This may just be fluff and such but don't do the lame example of having Barracks "train" soldiers in a few seconds to have them magically and never endingly walk out.
Perhaps have teleportation gates that the different factions would use to shuttle troops from battlefield to battlefield and such.
Structures could be done the same way as well with massive teleportation runes inscribed on the ground to pull structures from distance lands to their new location.
Just some ideas if you want to make a believable story and still have base building. Because honestly, how are you supposed to build a castle in 2 minutes from a bit of stone and wood. Same goes for the troops.|||oh thats a good idea, maybe for some factions have them inscribe the magical runes into the ground and then have the structure rise out of the earth? maybe that would be good for something like a magical based faction|||I really like this idea. It always bugged me how I could build structures in seconds in most fantasy RTSs with wood and some workers that got spawned out of a factory.
Portals for workers is definitely the right idea, I think.
Thursday, April 19, 2012
Necromancers
Necromancers would be a great special unit for a magic faction, I think. Being able to revive the enemy corpses to fight alongside yours would be pretty awesome.|||Not that I disagree, but since we know absolutely NOTHING about the game yet, I don't think we should think that far ahead yet.|||Bah, they asked for suggestions, they're going to get them. We know it's on the Moho engine, so there will be wreckage (ie. corpses), and necromancers are cool, so I'm throwing it out there.|||Not a bad idea, that could end up being pretty cool, especially if there were some awesome animations for it.|||Or even just pull cannon fodder skeletons out of the corpses to bolster your army|||Mooilo|||slinki|||Mooilo|||Moolio, just go buy it now.|||It won't run on my computer, I already tried that.|||sure it will, you just don't know how to make it work|||i can give you a file that will give you a copy of TA+expansions+official released unitsfully patched and it runs perfectly|||Lt_hawkeye|||slinki
Non-"clone" looking unit faces
The one thing thats bugged me about a lot of rts games is how the unit faces make them all look like clones of each other. It's fine with a futuristic game because they have their faces covered or in SupCom's situation they're all vehicles.
I don't want the people to look like mass produced clones, it would be great if you could have a random face generator for your units so instead of seeing one face on each type of units you'll see a variety of different faces. This would add to the realism of the game. And yes I know a lot of the units will have helmets so those ones won't matter as much, but I'm sure certain units won't have their faces covered (like archers).|||There really doesn't need to have any normal unit's face shown. They could all have helmets or masks of sorts.|||Random faces would be nice, maybe just with one base face and a couple bones in the face used to modify the shape on spawn. It could be interesting if GPG implemented something like this to create a ton of different faces.|||Mooilo|||Good points though it shouldn't be limited to the faces, clothing and such should be a bit varied for the same kind of units (look at the last Total War games) as well imo.
It's acceptable that sci-fi robots look the same when they all come out of a factory, it's another matter entirely for human troops.
Also, having some army painter feature to dress up troops would be awesome. It's incredibly addictive as DoW II has shown, more developers should head into this direction.|||Medieval Total War II had randomised clothes and faces - I dont see why it couldnt be implemented.|||if we had extra textures for units in FA, we could do that already.
it's just a simple case of unit:SetMesh and about five more lines of code to make it work.|||BulletMagnet|||Thanks king of the obvious.
I don't want the people to look like mass produced clones, it would be great if you could have a random face generator for your units so instead of seeing one face on each type of units you'll see a variety of different faces. This would add to the realism of the game. And yes I know a lot of the units will have helmets so those ones won't matter as much, but I'm sure certain units won't have their faces covered (like archers).|||There really doesn't need to have any normal unit's face shown. They could all have helmets or masks of sorts.|||Random faces would be nice, maybe just with one base face and a couple bones in the face used to modify the shape on spawn. It could be interesting if GPG implemented something like this to create a ton of different faces.|||Mooilo|||Good points though it shouldn't be limited to the faces, clothing and such should be a bit varied for the same kind of units (look at the last Total War games) as well imo.
It's acceptable that sci-fi robots look the same when they all come out of a factory, it's another matter entirely for human troops.
Also, having some army painter feature to dress up troops would be awesome. It's incredibly addictive as DoW II has shown, more developers should head into this direction.|||Medieval Total War II had randomised clothes and faces - I dont see why it couldnt be implemented.|||if we had extra textures for units in FA, we could do that already.
it's just a simple case of unit:SetMesh and about five more lines of code to make it work.|||BulletMagnet|||Thanks king of the obvious.
AI as a player, run on a designated computer
Because of the way the Moho Engine works, I think this idea could be implemented with relative ease.
Basically, in the lobby when you set up an AIs in a multiplayer game, you can assign each computer an AI or multiple AIs to run. That AI is then only run on that computer and its commands are synced to everyone else as if it was a player.
This would allow many AIs in a single game, even if you had a person with a bad computer playing. You could have the guys with quad cores running the AI players so that everyone else's CPU only has to deal with them as if they were human players, which would make the game more accessible and allow for AI players to be more common online.
Basically, in the lobby when you set up an AIs in a multiplayer game, you can assign each computer an AI or multiple AIs to run. That AI is then only run on that computer and its commands are synced to everyone else as if it was a player.
This would allow many AIs in a single game, even if you had a person with a bad computer playing. You could have the guys with quad cores running the AI players so that everyone else's CPU only has to deal with them as if they were human players, which would make the game more accessible and allow for AI players to be more common online.
Relief
I'm a bit disappointed that relief in SupCom2 is purely cosmetical. For example:
The big hole brings nothing to gameplay. It was the same for Demigod.
I Really hope KaC will bring an interesting use of the relief, on the map, but also on the buildings.
When I look at this castle, I imagine troops walking on walls and towers...
And please, no nonsense constructions on the maps (I don't understand the platforms in some of the SupCom2 maps)|||agree!
enough of this bridge, walkway and platform fighting.
Kings and Castles should take place in an open world, allowing the player to roam freely within all regions of the map!
LoL - no more of this garbage:
The big hole brings nothing to gameplay. It was the same for Demigod.
I Really hope KaC will bring an interesting use of the relief, on the map, but also on the buildings.
When I look at this castle, I imagine troops walking on walls and towers...
And please, no nonsense constructions on the maps (I don't understand the platforms in some of the SupCom2 maps)|||agree!
enough of this bridge, walkway and platform fighting.
Kings and Castles should take place in an open world, allowing the player to roam freely within all regions of the map!
LoL - no more of this garbage:
Ideas for the economical system (and a bit more)...
I have a lot of ideas and it's hard for me to explain each of them clearly... But here is my main one:
Each player starts with a castle and a king, near a village. The village provides people and has farms for natural ressources (food, wood, metal or whatever, all counts as only one ressource). There are some other neutral villages and farms among the map, that can be captured by the king or some special units...
People can be used in two ways:
- to build things, then you get them back.
- to be trained as soldiers or put to work in a farm, which is irreversible.
Castle can be upgraded with adding some buildings like stables, temple, academy, factories... City can also be upgraded with things like walls (which should be expensive => more realistic look of the city and necessity to use natural defenses like cliffs or water; and very useful whipe posting soldiers on them), bigger houses, or things that make them harder or impossible to be captured.
That's all for now...|||i'm a big supporter of villagers in RTS games. but not many RTS games use them. i wouldn't want to blatantly copy AoE's villager format. it's probably best to think of something new.
i'd like to see them in the game. but more in the way that Anno and Grand Ages: Rome uses them. where they multiply and simply roam around on their own, rather than us having direct control of them and ordering them around all the time.
villagers should just 'be there' to make everything more life-like. when you drop a structure they should gather to help construct. and that's it. if you build a fishing hut, farm, or logging camp they should be there, working away.
that would be best. then you could focus on management, constructing buildings, units, upgrades and fighting.
it's always fun watching villagers scramble as their empire burns.
|||I'm not too sure how i feel about villagers in a game like this.
I certainly don't want to have a big city building experience like in anno, although having villagers wandering around would probably be good for immersion. I also think that in a super-huge rts (ala supreme commander), tracking and microing hordes of villages will be a pain and add nothing positive or fun to the experience.|||In my idea, villagers don't need micromanagement. When you wanna build something, just click on it and you see villagers building it.|||I agree completly. having villagers just looks way more realistic.
although, if possible, you should be able to attack them. it just seems like fun to have something like big wolfs chasing villagers.
offcourse, thats not a neccisaty.
Each player starts with a castle and a king, near a village. The village provides people and has farms for natural ressources (food, wood, metal or whatever, all counts as only one ressource). There are some other neutral villages and farms among the map, that can be captured by the king or some special units...
People can be used in two ways:
- to build things, then you get them back.
- to be trained as soldiers or put to work in a farm, which is irreversible.
Castle can be upgraded with adding some buildings like stables, temple, academy, factories... City can also be upgraded with things like walls (which should be expensive => more realistic look of the city and necessity to use natural defenses like cliffs or water; and very useful whipe posting soldiers on them), bigger houses, or things that make them harder or impossible to be captured.
That's all for now...|||i'm a big supporter of villagers in RTS games. but not many RTS games use them. i wouldn't want to blatantly copy AoE's villager format. it's probably best to think of something new.
i'd like to see them in the game. but more in the way that Anno and Grand Ages: Rome uses them. where they multiply and simply roam around on their own, rather than us having direct control of them and ordering them around all the time.
villagers should just 'be there' to make everything more life-like. when you drop a structure they should gather to help construct. and that's it. if you build a fishing hut, farm, or logging camp they should be there, working away.
that would be best. then you could focus on management, constructing buildings, units, upgrades and fighting.
it's always fun watching villagers scramble as their empire burns.
|||I'm not too sure how i feel about villagers in a game like this. I certainly don't want to have a big city building experience like in anno, although having villagers wandering around would probably be good for immersion. I also think that in a super-huge rts (ala supreme commander), tracking and microing hordes of villages will be a pain and add nothing positive or fun to the experience.|||In my idea, villagers don't need micromanagement. When you wanna build something, just click on it and you see villagers building it.|||I agree completly. having villagers just looks way more realistic.
although, if possible, you should be able to attack them. it just seems like fun to have something like big wolfs chasing villagers.
offcourse, thats not a neccisaty.
Ideas for Factions
Personally as a fan of TA:K, I believe that the factions should be similar to those used in the game. Have all three kings human but with units of various races. From the concept art we can already see one, which reminds me of an Aramon combined with Veruna faction, i.e a human faction with several creatures that are regal etc. dragons and whatever.
I think it would be good to see the other being Taros and Zhon based (all sorts of beasts and monsters) and the third a Creon based (steampunk faction). This would make my day.|||i say Hugh Jackman for King!
All Hail !
|||I think GPG did a great job of creating unique Demigods and exploiting it would be cool. A legion of sorcerers leaded by Torchbearer would be quite an scene.
If there are undead I hope they are undead creatures from the other factions and no indistinct figures.
Why not make an Avatar-like faction?
I think it would be good to see the other being Taros and Zhon based (all sorts of beasts and monsters) and the third a Creon based (steampunk faction). This would make my day.|||i say Hugh Jackman for King!
All Hail !
|||I think GPG did a great job of creating unique Demigods and exploiting it would be cool. A legion of sorcerers leaded by Torchbearer would be quite an scene. If there are undead I hope they are undead creatures from the other factions and no indistinct figures.
Why not make an Avatar-like faction?
Kings & Castles - a new look
fantasy games come pretty standard. it would be nice to see something different.
Chris' vision for castle-building will be on a scale never seen before. large armies of humans. mutated beasts beyond compare. magnificent, large scale maps.
but what will the resource system be? is this another wood-gold-food-stone gathering game? i hope not.
resource gathering is a staple of the RTS genre. but have we ever thought that maybe it's time to eliminate it?
for example, all of the RTS games we play have insufficient building variety. yet we sit here, gathering up thousands of resource points just to construct these meager dwellings. well maybe it should be the other way around. what if we had hundreds of architectural variety and very little resources were required?
---
it's as simple as this: power.
the game starts and you are free to start building. you have no power, but you have a very large construction menu, lavish with things to engineer. the more you build, the more powerful your empire becomes. as your empires grows you gain access to more powerful fabrications.
with a menu this abundant, teeming with things to assemble, you'll still need to be smart about what you are constructing and cueing up, as you'll need to counter your opponent properly.
there are different build times and cue times, depending on the building / unit size. other than that, it's simply about power. as you both evolve, and forge the lands, your power meters will rise.
eventually you'll clash.
i say eliminate resource gathering. give us the freedom to build uninterrupted. with no limits. like when we were kids playing with a bucket of Lego. it would be a much more innovative, experiential process and the design would enhance RTS performance. this kind of build-on gameplay would produce a deeper, more meaningful world and possibilities. we'd be more creative, more imaginative and it would give us unparalleled access to a wealth of build orders.
build times, cue times, and power.
boundless freedom.
|||The idea is great, but there are things, why probably can't applied:
-The players used to 2-4 resources.
-At PvP the lack of resource management even out the power of the players--->longer game, stalemate.
-No intention to expand: turtlepower------------>boring games
The designers should target the 10-60 min interval for matches(as SupCom)
I would really like to able to play longer games also, so no depleting resources is a way to go.
I think there should be only 1 or 2 resources to simplify things.
(workpower/gold and essence[for magic, and magic related research])
Chris' vision for castle-building will be on a scale never seen before. large armies of humans. mutated beasts beyond compare. magnificent, large scale maps.
but what will the resource system be? is this another wood-gold-food-stone gathering game? i hope not.
resource gathering is a staple of the RTS genre. but have we ever thought that maybe it's time to eliminate it?
for example, all of the RTS games we play have insufficient building variety. yet we sit here, gathering up thousands of resource points just to construct these meager dwellings. well maybe it should be the other way around. what if we had hundreds of architectural variety and very little resources were required?
---
it's as simple as this: power.
the game starts and you are free to start building. you have no power, but you have a very large construction menu, lavish with things to engineer. the more you build, the more powerful your empire becomes. as your empires grows you gain access to more powerful fabrications.
with a menu this abundant, teeming with things to assemble, you'll still need to be smart about what you are constructing and cueing up, as you'll need to counter your opponent properly.
there are different build times and cue times, depending on the building / unit size. other than that, it's simply about power. as you both evolve, and forge the lands, your power meters will rise.
eventually you'll clash.
i say eliminate resource gathering. give us the freedom to build uninterrupted. with no limits. like when we were kids playing with a bucket of Lego. it would be a much more innovative, experiential process and the design would enhance RTS performance. this kind of build-on gameplay would produce a deeper, more meaningful world and possibilities. we'd be more creative, more imaginative and it would give us unparalleled access to a wealth of build orders.
build times, cue times, and power.
boundless freedom.
|||The idea is great, but there are things, why probably can't applied:-The players used to 2-4 resources.
-At PvP the lack of resource management even out the power of the players--->longer game, stalemate.
-No intention to expand: turtlepower------------>boring games
The designers should target the 10-60 min interval for matches(as SupCom)
I would really like to able to play longer games also, so no depleting resources is a way to go.
I think there should be only 1 or 2 resources to simplify things.
(workpower/gold and essence[for magic, and magic related research])
Create a King
I have an Idear that may or may not work for the game.
maybe we could have something like the Create-a-hero feature from LOTR BFME II. we could then create our own kings.
but as I sayd, it may not work since I don't know how the king is going to work. but then again, its just an idear.|||Yes.
Then they can release DLC packs with additional hairstyles and faces.
Awesome-sauce!
My King will be known as the Bearded Legend.|||I know my king's face already!
|||mines better
|||
|||
|||stop this 4chan gayness.|||Hugh Jackman.
All Hail.
|||lol Bulletmagnet
maybe we could have something like the Create-a-hero feature from LOTR BFME II. we could then create our own kings.
but as I sayd, it may not work since I don't know how the king is going to work. but then again, its just an idear.|||Yes.
Then they can release DLC packs with additional hairstyles and faces.
Awesome-sauce!
My King will be known as the Bearded Legend.|||I know my king's face already!
|||mines better|||||||||stop this 4chan gayness.|||Hugh Jackman.All Hail.
|||lol Bulletmagnet
Get Jeremy Soule back!
Seriously, his music is made of epic.|||What that man said. It's like epic you pour down your ears.|||Just shove the SupCom 1 soundtrack in, it was awesome.|||Yeah. Jeremy Soul's music was epic epic win.|||Jeremy Soule plox. Seriously, get him.|||I concur.|||/signed|||This.
Period.|||You have my sword!|||
|||Indeed. Soule is the best game composer I have heard. Not that others aren't good, but they don't fully match up to him.|||JWest
Period.|||You have my sword!|||
|||Indeed. Soule is the best game composer I have heard. Not that others aren't good, but they don't fully match up to him.|||JWest
Suggestion for the three races
Looking at the 5 races in tak/ip, they all had their unique abilities and direction with a small amount in the other area.
Aramon: Land
Taros: Magic
Zhon: Air
Veruna: Water
Creon: Technology
With the currently confirmed 3 kings/races confirmed the above split would need to be reorganized a little bit. Take traditional medieval warfare, Magic/fantasy, and Technology/steampunk as extremes and you have a good starting base for your three races.
