1 |
This sounds great! Spring always felt a bit imbalanced with line move being one of the best movement tools I've ever seen in RTS, yet no way to specify plain old formations. Taking the line as the intended shape, but distributing the units more reasonably sounds like the best of both worlds.
|
1 |
This sounds great! Spring always felt a bit imbalanced with line move being one of the best movement tools I've ever seen in RTS, yet no way to specify plain old formations. Taking the line as the intended shape, but distributing the units more reasonably sounds like the best of both worlds.
|
2 |
\n
|
2 |
\n
|
3 |
As Anarchid said, don't make it too complicated too quickly. Keep it simple and configurable. This will make it more likely for others to adopt and maintain the wubget.
|
3 |
As Anarchid said, don't make it too complicated too quickly. Keep it simple and configurable. This will make it more likely for others to adopt and maintain the wubget.
|
4 |
\n
|
4 |
\n
|
5 |
As
a
bonus,
I
wonder
if
Spring
supports
move
orders
with
both
a
target
position
and
orientation?
This
would
be
good
for
artillery
and
vehicles.
Vehicles
not
all
having
the
same
orientation
in
a
formation
leads
to
very
inhomogenous
movement
afterwards.
|
5 |
As
a
bonus,
I
wonder
if
Spring
supports
move
orders
with
both
a
target
position
and
orientation,
since
the
default
move
command
is
only
position?
This
would
be
good
for
artillery
and
vehicles.
Vehicles
not
all
having
the
same
orientation
in
a
formation
leads
to
very
inhomogenous
movement
afterwards.
|