Comments on: A list of things still missing in Forged Alliance, Session 1 http://www.supcomtalk.com/2007/12/02/a-list-of-things-still-missing-in-fa-session-1/ Forging new Alliances daily Wed, 07 Jan 2009 17:30:55 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1 By: Engineer http://www.supcomtalk.com/2007/12/02/a-list-of-things-still-missing-in-fa-session-1/#comment-9833 Engineer Tue, 04 Dec 2007 21:18:50 +0000 http://www.supcomtalk.com/2007/12/02/a-list-of-things-still-missing-in-fa-session-1/#comment-9833 When it comes to the game that we shall not mention, the main thing it lacked was Chris Taylor. Despite the general opinion that the failure of that game was responsible for the death of Cavedog, interestingly the wikipedia article on the game (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_Annihilation:_Kingdoms) actually says this is not true, the game sold relatively well and it was a variety of other factors that led to Cavedog's demise. When it comes to the game that we shall not mention, the main thing it lacked was Chris Taylor. Despite the general opinion that the failure of that game was responsible for the death of Cavedog, interestingly the wikipedia article on the game (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_Annihilation:_Kingdoms) actually says this is not true, the game sold relatively well and it was a variety of other factors that led to Cavedog’s demise.

]]> By: Breezy http://www.supcomtalk.com/2007/12/02/a-list-of-things-still-missing-in-fa-session-1/#comment-9814 Breezy Tue, 04 Dec 2007 16:00:22 +0000 http://www.supcomtalk.com/2007/12/02/a-list-of-things-still-missing-in-fa-session-1/#comment-9814 hmm half my post didnt.. err.. post... i'm sure boneyards said something along the lines of... "lets build a medieval game that has nothing to do with TA, and we'll call it TA anyway! And we dont even have to do much work, just spend a lot of money to change things around a bit and use the same engine that we already have for this sweet futuristic game, and instead of spending time to work on a real TA2, we'll do this and make a crappy game instead and go bankrupt! Yes, lets do it!" hmm half my post didnt.. err.. post… i’m sure boneyards said something along the lines of… “lets build a medieval game that has nothing to do with TA, and we’ll call it TA anyway! And we dont even have to do much work, just spend a lot of money to change things around a bit and use the same engine that we already have for this sweet futuristic game, and instead of spending time to work on a real TA2, we’ll do this and make a crappy game instead and go bankrupt! Yes, lets do it!”

]]> By: Breezy http://www.supcomtalk.com/2007/12/02/a-list-of-things-still-missing-in-fa-session-1/#comment-9813 Breezy Tue, 04 Dec 2007 15:57:29 +0000 http://www.supcomtalk.com/2007/12/02/a-list-of-things-still-missing-in-fa-session-1/#comment-9813 lol Meddish, I do remember those spider units too. I would always use them on campaign levels that had huge "impassable" mountains. and kingdoms... how on earth did that even happen... >_ lol Meddish, I do remember those spider units too. I would always use them on campaign levels that had huge “impassable” mountains.
and kingdoms… how on earth did that even happen… >_

]]> By: Meddish http://www.supcomtalk.com/2007/12/02/a-list-of-things-still-missing-in-fa-session-1/#comment-9786 Meddish Tue, 04 Dec 2007 01:37:34 +0000 http://www.supcomtalk.com/2007/12/02/a-list-of-things-still-missing-in-fa-session-1/#comment-9786 oh kingdoms what a USELESS game! next as for giving diffrent units climbing abilitys i do remember that TA had a spider unit that could walk up or down anything and these where a great unit in raiding! just for their nastyness. horrible crap unit but powerfull when it comes in the rear of your base! Next it does sound like a good idea haveing T1 units being able to make it over more mountins, BUT u would NEED to do something about range and elevation first as most players would allow ur T1 units to cimb a moutian once, after that they would place T1 PD at the base of the mountian to stop your doing it again (proberly with T2 PD behind for more firepower). If this was the case you would never get your T1 units over there again, but if u add in elevation and range increases then you have a diffrent ball game where your T1 arty might out range T2 PD! /me sits waiting for more topic to chat and input on! oh kingdoms what a USELESS game!
next as for giving diffrent units climbing abilitys i do remember that TA had a spider unit that could walk up or down anything and these where a great unit in raiding! just for their nastyness. horrible crap unit but powerfull when it comes in the rear of your base!
Next it does sound like a good idea haveing T1 units being able to make it over more mountins, BUT u would NEED to do something about range and elevation first as most players would allow ur T1 units to cimb a moutian once, after that they would place T1 PD at the base of the mountian to stop your doing it again (proberly with T2 PD behind for more firepower). If this was the case you would never get your T1 units over there again, but if u add in elevation and range increases then you have a diffrent ball game where your T1 arty might out range T2 PD!

