A list of things still missing in Forged Alliance, Session 1
I have been playing Forged Alliance for a few weeks now, mostly against the comp, since I only play for a bit at a time (I can save in single player. . ) I love all the stuff that they changed! So nice! GPG proved that they will listen to their customers and fans! Nice to see that in a company. Unfortunately they did miss a few things. For the most part it’s stuff that is engine related I think, though I could be wrong on that. Anyway, here is a list of things that I think need to be fixed. Still.
This was originally all one big post, but Engineer thought that it would be a better format to break the 15 items into separate posts. This way you can discuss each issue in one long thread, and not have it all get mixed up. Wish I would have thought of that. I’m so jealous.
Just as a note I intentionally left out balance issues (like bombers not being able to hit on the first pass, the firebeetle not working, un-upgradeable HC plants etc.) out of the list. These things are just balance, and (to my mind) easily fixed. GPG has already shown they are good with fixing balance issues, so I will not hold them over a fire on that. Most of the issues that I am trying to address go deeper than simple balance, and (again) seem to stem from some oversight in the engine, UI or other gameplay issue. So think of this a kind of an open letter to GPG, thanking them for the work that they have already done, and letting them know that we still have high expectations of them, and of Supcom!
And now, without further ado:
A list of things still missing in FA (dun dun duuuun. . .)
Session 1: Variable unit movement over terrain, different units move over different slopes.
Originally I was not going to go into detail for the sake of brevity, but since this is now a multipart post I will delve into how I think this would work and how I think that will bring new elements to gameplay. So what was originally going to go into a reply post now goes into the topic for discussion. Like it or suffer.
First off my reason for thinking that different units should be able to move over different slopes is that it will add a new dynamic to the game. If it is implemented the way that I think it should be, lower tech and lighter armored units will gain value as their mobility would greatly be increased. It may also provide additional ways to diversify the factions, since different factions could be granted different levels of mobility. For example, the Cybran, with all their legged bots, could be given a higher movement rating, while the Aeon, with all their hover units, would be given a lower one. The basic premise is this: that for moving over rougher and steeper terrain legged > treads > wheels > hover and lighter is better. For the sake of simplicity I will consider wheeled and treaded units the same.
The way I understand it all units can currently traverse an in-game slope of 2. I assume this means that the elevation rises 2 units over one unit of game length. I also think that it is fairly obvious that these two measurements are not the same, since if they were a slope of 1 would be a 45 degree slope. but that all just a guess. anyhoo, we will assume 2 is correct and use it as a base for all further calculations.
So we have a base movement of 2. This is the least movement allowed, since it seems to give a good range on the map. So I propose to give a slope movement of the following:
All hover units: 2 (with a few exceptions to ultralights which will have a 3)
Heavy treaded vehicles: 3 slope movement.
Heavy legged: 3-4.
Medium treaded: 3-4.
Medium legged: 4-5.
Light treaded: 4-5.
Light legged: 5-6.
Of course this is just a general guide, not a hard and fast rule. For instance I think that arty and MMLs should have their slope movement decreased by 1 for their type (of course with exceptions to make it interesting), and engineers should be balanced to be fair to all the factions, but could still wind up able
to cover slightly different slopes for diversity. (I don’t see any real issue with making the Cybran t1 engineer a mountaineer for example. Be sure to discuss this specific point). There are a number of new tactics that could be opened up from this. The most obvious would be t1 base raiding. Taking a collection of t1 bots and moving them around the enemy base defense and over a steep hill. That steep hill would still provide protection from t2 and t3 assault, but not from harassing t1. This would force the defender into more proactive base defense, such as scouting the mountains and establishing either PD or a patrol 360 degrees around his base. T1 would also be able to traverse the map faster, since there would be less obstacles in their way. This would give them more value for harassing enemy engineers and MEXs.
On a final note I think structures should be buildable on different slopes as well, with higher tech and larger structures requiring more level ground. Feel free to discuss.
December 2nd, 2007 at 8:40 pm
I actually think it is something that is missing from the original TA. In TA and its later freeware clones (TA Spring FTW!!!) there was no generic “land factory”, you had two very distinct options, a vehicle factory and a K-bot lab. Vehicles were faster and stronger but were horrible in poor terrain, and were more unweildy overall, i.e. they had slow turning rates, etc, and were more likely to get jamemd up in wreckage or terrain. K-bots were much more versatile, and they could walk up and down all but the steepest terrain. However, they were not as effective per cost in combat. This meant that certain types were more useful in parts of certain maps. There might be a route of attack that doesn’t work with vehicles but with K-bots it was possible, or there might be an area where vehicles would get bogged down and K-bots could pick them off. I am exaggerating a little bit here, but you get the idea.
This is really quite realistic, after all, light troops are still very effective in today’s modern armies, provided the fighting is in rough terrain.
