PDA

View Full Version : Unit tumbling


Pilgrim
01-12-2010, 06:55 AM
Maybe there is a technical word for what I mean.

Has anyone played battle for middle earth? That game had too many faults and imbalances in the end but it was very innovative with unit tumbling - eg. horses trampling infantry and sending them flying, nazgul crashing down on horses and throwing them through the air. Also caused by catapult strikes, and ogres clubs.

In most games footmen still stand there as if they dont notice being thumped by a 30 foot ogre until their hitpoints drain to zero.

What is the case in DoF?

blackfang
01-12-2010, 06:57 AM
well normally after being hit by a troll you either paint the floor, a nearby wall or your former friends. Seeing as they are already painting each other:D it would be fun to have it:)

Konstantin Fomenko
01-12-2010, 07:13 AM
It works exactly the same way with DoF:)

Pilgrim
01-12-2010, 07:15 AM
cool, good!!

Puppeteer
01-12-2010, 01:32 PM
Last I heard ragdoll physics weren't included, when did this change?

Kaznafein
01-12-2010, 01:47 PM
Yep the dev diary first entry has some info on this. He fights a ogre that smacks loads of his troops around :D .

Pilgrim
01-12-2010, 01:58 PM
Do you know where the Dev diary is? Is it a video or just a.. diary?

Ragdoll physics. I knew there was a technical word ;)

Jack
01-12-2010, 02:01 PM
it is no video
it is always a long text
but you can find it on media fair

Darathor
01-12-2010, 03:08 PM
They weren't really ragdoll physics. The people didn't flail about wildly and sprawl on the ground in a random fashion, it was more like preset animations really. It was cool to see them fly about after being hit with a rock or boulder, but bfme2 overall has too many problems for me to play it that much.

HolyPollo
02-21-2010, 07:48 PM
It works exactly the same way with DoF:)

Exciting, but it could have it's downfalls too. It's hard to create some strategies when something huge can disrupt your forces so easily. It'll be interesting to see the execution. I'd hope it adds more than it frustrates.

Negthareas
02-23-2010, 06:41 PM
I found that it added a lot to the game - to BFME that is.

DarkMaster
02-23-2010, 11:53 PM
It wasn't really that intrusive on gameplay in BfME. You just had to make sure you had plenty of archers to bring the trolls down before they reached your battle line. Besides, it was EPIC to have massive cavalry forces:D

Negthareas
02-24-2010, 07:54 PM
It wasn't really that intrusive on gameplay in BfME. You just had to make sure you had plenty of archers to bring the trolls down before they reached your battle line. Besides, it was EPIC to have massive cavalry forces:D

Yes - one of the things they did awesomely on in BFME was cavalry.

DarkMaster
02-24-2010, 10:29 PM
Yes - one of the things they did awesomely on in BFME was cavalry.
And how could they not? Considering the source material:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_eOThecFRKFQ/SxmppvXmmrI/AAAAAAAAFAw/hN6dQGX51Ls/s400/Rohirrim+charge+at+Pelennor+Fields.jpg

HolyPollo
02-27-2010, 12:09 PM
It wasn't really that intrusive on gameplay in BfME. You just had to make sure you had plenty of archers to bring the trolls down before they reached your battle line. Besides, it was EPIC to have massive cavalry forces:D

I felt that cavalry was incredibly over powered in that game. Calvary should have increased attack vs infantry and ranged units as well as increased speed but the ability to always mow through fields of infantry units, doing massive damage for each strike seemed unrealistic and unbalanced to me. AoE did calvary much better in my opinion.

blackfang
02-27-2010, 01:22 PM
the rome total war cavalry are a lot more balanced, they crush into the ranks of infantry. Then one of three things happened. The infantry routed, the cavalry was held there and crushed, the cavalry was pulled back then charged again. The cavalry were great for smashing into enemies to rout them and to hunt down running people and kill archers. But they totally sucked in a huge melee, they are great but at the same time they suck. However against small town guards they are great since they don't loose as many against weak units. My opinion is that cavalry should be shock units, they make a huge difference with their speed and mobility. However if properly surrounded they will get slaughtered:eek: Thats why the great armies of rome and greece were such a bother to the cavalry nations, they walk forward and if attacked by cavalry they still continue cutting down and surrounding. Its awesome:D