/me sits waiting for more topic to chat and input on!

]]> By: Engineer http://www.supcomtalk.com/2007/12/02/a-list-of-things-still-missing-in-fa-session-1/#comment-9784 Engineer Tue, 04 Dec 2007 00:30:05 +0000 http://www.supcomtalk.com/2007/12/02/a-list-of-things-still-missing-in-fa-session-1/#comment-9784 TA Kingdoms has recieved its one mention. Now let us never speak of it again. TA Kingdoms has recieved its one mention. Now let us never speak of it again.

]]> By: LucusLoC http://www.supcomtalk.com/2007/12/02/a-list-of-things-still-missing-in-fa-session-1/#comment-9779 LucusLoC Mon, 03 Dec 2007 22:52:00 +0000 http://www.supcomtalk.com/2007/12/02/a-list-of-things-still-missing-in-fa-session-1/#comment-9779 i just checked, and indeed, the elevation problem is the next post, so you'll get you chance to talk about it then. but let me just say that yes, elevation does affect range. noticeably when you look at t2 arty stations. i just checked, and indeed, the elevation problem is the next post, so you’ll get you chance to talk about it then. but let me just say that yes, elevation does affect range. noticeably when you look at t2 arty stations.

]]> By: Molloy http://www.supcomtalk.com/2007/12/02/a-list-of-things-still-missing-in-fa-session-1/#comment-9778 Molloy Mon, 03 Dec 2007 22:09:54 +0000 http://www.supcomtalk.com/2007/12/02/a-list-of-things-still-missing-in-fa-session-1/#comment-9778 The influence of height on weapon ranges in TA was so small it didn't really make any difference. Same situation with the veterancy. I believe these aspects were exaggerated a little for TA:Kingdoms. I haven't played that game though. The influence of height on weapon ranges in TA was so small it didn’t really make any difference. Same situation with the veterancy. I believe these aspects were exaggerated a little for TA:Kingdoms. I haven’t played that game though.

]]> By: EbolaSoup http://www.supcomtalk.com/2007/12/02/a-list-of-things-still-missing-in-fa-session-1/#comment-9770 EbolaSoup Mon, 03 Dec 2007 19:45:03 +0000 http://www.supcomtalk.com/2007/12/02/a-list-of-things-still-missing-in-fa-session-1/#comment-9770 ....never mind..... I just saw your previous post after I posted my comment. I'll wait until the next article to chime in on the elevation/range thing. But regarding the issue at hand, I think your idea about terrain affecting units differently is a good one. I think it is the wreckage idea that is possible a bad one. That may not be a "feature" we want imported from TA. I was kind of relieved, to be honest, when I saw that SupCom didn't require worrying about other units being in the way of a unit you gave orders to. Wreckage getting in the way may just be annoying too. ….never mind…..
I just saw your previous post after I posted my comment. I’ll wait until the next article to chime in on the elevation/range thing.
But regarding the issue at hand, I think your idea about terrain affecting units differently is a good one. I think it is the wreckage idea that is possible a bad one. That may not be a “feature” we want imported from TA. I was kind of relieved, to be honest, when I saw that SupCom didn’t require worrying about other units being in the way of a unit you gave orders to. Wreckage getting in the way may just be annoying too.

