| 1 |
To channel my inner sirlin~~~ and map RTS to fighting games:
|
1 |
To channel my inner sirlin~~~ and map RTS to fighting games:
|
| 2 |
\n
|
2 |
\n
|
| 3 |
------------
|
3 |
------------
|
| 4 |
In most RTS is like fighting games with only a single character, while Zk is like a tag team fighting game.
|
4 |
In most RTS is like fighting games with only a single character, while Zk is like a tag team fighting game.
|
| 5 |
\n
|
5 |
\n
|
| 6 |
Most RTS games is like fighting games where the character gains completely new, cost free, better moves when you super meter fills up, often changing gameplay dramatically going from super armor throw to half screen pokes. As a result a lot of strategy is about charging up the super bar like turtling and spamming keep away. In some game states both sides with both spam keep away to power up the bar or do some strange block string to power up instead of hurting the opponent. The players of those games tell us that the precise input and strategy to win the power up minigame is valid form of skill and balance and should not be removed.
|
6 |
Most RTS games is like fighting games where the character gains completely new, cost free, better moves when you super meter fills up, often changing gameplay dramatically going from super armor throw to half screen pokes. As a result a lot of strategy is about charging up the super bar like turtling and spamming keep away. In some game states both sides with both spam keep away to power up the bar or do some strange block string to power up instead of hurting the opponent. The players of those games tell us that the precise input and strategy to win the power up minigame is valid form of skill and balance and should not be removed.
|
| 7 |
\n
|
7 |
\n
|
| 8 |
Zero-K is like most normal fighting games, where you get a set of moves that remain valid most of the game and gain only a few at late game stages. All the initial selection provides a diverse set of options that span most game situations, with the more gimmicky choices merely having nonstandard but still valid responses.
|
8 |
Zero-K is like most normal fighting games, where you get a set of moves that remain valid most of the game and gain only a few at late game stages. All the initial selection provides a diverse set of options that span most game situations, with the more gimmicky choices merely having nonstandard but still valid responses.
|
| 9 |
\n
|
9 |
\n
|
| 10 |
The exception is of course, the Greater Spider Factory (known is GS), which have +150 range and +40% speed bonus and is totally overpowered. The solution to balancing the game is to give every other factory a special anti-GS "move" that is only works against it, has +100% range, +20% speed, +50% damage and overpowers the GS if you spam it. This makes the GS only useful when the opponent is pinned by a blockstring or combo normally....
|
10 |
The exception is of course, the Greater Spider Factory (known is GS), which have +150 range and +40% speed bonus and is totally overpowered. The solution to balancing the game is to give every other factory a special anti-GS "move" that is only works against it, has +100% range, +20% speed, +50% damage and overpowers the GS if you spam it. This makes the GS only useful when the opponent is pinned by a blockstring or combo normally....
|
| 11 |
\n
|
11 |
\n
|
| 12 |
Now as an aside, a few result from the development of fighting games:
|
12 |
Now as an aside, a few result from the development of fighting games:
|
| 13 |
1. Extremely simple games can take good amount of skill to master. Meme "one button" fighting game "dive kick" can have real player skill differentiation. Very simplified games like "Footsies" or Fantasy strike can also have large amount of player skill. RTS games are far more complicated than 1 dimension movement, 2 attack move game footsies and optimal play is impossible, the problem with bad games is that skill needed is unfun, for example:
|
13 |
1. Extremely simple games can take good amount of skill to master. Meme "one button" fighting game "dive kick" can have real player skill differentiation. Very simplified games like "Footsies" or Fantasy strike can also have large amount of player skill. RTS games are far more complicated than 1 dimension movement, 2 attack move game footsies and optimal play is impossible, the problem with bad games is that skill needed is unfun, for example:
|
| 14 |
I.
Computing
nash
equilibrium
response
to
of
dozens
of
possible
cheeses
after
obtaining
the
resource
count
of
3
resource
patches
|
14 |
I.
Computing
nash
equilibrium
response
to
of
dozens
of
possible
cheeses
after
obtaining
the
resource
count
of
3
opponent
resource
patches
|
| 15 |
II.
