Radically redesigning the Unit design/function

  Alpha Centauri Forums
  The Game
  Radically redesigning the Unit design/function

profile | register | prefs | faq | search

Author Topic:   Radically redesigning the Unit design/function

walruskkkch posted 05-29-99 11:07 PM ET
This is really a continuation on some of the thoughts expressed in the thread started by ColonialxGVNRxPottinger entitled New Weapon Platforms-LRG. I wanted to propose a radical new way of looking at how units are designed, flexibility within their designs and possibly rethinking what the specific features of each design really should represent. This is going to be a fairly long post but I hope you can bear with me and offer me your comments, suggestions and flames if you feel they are necessary.
Currently I see 5 areas which I wish to address in regards to the design of units and the functions of their systems.
1)Incorrect function for tecnology
2)Lack of real decision making on Offensive -
Defensive - speed - special abilities
3)Incremental improvements in designs
4)Chassis upgrades/change
5)systems versus cost restrictions
1) Right now reactors determine defensive strength since they limit the amount of damage a unit can sustain. Why shouldn't this be determined by the armour? The reactor should really relate to the units speed or range so as not to duplicate the function armour should supply.
2)Currently there really isn't a realistic decision on tradeoffs between levels of defense, offense, speed and special abilities. the only controlling factor is cost which I will address more fully in the fifth area of my post. What I would suggest here is the need to rethink how units are built. I suggest that each chassis have a specific carry points level which is comprised of points needed for each category of functions. For example, take a speeder. Let us say it has a carry point total of 20. Now if synmetal armour costs 10 points a laser costs 5 and fission reactor cost 4 you have a total of 19 point of the speeder filled with these choices with only 1 point left over for a special ability with its possible point total. Where your decision comes in is to determine if adding more armour at a higher point total is worth the corresponding drop in offensive or special capability. The same applies to choosing a more powerful offensive weapon. The tradeoffs in unit design becomes more subtle and gives rise to encountering more varied units. This leads me to point number 3
3)More flexibility in unit design would be accomplished through increasing level of carry point totals within each chassis. For example a level one speeder would have 20 points but a level 2 speeder would have 25 and so on for how many levels within each chassis as seems appropriate. These level increases could be tied to certain technolgy levels which don't necessarily enable new weapon systems or chassis.
4)As new chassis become available the logical extensions of previous units should supercede the older ones. For example, speeders could be superceded by hovertanks and then hovertanks by graveships. Once again within each chassis their would be different levels with higher carry points than the lesser units.
5)As of now there is no restrictions on placing the best armour/weapons/reactors on a unit aside from the cost to produce the unit. By having a more expansive choice for these catagories and thus the units produced the cost factors become more of a factor in determining what units to build and for what purpose.
Well that's it in a not too small nutshell. I don't think these points could really be addressed in an update, they probably require to many changes in how combat is resolved and other aspects of the game. So what does everybody think?
JAMstillAM posted 05-29-99 11:32 PM ET
walruskkkch,
Addressing your points:
1,2,3. All of these make sense and are consistent with each other.
4. I'm afraid I don't understand your point here. Currently, in the game as it is the newer designs usually displace the older ones. For example, when I can build hovertanks, I no longer build rovers. Same goes for foils and cruisers. Maybe I'm missing something?
5. Did you mean to say "less of a factor"? As written, again I don't understand your point, as cost is basically the only deciding factor currently.
I agree that you won't be seeing them in an update for exactly the reasons you gave. That is not to say that they're bad ideas, they're actually very good ideas. Perhaps you should submit them to some of the idea threads for Civ3.
walruskkkch posted 05-30-99 12:06 AM ET
On point 4 By logical extension I mean that the carry points would be higher. Perhaps that is a bit redundant if when you reach the tech level the older units never need to be built. Perhaps though the newer chassis should show up later in the game because of the increased incremental levels of the older chassis.
On point 5 what I was going for was having the Off/Def/Reactor/SA be the primary determinent of what kind of unit you build rather than simply building the unit with the highest level of armour, weapon, etc. that is technically available. What stops someone now from building a unit with the highest technical enhancements is simply that it costs more. there is no strategic area for Defense vs offense, speed vs special ability, etc.
Thanks for your thoughts.
To close this thread, click here (moderator or admin only).


