quote:
This guy hits this thing and this thing always takes this much damage. Thats terrible!

Warcraft II and several other games work around this. What it amounts to is yes, they always take *this* much damage (called piercing damage), but they may take a lot more. I agree with you, though, this is a little silly, so it should be altered so enemy armor is taken into account. Of course, players are going to get upset if their unit never does damage against another one, like a laser trooper firing at heavy armor, but this will make them work more for strategy and less for tank rushes.

As for battle credits.... Don''t let landfish hear you talking about experience or rewards for murder! Maybe rewards for taking certain mission-based objectives. However, the big problem with this is that if you are thumping the enemy, you don''t really need these extra points, and if you''re doing crappy and not getting the points, you probably need them. This is counter-productive, and while it may help them work towards strategy, I don''t think people are going to like it in your game any better than they did in FC.

quote:
This may be a bit off topic...
I would like to see a RTS that incorporated some elements of RP.
Such as keeping a squad throughout an entire campaing... individuals getting awards for valor etc... This would of course have to be squad based or platoon based to be realistic.
Hell, maybe someone has already done that????

Dave "Dak Lozar" Loeser

Yeah, I''ve seen this, but I don''t remember what game it was. Or maybe that was my idea before...I think there was one game at least where you were able to choose 3 or 4 units to take with you to your next mission. As for squad-based combat-- JA''s squad-based combat is neat, since you''re controlling each member separately. However, some Warhammer PC game used movement of squads of either 9 or 16 units (I remember they started formed as a square) and it was too hard to control them.

---

Nope, I haven''t played Warhammer 40K or anything--I''m too cheap to buy it. That''s more of the squad-based combat, I think. The only warhammer PC games I''ve seen have sucked out loud...I''d like to see one that worked well. If I could figure out how to do DOS graphics and stuff in BC++ 4.5, I''d try it myself, but alas, I can''t.... Do you know how hard it is to find dos tutorials now?

--

All hail the Technoweenie!

quote: Original post by draqza

Nope, I haven''t played Warhammer 40K or anything--I''m too cheap to buy it. That''s more of the squad-based combat, I think. The only warhammer PC games I''ve seen have sucked out loud...I''d like to see one that worked well. If I could figure out how to do DOS graphics and stuff in BC++ 4.5, I''d try it myself, but alas, I can''t.... Do you know how hard it is to find dos tutorials now?

ALL games workshops games ported to computer have sucked BIG TIME so far (except maybe space hulk ... but that was a long time ago).
As well, games workshops are legal thieves. OMG the price of their figurines is shameful.
I just wanted to point out the game mechanics, which are VERY good (those guys have been doing this for the last ..pff.. 20 years or so !)
there are plenty of other games around, I just thought most people would now W40K.
As well you are right, Warhammer 40K is unit based (very few tanks, usually you play with no more than a company).
But EPIC 40K is platoon based, and you play with 6mm figurines, which means litteraly hundreds of little men on a table (a friend of mine counted them one day, around 1000 units on the table !!!).
The tactics used in the two games are as well VERY different, and personaly I don''t play WH40K because maneuvers just don''t really matter.

But anyway :-P

If I ever get a game as good on a computer as those guys do on me carpet, God I''ll stop painting my figurines !

Armies having a weak point is a good idea, but IMO, only if you do them in companies you move together, rathre than single units...and that isn''t a good idea to me. Controlling a block of soldiers which have to stick together doesn''t work well for me in an RTS.

In a TBS, this has already been implemented a little bit. I think HOMM II had units which were weaker against certain types of spells and stronger against others. This is another of those RPG-ish things that would be good to add to a RTS/TBS--elemental weakness.

TBS = Turn Base Strategy.
opposed to RTS = Real Time Strategy.

youpla :-P

One thing I''ve been thinking of is customization...

Let the user define their own squadrons, which units should be in them, define behaviour/AI with a scripting language?

Let the user write their own building patterns, detailing what to build when... e.g. ''when gold > 100 build archer-healer squadron'' ''build 30 % swordsmen-squadrons, 15 % light cavalry, save rest of gold. order cavalry to scout surroundings.''
Maybe it would be possible to make a ''choke-point''-pattern, and placing it at strategic places...?

Just a thought... /Ksero