Compute
linear
programming
optimization
problem
on
multi-resource
investment
after
impact
of
random
even
(
enemy
action
or
else)
|
15 |
II.
Compute
linear
programming
optimization
problem
on
multi-resource
investment
after
impact
of
random
event
(
enemy
action
or
else)
|
| 16 |
III. Optimizing harvester pathing and build queues
|
16 |
III. Optimizing harvester pathing and build queues
|
| 17 |
and so on...
|
17 |
and so on...
|
| 18 |
\n
|
18 |
\n
|
| 19 |
2. It is possible to have pretty balanced games that fit an aesthetic. In fact in the fighting game domain, pretty balanced games are common (balanced well enough to be irrelevant to 99.99% of the player base: one can always get better and beat everyone out of the 0.01% by pure skill) and games compete on giving players what they want and thus generating subgenres like anime fighters, different movement systems and so on. Other design criteria like ease of learning is valid, thus things like "auto-combos" which reduce the pain of low rank players a lot.
|
19 |
2. It is possible to have pretty balanced games that fit an aesthetic. In fact in the fighting game domain, pretty balanced games are common (balanced well enough to be irrelevant to 99.99% of the player base: one can always get better and beat everyone out of the 0.01% by pure skill) and games compete on giving players what they want and thus generating subgenres like anime fighters, different movement systems and so on. Other design criteria like ease of learning is valid, thus things like "auto-combos" which reduce the pain of low rank players a lot.
|
| 20 |
\n
|
20 |
\n
|
| 21 |
------------
|
21 |
------------
|
| 22 |
To respond to this:
|
22 |
To respond to this:
|
| 23 |
https://zero-k.info/Forum/Thread/34717?postID=247421
|
23 |
https://zero-k.info/Forum/Thread/34717?postID=247421
|
| 24 |
\n
|
24 |
\n
|
| 25 |
[q]I'm not sure if I'm even looking to promote meaningful micro between air and AA, or more than exists. The skill test for the player making the AA is a combination of valuation of what to defend and a bit of 'tower defense'. The skill of air is to judge what they can kill for what sorts of losses, and to decide whether its worth it.
|
25 |
[q]I'm not sure if I'm even looking to promote meaningful micro between air and AA, or more than exists. The skill test for the player making the AA is a combination of valuation of what to defend and a bit of 'tower defense'. The skill of air is to judge what they can kill for what sorts of losses, and to decide whether its worth it.
|
| 26 |
\n
|
26 |
\n
|
| 27 |
The upshot is, if air units start looking too much like floating ground units, then it becomes hard to justify AA as a class of target restrictions... Sometimes a big blob of AA is like a weak anti-nuke. To use air in the area you've got to use other forces to destroy it.
|
27 |
The upshot is, if air units start looking too much like floating ground units, then it becomes hard to justify AA as a class of target restrictions... Sometimes a big blob of AA is like a weak anti-nuke. To use air in the area you've got to use other forces to destroy it.
|
| 28 |
[/q]
|
28 |
[/q]
|
| 29 |
I think the big part of the appeal of Zero-K in general is that it has the least "strategic" level consideration out of RTS games. It is in practice intensively tactical with no tech tree and the most barebones economic model, even simpler than explicitly tactical 'map capture' games like CoH. Now Zero-K has shiny and super stuff, but they are game enders after long tactical fights, and they are mostly buildings and "not stuff you are suppose to fight with."
|
29 |
I think the big part of the appeal of Zero-K in general is that it has the least "strategic" level consideration out of RTS games. It is in practice intensively tactical with no tech tree and the most barebones economic model, even simpler than explicitly tactical 'map capture' games like CoH. Now Zero-K has shiny and super stuff, but they are game enders after long tactical fights, and they are mostly buildings and "not stuff you are suppose to fight with."
|
| 30 |
\n
|
30 |
\n
|
| 31 |
When people choose a factory, there is more to it than choosing the strategic optimal move, like how people choose characters in fighting games. No, the aesthetic and style within the design is important and people want to play the game a certain way and have a path to grow into strength.
