Forged Alliance Forever Forged Alliance Forever Forums 2015-09-13T14:43:00+02:00 /feed.php?f=2&t=10763 2015-09-13T14:43:00+02:00 2015-09-13T14:43:00+02:00 /viewtopic.php?t=10763&p=109941#p109941 <![CDATA[Re: Map size inaccuracies]]>
Plasma_Wolf wrote:
The ACUs are currently about 40m high. You can check that by comparing the ACUs height number to the map size and the according number of units on that map size. Also by comparing the height of a person with the ACU in the UEF opening film (as well as the Cybran but there are more translations in that one).

If we make the maps 10x as large, the ACU will be 400m high and the GC will be 1270 metres high. I'm all for the (slightly ridiculous) unit sizes as they are now, but making the units even ten times bigger is just overdoing it.

The problem with any game is the user friendliness (you have to be able to select a unit) compared to realism (a self-respecting current-day cruise missile can go further than the Mavor can fire).


Read the other posts first

Statistics: Posted by yeager — 13 Sep 2015, 14:43


]]>
2015-09-13T14:03:44+02:00 2015-09-13T14:03:44+02:00 /viewtopic.php?t=10763&p=109938#p109938 <![CDATA[Re: Map size inaccuracies]]>
If we make the maps 10x as large, the ACU will be 400m high and the GC will be 1270 metres high. I'm all for the (slightly ridiculous) unit sizes as they are now, but making the units even ten times bigger is just overdoing it.

The problem with any game is the user friendliness (you have to be able to select a unit) compared to realism (a self-respecting current-day cruise missile can go further than the Mavor can fire).

Statistics: Posted by Plasma_Wolf — 13 Sep 2015, 14:03


]]>
2015-09-13T12:53:45+02:00 2015-09-13T12:53:45+02:00 /viewtopic.php?t=10763&p=109935#p109935 <![CDATA[Re: Map size inaccuracies]]>
It will take a 1 hour long game just to reach the other player (not to mention it would inflate the power of air even more)

Statistics: Posted by zeroAPM — 13 Sep 2015, 12:53


]]>
2015-09-13T01:29:11+02:00 2015-09-13T01:29:11+02:00 /viewtopic.php?t=10763&p=109900#p109900 <![CDATA[Re: Map size inaccuracies]]> i hate it when tanks are not able to shoot 30 meters... if you know what i mean
gg.jpg

look at codename panzers to know what i mean,
object

Statistics: Posted by rxnnxs — 13 Sep 2015, 01:29


]]>
2015-09-10T16:19:25+02:00 2015-09-10T16:19:25+02:00 /viewtopic.php?t=10763&p=109780#p109780 <![CDATA[Re: Map size inaccuracies]]> video

They may put one on the third constructed Zumwalt destroyer.

Statistics: Posted by The Mak — 10 Sep 2015, 16:19


]]>
2015-09-09T22:28:30+02:00 2015-09-09T22:28:30+02:00 /viewtopic.php?t=10763&p=109726#p109726 <![CDATA[Re: Map size inaccuracies]]>

afaik the unit ranges in supcom are not actually to scale - the unit sizes are, but ranges are supposed to be 10-20 times as long.

however to make gameplay sane gpg made them what they are now.

Statistics: Posted by Exotic_Retard — 09 Sep 2015, 22:28


]]>
2015-09-09T22:16:05+02:00 2015-09-09T22:16:05+02:00 /viewtopic.php?t=10763&p=109723#p109723 <![CDATA[Re: Map size inaccuracies]]>
The Mak wrote:
Valki wrote:
Ceneraii wrote:Besides, if you go for realism arguments then battleships probably wouldn't even be used, it would be all carriers destroyers frigates and cruisers. :P

Battleships have been obsolete for a long while indeed, but so are cruisers. They are almost entirely out of use today, only 2 navies still have them.
y

I believe battleships will make a return, but they will use rail guns instead of the traditional explosive charge to launch a projectile. Rail guns are showing to have larger ranges, high accuracy, and high damage even without the projectile having any built in explosive charge. It just throws a heavy object at very high speeds. The kinetic energy released on impact is pretty impressive. Now mount a few of these on a large platform such as a ship and you can keep raining hell upon the enemy from great distances at incredible speeds. A missile from great distance has a higher chance of being intercepted. A hunk of metal slug the size of a fire extinguisher going at incredible speeds isn't that likely to be intercepted.

yeager wrote:
Of course not, but why would range on battle ships decrease? If anything they would increase. Same with all units. But if we make the maps "bigger" it makes a lot more sense


The way I see the units in FA is that these are not the best units that can be made with the technological advancements we are shown in the fiction. Rather, these are the best units that can be made using the manufacturing technique of pattering or nanolating (or whatever they call it) using the most common elements that can be found on most planets. Perhaps there are limits of what type of mass can be created from these quick to build mass fabricators or what can be mined from the mass extractors. The units that are on the field have to:
- be able to be built quickly
- utilize common elements or compounds that can be created or collected
- dish an extraordinary amount of damage and likewise,
- be able to absorb a good amount of damage to be able to function under fire
- create or store its own projectiles (which to me means there is a mini factory in each unit that creates the projectile from the mass that can be collected as it moves around or a power source that can emit an energy projectile)
- and for most units, be able to run for a very long time

Look at the many techniques for 3D printing. Each method has capabilities and limitations with regard to material, build complexity, speed, build strength, cost, etc. You can probably say the same thing for the many different manufacturing techniques that can exist in the SupCom period.

