Darth Windu Posted August 11, 2004 Share Posted August 11, 2004 Vostok - yes, bit RoN also has sea combat which mine does not. The Auto-Transport option solves the problem of water crossing without superflous units or structures like bridges, while at the same time keeping the flow of gameplay going and making water-crossing units suitable vulnerable as they would be weak and unable to fire. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DK_Viceroy Posted August 11, 2004 Share Posted August 11, 2004 There would of course have to be two different style of bridges. Heavy duty for things like AT-AT's and normal for most other things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeiamyourdad Posted August 11, 2004 Share Posted August 11, 2004 Nah just one type of bridge. Two is too much. Besides, bridges reduce the ridiculous loading/unloading of transport when you want to cross a river 15 meters wide. Froz: Enemy transports sneaking to the back causes the same effect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admiral Vostok Posted August 11, 2004 Share Posted August 11, 2004 Froz: like Luke's Dad said, this is not a bad thing. It discourages turtling without making it a completely unviable tactic like RoN and AoM have. Viceroy: only one type of bridge I think. I don't really see the point of having different types of bridges for different types of things. Windu: It's true that building a shipyard just to get a transport when your design has no naval component is superfluous. But the rediculous ease with which you can cross water would then make the game rediculous. The "problem" of crossing water certainly isn't a problem anymore, it's a no-brainer. For example, I believe in RoN you can't use transports until you have built a shipyard; what sort of limitation is in your design? At any rate, I think it would be better to take the approach that other games without naval combat have taken and only allow transportation through the air and not have any naval transportation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FroZticles Posted August 12, 2004 Share Posted August 12, 2004 It depends on the maps whats the point in adding bridges if you only need them for one or two maps...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Windu Posted August 12, 2004 Share Posted August 12, 2004 Vostok - water transports would become available at the start of the game, or possibly as a result of military research. I stand by my claim, however, that bridges or bridge-vehicles are superflous and will hurt gameplay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DK_Viceroy Posted August 12, 2004 Share Posted August 12, 2004 I'd forgotten what this forum was like a predictable game of Verbal Ping-Pong. Regardless if there is no naval then there has to be bridges Air transports won't be abe to hold enough to avoid major micro management, therefore we need some srt of bridge or maybe you could build a repulsorlift barge from a mech factory analuge that could carry large amount of forces over gaps. either way we're gonna have to come up with a near micro management free way opf transporting large forces in as less time as possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admiral Vostok Posted August 12, 2004 Share Posted August 12, 2004 Viceroy: as long as that micro-management-free method is not that of RoNs, which is totally dumb, I'd be happy. Windu: available at the start of the game!? That's just rediculous. At least have it eventually become available through research. If you have it automatically available at the start what's the point of even having water on a map? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nairb Notneb Posted August 12, 2004 Share Posted August 12, 2004 There is also lava that can be crossed too in a select few maps. Naval vessels can't go there whether they are available or not. I think that having one type of bridge is all that is needed later in the game for moving large number of troops. That will be when you need it anyway, for your larger armies to cross, not a rush or scouts but for large amounts of units. That makes trans ports effective early, but don't give them immediately. Maybe the bridge doesn't even come until T4? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admiral Vostok Posted August 12, 2004 Share Posted August 12, 2004 Nairb makes an excellent point. There are things like lava and (should asteroid maps be included) space that can be crossed by bridges but not by naval units. Bridges would be very handy on these maps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Windu Posted August 13, 2004 Share Posted August 13, 2004 Vostok - i did say i was considering making it part of research. Apart from that, units crossing medium/deep water would be unable to fire, weak and slow, plus there is a delay is becoming a transport and then reverting. As for lava and whatnot, if an AT-AT cant survive walking through it, what makes you think a brigde could be built over it? In that instance, air transports would be needed. Aside from that, lava would not be very commen so it wouldnt present a big problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FroZticles Posted August 13, 2004 Share Posted August 13, 2004 I f your not adding naval into the game then whats the point of adding deep water..