Hop to:

Contact Us | Alpha Centauri Home

Powered by: Ultimate Bulletin Board, Version 5.18
© Madrona Park, Inc., 1998.

Author	Topic: Radically redesigning the Unit design/function
walruskkkch	posted 05-29-99 11:07 PM ET This is really a continuation on some of the thoughts expressed in the thread started by ColonialxGVNRxPottinger entitled New Weapon Platforms-LRG. I wanted to propose a radical new way of looking at how units are designed, flexibility within their designs and possibly rethinking what the specific features of each design really should represent. This is going to be a fairly long post but I hope you can bear with me and offer me your comments, suggestions and flames if you feel they are necessary. Currently I see 5 areas which I wish to address in regards to the design of units and the functions of their systems. 1)Incorrect function for tecnology 2)Lack of real decision making on Offensive - Defensive - speed - special abilities 3)Incremental improvements in designs 4)Chassis upgrades/change 5)systems versus cost restrictions 1) Right now reactors determine defensive strength since they limit the amount of damage a unit can sustain. Why shouldn't this be determined by the armour? The reactor should really relate to the units speed or range so as not to duplicate the function armour should supply. 2)Currently there really isn't a realistic decision on tradeoffs between levels of defense, offense, speed and special abilities. the only controlling factor is cost which I will address more fully in the fifth area of my post. What I would suggest here is the need to rethink how units are built. I suggest that each chassis have a specific carry points level which is comprised of points needed for each category of functions. For example, take a speeder. Let us say it has a carry point total of 20. Now if synmetal armour costs 10 points a laser costs 5 and fission reactor cost 4 you have a total of 19 point of the speeder filled with these choices with only 1 point left over for a special ability with its possible point total. Where your decision comes in is to determine if adding more armour at a higher point total is worth the corresponding drop in offensive or special capability. The same applies to choosing a more powerful offensive weapon. The tradeoffs in unit design becomes more subtle and gives rise to encountering more varied units. This leads me to point number 3 3)More flexibility in unit design would be accomplished through increasing level of carry point totals within each chassis. For example a level one speeder would have 20 points but a level 2 speeder would have 25 and so on for how many levels within each chassis as seems appropriate. These level increases could be tied to certain technolgy levels which don't necessarily enable new weapon systems or chassis. 4)As new chassis become available the logical extensions of previous units should supercede the older ones. For example, speeders could be superceded by hovertanks and then hovertanks by graveships. Once again within each chassis their would be different levels with higher carry points than the lesser units. 5)As of now there is no restrictions on placing the best armour/weapons/reactors on a unit aside from the cost to produce the unit. By having a more expansive choice for these catagories and thus the units produced the cost factors become more of a factor in determining what units to build and for what purpose. Well that's it in a not too small nutshell. I don't think these points could really be addressed in an update, they probably require to many changes in how combat is resolved and other aspects of the game. So what does everybody think?
JAMstillAM	posted 05-29-99 11:32 PM ET walruskkkch, Addressing your points: 1,2,3. All of these make sense and are consistent with each other. 4. I'm afraid I don't understand your point here. Currently, in the game as it is the newer designs usually displace the older ones. For example, when I can build hovertanks, I no longer build rovers. Same goes for foils and cruisers. Maybe I'm missing something? 5. Did you mean to say "less of a factor"? As written, again I don't understand your point, as cost is basically the only deciding factor currently. I agree that you won't be seeing them in an update for exactly the reasons you gave. That is not to say that they're bad ideas, they're actually very good ideas. Perhaps you should submit them to some of the idea threads for Civ3.
walruskkkch	posted 05-30-99 12:06 AM ET On point 4 By logical extension I mean that the carry points would be higher. Perhaps that is a bit redundant if when you reach the tech level the older units never need to be built. Perhaps though the newer chassis should show up later in the game because of the increased incremental levels of the older chassis. On point 5 what I was going for was having the Off/Def/Reactor/SA be the primary determinent of what kind of unit you build rather than simply building the unit with the highest level of armour, weapon, etc. that is technically available. What stops someone now from building a unit with the highest technical enhancements is simply that it costs more. there is no strategic area for Defense vs offense, speed vs special ability, etc. Thanks for your thoughts.