| 1 |
[quote]The more pressing problem is that decloak range is spherical (so that planes don't decloak things) but then in deep water amphs and subs can't decloak one another (without the amphs floating).[/quote]
|
1 |
[quote]The more pressing problem is that decloak range is spherical (so that planes don't decloak things) but then in deep water amphs and subs can't decloak one another (without the amphs floating).[/quote]
|
| 2 |
Now that cloak can only exist on the surface (or close to the surface) this issue becomes entirely an amph issue because any seaborne cloaker (amph or not!) can be trivially found by ships or hovercraft. There are three things that could be done to address this, then:
|
2 |
Now that cloak can only exist on the surface (or close to the surface) this issue becomes entirely an amph issue because any seaborne cloaker (amph or not!) can be trivially found by ships or hovercraft. There are three things that could be done to address this, then:
|
| 3 |
\n
|
3 |
\n
|
| 4 |
1) The seaborne cloaker units could have large decloak radii. While this doesn't guarantee that things cannot avoid detection by amphs passing beneath, this can be practically similar to Athena.
|
4 |
1) The seaborne cloaker units could have large decloak radii. While this doesn't guarantee that things cannot avoid detection by amphs passing beneath, this can be practically similar to Athena.
|
| 5 |
\n
|
5 |
\n
|
| 6 |
2)
The
sea
maps
could
avoid
having
*so*
much
depth
that
the
previous
approach
breaks.
Maps
which
have
this
much
depth
could
be
modified
or
removed.
|
6 |
Note
that
it
takes
around
90
depth
for
the
largest
meaningfully
submersible
unit
(
Grizzly)
to
completely
go
under.
At
this
depth,
area-cloaked
daggers
on
the
surface
are
currently
decloaked
by
ducks
walking
on
the
sea
bottom,
so
i
would
say
this
is
probably
unnecessary
even
now.
|
|
|
7 |
\n
|
|
|
8 |
Depths much larger than this are problematic for other reasons (camera and general UI), so i'm not sure they should be a concern here at all.
|
| 7 |
\n
|
9 |
\n
|
| 8 |
Note
that
it
takes
around
90
depth
for
the
largest
meaningfully
submersible
unit
(
Grizzly)
to
completely
go
under.
At
this
depth,
area-cloaked
daggers
on
the
surface
are
currently
still
decloaked
by
ducks
walking
on
the
sea
bottom.
Depths
much
larger
than
this
are
problematic
for
other
reasons
(
camera
and
general
UI)
,
so
i'm
not
sure
they
should
be
a
concern
here
at
all.
|
10 |
Seawolves
specifically
are
currently
not
cloakable
because
they
are
fully
submerged
and
exist
with
their
center
below
the
waves.
But
if
they
were
cloakable,
their
decloak
sphere
would
also
be
closer
do
the
ducks,
so
also
more
decloakable
by
them.
|
| 9 |
\n
|
11 |
\n
|
| 10 |
Seawolves
are
currently
not
cloakable
because
they
are
fully
submerged
and
exist
with
their
center
below
the
waves.
But
if
they
were
cloakable,
their
decloak
sphere
would
also
be
closer
do
the
ducks,
so
also
more
decloakable
by
them.
|
12 |
2)
The
sea
maps
could
avoid
having
*so*
much
depth
that
the
previous
approach
breaks.
Maps
which
have
this
much
depth
could
be
modified
or
removed.
|
| 11 |
\n
|
13 |
\n
|
| 12 |
3) Amphibs could have a surfacing unit useful for screening/sweeping. Perhaps an inflatable dirtbag, or a thing that can do hops while floating, or a squid with multiple surfacing sidekicks. I don't have any robust designs, though.
|
14 |
3) Amphibs could have a surfacing unit useful for screening/sweeping. Perhaps an inflatable dirtbag, or a thing that can do hops while floating, or a squid with multiple surfacing sidekicks. I don't have any robust designs, though.
|
| 13 |
\n
|
15 |
\n
|
| 14 |
[quote](2) Amphs can hide from land units on maps with puddles (e.g. Onyx Cauldron, Iced Coffee).[/quote]
|
16 |
[quote](2) Amphs can hide from land units on maps with puddles (e.g. Onyx Cauldron, Iced Coffee).[/quote]
|
| 15 |
Conceded, with provisions: unsure if that impactful. Even if they are visible, they are still invincible there, and, additionally, even if you remove the water outright, these basins come with sharp cliffs that likely have enough LoS shadow to hide anyway.
|
17 |
Conceded, with provisions: unsure if that impactful. Even if they are visible, they are still invincible there, and, additionally, even if you remove the water outright, these basins come with sharp cliffs that likely have enough LoS shadow to hide anyway.
|
| 16 |
\n
|
18 |
\n
|
| 17 |
[quote](1) steeper learning curve[/quote]
|
19 |
[quote](1) steeper learning curve[/quote]
|
| 18 |
It's not even steepness that i find annoying here, it's discoverability. The mechanic is invisible because it is not shown in any way except in the unit description excel table and in the consequences of you being rekt by its use.
|
20 |
It's not even steepness that i find annoying here, it's discoverability. The mechanic is invisible because it is not shown in any way except in the unit description excel table and in the consequences of you being rekt by its use.
|
| 19 |
\n
|
21 |
\n
|
| 20 |
There are even outright misleading bits. Los for ground units is still rendered on sea bottom where in fact it has no power:
|
22 |
There are even outright misleading bits. Los for ground units is still rendered on sea bottom where in fact it has no power:
|
| 21 |
[img]https://i.imgur.com/AuJwAR4.png[/img]
|
23 |
[img]https://i.imgur.com/AuJwAR4.png[/img]
|
| 22 |
\n
|
24 |
\n
|
| 23 |
[quote](2) is it aesthetically pleasing that underwater units have some intel advantage of this kind [/quote]
|
25 |
[quote](2) is it aesthetically pleasing that underwater units have some intel advantage of this kind [/quote]
|
| 24 |
They do get to keep their radar stealth. This also applies to the naked eco argument.
|
26 |
They do get to keep their radar stealth. This also applies to the naked eco argument.
|
| 25 |
\n
|
27 |
\n
|
| 26 |
While i formerly advocated merging sonar and radar buildings, the sonar building no longer exists, and i don't feel any need to reintroduce it, perhaps aside from the los rendering argument above. But i feel it's much less impactful and important for radar, which is rendered in outlines anyway.
|
28 |
While i formerly advocated merging sonar and radar buildings, the sonar building no longer exists, and i don't feel any need to reintroduce it, perhaps aside from the los rendering argument above. But i feel it's much less impactful and important for radar, which is rendered in outlines anyway.
|
Summarise your ideal balance changes