Collapse
No announcement yet.
Conversation Detail Module
Collapse
  • Page of 1
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Units Realistic looking & functioning tanks

    #1
    Subject:

    Designing real-looking, not overblown tanks for Generals 2, and scaling them realisticaly.


    Description:

    Ever since TD, tanks in C&C games (and possibly in other games aswell) were designed in a following fashion: We take reasonable designed, naturaly sized, one-barreled tanks, and make them the faction's backbone armor. THEN we take a huge-*** overblown double-barreled triple-missle launching quad-threaded monstrosity and make it THE deciding armor unit. OR make it a high-tech supernatural strange-something-something thingy.

    What did it do?

    Well, MBTs are the main modern armored vehicles in use, which are the heaviest things deployed by modern armies. They are surrounded by lighter vehicles, like APCs and IFVs.

    In current RTS gaming, there is no such thing as a modern IFV/APC, with their role limited to (mostly useless except for some abstract strategies like engie rush) infantry carriers, not medium armored vehicles. In RTS games, the MBT tanks are the medium vehicles, in other words: Medium vehicles are treated like utilitary/support stuff, and heavy vehicles fill the niche of medium vehicles. The role of modern realistic heavy vehicles is filled by superheavy stuff out of cosmos or the 3rd Reich (See P-1000 Ratte and P-1500 Monster for reference).

    While I think this is not wrong by definition, I think it's a bit too overused cliche.

    I think it would be really unique for the feel of the game, especialy semi-realistic like Generals, to have the use of absurd superheavy vehicles limited. Generals 1 did that for the most part (with only two absurd tanks, that is: GLA self-upgrading tank which, in the end, was huge and double-barreled, and China Overlord), and I think it would be nice if Generals 2 would stay this way. If it already exists in fiction of the world, like the Overlord, then fine.

    But I think it would be nice to keep the rest of the tanks reasonable. MBTs are not "medium" vehicles. They are heavy stuff. They are big (what most RTS games forget, and make their size comparable to light vehicles), they demand respect.

    And I'd totally love a C&C game where the heavy T3 vehicle is a modern, realistic looking two-threaded, single-barreled tank. But with it's size, armor and firepower done right, it would still earn as much respect as a Mammoth - Just without being over the top.

    Keep in mind that I do not demand putting tanks from T2 to T3 - It may be an interesting idea, but there is nothing wrong with having more advaned, but not overblown, tanks at T3. Just like Generals 1 did with USA - They had Crusader tank as the main tank, and Paladin as the advanced one. Both were looking realistic and sensible.

    Positive Effect:

    - Different, original feel of the units
    - Bigger game realism when it comes to visual terms

    Negative Effect:

    - Some C&C fans may be dissapointed with the lack (or severe reduction of) "big toys".
    - It may be harder to design different and original tanks when they all fill the same pattern (one cannon, one tower, two threads etc.)

    Media

    A chart showing tank size comparisions:

    http://information2share.files.wordp...n-chart-v2.jpg

    Now compare:

    GDI Predator MBT next to infantry (middle of the pic):
    http://gamezone.nodblog.com/files/sc...-conquer-4.jpg

    Mideast Crisis 2 screenshot showing a UN Abrams fighting against infantry:
    http://www.pcgames.de/screenshots/97..._2_cuc_3_1.jpg

    Both Predator are Abrams are MBTs, yet while Predator seems comparable to a jeep in size in TW (it was even dwarfed by Zone Troopers), the ME2 Abrams more realisticaly depicts the scale of a modern tank. It doesn't need to be absurdly overblown to look imposting. Main battle tanks are huge and imposting already.
    Last edited by Borreh; 05-29-2012, 10:48 PM.
    Tags: None
  • #2
    Yes I definitely agree.

    To add my input, I think MBTs should be the tip of the spear, the heaviest and most powerful piece of equipment. The niche of "cheap affordable light tank" akin to Predator and scorpion tank should be filled with Mechanized Infantry vehicles like IFVs (bradley, BMP 2). I think these vehicles would also carry their own infantry squad which would deploy automatically when attacking and mount when moving long distances. Thus the IFV units would come with infantry squads already included: they'd never go out without them. APC vehicles would be a separate category, they could carry whatever you order them to and in much larger quantities, but would have no "light tank" weaponry like autoguns.

    Comment

    • #3
      Originally posted by Victimizer View Post
      Yes I definitely agree.

