Comments on: Things missing in Forged Alliance, Session 5 http://www.supcomtalk.com/2007/12/10/things-missing-in-fa-session-5/ Transporting our ACUs to your base since 2007 Thu, 09 Feb 2012 18:57:11 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: LucusLoC http://www.supcomtalk.com/2007/12/10/things-missing-in-fa-session-5/comment-page-1/#comment-11179 LucusLoC Tue, 18 Dec 2007 21:27:37 +0000 http://www.supcomtalk.com/2007/12/10/things-missing-in-fa-session-5/#comment-11179 all they would really need would be a waypoint system like the air ones. and for the t4 ship, they will need one endpoint to always follow the ship. combine that with a toggle to either only launch when full, or launch whenever there is a unit (or maybe a slider to get more detailed, like launch on half full) and you will have a workable assault support vessel. you may also need a hold button, so that you can launch all four at once. other than that thats it. not to complicated at all i think. all they would really need would be a waypoint system like the air ones. and for the t4 ship, they will need one endpoint to always follow the ship. combine that with a toggle to either only launch when full, or launch whenever there is a unit (or maybe a slider to get more detailed, like launch on half full) and you will have a workable assault support vessel. you may also need a hold button, so that you can launch all four at once. other than that thats it. not to complicated at all i think.

]]> By: Widjet http://www.supcomtalk.com/2007/12/10/things-missing-in-fa-session-5/comment-page-1/#comment-11116 Widjet Tue, 18 Dec 2007 01:52:30 +0000 http://www.supcomtalk.com/2007/12/10/things-missing-in-fa-session-5/#comment-11116 Tsunami is already taken - that's the name of the UEF T2 torpedo launcher. I don't know, I suppose it's not a bad idea, but I'm worried that it would be too much micro. The transports would want to be automated somehow - maybe even uncontrollable, like the drones from a hive. Tsunami is already taken – that’s the name of the UEF T2 torpedo launcher.

I don’t know, I suppose it’s not a bad idea, but I’m worried that it would be too much micro. The transports would want to be automated somehow – maybe even uncontrollable, like the drones from a hive.

]]> By: LucusLoC http://www.supcomtalk.com/2007/12/10/things-missing-in-fa-session-5/comment-page-1/#comment-11101 LucusLoC Mon, 17 Dec 2007 22:56:13 +0000 http://www.supcomtalk.com/2007/12/10/things-missing-in-fa-session-5/#comment-11101 im sorry for the negative sounding title (it didn't really seem that way to me but i can see that you are right now). i too love the changes they made to FA. it is a 100% improvement over old sup com (also a good game imho, but in need of some fixes, which we got in FA. boy is that redundant. . .) this series was mainly intended to be to start a community discussion on what we would like to see either patched in or added to the next game. it is in my opinion that FA, as good as it is (on of the best in recent years) still needs some polish. GPG demonstrated to me that they are willing to listen to community input, and change the way the game works to satisfy the desires of their community.This is a wonderful thing, and is the main reason i put this together. i want us, as a whole, to push for that added polish. of course for this to work we have to decide what that polish is. it is not meant to be critical, it is meant to take advantage of GPG's willingness to accept input. There are guaranteed to be disagreements. take my underwater ambush factory idea for example, which i *still* think would be awesome. you are all jerks ;-). i hope this will become a forum for beating out the disagreements and coming to a few resolutions about what would like to see as a whole. then we can use our collective voice to see those changes made. i of course do not expect to find a resolution to every point. a few of the points here i myself do not care about, but i included them because i see them expressed on the forums. a few of the points already seem to have universal agreement, and while i can understand that they are technically difficult to implement, nonetheless we still want to see them in the game asap (range effected by altitude for example). in short, don't see this as a criticism, but rather a recommendation for improvement, and the more people contributing, the better quality that recommendation will be. i will work on having a title change done, so it does not seem so negative. again, my apologies. in response to H-master: the t3 transport sub i was thinking of would behave more like an actual sub, but would be able to quickly crawl up on land, quickly disgorge its units and quickly get back below the waves. it would carry 24 t3 and drop them in 3 lines of 8 on the shore. walls/buildings would block its access, but it would be able to crawl as far up as it could, and drop as many of the front units as its exposed length would allow. the smaller, t2, 8 to 10 t3 transport would be a surface sped-boat, cheep and expendable, it would scream up to the shore, dump its units in 2 lines of 4 or 5, back up, and take off. the t3 transport sub could be rather expensive, since its main point is near invulnerability to air. the t2 would need to be cheaper, relatively, since it would not have that protection. it would need to be priced so you would not be sad if you only got 1 run out of it. obviously units in the sub transport could not fire, but i cant decide if the ones on the surface ships should be allowed to. and finally, one last ditch effort to save my sea factory. Make it a ship experimental for the UEF. give it deck storage for the equivalent of 20 to 40 t3. give it one battleship cannon, decent anti sub, and weak anti air. on the fore deck would be the t3 land factory (either 1 or 2). in the rear would be the t2 sea transport factory. the sea transports load up by docking on the side, either 2 or 4 t a time, and take almost the full deck worth of units. it cannot load onto the sub transports (maybe). units can also be loaded onto it via the transports. discuss if deck mounted units should be allowed to fire. maybe also include an airpad for loading units into air transports. yes, i know the thing would be huge. its supposed to be, its an amphibious assault support craft. call it the tsunami, because it's "a wave of death for the shore." if that does not sound cool then i officially give up. im sorry for the negative sounding title (it didn’t really seem that way to me but i can see that you are right now). i too love the changes they made to FA. it is a 100% improvement over old sup com (also a good game imho, but in need of some fixes, which we got in FA. boy is that redundant. . .) this series was mainly intended to be to start a community discussion on what we would like to see either patched in or added to the next game. it is in my opinion that FA, as good as it is (on of the best in recent years) still needs some polish. GPG demonstrated to me that they are willing to listen to community input, and change the way the game works to satisfy the desires of their community.This is a wonderful thing, and is the main reason i put this together. i want us, as a whole, to push for that added polish. of course for this to work we have to decide what that polish is. it is not meant to be critical, it is meant to take advantage of GPG’s willingness to accept input. There are guaranteed to be disagreements. take my underwater ambush factory idea for example, which i *still* think would be awesome. you are all jerks ;-). i hope this will become a forum for beating out the disagreements and coming to a few resolutions about what would like to see as a whole. then we can use our collective voice to see those changes made. i of course do not expect to find a resolution to every point. a few of the points here i myself do not care about, but i included them because i see them expressed on the forums. a few of the points already seem to have universal agreement, and while i can understand that they are technically difficult to implement, nonetheless we still want to see them in the game asap (range effected by altitude for example). in short, don’t see this as a criticism, but rather a recommendation for improvement, and the more people contributing, the better quality that recommendation will be.

