Wavinator

Excellent Post I''ve been trying to tell people this for ages. In any military, what they strive for is reliability, maintainability, durability. All of this eases the logisitcs of commanders. The prime example of this is that I''ve never understood the Battletech universe.

Here you have 30'' tall vehicles striding around a battlefield. First of all, that''s insane as it is. No military engineer would ever do this for a variety of factors. The whole point of making modern tanks so flat now is the ability to go Hull Down. Why expose yourself for miles on the battlefield? Secondly, not only are there mechs, but a gazillion versions of them. Look at military tank units today. Generally speaking, there are one or tw MBT''s, one or two IFV''s, and one or two AFV''s. Again, just having one type of tank greatly reduces the number of parts you need to order, and it also reduces the variety of skilled maintenance personnel that you need.

Some people will think that having just a few types of variety of units would make for boring play. I think however that people have become somewhat spoiled. Look at chess or checkers. The fun is in the skill....not the individual piece''s abilities.

From my discussions on badkarma.net''s forums, I also see that some people feel that once you have an intersteller Navy, ground forces will become obsolete. People have been saying ground forces are obsolete since the airplane was invented. The simple matter is, ground troops will always be needed to take control of a territory. Afterall, what if it''s a Civil War? Would a coountry bombard it''s own city''s from orbit?

So I agree with you wholeheartedly, I think many sci-fi designers don''t really think through many of the concepts. For Gimp''s suggestions, I think that if we had the technology for anti-gravity, we''d have evolved beyond tank-style warfare. However, it''s a common theme,and it is a neat idea so I can see why he would want them. Ditto with the concepts of giant mecha, armored battlesuits, and some other typical conventions of sci-fi warfare.

I guess I''m just a stickler for a more realistic setting. And unfortunately, from gauging on this forum what other people like, I think I''m in the minority.

Kylotan

I agree with you here too. I think that going overboard on unit types can actually distract from gameplay. Not only is it unrealistic from a logistics viewpoint, but is it necessary from a practical point of view or even from a "fun to play" point of view? As you said, Chess only has 6 pieces, but it''s the synergy of the pieces acting in concert that really make for gameplay.

And this brings to mind something else in terms of play balancing. This is something that has really bugged me in the wargame/miniatures scene for a long time. The concept of points armies or point values for units. When you really think about it, such a notion is VERY subjective and VERY abstract. As I mentioned in chess, it''s the synergy of the units that determines the effectiveness, not the innate abilities of the unit itself that determines it''s "point cost", "power level", etc etc.

The holistic efforts of your "army" can''t simply be determined by adding up the totals of your units. I.E, 2+2 doesn''t necessarily equal 4. Imagine for a second if you assigned "point values" to each piece in Chess. Arbitrarily, let''s give a Queen=20, a Pawn=2, a Rook=15, a Bishop=12, a Knight=9, and King=4 (for a total of 112points). As many games would have it, I could decide to pit a force of 2 queens, 2 Rooks, 2 Knights and 4 bishops (total of 112pts). But would you really be as effective? Maybe, maybe not. Or more extreme example would be 5 queens and a bishop (112 points) vs a "standard" setup.

So being able to balance units through point values is very arbitrary and somewhat fruitless. Personally, I think the best way to approach this is to have standardized "armies" rather than the create-your-own-army approach. Again, people may think this takes away from the flexibility and fun, but you can link pre-set unit organizations together to form "combined arms units". The difference is that, for example, a tank platoon is made up of 4 M1 Abrahms Tanks. I can''t make my own version of a platoon that''s two M2 bradley''s and 3 M1 Abrahms.

Looks like I missed the last few posts...

Thanks guys for the idea''s. The game will be based around the hovertank, ala Battlezone, however, I''d love to add a good dose of realism to it.

As much as some people wouldn''t like the design( Kylotan) the design currently is to allow the user a certian amount of flexibility in configuring their unit. I was going to have a few base ''frames'' that could be built apon, that exibit various characteristics. From there the user can mount various weapon pods, much in the way an f-16 and have added fuel tanks , missiles, etc, etc.

Something I also wanted to capture that I havent often seen was the ability for the player to go to the metal as far a in game reconfiguration goes. What I''m trying to capture there is a sort of Star Trek feeling for a flexibly designed machine. (e.g. the player could re-route weapons energy through to sheilds for a bit of a sheild boost when maybe trying to run a blockade.