|
31 |
When people choose a factory, there is more to it than choosing the strategic optimal move, like how people choose characters in fighting games. No, the aesthetic and style within the design is important and people want to play the game a certain way and have a path to grow into strength.
|
| 32 |
\n
|
32 |
\n
|
| 33 |
In just about all games there players complain about balance not because the top performance is easy, but a style of play the game advertises (or otherwise desired) is much weaker, dumb or otherwise disappointing and they are forced into unattractive "OP tactic". Airplanes and gunships are disappointing compared to land factories in that they fit in narrow niches without full spectrum gameplay for both sides.
|
33 |
In just about all games there players complain about balance not because the top performance is easy, but a style of play the game advertises (or otherwise desired) is much weaker, dumb or otherwise disappointing and they are forced into unattractive "OP tactic". Airplanes and gunships are disappointing compared to land factories in that they fit in narrow niches without full spectrum gameplay for both sides.
|
| 34 |
\n
|
34 |
\n
|
| 35 |
Another "land factory" with the same level of uniqueness delta as spiders is compared to tanks would be more attractive than the existing gunship factory as it means a completely new and large set of complex tactical interactions. Which is to say, a fast hover-spider factory that is fought using normal units and not AA units sounds more fun.
|
35 |
Another "land factory" with the same level of uniqueness delta as spiders is compared to tanks would be more attractive than the existing gunship factory as it means a completely new and large set of complex tactical interactions. Which is to say, a fast hover-spider factory that is fought using normal units and not AA units sounds more fun.
|
| 36 |
\n
|
36 |
\n
|
| 37 |
\n
|
37 |
\n
|
| 38 |
[q] * Confers all-terrain pathing and the ability to (mostly) phase through units.
|
38 |
[q] * Confers all-terrain pathing and the ability to (mostly) phase through units.
|
| 39 |
* Changes which weapons are allowed to shoot at it.
|
39 |
* Changes which weapons are allowed to shoot at it.
|
| 40 |
* Makes the unit use flying armour/weapon upgrades.
|
40 |
* Makes the unit use flying armour/weapon upgrades.
|
| 41 |
\n
|
41 |
\n
|
| 42 |
We already have all-terrain units of average speed (spiders) so I don't think we need this with the addition of floating. Also, all-terrain is less important in ZK as the maps are much more open, so a flying unit of average speed would behave a lot like just another ground unit. [/q]
|
42 |
We already have all-terrain units of average speed (spiders) so I don't think we need this with the addition of floating. Also, all-terrain is less important in ZK as the maps are much more open, so a flying unit of average speed would behave a lot like just another ground unit. [/q]
|
| 43 |
The most important part of air units in the standard scale RTS is stacking, which can be degenerate in enabling infinite density. Special AA unit with splash may be needed to prevent Air scaling but not much more. In any case, in a force density dependent game this variable has to be exploited, where as armor and weapon class doesn't matter that much on the grand scale.
|
43 |
The most important part of air units in the standard scale RTS is stacking, which can be degenerate in enabling infinite density. Special AA unit with splash may be needed to prevent Air scaling but not much more. In any case, in a force density dependent game this variable has to be exploited, where as armor and weapon class doesn't matter that much on the grand scale.
|
| 44 |
\n
|
44 |
\n
|
| 45 |
\n
|
45 |
\n
|
| 46 |
[q]
|
46 |
[q]
|
| 47 |
Basically, I'm not looking to promote this:
|
47 |
Basically, I'm not looking to promote this:
|
| 48 |
[q]
|
48 |
[q]
|
| 49 |
Similar ranges between anti-ground and anti-air weapon also promotes a lot of air-ground combined arms forces in which air hovers over ground. Compositions like Mutalisk Zerging, Marine Science Vessal, VoldRay-Ground, Raven-Mech and so on.
|
49 |
Similar ranges between anti-ground and anti-air weapon also promotes a lot of air-ground combined arms forces in which air hovers over ground. Compositions like Mutalisk Zerging, Marine Science Vessal, VoldRay-Ground, Raven-Mech and so on.