i will work on having a title change done, so it does not seem so negative. again, my apologies.

in response to H-master:
the t3 transport sub i was thinking of would behave more like an actual sub, but would be able to quickly crawl up on land, quickly disgorge its units and quickly get back below the waves. it would carry 24 t3 and drop them in 3 lines of 8 on the shore. walls/buildings would block its access, but it would be able to crawl as far up as it could, and drop as many of the front units as its exposed length would allow. the smaller, t2, 8 to 10 t3 transport would be a surface sped-boat, cheep and expendable, it would scream up to the shore, dump its units in 2 lines of 4 or 5, back up, and take off. the t3 transport sub could be rather expensive, since its main point is near invulnerability to air. the t2 would need to be cheaper, relatively, since it would not have that protection. it would need to be priced so you would not be sad if you only got 1 run out of it. obviously units in the sub transport could not fire, but i cant decide if the ones on the surface ships should be allowed to.

and finally, one last ditch effort to save my sea factory.

Make it a ship experimental for the UEF. give it deck storage for the equivalent of 20 to 40 t3. give it one battleship cannon, decent anti sub, and weak anti air. on the fore deck would be the t3 land factory (either 1 or 2). in the rear would be the t2 sea transport factory. the sea transports load up by docking on the side, either 2 or 4 t a time, and take almost the full deck worth of units. it cannot load onto the sub transports (maybe). units can also be loaded onto it via the transports. discuss if deck mounted units should be allowed to fire. maybe also include an airpad for loading units into air transports. yes, i know the thing would be huge. its supposed to be, its an amphibious assault support craft. call it the tsunami, because it’s “a wave of death for the shore.” if that does not sound cool then i officially give up.

]]> By: DeadJohnny http://www.supcomtalk.com/2007/12/10/things-missing-in-fa-session-5/comment-page-1/#comment-11090 DeadJohnny Mon, 17 Dec 2007 20:57:13 +0000 http://www.supcomtalk.com/2007/12/10/things-missing-in-fa-session-5/#comment-11090 I would like a hidden submarine factory/base Mr. Bond. I would like a hidden submarine factory/base Mr. Bond.