DarkMaster
02-27-2010, 07:33 PM
I felt that cavalry was incredibly over powered in that game. Calvary should have increased attack vs infantry and ranged units as well as increased speed but the ability to always mow through fields of infantry units, doing massive damage for each strike seemed unrealistic and unbalanced to me. AoE did calvary much better in my opinion.
You have to at least admit that it was wierd seeing a knight charging towards someone and then stopping in front of them, though.

Anyway, I think cavalry crushing should be included in this game, but not so much that they can kill over three layers of soldiers. It should be purely for disrupting formations and making it very hard for the enemy to coordinate their attacks. Maybe, just maybe, if the circumstances are right, for example downhill charge with massive buffs and an unprepared enemy, cavalry should own like they do in BfME.

Aametherar
02-27-2010, 08:49 PM
I loved the total war cavalry myself. I imagine this games combat to be similar to total wars in several ways.

World of battles also has a nice setup for cavalry charging. It takes into account cavalry weight, speed, formation etc. yet at the same time is fairly simple. If enemy pikemen get in formation in front of them it's devastating for the cavalry and can possibly break a charge dead in its tracks for the nearby infantry that are being guarded, or other cavalry to flank for example. Also the heavier the target unit (like heavy infantry) the more it slows or has a chance of stopping the cavalry charge.

DarkMaster
02-28-2010, 12:54 AM
Oh yeah, I forgot to add "light infantry" to my list of prerequisites for a devastating cavalry charge.

blackfang
02-28-2010, 05:47 AM
in world of battles i got a huge pikeman army, its entirely made of pikemen and archers. The pikemen got an incredible health and the archers got an incredible dmg. Its awesome, however i don't play it now... It just doesn't feel fun anymore.

HolyPollo
03-03-2010, 08:24 AM
Oh yeah, I forgot to add "light infantry" to my list of prerequisites for a devastating cavalry charge.

Yea I could see it being possible with archers and light calvary, but even then, getting knocked over by a horse sucks, but it doesn't kill you like an arrow to the face or a stab to the torso. At most charges should disrupt your ranks and allow for better melee infiltration, not annihilate your forces like someone just lit up an equestrian air strike. Calvary is best for hit and run tactics against archers and quick support to a failing line.

blackfang
03-03-2010, 10:31 AM
actually lighter infantry should be quite devastated by a cavalry tough, but the heavier might not take a single casualty. Against a cavalry charge archers should have no chance as to make people actually bother protecting the archers, i mean if they did not entirely decimate my archer platoons i would not really bother using any infantry to defend them, however i would keep a platoon or two if they would be devastated by cavalry. Of course once they have plunged into a platoon they should loose their speed and as cavalry got quite a bad attack normally they should be killed by any infantry platoon if they cant get out of it. Its normal that if a spearman and a horseman without speed then the horseman would die, however at high speed it really depends on the rider. Also getting run over by a cavalry platoon should not just disrupt lines, that should make the whole group so damaged that making them continue would be a waist. Also heavier riders should give a possibility to fight equal to infantry and have heavier charges but lower speeds... And the ones that could easily kill them would be lighties:D

Sry i forgot thisDo you think getting trampled by hundred horses is less devastating then an arrow rain, just think about it.