]]> By: EbolaSoup http://www.supcomtalk.com/2007/12/02/a-list-of-things-still-missing-in-fa-session-1/#comment-9769 EbolaSoup Mon, 03 Dec 2007 19:38:23 +0000 http://www.supcomtalk.com/2007/12/02/a-list-of-things-still-missing-in-fa-session-1/#comment-9769 I may be peeking ahead a bit into some of your upcoming points but terrain being used in the way you suggest is fine and I think it may add more to the game. However, the aspect of terrain that is far more important to me is the advantage the higher ground afforded units in TA. I actually had assumed this was incorporated into SupCom until I read others stating that it was not. What I'm talking about is units being able to see and fire further from higher elevations. It makes a lot of sense and should factor significantly into tactical and strategic decisions. But if this is the subject of a future article...feel free to delete this. I may be peeking ahead a bit into some of your upcoming points but terrain being used in the way you suggest is fine and I think it may add more to the game. However, the aspect of terrain that is far more important to me is the advantage the higher ground afforded units in TA. I actually had assumed this was incorporated into SupCom until I read others stating that it was not. What I’m talking about is units being able to see and fire further from higher elevations. It makes a lot of sense and should factor significantly into tactical and strategic decisions. But if this is the subject of a future article…feel free to delete this.

]]> By: LucusLoC http://www.supcomtalk.com/2007/12/02/a-list-of-things-still-missing-in-fa-session-1/#comment-9766 LucusLoC Mon, 03 Dec 2007 19:10:22 +0000 http://www.supcomtalk.com/2007/12/02/a-list-of-things-still-missing-in-fa-session-1/#comment-9766 for me it always just seemed like supcom had the type of terrain that could really take advantage of this. most maps have hills and cliffs and flats and mountains. i always wanted to be able to take a small army up over a pass and attack an enemy outpost from behind. of course if you could do this with t3 it would be overpowered, but why not allow it for t1? a lot of people have been saying that even with all the changes t1 just isn't useful in late game t3. this would be a way to give them added value. if you wanted a way to do it that would not break balance then just give all factions' tech levels the same slope capability, say t1 is at four, t2 is at 3, and t3 is at 2. the suggestion to make it different based on chassis type was just a way to add a bit of realism and diversity (something some have been complaining about as well). it doesn't really much matter to me, just as long as it gets implemented at some point. if you also combine this with and advantage from elevation (something i have brought up before, and will again in this list) you can possibly wind up with a situation where t1 is more powerful than t2. as i said, this would bring whole new depth to the game, since you would not just be fighting over mass points, but also advantageous terrain features. capturing and holding that massless hill outside your enemy's base really starts to look tempting, and may be feasible since his huge, t3 only army cant mount a counter assault. bam, take it with t2, set up some arty that his t3 can't get to, and bring that army down to size. for me it always just seemed like supcom had the type of terrain that could really take advantage of this. most maps have hills and cliffs and flats and mountains. i always wanted to be able to take a small army up over a pass and attack an enemy outpost from behind. of course if you could do this with t3 it would be overpowered, but why not allow it for t1? a lot of people have been saying that even with all the changes t1 just isn’t useful in late game t3. this would be a way to give them added value. if you wanted a way to do it that would not break balance then just give all factions’ tech levels the same slope capability, say t1 is at four, t2 is at 3, and t3 is at 2. the suggestion to make it different based on chassis type was just a way to add a bit of realism and diversity (something some have been complaining about as well). it doesn’t really much matter to me, just as long as it gets implemented at some point. if you also combine this with and advantage from elevation (something i have brought up before, and will again in this list) you can possibly wind up with a situation where t1 is more powerful than t2. as i said, this would bring whole new depth to the game, since you would not just be fighting over mass points, but also advantageous terrain features. capturing and holding that massless hill outside your enemy’s base really starts to look tempting, and may be feasible since his huge, t3 only army cant mount a counter assault. bam, take it with t2, set up some arty that his t3 can’t get to, and bring that army down to size.

]]>