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DK_Viceroy Posted August 13, 2004 Share Posted August 13, 2004 If you were in space wouldn't that mean people would have to have different art sets for organic units since i've yet to meet the human who can breath in deep space. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admiral Vostok Posted August 15, 2004 Share Posted August 15, 2004 Viceroy, they didn't have different art in SWGB. Besides, Empire Strikes Back shows us that people are fine when on an asteroid with no atmosphere, as long as they wear a flimsy breathing mask Windu, I still think it would be better if they didn't have the instant transport thing at all. Bridges are a much more novel concept, which is both better for realism and gameplay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Windu Posted August 15, 2004 Share Posted August 15, 2004 Vostok - it isnt instant, there is a delay is becoing a transport and then reverting to their original form. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admiral Vostok Posted August 15, 2004 Share Posted August 15, 2004 Whatever. They still shouldn't have it. Froz complained before that allowing bridges would be too hard to defend against. I don't think it will, since it takes a fair amount of time to build a bridge, if you're keeping watch on your shores you'll avert it in time. However, having water transports without a navy cartainly would be too hard to defend against. It will allow you to attack from any angle, without a navy to stop you (or for that matter protect you). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DK_Viceroy Posted August 15, 2004 Share Posted August 15, 2004 I think i'll avoid this conversation since there's no intelligent conversation in this thread and for the most part it's useless since neither of you will concede the other the point in a million years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Majin Boba Fett Posted August 16, 2004 Share Posted August 16, 2004 Bridges = Good Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Windu Posted August 16, 2004 Share Posted August 16, 2004 Vostok - not true. For example, if you are playing on an island map, and you see an enemy invasion force headed your way by sea, you just send your units down to the beach and/or set up fighter/bomber patrols, which will slaughter the enemy sea forces. This form of transporting will only be a problem to the weak or the stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DK_Viceroy Posted August 16, 2004 Share Posted August 16, 2004 Despite my earlier prounouncement I am compelled to point out that everybody finds new ways to use units contstantly. Ever heard of a two pronged assault you send empty watr transports to one beach and full transports to another beach the empty ones get destroyed the full ones unload and wipe your base of the map. Bridges are good and are nessacery unless you plan to put naval in since some people on island maps could easily just turtle and then after a while obliterate you with a huge force. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Windu Posted August 16, 2004 Share Posted August 16, 2004 Viceroy - you've missed the point. What i am saying is that units become transports, then when they hit land they revert back to the original units. You are not buying or building anything else, so what you are saying is utterly impossible as an 'empty transport' would never exist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FroZticles Posted August 16, 2004 Share Posted August 16, 2004 Vostok- plz point out where I said it would be to hard to defend against I'm dying to know..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DK_Viceroy Posted August 16, 2004 Share Posted August 16, 2004 ok then windu explain how an infantry would become a ytransport and i don't see AT-AT's wading underwater do you? the only units i see as being able to go overwater are those that have repulsorlifts or in lamens term don't touch the ground.like the AAT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admiral Vostok Posted August 16, 2004 Share Posted August 16, 2004 Froz: Originally posted by FroZticles Bridges could add alot of frustration, you have covered all your entry points ohhh wait a second my workers are getting wiped out thanks to a bridge at the back of my base. Also does not make much sense since they have transports in the first place. Windu: Viceroy's point is still valid. Let's say on one front you get 10 AT-ATs on the water in their magical transports. On the other front you get 10 Stormtroopers in their magical transports. The enemy sees ten transports heading for his shore, and not knowing they only contain a single Stormtrooper, sends all his army to stop them. Meanwhile the ten AT-ATs land on another shore. But the main reason I hate the magical transport idea is that it is just too unsophisticated. It dumbs-down water-based maps to a rediculous level on no-brain "tactics". I want a Real Time Strategy game, not a Baby's First Battles like RoN. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeiamyourdad Posted August 16, 2004 Share Posted August 16, 2004 True. This "transforming into transports" idea comes from pure lazyness. At the least, bridges reduce micro but not to this point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.