Kingdom 1: Predominantly terrestrial land forces race, heavy cavalry, knights, with a few select elite magical & technology based units.
pikemen, shortsword infantry, heavy infantry, light cavalry, archer cavalry, heavy cavalry, longbowmen, crossbow, Ballista, catapult, pump-action flame throwers, Bear cavalry, the odd battlemage and simple gunpowder unit, trained hawks & birds, Legendary war-rhino/ox/elephant, and that dragon.
your more-or-less generic Medieval race.
Kingdom 2: The most magically-talented country, with more accessible magic. Some basic military units with many magically enhanced units, and a decent sized menagerie of fantasy creatures. Phoenix's, Harpies, Drakes 'n dragons, Wyrms, Etc. Not a fan of mechanical technology, but has access to crosbows and basic technology. Throw in a bit of dark fantasy in the mix with a special selection of daemons, composing the bulk of the high-tier and legendary units. Oh, lets not forget the 'ostrich cavalry'.
The Magical & fantasy race (NO BRIGHT COLOURS)
Kingdom 3: Your high technology race, having a good amount of mechanical and automated stuff in their design, but still capable of meetin kingdom 1 on the battlefield with similar units, just with a bit of more weaponized technology. Better ballista/crosbows/catapults in general due to better mechanical knowledge, and when combined with steam power and repeating crossbows/balistas you get mechanically driven automatic ranged weapons. much more expensive than guy with longbow.
Greek fire, incendiaries, and gunpowder would allow the possibility of fire lances, and early cannons, etc. Legendaries could include siege towers fitted with explosive/incendiary ranged weapons; Tried & tested trebuchet, still trumping explosives on range & damage; Finally, steam-powered blimps hailing greek fire down on defenceless armies.
Think China around the 1300's, with steam engines.|||re1wind|||i actually like like this. i'd play this game.
except for the steampunk. i don't think you'll see chris put that in.
but these are all good ideas. you might need to go for some bigger, nastier units than the elephants and rhino's though. i think chris wants freakish oversized beasts on a prehistoric scale.
think big. bigger. LEGENDARY.
bigger than the dragon itself. -lol
|||For me the kingdoms in TAK were great:
One classic medieval one, with soldiers, cavalry, and a few dragoons and fantastic creatures (like the squiggelephants seen in the background picture of the site, with a big howdah full of archers with a catapult...)
For the architecture, I loved the kindom of Veruna, byzantine inspired with golden/pink stones, domes...
For the king, I think asimple great soldier with leading aura, riding a horse but upgradable to ride a dragoon.
For a super weapon, the tower of Phoenix, with a burning nest on it. The phoenix can move around the map and attack. When he dies, he burns everything around* and rebirth a few seconds later till his tower isn't destroyed...
A magic one, like Taros, with a lot ofwizards and fantastic units...
The Taros architecture was great, dark buildings with edgy roofs...
The king should be a strong magician, able to summon monsters and wathever. It will be cool with a moving throne, like the queen of thorns in Demigod.
For a super weapon, a wizard tower able to launch thunderstorms everywhere when the mana gauge is full.
The last one is a bit like Zhon, close to the nature and simple things.
The architecturs could be inspired by the Incas, with very big stones, simple constructions without fine ornaments.
The king could be a giant, with upgradable weapons and armor. (it doesn't mean all his people are giants!)
No idea of super weapon right now...
*I would really like to see fire as a special attack, that burns forests and strong against wood and metal (which melts) things like small constructions, doors...|||But you see, the "steampunk" is not actually steampunk. It is all more or less historically accurate, except maybe steam-powered chain-driven automatic ballista. Even then steam engines were known by the greeks/byzantines, and the chain-driven automatic ballista was also a greek invention. Combining the two may very well be "steampunk", as in, historically inaccurate mechanical war machine that existed in different parts, but never as a whole.
Heck, you don't even need steam power, just using a counterweight to power the chain to get automatic ballisitas, crosbows, etc. is more than adequate. 10 bolt magazine capable of shooting 1 round per second with 5 second reload time vs 'manual' ballistas with 4+ seconds firing time.
Everything else existed at one point in time before european medieval time period on one place or another. It's not steampunk because everything can be explained with known science. It is fictional because you're taking existing siege & projectile weapons, throwing them together into a mechanically-adept and innovative kingdom. Science fiction and/or alternative history are much better descriptors.
Kingdom 3 could be compared to the Chinese dynasties of the 1300's, with some fiction thrown in in the form of early steam engines and a high encouragement of looking for new technologies and weaponizing them.|||I want
Aramon: Land
Taros: Magic
Zhon: Air
Veruna: Water
Creon: Technology
With the currently confirmed 3 kings/races confirmed the above split would need to be reorganized a little bit. Take traditional medieval warfare, Magic/fantasy, and Technology/steampunk as extremes and you have a good starting base for your three races.
Kingdom 1: Predominantly terrestrial land forces race, heavy cavalry, knights, with a few select elite magical & technology based units.
pikemen, shortsword infantry, heavy infantry, light cavalry, archer cavalry, heavy cavalry, longbowmen, crossbow, Ballista, catapult, pump-action flame throwers, Bear cavalry, the odd battlemage and simple gunpowder unit, trained hawks & birds, Legendary war-rhino/ox/elephant, and that dragon.
your more-or-less generic Medieval race.
Kingdom 2: The most magically-talented country, with more accessible magic. Some basic military units with many magically enhanced units, and a decent sized menagerie of fantasy creatures. Phoenix's, Harpies, Drakes 'n dragons, Wyrms, Etc. Not a fan of mechanical technology, but has access to crosbows and basic technology. Throw in a bit of dark fantasy in the mix with a special selection of daemons, composing the bulk of the high-tier and legendary units. Oh, lets not forget the 'ostrich cavalry'.
The Magical & fantasy race (NO BRIGHT COLOURS)
Kingdom 3: Your high technology race, having a good amount of mechanical and automated stuff in their design, but still capable of meetin kingdom 1 on the battlefield with similar units, just with a bit of more weaponized technology. Better ballista/crosbows/catapults in general due to better mechanical knowledge, and when combined with steam power and repeating crossbows/balistas you get mechanically driven automatic ranged weapons. much more expensive than guy with longbow.
Greek fire, incendiaries, and gunpowder would allow the possibility of fire lances, and early cannons, etc. Legendaries could include siege towers fitted with explosive/incendiary ranged weapons; Tried & tested trebuchet, still trumping explosives on range & damage; Finally, steam-powered blimps hailing greek fire down on defenceless armies.
Think China around the 1300's, with steam engines.|||re1wind|||i actually like like this. i'd play this game.
except for the steampunk. i don't think you'll see chris put that in.
but these are all good ideas. you might need to go for some bigger, nastier units than the elephants and rhino's though. i think chris wants freakish oversized beasts on a prehistoric scale.
think big. bigger. LEGENDARY.
bigger than the dragon itself. -lol
|||For me the kingdoms in TAK were great:One classic medieval one, with soldiers, cavalry, and a few dragoons and fantastic creatures (like the squiggelephants seen in the background picture of the site, with a big howdah full of archers with a catapult...)
For the architecture, I loved the kindom of Veruna, byzantine inspired with golden/pink stones, domes...
For the king, I think asimple great soldier with leading aura, riding a horse but upgradable to ride a dragoon.
For a super weapon, the tower of Phoenix, with a burning nest on it. The phoenix can move around the map and attack. When he dies, he burns everything around* and rebirth a few seconds later till his tower isn't destroyed...
A magic one, like Taros, with a lot ofwizards and fantastic units...
The Taros architecture was great, dark buildings with edgy roofs...
The king should be a strong magician, able to summon monsters and wathever. It will be cool with a moving throne, like the queen of thorns in Demigod.
For a super weapon, a wizard tower able to launch thunderstorms everywhere when the mana gauge is full.
The last one is a bit like Zhon, close to the nature and simple things.
The architecturs could be inspired by the Incas, with very big stones, simple constructions without fine ornaments.
The king could be a giant, with upgradable weapons and armor. (it doesn't mean all his people are giants!)
No idea of super weapon right now...
*I would really like to see fire as a special attack, that burns forests and strong against wood and metal (which melts) things like small constructions, doors...|||But you see, the "steampunk" is not actually steampunk. It is all more or less historically accurate, except maybe steam-powered chain-driven automatic ballista. Even then steam engines were known by the greeks/byzantines, and the chain-driven automatic ballista was also a greek invention. Combining the two may very well be "steampunk", as in, historically inaccurate mechanical war machine that existed in different parts, but never as a whole.
Heck, you don't even need steam power, just using a counterweight to power the chain to get automatic ballisitas, crosbows, etc. is more than adequate. 10 bolt magazine capable of shooting 1 round per second with 5 second reload time vs 'manual' ballistas with 4+ seconds firing time.
Everything else existed at one point in time before european medieval time period on one place or another. It's not steampunk because everything can be explained with known science. It is fictional because you're taking existing siege & projectile weapons, throwing them together into a mechanically-adept and innovative kingdom. Science fiction and/or alternative history are much better descriptors.
Kingdom 3 could be compared to the Chinese dynasties of the 1300's, with some fiction thrown in in the form of early steam engines and a high encouragement of looking for new technologies and weaponizing them.|||I want
Units, Not Squads
Squads are for ye olden days where computers couldn’t deal with a thousand individual units. Let’s keep squads buried in the past.|||agreed.
give the kids that want squads a fancy UI to emulate that behaviour. everyone wins that way.|||either way works for me. More options are the best of course|||My only issue about the lack of squads is that it is harder to create the scale that SupCom had. I think that large squads could make that transfer much easier.|||Supcom worked just fine without it, why would you worry the scale would be a problem?
Squads suck because instead of controlling 500 units, you’re really only controlling 5 or 10 or 50.|||Yes, but people are so much... smaller.
Besides, you could simply make a squad of 10 units count as 1 unit in SupCom. So on screen you could have 10000 instead of 1000.|||scotchtape622|||Not so, pkc. Well to clarify, not so all the time. It can be made where each unit is it's own unit but just permanently linked with its other members.
As in each unit can have its own hp and stats and everything, but they'll just all share pathfinding. If that happens there can be 4x or more units on the map at a time.|||regabond|||I agree. Units > Squads.|||Why does it "just sucks"? If everything else works exactly the same, wouldn't it look more epic having more moving bodies on the screen at once? The major down side to more bodies is graphics cards taking a hit, but that doesn't have to be so bad.
Or is it your personal opinion that you personally dislike squads or just plain out having more moving bodies on the screen at once. In which case, yes to you specifically it sucks.|||you know we could have both. a bit like the grouping system supcom has.
basicly, you have like 50 units. you select them all and with the push of a button they connect and become a group/squad/battalion. this adds several nice advantages.
first of all it looks better to have nice rowes of batalions than a bunch of units in a cluster.
second, as sayed above, it makes pathfinding alot easier and makes your armie overall more managable.
and third, something I personnaly like, it adds the possibilaty of formations. they add a nice stragetic layer to the overal combat aspect of the game, and it just looks very nice.
and in the end, they are still individual units and can still be used as such.|||regabond|||pkc|||IF they make squads, just don't make it like DoW2 squads.. I'm pretty annoyed with the fact that I can't kill the unit I CLICK on, the one with LOWEST health, so I can't get rid of that unit.. All of this, just because it's in a squad, so my own squad just fire on whatever unit they want..
LET ME FREAKING CHOOSE WHICH UNIT TO SHOOT AT!!
squads ftl|||some good points pinguin, and i agree that squads certainly do make more sense for certain styles of battle (especially if historical). however, it still annoyed me in shogun or the blue & the grey (?) when i couldnt get half a group of fighters to break off and do something without their buddies.
Spooky|||I would personally like to see squads, but then again, I like all the Total War series and Warhammer Fantasy.
If it was implemented ala Total War (each specific unit within the squad had its own hp and could only hit targets in reach etc) it could be ultra badass.
At least have squads for the faceless,numberless infantry.|||In complete disagreement unless its like homeworld 1. Where you could form squads from units. E.G. You have 40 swords men and some sort of buffing unit buffing them i want that buffer unit and the 40 swords men to move together as though they were a pre-set squad.|||I think squads make sense in games like CoH where an individual cannot operate a machine gun or a mortar. For K&C I think it would be ok to have a squad operating a catapult but individual units for cavalry, pikes, etc.|||agree. squads are for nursery school.
squad supporters shall be hung in the village square at noon tomorrow.
all hail the king.
---
they should be individual, then selected, and grouped.
they way they did SupCom2 is great. zoom out and you have them numbered. if they use the same format, there will be no problems.
give the kids that want squads a fancy UI to emulate that behaviour. everyone wins that way.|||either way works for me. More options are the best of course|||My only issue about the lack of squads is that it is harder to create the scale that SupCom had. I think that large squads could make that transfer much easier.|||Supcom worked just fine without it, why would you worry the scale would be a problem?
Squads suck because instead of controlling 500 units, you’re really only controlling 5 or 10 or 50.|||Yes, but people are so much... smaller.
Besides, you could simply make a squad of 10 units count as 1 unit in SupCom. So on screen you could have 10000 instead of 1000.|||scotchtape622|||Not so, pkc. Well to clarify, not so all the time. It can be made where each unit is it's own unit but just permanently linked with its other members.
As in each unit can have its own hp and stats and everything, but they'll just all share pathfinding. If that happens there can be 4x or more units on the map at a time.|||regabond|||I agree. Units > Squads.|||Why does it "just sucks"? If everything else works exactly the same, wouldn't it look more epic having more moving bodies on the screen at once? The major down side to more bodies is graphics cards taking a hit, but that doesn't have to be so bad.
Or is it your personal opinion that you personally dislike squads or just plain out having more moving bodies on the screen at once. In which case, yes to you specifically it sucks.|||you know we could have both. a bit like the grouping system supcom has.
basicly, you have like 50 units. you select them all and with the push of a button they connect and become a group/squad/battalion. this adds several nice advantages.
first of all it looks better to have nice rowes of batalions than a bunch of units in a cluster.
second, as sayed above, it makes pathfinding alot easier and makes your armie overall more managable.
and third, something I personnaly like, it adds the possibilaty of formations. they add a nice stragetic layer to the overal combat aspect of the game, and it just looks very nice.
and in the end, they are still individual units and can still be used as such.|||regabond|||pkc|||IF they make squads, just don't make it like DoW2 squads.. I'm pretty annoyed with the fact that I can't kill the unit I CLICK on, the one with LOWEST health, so I can't get rid of that unit.. All of this, just because it's in a squad, so my own squad just fire on whatever unit they want..
LET ME FREAKING CHOOSE WHICH UNIT TO SHOOT AT!!
squads ftl|||some good points pinguin, and i agree that squads certainly do make more sense for certain styles of battle (especially if historical). however, it still annoyed me in shogun or the blue & the grey (?) when i couldnt get half a group of fighters to break off and do something without their buddies.
Spooky|||I would personally like to see squads, but then again, I like all the Total War series and Warhammer Fantasy.
If it was implemented ala Total War (each specific unit within the squad had its own hp and could only hit targets in reach etc) it could be ultra badass.
At least have squads for the faceless,numberless infantry.|||In complete disagreement unless its like homeworld 1. Where you could form squads from units. E.G. You have 40 swords men and some sort of buffing unit buffing them i want that buffer unit and the 40 swords men to move together as though they were a pre-set squad.|||I think squads make sense in games like CoH where an individual cannot operate a machine gun or a mortar. For K&C I think it would be ok to have a squad operating a catapult but individual units for cavalry, pikes, etc.|||agree. squads are for nursery school.
squad supporters shall be hung in the village square at noon tomorrow.
all hail the king.
---
they should be individual, then selected, and grouped.
they way they did SupCom2 is great. zoom out and you have them numbered. if they use the same format, there will be no problems.
Buildings, castles, towns, & villages
What we absolutely have no idea about is how building(verb) and the buildings (noun) will work. gpg/ct probably don't know this either, so that is what this thread is for.
TL:DR Combine factories, economy structures, and limited defensive structures into a single monolithic & upgradable structure called, creatively, a village. Village grows in population over time, slightly increasing HP, build rate & resources. Villages can be specialized, further increasing HP, build rate, & resources.
note: While this concept of Villages sound like some 4x game, I prefer that influence to low-camera squad rts/rtt & rpg influences. Villages would also not be the only building. Villages = Factories + walls + econ + upgradeable
Instead of building barracks, walls, castles, etc., as separate structures, entire villages are built as massive structures that gradually improve over time increasing defence, resource generation, and production speed.
i.e. in a typical skirmish game, you might start with a humble village without walls or defences to speak of, modest resource generation, and modest production ability: A basic village to get you started.
This village will slowly increase in population and econ/production/defence will increase with it. You can think of this as a free but slow upgrade from t1 factory to t2, and then to t3. Along with production & health benefits, there is a small econ benefit. A village (t1) turnins into a town (t2) in 7-10 minutes without spending any resources. Similarly, a town (t2) turns into a city in 7-10minutes without spending any resources.
