Legs vs track: Style vs. Function

So i have a thing for you to ponder.
It's not a poll or a panic or whatever.

In TA: legs, track and multi-legs had (or seemed to have) a specific set of features.

Legs were for light, manoeuvrable units. (Kbots)
Track and wheels generally for heavier/less manoeuvrable ones. (everything else)
and Multilegs could go almost anywhere. (Spiderbots)

Also (IIRC) legged units stayed upright and tracked ones tilted with the terrain.

Now in SC/FA/SC2 legs and tracks were more of a theme thing than anything else.

Cybrans had most stuff with legs.
Everyone had seigebots.
Not really much of a function shift.

What does everyone think about PA?

Should there be a functional difference?
speed vs. manoeuvrability? for tracks vs legs?
heavy vs light?
fast vs slow?

Does it matter?

Which would you like?

Function. Definitely function.

I think it's really desirable to be able to look at a unit, and think "That thing is manoeuvrable, so this is how it could be used against me" Blindly remembering Unit X is fast, but Unit Y is not makes games harder to learn.

I feel there should be a difference, but how much of a difference is going to be tricky to nail down by consensus.

For me, I think it needs to be small, enough to give a small advantage in the right circumstance but not so much that you're 100% screwed if you made the wrong call.

Another way to look at it is that you don't want to ruin the Non-RPS unit interactions with RPS Unit types like Bot, Tank and Hover you know?

Mike

I think this is a great idea and could add a lot of strategic possibilities to specific sections of units.

Yeah, i find myself agreeing.

I like the idea that units that look visibly different, are different in some meaningful way, like:
Legs: more manoeuvreable/rougher/steeper terrain, but only found on units that aren't as heavy. i.e: like kbots.

and then there's hover units: faster, lighter, less manoeuverable, but hey: water is no problem!
If we even get them.
I never bothered.


Nice to see there's folks thinking about this stuff

R

I think the difference should be big in terms of terrain traversability like in TA. Some terrain was inaccessible for vehicles.

There needs to be a drawback though - otherwise legs will always be the better option.

In TA kbots were slower and lower weight compared to vehicles. Seems like a good way.

generally, (mod units excepted)
legs were only found on kbots, which with the exception of the can and the sumo, were usually pretty lightweight.

Which was the drawback.

Like the other guy said

Okay, someone needs to define what stats are affected by a unit being "lightweight" because just saying something is light or heavy is meaningless otherwise.

Mike

Sure.

I meant "Not as tough, taking up less space, usually not a big a gun in comparison."

That's what i meant by "Light Weight."

hope that helps.

Vehicles in TA also have slower accelerations and low turn rates, this means they usually get some disadvantages in terrains like a wreckage field.

Yeah.

**** is clogged up with wreckage?

Send in the kbots.

Uh, what does kbot actually stand for anyway?

kaboombot.

Clearly.

Well that kinda comes close to my ideal set up;

A vague comparison of Unit movement types by OrangeKNight

Movement types are ranked from 1 to 4, with 1 being the best and 4 the worse, this is only in relation to each other and should only be seen are basic guides and not final numbers in any way shape or form, and if you do you're a Derp. Furthermore is is an IDEAL based loosely on current capabilities(2012) and not accounting for things like "Magic-Grip-Tires"™ and other such item(s). Again this is looking at movement types in isolation and not taking other gameplay aspects(such as weapon(s) and HP) into account.

Top Speed;
1 - Wheels
2 - Tracks
3 - Hover
4 - Legs

Acceleration;
1 - Legs
2 - Wheels/Tracks
3 - Hover

Turn Rate;(speed of turning)
1 - Legs
2 - Wheels
3 - Tracks
4 - Hover

Turn Radius[Stationary];(How large an area required to turn)
1 - Legs
1 - Tracks
1 - Hover
2 - Wheels

Turn Radius[Top Speed];(How large an area required to turn)
1 - Tracks
2 - Legs
3 - Wheels
4 - Hover

Maximum Hill Grade;(Which can climb the Steepest Grade)
1 - Tracks
2 - Wheels
2 - Legs*
3 - Hover

Braking;
1 - Tracks
2 - Legs
3 - Wheels
4 - Hover

*I figure there might be some dispute about this, but to me a Tracked vehicle and handle a larger variaty of steep grades compared to Legs, particularly while conserving speed, a Legged unit with more and 1 pair of legs could potentially handle as steep or steeper grades as a Tracked Vehicle but I see those more as exceptions, if they were to form a larger fractions of legged units I would rate Legs and Tracks as a Tie.

Mike

Can we split legs up into 3 categories?

- bipedal/quadrupedal(AT-AT) - basically the statistics you mentioned OrangeKnight.
- spindly spider legs - as seen on cybrans, usually rather thin and end in points. In terms of performance they fail on all counts because everything about their design completely counters any benefits the form has. Yes this is a rant, one of my pet peeves.
- proper spider legs, generally rather large and end in big feet to spread the weight. Weight distribution makes it optimal for fragile environments (sand/ice) and the elevation above terrain opens up a lot more areas than wheels or treats. Most relevant though is their practicality for being a mobile platform carrying bulky units. Legs don't need a "front" so they have no turning curve, and can spontaneously move in any direction from a standstill. Imagine if the monkeylord truly had omnidirectional legs.

Kinetic Bio-Organic Technology.

http://totalannihilation.wikia.com/wiki/Kbot

I'd rule-out all spindly legs, then divide things into;

• Two-legs,
• Four-legs,
• Many-legs.

The difference between six legs and eight legs is trivial - everything one can do, the other can do slightly better/worse.

Four-legs is a little difficult to talk about because people are biased by what we see in nature. Every four-legged *creature we've ever seen has a flexible spine. That flexibility opens up a lot of extra options when it comes to efficiently moving about (especially at speed).

Animals with six and eight legs do not have such luxury; limiting how they can move, their top speed (which I think should be measured in body-lengths-per-second), and agility.

If we assume that two-legs means two-legs very similar to a human's then agility should be good. People can turn on the spot (quickly, I might add), move sideways, backwards, etc. We can up climb stairs and mountains. Fences and large steps are passable (they do slow us down though). I'd like to see you drive a car up a 1m step.

Oh, and climb down stairs and mountains. I hear that you can make cows climb up a stair case, but not back down.

Now, downsides: we're top heavy. Very top heavy, so much so that we spend the first year of our lives learning how to walk, and then really don't master it for a few years after that. I don't think we're very fast (body-lengths-per-second, remember). We also take a long time to slow down, especially when carrying heavy stuff.

I don't know about you guys, but I'm also prone to tripping over when I'm carrying stuff and not looking where I'm going (also when I'm drinking, but that story is for later).

*except the tortoise, and even then it technically does have a flexible spine.

I'd like to share this video of a cool robot, for inspiration:

http://youtu.be/HuC6q9kbryw

Technically, but as I mentioned, I think the majority of legged designs will prolly be bipedal designs and for the most part, Multiped designs will operate on the same basis as bipedal ones with improvements/trade-offs in certain areas. It also depends on the design of the leg system as well, I can see multiped designs being done more so for "weight capacity" and being over all worse than bipedal designs(yet carry far more in terms of weapons/armor or something.)

Mike