]]> By: Sir_Loui http://www.supcomtalk.com/2007/12/10/things-missing-in-fa-session-5/comment-page-1/#comment-10954 Sir_Loui Sat, 15 Dec 2007 13:41:46 +0000 http://www.supcomtalk.com/2007/12/10/things-missing-in-fa-session-5/#comment-10954 yeah i agree with u bamsemannen. It do sound a bit negative :P This is a marvelous game and even thou it might not have everything it is the best strategy game ive played easily. yeah i agree with u bamsemannen. It do sound a bit negative :P This is a marvelous game and even thou it might not have everything it is the best strategy game ive played easily.

]]> By: Bamsemannen http://www.supcomtalk.com/2007/12/10/things-missing-in-fa-session-5/comment-page-1/#comment-10953 Bamsemannen Sat, 15 Dec 2007 13:36:50 +0000 http://www.supcomtalk.com/2007/12/10/things-missing-in-fa-session-5/#comment-10953 hey just a idea. Cant you change the subject from "things missing in FA" to "ideas for coming expansion" or simply "gameplay ideas" well you decide ofcourse but it sounds so negative with "things missing in FA". This is your ideas but not really "missing" things. Maybe you can make a mod for some of the ideas? Anyway i love the game as it is now but sure new ideas are great. But we really need to go through them and see what can be done and what the good ideas are. cya =) hey just a idea. Cant you change the subject from “things missing in FA” to “ideas for coming expansion” or simply “gameplay ideas” well you decide ofcourse but it sounds so negative with “things missing in FA”. This is your ideas but not really “missing” things. Maybe you can make a mod for some of the ideas?

Anyway i love the game as it is now but sure new ideas are great. But we really need to go through them and see what can be done and what the good ideas are.
cya =)

]]> By: H-master http://www.supcomtalk.com/2007/12/10/things-missing-in-fa-session-5/comment-page-1/#comment-10869 H-master Fri, 14 Dec 2007 22:59:36 +0000 http://www.supcomtalk.com/2007/12/10/things-missing-in-fa-session-5/#comment-10869 Psst… Tempest sorry forgot to say at tech 2 Psst… Tempest

sorry forgot to say at tech 2

]]> By: TypeSno http://www.supcomtalk.com/2007/12/10/things-missing-in-fa-session-5/comment-page-1/#comment-10816 TypeSno Fri, 14 Dec 2007 02:59:05 +0000 http://www.supcomtalk.com/2007/12/10/things-missing-in-fa-session-5/#comment-10816 it would make for some cool all navy maps. it would make for some cool all navy maps.

]]> By: Widjet http://www.supcomtalk.com/2007/12/10/things-missing-in-fa-session-5/comment-page-1/#comment-10813 Widjet Fri, 14 Dec 2007 01:44:41 +0000 http://www.supcomtalk.com/2007/12/10/things-missing-in-fa-session-5/#comment-10813 "What I am also still missing is a sub with a good surface to surface weapon." Psst... Tempest! “What I am also still missing is a sub with a good surface to surface weapon.”

Psst… Tempest!

]]> By: H-master http://www.supcomtalk.com/2007/12/10/things-missing-in-fa-session-5/comment-page-1/#comment-10774 H-master Thu, 13 Dec 2007 15:48:50 +0000 http://www.supcomtalk.com/2007/12/10/things-missing-in-fa-session-5/#comment-10774 where does the vote stand on a submersible sea transport? one that caries between 18 and 24 t3 units? any ideas about how fast or slow it should be? on board armament? cost? what about a smaller, faster beach lander? say the size of the continental? LucusLoc you are reading my mind with this one. I would be awsome if it was even amphibius the uef transport sub would have tracks, cybran one have legs and the aeon/seraphim could float. What I am also still missing is a sub with a good surface to surface weapon. And building an eco on the bottom of the sea would be fun to. Power plants could gain more energy because of the cooling water. (as in TA) An eco on the bottom would make the sea a new battlefield. where does the vote stand on a submersible sea transport? one that caries between 18 and 24 t3 units? any ideas about how fast or slow it should be? on board armament? cost? what about a smaller, faster beach lander? say the size of the continental?

LucusLoc you are reading my mind with this one. I would be awsome if it was even amphibius the uef transport sub would have tracks, cybran one have legs and the aeon/seraphim could float.

What I am also still missing is a sub with a good surface to surface weapon.

And building an eco on the bottom of the sea would be fun to. Power plants could gain more energy because of the cooling water. (as in TA)
An eco on the bottom would make the sea a new battlefield.

]]>