Pages: 1 [2]

Author Topic: Wish list  (Read 427 times)

wankey

  • Beta FAA Members
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 542
    • View Profile
    • WWW
Re: Wish list
« Reply #15 on: February 26, 2008, 03:09:20 PM »
aircraft can hugely benefit better ai.

If you can make them not land at all when enemy ground troops are nearby, or do evasive manuvers when being shot at with AA that would solve a lot of gripes I have with air combat in supcom.
Logged

Pawz

  • Project Lead
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 855
    • ICQ Messenger - 5627253
    • MSN Messenger - pawz1981@hotmail.com
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Wish list
« Reply #16 on: February 26, 2008, 03:53:13 PM »
Well, we did already add barrel rolls to their 'evasive maneuvers' handbook ;)
Logged

wankey

  • Beta FAA Members
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 542
    • View Profile
    • WWW
Re: Wish list
« Reply #17 on: February 26, 2008, 04:43:03 PM »
Do the barrel roll!
Logged

Recon

  • Lead Programmer
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1877
    • View Profile
Re: Wish list
« Reply #18 on: February 26, 2008, 05:06:30 PM »
Wankey you must have missed the video of the barrel rolling Czar.
Barrel rolls have been in the game a while. :)
Well not as good as they could be.  Pawz is still working out the details on making them corkscrew instead of simply spin.
Logged

wankey

  • Beta FAA Members
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 542
    • View Profile
    • WWW
Re: Wish list
« Reply #19 on: February 26, 2008, 11:58:47 PM »
Oh that was a joke from 4chan. Do the barrel roll! (a common answer to questions like "Hey guys, how to format my computer? Do the barrel roll!)
Logged

Extro

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 11
    • View Profile
Re: Wish list
« Reply #20 on: June 10, 2008, 04:50:04 AM »
*drags up an old topic*

I agree that fuel needs to be kept in; if aircraft had no limiting factor, you'd have a set of units that require a niche of units to defend against, and can move from your base to the oponent to strike and back in next to no time.  Early bomber strikes are already a pain, without makingi t so they can stay there forever. 

I do like the changes proposed to air-staging though.  Energy tansmission is a great idea, and can even be justified within the current mechanics.

For example:

Every unit requires power to operate.

Land units require the least, in comparison to the weight; moving over land is easier.
Naval units require slightly more, pushing through water being a bit harder.
Aircraft require significantly more, as they need to stay aloft.

Now, all units have built-in power generators, allowing them to maintain their power consumption, thus negating the fact that they require power for all intents and purposes.

However, aircraft, requiring considerably more power, and needing to be lighter, have smaller generators than they need, thus requiring surplus power.  Built in power storage accounts for the 'fuel meter'.  While not flying, aircraft should slowly charge those capacitors from their built in generators, and when flying, they drain them.

Now, clearly there is some form of power transmission (and mass too...) as we can send engineers to the other side of the map and have them mass/energy from your storage, which is up to say 80km away.
We justify this with a requirement that a unit needs to be stationary for the power/mass transmission to work.  (All mobile factories need to stop to build; the only exception to this rule I can think of is nuke subs, which can build their nukes while on the move).

Therefore, aircraft cannot recieve this power-transmision while on the move, so we have a short-range advanced power transmitter, allowing aircraft in it's radius to be able to 'refuel' quickly.

By reducing the fuel storage on aircraft, and enabling this instead, we can stop silly ammounts of aircraft crossing the entire map and wiping out a sizable force over the space of 10 minutes and still having fuel to return... And also get rid of the annoyance of patrolling aircraft having to land repeatedly to refuel, while badly damaged aircraft are forced to wait.

Naturally, the radius for the in-flight refuelling effect of air-staging platforms would need to be smaller than the radius it has currently. (Though, that radius is needed for aircraft to fly back to it automatically... So introduce this new effect with a seperate readius.)
Logged

Resin_Smoker

  • Beta FAA Members
  • Newbie
  • *****
  • Posts: 7
    • View Profile
Re: Wish list
« Reply #21 on: December 13, 2009, 06:34:24 PM »
Cliffhanger:  Yeah that's probably ok.  Figure engineers can do some minor landscaping :P

Fuel idea:  hmmm I'm not a fan of removing a strategic component of the game without replacing it with something else.
However you justify it, the fuel usage is a strategic element which is why we enhanced its effect on planes.
We didn't like the fact that you could launch planes in the air on one end of a big map and have them make it to the other, do their dirty deeds (cheap) and return home all w/o support.  It kinda removed the need for air staging facilities and carriers.  The fuel factor creates the need for strategically thinking out your air assaults, and adds an element of landscape dependancy to aircraft, which without fuel, have none.
Although - your idea of air staging facilities keeping nearby aircraft fueled is probably a good replacement.
Perhaps aircraft which are nearby can get a recharge automatically, where they'd still have to land on the pad for repairs.  This would free up the pads to focus only on damaged aircraft instead of making every plane land regularly for refueling.
Getting the AI to behave that way might be tricky though, and probably isn't going to be easy.

Aircraft could have limited ammo and thus be tied to a rearming location. This way you could get rid of fuel but still require that an aircraft be supported by some sort of facility.

Resin
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]
« previous next »