quote: However, I still prefer the penetration vs. damage class thing. AS an example, if you can''t beat the armor rating of the defending unit...you do no (or extremely little)damage....period. That''s why certain units are rightfully feared, you simply can''t take them out without the right kinds of weapons. Infantry should not be able to take out a tank unless they have some form of AT weapon, otherwise they''re up the creek without a paddle.
I didnt get into details on how the damage would be calculated, but I was definitely thinking somewhere along those lines. You can throw anti-personnel grenades at a heavy tank all day, you won''t even scratch it. Conversely, a hit from a rail gun will easily penetrate the armour but the damage will be very localized - unless you hit a vital spot it wont do very much. It may take several hits from a railgun before a tank even takes normal damage... Most anti tank weapons would need to be high penetration and high damage, but there is nothing to stop an expert sniper with a railgun taking your tank down in one... As for infantry not being able to take out tanks, I want to be careful about going down that route.... My logic is that while standard infantry weapons would be ineffective against an armoured tank, if they can get up close to it they can plant explosives, cut wires, throw grenades down the hatch etc.... infantry will nearly always beat the tank at close quarters.
quote: Another thing I think would be neat to add: Suppose a unit is heavily damaged, but manages to make it back for repairs. Why not work in the possibility of repairman error? Suppose it''s just a quick fix, and once it makes it back into the fray, a light hit cripples it?
Not sure about that... I think that might undermine the value of preserving units - if repaired units are less reliable than brand spanking new ones, the player will be less inclined to let his damaged units retreat, in favour of letting them do as much damage as possible before they gp critical. I think repairs made back at the base would always be successful. On the other hand, what about repairs made on the field? Damaged units could be ordered to self repair (tank crews would have some engineering units, infantry would have some first aid training etc. The unit would still be penalised, but at least it would be vaguely functional...
quote: But, when you get down to it, that''s ALOT of data tracking. And I''m not even getting into the actual damage modeling if a hit does breach the armor and damage the unit. I think that for a turn-based game, it could handle this attention to detail, but I don''t know if it will work for an RTS. The trouble with RTS''s is that....they are just too fast. I don''t think the player truly has the time (as he would in the real world) to react to certain events and make informed choices. While some would say this is realistic, RTS are simply too fast for my taste. With the amount of micro-management necessary, if you added this level of detail, it will simply get lost along the way.
I dont think tracking the data should be a problem, but the pace + micromanagement is definitely one of the things that concerns me. (in all RTS''s) In fact, it is almost worth a separate thread...
You misunderstood my post =). I am saying that, keep Hit Points as an internal value (the player doesnt know it exists), but let the atual unit see it. I mean, if you get shot in the gut, you know you are probably going to die. Same thing. The unit knows "I have x hitpoints left. I have been taking y damage every second. Time to run like a baby", and he runs. The player never sees this. It is all taken care of within the unit. You see? We remove it from the player''s view, but keep it around to speed up AI calculations. Example.
Infantry Man A just got his leg blown off by Tank B. If A had 10 HP to start with, he now has 1, from factors such as weaponry, mobility, etcetera. A knows that he is probably dead. If A has good morale to begin with, he pulls out an AT grenade, pulls the pin, and chucks it at the tank. Otherwise, he screams. The tank sees the grenade, but, ut oh, its too late. It takes normal damage, but its been beaten up pretty badly, so, say the tank started with 100 HP, but now it has 20. It should probably retreat.
The idea could be extended even more, by using the internal HP value to actually measure the base chance of a critical Hit, using the formula
So, from the above example, the infantry guy would have a 90% chance of a critical hit, while the tank has 80%. This base would then be modified by the type of weapon the attacker is using (Super Tank A will always destroy Tank B if Tank B has been hit, etcetera).
And, again, the player never sees the magic HP value =).
This is an interesting system, but I think for it to be effective you must absolutely always stick to armour and projectile types. I mean the now famed, almost dead infantry with a rifle is NEVER going to kill a tank with several inches of armour by shooting it. Enless of course the tank has physical holes in it, but then, the tank shouldn''t just blow up or something like that. It would be more likely that the infantry guy''s bullet would bounce off the tank and kill his friend. If the infantry is allowed to through grenades in the hatch (don''t they lock them anyway?) then you should allow the tanks to gain speed to avoid the infantry trying to climb on them.
You need to make rules and stick to them 100%. 50 infantry shouldn''t be able to kill a tank by shooting at it waiting for a critical hit.
On another note, I think each unit should have some special abilities (like throwing grenades down a tank''s hatch.) I mean every single unit having unique abilities. Not simply different damage types, but things like projectile from tank C has a chance of not going off when it hits a target with D type armor (a rather commonly used armour or something.) This way the units and their counters (multiple) are unique and useful. Of course you might have to spend forever balancing things...
about the micromanagement thing. if controlling small squads requires such a level of control, why not make the option for multi-controlled teams, like they have in starcraft or age of empires. that way you can assign your offense, defense, and resource gathering to a particular team member, and they can specialize their micro-management from there. just a thought.
