View Poll Results: keep the wreckage of the destroyed armored vehicles not to disappear

Voters
47. You may not vote on this poll
  • yes

    19 40.43%
  • no

    28 59.57%
Page 11 of 11 FirstFirst ... 91011
Results 101 to 108 of 108
  1. #101
    Quote Originally Posted by Golan2781 View Post
    Generals didn't have wrecks have an effect on gameplay. The GLA crates were not tied to a graphics setting and stayed for a fixed time.
    Exactly, wrecks dont need to have an effect on gameplay, "in the same way for generals 1, it was good - stays for an amount of time" - I think its good this way, the generals 1 formula works perfectly. (maybe they could stay a little longer since pc's can handle more stuff now, just for the visual effect, and of course disappear after awhile, it gives the feeling "time is passing" and stuff is coming back to normal, just like generals 1).
    Last edited by Gamod; 07-06-2012 at 03:27 PM.

  2. #102
    so now were talking about it being visable but uints can move right through the wrecks.

    (i seem to recall when a wreck was left in gen 1 in the few seconds it wsa there before sinking through the ground it no longer had physical obstruction to other units)
    -- THE JUKEBOX MUST RETURN!! -- [COLOR="#25292C" forum [COLOR="#25292C" quote

  3. #103
    Private makeboom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    America
    Posts
    9
    Quote Originally Posted by Harrrr View Post
    If you just shoot them, then what's the point to it being there besides being utterly annoying in first place?
    Your infantry can take cover behind them until they're destroyed.

  4. #104
    Brigadier General Commander32's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    LV, NV, USA
    Posts
    4,114
    I still prefer to have a good performing game that doesn't slow down due to the spammage of wrecks on the field.

    My quote:
    'Meh, I don't really care anymore about the new games direction, with many loads of hours(make that years actually) on Tib Sun, YR, Generals, CnC3, and RA3, plus all the mods they come with, another game with the same old formula is rather redundant IMO. '

  5. #105
    Quote Originally Posted by darthmaedhros View Post
    Your infantry can take cover behind them until they're destroyed.
    But yet they have to be very flimsy to prevent massacring other elements of the gameplay, at which point there still is no real point for them to be there because infantry is traditionally not the emphasized feature of CnC games. That's the whole thing; wreckage simply cannot be 'good' cover due to the indirect havoc it causes at which point it utterly fails at providing cover. For in-field cover, I would much rather have an element similar to the CnC3 sandbags (though not necessarily a garrisionable structure).

    Much of this neutering can be mitigated if wreckage was only allowed on certain vehicles where other balancing rules can be utilized. Make a unit like the Battle Bus from Zero hour (which is not exactly wreckage but certainly similar enough to draw comparisons), which can be used as a bunker/cover upon destruction. Or, you will need to shove wreckage off to T2.5/T3, which would basically be further enough into the game where concerns for early-game building/rushing can be mitigated.

    The mechanics of vehicle wreckage goes essentially counter-intuitive to all other destruction mechanics because it's closing off areas rather than opening areas up. This is why it's potentially very damaging if applied to all facets of early-game to late-game and why then it needs to be neutered to the point where it does nothing 'good' enough to be considered anything but an annoyance. This is where I say you have the choice: A) completely neutered and nearly pointless vehicle wreckage if applied to all stages of a vehicle-heavy game OR B) using wreckage as impactful of mechanic as it can be, but restrict it by tiers or vehicles which not only implicitly reduces numbers but opens up greater possibilities of what can be done with it.
    Last edited by Harrrr; 07-08-2012 at 07:42 PM.

  6. #106
    Lieutenant Colonel Golan2781's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    2,253
    I think infantry cover would be much more interesting if heavy vehicles provided it while alive. That'd give a lot more control and require commanders to weight the situation more - on the one hand, you get coverage bonus, on the other you sacrifice mobility and become more vulnerable to bombardment.

  7. #107
    Quote Originally Posted by Golan2781 View Post
    I think infantry cover would be much more interesting if heavy vehicles provided it while alive. That'd give a lot more control and require commanders to weight the situation more - on the one hand, you get coverage bonus, on the other you sacrifice mobility and become more vulnerable to bombardment.
    An extension of that, but not necessarily cover is to have on heavy/super-heavy tanks where infantry can 'climb' onto it and hitch a ride. This would require the sacrifice of the ability to fire the main weapon/move turret as well as top-speed. But I agree, in which I like the idea of mobile cover.

  8. #108
    Private makeboom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    America
    Posts
    9
    Quote Originally Posted by Harrrr View Post
    OR B) using wreckage as impactful of mechanic as it can be, but restrict it by tiers or vehicles which not only implicitly reduces numbers but opens up greater possibilities of what can be done with it.
    Right, that's basically what i was thinking. Only larger vehicles should leave wreckage, not rocket buggies or technicals.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Victory Games is Electronic Arts' dedicated Strategy Gaming studio. Formed in 2010 under the leadership of Jon Van Caneghem, Victory Games has offices in Los Angeles, CA; Austin, TX; and Shanghai, China and is currently focused on the Command & Conquer franchise.