|
| 50 |
[/q]
|
50 |
[/q]
|
| 51 |
Compositions like this are what I'm calling tactical uses of air units. These are armies of units with somewhat similar speed that move around in a blob and fight. The air units contribute the same sorts of things as ground units: firepower, abilities, and being in a target category. I imagine Muta-Zergling is more like the air/ground combination that I'm going for as this seems like a raiding army rather than a fighting army. But, in particular, Voidray-Ground just seems like a blob that strengthens the army it's in by adding another target restriction class.
|
51 |
Compositions like this are what I'm calling tactical uses of air units. These are armies of units with somewhat similar speed that move around in a blob and fight. The air units contribute the same sorts of things as ground units: firepower, abilities, and being in a target category. I imagine Muta-Zergling is more like the air/ground combination that I'm going for as this seems like a raiding army rather than a fighting army. But, in particular, Voidray-Ground just seems like a blob that strengthens the army it's in by adding another target restriction class.
|
| 52 |
[/q]
|
52 |
[/q]
|
| 53 |
Many of the Zero-K air units is more like Oracle or Banshee: there is a timing window for you to make a raid against base defense, not fight the army, and the window close and you just about never make significant again outside of special tactical situations. The interaction is mostly unit-static base defense and completely forgetable.
|
53 |
Many of the Zero-K air units is more like Oracle or Banshee: there is a timing window for you to make a raid against base defense, not fight the army, and the window close and you just about never make significant again outside of special tactical situations. The interaction is mostly unit-static base defense and completely forgetable.
|
| 54 |
\n
|
54 |
\n
|
| 55 |
Muta-Zergling is a proper raider army composition: in that it can raid, but it is also the thing holding the line to prevent the opponent army from walking into your base. It can not win against land armies directly, but exploiting terrain it can inflict even attrition, hold bases with help of structures and chokes, and win base raid/trades in specific conditions and thus pinning the opponent army like all fast army compositions. There is a huge number of tactics and micro for both sides of the struggle, from controlling of mutalisks itself, baiting marines into Zergling surround, marines microed into line formation to focus fire a specific mutalisk in a stack, actually ambushing mutalisks with marine flank, hp regen management both both sides. Then one add additional units to mix up the tactical interaction: baneling over run, widow mines, tanks and it gets really complicated and fun quickly without too many arbitrary rules.
|
55 |
Muta-Zergling is a proper raider army composition: in that it can raid, but it is also the thing holding the line to prevent the opponent army from walking into your base. It can not win against land armies directly, but exploiting terrain it can inflict even attrition, hold bases with help of structures and chokes, and win base raid/trades in specific conditions and thus pinning the opponent army like all fast army compositions. There is a huge number of tactics and micro for both sides of the struggle, from controlling of mutalisks itself, baiting marines into Zergling surround, marines microed into line formation to focus fire a specific mutalisk in a stack, actually ambushing mutalisks with marine flank, hp regen management both both sides. Then one add additional units to mix up the tactical interaction: baneling over run, widow mines, tanks and it gets really complicated and fun quickly without too many arbitrary rules.
|
| 56 |
\n
|
56 |
\n
|
| 57 |
Then there is the idea that zero-k gunship of all things are raiders. From what I've seen, the most common use of the factory is nimbus in an army role, stacked over ground forces. The second most common use is rev as early game unit snipes, third would be trident also stacked over ground forces, being not much faster than some ground AA and can not to reactive interceptions at all. It is actually a good thing gunships is weak because nimbus is such a boring unit, attack move auto-retreat mono-spam dominates the likes of chicken games.
|
57 |
Then there is the idea that zero-k gunship of all things are raiders. From what I've seen, the most common use of the factory is nimbus in an army role, stacked over ground forces. The second most common use is rev as early game unit snipes, third would be trident also stacked over ground forces, being not much faster than some ground AA and can not to reactive interceptions at all. It is actually a good thing gunships is weak because nimbus is such a boring unit, attack move auto-retreat mono-spam dominates the likes of chicken games.
