superpig:
You''d actually want to ambush the unit between its current position and "here" (the target/destination location). There might be unforseen reserves/ strategic disadvantages at the location "here".

Dauntless:
I know you, Sandman and I have discussed and generally agree on the important of eliminating God-like control, on instituting delegation and (in modern warfare) the transition towards tighter focused attacks based on detailed intel farming. I believe we even came up with a compromise for players who like the God-like style of play: be able to take over a subordinate unit and assume all of its responsibilities. That would also mean receiving all of its info feeds and passing that which you deem relevant up the chain of command.

quote:

---

Original post by Oluseyi
You''d actually want to ambush the unit between its current position and "here" (the target/destination location). There might be unforseen reserves/ strategic disadvantages at the location "here".

---

Yeah, you''d want to. Of course, that depends on knowing where the unit has started - and for that you''d need the 3 station triangulation idea.

If you''ve ''overheard'' that a unit is being sent to your "Factory of Death," and you know that there''s only one approach to that building from outside the base, then you know where they''re going to be coming in.

I''m saying that even a little intelligence is better than none.

Superpig
- saving pigs from untimely fates
- sleeps in a ham-mock at www.thebinaryrefinery.cjb.net

You guys are making it clear that the contactless fog of war method has a good number of implications about how a game can be designed around it. You also seem like real die hards about very serious warfare methodologies, and unit AI.

I kind of see what I'm doing as a mirror of what id software did with rendering (they started with flat surfaces in Doom, graduated to 3D with Quake, moved to hardware acceleration and lightmaps with Quake 2, and took it to the next step with Quake 3)

This first game I'd like to try to make is just a first step attempt. Contactless fog of war, with a little upgrade to the resources and buildings to take off some burden and balance it out, and some decent AI for battles.

Your ideas are a number of steps ahead of mine. Working out AI for full campaign warfare planning is quite beyond my reach, but hey, knock yourselves out!

[edited by - Waverider on June 16, 2002 4:03:31 PM]

quote:

---

Original post by Waverider
This first game I''d like to try to make is just a first step attempt.

---

Then why are you bothering us with your design? No offense, but if you''re merely intending to recreate the existing trite tripe, why ask us for "feedback" on a "paradigm"? You''re not going to use it anyway. Or are you?

Break the mold. Do something new. Keep the "first step attempts" to yourself and show us challenging and innovative products - even lacking in visual polish and appeal, if your strategic core is in place and is solid, we''ll be extremely happy.

I''m sure everyone reading this post is getting their own ideas about designing a game like this. Were you expecting me to use everything presented? Just because I might not use all the ideas doesn''t mean I''ve wasted your time, or that my vision represents trite tripe.

I''ve read everything and considered how it fits into how I want the game to feel. I''m certainly not going to do a full blown break the mold game out of the gate. If I lose anyone''s respect for that, I''m not concerned about it.

I''m only going to do that much work on something I believe will be fun (in my perspective, of course). Does that mean I wasn''t listening? Of course not. But that''s not a promise I''ll use everything, either. That''s all part of feedback.

yeah, don''t worry about Oluseyi

Dude! Imagine a game based on "light-bombs", you launch them and they last for a few seconds, then you have to do everything else in the dark with sound as your only guide.

Or, to turn your fog-of-war concept on its head, maybe you play as one member of a team, BUT you can only switch to a different member of the team IF they are in ear-shot.

Or, you play the entire game from a control room in which the game world is simulated based on the reports given to you by your minions. The question becomes "do I send minions to double check other minions''s reports or do I try to get as much different information as possible at once?"

Hmmmm.. I''m starting to realize that gaming principles are all based on certain emotional interplays that are dependably uncertain and therefore engagingly unpredictable (is discussing that worth its own thread?)

Damn! I see other contributions have been similar.

I love the idea of sending out radars with minions as the only resource (its sort of like surfing the net - do I find useful links or not?). You try to place radars as best you can and direct your minions so as to get full coverage before your opponent. Radar jamming complicates things two much, better to make it a reflex battle between two radars that each get an even share of the minions scattered over the area (imagine its a robot graveyard or something).

Imo chain of awareness would be a headache more than it would be fun though (not counting my _FP_ idea, which _could_ work well), either the minions you have are with you or against you, don''t try to confuse the player.

I see your point. I won''t really know until I see it working, and then I can refine the idea more.

The original idea did, however, come from the psychology behind being cut off from the main base as a pilot. And knowing the other player has to take the same risks.

i would imagine that the black-till-you-see-it fog of war system is based on night time warfare, they both operate on the same principals...

and, um... "light bombs"? like flares? heh.

i like the idea of the "telephone" like system, but the delay might be a bit frustrating in the least. as long as there is no delay in orders, though, it should be bearable. like keep the same ordering system as other rts''s, but use your idea of the fog of war thing.