DarkMaster
03-03-2010, 02:22 PM
but it doesn't kill you like an arrow to the face or a stab to the torso
You're kidding, right? Let's see you try getting run over by a horse and see how many times out of ten you die. No offense, but the horseshoe is coming down with greater force than the arrow, and it's still a solid metal object.

blackfang
03-03-2010, 02:38 PM
Actually an arrow to the face is possible to block, so is a stab to the torso. But a horse can not be blocked, you can possibly survive with all your bones crushed underneath it. Or perhaps you can run away, or dodge it. Anyways it is damned hard to avoid a horse when you are at the front lines, and 99/100 times the ones in the front is really killed by a horse charge. However a arrow rain is much easier since you can actually just hide behind your shield. And a melee combat you can just stab the enemy before he stab you. If you try to block the horse you die. If you stab the horse it will fall over you and you die. If you try to run away the shields behind you will push you back and you die. If you actually survive a horse charge then you can be damned since then comes the slaughter of the scattered forces. Cavalry is not to be taken lightly, a cavalry charge back in those times should be just as frightening as a tank rush on you position should be these days.

Negthareas
03-03-2010, 07:41 PM
Actually an arrow to the face is possible to block, so is a stab to the torso. But a horse can not be blocked, you can possibly survive with all your bones crushed underneath it. Or perhaps you can run away, or dodge it. Anyways it is damned hard to avoid a horse when you are at the front lines, and 99/100 times the ones in the front is really killed by a horse charge. However a arrow rain is much easier since you can actually just hide behind your shield. And a melee combat you can just stab the enemy before he stab you. If you try to block the horse you die. If you stab the horse it will fall over you and you die. If you try to run away the shields behind you will push you back and you die. If you actually survive a horse charge then you can be damned since then comes the slaughter of the scattered forces. Cavalry is not to be taken lightly, a cavalry charge back in those times should be just as frightening as a tank rush on you position should be these days.

At Agincourt, the reason the longbows were able to penetrate the visors at close range.

The idea behind plate armor was to eliminate chances of being killed with a sword, pike, or pointed weapon.

Cavalry charges were devastating if [IF] they hit their target. If they missed they got slaughtered.

EG- Rohan charges in the battle of Pelennor Fields
EG - Crusaders get slaughtered during [one of the crusades] because the enemy force was able to spread itself out - no massive army to aim the charge at.

Zeluk
03-03-2010, 09:57 PM
This thread has many great points in it, I’ve always been quite partial to cavalry myself. I agree that in BFME, cavalry were a tad overpowered. I had a small well-managed group of cavalry which I used as my scalpel on the battlefield. In some cases they were all I really needed. 1-3 units I would leave to defend a chokepoint.

As for a rag-doll physic, I have always appreciated that graphical feature. Added a sense of realism to whatever respective game it was in.

You're kidding, right? Let's see you try getting run over by a horse and see how many times out of ten you die. No offense, but the horseshoe is coming down with greater force than the arrow, and it's still a solid metal object.
Not to mention that the horses have riders. Riders with weapons, that are actively trying to kill you...


At Agincourt, the reason the longbows were able to penetrate the visors at close range.

The idea behind plate armor was to eliminate chances of being killed with a sword, pike, or pointed weapon.

Cavalry charges were devastating if [IF] they hit their target. If they missed they got slaughtered.

EG- Rohan charges in the battle of Pelennor Fields
EG - Crusaders get slaughtered during [one of the crusades] because the enemy force was able to spread itself out - no massive army to aim the charge at.
QFT

DarkMaster
03-03-2010, 10:22 PM
Not to mention that the horses have riders. Riders with weapons, that are actively trying to kill you...

Oh yeah:o ...

blackfang
03-04-2010, 05:07 AM
also you can look at it this way, what if the knight for instance got like a ton of armor on. Then not only the person underneath would be crushed but his internal organs would come rolling out just as you crush a egg. I feel really bad for the person who dies:(

Zeluk
03-05-2010, 06:39 PM
Heh, that's kinda messed up dude.

