Posted: Fri Nov 28, 2008 5:25 pm Post subject:
Direct Fire vs. Indirect Fire
Subject description: A debate on gameplay, coolness factor, and what it means for artillery types
Here's a question for all of you in the field of modding and game design in general.
If you were to make a rocket artillery such as the BM-21 of old, how would you approach it's attack?
Would it scatter its shots in an area around the target? Or be relatively precise?
Which form would be cooler?
Which form plays better?
Which form has more realism factor?
Answer this as if you were designing the unit. QUICK_EDIT
I know this situation well, the Soviet MV artillery is a katyusha.
Realism is a scatter shot arcing=true non-homing projectile with a flakscatter.
However for gameplay this doesn't work too well. It looks good as it blankets the circle in flame but when infantry emerge unscathed you know it's crap... _________________ Yes, work on MV continues. It is not forgotten. QUICK_EDIT
For what game?
In C&C3 I'd be inclined to make it be quite accurate but not with tracking rockets (ie it's going to miss moving targets generally) and have a unit ability so it can fire an area-effect barrage.
In RA2 I'd give it an inaccurate weapon for firing on units but an accurate one for firing on structures. _________________ QUICK_EDIT
Artillery should never be able to hit moving targets. Artillery should never be in a position when they can hinder the movement of an advancing army, rather they should rain down upon stationary armies and buildings. When the projectiles spread, it causes more area of damage, is more realistic, and is more satisfying.
Take the artillery of red alert 3, the v4, the athena, and the waveforce. The only respectable one is the v4. The other two are major annoyances; both hit moving targets, are extemely accurate, and excelent at prevent an oncoming army from appoaching. They are turtle's weapons, an artillery should be the turtleshell breaker. _________________ Please, read the signature rules of the forum. QUICK_EDIT
Amen, I really have got to get round to putting mobilefire=no in the howitzer... _________________ Yes, work on MV continues. It is not forgotten. QUICK_EDIT
Take the artillery of red alert 3, the v4, the athena, and the waveforce. The only respectable one is the v4. The other two are major annoyances; both hit moving targets, are extemely accurate, and excelent at prevent an oncoming army from appoaching. They are turtle's weapons, an artillery should be the turtleshell breaker.
If you would pay attention to the units, you would see that the V4 got a rocket, and the Athena Cannon and Waveforce uses laser weapons. Laser weapons are extremly accurate, and missiles are not. Think before you post. QUICK_EDIT
Think before you criticise gameplay balance foolishness in favour of unit design. How hard would it have been to have put some lag on the athena cannon's beam, or slowed the turret rotation and added a fire delay to the wave-force???
Think before you post.
And this is about artillery not RA3 _________________ Yes, work on MV continues. It is not forgotten. QUICK_EDIT
How hard would it have been to have put some lag on the athena cannon's beam, or slowed the turret rotation and added a fire delay to the wave-force???
RA3 Is a "All Shoots Hit" Game, and the Waveforce already have a long recharge time...
Lt Albrecht wrote:
And this is about artillery not RA3
Read DaFools post
Lt Albrecht wrote:
Think before you post
I did, and that was the only way to explain to DaFool
And i agree with DaFool, artillery shouldn´t be able to hit moving targets, unless its some sort of energy weapon... QUICK_EDIT
It is retarded, end of story. Any excuse could be made to hamper their ability to hit moving targets. were there? no. Therefore we can surmise RA3's devs didn't grasp one of the fundamentals of post-mechanisation warfare. Artillery can't hit moving targets! Therefore wave-force artilleries and athena cannons can be defined as "retarded" as they are not up to date and are "late" in the realisation.
Retarded actually means slowed down _________________ Yes, work on MV continues. It is not forgotten. QUICK_EDIT
another topic that goes offtopic and ra3 bashing begins...