      To add my input, I think MBTs should be the tip of the spear, the heaviest and most powerful piece of equipment. The niche of "cheap affordable light tank" akin to Predator and scorpion tank should be filled with Mechanized Infantry vehicles like IFVs (bradley, BMP 2). I think these vehicles would also carry their own infantry squad which would deploy automatically when attacking and mount when moving long distances. Thus the IFV units would come with infantry squads already included: they'd never go out without them. APC vehicles would be a separate category, they could carry whatever you order them to and in much larger quantities, but would have no "light tank" weaponry like autoguns.
      I do like the idea (even considered this myself but decided to not include it in this post and limit it to more art/graphical design) of tanks moving from T2 to T3, and their role in T2 being taken over by IFVs.

      I also do like (even proposed it a while back) the idea of an infantry carrier mechanic in which the infantry automaticaly moves with it's designated vehicle, and auto disembargs it when the vehicle is idle/in combat (and supports it) and then enters it again when they are ordered to move somewhere far away. Such infantry could also have buffed armor even outside the vehicle.

      I don't like however limiting IFVs to a preset infantry type, it's a bit too abstract and limiting. I think they could either enter the combat with standard infantry inside, or be empty, and you could assign one infantry unit/squad for them.

      Proper APCs could house two (or more) infantry squads, but would have lighter weaponry.

      Comment

      • #4
        What fills the T1 niche? Jeeps and infantry?

        Comment

        • #5
          Infantry have their own set of tiers I suppose.

          In vehicles, T1 pretty much usualy in C&C is filled with jeeps, buggys, sometimes APCs. Usually tier 2 are MBTs, light artillery, APCs and some other support stuff (AA vehicles or simillar), tier 3 are the advanced tanks and heavy artillery, sometimes something more.
          Last edited by Borreh; 05-30-2012, 04:01 PM.

          Comment

          • #6
            @Kyang: That might not be so bad. Remember no faction has access to their MBT until tier 2 in RA3.

            Anyway, nice idea Borreh. Really clear, intelligent points as well. I also think people should look to Company of Heroes, for a good example of MBTs being a scary, imposing threat simply because of what they are.

            Comment

            • #7
              Soldiers are bigger than have to be because some of us playing on small screens with high dpi like for example laptop users on which will look infantry with adequate size to tanks like playing Worms from orbital view and guess like what will be fun in finding which soldier type you actualy looking at...

              Other changes that will unavoidably change gameplay far from C&C original formula aren't even worth of complaying.
              BUT as hidden joke good one...

              Comment

              • #8
                I must agree. I do quite like tanks like the Mammoth tank, but I agree that having too many huge tanks diminishes the relevance of the lesser tanks.
                Come to think of it, I don't enjoy using the Predator quite so much as I feel like I should. It's such a cool tank!
                I do still want to see some high-tech tanks in the game, though. And there has to be at least one double-barreled tank. It's a trademark of C&C.

                Comment

                • #9
                  Originally posted by IonorRea View Post
                  Soldiers are bigger than have to be because some of us playing on small screens with high dpi like for example laptop users on which will look infantry with adequate size to tanks like playing Worms from orbital view and guess like what will be fun in finding which soldier type you actualy looking at...

                  Other changes that will unavoidably change gameplay far from C&C original formula aren't even worth of complaying.
                  BUT as hidden joke good one...
                  Somehow this didn't stop DoW, CoH, WiC, Total War series, Mideast Crisis 2 and many other games from having realisticaly scaled units and it didn't make the games uncomprehensible. Besides, if you think unit scaling is my main point behind the post, then you are mistaken.

                  "Other ideas not worth even complaying", which are..? How would making tanks look realistic change the gameplay far from C&C formula? Or get a tank at T3 and a IFV at T2, if they both fill the same roles the Mammoth and Predator tanks would fill in TW? It's just a visual change, nothing else.

                  APC discussion - While I see nothing "changing gameplay far from C&C" in having the infantry transported by APC walk out of it and shoot instead of shooting from the inside like they do in current games, it's just a brainstorming discussion, no single demand or proposition was given..

                  Originally posted by =LEVIATHEN= View Post
                  I must agree. I do quite like tanks like the Mammoth tank, but I agree that having too many huge tanks diminishes the relevance of the lesser tanks.
                  Come to think of it, I don't enjoy using the Predator quite so much as I feel like I should. It's such a cool tank!
                  I do still want to see some high-tech tanks in the game, though. And there has to be at least one double-barreled tank. It's a trademark of C&C.
                  Yeah, I also think that having too many huge tanks dimishes the "wow"-factor of themselves.

                  And yeah, a double-barreled tank is kinda' a trademark.. While I wouldn't want more of such things present in the games that already are, they are kinda' tradition. If China will be the 3rd faction, then I'm all for having Emperor-esque tank. If not, then I wouldn't want any major huge stuff.

                  Edit: Sorry for doublepost.
                  Last edited by Stephanovich; 05-31-2012, 02:27 AM.