This implies a population within each village, which is best simulated as numbers, For simplicity and for performance reason. Any new village starts at 200 and grows to 5'000 at which point it becomes a town (T2). This takes 7-10 minutes but is free. To get to city (T3) statur requires a population of 20'000 and takes 7-10 minutes. I'd suggest the econ/production/hp benefits scaling linearly with the population of the village, but i'm not sure if the engine is capable of doing that within scripting reason.
This brings an interesting possibility of villages loosing all population before the hitpoints of the town reach 0, which would turn the village into a neutral "ghost town". This can then be captured/repopulated by anyone, much like the wreckage benefit in supcom. With a lot of magic being thrown about near said village, it would be very interesting if such a "ghost town" actually started spawning ghosts and/or zombies. Consider it the detrimental side-effects of too much magical exposure. Like radiation, but more creative, and not always deadly.
Specialization of villages comes in the form of specific upgrades, enhancing its offensive/defensive ability, production, and resource generation.
Hence, you can turn any village into an industrial mining/manufacturing village, or a ridiculously fortified village, fitted with long-rage trebuchets, ballistas, catapults, etc., or a vast training and conscription town.
For the categories "fortification" (HP/weapons), "Economy", and "production" (build rate) each village has three tiers in each category, with a total of 9 upgrades, PLUS its automatic upgrades. Each village upgrade, though, makes the other upgrades more expensive, so while a pure T3 fort village might actually be relatively cheap, a full T3 fort/econ/production village will be more expensive than several t3 fort villages.
This means that the cost of upgrading villages is dynamic and based off what you already have. I.e. say that all t1 upgrades increase the cost of all other upgrades by 20%; all t2 upgrades increase the cost of all other upgrades by 30%; all t3 upgrades increase the cost of all other upgrades by 50%. cumulative effect.
Cost of specialization is the same for village, town, & city. balancing reasons mainly.
As an example:
T1 fort will cost 100% of its original cost. t2 fort will cost 120% of original cost. T3 fort will cost 150% of original cost. If you then want to upgrade the production section, the T1 production will cost 200% of the original, T2 prod 220%, t3 250%. The result is that the last t3 upgrade will cost 350% of its original price, and if each upgrade is 100, a fully upgraded village will cost (100+120+150+200+220+250+300+320+350) = 2010. Expensive, but you have a completely self-sustaining village that can cover its own production, defend itself, and create its own troops.
So what is stopping every village turning into a T3 fort/econ/prod bastard? Resources, mainly. A pure fort village would only cost 370 in the above example, as would any "pure" version. So three separate pure villages would cost 1'110, compared to the 2'010 of sticking them all into the same city. Unless you're on a small map, you can just not get 6 t3 specialized village for the price of a single self-sustaining village.
How do you build new villages? At a cost of 200population from the constructing village plus other resource cost, a special bandwagon of sorts is created which will deploy into the standard 200pop village. It is sort of like a mix between the zerg building system and how you need to upgrade any new factories in supcom as they start at T1.
Building anything other than villages would be done with your standard engineer units. Watchtowers, citadels, forts, castles (all as separate buildings) would be built by this unit. Limited amount of economy structures in the form of mines, mana-harvesters, and whatever resource GPG/CT decides upon.
....................
Having said all that, I'm not very fond of the idea, and while i have spent time organizing it in a word processor, it still feels clumsy, half-assed, and rather cheesy.|||re1wind
TL:DR Combine factories, economy structures, and limited defensive structures into a single monolithic & upgradable structure called, creatively, a village. Village grows in population over time, slightly increasing HP, build rate & resources. Villages can be specialized, further increasing HP, build rate, & resources.
note: While this concept of Villages sound like some 4x game, I prefer that influence to low-camera squad rts/rtt & rpg influences. Villages would also not be the only building. Villages = Factories + walls + econ + upgradeable
Instead of building barracks, walls, castles, etc., as separate structures, entire villages are built as massive structures that gradually improve over time increasing defence, resource generation, and production speed.
i.e. in a typical skirmish game, you might start with a humble village without walls or defences to speak of, modest resource generation, and modest production ability: A basic village to get you started.
This village will slowly increase in population and econ/production/defence will increase with it. You can think of this as a free but slow upgrade from t1 factory to t2, and then to t3. Along with production & health benefits, there is a small econ benefit. A village (t1) turnins into a town (t2) in 7-10 minutes without spending any resources. Similarly, a town (t2) turns into a city in 7-10minutes without spending any resources.
This implies a population within each village, which is best simulated as numbers, For simplicity and for performance reason. Any new village starts at 200 and grows to 5'000 at which point it becomes a town (T2). This takes 7-10 minutes but is free. To get to city (T3) statur requires a population of 20'000 and takes 7-10 minutes. I'd suggest the econ/production/hp benefits scaling linearly with the population of the village, but i'm not sure if the engine is capable of doing that within scripting reason.
This brings an interesting possibility of villages loosing all population before the hitpoints of the town reach 0, which would turn the village into a neutral "ghost town". This can then be captured/repopulated by anyone, much like the wreckage benefit in supcom. With a lot of magic being thrown about near said village, it would be very interesting if such a "ghost town" actually started spawning ghosts and/or zombies. Consider it the detrimental side-effects of too much magical exposure. Like radiation, but more creative, and not always deadly.
Specialization of villages comes in the form of specific upgrades, enhancing its offensive/defensive ability, production, and resource generation.
Hence, you can turn any village into an industrial mining/manufacturing village, or a ridiculously fortified village, fitted with long-rage trebuchets, ballistas, catapults, etc., or a vast training and conscription town.
For the categories "fortification" (HP/weapons), "Economy", and "production" (build rate) each village has three tiers in each category, with a total of 9 upgrades, PLUS its automatic upgrades. Each village upgrade, though, makes the other upgrades more expensive, so while a pure T3 fort village might actually be relatively cheap, a full T3 fort/econ/production village will be more expensive than several t3 fort villages.
This means that the cost of upgrading villages is dynamic and based off what you already have. I.e. say that all t1 upgrades increase the cost of all other upgrades by 20%; all t2 upgrades increase the cost of all other upgrades by 30%; all t3 upgrades increase the cost of all other upgrades by 50%. cumulative effect.
Cost of specialization is the same for village, town, & city. balancing reasons mainly.
As an example:
T1 fort will cost 100% of its original cost. t2 fort will cost 120% of original cost. T3 fort will cost 150% of original cost. If you then want to upgrade the production section, the T1 production will cost 200% of the original, T2 prod 220%, t3 250%. The result is that the last t3 upgrade will cost 350% of its original price, and if each upgrade is 100, a fully upgraded village will cost (100+120+150+200+220+250+300+320+350) = 2010. Expensive, but you have a completely self-sustaining village that can cover its own production, defend itself, and create its own troops.
So what is stopping every village turning into a T3 fort/econ/prod bastard? Resources, mainly. A pure fort village would only cost 370 in the above example, as would any "pure" version. So three separate pure villages would cost 1'110, compared to the 2'010 of sticking them all into the same city. Unless you're on a small map, you can just not get 6 t3 specialized village for the price of a single self-sustaining village.
How do you build new villages? At a cost of 200population from the constructing village plus other resource cost, a special bandwagon of sorts is created which will deploy into the standard 200pop village. It is sort of like a mix between the zerg building system and how you need to upgrade any new factories in supcom as they start at T1.
Building anything other than villages would be done with your standard engineer units. Watchtowers, citadels, forts, castles (all as separate buildings) would be built by this unit. Limited amount of economy structures in the form of mines, mana-harvesters, and whatever resource GPG/CT decides upon.
....................
Having said all that, I'm not very fond of the idea, and while i have spent time organizing it in a word processor, it still feels clumsy, half-assed, and rather cheesy.|||re1wind
Proper resources
TA:K suffered because it only had one resource. Clearly we need proper resources for this one - your traditional wood of course, maybe stone and mana?|||three resources is too many. stick with two.
if you were to argue that build-time was a third, hidden, resource; it'd explain why people had such a hard time with Sup1/FA.|||something tells me in the end they might go do something like SC2 style eco, but personally i feel that something like Stone and Mana(or steam or w/e you wanna call it) works, 2 resources, more than 2 then its a pain in the ***
edit: also none of that "this area only gives X amount of resources, once you harvest it all move to another area" crap, i hate that|||Just have two basic resources: Materials and Mana.
That way, you can have racial diversity in what they harvest while still keeping the resources consistent.
EDIT: Wait a second. Why does every fantasy game use Mana?
|||Mooilo|||Does it have to be "one of those" games with magic and dragons and elves and shit?
Why can't we have a medieval RTS?|||Obviously_Not_Toot|||I think 3 resources is doable, especially since this is going to be a very large-scale game. Food, wood/stone, and gold/money or a similar combination. Mana doesn't really make sense as a resource.|||TAK did suffer with its single resource
I remember an early preview of tak which still had the two resources in place, mana and some mined crystal which acted as a conduit for the mana energy.
I am inclined towards the Material and Mana names, as those names are more versatile.i.e. Your traditional medieval race that uses little magic and fictional creatures will have material as it's main resource with a little bit of mana. Whereas your heavily magical race(king) will use mana as its main resource with materials as the back-up resource. 3rd race would be somewhere in between, with a mixed and balanced use of both meterial and mana resources.
Medieval race would have the most efficient materia-production buildings but have rather poor mana-generation buildings, while the tables would be turned for the magical race, having strong mana-generating buildings and poor material-production.|||how about the best resource being NO resource.
i say do away with resource gathering for this game. we can think of something new. all this brainpower here. we are only limited by the arc of our imaginations.
if you were to argue that build-time was a third, hidden, resource; it'd explain why people had such a hard time with Sup1/FA.|||something tells me in the end they might go do something like SC2 style eco, but personally i feel that something like Stone and Mana(or steam or w/e you wanna call it) works, 2 resources, more than 2 then its a pain in the ***
edit: also none of that "this area only gives X amount of resources, once you harvest it all move to another area" crap, i hate that|||Just have two basic resources: Materials and Mana.
That way, you can have racial diversity in what they harvest while still keeping the resources consistent.
EDIT: Wait a second. Why does every fantasy game use Mana?
|||Mooilo|||Does it have to be "one of those" games with magic and dragons and elves and shit?Why can't we have a medieval RTS?|||Obviously_Not_Toot|||I think 3 resources is doable, especially since this is going to be a very large-scale game. Food, wood/stone, and gold/money or a similar combination. Mana doesn't really make sense as a resource.|||TAK did suffer with its single resource
I remember an early preview of tak which still had the two resources in place, mana and some mined crystal which acted as a conduit for the mana energy. I am inclined towards the Material and Mana names, as those names are more versatile.i.e. Your traditional medieval race that uses little magic and fictional creatures will have material as it's main resource with a little bit of mana. Whereas your heavily magical race(king) will use mana as its main resource with materials as the back-up resource. 3rd race would be somewhere in between, with a mixed and balanced use of both meterial and mana resources.
Medieval race would have the most efficient materia-production buildings but have rather poor mana-generation buildings, while the tables would be turned for the magical race, having strong mana-generating buildings and poor material-production.|||how about the best resource being NO resource.
i say do away with resource gathering for this game. we can think of something new. all this brainpower here. we are only limited by the arc of our imaginations.
My list with suggestions
My list with suggestions:
1) Dont forget the flare/ping option every RTS should have. You forgot it in the release version of SC1:
http://forums.gaspowered.com/viewtopic. ... highlight=
2) Build units per squad/group (examples , dow1,dow2,coh, total war series)
3) Hard counters: pike vs horse , sword men vs pike , bow vs pike&sword , horse vs sword&bow.
4) Full screen "mini map" again like sc but now let the mouse pointer stop at the edge of the main monitor instead of going the the 2e monitor.
5) "Pure" a.k.a reality option that turns off dragons, magic, wizards, beasts etc in MP game so you only have normal guys fighting with swords,pike's,bows,horses,musket,axe,shields etc
to expand this idea , replace uber fantasy units like dragons etc with elite infantry or cav unit when "pure" option is turned on.
6) Beside a depletable resource(s) have somethings that cant be depleted but interruptible for players , like market cards from age of empires 2 , or trade ships from sins of a solar empire. ambushing a nice trade route in aoe2 was a blast.
7) When you send resources to allied player, don't let it be instant transfer. Let a horse&cart from your capital/HQ/market building travel to your allies capital/HQ/market building before he receives the resource donation. This makes sieges more interesting and ambushing donations on the way a tactic.
8 ) Upgrade units with weapon class 1 to 3 , Armour class 1 to 3. so you have to buy it for every group you wish to upgrade (see battle for middle earth 1&2) let the tech research for this be a player choice, so you can decide to skip the research for Armour 1 and 2 and go for Armour 3 but let it take longer to research if player skips level 1 and/or 2.
option to tech rush if a player wants to put in time and money but left without tech 1 and/or 2 for some long minutes and hope to come out on top with level 3 etc.
9) Let height be a factor. see warrior kings for idea's .when archers are on hill/mountain their arrows did more damage.
when cav charged down hill they did more damage, same for infantry.
When cav traveled in mud they slowed down.
Warrior kings had alot of nice design things in it, but poor patch support, and engine was a bit heavy for pc's at that time.
Also archers did not have unlimited arrows, they needed supply cart near for arrow supply. (so enemy cav could try and rush the supply cart etc)
10) Make walls build-able and be able to support troops on it.
Alot of games already did this in some way or a other, rise and fall of civilization did it good in my opinion also Alexander the game did it good enough.
Raising the bar suggestions:
1) Drop single core support. be the first in the gaming industry bold enough to make dual core a minimum requirement so your engine programmer can really work his magic if he is up to it.
2) Raise the player limit in MP, now its 10 players? for example C&C4. raise it to 12 or 14 for those with high powered pc's on lan.
3) Offloading ai to a server?
http://forums.gaspowered.com/viewtopic. ... highlight=
4) Build in voice recognition commands for simple commands like ctrl+1. End war has it, chris can do better
Looks good for marketing.|||you should read the stickied threads before posting in future.
GPG-Servo|||jesus, im glad you dont make games for a living. truly awful, especially this
Quote:|||ghodan
1) Dont forget the flare/ping option every RTS should have. You forgot it in the release version of SC1:
http://forums.gaspowered.com/viewtopic. ... highlight=
2) Build units per squad/group (examples , dow1,dow2,coh, total war series)
3) Hard counters: pike vs horse , sword men vs pike , bow vs pike&sword , horse vs sword&bow.
4) Full screen "mini map" again like sc but now let the mouse pointer stop at the edge of the main monitor instead of going the the 2e monitor.
5) "Pure" a.k.a reality option that turns off dragons, magic, wizards, beasts etc in MP game so you only have normal guys fighting with swords,pike's,bows,horses,musket,axe,shields etc
to expand this idea , replace uber fantasy units like dragons etc with elite infantry or cav unit when "pure" option is turned on.
6) Beside a depletable resource(s) have somethings that cant be depleted but interruptible for players , like market cards from age of empires 2 , or trade ships from sins of a solar empire. ambushing a nice trade route in aoe2 was a blast.
7) When you send resources to allied player, don't let it be instant transfer. Let a horse&cart from your capital/HQ/market building travel to your allies capital/HQ/market building before he receives the resource donation. This makes sieges more interesting and ambushing donations on the way a tactic.
8 ) Upgrade units with weapon class 1 to 3 , Armour class 1 to 3. so you have to buy it for every group you wish to upgrade (see battle for middle earth 1&2) let the tech research for this be a player choice, so you can decide to skip the research for Armour 1 and 2 and go for Armour 3 but let it take longer to research if player skips level 1 and/or 2.
option to tech rush if a player wants to put in time and money but left without tech 1 and/or 2 for some long minutes and hope to come out on top with level 3 etc.
9) Let height be a factor. see warrior kings for idea's .when archers are on hill/mountain their arrows did more damage.
when cav charged down hill they did more damage, same for infantry.
When cav traveled in mud they slowed down.
Warrior kings had alot of nice design things in it, but poor patch support, and engine was a bit heavy for pc's at that time.
Also archers did not have unlimited arrows, they needed supply cart near for arrow supply. (so enemy cav could try and rush the supply cart etc)
10) Make walls build-able and be able to support troops on it.
Alot of games already did this in some way or a other, rise and fall of civilization did it good in my opinion also Alexander the game did it good enough.
Raising the bar suggestions:
1) Drop single core support. be the first in the gaming industry bold enough to make dual core a minimum requirement so your engine programmer can really work his magic if he is up to it.
2) Raise the player limit in MP, now its 10 players? for example C&C4. raise it to 12 or 14 for those with high powered pc's on lan.
3) Offloading ai to a server?
http://forums.gaspowered.com/viewtopic. ... highlight=
4) Build in voice recognition commands for simple commands like ctrl+1. End war has it, chris can do better
Looks good for marketing.|||you should read the stickied threads before posting in future.
