Building stuff like in project reality. -1 reply

  • 1
  • 2

Please wait...

Domo230

GF Pwns Me!

50 XP

5th June 2007

0 Uploads

44 Posts

0 Threads

#1 10 years ago

Sorry if this has been suggested before [I did search].

A feature I would like to see which I think would add a lot more depth to the commander class [especially in campaigns where armies work as a team and plan out their strategies beforehand] is the ability for the commander to ask for things such as sandbags, bunkers etc to be built.

Imagine being a commander in forgotten hope and being able to order at guns, sandbags,mg nests,trenches, tank traps etc to be built in key locations. Of course it would require balancing [ make it take an incredibly long time to build] in order to be fair but I really think it could be a great addition to the game.




Guest

I didn't make it!

0 XP

 
#2 10 years ago

Fh2 is its own mod, so it shouldn't hard copy Project Reality.




Flyboy1942

A.K.A. Ghanrage

50 XP

29th January 2005

0 Uploads

1,683 Posts

0 Threads

#3 10 years ago

The thing about FH2 is that it features these large scale intimate battles where there's really no time to go out and build fortifications once the action starts. I'm not talking so much in game, but the battles themselves. You pretty much have to hold out against your enemy with what you have and weather wave after wave of attacks.

Besides, the Devs do a lot of research on these battles and the defenses end up pretty comprehensive because they were built by real armies trying to survive. Project Reality features more fluid modern warfare scenarios where the battle style is more aggressive, and defending is just a static form of attacking.

If that makes any sense.




jackal22

The forums staffers think I'm Cool

50 XP

7th November 2006

0 Uploads

158 Posts

0 Threads

#4 10 years ago

to be fair I never saw the point in PR. yes you got a new spawn but all it did was advertise the fact that half your team was over in xxxxxx location.

It is a cool feature I just never saw the practical use behind it.




Natty Wallo

FH2 LevelDesigner

50 XP

16th December 2005

0 Uploads

1,652 Posts

0 Threads

#5 10 years ago

yes FlyBoy, It makes sense, and I agree...

  • at guns - these we dont want players to create, its enough that they can be moved by the player, but the number of them must be controlled by the mapper, or balance would suffer
  • sandbags - these would be ok, but high risk of glitches and bugs (for example what happen if you prone in a staircase and build sandbags.. or build in tanks so they cant exit etc etc
  • mg nests - allready in, LMG guns.. HMG guns must be controlled by the mapper also, or balance would suffer
  • trenches - would never work, as they require terrain editing
  • tank traps - same as sandbags..

The idea is nice, but I wonder if it wouldnt disrupt the gameplay more than enhance it... we had a discussion earlier about "deployable ladder".. it is similar.. it looks good on paper, but ingame all these things would probably either disrupt gameplay or cause glitches (and crashes)




Cadyshack

Hey, you scratched my anchor!!

50 XP

4th July 2006

0 Uploads

759 Posts

0 Threads

#6 10 years ago

I've heard Lobo say that he doesn't like things like fortifications popping out of nowhere. And in the said FH2 action, the only real defenses soldiers could construct quickly enough would be digging things, which we can't do.




Frederf

I take what n0e says way too seriously

50 XP

2nd March 2004

0 Uploads

2,156 Posts

0 Threads

#7 10 years ago

I think the game pace of FH2 would have to drop about 2 pegs before user created structures would really make sense.

There's a large degree of potential abuse that comes along with it so you have to make sure the good aspects of it outweigh the potential abuse before you get a net good idea.

I think FH2 should be open to the idea of user placed engineering objects... I just can't think of any good examples right now.




Niebler

[130.Pz]A.Niebler

50 XP

2nd August 2006

0 Uploads

1,114 Posts

0 Threads

#8 10 years ago

It would be too badly abused imo. putting sandbags in the gap between mindfields? lol, tanks can no longer pass, etc The defenses are laid out of purpose :P




Guest

I didn't make it!

0 XP

 
#9 10 years ago

The idea is nice, especially for organized/tournament play. The problem is how to code it without creating lag or abuse issues.

Something that could be considered is allowing things to be built only on certain sites, of course designated by the mappers.

For example, you have 10 potential AA sites, and the commander can order 4 AA guns to be built, he has to choose where/when to spend his assets. This gives some of the advantages of mobile AA (if there are enough potential AA sites, an enemy pilot might have enough trouble to memorize all their positions), without some of their disadvantages (since the sites are placed by the mapper spawn/flag spamming can be avoided).

The idea is that once a site is selected the AA gun will always spawn in the same fixed position (x/y/z and rotation determined by the mapper, like for any "normal" equipment spawn). Of course the number of items available for building is determined by the mapper as well.

The same could apply to AT guns, HMG in bunkers/trenches (maybe make it a kit, if you "fire" -i.e., deploy, FH1 style- the MG near a HMG site a static MG appears) etc.




[FtN|GT] Die Happy

FH2 Betatester

50 XP

19th February 2007

0 Uploads

894 Posts

0 Threads

#10 10 years ago

rattovolante;4437178The idea is nice, especially for organized/tournament play. The problem is how to code it without creating lag or abuse issues.

Something that could be considered is allowing things to be built only on certain sites, of course designated by the mappers.

For example, you have 10 potential AA sites, and the commander can order 4 AA guns to be built, he has to choose where/when to spend his assets. This gives some of the advantages of mobile AA (if there are enough potential AA sites, an enemy pilot might have enough trouble to memorize all their positions), without some of their disadvantages (since the sites are placed by the mapper spawn/flag spamming can be avoided).

The idea is that once a site is selected the AA gun will always spawn in the same fixed position (x/y/z and rotation determined by the mapper, like for any "normal" equipment spawn). Of course the number of items available for building is determined by the mapper as well.

The same could apply to AT guns, HMG in bunkers/trenches (maybe make it a kit, if you "fire" -i.e., deploy, FH1 style- the MG near a HMG site a static MG appears) etc.

this sounds(reads) intriguing but also like a lot of coding work and bugs :( i like it cause it would give the commander more of a RTS like feeling which i like :) however i doubt we will be seeing any of this any time soon, right now devs are working hard on the final pieces of 2.15 (we still havent started testing yet :() and those that are not working on 2.15 are working on normandy stuff




  • 1
  • 2