Negthareas
03-05-2010, 07:04 PM
He is right though. Armor was strong, but not strong enough to withstand the weight of a horse, rider, and any other armor. I imagine that is what would happen.

blackfang
03-06-2010, 07:22 AM
actually the armor would be strong enough to withstand a horse, however not if the horse use a little strength. If it just stand atop of an armor it should be able to hold if just barely (actually it depends of the armor tough but anyways) but once a bit force is used it goes down. Reminds me of a ceramic cup, you can place a house on top of it and it doesn't get crushed but if you hit it with your hand you crush it. It really is the most powerful substance in the known world however if you place a sand corn underneath is then it would also be crushed. It is kinda like it can hold a constant weight but sudden weight or more weight on one side rather then the other should crush it.

Negthareas
03-06-2010, 08:53 AM
If the armor was one piece - I imagine it would give at the hinges on the side. The pressure would snap them, and the man inside would get crushed. This is under the assumption that the horse landed on the person, and was not carefully laid on top.

blackfang
03-06-2010, 11:22 AM
well normally a charging horse would rarely disturb real life physics but i guess it happens once or twice. "Look a flying horse." "No stupid, horses can't fly its just a overgrown squirrel with wings."

DarkMaster
03-07-2010, 01:59 AM
It really is the most powerful substance in the known world
Uuh... correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought diamond was the hardest known substance?

This is under the assumption that the horse landed on the person, and was not carefully laid on top.
This.

"Look a flying horse." "No stupid, horses can't fly its just a overgrown squirrel with wings."
:D

blackfang
03-07-2010, 05:53 AM
yes, diamond is the strongest normally. But if we think of how much weight they can take before they crush i bet ceramic stands a good chance to hold it. I am not certain of it however, i just watched discovery channel like i do every day i can:D

DarkMaster
03-07-2010, 03:20 PM
Discovery is just bleagh. The Australian ABC is pretty much the best channel I have watched when it comes to docos.

The Witch King of Angmar
03-08-2010, 07:05 PM
Honestly, I loved unit tumbling. It worked wonders when using Nazgul, heroes, or pikes. It was a dirty tactic, but it worked. :)

Negthareas
03-08-2010, 08:41 PM
I think it mad complete sense with cavalry and Nazgul and catapults, but besides that was implemented incorrectly. To have it in any other situations [besides falling ents] is and was illogical.

otomotopia
03-09-2010, 05:27 PM
Righto, well here's my ideas on this.

Calvary in DoF should cost massive amounts of money, and should cut into fodder really well, like it seems to do.

However, Calvary are easy to beat by positioning apropreate forces. We all know that if you go too deep with calvary and loose the momentum of the charge, or if it encounters a strong resistance, the force is dead meat. Heavier units-aka, ones with armor, with-hold the onslaught of a charge better then lighter units. And braver units with-hold against a charge better then less willed units. So even though a blademaster unit is not extremely well armored, it will at least attempt to slow down the calvary.

Calvary in DoF should be decimating when used correctly. I would like to have 1000 men battles at least once every other day in MMO mode (after progression, of course). A fifth of my force should be calvary, and I expect to use them to do more then just thin the ranks. IMO, Calvary should be used for decisive blows.

That being said, from what I've seen from some videos out there, Calvary needs to encounter much more resistance to units then in BFME, and much less then in RTW. Once they get in the muck of the enemy force, they should be taken down. But if they have a tactical oppertunity presented to them, they should be able to strike a decisive blow.

Swift sword
03-09-2010, 06:30 PM
If you ask me, cavalry were only over-powered against swordsmen/archers in BFME. Against pikemen, unless the cavalry were fully upgraded and the pikemen not at all, they didn't stand much of a chance. I only really noticed cavalry's prowess when charging into a horde or mordor orcs/gondor swordsmen. That's when the fun begins ;)

Anyways, I think that if cavalry had been a bit more expensive they would've been pretty much accurate. DoF can actually pull this off much easier because they can more easily relate how much time it took to train a group of cavalry to ride/charge (in other words, more building time) and make them fairly expensive. I'm with blackfang, except I think that of 1000 troops only 100 should be cavalry. Any more, and it's a bit too many to relay the devestation they cause.