Ontopic: i would make it inaccurate when firing on units and accurate when firing on buildings. like Daz said _________________
Retired YR Player
Steam Account : MAS93
Xfire: msbiohazard QUICK_EDIT
Joined: 22 Dec 2004 Location: Tiberium Research Center N27
Posted: Fri Nov 28, 2008 7:47 pm Post subject:
There is huge differences between te artillery types. BM-type artillery is used to destroy enemy infantry and support forces. The normal artillery is used for destruction of fortification and armored forces. _________________ DUNK! QUICK_EDIT
not really, BM21s supply a higher volume of fire, thy are used in the same way (mask attacks by shelling positions, prevent movement of enemy reserves, harass enemy attacks and bust strongpoints). _________________ Yes, work on MV continues. It is not forgotten. QUICK_EDIT
it doesn't matter if they have a laser or not, it's the gameplay that matters. Artillery is a specific nieche in a game. They should fit into that role and not go beyond it, lest you get unsatisfying gameplay. _________________ Please, read the signature rules of the forum. QUICK_EDIT
And now I hear this it is one more factor against giving money to EA for it and one more factor for lawbreaking if I do get it.
And Artillery is a niche position, most mods have an "artillery", a long ranged weapon with large effect and a lag time between target selection and impact. _________________ Yes, work on MV continues. It is not forgotten. QUICK_EDIT
What better way to stop an advancing army than by literally hundreds of high explosive rockets raining down from the sky?
At least in the realism sense. I mean, it worked to a degree in the Second World War (Soviet front).
I've tried both forms for the weapon, and I am beginning to side with some of ya guys who say Inaccurate weapon.
The scatter effect is just fairly cool and realistic. Especially since the rockets deal splash damage and lots of em are shot. (Burst=8 in this case)
By the way, my focus is on RA2/YR. Unless somewhere along the line it dawns on me in code terms how to make my own engine or I find RA3 a superior mod platform. Depends really. QUICK_EDIT
I had mine scatter 15 in a 2 cell spread area, I migh need to tone it down and fiddle around with it's stats etc. I'll mess around with it and get back to ya on it. _________________ Yes, work on MV continues. It is not forgotten. QUICK_EDIT
not only think about when you use it, but also think about when it is being used against you. You want it to be able to be defeated, and being able to defeat it in multiple ways. There's nothing worse then sending in your huge armies and watching them get decimated.
In terms of realism, heavy artillery is the ultimate weapon in terms of damage, however, unline in cnc, you don't always know where the enemy is, and he can be hiding in a ditch w/e. In real life you have a vague idea where he is, so you fire in that general direction. You're not going to be hitting individual conscripts from halfway across the map. _________________ Please, read the signature rules of the forum. QUICK_EDIT
Yeah, But in C&C ranges are scaled by about 5 times down, and damage is scaled accordingly, IRL a V3 style rocket could hit scotland from norway. And anyways, it is the modder's job to balance the units and a weapon like superheavy artillery will be penalised by cost, vulnerability and ROF. _________________ Yes, work on MV continues. It is not forgotten. QUICK_EDIT
I'd vote for an slow, high cellspread artillery weapon. It should shoot up like the tiberian sun artillery, but not be so accurate against moving targets.
It would do better against still targets as it would hit right on, causes major damage (kill the turtlers!)
It would be less effective on moving targets, but still damage them some (hence the high cellspread). The slower the target, the higher the damage, but even the slowest vehicle still doesn't get direct hit, just a close one (maybe half damage).
Artillery should have an INCREDIBLY low chance of hitting something small and immobile (like 15%), no possibility of hitting something small and mobile, and a high chance of hitting large things (Like buildings). Be it a Katyusha style rocket launcher, a Juggernaught, or classic field guns. QUICK_EDIT
Joined: 16 Feb 2005 Location: North America Posts: You cannot comprehend...
Posted: Sun Jan 11, 2009 7:56 am Post subject:
I agree with everyone, even Kirby, back in the day(s), of November.... awesome, like. _________________ Destroy to create. All for the hunt to dominate!
You can post new topics in this forum You can reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum
Direct Fire vs. Indirect Fire
