Comments on: Things missing in Forged Alliance, Session 2

By: Ocallaghan

Ocallaghan — Sun, 16 Dec 2007 05:56:25 +0000

Omg my first post!!!

Anyway.. elevation should affect the max range and the minimum range aswell.

If these changes were made it would be hell fun as everyone rushes to highground :)

By: Meddish

Meddish — Sat, 08 Dec 2007 02:52:41 +0000

OK from the top
Sonar NEEDS blind spots! its a must for the game!
radar also should have something done with it to, but Omni needs to be uneffected i think so u can say anything in omni range i know about!
Arty NEEDS to be effected by hight!! same with PD id like to see some maps where u could fight for a hill in the middle that IF/WHEN u get it u could hit anything with arty a sort of King Of the Hill senario!

By: EbolaSoup

EbolaSoup — Fri, 07 Dec 2007 18:33:24 +0000

Just want to add my agreement to adding LOS/Range affected by elevation and terrain. I’ve wanted to make some maps that play with strategic high ground to fight over but I’m not sure how meaningful that would be with the current engine. I still find myself wanting to put things on top of hills though. It may not make much difference in how it works but it makes me feel better.

By: Kymlaar

Kymlaar — Fri, 07 Dec 2007 01:35:49 +0000

Radar shadows would not only be useful, but it would make having complete radar coverage on certain maps much more difficult. As it stands, in a 2v2 I know almost everything about what my enemy is doing, at least in a generic sense. If I had to put my radar on a high hill, possibly with less area to protect it from attacks, in order to avoid it having large blind spots, that would be a very interesting and new aspect of the game. It would be interesting to see if someone could make a mod with any of these adjustments for experimentation.

By: Gryphyn

Gryphyn — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 19:48:13 +0000

I agree, as LOS was a part of TA, you know it had to be considered as they were creating this game. Cresting a hill to see a Krogoth coming up the other side that you didn’t notice before is classic.

I find it very cool that GPG has created a game so epic that it runs up against current computer horsepower limits, similar to what TA did 10 years ago. They’ve laid the groundwork for something that will continue to evolve as CPU tech evolves, and discussing what we want to see, and how to impliment it is a great way to see it come about.

Radar shadows…I don’t think this is useful enough to waste computational power. Sonar shadows though, would as others have said, add a lot of depth (ha ha) to naval warfare (as well as more naval base production, the later topic).

I agree with others though, the two biggest things needed right now are arty targetting actually based on elevation, and point defense/arty hit area masks to let you know where your coverage is. Nothing is more frustrating than discovering a void in your defenses the hard way.

By: LucusLoC

LucusLoC — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 17:37:58 +0000

I think a lot of the problems i am going to bring up were left out for performance reasons. i also relies that most of these will never be implemented in the original sup com engine, we will have to wait for sup com 2. this list is designed primarily to open up the debate on how these features should be implemented in the future, and to let GPG know that the community would really like to see it implemented in a specific way. FA is a really great game, but it does need some polish to make it a good as it can get. some things also seem kind weird to leave out (or half implemented), but i think it was done that way because of performance issues. of course my personal preference (as i have said before and will say again) is for better game mechanics rather than a better looking game. i would rather have terrain affected LOS than better looking units with more polygons and shaders. but i’m also in the minority there. i think the main, over all idea here is just attention to detail. when i build any arty on top of a hill i want to go “wow, i can shoot further!” and when i send a tank up to the bottom of a hill i want to go “hmmm, i can’t see the other side of this hill. i wonder what happens if i go up to the top. . . ” that would be the kind of stuff that would really impress me.

By: Engineer

Engineer — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 14:56:45 +0000

I think TA had it as an option. Visibility could be cicular (as it is in SupCom) or it could be LOS-based.

I do agree visibility blocked by terrain would be a positive gameplay feature, at least as an option. I don’t know how difficult it would be to implement. It’s likely they toyed with this idea in development and decided against it, probably for gameplay reasons once again.

Regarding sonar, you guys are right, it would be nice if sonar at least was blocked by land. Not so much for realism as to allow for a bit more sneaking about with subs and amphibious units.

By: Kymlaar

Kymlaar — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 12:41:04 +0000

I might be mistaken, but didn’t TA have units LOS effected by terrain? I seem to remember not noticing an enemy force on the backside of a hill when I crested it, and getting taught a lesson for it.

Also, while it might not be as efficient, I’ve used transports on Field of Isis to get t2 engies onto the wall above my base, and then used attack ground with those to create a constant field of fire in and beyond the northern gap. Obviously some shots fall short, but some go long as well, overall it kept people from wanting to send many units in that direction until T3 when they could handle that type of fire reasonably well.

By: Monk Ellipse

Monk Ellipse — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 00:29:25 +0000

Engineer:

Yes, I hear ya, the beauty of simplicity is sometimes overlooked. However, naval battle does suffer from being inherintly linear regarding terrain (where you have elevation) and I think the sacrifice to simplicity would be outweighed by the positive addition of tactics.

Consider, for instance, where you usally place your sonar station. Usually it’s close to your land base + naval fac. If sonar were succeptible to LOS, you wouldn’t see an enemy naval force approaching until it came out of the shadow of your island. This it would be to your benefit to put the sonar on both sides of the island. It would also be advantageous for attacking naval forces to stay in the shadow of islands. Building that base-busting MonkeyLord behind the enemies base? Try hiding it in a sonar shadow for grins!

I dunno, I don’t expect them to add this, nor will I lose sleep over it, I just think it could be fun :) Rant over!

By: LucusLoC

LucusLoC — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 00:20:33 +0000

I agree, radar blind spots = bad, but i would still like to see LOS blind spots. it would add to the immersion factor, plus be a really good way to quickly see low hills. and scouts, essential as they are, would be even more essential. im half and half on sonar though. i always thought it was kinda sillily how i could see clean across a long skiny island, but not atualy be able to see “around” it. (the first one that comes to mind is the “world” map. put a t3 sonar in the little hollow below Brazil, see into the pacific = lame)