Basically the concept is another “balance” dial that you can twist to give different units different values in different tactical situations. The upside is that it provides more tactical choices for players and lets the terrain shape the gameplay a bit more, meaning maps can get even more creativel. It would also allow light units to remain more valuable even late in the game. The downside is balance gets even more complicated than it already is, and it does add a new mechanic that could give rise to all sorts of problems.
A version of this may be doable in an expansion pack, it could make up a feature that people would pay for. However, I don’t think we are likely to see it because of the complexity involved. Personally, I would like to see some kind of system worked in, such as a half-water half-land swampy terrain that slows units down based on their mass cost (weight) and gives hover units an advantage even on maps with no open water.
December 2nd, 2007 at 9:31 pm
“I actually think it is something that is missing from the original TA.”
Agree 100% Engy - IMO TA had something indescribable about it, an elegance. Something very hard to nail down and analyze. It became more than the sum of its components, it had *truly* “emergent” gameplay, a rare and special thing. You hear that buzzword a lot these days. We can state which factors and variables we personally believed contributed the most to producing this emergent phenomenon (i.e. unit factories, wreckage piles etc) but basically all those things put together, and more; made it what it was/is.
Forged Alliance is fantastic, a HUGE improvement over vanilla Supcom in all areas. However, for me it is still missing that “je ne se quois” which leaves me a little cold and detached when playing. Perhaps it needs time and tweaking, or a more active mod scene to do it for us. For me personally it is especially noticeable during large battles, where I just don’t feel as engaged and absorbed as I should, despite all the benefits of modern, highly detailed graphics and dazzling physics etc.
Anyway great post LucusLoC - I can see where you are coming from and where you are going with these articles. Look forward to the second part. Thanks again to both you guys for keeping Supcom Talk going strong.
December 3rd, 2007 at 12:53 am
Totally signed and seconded :)
Now hit and run is only an option with a few aircrafts, but not with vehicles, and that would be good .. just remember AoE II and the cavarly archers ^^
December 3rd, 2007 at 12:55 am
I am looking forward to your other posts, and I agree, I love TA and that is just one of the many great things about it.
December 3rd, 2007 at 5:34 am
Yeah. More advantages for Cybran. Yeah. :( :( :(
December 3rd, 2007 at 9:22 am
lol at your name :P
December 3rd, 2007 at 9:44 am
This *is* something that I miss in the game but to be honest there’s another issue that would limit the effectiveness of this: unit AI. On uneven ground I find a lot of direct fire units end up just shooting forever at the terrain because they have no line of sight to the enemy. Does anyone else notice this?
December 3rd, 2007 at 10:20 am
I think the fact this has been left out is a conscious decision. It’s hard to apply in any sort of meaningful way. In TA it only really made a big difference on a handful of maps, and in some ways those maps turned out a little gimmicky as a result. You look at the most popular TA maps and they weren’t ones where terrain elevation really came into play.
TA Springs implimentation didn’t work out too well either. In fact it was horrible. Balance is all over the place on most maps, and when combined with the deformable terrain is a complete disaster. If you build your factory in the wrong place units can’t even get off the production ramp.
Lets not overcomplicate the game with unnecessary additions. Lets leave high diversity special class units to the smaller scale tactical games like Star Craft.
December 3rd, 2007 at 12:01 pm
@Molloy: Yes, without a doubt the TA Spring implementation was at times disastrous. TA Spring was incredibly unbalanced and had horrible gameplay problems, as you say, factories could be built that units could never leave, etc. However, it was free and fun and helped pass the time while I waited for SupCom to be released. It is also a remarkable example of what can be accomplished with open source games.
I agree that SupCom certainly left this out on purpose. Imagine trying to maneuver something like a Fatboy if wreckage and terrain blocked its movement. It would never go anywhere (unless it could crush wreckage and terrain under its treads… oooh that sounds cool…), the current implementation is much more simplified and prevents a lot of problems from coming up. I can understand why GPG went the way it did, but you have to admit it would be possible to bring in a simplified version of this, modifying speeds for certain units on certain types of flat terrain (topograpy aside) wouldn’t necessarily break anything and could be interesting.
December 3rd, 2007 at 3:10 pm
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.
December 3rd, 2007 at 3:38 pm
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.
December 3rd, 2007 at 3:45 pm
….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.
December 3rd, 2007 at 6:09 pm
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.
December 3rd, 2007 at 6:52 pm
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.
December 3rd, 2007 at 8:30 pm
TA Kingdoms has recieved its one mention. Now let us never speak of it again.
December 3rd, 2007 at 9:37 pm
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!
December 4th, 2007 at 11:57 am
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… >_
December 4th, 2007 at 12:00 pm
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!”
December 4th, 2007 at 5:18 pm
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.