GPG-Servo|||jesus, im glad you dont make games for a living. truly awful, especially this
Quote:|||ghodan
Multicore
If you're serious about the scale, I suggest that you need to support four cores, or more.|||DeadMG|||support and scalability is a big YES|||Perhaps there could be 3 main threads: Pathfinding, Simulation, and Rendering. I don't know what a 4th thread would do, though.|||Mooilo|||Spooky|||Ah, so dividing simulation up into projectiles, unit turret aiming, etc.?|||Per unit.
You get a bunch of threads, as many as you like, then you post tasks in a queue. The tasks can be anything you like as long as it can perform asynchronously (and not rendering because D3D9 doesn't support multithread rendering). In this case, you can do 20 projectiles at once, or 1 projectile 1 turret aim 1 whatever. A GPU operates essentially in this fashion, with unified shader architecture. In this case, a shader can do any task, and it dishes out pixels and verticies that need shading to any idle shader. That's how GPUs can achieve great performance on huge shader numbers.|||Perhaps use GPU computing? Although I don't think that will happen unless 1 method can be used across all GPUs (last time I checked, Nvidia and ATI have different methods of GPU computing).|||X-Cubed|||Besides, GPU computing doesn't work, because the operations are still mostly serial. For example, you can only make D3D calls on a single thread, so you'd need a CPU to run that thread. Plus, as Spooky said, you'd need a second GPU, and there aren't many multi-GPU systems available.|||Mooilo
You get a bunch of threads, as many as you like, then you post tasks in a queue. The tasks can be anything you like as long as it can perform asynchronously (and not rendering because D3D9 doesn't support multithread rendering). In this case, you can do 20 projectiles at once, or 1 projectile 1 turret aim 1 whatever. A GPU operates essentially in this fashion, with unified shader architecture. In this case, a shader can do any task, and it dishes out pixels and verticies that need shading to any idle shader. That's how GPUs can achieve great performance on huge shader numbers.|||Perhaps use GPU computing? Although I don't think that will happen unless 1 method can be used across all GPUs (last time I checked, Nvidia and ATI have different methods of GPU computing).|||X-Cubed|||Besides, GPU computing doesn't work, because the operations are still mostly serial. For example, you can only make D3D calls on a single thread, so you'd need a CPU to run that thread. Plus, as Spooky said, you'd need a second GPU, and there aren't many multi-GPU systems available.|||Mooilo
Formation painter
Wouldn't it be totally awesome to have lets say 50 units selected and then you press a button and move your mouse and paint a curved or straight line click once and then move your mouse again to decide the thickness of the formation and then the units automatically arrange like that.
Would be so useful to set up semi-circles at chokepoints without much micro or distribute 10 scouting units quickly to cover a vast area (long small line).
I so want this in and I won't buy the game if it isn't in.|||yeah, simple ideas like these are what good games are made of...not pages and pages of random nerd dribble.|||This would be great.
I can see it being abused to excellent effect by having formations of cavalry spelling out LOL on the strat map as you plow through their infantry- for this alone I'd want it in. Theres obviously loads of strategic and tactical applications too but damn...|||Make it possible to save these kind of self-made formations too, à la FA's build templates but with a more straight-forward UI.|||dont think that saving is necessary, the key point of formation painting would be that it is very fast and flexible.|||It's a very cool idea, but I think something simpler like the formation options in Rise of Nations would work well enough.
For those that don't know, Rise of Nations didn't have a painter but it had a good mix of shapes, (e.g. line, wedge, left and right echelons, and some sort of box I think). After picking the formation and its facing, you could use the mouse wheel to either condense it or spread it out. Roll the wheel back and a line will become very long and spread out, roll it the other way and they'll pack together very tightly, with one line folding into multiple rows.
They also used a 'smart' formation system, so arty and support wagons went to the center-rear, and the infantry/tanks staggered themselves throughout the line. I've often disliked 'smart' formation systems because auto-formations can be ungainly and not so smart.. but again, it worked quite well in Rise of Nations imho.|||now that is a fantastic idea.
you should be King.
Would be so useful to set up semi-circles at chokepoints without much micro or distribute 10 scouting units quickly to cover a vast area (long small line).
I so want this in and I won't buy the game if it isn't in.|||yeah, simple ideas like these are what good games are made of...not pages and pages of random nerd dribble.|||This would be great.
I can see it being abused to excellent effect by having formations of cavalry spelling out LOL on the strat map as you plow through their infantry- for this alone I'd want it in. Theres obviously loads of strategic and tactical applications too but damn...|||Make it possible to save these kind of self-made formations too, à la FA's build templates but with a more straight-forward UI.|||dont think that saving is necessary, the key point of formation painting would be that it is very fast and flexible.|||It's a very cool idea, but I think something simpler like the formation options in Rise of Nations would work well enough.
For those that don't know, Rise of Nations didn't have a painter but it had a good mix of shapes, (e.g. line, wedge, left and right echelons, and some sort of box I think). After picking the formation and its facing, you could use the mouse wheel to either condense it or spread it out. Roll the wheel back and a line will become very long and spread out, roll it the other way and they'll pack together very tightly, with one line folding into multiple rows.
They also used a 'smart' formation system, so arty and support wagons went to the center-rear, and the infantry/tanks staggered themselves throughout the line. I've often disliked 'smart' formation systems because auto-formations can be ungainly and not so smart.. but again, it worked quite well in Rise of Nations imho.|||now that is a fantastic idea.
you should be King.
Unique races/ideas
Please, please, please don't have:
Orcs as the bad guys
Undead as the bad guys
Elves who are tall in trees with bows
Short dwarves in heavy armor with axes
Come up with some original races. Preferably, something not really done before. But, if you think that's too much, then just liberally rip from established fantasy and don't pretend that it's unique, like Dragon Age: Origins.
I guess I'm saying, either go all the way in, or just don't waste time and money coming up with something that's barely distinguishable.|||Steampunk Dwarves?
Mike|||Honestly, a fantasy that didn't involve Elves, Dwarves, and Orcs would be rather refreshing. Maybe just have every faction be human, but say one faction consists of Mages, one faction embraced technology, etc.|||Two Words:
Slime Faction
|||buy some rights... let it take place in morrowind... elves... orcs... ooops
seriously though i say no to orcs and dwarves elves and humans...
i want cat-ppl, bear-ppl and beer-ppl... and possibly mermaids|||http://fireemblem.wikia.com/wiki/Laguz
From the game Fire Emblem: Path of Radiance, my favorite GC game.
I think an animal like faction could be very cool.|||Came up in another thread but what if the races/factions came from the choices you made early into the game. Basically a branching Tech tree where you can't be everything but whatever you emphasize comes to characterize your race/faction so there are more combinations then just three races.
So everyone is human but they part ways from there.|||scotchtape622|||And another cool idea could be a plant base faction. Maybe simply the return of the Queen of Thorns could be a nice reference to Demigod and make for a cool faction.|||DeadMG
Orcs as the bad guys
Undead as the bad guys
Elves who are tall in trees with bows
Short dwarves in heavy armor with axes
Come up with some original races. Preferably, something not really done before. But, if you think that's too much, then just liberally rip from established fantasy and don't pretend that it's unique, like Dragon Age: Origins.
I guess I'm saying, either go all the way in, or just don't waste time and money coming up with something that's barely distinguishable.|||Steampunk Dwarves?
Mike|||Honestly, a fantasy that didn't involve Elves, Dwarves, and Orcs would be rather refreshing. Maybe just have every faction be human, but say one faction consists of Mages, one faction embraced technology, etc.|||Two Words:
Slime Faction
|||buy some rights... let it take place in morrowind... elves... orcs... ooopsseriously though i say no to orcs and dwarves elves and humans...
i want cat-ppl, bear-ppl and beer-ppl... and possibly mermaids|||http://fireemblem.wikia.com/wiki/Laguz
From the game Fire Emblem: Path of Radiance, my favorite GC game.
I think an animal like faction could be very cool.|||Came up in another thread but what if the races/factions came from the choices you made early into the game. Basically a branching Tech tree where you can't be everything but whatever you emphasize comes to characterize your race/faction so there are more combinations then just three races.
So everyone is human but they part ways from there.|||scotchtape622|||And another cool idea could be a plant base faction. Maybe simply the return of the Queen of Thorns could be a nice reference to Demigod and make for a cool faction.|||DeadMG
Robots.
Also.. roving armies that can travel into a province, sacking outlying villages and burning crops, like Lords of the Realm 2. (This assumes that there might be a separate campaign map and tactical battle map.. but if the scale is large enough then I suppose the strategic province maneuvers could be built into the same map as the battles..)
Lords of the Realm 2 also had a cool system where encamped armies built their siege equipment on the spot, as it should be imo. Mostly stationary siege equipment would be cool for any game with castles and sieges.
Also:
|||Catapults that fire biting horses.|||actually, i thought the Goblins in the first DS game were pretty epic.|||roving armies are fun. but they cause a lot of problems if they aren't balanced. they would need to keep it to a bare minimum. have it as a rare occurance. Majesty 2 had a lot of complaints about their roving creatures, who caused so much trouble in games, that many players were defeated by them before even engaging their opponent.
it was the worst balance i've ever seen.|||katzenkrimis
For the campaign
Since players take on the role of one of three powerful kings, according to the press release, an interesting campaign idea comes to mind: capture the enemy king's castle.
The technology for awesome maps is already there, the game would just utilize that. The goal would be the elimination of all enemy units around the castle, effectively "capturing" it. Other areas of the map could include breaking down the walls that surround the town in order to run in and kill the enemy citizens, making your way through the town up to the enemy king's main fortress of sorts, all while GPG keeps all the architecture and level geometry really awesome looking. Something like GPG's own concept art, with small islands dominated by massive stone structures and connected by bridges would be pretty cool for this sort of a finale type mission.
|||I like this idea.|||an option for this style of gameplay is you must capture and hold said enemy castle for X amount of time, or points to win, giving the enemy a possible chance to maybe counter attack and retake said castle or something.|||this idea could work even for 1v1.
i guess both sides could start with a large castle. -but i don't like this idea.
King Taylor II said that we will be building the castle. i sure hope so.
is it possible we will be starting the game with a King, standing in the middle of an open field?
|||still want a very linear campaign here the now linear ones just aren't as much fun. and i am always wondering which story is actually canon if none of them are thats even worse.
The technology for awesome maps is already there, the game would just utilize that. The goal would be the elimination of all enemy units around the castle, effectively "capturing" it. Other areas of the map could include breaking down the walls that surround the town in order to run in and kill the enemy citizens, making your way through the town up to the enemy king's main fortress of sorts, all while GPG keeps all the architecture and level geometry really awesome looking. Something like GPG's own concept art, with small islands dominated by massive stone structures and connected by bridges would be pretty cool for this sort of a finale type mission.
|||I like this idea.|||an option for this style of gameplay is you must capture and hold said enemy castle for X amount of time, or points to win, giving the enemy a possible chance to maybe counter attack and retake said castle or something.|||this idea could work even for 1v1. i guess both sides could start with a large castle. -but i don't like this idea.
King Taylor II said that we will be building the castle. i sure hope so.
is it possible we will be starting the game with a King, standing in the middle of an open field?
|||still want a very linear campaign here the now linear ones just aren't as much fun. and i am always wondering which story is actually canon if none of them are thats even worse.
Keep it up with the community dialogue
A lot of Supreme Commander 2 fans were jaded by the massive amounts of bureaucracy and NDAs that got between the devs just talking to the fans.
This video blog campaign is a great idea, but I can't stress enough be transparent. Listen to us and we'll listen to you guys!
Also please add the little touches that will keep K&C from looking like 'SupCom with Dragons'. Unit animations will need to be very detailed.
-KK|||i second the motion. ^^
make us proud, Chris!
This video blog campaign is a great idea, but I can't stress enough be transparent. Listen to us and we'll listen to you guys!
Also please add the little touches that will keep K&C from looking like 'SupCom with Dragons'. Unit animations will need to be very detailed.
-KK|||i second the motion. ^^
make us proud, Chris!
Factions
Not sure how many factions yall are looking at having but I'd suggest at least 3.
Might be cool to have a noble, clean, and righteous looking faction who are either ridiculously armored visually and stat-wise, or technologically superior to the other factions. With steam powered war machines and such, but not the junkyard style ones that most games go with.
A magically adept faction would of course be a given. But maybe with a twist like they are excellent in close combat as well with swords and shields and the like.
An aquatic faction would just finish things off for uniqueness. If most maps have water somewhere on them, this faction would prefer to run to the lakes and oceans to start building their massive ships and such. If they aren't humans then they could use water pool stations to refill their land units with "fuel" or water.
Mystical beasts could easily come in under any of these or they could be neutral creatures that are summoned from certain control points and such.|||I believe that the Press Release said there would by three factions.
I'd like to see a Magical base faction as well as a Steampunk faction.|||I like th aquatic faction idear. you could have them be able to make beautiful buildings on or under the water.|||i think a Steampunk faction would be awesome, then something along the lines of a traditional medieval like faction(maybe have some type of steam tech and magic?) and then a faction that excels in magic, maybe with some units that excel in using magic for close range, other long range? i dunno, but a steampunk like faction would just be awesome, plus everyone is a human(oid) no orcs or elvs or **** like that plz, if you gonna make a weird lookin race, make it something unique, maybe like that aqua faction or something|||I would just hope they don't follow the traditional steampunk design of junkyard parts thrown together to make a steam engine. I mean this faction could the more similar to elves with their elegant structures and method of war.|||The only issue is that if we go with those three, it would basically be SupCom...
Steampunk (Cybran)
Medieval (UEF)
Magic (Aeon)|||I was actually thinking of the magic race being more medieval than any of the other races.
And the steampunk race to be more along the lines of Aeon.|||Sorry that was actually to Hawkeye's statement (I hadn't seen yours yet)
I actually like your idea, that could make for an interesting twist on normal steampunk.|||lol i never thought of it like that, but your right. lawl|||Gatta try to break out of the norm
|||meh
i would've liked factionless though. Factionless with a lot of cool choices like: 'oi i worship this god of death, look as he makes every single unit of mine respawn ,when they die, at this tomb as ghosts' how's your god?`
'well he's coping i guess, lightningbolt in the face
look i chose this kind of building arcitecture, with spikes! yikes not so fancy on beating on me houses now ehh... well my houses is pretty this gives all my soldiers a beauty bonus, which make them gain extra interest when attaining catwalks
though ofcourse this can be in a faction game aswell|||Vimes is random|||Sounds kind of like a bigger form of the SupCom2 upgrade system. Which does sound pretty cool.|||regabond|||sword of the stars? never played it|||factionless is good. simply because every game we play has us choosing a faction.
but i imagine this game will be modelled after supcom2 = choose one of the three kings. each king has it's own unique benefits, own unique castle, own unique army, own unique abilities.|||katzenkrimis
Might be cool to have a noble, clean, and righteous looking faction who are either ridiculously armored visually and stat-wise, or technologically superior to the other factions. With steam powered war machines and such, but not the junkyard style ones that most games go with.
A magically adept faction would of course be a given. But maybe with a twist like they are excellent in close combat as well with swords and shields and the like.
An aquatic faction would just finish things off for uniqueness. If most maps have water somewhere on them, this faction would prefer to run to the lakes and oceans to start building their massive ships and such. If they aren't humans then they could use water pool stations to refill their land units with "fuel" or water.
Mystical beasts could easily come in under any of these or they could be neutral creatures that are summoned from certain control points and such.|||I believe that the Press Release said there would by three factions.
I'd like to see a Magical base faction as well as a Steampunk faction.|||I like th aquatic faction idear. you could have them be able to make beautiful buildings on or under the water.|||i think a Steampunk faction would be awesome, then something along the lines of a traditional medieval like faction(maybe have some type of steam tech and magic?) and then a faction that excels in magic, maybe with some units that excel in using magic for close range, other long range? i dunno, but a steampunk like faction would just be awesome, plus everyone is a human(oid) no orcs or elvs or **** like that plz, if you gonna make a weird lookin race, make it something unique, maybe like that aqua faction or something|||I would just hope they don't follow the traditional steampunk design of junkyard parts thrown together to make a steam engine. I mean this faction could the more similar to elves with their elegant structures and method of war.|||The only issue is that if we go with those three, it would basically be SupCom...
Steampunk (Cybran)
Medieval (UEF)
Magic (Aeon)|||I was actually thinking of the magic race being more medieval than any of the other races.
And the steampunk race to be more along the lines of Aeon.|||Sorry that was actually to Hawkeye's statement (I hadn't seen yours yet)
I actually like your idea, that could make for an interesting twist on normal steampunk.|||lol i never thought of it like that, but your right. lawl|||Gatta try to break out of the norm
|||mehi would've liked factionless though. Factionless with a lot of cool choices like: 'oi i worship this god of death, look as he makes every single unit of mine respawn ,when they die, at this tomb as ghosts' how's your god?`
'well he's coping i guess, lightningbolt in the face
look i chose this kind of building arcitecture, with spikes! yikes not so fancy on beating on me houses now ehh... well my houses is pretty this gives all my soldiers a beauty bonus, which make them gain extra interest when attaining catwalks
though ofcourse this can be in a faction game aswell|||Vimes is random|||Sounds kind of like a bigger form of the SupCom2 upgrade system. Which does sound pretty cool.|||regabond|||sword of the stars? never played it|||factionless is good. simply because every game we play has us choosing a faction.
but i imagine this game will be modelled after supcom2 = choose one of the three kings. each king has it's own unique benefits, own unique castle, own unique army, own unique abilities.|||katzenkrimis
influences on other kingdoms
This idea might not work but heres a idea how you trade with neigboring kingdoms can influence on how the game plays out like if i trade with another kingdom and if i trade with a kingdom that there at war with. both of them will get angry at me for doing business with the other kingdom.
