Dont get me wrong, im all for planned cities/bases, i just dunno how it would work in a rts where the only real goal is to destroy the enemy as quickly as possible.
Though, in SupCom/FA you kinda had to build nice bases, to take advantage of adjecency bonuses! Though that kinda made all bases the same.
Black and White 2 had it good, really had to plan cities in that and they actually looked cool once you got alot of building up.
In a game like SupCom1/2 (and presumably KnC will have alot of the same mechanics as SupCom1/2) i just odnt see how it will work, short of bringing back adjecency bonuses!|||Adjacency bonuses are a great way to promote it. I think they should be much stronger than in SupCom. Some builidings could also be required to be placed next to other buildings.|||I partially agree with Wobbles. If the game is meant to be geared around simple/smooth/quick battles and combat, then they probably don't want to distract/confuse the player with too much city building gameplay..
However, they can still try to use good art design and some other basic gameplay mechanics to promote a more 'city-like' feel to the base building..
AngryZealot|||^ Excellent post.|||The lack of adjacency really turned my supcom2 bases into random chaotic mess. No matter how much i try. In supcom1/FA, though, adjacency was a very important carrot to emphasise small, compact, and efficient bases.
Similarly, having played a bit of aoe2, organizing my base just...is a case of selecting the nearest worker and putting him to work.
Quote:|||That was the main problem with adjacency, that there was only really one way to best build your base. Also, it made the game be all about base-building and eco-micro (remember the mandatory mass storage square at T2?).
Also, since KnC seems to go with a medieval theme, do remember that medieval towns and cities knew nothing of city planning. They grew whatever their inhabitants felt like building new buildings. So an assortment of randomly-placed buildings is actually not that far from reality, concerning medieval cities. Don't have them in a grid or any orderly fashion. That stuff only came around in the 19th century.|||they actually knew a decent amount about city planning. at least for efficiency they did. now when it came to planning based on public health...|||X-Cubed|||re1wind|||What penguin says has a lot of truth to it, as every person has their own way of using adjacency without having access to t3 structures and limitless resources.
I gladly wave goodbye to mexes requiring mass storage at a certain point in the game, as that was stupid micro, but having factories, shields, and artillery use less energy due to adjacency was useful complexity.|||i agree with wobbles on the point of depending on what gpg is aiming for but still some measure of organization would be great because supcom 2 really has boring bases which got more and more chaotic the more u had to rebuild|||Actually I'm really hoping the base/resource model works a lot like Age of Empires or Majesty. Those are games that really put a great emphisis on creating a village/kingdom, and having it actually feel like a kingdom/village.
I'm hoping they won't basically copy+paste supreme commander's base building system. I mean it's functional in a basic RTS sense, but it doesn't really fit the whole "this is my kingdom" design and it is very impersonal.
I'd love there to be stuff like farmers, mines, houses, etc... maybe not stuff that you physically have to build, but stuff that actually develops as your kingdom does. Because to me having "resource building here, barracks here, castle here, research hut here, etc" doesn't really fit the theme of kingdom at all. All tells me is "Oh, look at this totally random building layout, I must be playing Supreme Commander".
At the same time I don't want to have to babysit my economy or constantly have to build resource units in X configuration as soon as possible in order to have a chance late game. That's what SupCom1 was like with mass converters, and it kind of sucked.|||There are too different games being discussed here. Favored by 2 different player types. 1 game is a tightly balanced fast paced competitive RTS. The other is a castle building sim.
I'm all for a castle building sim, I loved stronghold, I constaly have to remind my self not to buy stronghold 2 even though I know it is terrible. I am hopeing K&C is a fast paced RTS, (though I will be thrilled to death with a castle building sim.) The one thing it should not be is both, I don't want to worry about needing my Stables 2 pixels closer to the manure pit so I can get 3% cheeper light cav. I want to build the stables where ever and and build some horse dudes and go harass the peasents.
That said if the the castles are real castels space will be very limited. Stone walls are very expencive, Only so much will fit inside them.
No adjency bounis but castles you can build inside of will allow both types of play I think.|||Headless|||exactly why you should make it automated.|||Dodanodo|||not exactly, more like rise of legends where you would manually expand your castle. in this game it would be automated. over time, wether through upgrades or increasing armies, houses and such would automaticly 'grow' around your castle to make it look more like a castle.
No comments:
Post a Comment