The variance in weapon loads and frames is basically there to be customised by players for their intended style of play. The goal is to have no particular weapons combo being better than any other.

One storyline problem I do have however is the airforce. I can''t explain why there is no airforce in the game.

(On the topic of battletech and point I once entered a points for army contest with some friends, based on tonnage of millitary hardware. I chose ~50 5 ton VTOL''s, the game was heavily unbalance so I can see the kind of ...hacks... you can use on gameplay.)

Another problem I have is in the concept of respawn or lives. I havent decided on weather a CS style death and your out (for realism) or TFC respawn style play would be mroe fun. Currently I lean more towards the CS style as people will value their lives more and more interesting gameplay would result. OTOH, defensive\offensive players work together better in respawn games.



Chris Brodie
http:\\fourth.flipcode.com

quote:
One storyline problem I do have however is the airforce. I can't explain why there is no airforce in the game.

Maybe the upper atmosphere planet is wracked by magnetic storms that would be very dangerous to fly in - perhaps it is also the planets strong magnetic field that allows these hovertanks to be so efficient....

PS.

Wav /Dauntless/Kylotan - I completely agree with you guys, I have often thought about this sort of stuff. While I dont mind unrealistic settings, I would prefer something where the author actually considered the consequences and merits of different technologies. As for infantry, I consider them to be the most important part of any military force. You can blow lots of shit up with tanks, airplanes, orbital gun platforms etc. but thats about all they do. What infantry lack in the ability to blow shit up they make up for in their flexibility. As weapons get smaller and deadlier, what is the point in a tank if a foot soldier can carry a weapon so powerful that they can destroy a tank in one hit? If anything, as technology advances, mobile armour and heavy artillery become obsolete, and infantry become more powerful.


Edited by - Sandman on July 6, 2001 1:28:36 PM

Sandman

I think it was Frederick the Great that said, "Artillery is the King of the battlefield, but infantry is the Queen" (in reference to chess pieces...not true royalty). In other words, Frederick felt that infantry was the most important asset in a commander''s arsenal (although there is a funny tale of Frederick thinking he had lost a battle because his cavalry had been routed and he was actually gathering his staff in prepartion to withdraw....while his Guard line infantry had actually taken the center of the field and won the battle).

Infantry is a very neglected force in most sci-fi game worlds. It may not be as cool or glamourous as tanks, artillery, VTOL, or aircraft, it is the most important. I think the most crucial thing that needs to be asked in a sci-fi setting is....who has Naval superiority?

If a side doesn''t have Naval superiority, it will have to fight a guerrila style warfare. Unless there was a way to hide an army''s position from a warship''s surveillance systems (incredibly unlikely), that warship will be able to blast them into smithereens. That assumes of course total Naval superiority. If it''s contested, then major battles can ensue.

This is how I think major conventional battles will be fought. The invading force will have to be rapid strike affairs against a target that the opposite force doesn''t want blown up (for example, a city or some sort of refinery). Planetside insertion must be absolutely as fast as possible to limit the chance of the defending planet''s fleet to counterattack while landing troops. Once units are engaged with the opposing force, Naval bombardment is pretty much not an option anymore unless it''s deadly precise (for fear of friendly fire).

I think once you really start extrapolating certain technologies, how war will be waged really falls into place. I think the reason that games tend to not model it is because....well, for lack of a better word....it''s just not as "cool".

I think that one of the reasons that infantry are not so useful in RTS games is that these games generally revolve around 'blowing shit up'. In terms of raw 'blowing shit up' ability, infantry is pretty weak compared to your tanks, artillery, stealth bombers etc. so they are seldom used.

In reality, you dont always want to blow shit up. Sometimes it might be better to capture that oil refinery than to blow it up. Sometimes, the collateral damage & civilian casualties caused by shelling and bombing might be far too high (for example, fighting in a city) for these tactics to be acceptable. Hence the value of infantry. And take a look at veitnam - all the US of A's military technology, fighter planes, tanks, warships, etc. were pretty much useless - the war was fought by infantry.

Edited by - Sandman on July 9, 2001 5:46:07 AM