This idea is prob not going to happen its more of a CIV type game idea
This might work in the campaign.|||yes. that idea is much to simish for this game. but it works great in the Anno series.
unfortunately, you and i will be wiping each other off the map before we ever make friends and trade goods.
---
anybody seen this walled-off town in france? it's incredible.
This idea is prob not going to happen its more of a CIV type game idea
This might work in the campaign.|||yes. that idea is much to simish for this game. but it works great in the Anno series.
unfortunately, you and i will be wiping each other off the map before we ever make friends and trade goods.
---
anybody seen this walled-off town in france? it's incredible.
Deep Strategic Elements
First of all, really excited about this game. I love the huge epic scale of Sup Com and fantasy settings, so this is absolutely perfect!
Anyways, of all the current RTS's, I know many regard Company of Heroes as being one of the most strategic game versus merely spamming units.
I'm not necessarily saying I would like a CoH in a fantasy setting, but I do hope Kings and Castles will also have deep strategic elements.|||hmm there are two things with rtses
strategy or cozy
i say go for cozy... a cozy (im not saying settlers here... a little bit) and just awesome fiddle around game.
a game of day and night cycle, weathers and uncontrollable villagers moving around gutting pigs and picking flowers...Beasts made of fire emerging from the gate to hell you just built, mist, swamps and real mountains... f**k strategy i wan a cociotfrts ( cup-of-chocolate-infront-of-the-fire-real-time-strategy)|||Vimes is random|||malachan|||i thought Men of War did a better job in that area. it's a very strategic game. much more than CoH. but, it has some other issues.
__________________________________________________
I agree, if we could have the depth of strategy from Men of War in the Medieval setting, i'd be one happy camper.|||Yea Men of War has great strategy as well (probably deeper than CoH). The point of my post, was not to have an exact replica of CoH/Men of War in a fantasy setting, but to likewise incorporate deep strategic elements (unique to K&C) that goes beyond mere unit spamming or rock-paper-scissor tactics a la C&C 4. By the way I don't think there's anything wrong with these tactics per say, unless these are the main and primary tactics of a game.
About the "cup-of-chocolate-infront-of-the-fire-real-time-strategy," have you considered Majesty 2? What you're describing sounds more like a simulation game versus a RTS. If you want something casual, perhaps K&C may have a single player mode against the A.I. with the difficulty set to easy/casual.|||malachan
Anyways, of all the current RTS's, I know many regard Company of Heroes as being one of the most strategic game versus merely spamming units.
I'm not necessarily saying I would like a CoH in a fantasy setting, but I do hope Kings and Castles will also have deep strategic elements.|||hmm there are two things with rtses
strategy or cozy
i say go for cozy... a cozy (im not saying settlers here... a little bit) and just awesome fiddle around game.
a game of day and night cycle, weathers and uncontrollable villagers moving around gutting pigs and picking flowers...Beasts made of fire emerging from the gate to hell you just built, mist, swamps and real mountains... f**k strategy i wan a cociotfrts ( cup-of-chocolate-infront-of-the-fire-real-time-strategy)|||Vimes is random|||malachan|||i thought Men of War did a better job in that area. it's a very strategic game. much more than CoH. but, it has some other issues.
__________________________________________________
I agree, if we could have the depth of strategy from Men of War in the Medieval setting, i'd be one happy camper.|||Yea Men of War has great strategy as well (probably deeper than CoH). The point of my post, was not to have an exact replica of CoH/Men of War in a fantasy setting, but to likewise incorporate deep strategic elements (unique to K&C) that goes beyond mere unit spamming or rock-paper-scissor tactics a la C&C 4. By the way I don't think there's anything wrong with these tactics per say, unless these are the main and primary tactics of a game.
About the "cup-of-chocolate-infront-of-the-fire-real-time-strategy," have you considered Majesty 2? What you're describing sounds more like a simulation game versus a RTS. If you want something casual, perhaps K&C may have a single player mode against the A.I. with the difficulty set to easy/casual.|||malachan
Multiple water levels and proper bridges
There are two things that would have been awesome in SupCom: having multiple water levels in the same map (such as the ocean around the coast, but inland lakes up in the mountains), and having proper bridges that could go over land and water.
Having bridges and multiple water levels would open up strategies and allow for more diverse maps.|||Bridges can be done visually ala demigod & supcom2, but they will have to ditch or heavily modify the hightmap system to get it to work properly. similarly for multiple water levels, i imagine a complete redesign of how water works and how binding units to that terrain type works.
I would like to see both, how feasible they are with regards to the rest of the game/engine, i don't know.|||hmm different waterlevels whouldn't be that hard? i've seen it done before|||Not sure what the multiple water levels would add to the game. And I'm trying to think of some example where the local difference in water levels in two bodies of water is significantly different. Aside from places like the Panama Canal.
Such differences are usually relatively trivial unless you travel some great distance. Unless your talking about rivers with waterfalls or dams.
But the bridges idea would add a lot to the game.|||EbolaSoup|||Yes, rivers, as I said, show this as they are flowing sometimes steeply. But I still say that to see different water levels in two bodies of water, you either have to travel quite far inland or you have some kind of scenario like a waterfall or a dam. Now waterfalls could really be cool. And I think this would be an aesthetically cool feature. Think of the Demigod map with flowing water. But it is just an aesthetic feature as far as I can see. I guess you might have two different bodies of water big enough for two separate navies that can't access one another. But I don't see how that's any different from two separate bodies at the same level. Don't get me wrong, I think this could make for beautiful maps and I'm all for that.
Again, I just don't see it as a gameplay feature but an aesthetic feature. However, having to (being able to) build bridges does add a lot to this.
Some thing that I do wonder is whether, in the current maps, you can have water flowing under structures so that you have more than one level. The ships can go under the land units. That could be cool. Do you know if this is in?
Edit: Oops. I thought I was talking about SupCom2 at the end there.
Having bridges and multiple water levels would open up strategies and allow for more diverse maps.|||Bridges can be done visually ala demigod & supcom2, but they will have to ditch or heavily modify the hightmap system to get it to work properly. similarly for multiple water levels, i imagine a complete redesign of how water works and how binding units to that terrain type works.
I would like to see both, how feasible they are with regards to the rest of the game/engine, i don't know.|||hmm different waterlevels whouldn't be that hard? i've seen it done before|||Not sure what the multiple water levels would add to the game. And I'm trying to think of some example where the local difference in water levels in two bodies of water is significantly different. Aside from places like the Panama Canal.
Such differences are usually relatively trivial unless you travel some great distance. Unless your talking about rivers with waterfalls or dams.
But the bridges idea would add a lot to the game.|||EbolaSoup|||Yes, rivers, as I said, show this as they are flowing sometimes steeply. But I still say that to see different water levels in two bodies of water, you either have to travel quite far inland or you have some kind of scenario like a waterfall or a dam. Now waterfalls could really be cool. And I think this would be an aesthetically cool feature. Think of the Demigod map with flowing water. But it is just an aesthetic feature as far as I can see. I guess you might have two different bodies of water big enough for two separate navies that can't access one another. But I don't see how that's any different from two separate bodies at the same level. Don't get me wrong, I think this could make for beautiful maps and I'm all for that.
Again, I just don't see it as a gameplay feature but an aesthetic feature. However, having to (being able to) build bridges does add a lot to this.
Some thing that I do wonder is whether, in the current maps, you can have water flowing under structures so that you have more than one level. The ships can go under the land units. That could be cool. Do you know if this is in?
Edit: Oops. I thought I was talking about SupCom2 at the end there.
A few old ideas
See below.|||tl;dr|||Quote:|||You want lizards mounting other creatures
I am against bestiality in games.|||WNxWolfinator|||First off, sorry about the length of my post, I had yet to read the suggestions guideline prior to posting.
I posted everything because there's lots of ideas present and had hoped some might grab interest with people and be useful for Kings and Castles, bestiality was not exactly what I was trying to suggest though
I guess one of the major ideas I was trying to get at, was that each race be completely different and have different ways of doing everything, from collecting resources to how their military trains and fights to how they upgrade and development. The best example I know of would be the three civs in Universe at War. Each had not only a different playing style, but unique aspects each their own (walkers instead of buildings, using the flow network and dark/light modes). I loved the idea of the game and its graphics but the functionality and understandability sucked.
What would be great was if each civ played like it came from a separate game. For example......
One race gathers a single resource based on the size of their territory and causes attrition damage to enemies. They fight using squads or wizards and their king levels up like a typical hero unit.
Another race must create villagers to harvest multiple types of resources from around the map, spawns individual units that are upgraded only through battle experience and their kings, yes more than one, are the source of god-like powers.
A third race's king is a god himself, capable of creating units and buildings from pure energy, which he regenerates over time. He creates mystical beasts for assaults and plant-like structures for defense.
Please discuss....|||hailstorm_master|||Obviously_Not_Toot|||FunkyKong
I am against bestiality in games.|||WNxWolfinator|||First off, sorry about the length of my post, I had yet to read the suggestions guideline prior to posting.
I posted everything because there's lots of ideas present and had hoped some might grab interest with people and be useful for Kings and Castles, bestiality was not exactly what I was trying to suggest though
I guess one of the major ideas I was trying to get at, was that each race be completely different and have different ways of doing everything, from collecting resources to how their military trains and fights to how they upgrade and development. The best example I know of would be the three civs in Universe at War. Each had not only a different playing style, but unique aspects each their own (walkers instead of buildings, using the flow network and dark/light modes). I loved the idea of the game and its graphics but the functionality and understandability sucked.
What would be great was if each civ played like it came from a separate game. For example......
One race gathers a single resource based on the size of their territory and causes attrition damage to enemies. They fight using squads or wizards and their king levels up like a typical hero unit.
Another race must create villagers to harvest multiple types of resources from around the map, spawns individual units that are upgraded only through battle experience and their kings, yes more than one, are the source of god-like powers.
A third race's king is a god himself, capable of creating units and buildings from pure energy, which he regenerates over time. He creates mystical beasts for assaults and plant-like structures for defense.
Please discuss....|||hailstorm_master|||Obviously_Not_Toot|||FunkyKong
Gameplay Expansion and Development
Premise:
You are the king of a realm containing settlements ranging from tiny hamlets to enormous cities. You stake claim to your lands by constructing outposts and forts, governing everything from your throne inside your mighty castle. You conquer adjacent areas with the strength of your armies trained within your powerful forts and castle. Although it is impossible to control every single aspect of your realm, you develop and expanse your territory through research, studies, prayers, and diplomacy.
Basic assumptions:
You start with a settlement and a castle, and additional settlements are scattered around the map. You gain control of them by either constructing an outpost or fort in or nearby them or perhaps flagging them (think Dawn of War) using troops. Settlements automatically produce resources and grow in size over time, both of which can be increased with upgrades (hamlet-village-town-city). Settlements are composed of many buildings and people, all of which can be destroyed or killed, reducing the resource output of that settlement.
Main Idea:
Instead of having a single technology tree to gain access to new units, abilities, buildings and upgrades, these things are accomplished through Technology, Magic, Religion/Gods, and Racial Alliance/Treaties
Technology is straight foward and consists of new innovations and techniques that allow for better and new things. For example, iron weapons may increase the attack of certain units.
Magic can be studied to enable new spells. Some spells might be permanent upgrades to certain units, buildings or weapons, while others may allow for the casting of spells during battles to summon creatures, directly harm enemies or temporarly improve your forces. Magic could potential be grouped into types (dark, light, fire, etc).
Religion/Gods can work in a few different ways. Maybe you pray to a single god and get certain advantages, and are able to switch to another god at any time. Maybe at the beginning of each game you choose one god and they give you select attributes, which might consist of improvements and god-powers (think age of mythology). Another option would be to allow you to gain multiple gods favor, each one costing a certain amount of resources to gain and giving a select number of bonuses and powers. Any of these options may also give access to fantasy creatures.
Finally, Racial Alliances/Treaties are similar to religion/gods. They could be a one time thing, permanent or changable, or allow for multiple alliances. Each alliance would give you access to different creatures and perhaps certain abilities and upgrades. For example, you could align yourself with Lizardfolk and gain access to them as units, while also making all of your normal troops deal poision damage when fighting.
I hope that this would allow for a greater amount of diversity and options when playing and take away the need for levels or ages.|||I agree with the concept of hamlets turning to vilages, towns, and then cities, in principle as not having them upgrade doesn't sound right. However, there's too much detail in the, well, details. Having [killable] peasants wandering around your city sounds really nice, but there's a reason why all the details were cut from supcom1 to supcom2.
I'm just saying, i highly doubt that K&C will be the type of game to have villagers/peons wandering around sapping Megahurtz.|||hailstorm_master|||I had attempted to keep this to one idea, but it seems to be two. To clarify....
The first suggestion involves using an economic system where there is only one resource and it is collected from settlements which each player must gain ownership of. The exact method of gaining ownership is debatable. Regardless, each settlement supplies a constant flow of resource depending upon its size. Settlements grow independently, but can be encouraged to grow faster by certain upgrades. Settlements include people and buildings. They grow automatically by constructing new buildings and having new people arrive. People can be hurt/killed and buildings can be damaged/destroyed by other players to reduce the flow of resource each settlement provides. After a settlement is attacked it may be quickly rebuilt, if given the proper amount of resources, or left to slowly rebuilt itself up. Damaged, but not destroyed building are rebuilt first. Resource flow is dependent upon a mixture of buildings and people. This system allows for an attractive, easy to manage economy that encourages attacking while providing more time for combat.
The second suggestion pushes for a game that is more about creating options than just bigger, stronger and more powerful units as the game goes on. By having multiple methods to customize your race (technology, magic, religion and subfactions) more opportunities will exist to create different playing styles each game. For example, for those of you who have played age of mythology, image removing the ages and having each of the minor gods equalized. You can then choose any minor god with their associated powers, myth units and myth upgrades/technologies for a certain amount of resources or once a certain amount of time elapses. You can choose additional ones given either more time or more resources. Despite the upgrades making units potentially more powerful, the powers and myth units just give you additional options. Something like this could be used for religion or subfaction.
Any comments......|||I really like your idears, and I have nothing negative to say about them.
You are the king of a realm containing settlements ranging from tiny hamlets to enormous cities. You stake claim to your lands by constructing outposts and forts, governing everything from your throne inside your mighty castle. You conquer adjacent areas with the strength of your armies trained within your powerful forts and castle. Although it is impossible to control every single aspect of your realm, you develop and expanse your territory through research, studies, prayers, and diplomacy.
Basic assumptions:
You start with a settlement and a castle, and additional settlements are scattered around the map. You gain control of them by either constructing an outpost or fort in or nearby them or perhaps flagging them (think Dawn of War) using troops. Settlements automatically produce resources and grow in size over time, both of which can be increased with upgrades (hamlet-village-town-city). Settlements are composed of many buildings and people, all of which can be destroyed or killed, reducing the resource output of that settlement.
Main Idea:
Instead of having a single technology tree to gain access to new units, abilities, buildings and upgrades, these things are accomplished through Technology, Magic, Religion/Gods, and Racial Alliance/Treaties
Technology is straight foward and consists of new innovations and techniques that allow for better and new things. For example, iron weapons may increase the attack of certain units.
Magic can be studied to enable new spells. Some spells might be permanent upgrades to certain units, buildings or weapons, while others may allow for the casting of spells during battles to summon creatures, directly harm enemies or temporarly improve your forces. Magic could potential be grouped into types (dark, light, fire, etc).
Religion/Gods can work in a few different ways. Maybe you pray to a single god and get certain advantages, and are able to switch to another god at any time. Maybe at the beginning of each game you choose one god and they give you select attributes, which might consist of improvements and god-powers (think age of mythology). Another option would be to allow you to gain multiple gods favor, each one costing a certain amount of resources to gain and giving a select number of bonuses and powers. Any of these options may also give access to fantasy creatures.
Finally, Racial Alliances/Treaties are similar to religion/gods. They could be a one time thing, permanent or changable, or allow for multiple alliances. Each alliance would give you access to different creatures and perhaps certain abilities and upgrades. For example, you could align yourself with Lizardfolk and gain access to them as units, while also making all of your normal troops deal poision damage when fighting.
I hope that this would allow for a greater amount of diversity and options when playing and take away the need for levels or ages.|||I agree with the concept of hamlets turning to vilages, towns, and then cities, in principle as not having them upgrade doesn't sound right. However, there's too much detail in the, well, details. Having [killable] peasants wandering around your city sounds really nice, but there's a reason why all the details were cut from supcom1 to supcom2.
