Idea-'Castling' Odin City

Twi · June 03, 2010, 05:39:44 AM

I'm not sure if that's a good name for it, but what the heck.

Okay, so it goes like this.You put a unit at each of OC's corners, and you can combine them into a single unit with one health bar put together from all of their health. This way, you can use Odin City as a weapon. Put two Blasters and two Mortars on it and use it to spearhead your assault or defense with its high HP. Or, put some Drones on it and use it as a mobile Drone base so you can keep your Drones close to the front to ensure a quick reaction time while still keeping them safe. Or just put 4 Reactors on it or whatever you like. You can still select the pieces, to activate them or whatnot if they're weapons. But they all move as one unit.

Echo51 · June 03, 2010, 05:46:27 AM

As in attachements? sound like a viable idea... could be useful

Twi · June 03, 2010, 05:48:17 AM

Exactly as in attachments.

Fisherck · June 03, 2010, 09:08:10 AM

Would it give the weapons or reactors advantages? Like more health, faster shooting,
or more energy. Or even give the city the ability to go in the Creeper for a certain
amount of time.

SPIFFEN · June 03, 2010, 09:36:54 AM

Sounds nice , but the city should need more space to land with the attachments .
So on some maps you might only have room to move the city with only 1 or 2 attachments .

Should an Drone be abel to fire during flight when its attached to the city ,
or be abel to select it to do so ?

Should the attached items get an kind of bonus because of the attachment ?

I like the idea , it can make the game very interesting if bonuses are added to attached items ,
so you have to findout what is best to attach for each map .

Twi · June 03, 2010, 05:58:16 PM

Yeah, that would be the tradeoff-space.

The attachments add their health to OC, they all share one health meter. And they move around as one unit. Otherwise, they just function like those units put in that placement, as far as I was thinking.

Blaze · June 03, 2010, 11:43:05 PM

Very smart idea! I like it.
And yes give them bonuses it will make it more strategic.

[Off-Topic] Thank god for spell-check! :D [/Off-Topic]

ssddgghh · June 04, 2010, 10:09:21 AM

Hmm.. I think attaching relays to connect across a massive creeper-filled space by going back and forth over it might be a bit too overpowered...

mthw2vc · June 04, 2010, 01:11:36 PM

Quote from: ssddgghh on June 04, 2010, 10:09:21 AM
Hmm.. I think attaching relays to connect across a massive creeper-filled space by going back and forth over it might be a bit too overpowered...

Actually, that achieves a very similar effect to just bridging with 2 SAMs

UpperKEES · June 04, 2010, 01:30:25 PM

Not if you bridge to other relays....

Distance collector - SAM - OC - SAM - collector = 20 (up to 22 when bridging diagonally)
Distance relay - relay - OC - relay - relay = 32, which is 75% of the height of the map :P

This could be a reason not to allow this....

In my opinion 'tricks' involving flying should be reduced in the sequel. Not sure how it works anyway, because there will be tunnels instead of connection lines. Maybe there's no need for a relay at all.

mthw2vc · June 04, 2010, 01:41:47 PM

Quote from: UpperKEES on June 04, 2010, 01:30:25 PM
Not if you bridge to other relays....

Distance collector - SAM - OC - SAM - collector = 20 (up to 22 when bridging diagonally)
Distance relay - relay - OC - relay - relay = 32 34, which is more than 75% of the height of the map :P

This could be a reason not to allow this....

In my opinion 'tricks' involving flying should be reduced in the sequel. Not sure how it works anyway, because there will be tunnels instead of connection lines. Maybe there's no need for a relay at all.

Hmm, 20+ more seconds for 12 more squares... Meh, as long as it's not allowed in older maps.

UpperKEES · June 04, 2010, 05:26:43 PM

relay to relay = 11
relay to OC = 5

11 + 5 + 5 + 11 = 32

When connections are diagonally it could be 5.5, but then the maximum of 11 between 2 relays won't be reached.

mthw2vc · June 04, 2010, 05:51:45 PM

Quote from: UpperKEES on June 04, 2010, 05:26:43 PM
relay to relay = 11
relay to OC = 5

11 + 5 + 5 + 11 = 32

When connections are diagonally it could be 5.5, but then the maximum of 11 between 2 relays won't be reached.

Remember that the relays are always attached in the corner, according to the main suggestion.

UpperKEES · June 04, 2010, 06:30:02 PM

Correct, but the maximum distance of 11 between the relays might not be reached (only in a straight diagonal line) and even in that case it will only be 11 + 5.5 + 5.5 + 11 = 33

mthw2vc · June 04, 2010, 06:42:32 PM

Quote from: UpperKEES on June 04, 2010, 06:30:02 PM
Correct, but the maximum distance of 11 between the relays might not be reached (only in a straight diagonal line) and even in that case it will only be 11 + 5.5 + 5.5 + 11 = 33

Let me put it this way...

SAM/Collector - any distance less than 6 squares
SAM/City - Any distance less than 6 squares
((SAM/City)+(SAM/Collector))*2 - Up to (Exclusive) 24 squares

Relay at the corner of a city/City - ~4.2426406871192851464050661726291, or the square root of 18 (When I posted earlier, I was using 32 here and rounding, thus the error)
Relay/Relay - Any distance less than 12 squares
((Relay at the corner of a city/City)+(Relay/Relay))*2 - Up to (Exclusive) ~32.485281374238570292810132345258
The actual ideal difference is about 8.5 squares, then.

As you can see, the difference is actually about 11 in an ideal case