Should infantry use cover

[Filipoo]

it's above, in thread tools...

Yeah, I know that it is complicated to do it (it is possible to do it though).
and I think it would add another dimension to the whole game. Add more realistic feel to it.

.....just because they used this in few other games they can't use it now? ... you can't be always original! ....it's better to copy few ideas from others than staying behind and not sell games. And most of other games copied so much from C&C so what? ...And how do you want to make taking cover different? it still will be way that soldiers uses a trench or wall to not receive the full blast from enemy's weapon.

....and finally , infantry wouldn't be swept off by tanks,
...and it would make them more deadly so you wouldn't be able to win the game just by spamming f*cking tanks...

...and I'm not sure what you mean by "cover stance"

[Existor]

I prefer for NO, because those covers need good AI system, or we will have a lot bugs with infantry movements or AI, like in DoW2. I want fast infantry.

[Kyang]

When we're talking about cover, are we talking about the type of cover where units can actually be shielded from fire, the other type that C&C3 had with generic defense bonus just by being near structures, or a combination of both?

[stephanovich]

When we're talking about cover, are we talking about the type of cover where units can actually be shielded from fire, the other type that C&C3 had with generic defense bonus just by being near structures, or a combination of both?

If it is like in CoH then it's basically like a defense bonus. More shots will miss the better cover your infantry is in.

IMO though, I don't see this adding anything good to a C&C game as I can't see how something like this will play in with the rest of the gameplay.

[easimon1812]

I think it would be cool, if infantry could hold the line by taking cover by downed vehicles and rubble, and craters , and building ruins, it would make up for their inherited weakness against armored vehicles with heavier firepower yes similar to CoH mechanics, and it is not as lame as "...the tank is good against other light vehicles and other tanks, but weak against infantry..." thats just crappy and outdated game mechanic.

[Incia]

Haven't seen this anywhere, so I've decided to post it here

http://www.commandandconquer.com/for...ct-on-gameplay

[Zaptagious]

This is a good idea. There's a game called Act of War which implemented this game in a good way. Infantry had the following abilities:

Ambush: hide behind obstacles to reduce line of sight for enemies and gain attack bonus
Go prone: Crawl on the ground for added stealth bonus
Capture POW: Capture incapacitated enemy infantry for funds

[R315r4z0r]

This would be a good idea. I also think that each area of the map should be separated into different zones depending on the terrain. Each zone would have a plus/minus effect on unit statistics. So infantry fighting in an urban area will be different than infantry fighting in a desert. Depending on the statistic, the unit will behave differently. So, near rubble of a destroyed structure, an infantry should get like +2 cover and behave differently as opposed to how they would act in an open environment where they would get -3 cover and be forced to fight in a prone position.

I also believe that unit veteran should, instead of directly augmenting the unit's fighting ability, rather augment it's statistic adjustment in various terrain. For example, if a unit levels up, instead of them becoming stronger, they should rather get better at fighting in different terrain. They would use cover more efficiently in urban areas so they could survive longer. Their weapon wouldn't have to be given a damage bonus.

[cybaspark]

Yes but it doesn't need to be as intricate as COH. The cover slotting system and the elaborate animations for firing from behind cover is unnecessary. A simpler and more intuitive system should be used where any obstacle can serve as a line-of-sight and line-of-fire barrier. eg. Horizontal tank fire will be stopped by a wall/building while an arcing artillery shell will go over it and hit the target. Earlier games had a rudimentary implementation of this where you could even damage your own structures if not careful.

Red Alert infantry would automatically go prone and scatter when under fire. Tank shells and missiles would then miss them often causing only slight amounts of splash damage. This system should return because it is sufficiently effective for infantry out in the plains with no cover around.

The maps features: terrain type, vegetation, geological formations, weather, civilian vehicles and structures each has significant new gameplay potential that should be harnessed. eg. Forests for example could be put to good use by allowing infantry to disappear into them where the pursuing tanks can not follow. Swamps through which vehicles can easily pass while infantry are slowed to a crawl. Destroyed urban structures that don't vanish but leaves husks that are (A) impassable by vehicles who are then are forced to use the bottlenecked road grids (B) passable by infantry so they can easily move through ruined city blocks for flanking attacks. Basically any feature that makes the map more than a flat landscape with cliffs will be a welcome improvement.

[Technique]

This is just a gimmicky feauture... you should focus on letting basic micro as scatter/dodge/focus fire be the important ones, cause stuff like cover just slows the game down and it's probably easier/more straight forward then the basic micro anyway.