I'm just saying, i highly doubt that K&C will be the type of game to have villagers/peons wandering around sapping Megahurtz.|||hailstorm_master|||I had attempted to keep this to one idea, but it seems to be two. To clarify....
The first suggestion involves using an economic system where there is only one resource and it is collected from settlements which each player must gain ownership of. The exact method of gaining ownership is debatable. Regardless, each settlement supplies a constant flow of resource depending upon its size. Settlements grow independently, but can be encouraged to grow faster by certain upgrades. Settlements include people and buildings. They grow automatically by constructing new buildings and having new people arrive. People can be hurt/killed and buildings can be damaged/destroyed by other players to reduce the flow of resource each settlement provides. After a settlement is attacked it may be quickly rebuilt, if given the proper amount of resources, or left to slowly rebuilt itself up. Damaged, but not destroyed building are rebuilt first. Resource flow is dependent upon a mixture of buildings and people. This system allows for an attractive, easy to manage economy that encourages attacking while providing more time for combat.
The second suggestion pushes for a game that is more about creating options than just bigger, stronger and more powerful units as the game goes on. By having multiple methods to customize your race (technology, magic, religion and subfactions) more opportunities will exist to create different playing styles each game. For example, for those of you who have played age of mythology, image removing the ages and having each of the minor gods equalized. You can then choose any minor god with their associated powers, myth units and myth upgrades/technologies for a certain amount of resources or once a certain amount of time elapses. You can choose additional ones given either more time or more resources. Despite the upgrades making units potentially more powerful, the powers and myth units just give you additional options. Something like this could be used for religion or subfaction.
Any comments......|||I really like your idears, and I have nothing negative to say about them.
Make it dark and moody...
...not like this;
|||Agreed! But not overly dark, it needs to have some high points for variety.|||I think going for a dark mood without going for the boring old grey/brown color palette would be nice. Green, blue, and red could be used a lot instead.|||Dark and moody would be a mistake with this game i think. Not because its worse or better really but because its easier to get away with things in a terry pratchett like universe. It just gives so much freedom. If you go for dark and moody you have to follow "the rules" more closely otherwise the game will feel wierd. I would love to see some humor actually, fantasy and humor mix well. There's far to too few games that even try to be funny and from what we saw from the videoblog Chris has a... eh... rousing sense of humor.|||slinfolo|||fantasy rts.
there's not many different styles out there. but there are certain looks that are just plain bad for this type of game. like the top two photos shown below.
whatever you do, stay away from the Majesty 2 look. it's kindergarten!
also that dark look with the neon colours is a bad idea too. it's elementary. you know, that Worldshift / Heroes of Newerth / Battleforge look. it's bad. Torchlight has that look, too. though gameplay is decent.
Settlers is too bright and cartoony. Demigod is far too limited on its cement slab to even judge.
better off with a mix of the bottom 4 photos. Rise of the Witch King has a nice look to it. too bad the unit animation and pathfinding bites. but it does look good. Dawn of Fantasy seems to have decent visuals. i guess i can include DoW2.
[croud chants] Chris! Chris! Chris!
|||slinfolo|||Bottom four pics do have a nice mix and visual setting.|||The bottom-right and mid-right pics are way too brown, especially the mid-right one. The mid-left and bottom-left ones are nice, though.|||Mooilo|||
When I see that pic I think it belongs in the first pic in katzenkrimis' post. The shiny armour, the white beard it's boring, generic and uninspired.
The bottom four pics (in katz post) look better though, nice and varied. If they're using the same engine as supcom2 then we could see some nice shadows (see below) and water effects. Saw a hi-def vid of the kraken and the water looked good. Here.
And the dragon pics in K-lords thread are fuckin awesome.
|||Yes, please don't do cartoonish looking units.
Look at what a great job you (GPG) did with Demigod. The characters look menacing, cool and don't move with stupid looking animation.|||oraton|||And what about a day-night cycle ?
|||Agreed! But not overly dark, it needs to have some high points for variety.|||I think going for a dark mood without going for the boring old grey/brown color palette would be nice. Green, blue, and red could be used a lot instead.|||Dark and moody would be a mistake with this game i think. Not because its worse or better really but because its easier to get away with things in a terry pratchett like universe. It just gives so much freedom. If you go for dark and moody you have to follow "the rules" more closely otherwise the game will feel wierd. I would love to see some humor actually, fantasy and humor mix well. There's far to too few games that even try to be funny and from what we saw from the videoblog Chris has a... eh... rousing sense of humor.|||slinfolo|||fantasy rts.there's not many different styles out there. but there are certain looks that are just plain bad for this type of game. like the top two photos shown below.
whatever you do, stay away from the Majesty 2 look. it's kindergarten!
also that dark look with the neon colours is a bad idea too. it's elementary. you know, that Worldshift / Heroes of Newerth / Battleforge look. it's bad. Torchlight has that look, too. though gameplay is decent.
Settlers is too bright and cartoony. Demigod is far too limited on its cement slab to even judge.
better off with a mix of the bottom 4 photos. Rise of the Witch King has a nice look to it. too bad the unit animation and pathfinding bites. but it does look good. Dawn of Fantasy seems to have decent visuals. i guess i can include DoW2.
[croud chants] Chris! Chris! Chris!
|||slinfolo|||Bottom four pics do have a nice mix and visual setting.|||The bottom-right and mid-right pics are way too brown, especially the mid-right one. The mid-left and bottom-left ones are nice, though.|||Mooilo|||When I see that pic I think it belongs in the first pic in katzenkrimis' post. The shiny armour, the white beard it's boring, generic and uninspired.
The bottom four pics (in katz post) look better though, nice and varied. If they're using the same engine as supcom2 then we could see some nice shadows (see below) and water effects. Saw a hi-def vid of the kraken and the water looked good. Here.
And the dragon pics in K-lords thread are fuckin awesome.
|||Yes, please don't do cartoonish looking units.Look at what a great job you (GPG) did with Demigod. The characters look menacing, cool and don't move with stupid looking animation.|||oraton|||And what about a day-night cycle ?
Non-Standard Fantasy
Title says it all really... can we avoid "standard" fantasy? God bless a society that gave us that as a legitimate phrase.
On the other hand, I loved the units and heroes of Demigod, they felt very unique and refreshing, especially the archers and gunners. The entire game felt like a new experience, even having played DotA and many warcraft map-mods.
Anyway, for instance instead of a standard dragon, have this chap, note scale and awesomeness:
Hell, even this chap, as before notice the scale and the awesome... (sorry if it stretches the screen to much.
So, my question, if it can be answered is how standardised is this fantasy going to be?
The thread direction I'm hoping for here is vague discussion about unusual or unique fantasy settings that various forumites have encountered, either in images or novels. Settings, scenes, plots, races, characters, items, abilites, weapons or spells. Anything unique or interesting. Image replies would be appreciated greatly, I have an image folder with loads of unique(ish) monsters and landscapes, but I'm curious to see what others think.
To finish, I'll say that this game has the potential to be epic GPG, I am seriously excited about what could be achieved, good luck.|||I heartily agree.
Go beyond dragons and elves, and all. Those drawings are a very good example of what games that take place in medieval times are missing.
Dragons are very very cool, but overused. It's time to pave the way for even cooler gigantic monsters.|||Giant floating sea urchins should be the new dragons.
I fully agree for GPG to not stick with standard fantasy.|||i agree aswell
make it feel a little obscure... im not against a little jap influences
that said... kings and castles sounds VERY standard fantasy :)|||Kings and Castles is a generic name that mentions very little of standard fantasy except for the part about Kings and Castles.|||I do want to see uniqueness in this game, but I don't want them to go to extremes to the point that you can hardly tell that it is a fantasy game.|||scotchtape622|||I should have specified medieval fantasy.|||scotchtape622|||I agree that they do need to take a step in a more unique direction, nor do I want a run of the mill medieval fantasy. I just don't want a "Final Fantasy" where all the units seem to have come from an LCD trip.
I'd rather see new twists on old concepts.|||I emphasize "Small step"
EDIT: Besides, most FF games are in fact revisions of your standard medieval fantasy.|||I always felt like FF was a little... extreme. I never enjoyed them at all (not that I'm a big RPG fan anyway).|||Instead of dragons, have Charizards.|||And instead of wizards, Alakazams.|||What's the difference, besides that Charizard doesn't die of being compressed into 10 cubic cm?|||How many dragons do you know that can learn Solar Beam and Steel Wing in one moveset?|||scotchtape622|||Bump because this can not be stressed enough.
Also you don't need to have played the previous games to understand any of the FF games.|||For the love of all that is holy, can I please have some links to more art like those the OP posted? Those creatures are....amazing, I want some hi-rez ones for my desktop!|||True K-lord, but those guys are all really weak to Ice Beam.
Anyway:
I really think that we shouldn't have ANY elves or orcs in this game. Or dwarves. I want to see humans based factions, or creatures that GPG invented themselves, instead of relying on old sterotypes.|||Idd, keep the fantasy stuff really terrifying (only very weird stuff/monsters/experimentals like dragons and such) and not too omnipresent in the game world. It would make the shock of encountering these fantasy elements much cooler when you have a mostly human army.|||Ryuken|||@sanman: tbh I honestly don't know the source, I get most of the artwork from lurking admidst elegan/tg/entlemen, If you would like I could upload most of what I have in a zip file.
I think that three human factions would be fine, at the expense of some elves and dwarves (dwarfs?), though I'd prefer one non-human faction I honestly don't mind if it ends up all three human.
Otherwise I'd agree that to have the more unusual and unique units higher up in the tech trees, so that the impact of the units is greater.
Despite the concept art at the site looking pretty generic, the press release quotes:
"......all-new, original fantasy world."
So i have high hopes for something brilliant and unique.
Anyway, this discussion is achieving something, so have a character portrait. (Unfortunately guy has pointy ears but the mount, armour and weapon are pretty cool).
|||Would it be possible to directly bring in some of the demigod characters into the game? I would love to see Torchbearer and DA in a game like this.|||I was thinking about that too. Wouldn't it be awesome if some of the demigods were special hero characters?
On the other hand, I loved the units and heroes of Demigod, they felt very unique and refreshing, especially the archers and gunners. The entire game felt like a new experience, even having played DotA and many warcraft map-mods.
Anyway, for instance instead of a standard dragon, have this chap, note scale and awesomeness:
Hell, even this chap, as before notice the scale and the awesome... (sorry if it stretches the screen to much.
So, my question, if it can be answered is how standardised is this fantasy going to be?
The thread direction I'm hoping for here is vague discussion about unusual or unique fantasy settings that various forumites have encountered, either in images or novels. Settings, scenes, plots, races, characters, items, abilites, weapons or spells. Anything unique or interesting. Image replies would be appreciated greatly, I have an image folder with loads of unique(ish) monsters and landscapes, but I'm curious to see what others think.
To finish, I'll say that this game has the potential to be epic GPG, I am seriously excited about what could be achieved, good luck.|||I heartily agree.
Go beyond dragons and elves, and all. Those drawings are a very good example of what games that take place in medieval times are missing.
Dragons are very very cool, but overused. It's time to pave the way for even cooler gigantic monsters.|||Giant floating sea urchins should be the new dragons.
I fully agree for GPG to not stick with standard fantasy.|||i agree aswell
make it feel a little obscure... im not against a little jap influences
that said... kings and castles sounds VERY standard fantasy :)|||Kings and Castles is a generic name that mentions very little of standard fantasy except for the part about Kings and Castles.|||I do want to see uniqueness in this game, but I don't want them to go to extremes to the point that you can hardly tell that it is a fantasy game.|||scotchtape622|||I should have specified medieval fantasy.|||scotchtape622|||I agree that they do need to take a step in a more unique direction, nor do I want a run of the mill medieval fantasy. I just don't want a "Final Fantasy" where all the units seem to have come from an LCD trip.
I'd rather see new twists on old concepts.|||I emphasize "Small step"
EDIT: Besides, most FF games are in fact revisions of your standard medieval fantasy.|||I always felt like FF was a little... extreme. I never enjoyed them at all (not that I'm a big RPG fan anyway).|||Instead of dragons, have Charizards.|||And instead of wizards, Alakazams.|||What's the difference, besides that Charizard doesn't die of being compressed into 10 cubic cm?|||How many dragons do you know that can learn Solar Beam and Steel Wing in one moveset?|||scotchtape622|||Bump because this can not be stressed enough.
Also you don't need to have played the previous games to understand any of the FF games.|||For the love of all that is holy, can I please have some links to more art like those the OP posted? Those creatures are....amazing, I want some hi-rez ones for my desktop!|||True K-lord, but those guys are all really weak to Ice Beam.
Anyway:
I really think that we shouldn't have ANY elves or orcs in this game. Or dwarves. I want to see humans based factions, or creatures that GPG invented themselves, instead of relying on old sterotypes.|||Idd, keep the fantasy stuff really terrifying (only very weird stuff/monsters/experimentals like dragons and such) and not too omnipresent in the game world. It would make the shock of encountering these fantasy elements much cooler when you have a mostly human army.|||Ryuken|||@sanman: tbh I honestly don't know the source, I get most of the artwork from lurking admidst elegan/tg/entlemen, If you would like I could upload most of what I have in a zip file.
I think that three human factions would be fine, at the expense of some elves and dwarves (dwarfs?), though I'd prefer one non-human faction I honestly don't mind if it ends up all three human.
Otherwise I'd agree that to have the more unusual and unique units higher up in the tech trees, so that the impact of the units is greater.
Despite the concept art at the site looking pretty generic, the press release quotes:
"......all-new, original fantasy world."
So i have high hopes for something brilliant and unique.
Anyway, this discussion is achieving something, so have a character portrait. (Unfortunately guy has pointy ears but the mount, armour and weapon are pretty cool).
|||Would it be possible to directly bring in some of the demigod characters into the game? I would love to see Torchbearer and DA in a game like this.|||I was thinking about that too. Wouldn't it be awesome if some of the demigods were special hero characters?
Stealth should still be implemented, somehow.
Assuming that there will be a type of scouting, discussed in other threads, we will need a type of stealth/deception. I can think of a few things that could work.
1. The traditional faction could use large burning vats that create smoke. Enemies could see the smoke but not know what is approaching.
2. Obviously magic could be used for another faction, maybe making them invisible to flying creatures.
3. If the maps are heavily populated with vegetation, perhaps a animal/plant type faction could travel through forests also undetected by flying scouts. This could add a little faction diversity, making the tree hugger faction play a little different. They would be inclined to use more circuitous routes through forests, making them more powerful on certain maps.
I never really liked how enemy units would be disguised as your own units in many RTS games. It has been done too much.
1. The traditional faction could use large burning vats that create smoke. Enemies could see the smoke but not know what is approaching.
2. Obviously magic could be used for another faction, maybe making them invisible to flying creatures.
3. If the maps are heavily populated with vegetation, perhaps a animal/plant type faction could travel through forests also undetected by flying scouts. This could add a little faction diversity, making the tree hugger faction play a little different. They would be inclined to use more circuitous routes through forests, making them more powerful on certain maps.
I never really liked how enemy units would be disguised as your own units in many RTS games. It has been done too much.
Height Advantages; maybe?
Imagine some fool building his castle in a valley, where is catapults are out ranged by your catapults on the surrounding hills.
It would be cool to have terrain play a more realistic role than it did in SupCom. Not sure if the engine has this capability but it could be a neat feature.|||the Moho Engine can do this. it, however, struggles to show the changes in-game as range-rings are the same length in all directions.
if players can't be given a transparent way of seeing height benefits, then there should be no benefits IMO.|||I'd like to see this, as well as hills and such blocking LoS. It should be advantageous to go and place scouts or build watchtowers at the tops of hills. This would expand the strategy, as there would obviously not be radar in a medieval game.
And anyway, it wasn't realistic in the first place for units to have actual LoS past ridges in SupCom...|||tak had obvious hight benefits, the most visible one being massively extended line of sight. units might have some range benefits.
Definitely agree with this.|||If I remember correctly, in TA, Line of Sight could be set to "True" or "Circular". How did they do that and yet it's a conundrum in SupCom?|||i don;'t think doing that in supcom is actually really hard, its just the problem with weapon range rings that the game has trouble updating on the fly|||Lt_hawkeye|||Maybe it would be ok with units, but when deciding where to build your pd or arty, you need to know its range.|||electro2
It would be cool to have terrain play a more realistic role than it did in SupCom. Not sure if the engine has this capability but it could be a neat feature.|||the Moho Engine can do this. it, however, struggles to show the changes in-game as range-rings are the same length in all directions.
if players can't be given a transparent way of seeing height benefits, then there should be no benefits IMO.|||I'd like to see this, as well as hills and such blocking LoS. It should be advantageous to go and place scouts or build watchtowers at the tops of hills. This would expand the strategy, as there would obviously not be radar in a medieval game.
And anyway, it wasn't realistic in the first place for units to have actual LoS past ridges in SupCom...|||tak had obvious hight benefits, the most visible one being massively extended line of sight. units might have some range benefits.