Also, heavy infantry wouldn't stand any better a time in the inital charge against cavalry then light infantry would, unless they had spears/pikes. Cavalry speed would slow down faster (and thus cause less devestation) against heavy infantry, but other than that heavier armor isn't going to help against the first impact. It'll be a major factor once the cavalry have decimated the first 2-3lines of infantry, though. At that point, against light infantry they'd still be going strong, but against heavy, they'd have to wheel around before the fighting became hand-to-hand.

otomotopia
03-09-2010, 07:31 PM
Also, heavy infantry wouldn't stand any better a time in the inital charge against cavalry then light infantry would, unless they had spears/pikes. Cavalry speed would slow down faster (and thus cause less devestation) against heavy infantry, but other than that heavier armor isn't going to help against the first impact. It'll be a major factor once the cavalry have decimated the first 2-3lines of infantry, though. At that point, against light infantry they'd still be going strong, but against heavy, they'd have to wheel around before the fighting became hand-to-hand.

That should have been clarified in my responce, sorry. I do agree, being the first against a charge (without long sharp poles) usually ends up with your death. however, Heavier/braver units should always slow down calvary better then weaker and less equiped units. I expect Blademasters to pose a much more substantial threat against calvary then a hobgoblin horde, and Sentrys much more then Grandmasters and Slayers.

Either way, having fodder in front mixed with pikes and a stronger layer of units in back is a sound strategy against any army.

Negthareas
03-09-2010, 08:09 PM
I agree - padding with needles.

Under most circumstances, at least. I am sure I could easily think up several that would cause problems for such a setup.

GPS51
03-09-2010, 08:53 PM
uh isn't that the point of fodder? cannon/sword etc. A very tried and true method though somewhat hard on soldiers.

otomotopia
03-10-2010, 06:57 AM
I agree - padding with needles.

Under most circumstances, at least. I am sure I could easily think up several that would cause problems for such a setup.

Of course, so could we all. Just plain ranged weapondry would be highly effective against a setup like that. It was a generalization for a reason- you need to constantly shift your setups/formations to accomedate for your opponent's tactics- archers probably won't work too well against ents if they cant set fire to them, so put more infantry up on the walls to defend them. Use the padding with needles technique as a rule of thumb, and change to full pikes when a "decisive" calvary charge comes.

uh isn't that the point of fodder? cannon/sword etc. A very tried and true method though somewhat hard on soldiers.

Well, there's a couple points of fodder from a mideval military perspective. They'll get to a point with a ton of numbers quicker then elite troops, and do the work before the elites are needed. They also provide mass (or a deep physical barrier), so it takes much more time to break through them. They soak up ranged attacks so your better units stay healthy.

Negthareas
03-10-2010, 10:27 AM
Right. One point people might find unrealistic about Rohan's cavalry charge in the battle of Pelennor fields is this. The people say that Rohan's charge would have been stopped by the sheer number of orcs they smashed into.

However, if you watch the movie, the orcs broke ranks before Rohan hit, so that, when Rohan did hit, the orcs were in front of them, but loosely, not together. Thus, the charge was able to keep up its massive momentum and run a significant portion of the Witch-King's army down.

otomotopia
03-10-2010, 11:42 AM
Right. One point people might find unrealistic about Rohan's cavalry charge in the battle of Pelennor fields is this. The people say that Rohan's charge would have been stopped by the sheer number of orcs they smashed into.

However, if you watch the movie, the orcs broke ranks before Rohan hit, so that, when Rohan did hit, the orcs were in front of them, but loosely, not together. Thus, the charge was able to keep up its massive momentum and run a significant portion of the Witch-King's army down.

O...kay. So I guess you're agreeing with my point that braver units will hold against a charge better then less brave units? otherwise that's just a random blurb that doesnt relate to the conversation...

blackfang
03-10-2010, 01:16 PM
actually, braver units don't break when faced with a more powerful (more likely to win) Kinda army, it doesn't really matter if it is a full melee or a charge. When charged, if they can hold their formation until the moment it hits first line then they should have an effect...