|
| 58 |
\n
|
58 |
\n
|
| 59 |
The high cost and reasonable health of higher tier zero-k gunships plus its ease of retreat means it is actually pretty good army unit and pretty bad raiders as it lives off repair -> attack cycle with fairly slow speed, with accessible repair power generally focused around defenses or army. Gunships is actually not fast enough to flank against faster ground AA for backline attacks on accessible flatlands, as AA have similar speeds outside of locust, and airplanes are generally better unless against undefended positions.
|
59 |
The high cost and reasonable health of higher tier zero-k gunships plus its ease of retreat means it is actually pretty good army unit and pretty bad raiders as it lives off repair -> attack cycle with fairly slow speed, with accessible repair power generally focused around defenses or army. Gunships is actually not fast enough to flank against faster ground AA for backline attacks on accessible flatlands, as AA have similar speeds outside of locust, and airplanes are generally better unless against undefended positions.
|
| 60 |
\n
|
60 |
\n
|
| 61 |
If gunships are already army units, it can be made better. More distinct roles, more distinct tactics... away from uniform hp/cost and dps/cost.
|
61 |
If gunships are already army units, it can be made better. More distinct roles, more distinct tactics... away from uniform hp/cost and dps/cost.
|
| 62 |
-------------
|
62 |
-------------
|
| 63 |
\n
|
63 |
\n
|
| 64 |
As for airplanes, what you get is IMO:
|
64 |
As for airplanes, what you get is IMO:
|
| 65 |
\n
|
65 |
\n
|
| 66 |
1/3 the reaction time while demanding 3 times the situation awareness to play to good effect, compared to surface factories. Now in 1v1, air is a side show, maps are smaller and opponent are more understood with consistent interaction. In lobpot, information explodes in density.
|
66 |
1/3 the reaction time while demanding 3 times the situation awareness to play to good effect, compared to surface factories. Now in 1v1, air is a side show, maps are smaller and opponent are more understood with consistent interaction. In lobpot, information explodes in density.
|
| 67 |
\n
|
67 |
\n
|
| 68 |
In ZK, airplanes are suicidal and take significant and fast manual control to work. The required information for successful sortie is partially observable: it is possible to figure out what is happening with fast flyby, observation of radar dot movements and observation of unit hp/penetration depth before death: but none of that is easy.
|
68 |
In ZK, airplanes are suicidal and take significant and fast manual control to work. The required information for successful sortie is partially observable: it is possible to figure out what is happening with fast flyby, observation of radar dot movements and observation of unit hp/penetration depth before death: but none of that is easy.
|
| 69 |
\n
|
69 |
\n
|
| 70 |
I am reminded of aircraft carriers in world of warships, before they removed the whole RTS Carrier part. The problem with RTS carriers was that it has a brutal learning curve (difficult plane micro, learn AA drop off curve of all ships, need game flow awareness to maximize game impact). In that game they also have huge game impact as such, elite players are capable of things like 70% solo in a 15v15 random MM while the average player just get pwnt out of the game (match maker make both side have equal carriers), with the carrier player base shrinking over time.
|
70 |
I am reminded of aircraft carriers in world of warships, before they removed the whole RTS Carrier part. The problem with RTS carriers was that it has a brutal learning curve (difficult plane micro, learn AA drop off curve of all ships, need game flow awareness to maximize game impact). In that game they also have huge game impact as such, elite players are capable of things like 70% solo in a 15v15 random MM while the average player just get pwnt out of the game (match maker make both side have equal carriers), with the carrier player base shrinking over time.
|
| 71 |
\n
|
71 |
\n
|
| 72 |
ZK Air may not in the absolute sense be very powerful but I think it has greater skill - power curve than land facts in lobpots: any middling player can learn the lance ball or some robust porc structure and do okay, while air take a different skill set that require dedicated effort different from playing the game normally. Making air powerful is tricky if player skill-power scaling is higher since it would mean the best player should play air to carry, which is bad for fun.
|
72 |
ZK Air may not in the absolute sense be very powerful but I think it has greater skill - power curve than land facts in lobpots: any middling player can learn the lance ball or some robust porc structure and do okay, while air take a different skill set that require dedicated effort different from playing the game normally. Making air powerful is tricky if player skill-power scaling is higher since it would mean the best player should play air to carry, which is bad for fun.