So that can be a reason why missiles or projectiles in the SupCom game cannot go the larger distances of today's equivalent technology. It can take weeks or months to make our current battleships. In SupCom, it only takes minutes.

This is a great comment, good job

Statistics: Posted by yeager — 09 Sep 2015, 22:16


]]>
2015-09-09T22:14:25+02:00 2015-09-09T22:14:25+02:00 /viewtopic.php?t=10763&p=109722#p109722 <![CDATA[Re: Map size inaccuracies]]>
Speed2: yeah, this is more of a time waster till something interesting comes up :)

Statistics: Posted by yeager — 09 Sep 2015, 22:14


]]>
2015-09-08T20:16:27+02:00 2015-09-08T20:16:27+02:00 /viewtopic.php?t=10763&p=109667#p109667 <![CDATA[Re: Map size inaccuracies]]>
Do you want to make unit ranges closer to their real counterpart?
Do you want ranges (and possibly speed) to scale with the map's size?

Explain yourself yeager.

Statistics: Posted by zeroAPM — 08 Sep 2015, 20:16


]]>
2015-09-08T18:28:04+02:00 2015-09-08T18:28:04+02:00 /viewtopic.php?t=10763&p=109662#p109662 <![CDATA[Re: Map size inaccuracies]]>
Valki wrote:
Ceneraii wrote:Besides, if you go for realism arguments then battleships probably wouldn't even be used, it would be all carriers destroyers frigates and cruisers. :P

Battleships have been obsolete for a long while indeed, but so are cruisers. They are almost entirely out of use today, only 2 navies still have them.
y

I believe battleships will make a return, but they will use rail guns instead of the traditional explosive charge to launch a projectile. Rail guns are showing to have larger ranges, high accuracy, and high damage even without the projectile having any built in explosive charge. It just throws a heavy object at very high speeds. The kinetic energy released on impact is pretty impressive. Now mount a few of these on a large platform such as a ship and you can keep raining hell upon the enemy from great distances at incredible speeds. A missile from great distance has a higher chance of being intercepted. A hunk of metal slug the size of a fire extinguisher going at incredible speeds isn't that likely to be intercepted.

yeager wrote:
Of course not, but why would range on battle ships decrease? If anything they would increase. Same with all units. But if we make the maps "bigger" it makes a lot more sense


The way I see the units in FA is that these are not the best units that can be made with the technological advancements we are shown in the fiction. Rather, these are the best units that can be made using the manufacturing technique of pattering or nanolating (or whatever they call it) using the most common elements that can be found on most planets. Perhaps there are limits of what type of mass can be created from these quick to build mass fabricators or what can be mined from the mass extractors. The units that are on the field have to:
- be able to be built quickly
- utilize common elements or compounds that can be created or collected
- dish an extraordinary amount of damage and likewise,
- be able to absorb a good amount of damage to be able to function under fire
- create or store its own projectiles (which to me means there is a mini factory in each unit that creates the projectile from the mass that can be collected as it moves around or a power source that can emit an energy projectile)
- and for most units, be able to run for a very long time

Look at the many techniques for 3D printing. Each method has capabilities and limitations with regard to material, build complexity, speed, build strength, cost, etc. You can probably say the same thing for the many different manufacturing techniques that can exist in the SupCom period.

So that can be a reason why missiles or projectiles in the SupCom game cannot go the larger distances of today's equivalent technology. It can take weeks or months to make our current battleships. In SupCom, it only takes minutes.

Statistics: Posted by The Mak — 08 Sep 2015, 18:28


]]>
2015-09-08T16:50:53+02:00 2015-09-08T16:50:53+02:00 /viewtopic.php?t=10763&p=109654#p109654 <![CDATA[Re: Map size inaccuracies]]>

Statistics: Posted by speed2 — 08 Sep 2015, 16:50


]]>
2015-09-08T16:25:14+02:00 2015-09-08T16:25:14+02:00 /viewtopic.php?t=10763&p=109649#p109649 <![CDATA[Re: Map size inaccuracies]]>
yeager wrote:
No! No! No! The only increase is in the number, the maps are the same, no change.

So what exactly are you talking about then? Increasing the range of all units so say a t1 tank can shoot from one side of a 5x5 map to the other? So a battleship can shoot the air player on Setons?

Statistics: Posted by Reaper Zwei — 08 Sep 2015, 16:25


]]>
2015-09-08T16:21:50+02:00 2015-09-08T16:21:50+02:00 /viewtopic.php?t=10763&p=109648#p109648 <![CDATA[Re: Map size inaccuracies]]>
But seriously, I'm just asking if this would make it more realistic

Statistics: Posted by yeager — 08 Sep 2015, 16:21


]]>
2015-09-08T15:53:15+02:00 2015-09-08T15:53:15+02:00 /viewtopic.php?t=10763&p=109644#p109644 <![CDATA[Re: Map size inaccuracies]]> Statistics: Posted by quark036 — 08 Sep 2015, 15:53


]]>
2015-09-08T12:30:40+02:00 2015-09-08T12:30:40+02:00 /viewtopic.php?t=10763&p=109631#p109631 <![CDATA[Re: Map size inaccuracies]]> Statistics: Posted by yeager — 08 Sep 2015, 12:30


]]>