Negthareas
03-10-2010, 08:34 PM
O...kay. So I guess you're agreeing with my point that braver units will hold against a charge better then less brave units? otherwise that's just a random blurb that doesnt relate to the conversation...

Yes - I was. If units can hold until that moment [and if they are properly equipped - pikes, etc.] they can fend off, stop, or slaughter a cavalry charge.

It takes guts to stand there, knowing that, if you are in the first few ranks, you will die no matter what [the charge is still going fast. momentum will carry it forward to trample the first couple, few, or ten or so ranks. Probably even more.].

DarkMaster
03-10-2010, 10:22 PM
you will die no matter what
I draw the line here. Though you will probably sustain serious injury, it's still entirely possible that you won't die.

GPS51
03-10-2010, 10:58 PM
Hence the emergence of heavily clad/armed spear/pikemen? I mean that was the logical counter to heavy cav and the scots proved it for a hundred years to the heavy cav of the english.
And I forgot to add the idea of bracing pikes into the ground to use the momentum against the rider proved very useful to infantry.

blackfang
03-11-2010, 12:05 AM
it is awesome that people actually thought that far, also there is something worse for an army then half of it dead. That is half of it wounded beyond recovery. (they eat food, need help, need care, they slow the army down. Basically if you want a faction to loose, then you just take all those you capture and cut of their thumbs. Also if you have started with the thumbs the rest of the fingers should also be good. After that send them back to their army or a village or something.) The world is so interesting when people think of tactics like that;)

Negthareas
03-13-2010, 05:07 PM
Yes - you could completely disarm a nation that way - and earn a multi-generational enemy. You have to realize that doing something like that to an entire army merited the hate of generations following. Not something that would end a cultural or long-lasting conflict.

blackfang
03-14-2010, 08:13 AM
nope, not always. normally the nation that got soldiers with their thumbs cut will loose. Its not always good but it is efficient at some points. Like if you want to prevent an uprising, or if you are just plainly evil.
The down sides are of course bitterness less labor if you conquer the enemy. Actually the down sides are too many to bother doing it with a whole army...

Negthareas
03-15-2010, 04:07 PM
Yeah - they will lose, but who knows what might happen in fifteen years? Think of real examples of cultural bitterness, like [I am not trying to start a debate on this topic] the Israeli/Palistinian conflict.

Zeluk
03-15-2010, 04:40 PM
nope, not always. normally the nation that got soldiers with their thumbs cut will lose.

That's only assuming that that army was the only one a Nation had, which would be silly.

blackfang
03-16-2010, 12:37 PM
That's only assuming that that army was the only one a Nation had, which would be silly.

I am not assuming that, i am assuming that if an army first got their thumbs cut of then most likely 3-10 other armies died in the same battle... Can you really think of an entire army giving up without fighting?

Zeluk
03-16-2010, 01:37 PM
Again, your assuming that all of these armies were in the same spot to be in that battle. Generals don't consolidate all their forces in the same spot. They spread them out to defend as much as they strategically can while not spreading to thin. It's very rare for wars to be won in a single battle.

EDIT-Seems we are getting a bit off-topic. Perhaps a new thread although I don't really know what it would be about.

DarkMaster
03-16-2010, 03:33 PM
It's very rare for wars to be won in a single battle.
Except, in some instances in history, where one side foolishly lets their enemy have a shot at a decisive blow.

Negthareas
03-16-2010, 08:57 PM
EG - Henry V defeated the French with two battles - the Siege of Harfluer, and the Battle of Agincourt. Only one real "Battle" but the French were devastated.

otomotopia
03-16-2010, 09:30 PM
Absolutely. The flanking manuever was so basic, but the french just didn't expect it and paid for it drastically.

Which reminds me. I cannot wait for massive calvary charges in DoF.

