Forged Alliance Forever

Re: Air combat

2013-03-07T16:11:36+02:00

That wasn't my target. You're taking it to far.
It is about making clouds of millions of ASF and patroling them over enemy base. In reality you cant do that cause of fuel and ammo limitations as well as the ASF not being able to tank even one missile.
Would it be possible to convert that simple principles into supcom? Yes easily.

Would it make the game more entertaining? I am sure it would.

This has nothing to do with making ASF fights realistic... in reality ASF also don't fly in big swarms and move like swarms...

Statistics: Posted by SC-Account — 07 Mar 2013, 16:11

Re: Air combat

2013-03-07T15:40:25+02:00

I don't think there's any point in trying to model RTS air combat after real combat.

I don't have a very clear idea of what large-scale air combat tactics actually look like, but certainly from playing lots of hardcore flight sims I can tell that smale-scale dogfighting has so many nuances due to physics that there's almost nothing we can extract from that into an RTS. Better just to make air combat interesting, even if it's using some arbitrary mechanics.

Like I said, it's interesting to imagine how we can make ASF vs ASF fights as tactically deep as Tank vs. Tank ones.

Statistics: Posted by AdmiralZeech — 07 Mar 2013, 15:40

Re: Air combat

2013-03-06T14:36:16+02:00

rootbeer23 wrote:
SC-Account wrote:Ya, just make ASF more realistic. So what do air superiority fighter in reality look like?

they shoot homing missiles across the whole length of setons clutch.

Yaya I know, but I said more realistic, not make them real. Else the only map being played would be world domination anyway (and that would have to increase immensely in size).

Statistics: Posted by SC-Account — 06 Mar 2013, 14:36

Re: Air combat

2013-03-06T12:34:53+02:00

The_PC_Snob wrote:
You guys do realize that what you're proposing is something similar to the rock-paper-scissors balancing they do in other strategy titles, right?

I'm not against it, it works, but Supreme Commander is more about "organic" unit relations than just "this counters that". There are some exceptions, like flak vs gunships, but those arose via the emergent mechanics more than hard mechanics. This style is just not Supreme Commander's style. It's okay to like it, just don't expect a game that follows a different philosophy to follow it as well.

After all, the only reason the RTS genre is stagnant right now and was stagnant for the early 2000s was because everyone is trying to copy everyone else and there was no unique flavor anywhere. Right now no publisher will touch an RTS unless they say they're going to be "Starcraft, but with a twist!", and developers are too aware of how well that goes to really try.

Well, you do get the occasional gem like Dawn of war 2 and of course Supcom.

But back on topic i agree. Right now i enjoy mixing interceptors and asfs purely for buffer and i daresay some variety. Making two distinct air classes ( gunships excluded ) would give lots of potential for factional difference etc.

eg. cybran interceptors have a smartgun system that lets it combat asfs slightly better but it does less damage to usual interceptor targets like bombers and transports. UEF asfs have a minor flak effect when they attack which makes them effective against aerial swarms. Aeon interceptors have a sustained beam weapon that gives it excellent tracking ability but does noticably less damage etc.

Statistics: Posted by asdfmovie — 06 Mar 2013, 12:34

Re: Air combat

2013-03-06T09:35:27+02:00

SC-Account wrote:
Ya, just make ASF more realistic. So what do air superiority fighter in reality look like?

they shoot homing missiles across the whole length of setons clutch.

Statistics: Posted by rootbeer23 — 06 Mar 2013, 09:35

Re: Air combat

2013-03-06T09:28:29+02:00

SC-Account wrote:
Ya, just make ASF more realistic. So what do air superiority fighter in reality look like?

I will try to take a stab at that:
T1 fighters: F-14, F-15, F-18
T2 Fighter Bomber: F-4 Phantom
T3 ASF: F-22

Assuming they are all in a dogfight with each other.

Statistics: Posted by The Mak — 06 Mar 2013, 09:28

Re: Air combat

2013-03-06T02:19:36+02:00

The_PC_Snob wrote:
I'm not arguing that RPS doesn't exist in SupCom, I'm just arguing that it shouldn't be created artificially.

The main problem is just that ASF are very tough right now. They should rely on their maneuverability to survive, not tons of HP. In other words, they should be more vulnerable to SAM.

Ya, just make ASF more realistic. So what do air superiority fighter in reality look like?

Pros:
- they are fast
- they got the fire power and manoeuvrability to deal with any non missile airborne threat

Cons:
- they are no flying tanks > low hp
- they are no strategic bombers > low reach/fuel making them only useful near friendly supporting facilities (air fields etc.) or mobile refuelling units.
- when they run out of fuel they don't fly any more...

So translated to supcom that means that ASF gotta get lower HP and fuel low enough to only make them useful near friendly structures without being able to patrol them over enemy bases for ages ~ 3-5 min fuel should be enough.
When they run out of fuel they gotta either be forced to land or crash down.
Asides that their HP should be lower about 1000 - 1500 is still rather unrealistic but they should be able to take on interceptors. To maintain their superiority to interceptors maybe give them more range and some low range radar.

I promise, that will make the game much much more fun.

Statistics: Posted by SC-Account — 06 Mar 2013, 02:19

Re: Air combat

2013-03-01T01:22:23+02:00

You can test the theory : viewtopic.php?f=52&t=3205

Statistics: Posted by Ze_PilOt — 01 Mar 2013, 01:22

Re: Air combat

2013-03-01T01:21:21+02:00

I'm not arguing that RPS doesn't exist in SupCom, I'm just arguing that it shouldn't be created artificially.

The main problem is just that ASF are very tough right now. They should rely on their maneuverability to survive, not tons of HP. In other words, they should be more vulnerable to SAM.