|
| 73 |
\n
|
73 |
\n
|
| 74 |
The lack of direct counter play options for other players means that "uneconomic" air defense massing has to be done if one is to not get farmed repeatedly. This is really rather boring for both sides.
|
74 |
The lack of direct counter play options for other players means that "uneconomic" air defense massing has to be done if one is to not get farmed repeatedly. This is really rather boring for both sides.
|
| 75 |
\n
|
75 |
\n
|
| 76 |
One may actually lower the skill (effort) - power curve to enable increases in absolute power. (how the average player experience air) This may not require game changes since good education resources can change effort - skill - power curve without changing the game. Alternative changes may include modification to interface, either better defaults and micro training or something more significant.
|
76 |
One may actually lower the skill (effort) - power curve to enable increases in absolute power. (how the average player experience air) This may not require game changes since good education resources can change effort - skill - power curve without changing the game. Alternative changes may include modification to interface, either better defaults and micro training or something more significant.
|
| 77 |
\n
|
77 |
\n
|
| 78 |
-------------------------------
|
78 |
-------------------------------
|
| 79 |
\n
|
79 |
\n
|
| 80 |
[q]How powerful do you think air should be? What sort of impact should it have? Should it be so important that the best player on each team has to play it?
|
80 |
[q]How powerful do you think air should be? What sort of impact should it have? Should it be so important that the best player on each team has to play it?
|
| 81 |
\n
|
81 |
\n
|
| 82 |
What motivated this post? [/q]
|
82 |
What motivated this post? [/q]
|
| 83 |
Now from a personal greedy demand is infinite perspective:
|
83 |
Now from a personal greedy demand is infinite perspective:
|
| 84 |
\n
|
84 |
\n
|
| 85 |
Air should be, following the theme of the game:
|
85 |
Air should be, following the theme of the game:
|
| 86 |
1. Ground factories fight air units with tactics of maneuver and fire control not preparation of hard counter units
|
86 |
1. Ground factories fight air units with tactics of maneuver and fire control not preparation of hard counter units
|
| 87 |
2. Air factories should have full tactics-filled game play against each other and ground factories
|
87 |
2. Air factories should have full tactics-filled game play against each other and ground factories
|
| 88 |
3. Ground factories fight air units with normal units generally, not exclusively using AA units.
|
88 |
3. Ground factories fight air units with normal units generally, not exclusively using AA units.
|
| 89 |
4. Gunships should have full start to end game life cycle
|
89 |
4. Gunships should have full start to end game life cycle
|
| 90 |
5. Airplanes, as a support factory should scale mid to end game
|
90 |
5. Airplanes, as a support factory should scale mid to end game
|
| 91 |
6. Degenerate air deathball does not happen, or have reasonable counters
|
91 |
6. Degenerate air deathball does not happen, or have reasonable counters
|
| 92 |
7. One does not have to go air to not suffer a very large disadvantage in most game-type/map combos
|
92 |
7. One does not have to go air to not suffer a very large disadvantage in most game-type/map combos
|
| 93 |
8. Air units should have good dynamics, feel good to control
|
93 |
8. Air units should have good dynamics, feel good to control
|
| 94 |
\n
|
94 |
\n
|
| 95 |
\n
|
95 |
\n
|
| 96 |
Some ideas on how to do this:
|
96 |
Some ideas on how to do this:
|
| 97 |
\n
|
97 |
\n
|
| 98 |
Smaller Things:
|
98 |
Smaller Things:
|
| 99 |
1. Locust gets a short range AA that allows it to brawl down Trident. This can be build into raider Locust > 'Skirm" Trident, plus ground riot > Locus circle counter. Should add potential tactics than monospam to gunship mirror air superiority situations without impacting ground negatively. (eg. larva maps with land route terraformed out)
|
99 |
1. Locust gets a short range AA that allows it to brawl down Trident. This can be build into raider Locust > 'Skirm" Trident, plus ground riot > Locus circle counter. Should add potential tactics than monospam to gunship mirror air superiority situations without impacting ground negatively. (eg. larva maps with land route terraformed out)
|
| 100 |
2. Revenant gets sonar and underwater targeting. Existing weapon already splash to underwater. Why leave one of two air factories completely unable to deal with half of sea?