DarkMaster
03-16-2010, 11:26 PM
Me too. Even if they fail horribly, it's still gonna look and feel epic.:D

wills370
03-17-2010, 05:11 AM
Hmm from the trailor you can see calvery on the wall so i think that will be a nice addition to conflict (not entirly sure how they got up there) but watchign a charge down the parapet does sound pretty awsome :)

with regard to charges there are so many ways to counter and counter again with both pikemen and infantry and calvery that this could be a ever ending discussion. There are even some instances where calvery sent the weaker less protected calvery in first into a charge to break the lines before sending in the heavily armered slightly slower horses after. There by destroying the pikemen as they had already piles of dead infront and around them from all the calvery tripping and destroying there lines. so theres another tactic to use ;)

Negthareas
03-17-2010, 03:18 PM
Absolutely. The flanking manuever was so basic, but the french just didn't expect it and paid for it drastically.

Which reminds me. I cannot wait for massive calvary charges in DoF.

I don't think there was a flanking manuever at Agincourt.

Negthareas
03-17-2010, 03:21 PM
?Yes - I think we have pretty much covered the issue:

With cavalry, we definitely want tumbling except for a few specialized units, maybe like a heavy pikemen, or pikemen if they are in a certain stance.

Catapults with create a tumble, and so would ogres, and treants but besides that, nothing else would.

-except for maybe falling structures [eg - orc gate].

DarkMaster
03-17-2010, 03:35 PM
Dear Devs,
Please feel free to go overboard with the structure-collapse caused unit tumbling:p

Negthareas
03-17-2010, 04:36 PM
Yeah - What does the destruction of a buidling do?

Up to now, I have heard that it -

-stops the ability for a building to be used until "rebuilt" [which costs less than building anew since foundation is still intact]
-a building can catch on fire, which will damage it over a length of time

But, when a building collapses, will it damage adjascent units? Are there graphics in place for that? [eg - giant blocks of marble crushing people].

It is a little detail, but it would be nice.

Are bridges indestructible? It would make sense for wooden ones [able to be destroyed over a length of time] but stone ones should be indestructilbe due to the length of time it would take. Ditto for stone walls. [Unless you are dealing with macho big trebuchets or dynamite, or something].

welshie
03-17-2010, 04:40 PM
Dear Devs,
Please feel free to go overboard with the structure-collapse caused unit tumbling:p

yeh but you forget this will effect both sides
Defenders:-
Disadvantages:
1. Walls falling when men are atop means dead mean.
2. Falling buildings on defending retreting troops, makes an awfull mess on the floor.
3. The cost of the buildings everywhere.
4. Blocked off ways meaning fresh troops take longer to get to needed places.

Advantages:-
1. Makes your own buildings target for street warfare.
2. Can cut off direct routs giving you time to set up secondary defences and allowing you to retreat your troops with time to spare.
3. Might give you a good way to re-vamp your castle inners, just get someone to destroy your ugly region :)
4. Can use destroyed buildings to make choke points to funnel enimies into a heavily defended area, one with towers/walls wheres your ubzor archers are licking their lips.

Attacker:-
Disadvantages:
1. Can make choke points for your self if afray rocks go into unwanted areas.
2. Can make seiges longer, by making so much mess you cannot manover in the rubble laden city.
3. Give the defender another weapon to kill troops with.
4. If the person is a designer something to do after the seige if they are your mortal enimys and care.

Negthareas
03-17-2010, 05:14 PM
Good Points, welshie. I agree with all of them. I do have one further point, however:

-I believe that rubble and collapsed buildings should be traversible by foot units. Definitly not by mounted or siege units. Still, there would be a significant [-75%] speed penalty, and stances should not be able to be used.

Zeluk
03-17-2010, 06:10 PM
I like these ideas, and to add on to them. Say we build like a blacksmith/workshop kind of building one that would provide certain techs or upgrades. Once researched they give us whatever bonus, but when the building itself is destroyed you still have access to the various upgrades, which is the case with most games. So in this game I wonder if it'll be the same.

DarkMaster
03-17-2010, 08:20 PM
I reckon you should still keep the upgrades, but only for the units/buildings that are already affected.