Statistics: Posted by The_PC_Snob — 01 Mar 2013, 01:21

Re: Air combat

2013-03-01T04:05:41+02:00

I really like these thoughts Admiral, I hope maybe after the engie/factory redesign the community starts to talk about redesigning ASFs and air in general. It would be great if there was more differentiation between interceptors fighter-bombers and ASFs. Air terrain probably isn't likely but it would be interesting if there was more position play involved in the air - or if unit composition came into more play.

There's a lot of good ideas in here.

Statistics: Posted by Veta — 28 Feb 2013, 18:20

Re: Air combat

2013-02-28T13:10:47+02:00

Hmm, now that I think about ASF-only combat, it makes me wonder if some future game can make such combat interesting as well.

Directional factors:
Homing missiles that are most accurate when fired at someone's tail. If we want to remove random factors, I guess an arbitrary abstraction might be, missiles do greater damage when striking the tail.

Speed/Energy:
Aircraft that have been traveling in a straight line for a long time have the greatest speed / energy. This gives them a faster turning rate, and thus more ability to get behind the target. (if we want to keep aircraft speeds fixed for ease of balance, then the arbitrary abstraction "energy" can be used - energy is drained to maintain a constant speed, so in situations where a RL fighter jet has low "speed", instead the "energy meter" gets drained.)
In RL dogfighting terminology, speed (and altitude) is called "energy" anyways

Terrain:
Clouds prevent missile lock. The angle the sun is shining from? -> interferes temporarily with missile lock. Winds / weather affects aircraft speed/energy.

Evasion:
Aircraft will automatically zig-zag/barrel roll/fire flares to try and break missile lock, but this drains their speed/energy.

Altitude:
What if you could manually toggle between low and high altitude? high altitude avoids AA fire. low altitude avoids radar. It costs energy to move to a higher altitude. You can get a quick energy boost by moving to low altitude. Add to that clouds and other weather having altitudes too, then it could get nice and complicated.

------------------------------

Probably, even with these simple rules, ASF-only combat might be much more interesting. The angle your fighter blob engages the enemy blob suddenly matters. Nearby clouds, wind direction, and other factors also matter. Splitting your blob to attack from multiple directions might be advantageous. Getting your second blob to attack later, when the enemy is low-energy, might be advantageous. Altitude matters.

I'd be excited to see what kind of tactics prevail to best take advantage of such a system!

Statistics: Posted by AdmiralZeech — 28 Feb 2013, 13:10

Re: Air combat

2013-02-28T12:53:10+02:00

To those people who are against "RPS", I dont think you're thinking it through. There's plenty of RPS in FA.
For example, Tanks > Arty > PD > Tanks.
Or, Ints > Gunships > Ground AA > Ints.

What makes things interesting is that the RPS is usually quite soft, physics based, and lopsided. Enough tanks can beat PD, enough arty can beat tanks, but no amount of PD can beat arty (since they're being outranged.) However some hard counters exist (such as Ints > Gunships and Ground AA > Ints, because they simply can't fire at them.)

Another interesting thing is that different RPS triangles interact with each other. For example:
Gunships > Tanks/Arty/PDs. Tanks/Arty > Ground AA.

All of these things are interesting because:
- Physics based makes things intuitive and logical, rather than some arbitrarily imposed invisible rule. (it's still "designed in" but done using easily visible weapon properties.)
- It's not just about "He built X so I'll build Y." You have to worry about "How much X did he build?" and "What else does he have?"

So yeah, just because the thing I describe is an RPS triangle, doesnt mean the negative things associated with RPS design are guaranteed to occur. Inserted into the context of FA, with all of its softness and interactions with other unit types, it can be just as interesting as the gameplay we have now (which follows the same principles anyways, after all.)

And personally, I feel its more interesting than "More ASFs > ASFs > Everything."

Actually, I don't mind that mechanic so much, if it was something like Tanks. But the fact that ASFs are so automated and the micro for using them is so abstract and arbitrary (basically ASF micro is about manipulating Unit Behaviour AI rather than actual "plausible combat tactics"), that ASF v ASF combat is not satisfying for me.

A game that only has FA T1 UEF Tanks can be interesting, with terrain, movement firing inaccuracy, formation shape, and other positional gameplay.
But I don't really think a game that only has ASFs can be particularly interesting.

Statistics: Posted by AdmiralZeech — 28 Feb 2013, 12:53

Re: Air combat

2013-02-28T12:44:26+02:00

Batmansrueckkehr wrote:
what about reducing the asf's hp - lets say to 1000.
with that they wouldnt dare to fly over sams or cruisers and lose just a few and they would still be best at fighting t3 bombers. also t1 air could defend vs asf, at least a bit.

I think that is worth thinking about. It goes back to the name swith Funk Off is talking about: T3 fighter planes become interceptors: build for speed and high (alpha) attack, but lower HP.

Statistics: Posted by Wakke — 28 Feb 2013, 12:44

Re: Air combat

2013-02-28T12:38:13+02:00

what about reducing the asf's hp - lets say to 1000.
with that they wouldnt dare to fly over sams or cruisers and lose just a few and they would still be best at fighting t3 bombers. also t1 air could defend vs asf, at least a bit.

Statistics: Posted by Batmansrueckkehr — 28 Feb 2013, 12:38

Re: Air combat

2013-02-28T11:46:14+02:00

ColonelSheppard wrote:
have you ever thought of including FunkOffs mod as a featured mod then?
seems like it's a bit more than just a balance mod

Yes but I don't want two concurrent balance test mod at the same time and we've already have the engy mod running.
But as I've said, anyone can ask access to the balance test mod for a week or two if he wants.

Statistics: Posted by Ze_PilOt — 28 Feb 2013, 11:46