CW3 Suggestions Redux

[4xC]

An idea I have which was inspred by the Starcraft series: either air units cannot fly in the areas of AETs at all, or the fields emitted by the AETs slowly harm air units that pass through them.

[lurkily]

An idea I have which was inspred by the Starcraft series: either air units cannot fly in the areas of AETs at all, or the fields emitted by the AETs slowly harm air units that pass through them.

There are other things to consider.  For instance, players have almost no control over aircraft.  It's straight-out, and straight-back.  This might not be sufficient for many players' needs, if regions of airspace suddenly posed a threat.

This is also true if you could not transit across specific areas.

[4xC]

Apologies. I cannot keep up with everything here so I had no clue I had suggested something that was taken already.

[Ronini]

No need to apologise. What you suggested was new (at least to me). Lurkily's original reply was about an idea involving a creeper anti-air tower (that shoots creeper at your planes). Similar to your suggestion, but not the same, really. His objection (I take it as such, please correct me if it isn't) does apply here, too.

Additionally, I don't really see what damage to air units should do. Let's face it, all it would do (in addition to ETs' shield function), is increase energy requirements for a short moment. At least from my experience with CW1's drones, by the time I have them, I'm well off concerning energy, so there won't be much harm done, really.

Unless, of course, AETs (or the creeper aa guns) affect all units, so they prevent units to be moved through and into their exclusion field. They don't in the "Roma Victor" video, though, and they shouldn't.

[lurkily]

Thank you, Ro, you have it right.

What I would like to see, is for AEZ's to prevent the -placement- of any attack orders intersecting an AEZ.  Aircraft would path around AEZ's to their attack point or path.  It's okay if aircraft, in swinging around to align on the path to their destination, overlap an AEZ for a couple of seconds, as long as they TRY to path around it, and to not lay down any fire here.

That might give AEZ's more of a sense of being a barrier - they might even pretend to shoot at aircraft, to explain why they stay away.  It would obviate any need for player-designated pathfinding, too.

[4xC]

AETs affect only air units as it is. Ground units could be positioned in their fields. What I have in mind is that any air unit that tries to fly through the AET's respective field is that the longer they are in the field, the more danage the field itself slowly inflicts upon them. As I said before, this idea was inspired by the Starcraft series, but in particular, let's note this:

In Brood War, a Zerg level does not let you build air attack units (or let you transport ground forces in overlords) because a field of some sort emanates in the level and stops flyers from maneuvering according to the storyline. And in Wings of Liberty, a campaign level has field generators of some kind that slowly damage Terran units as long as they are inside them. They did slow, soft, but sure damage to battlecruisers because they have a lot of hit points equalling a lot of health.

The point is that the fields from AETs should either make it impossible for air units to fly through them, or they should damage air units very slowly but surely. If they stop them from flying inside, I would add what Lurkily just said about flying around them.

[Ronini]

Just to clarify:
By "air units" do you mean just aircraft (strafers and bombers) or any moveable unit (including shields, CNs and so on)?

[lurkily]

I honestly don't think damage is necessary . . . also, it wouldn't really work even with automatic pathfinding that I suggested.  Air units would still take losses just because their imperfect paths swept over the edge of an AEZ.

Taking losses because of player carelessness is okay, but this is the game's imperfections causing losses.  That kind of imperfection is okay when only exclusion from an area is involved, but not when it threatens unit loss.

[Mr.H]

With Air Units I meant movable structures (like snipers or blasters) as well as aircraft. This way you can't just place them without any resistance wherever you are. The anti-aircraft zones are swell but too simple and you can only take certain shapes, but the anti-air turrets (Follicor Charger) are a more realistic and balanced manner of countering this major human advantage.

Enhancment of Air unit capabilities and control with waypoints and such is a great idea and would definetly make them more intresting.

Also as for 'carlessness' perhaps aircraft will give off a warning if they are being damaged. Also it encourages better strategic thinking to make sure you don't pass over any danger-zones, which is good. The wide sweeps and discrepancies over the designed path could be countered with the waypoint system, allowing more precise movement patterns.

[Ronini]

Having thought about your Follicor Charger for quite some time, now, I really like the idea. I'm not so sure about the charging bit, though. But a vulnerability for units in transition would be a welcome challenge.

Enhancment of Air unit capabilities and control with waypoints and such is a great idea and would definetly make them more intresting.

If you think about it, this shouldn't be that hard to implement. I'd also go as far as limiting this waypoint system to the actual movement of units, who move only in straight lines (i.e. not aircraft, who can go in arcs). So a Follicor Charger would destroy or at least damage units moving across its targetting range and  block aircraft that move above it, by destroying them. Destroying (damaging does not really make sense) meaning that they simply respawn at their base, as soon as it is fully charged again.
So you'd be forced to plan your aircraft base placement carefully or try to outnumber the Follicor Charger, but could move around it with your ground units.

[Mr.H]

Perhaps if aircraft are destroyed, the building that creates them uses up some build packets (1/4 of initial cost of pad) to replace it over a period of time. Would give some militrary loss to losing airships, which is more balanced.

Maybe just call it a follicor, or 'folly' , since we all despise long names. Charging is to make it balanced, perhaps it doesn't use up creeper but requires digitalis to work. But the fine details are up to virgilw ;)

[lurkily]

Perhaps if aircraft are destroyed, the building that creates them uses up some build packets (1/4 of initial cost of pad) to replace it over a period of time. Would give some militrary loss to losing airships, which is more balanced.

Honestly, I think the entire point of CW is to create an enemy capable of resisting or even reversing your advance, without causing unit losses.  Everything I'm seeing seems to provide evidence of that - runners in particular, which unlike drones, aren't lethal. Creeper and digitalis only cause unit loss if you make mistakes, and spores only if you neglect your countermeasures until too late.

[4xC]

Be that as it may, now is the time for the enemy side to evolve from just causing delays and reversals. If the series stays like this, I think it will be somewhat too conservative.

[Mr.H]

I do believe the creeper should be given more difficulty, we have too many tools at our disposal to thrawt their progress and too little to hamper our conquest. Perhaps an intelligent dynamic force that draws together the forces of the Creeper in a manner designed to coordinate towards weaknesses in our frontier. These could vary from rush tactics to biding it's time and then releasing everything in one tidal wave.

[lurkily]

Be that as it may, now is the time for the enemy side to evolve from just causing delays and reversals. If the series stays like this, I think it will be somewhat too conservative.

That might make an interesting game, but it's up to Virgil as to whether that's the game he intends to make.  Based on that I've seen so far, it seems counter to his intentions thus far.

I hesitate to suggest that his direction might not have been the right one - after all, that philosophy seems to be present in CW1 - it seems to be one of the cornerstones the series is built on.