For example, if you research "reinforced foundations" at a mason's, all your buildings will recieve this upgrade. When the mason is destroyed, your buildings still have the upgrade, but any new buildings will be as though they had never gotten the upgrade. This would simulate the sudden unavailability of specialists to equip these improvements.

Of course, certain upgrades would make sense if they needed an upgrade building to be available 24/7. Take fire arrows. If your chemist is destroyed, your stockpile of the arrows would run out and your archers would be required to use regular arrows instead.

Zeluk
03-17-2010, 08:23 PM
Seems like a good way to balance it. In most games you just keep the upgrades after you research it, with or without the building.

Negthareas
03-17-2010, 08:54 PM
Those are great ideas!

DarkMaster
03-18-2010, 01:23 AM
Those are great ideas!
:o Glad you think so:o

blackfang
03-18-2010, 08:42 AM
Ohh yeah storehouse wars, (ability to take the enemy ammo for different weapons to yourself while fighting) That seems like totally awesome:D Everlasting archers seems like a bad idea but a higher dmg archers slower at firing would be awesome:rolleyes:

welshie
03-18-2010, 11:39 AM
Great ideas not to keen on the chemist thing, For one i would keep fire arrows probaly in my keep/in the inner city as to not make my warhouse my only place to store things and when thats gone im stuck with defult. but then again you can argue you have to stragatize these thing and people who dont pay attention and have all there stores and valuble buildings right on the edge where they are vaunrable makes them more easy to destroy.

blackfang
03-18-2010, 12:51 PM
How about that the archers got really high dmg but gotta refill arrows, however the enemy army can also steal the storehouse and take the arrows for their own evil needs... That would make storehouses a vital part of any army. Of course you want an archer platoon with high dmg rather then everlasting arrows?

welshie
03-18-2010, 01:07 PM
How about that the archers got really high dmg but gotta refill arrows, however the enemy army can also steal the storehouse and take the arrows for their own evil needs... That would make storehouses a vital part of any army. Of course you want an archer platoon with high dmg rather then everlasting arrows?

I fear doing this sort of thing would overpower the archers in seiges, as arrows can be stored normaly anywhere, and tbh i would find it really iratating if my archer battalions had to keep running back and forth to restock, if you made it so the warhouse was the only place to restock. As attackers would send in cheap units to waste your arrows and while going to restock they send in the heavys and take the walls unharmed.

I would suggest, in your storehouse having the special arrows and storehouse workers running back and forth suppling the arrows to the battalions. And when the storehouse is destroyed all you have is the speica; arrows left untill they run out, and once this happens they go back to defult arrows making there damage alot less than with special. I'm sure you would be able to make store houses in each teir of your city, this would make the storehouse a stragitc point to defend and attack. But also not make the archers to deadly or storehouse to important and leave the attacker with an easy seige. It's the only way i see to impliment this suggestion

Negthareas
03-18-2010, 03:06 PM
That makes sense. Will post more on this tonight.

DarkMaster
03-18-2010, 03:30 PM
Great ideas not to keen on the chemist thing, For one i would keep fire arrows probaly in my keep/in the inner city as to not make my warhouse my only place to store things and when thats gone im stuck with defult. but then again you can argue you have to stragatize these thing and people who dont pay attention and have all there stores and valuble buildings right on the edge where they are vaunrable makes them more easy to destroy.
I was simply using the "chemist" example to express my ideas on the upgrade-loss system. I wasn't saying that they should be that way in-game or anything, only that fire arrows are an example of what should be a "temporary" upgrade.:)

Negthareas
03-18-2010, 08:10 PM
Yes. Things like firestones for trebuchets, bodkin arrows for archers, and ballista bolts should be limited by a building of some kind. This would add a lot to siege battles.

Armories could become a functional building for the first time in RTSs. They have for too long been "upgrade" buildings.

In BFME, I would research everything, then destroy the building so that I could build something else. An active armory would be a nice feature.