a good idea

[Weaver]

I am sure a have suggest before that the blobs could be more diffuse, so that it might be harder to tell one big unit from several small ones.

[Maelstrom]

Now thats an idea! Make the unit blobs bigger, and have less alpha closer to the edge. If done properly, a swarm of units could look like a few big units, and a few big units could look like a swarm. Sounds good to me.

[[K.B.] Napalm Cobra]

Yes, this idea has been suggested a hundred times and now we just need someone to code it.

[Warlord Zsinj]

Ahh, my poor topic...

Any word on whether we can actually get trees to cause cloaking in units?