2870 replies to this topic

[MrFreeze777]

I like the idea though of giving subfactions universal traits as well as units/buildings. Just like RA1. China has reduced infantry costs, Russia has faster build times, etc. I forget where that was originally pitched. I think the coding for doing those things already exists in the rules.

Actually they did have it in previous versions like 2.0 psi, where each faction/nation had special traits(e.g. Russia gets more armor for tanks and ships and USA gets more speed for all units), each faction/nation also trained/built 3 specific units as veteran from the start(Scorpion Cell had Brute, Gattling Tank, Speeder Trike as veterans). It was removed from version 3.0 because it was unbalanced especially since each faction had different set of units with different stats (e.g. Bulldog, Cavalier, Kappa, etc.) rather than just a having a generic tech tree for Soviet, Allied, and Epsilon and just one faction/nation specific unit in the previous versions.

Edited by MrFreeze777, 06 June 2014 - 06:06 AM.

[Meyerm]

Well, one option would be to only have it affect universal units in ways that wouldn't make it overpowered when used alongside subfaction specific stuff. For instance, decreasing infantry price for a faction heavily reliant on infantry would be overpowered, so factions like HQ wouldn't get that.

[Darkstorm]

 

 

 

SORRY ABOUT IN MY GRAMMAR!!!!!:<

What about if Aegis Cruiser is no longer in European Alliance and it replace Battleship. Battleship can attack air units but less power than Aegis Cruiser.

Jesus Christ, shut up and give up.

WHY???

Because you fail to understand why your suggestions are being thrown out no matter how much we try to tell you.

@Meyerm
Well like it was explained, it doesn't really make any sense anyhow. Mental Omega 2.0 had the YR-style country system, where each country had a unique unit and the mod added unique traits and veteran units on top of that. Mental Omega 3.0 has much more differing arsenals between the 3 subfactions. There is no difference between a global change and a unit change when you consider that Russia has Rhino Tanks and the Confederation has Jaguar Tanks. The cost is already different, why add an additional alternate mechanic that could be accomplished by just changing the units. The only thing you'd really be doing is changing the shared units which are few enough to not really change much in gameplay.

Edited by Darkstorm, 06 June 2014 - 09:41 AM.

[Divine]

SORRY ABOUT IN MY GRAMMAR!!!!!:<

What about if Aegis Cruiser is no longer in European Alliance and it replace Battleship. Battleship can attack air units but less power than Aegis Cruiser.

The problem with it is that each fraction needs ONE capital ship, that can siege bases from afar, and EU already has Aircraft Carriers. Replacing ACs with Battleships was suggested before, but it would not be fair, as unlike the Hornet Drones, the shells a battleship fire can't be shot down.

[Hecthor Doomhammer]

 

 

SORRY ABOUT IN MY GRAMMAR!!!!!:<

What about if Aegis Cruiser is no longer in European Alliance and it replace Battleship. Battleship can attack air units but less power than Aegis Cruiser.

Jesus Christ, shut up and give up.

WHY???

 

Because only an idiot, which you are, can't understand why even Speeder tells you to shut up

[LewlNewb]

Maybe to replace the Battleship, it needs to remove the Aircraft Carrier, Destroyer (and Aegis Cruiser)!

 

 

Uh, just what the hell.

[Divine]

Ares patch will include bounty logic, and I tought that the Latin Confederation could utilise it. However, not in it's planned form. I'm not talking about Confed units getting bounty from the start, that would be OP. I suggest that the Industrial Plant for them get replaced by a new building, name it "Bounty Exchange". What it does, is that after you build it, you will get bounties for the killed / destroyed enemies. I'm aware that such logic is not yet planned for Ares, but luckily, one of the readers of this forum happens to be a contributor...

[Bernadiroe]

WAIT, is Battleship can fire air units?
 

 

SORRY ABOUT IN MY GRAMMAR!!!!!:<

What about if Aegis Cruiser is no longer in European Alliance and it replace Battleship. Battleship can attack air units but less power than Aegis Cruiser.

The problem with it is that each fraction needs ONE capital ship, that can siege bases from afar, and EU already has Aircraft Carriers. Replacing ACs with Battleships was suggested before, but it would not be fair, as unlike the Hornet Drones, the shells a battleship fire can't be shot down.

Maybe to replace the Battleship, it needs to remove the Aircraft Carrier, Destroyer (and Aegis Cruiser)!

 

 

From how you react, it seems that you don't understand english very well, do you?

 

Either that, or you just trying to flame everyone, and your true goal is just trying to get their attention?

 

Probably the best way is just to ignore his suggestions/comments/opinions altogether?

I just don't want other members got stressed because of this (it seems they already, from how the replies gone so far)

[CaaNeeR]

>Battleship
>Basic ship
WTF Kivz....

[Graion Dilach]

Ares patch will include bounty logic, and I tought that the Latin Confederation could utilise it. However, not in it's planned form. I'm not talking about Confed units getting bounty from the start, that would be OP. I suggest that the Industrial Plant for them get replaced by a new building, name it "Bounty Exchange". What it does, is that after you build it, you will get bounties for the killed / destroyed enemies. I'm aware that such logic is not yet planned for Ares, but luckily, one of the readers of this forum happens to be a contributor...