Definitely agree with this.|||If I remember correctly, in TA, Line of Sight could be set to "True" or "Circular". How did they do that and yet it's a conundrum in SupCom?|||i don;'t think doing that in supcom is actually really hard, its just the problem with weapon range rings that the game has trouble updating on the fly|||Lt_hawkeye|||Maybe it would be ok with units, but when deciding where to build your pd or arty, you need to know its range.|||electro2
Critical shots as an additional veteran system
I've hastily thought this through a bit after retyping this post a few times, and i've come to the conclusion that a tf2 styled critical veteran system wouldn't really work. However, if all units started with a 1% chance to shoot a critical shot and that percentage increased as the unit gained combat experience, we get a nice hybrid system of increasing Health, weapon damage, rate of fire, line of sight, and increased crit-shot chance. cap the crit chance to something reasonable like 25%.
These critical shots would not be on hitting the enemy, but on firing the ranged weapon.
I don't think the system would work well with melee.
These critical shots would not be on hitting the enemy, but on firing the ranged weapon.
I don't think the system would work well with melee.
Naval warfare
I think naval should definatly be in. not becouse I think ships are that important to me but because of one thing: seamonsters. please GPG, make a Kraken that can pull down ships. that would be so awesome.
also, I usually enjoy Island maps in these sort of games.
and I think ships just give a very nice layer of deph.|||The main reason I want naval battles is because of game scale. Every other fantasy/medieval rts I've played have had fairly small naval battles. The only way I could get "epic" naval battles in games like AoE was to use 90% of my 200 population cap on ships. And you can't win a game with ships because there's no remaining population to make an actual ground assault force.
So basically, a big population cap (like in SupCom) is needed to make sure we can have big ground armies AND big fleets of ships at the same time.|||I think the best way to do Naval battles is like in the most recent Total War game. I never played it, but I saw a video of in game footage, and they were totally epic!|||agreed|||The Kraken (or a giant shark or a giant sea snake or a giant flying fish) would idd all be awesome (experimental/monster) units.
It's gonna be hard to show the actual units on ships though but I'd love to see this happening (and loads of other people would have loved to see the same in SupCom(2) as well btw, teleporting like in TA: Kingdoms or SupCom 2 looks a bit lame and euh, yeah, cheap).
I think the best way to handle this is to look at Rick Goodman's last RTS Rise & Fall: Civilizations at War, it features one of the best landing/get on board mechanics with transport boats: you land by letting the ship's crew build a wooden landing stage on the shore. Just copy or improve it and make my day. :)|||If there is going to have naval battles there is going to have to be merpeople or seapeople units. Maybe undead merpeople, or sea zombies.
Beware the giant undead carp!|||land and sea for sure.
not sure how air battles can be done. unless it's flying creatures or calling on a god for something out of the skies.
leave air out of it maybe. because as we see it the picture, dragons will clearly own the skies.|||Ryuken|||Merfolk for the win.
And yeah, fantasy naval battles are a good idea. Naval battles in general are epic.
If they want to avoid it being too big of a distraction, (i.e. if they don't wan to invest a lot of effort into unit diversity & balance for Forged Alliance/WW2-style mixed fleets), then they should just do a basic trireme/ancient naval model that uses simple mechanics. They only need a few ship types, all for the purpose of moving troops.. plus some awesome Kraken units as mentioned.. because tentacles that pull ships under is an awesome idea.
It's worth it just so you can have naval+ land maps. That lets some players go naval, increasing maneuverability, while others go land, with all of the typical advantages that entails.|||ElPolloDiablo|||Sea monsters would be awesome.|||I like the sound of this skeleton whale. I've never heard of anything like that, and while human skeleton swordsman and archers are aplenty, skeleton whales, with a bit of flesh here and there to keep it together sounds, well, beyond unique.
Kraken is more or less a staple of fantasy and scifi these days. Have it as a powerful non-legendary unit, maybe with RA2 giant squid mechanics. hold an enemy ship in place while reducing firepower.
If the game is going to have navy, the amount of firepower these will be able to project will be insane, and should be insane, as ships shouldn't be spammable.|||ElPolloDiablo
also, I usually enjoy Island maps in these sort of games.
and I think ships just give a very nice layer of deph.|||The main reason I want naval battles is because of game scale. Every other fantasy/medieval rts I've played have had fairly small naval battles. The only way I could get "epic" naval battles in games like AoE was to use 90% of my 200 population cap on ships. And you can't win a game with ships because there's no remaining population to make an actual ground assault force.
So basically, a big population cap (like in SupCom) is needed to make sure we can have big ground armies AND big fleets of ships at the same time.|||I think the best way to do Naval battles is like in the most recent Total War game. I never played it, but I saw a video of in game footage, and they were totally epic!|||agreed|||The Kraken (or a giant shark or a giant sea snake or a giant flying fish) would idd all be awesome (experimental/monster) units.
It's gonna be hard to show the actual units on ships though but I'd love to see this happening (and loads of other people would have loved to see the same in SupCom(2) as well btw, teleporting like in TA: Kingdoms or SupCom 2 looks a bit lame and euh, yeah, cheap).
I think the best way to handle this is to look at Rick Goodman's last RTS Rise & Fall: Civilizations at War, it features one of the best landing/get on board mechanics with transport boats: you land by letting the ship's crew build a wooden landing stage on the shore. Just copy or improve it and make my day. :)|||If there is going to have naval battles there is going to have to be merpeople or seapeople units. Maybe undead merpeople, or sea zombies.
Beware the giant undead carp!|||land and sea for sure.
not sure how air battles can be done. unless it's flying creatures or calling on a god for something out of the skies.
leave air out of it maybe. because as we see it the picture, dragons will clearly own the skies.|||Ryuken|||Merfolk for the win.
And yeah, fantasy naval battles are a good idea. Naval battles in general are epic.
If they want to avoid it being too big of a distraction, (i.e. if they don't wan to invest a lot of effort into unit diversity & balance for Forged Alliance/WW2-style mixed fleets), then they should just do a basic trireme/ancient naval model that uses simple mechanics. They only need a few ship types, all for the purpose of moving troops.. plus some awesome Kraken units as mentioned.. because tentacles that pull ships under is an awesome idea.
It's worth it just so you can have naval+ land maps. That lets some players go naval, increasing maneuverability, while others go land, with all of the typical advantages that entails.|||ElPolloDiablo|||Sea monsters would be awesome.|||I like the sound of this skeleton whale. I've never heard of anything like that, and while human skeleton swordsman and archers are aplenty, skeleton whales, with a bit of flesh here and there to keep it together sounds, well, beyond unique.
Kraken is more or less a staple of fantasy and scifi these days. Have it as a powerful non-legendary unit, maybe with RA2 giant squid mechanics. hold an enemy ship in place while reducing firepower.
If the game is going to have navy, the amount of firepower these will be able to project will be insane, and should be insane, as ships shouldn't be spammable.|||ElPolloDiablo
King Taylor's Notes
thought you guys might like to see our King's brainstorm notes.
i took them off his dry-erase board. looks like some of you will get your wish.
don't hesitate to send him an email if you disapprove. -lol
crackedout@gaspowered.com
|||Oh how predictable. xD
So the english traditional fire breathing dragons are good guys, necromancing insects are bad guys and the tree-huggers are question mark?|||actually. fire breathing dragons are predictable if they're good OR bad. if you want dragons to be anything but a cliche, they'll need a huge re-invention.|||I think the question is: How the **** did you get that?
Second question: What about the numbered list?|||I hope either they're all good/bad guys or they completely turn the tables and the necromancers are the good guys with the traditional being neutral or evil.|||Everything should be GREY. No one is "Good" as each side will have their own "justice" and self-conviction that they are right and the enemy is wrong.
playing through tak, it's obvious that taros is the most evil EVIL that ever existed in the game.
Instead, take your magic race and make them the bright, open, and apparently good side, as they use their magic to let skeletons and other animated objects work the fields, build things, and be general slaves. very high standards of living, complex & awe-inspiring cities, etc. until the daemons revolt.
Your "medieval" side would be jealous of this power, and would hence be hostile to anything outside of their realm, becoming something of xenophobic supremacists with a hint of fascism.
While the Zohn-clone is your average disinterested faction, generally keeping to itself and its own ways, but has problems with both sides: medieval is looking for resources/wood/monsters-for-Colosseum, and magic race raid their cemeteries and burial grounds to increase their undead workforce.
See? it's not that difficult. :p|||re1wind|||Lt_hawkeye|||WayMaker|||re1wind|||I think when CT said "good and evil" I think he meant in the context of modern society.
Of course some cult of demon worshipers see themselves as good because of their culture and so forth, but to us they appear as evil.
i took them off his dry-erase board. looks like some of you will get your wish.
don't hesitate to send him an email if you disapprove. -lol
crackedout@gaspowered.com
|||Oh how predictable. xDSo the english traditional fire breathing dragons are good guys, necromancing insects are bad guys and the tree-huggers are question mark?|||actually. fire breathing dragons are predictable if they're good OR bad. if you want dragons to be anything but a cliche, they'll need a huge re-invention.|||I think the question is: How the **** did you get that?
Second question: What about the numbered list?|||I hope either they're all good/bad guys or they completely turn the tables and the necromancers are the good guys with the traditional being neutral or evil.|||Everything should be GREY. No one is "Good" as each side will have their own "justice" and self-conviction that they are right and the enemy is wrong.
playing through tak, it's obvious that taros is the most evil EVIL that ever existed in the game.
Instead, take your magic race and make them the bright, open, and apparently good side, as they use their magic to let skeletons and other animated objects work the fields, build things, and be general slaves. very high standards of living, complex & awe-inspiring cities, etc. until the daemons revolt.
Your "medieval" side would be jealous of this power, and would hence be hostile to anything outside of their realm, becoming something of xenophobic supremacists with a hint of fascism.
While the Zohn-clone is your average disinterested faction, generally keeping to itself and its own ways, but has problems with both sides: medieval is looking for resources/wood/monsters-for-Colosseum, and magic race raid their cemeteries and burial grounds to increase their undead workforce.
See? it's not that difficult. :p|||re1wind|||Lt_hawkeye|||WayMaker|||re1wind|||I think when CT said "good and evil" I think he meant in the context of modern society.
Of course some cult of demon worshipers see themselves as good because of their culture and so forth, but to us they appear as evil.
Suggestions
Id prefer more depth in to the game, not just supreme commander type
unit stomp, but with more sophisticated gameplay, such as more complex economy and advantage of the environment for gorilla warfare, usage of roads... No silly wood cottage houses for just adding population cap, i want this much closer to settlers + Supreme commander, then supreme commander + Total Annihilation: Kingdoms.
1. More depth in "base" construction, such as sustaining population with food. Usage of art, religion or military victories to boost population morale which gives more people eager to join the war and increases productivity, there could be also environmental factors like rain gives better food production, but decreases other fields like wood cutting, there could also be LAW factors like placing new taxes to boost income for critical mobilization for war, but with penalties of course... I could write lot more about the subject but i think i made my point.
2. More complex warfare, instead of just meeting enemies head on with rock, paper, scissors there could be more factors, like direction of incoming enemy, flanking manouver gives more offensive advantage and decreases enemy legions will to fight, also instead of single unit control, armies are divided in to legions / formations, possibly even customize them like adding 2 ranks of pikemen infront of a swordman formation. also somekind of system army supply would be nice, giving weaker opponents a change to fight the enemy armies in Gorilla warfare. Also terrain and weather factors would be nice in fighting...|||Since there really isnt stopping this becoming some sort of magical fantasy game, so why not just add ideas for fun.
"Magic" :
Spiritual powers, since im not really a fan of clicking on special units to cast spells, id prefer more "off map casting" if u will, but with limitations, units such as sorcerers are conduits for players to cast spell nearby area, the casting is limited by the sorcerers capabilities that can be improved by training and research, the more stronger the sorcerers the more power it can deliver through itself, should player cast more then the sorcerer can handle, it can claim its life, but some factions or units might have capabilities to sacrifice themselves to deliver magical devastation.
There could also be mystical relics, such as "bubble stones" which forms a bubble type shield around the castle, to protect from catabults but requires sorcerers to channel more power in to it.
Customizable relics might be nice, players augmenting "rune stones" in to with powerful abilities, but can carry limited amount of power which requires sorcerer channeling/recharging, example. "Pillar of Light", add burst of light ability (blinds nearby enemies), add distance/trigger, add mana storage.
Unit suggestions for castle sieging :
Mountainers : men who lived there lives in the highest peaks of the world and called to war, talented in climing walls without siege machinary.
Raptors : Lizard cavalry capable in leaping over short walls.
Jumpers : the fantasy term for paratroopers who use catapults to jump over walls.
Reapers : Disfigured men who sneak in the night, can also clime over walls without siege weapons, will go berserk when enemies nearby.
Units customization would also be a neat idea, example. recruiting a lizard without or with a certain type of rider. (without rider will go beserk when enemies nearby). Or equip footmen with heavy plates or with lighter equipment if in economic crisis or just want faster soldiers.
Army movement :
armies move faster if using the roads, but will have to move in long columns making them vulnerable, but move slower if going through ruff terrain in large group.
Resting, could also be a vital component in the game, armies with capability to set up camps in the wilderness to rest, same goes for soldiers within the walls, making castle sieging easier, soldiers on the walls will get exhausted in time, if players keep the pressure up nicely without high casualties will open a window of opportunity to crush the weak defenders.
I think this is enough for today, maybe post more later|||JuXi|||God powers, Age of Mythology style, however instead of having a single use god power, you choose gods to worship, and designate worker units to pray to them. This generates faith resource, which allows you to use god powers, upgrade creatures, and build larger temples.|||More ideas :
Naval Warfare :
Basically in every game that has naval warfare has only one goal, sink the other ships, but in ancient times it was more about boarding and ramming the enemy instead of shooting from a distance or point black range with cannons.
This way if opponent has superior firepower on deck, then player may wish to concentrate on more on manpower to board and capture these vessels.
Possibility of having sea creatures or divers to sneak and board enemy vessels.
Air Warfare :
In case of air warfare, id wish weather factors as well, clowdy skies offering stealth from ground units, to give things like zeppelins to change to drop units out of skies, would we extremely handy in castle assaults.
Also things such as thunder storms causes damage and confusion for flying units, possibility even blown in random direction by the winds.
Unit ideas :
Zeppelin : Air balloon capable of transporting troops through the skies and handy dropping units behind enemy lines and walls.
Dragon Riders / Dragons : Dragons arent such powerful creatures as in some games, there more efficient against air units, catabults and towers, but can still strike at ground units grabbing a soldier in to its mouth or grab few soldiers with talons.
Hedgehogs : Rhinos covered in armor and spikes, good at sieging wooden walls/gates, also handy ramming on enemy soldiers.
Jaguar riders : Fast attacking cavalry for gorilla warfare, wount take movement penalties in the woods.
Birds of Prey : flock of trained birds hard to hit, but arent deadly, mostly causes confusion in enemy formations.
Bear cavalry : Very powerful cavalry unit and can sustain lot of punishment, but is very slow.
Flying Manta : Armored from there bellies making them hard to kill from the ground, favored by archers and fire oil using saboteurs.
Flier Beatles : Beatle type cavalry with capability to fly short distances, but slow on the ground.
Woodlers : people living in the woods, who are capable on jumping in the trees, making them move lot faster in the woods.
Giant Octopus : grabs and boards the naval vessel, attacks the men on the deck after all dead crushes the ship.
Other ideas :
If developers are planning to add some level of customization, id recommend giving the option to design the troops both ingame and in menu, such things are always handy, when knowing when your current soldier setups and strategies dont work on your opponents.
Since building the economy might become slow game, which is still nice if option to save the game and continue later (ruling own nation with pause), an other game mode for fast players, would be to divide the world map in to provinces, sort of like company of heroes, but each province has a town and a noble residence which can later on be developed as a stronghold or just defenseless economic town which is protected by its strategic location or armies.
Would also nice to see lot of artistic design in castles, able to make a new looking castle every game, making them look like real fantasy castles. Not just age of empires type wall connecting.|||JuXi|||Get your hands of my game you damn dirty ape|||You very well know i mean Guerrilla warfare, im not english so there is bound to be typos here and there. the term Guerrilla isnt written or sad the same way finnish language so try to understand.
Ebola dont be serius (nice pic btw :) & Obviously the apes are out there to get u!
Feel free to contribute own ideas or add something in mine.|||More ideas
Game world :
Since not everyone is capable of playing with complex economy, there could be much simpler way (game modes for more complex gameplay would be nice thou).
What do kings need? other then armies and castles.
Towns and people of course, since i previously suggested about provinces, that may actually work, world divided in provinces that each has a town, each town has a base of population which acts as a limit for construction and recruitment. MANPOWER! that is what armies and occupations require.
Since every town has own population the orders to build for the province require a noble residence u select and gain control of the province.
What about resource gathering?
Instead of clicking peasants you simply modify the manpower from noble residence, lets say u wish to construct more buildings, then u choose how many people do u wish to go in construction business, this way the economy is automated and resource gathering eliminated.
Resources (manpower) :
Recruitment (manpower to training soldiers).