                  Comment

                  • #10
                    Units scaling is part of UI design, so infantry units are big to become clearly recognisable.
                    As UI is part of gameplay, gameplay is affected by changing size ratios as well...
                    All games you give as comparison have different gameplay style, so comparison with C&C Generals isn't really possible, but succesul RTS titles of same style are usualy same in unrealistic size ratios for good reason.

                    Original Generals work with APCs your way, Troop Crawler require deploying troops in order to attack, Humvee have windows which allowing shooting from vehicle that is widely used also in reality and transport helicopters are also commonly used as weapon platform from which infantry uses personal weapons agains enemy...
                    ZH is somewhat crazy addon where fun was priority over everything else (realism, balance) but as you know C&C i don't really need to write it, as it's nothing new for you...

                    Special weapons like two barreled tanks are part of toy factor where player is rewarded for teching up with something that not only is powerful but also look clearly powerful without need to read unit stats, It is important part of game and as you are educated man you must already know it too (or read something about game development in order to prevent from creating abundant treads on forums).

                    Have a nice day.

                    Comment

                    • #11
                      Originally posted by IonorRea View Post
                      Special weapons like two barreled tanks are part of toy factor where player is rewarded for teching up with something that not only is powerful but also look clearly powerful without need to read unit stats, It is important part of game and as you are educated man you must already know it too (or read something about game development in order to prevent from creating abundant treads on forums).

                      Have a nice day.
                      Again, I point to Company of Heroes' tanks. At a glance, it's clear that they're capable of delivering (and recieving) a lot of damage. The reward for rolling one out is quite substantial. Borreh has already explained it's simply a visual change. From what I understand, the idea is to buff MBTs so they will fill of the roll of double barrel tanks.

                      Originally posted by Borreh View Post
                      Yeah, I also think that having too many huge tanks dimishes the "wow"-factor of themselves.
                      I dunno about that. Mammoth Tanks still look pretty beastly to me.
                      Last edited by Reno277; 05-31-2012, 08:57 AM.

                      Comment

                      • #12
                        Originally posted by IonorRea View Post
                        Units scaling is part of UI design, so infantry units are big to become clearly recognisable.
                        As UI is part of gameplay, gameplay is affected by changing size ratios as well...
                        All games you give as comparison have different gameplay style, so comparison with C&C Generals isn't really possible, but succesul RTS titles of same style are usualy same in unrealistic size ratios for good reason.

                        Original Generals work with APCs your way, Troop Crawler require deploying troops in order to attack, Humvee have windows which allowing shooting from vehicle that is widely used also in reality and transport helicopters are also commonly used as weapon platform from which infantry uses personal weapons agains enemy...
                        ZH is somewhat crazy addon where fun was priority over everything else (realism, balance) but as you know C&C i don't really need to write it, as it's nothing new for you...

                        Special weapons like two barreled tanks are part of toy factor where player is rewarded for teching up with something that not only is powerful but also look clearly powerful without need to read unit stats, It is important part of game and as you are educated man you must already know it too (or read something about game development in order to prevent from creating abundant treads on forums).

                        Have a nice day.
                        I'll not comment on the arrogant tone of the upper message.

                        For the rest:

                        The games have different gameplay styles but they are still strategy games which deal with the same UI design issues, you can't just throw those examples away as "unadequate". "Succesful RTS of the same style" - Any titles?

                        Besides, who tells the infantry to get smaller? You could aswell make the tanks bigger with keeping the infantry the same size it is now. It already partially hapened in C&C4, where units were much bigger than they used to be in older C&Cs.

                        APCs in C&C do not work that way, because the infantry needs to be manual loaded/unloaded each time you need them to do so. Shooting from interior of vehicles limits the aim and firepower, and while in certain situations it is useful, APCs deploy infantry and support them, the infantry doesn't sit inside all the time and shoot from the very small shooting ports.

                        Special weapons like two barreled tanks: Yes, they are, but they could aswell look different, it is dependent not only on the fun factor, but also on the game's visual style. C&C General's didn't have a double barreled tank as a T3 unit for US and GLA. Is it then a badly designed game?

                        Comment

                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Reno View Post
                          Again, I point to Company of Heroes' tanks. At a glance, it's clear that they're capable of delivering (and recieving) a lot of damage. The reward for rolling one out is quite substantial. Borreh has already explained it's simply a visual change. From what I understand, the idea is to buff MBTs so they will fill of the roll of double barrel tanks.
                          It's also an infantry centered game so you see very few tanks and vehicles during a game.

                          Comment

                          • #14
                            I think this is a great idea , MBT (imo) be T2 weapons. Then they should have brother of simular size but more expensive and advanced. better armo , more hp , more dmg ... somehitng like that. And yes i do agree that it would be great if tanks were up to scale.

                            Comment

                            X