|
100 |
2. Revenant gets sonar and underwater targeting. Existing weapon already splash to underwater. Why leave one of two air factories completely unable to deal with half of sea?
|
| 101 |
3. Lower flying transport, either specifically or option select. Faster pick up and less drop damage on being shot down. Balance by animation if too much.
|
101 |
3. Lower flying transport, either specifically or option select. Faster pick up and less drop damage on being shot down. Balance by animation if too much.
|
| 102 |
4. Add a low, avoidable damage for cost, high survivability airplane to scale to late game. Like I said before, if bertha exists there is a threshold where damage inflicted per cost is quite tolerable and not oppressive. Air player want to play air and that is why this thread exists.
|
102 |
4. Add a low, avoidable damage for cost, high survivability airplane to scale to late game. Like I said before, if bertha exists there is a threshold where damage inflicted per cost is quite tolerable and not oppressive. Air player want to play air and that is why this thread exists.
|
| 103 |
5. Buff sparrow so airplanes is not so critical in non-tactical sense
|
103 |
5. Buff sparrow so airplanes is not so critical in non-tactical sense
|
| 104 |
6. Minelayer plane: drops persistent mine that costs low metal (relative to moving bombs). Should enable some creative play.
|
104 |
6. Minelayer plane: drops persistent mine that costs low metal (relative to moving bombs). Should enable some creative play.
|
| 105 |
7. Blastwing gets self range radar jammer. Should allow it to be used to screen after long range AA is built up.
|
105 |
7. Blastwing gets self range radar jammer. Should allow it to be used to screen after long range AA is built up.
|
| 106 |
8. Strafing airplane as flying Halberd: high hp needed for multiple passes, low effective dps for tough and fast vehicle to balance. Maybe give its weapon napalm effect as a tough/fast anti-cloak/repair option since you can't let it kill much and its not much fun to have its weapon be just plain useless.
|
106 |
8. Strafing airplane as flying Halberd: high hp needed for multiple passes, low effective dps for tough and fast vehicle to balance. Maybe give its weapon napalm effect as a tough/fast anti-cloak/repair option since you can't let it kill much and its not much fun to have its weapon be just plain useless.
|
| 107 |
\n
|
107 |
\n
|
| 108 |
Larger things:
|
108 |
Larger things:
|
| 109 |
1. Shift AA to slow, emp and gravity in general, outside of anti-stack splash AA. This way AA can not complete the kill chain just by being placed, and instead normal ground armies have to move to fight it. This enable fast air strategically, but slow for tactical time frame interactions and to interact meaningfully with both ground armies.
|
109 |
1. Shift AA to slow, emp and gravity in general, outside of anti-stack splash AA. This way AA can not complete the kill chain just by being placed, and instead normal ground armies have to move to fight it. This enable fast air strategically, but slow for tactical time frame interactions and to interact meaningfully with both ground armies.
|
| 110 |
2. Reduce ranges of air units and some AA to be more in line with normal units to reduce dependency of dedicated AA. This also adds ground force density constraints to AA, which interacts with terrain and ground force requirements to produce unique tactical situations. At common 800+ range with high cost/power density, existing AA is not surface area constrained much.
|
110 |
2. Reduce ranges of air units and some AA to be more in line with normal units to reduce dependency of dedicated AA. This also adds ground force density constraints to AA, which interacts with terrain and ground force requirements to produce unique tactical situations. At common 800+ range with high cost/power density, existing AA is not surface area constrained much.
|
| 111 |
3. Bombers as anti-artillery/anti-force multiplier, not effective against line forces of assaults/riots. This will demand tactical scale flanking to avoid front line army units (and opponent counter micro), not focused on strategically flanking roles or computing long range aa density.
|
111 |
3. Bombers as anti-artillery/anti-force multiplier, not effective against line forces of assaults/riots. This will demand tactical scale flanking to avoid front line army units (and opponent counter micro), not focused on strategically flanking roles or computing long range aa density.
|
| 112 |
\n
|
112 |
\n
|
Air v. AA v. Ground balance