The Mad Carrot
Created 18 years ago2005-11-22 18:45:46 UTC by
The Mad Carrot
Schedule_t *psched;switch( Type )
{
case SCHED_ARM_WEAPON:
if ( m_hEnemy != NULL )
{
// face enemy, then draw.
return slBarneyEnemyDraw;
}
Original post by SandmanI believe base-building doesn't reflect nowadays fast wars, where army's don't have time to construct whole facilities in order to fight, or where only small combat groups are sent into a hot zone, having to establish a base of operation before any other troops can come in.
Why do you want an RTS without base-building? Is it because you're trying to be different, or do you have a concrete vision for gameplay which does not include base building? Or is base-building simply an aspect of gameplay that you think could be done without?
Most decent players don't build a base because they like to feel safe; they do it because it determines how your economy develops, and thus the number and type of units you can bring into the game, which has a profound effect on what you can do. In fact, the majority of the 'strategy' comes from developing your economy in this manner; if you remove it you will need to pick up the slack elsewhere.I'm planning on letting the player choose his units and tweak their equipment before a mission starts, but then there's indeed the problem that a player can't react to the enemy units if he chose the wrong units (say, no anti-tank units is a pain while fighting against a tank squadron).
If we're talking about turtling though, you're right; that's nearly always a 'safety' thing. You have a large map, limited mobile units and a limited ability to control all your men. Lots of large, static, powerful, and tough objects like turrets are a very tempting way of 'protecting' a chunk of the map without having to expend much attention on it. However, few RTS games are really designed with turtling in mind, and it is very rarely a worthwhile tactic - it's expensive, slow, and inflexible. Turtles and turret farmers tend to lose badly to more aggressive players.I'm talking about the turtling indeed. I've learnt to play aggressive if I want to win, but naturally I like to play it safe. I like to build and design, too, so I got easily distracted by it. I guess it depends on the type of player but I'll assume I should strongly take aggressivenes into account when designing my game. In reality it's an important factor as well.
I'm not sure if this achieves what you want; it seems to me that you lose all of the strategic options that come with the economy development side of base building, but retain the (generally undesirable) ability of players to turtle up.Think of strongpoints here more as machinegun nests and other soft buildings like tents. I want to limit these, if not exclude, from offensive missions but for defensive missions, I think they can provide interesting options. My game idea emphasizes on cover for infantery (not getting hit is more important than the armor a unit has) so it's not like these strongpoints would be 'building' with a life-bar of their own so to say, but quickly built, protected area's for your units. So no automated turrets or defensive structures, but digging in troops.
Personally, I think if a non-base-building game is to work you need to make the most out of the terrain. Perhaps you can build certain defensive structures, but are limited in what you can build and where. You can't quickly build a dugout in the middle of a rocky plain because the ground is too hard. You can't build it in soft sand either, because it fills in faster than you can dig it. You can use sandbags anywhere, but sandbags are heavy so you're limited to using them in places near roads where your supply trucks can bring them. Otherwise, you have to use the features on the terrain. If you want a bunker, you'll have to locate one on the map and capture it.Definitely. I want to use the terrain as more than just offering different routes and area's. Cover is important for units (they get easily killed once hit, cover and visibility makes them harder to hit) as well as visibility, so I want to include these things a lot into the maps. An open field could be turned into a killing zone with well-placed machinegun nests and mines, while these would be much less effective in a dense forest, for example.
Post whatever is stored in your clipboard on this particular moment.It's written in french you won't understand
Get mapping then... stupid threads always existed but with the lack of mapping going on these daysI would announce the final release of my CS 1.6 map project (the one I am working on for six monthes ago now), but nobody care here : you all look like to be anti-CS fake intellectuals proudLYnaZicrappythreadsL0vers ##### frenchgovernmentshouldsendarmyagainst rioters blabla
...