Construction (manpower to build and maintain/operate buildings).
Religion (manpower to increase research output)
If game supports player casting magic then
Religion & magic (manpower to replenish magical powers)
Science & Alchemy (manpower to increase research output)
To speed up gameplay players can build more farmfield to increase growth rate in towns which mean, more building, more recruitment and speeding up research.
I think that is enough for today...|||Jesus ******* Christ dude.
Sure it's nice you're making up all these ideas, but take into account that the game's been in development for ONE month. I'd think they're barely in design phase at this point, let alone adding all these abstract ideas (most of which are really bad to be honest).
I really doubt there's any point in you wasting your time doing this.
Just stick to small, simple, but thought out ideas for now please.|||what is it with noobs and their erroneous assumption that adding weather adds to strategy?
im so glad most of you dont design games.|||@ Mazrix
Sorry if i throw too much ideas around, i just happens to have lot of time in my hand this week and decided to waste sometime in here, its fun to just throw ideas out of the hat and i know most of them arent any good, specially with unit suggestions, im just giving options and i very well know, most likely none of it gets to game design.
Isnt best thing in life to have fun?
@pkc
Weather is part of strategy, to take in to a account the effects of weather, specially in world war 2 russians took heavy casualties cause they didnt have efficient clothing in winter... Like someone posted "we all know how big of a role it played in the last world war. Mother Nature kicked some serious a s s". What i have even seen in some documentaries, the russians tried to be smart and use advantage of the weather and flank from the frozen ocean, with disastrous results for them, as for Finnish they used skis to travel fast on snow.
You may not believe the fact, but weather is part of warfare, it gives advantages and disadvantages, that a talented strategist can use.
You dont think lucky case of fog in some area where u could hide your troops for a time isnt Strategic move?|||Weather played a part across months. It was supply issues, the ground becoming boggy, gun oil freezing, horses dying, bows and bowstrings becoming soft and unusable, armour rusting, trenchfoot, hypothermia, malaria, dysentry - all have been proven army killers.
All at the grand strategic level, as in theatre wide problems. It would be tough to implement into the usual strategic level or tactical level without it seeming like a gimmick.
If they can do it - I'd say run with it.|||JuXi|||pkc what is wrong with your attitude? I never sad anything about making this game in to world war 2 with weather implements, i just sad an example that weather has effects in REAL war, either good or bad.
Id say u have some major issues in life, no need to stress and attack others in random forums, im not telling what coders should do, im not telling anyone to do anything, im simply using my imagination for throwing options, that others can use to make my bad ideas in to good ones, it necessarily dont have to aim for gaspoweredgames, anyone programmer can use'em.
If you dont like them, then dont, there is no reason for you to start yelling unrelevant stuff. If you dont like the Weather then dont, some hardcore strategy game players, may want more realistic or complex gameplay/strategy.
Since i can see an other RAGE filled message coming at me after this, i have only this to say to you : "Talk to the hand, cause face aint listening!"|||But here's the thing JuXi. GPG is asking us for suggestions. We're not supposed to design the game itself. What you've done is completely design pretty much every part of a complete game.
The game is probably in concept design phase (or whatever you want to call it.) This isn't the time start going crazy about gameplay elements. Yes, of course suggestions are good, but you're over doing it.
This is mainly time for story and setting suggestions, maybe even some suggestions on how factions and units are supposed to work.|||JuXi|||JuXi|||pkc, thats more like it, less aggressive/violent counterpoints, sure occurrence of weather anomalies is slightly lucky, but remember just because someone gets a opportunity doesnt mean u cant counter act them.
quote from Sun Tzu (Chinese military general and strategist who wrote "art of war")
"All warfare is based on deception."
same subject but wikipedia quote :
"He thought that strategy was not planning in the sense of working through an established list, but rather that it requires quick and appropriate responses to changing conditions.
You might as well check it out in wikipedia if u wish :)
As for my suggestions, well i did over do it i suppose, there just suggestions nothing more nothing less. Its like picking up fruits, there is plenty of them, but u cant fit them all in one basket, you may think some of the fruits are bad and dont pick them and some look delicious...
In short nobody has to take any of my suggestions i wrote, if someone wants to take one or two of them go ahead, it doesnt matter, how early the game development is, the suggestions are still sitting there.|||Removing air units.
The great thing about not having air units is that u can completely focus on ground fighting instead of having enemy flying units raiding your colonies like in starcraft (Really annoying to be honest).|||Aaaah, so you're one of those folks who turn air off in SupCom...
Listen up. Simplifying the game =/= better game.
If you get raided by Air, build AA.|||Not really, Supreme commander is abit different, games like warcraft 3 or starcraft are whole different ball game, in supreme commander loosing mining pumps isnt world ending and building AA on it isnt so hard, but in starcraft or wc3 loosing that colony was devastating, since they were expensive HQ structures.
Thats the thing i love about supreme commander is that, even thou u may take a nuke hit or serius beating doesnt make the game over, unlike in starcraft or warcraft.|||And there's the thing.
This game is definitely going to be built on the moho engine and will be at the same scale as SupCom games in context.
I'd think countering air would work the same way too.|||I hope your right, i just would hate to see archer arrows work as homing missiles thou.|||they could have explosives on their arrows and they would work like flaks
unit stomp, but with more sophisticated gameplay, such as more complex economy and advantage of the environment for gorilla warfare, usage of roads... No silly wood cottage houses for just adding population cap, i want this much closer to settlers + Supreme commander, then supreme commander + Total Annihilation: Kingdoms.
1. More depth in "base" construction, such as sustaining population with food. Usage of art, religion or military victories to boost population morale which gives more people eager to join the war and increases productivity, there could be also environmental factors like rain gives better food production, but decreases other fields like wood cutting, there could also be LAW factors like placing new taxes to boost income for critical mobilization for war, but with penalties of course... I could write lot more about the subject but i think i made my point.
2. More complex warfare, instead of just meeting enemies head on with rock, paper, scissors there could be more factors, like direction of incoming enemy, flanking manouver gives more offensive advantage and decreases enemy legions will to fight, also instead of single unit control, armies are divided in to legions / formations, possibly even customize them like adding 2 ranks of pikemen infront of a swordman formation. also somekind of system army supply would be nice, giving weaker opponents a change to fight the enemy armies in Gorilla warfare. Also terrain and weather factors would be nice in fighting...|||Since there really isnt stopping this becoming some sort of magical fantasy game, so why not just add ideas for fun.
"Magic" :
Spiritual powers, since im not really a fan of clicking on special units to cast spells, id prefer more "off map casting" if u will, but with limitations, units such as sorcerers are conduits for players to cast spell nearby area, the casting is limited by the sorcerers capabilities that can be improved by training and research, the more stronger the sorcerers the more power it can deliver through itself, should player cast more then the sorcerer can handle, it can claim its life, but some factions or units might have capabilities to sacrifice themselves to deliver magical devastation.
There could also be mystical relics, such as "bubble stones" which forms a bubble type shield around the castle, to protect from catabults but requires sorcerers to channel more power in to it.
Customizable relics might be nice, players augmenting "rune stones" in to with powerful abilities, but can carry limited amount of power which requires sorcerer channeling/recharging, example. "Pillar of Light", add burst of light ability (blinds nearby enemies), add distance/trigger, add mana storage.
Unit suggestions for castle sieging :
Mountainers : men who lived there lives in the highest peaks of the world and called to war, talented in climing walls without siege machinary.
Raptors : Lizard cavalry capable in leaping over short walls.
Jumpers : the fantasy term for paratroopers who use catapults to jump over walls.
Reapers : Disfigured men who sneak in the night, can also clime over walls without siege weapons, will go berserk when enemies nearby.
Units customization would also be a neat idea, example. recruiting a lizard without or with a certain type of rider. (without rider will go beserk when enemies nearby). Or equip footmen with heavy plates or with lighter equipment if in economic crisis or just want faster soldiers.
Army movement :
armies move faster if using the roads, but will have to move in long columns making them vulnerable, but move slower if going through ruff terrain in large group.
Resting, could also be a vital component in the game, armies with capability to set up camps in the wilderness to rest, same goes for soldiers within the walls, making castle sieging easier, soldiers on the walls will get exhausted in time, if players keep the pressure up nicely without high casualties will open a window of opportunity to crush the weak defenders.
I think this is enough for today, maybe post more later|||JuXi|||God powers, Age of Mythology style, however instead of having a single use god power, you choose gods to worship, and designate worker units to pray to them. This generates faith resource, which allows you to use god powers, upgrade creatures, and build larger temples.|||More ideas :
Naval Warfare :
Basically in every game that has naval warfare has only one goal, sink the other ships, but in ancient times it was more about boarding and ramming the enemy instead of shooting from a distance or point black range with cannons.
This way if opponent has superior firepower on deck, then player may wish to concentrate on more on manpower to board and capture these vessels.
Possibility of having sea creatures or divers to sneak and board enemy vessels.
Air Warfare :
In case of air warfare, id wish weather factors as well, clowdy skies offering stealth from ground units, to give things like zeppelins to change to drop units out of skies, would we extremely handy in castle assaults.
Also things such as thunder storms causes damage and confusion for flying units, possibility even blown in random direction by the winds.
Unit ideas :
Zeppelin : Air balloon capable of transporting troops through the skies and handy dropping units behind enemy lines and walls.
Dragon Riders / Dragons : Dragons arent such powerful creatures as in some games, there more efficient against air units, catabults and towers, but can still strike at ground units grabbing a soldier in to its mouth or grab few soldiers with talons.
Hedgehogs : Rhinos covered in armor and spikes, good at sieging wooden walls/gates, also handy ramming on enemy soldiers.
Jaguar riders : Fast attacking cavalry for gorilla warfare, wount take movement penalties in the woods.
Birds of Prey : flock of trained birds hard to hit, but arent deadly, mostly causes confusion in enemy formations.
Bear cavalry : Very powerful cavalry unit and can sustain lot of punishment, but is very slow.
Flying Manta : Armored from there bellies making them hard to kill from the ground, favored by archers and fire oil using saboteurs.
Flier Beatles : Beatle type cavalry with capability to fly short distances, but slow on the ground.
Woodlers : people living in the woods, who are capable on jumping in the trees, making them move lot faster in the woods.
Giant Octopus : grabs and boards the naval vessel, attacks the men on the deck after all dead crushes the ship.
Other ideas :
If developers are planning to add some level of customization, id recommend giving the option to design the troops both ingame and in menu, such things are always handy, when knowing when your current soldier setups and strategies dont work on your opponents.
Since building the economy might become slow game, which is still nice if option to save the game and continue later (ruling own nation with pause), an other game mode for fast players, would be to divide the world map in to provinces, sort of like company of heroes, but each province has a town and a noble residence which can later on be developed as a stronghold or just defenseless economic town which is protected by its strategic location or armies.
Would also nice to see lot of artistic design in castles, able to make a new looking castle every game, making them look like real fantasy castles. Not just age of empires type wall connecting.|||JuXi|||Get your hands of my game you damn dirty ape|||You very well know i mean Guerrilla warfare, im not english so there is bound to be typos here and there. the term Guerrilla isnt written or sad the same way finnish language so try to understand.
Ebola dont be serius (nice pic btw :) & Obviously the apes are out there to get u!
Feel free to contribute own ideas or add something in mine.|||More ideas
Game world :
Since not everyone is capable of playing with complex economy, there could be much simpler way (game modes for more complex gameplay would be nice thou).
What do kings need? other then armies and castles.
Towns and people of course, since i previously suggested about provinces, that may actually work, world divided in provinces that each has a town, each town has a base of population which acts as a limit for construction and recruitment. MANPOWER! that is what armies and occupations require.
Since every town has own population the orders to build for the province require a noble residence u select and gain control of the province.
What about resource gathering?
Instead of clicking peasants you simply modify the manpower from noble residence, lets say u wish to construct more buildings, then u choose how many people do u wish to go in construction business, this way the economy is automated and resource gathering eliminated.
Resources (manpower) :
Recruitment (manpower to training soldiers).
Construction (manpower to build and maintain/operate buildings).
Religion (manpower to increase research output)
If game supports player casting magic then
Religion & magic (manpower to replenish magical powers)
Science & Alchemy (manpower to increase research output)
To speed up gameplay players can build more farmfield to increase growth rate in towns which mean, more building, more recruitment and speeding up research.
I think that is enough for today...|||Jesus ******* Christ dude.
Sure it's nice you're making up all these ideas, but take into account that the game's been in development for ONE month. I'd think they're barely in design phase at this point, let alone adding all these abstract ideas (most of which are really bad to be honest).
I really doubt there's any point in you wasting your time doing this.
Just stick to small, simple, but thought out ideas for now please.|||what is it with noobs and their erroneous assumption that adding weather adds to strategy?
im so glad most of you dont design games.|||@ Mazrix
Sorry if i throw too much ideas around, i just happens to have lot of time in my hand this week and decided to waste sometime in here, its fun to just throw ideas out of the hat and i know most of them arent any good, specially with unit suggestions, im just giving options and i very well know, most likely none of it gets to game design.
Isnt best thing in life to have fun?
@pkc
Weather is part of strategy, to take in to a account the effects of weather, specially in world war 2 russians took heavy casualties cause they didnt have efficient clothing in winter... Like someone posted "we all know how big of a role it played in the last world war. Mother Nature kicked some serious a s s". What i have even seen in some documentaries, the russians tried to be smart and use advantage of the weather and flank from the frozen ocean, with disastrous results for them, as for Finnish they used skis to travel fast on snow.
You may not believe the fact, but weather is part of warfare, it gives advantages and disadvantages, that a talented strategist can use.
You dont think lucky case of fog in some area where u could hide your troops for a time isnt Strategic move?|||Weather played a part across months. It was supply issues, the ground becoming boggy, gun oil freezing, horses dying, bows and bowstrings becoming soft and unusable, armour rusting, trenchfoot, hypothermia, malaria, dysentry - all have been proven army killers.
All at the grand strategic level, as in theatre wide problems. It would be tough to implement into the usual strategic level or tactical level without it seeming like a gimmick.
If they can do it - I'd say run with it.|||JuXi|||pkc what is wrong with your attitude? I never sad anything about making this game in to world war 2 with weather implements, i just sad an example that weather has effects in REAL war, either good or bad.
Id say u have some major issues in life, no need to stress and attack others in random forums, im not telling what coders should do, im not telling anyone to do anything, im simply using my imagination for throwing options, that others can use to make my bad ideas in to good ones, it necessarily dont have to aim for gaspoweredgames, anyone programmer can use'em.
If you dont like them, then dont, there is no reason for you to start yelling unrelevant stuff. If you dont like the Weather then dont, some hardcore strategy game players, may want more realistic or complex gameplay/strategy.
Since i can see an other RAGE filled message coming at me after this, i have only this to say to you : "Talk to the hand, cause face aint listening!"|||But here's the thing JuXi. GPG is asking us for suggestions. We're not supposed to design the game itself. What you've done is completely design pretty much every part of a complete game.
The game is probably in concept design phase (or whatever you want to call it.) This isn't the time start going crazy about gameplay elements. Yes, of course suggestions are good, but you're over doing it.
This is mainly time for story and setting suggestions, maybe even some suggestions on how factions and units are supposed to work.|||JuXi|||JuXi|||pkc, thats more like it, less aggressive/violent counterpoints, sure occurrence of weather anomalies is slightly lucky, but remember just because someone gets a opportunity doesnt mean u cant counter act them.
quote from Sun Tzu (Chinese military general and strategist who wrote "art of war")
"All warfare is based on deception."
same subject but wikipedia quote :
"He thought that strategy was not planning in the sense of working through an established list, but rather that it requires quick and appropriate responses to changing conditions.
You might as well check it out in wikipedia if u wish :)
As for my suggestions, well i did over do it i suppose, there just suggestions nothing more nothing less. Its like picking up fruits, there is plenty of them, but u cant fit them all in one basket, you may think some of the fruits are bad and dont pick them and some look delicious...
In short nobody has to take any of my suggestions i wrote, if someone wants to take one or two of them go ahead, it doesnt matter, how early the game development is, the suggestions are still sitting there.|||Removing air units.
The great thing about not having air units is that u can completely focus on ground fighting instead of having enemy flying units raiding your colonies like in starcraft (Really annoying to be honest).|||Aaaah, so you're one of those folks who turn air off in SupCom...
Listen up. Simplifying the game =/= better game.
If you get raided by Air, build AA.|||Not really, Supreme commander is abit different, games like warcraft 3 or starcraft are whole different ball game, in supreme commander loosing mining pumps isnt world ending and building AA on it isnt so hard, but in starcraft or wc3 loosing that colony was devastating, since they were expensive HQ structures.
Thats the thing i love about supreme commander is that, even thou u may take a nuke hit or serius beating doesnt make the game over, unlike in starcraft or warcraft.|||And there's the thing.
This game is definitely going to be built on the moho engine and will be at the same scale as SupCom games in context.
I'd think countering air would work the same way too.|||I hope your right, i just would hate to see archer arrows work as homing missiles thou.|||they could have explosives on their arrows and they would work like flaks
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)