This made me smile.

From a technical POV, there would be no sane way I could see to initiate that bool via building (since most use-cases were based on country or unit-applied tags and not mid-game combinations).

Edited by Graion Dilach, 06 June 2014 - 12:25 PM.

[mevitar]

Maybe to replace the Battleship, it needs to remove the Aircraft Carrier, Destroyer (and Aegis Cruiser)!

 
Uh, just what the hell.

So it means Battleship will become basic ship of EA (the prerequisite is not change).

At this rate, soon we'll get a suggestion of removing Epsilon navy and replacing them with Boomers, that can additionally attack aircrafts with their missiles.

BTW, why do i get the feeling he doesn't understand what "basic ship" means

Edited by mevitar, 06 June 2014 - 02:35 PM.

[Sizyfos31]

Only possible way to return Battleship back to game would be as a hero unit for EU with cost around $2500-3000. Actually a very bad idea, as there are plenty of maps without water and other faction have always option to build their hero unit.

[Martinoz]

Only possible way to return Battleship back to game would be as a hero unit for EU with cost around $2500-3000. Actually a very bad idea, as there are plenty of maps without water and other faction have always option to build their hero unit.

Boom, your buildings are smashed instantly. Battleship also sucks against targets on higher elevation.

Edited by Martinoz, 06 June 2014 - 04:10 PM.

[Protozoan]

I see you have returned to the state of ignoring everybody's advice/warnings and violently exploding at both ends with terrible suggestions.

 

Has anybody ever explained to you the definition of insanity?

[Toveena]

 

What about if SC has navy that replace on Resheph, that can fire chemical death balls.

 

 

 

Finally, an appropriate suggestion i must admit....this

TBH SC indeed does not utilize any psychic power (RIP SC adepts)

Edited by Toveena, 07 June 2014 - 01:55 AM.

[Protozoan]

 

 

 

What about if SC has navy that replace on Resheph, that can fire chemical death balls.
So Battleship can possible to place in all allies.

 

 

 

Finally, an appropriate suggestion i must admit....this

 

 

But then we still return to the argument of not being able to defend against the projectiles, making it too powerful.

[Toveena]

 

 

 

 

What about if SC has navy that replace on Resheph, that can fire chemical death balls.
So Battleship can possible to place in all allies.

 

 

 

Finally, an appropriate suggestion i must admit....this

 

 

But then we still return to the argument of not being able to defend against the projectiles, making it too powerful.

 

 

We can give SC capital ships' chemical missiles/balls or watever projectile the same property as regular resheph's, just with alternative artwork... So it the balance is not affeced.. 

Oh btw I deleted the battleship thing, cuz dat one is retarded..

Edited by Toveena, 07 June 2014 - 02:02 AM.

[Protozoan]

 

 

 

 

 

What about if SC has navy that replace on Resheph, that can fire chemical death balls.
So Battleship can possible to place in all allies.

 

 

 

Finally, an appropriate suggestion i must admit....this

 

 

But then we still return to the argument of not being able to defend against the projectiles, making it too powerful.

 

 

We can give SC capital ships' chemical missiles/balls or watever projectile the same property as regular resheph's, just with alternative artwork... So it the balance is not affeced.. 

 

 

How do you shoot down a ball of chemicals...? And what about the Battleship though?

[Bernadiroe]

What about a new siege ship for one of Epsilon faction, in place of Resheph, where it attacks by concentrating frequency burst/explosion at one tile? The concentration will need one free tile (instead of attacking units/structures directly), and will spawn instantly. It will deliver damage in a 3x3 tiles when it burst.

 

The catch is, It will take time before the concentration bursts, and if in that time frame it got destroyed first, it will do nothing but only damage some infantries and light units in 2x2 tile. Also the concentration cannot be stacked on one tile, and explosion of one concentration will damage other concentrations in the radius if it's still in the charging phase, thus making burst-stacking almost impossible.

The animation could be something look like Megidolaon.

 

The purpose of the new ship is the same, but with different kind of attack compared to other siege ships to add unique point.

[LewlNewb]

 

 

 

 

 

 

What about if SC has navy that replace on Resheph, that can fire chemical death balls.
So Battleship can possible to place in all allies.

 

 

 

Finally, an appropriate suggestion i must admit....this

 

 

But then we still return to the argument of not being able to defend against the projectiles, making it too powerful.

 

 

We can give SC capital ships' chemical missiles/balls or watever projectile the same property as regular resheph's, just with alternative artwork... So it the balance is not affeced.. 

 

 

How do you shoot down a ball of chemicals...? And what about the Battleship though?

 

 

Chemical Balls cannot be shot down indeed. (I think it is also weird how we can shoot down the projectiles Resheph firing at us)

Missiles however, can be shot down just like the Scud or Dreadnought rockets. If SC capital ships were given the missiles, it is essentially a chemical-based Resheph (or Boomer without the torpedos).

Battleship though, I think that thing should not be implemented in skirmishes.