Confirmed features and suggestions

when you hit a planet with an asteroid
Im assuming the planet breaks apart ( if not then disregard)

I would like the abilty to build on the chunks, and maybe throw those at other worlds

I'm seeing elaborate schemes, where an asteroid KEW is launched at a moon, the moon's orbit disintegrates which crashes into it's parent planet, which demolishes it's orbit and a firey burning massacre awaits as it careens towards the star possibly taking out another planet or two on it's way.

How elaborate will these physics be? WIll it be patched conics, or n-body? Lagrangian points for distant satellites and armies in waiting?

How about starting on a planet that is going to eventually collide with another planet in orbit and you have to get your commander somewhere else before he blows up?

Hello,

I have a suggestion for build queues: Assign a template of constructing buildings with the SHIFT+BUILD+1,2,3 etc command instead of always building the same ol'pattern with just SHFT+BUILD.
Reason: When I would play TA or SC (I&II) I would usually stick to a standard build template for my starting bases. I would build a standard set of factories, power plants, metal makers in a more or less basic pattern that I would use more or less in the beginning of every match. Same would go later on in the game when I would use Tier 2 techs and start building a standard pattern of Fusion reactors and mega metal makers etc.
I thought that it would be cool to send a construction bot off to wherever, select a build template that you use or just recently created and do something like this:
Shift + Move to wherever + 1 (select build template 1) + Build template here.
Wouldn't it be cool to launch build bots to a planet and tell them Upon arrival just start building build Template 1, 2 or 3? Maybe it would like this?
Shift + Move to launch site + 1 (select build template 1) + Build template here on moon + 2 (select build template 2) + Build template 2 here on moon after Build template 1 is completed + 3 (select build 3 which is just factories after lines of factories) + Build template 3 after build template 2 is complete.

I thought that would have been cool back in 1997 too.. especially on Metal Heck ! :mrgreen:

I had an idea earlier today that I think would suit the mood of this game really well

What if boats were modular? There would be 3 types of boats:
carriers
battleships
submarines

Carriers would act like large mobile bunkers, able to carry troops which would then become its weapons. Hypothetically, an average carrier would be able to carry the equivalent of 4 tanks. This means it could probably house 8 infantrybots, an anti-air tank and a bomber (also I think it would be a good idea to have bombers double as transport aircraft for small infantry, so maybe the bomber on the boat is carrying 6 bombs and 1 rocket-infantry-bot). All of those infantrybots, the AA tank, and the bomber, which can take off and land on the carrier, would be able to fire from their position on the boat.
In any case, it is critically important for the functionality of the carrier that transports be allowed to land and unload troops onto it.

Battleships would be like carriers for buildings. I'm not sure if they would only be allowed to have stationary defenses built on them or if they could also support production buildings. Perhaps a third type would be necessary for that purpose. If so, it would be the
Platform, which can only go into production when immobile. Also, because stationary defenses become infinitely more powerful when they can move and shoot at the same time, perhaps it would be best to restrict the defensive buildings on the battleship to firing when the battleship is immobile.

Submarines are ship-killers. Perhaps they can only fire on non-submarine ships while above the surface?

Another note on troop transports vs. mobile bunkers: if bots on the flying troop transport that seems to be inevitable can fire while aboard, my carrier is useless. That's fine. If not, it suggests a nice balance niche for my carrier--not as fast as the proverbial dropper copter, but riskier to attack.

Hi all,

I did a search on the forums and couldn't find any topic discussing this so I'll post it here. I'm wondering if gradual unit range effectiveness has been discussed or if it's a potential feature for PA. To explain, my idea is that a unit that normally has a finite range represented by a circle around it would instead have a minimum range and a maximum range. The area in between these two is where the unit could engage any adversary but the further away the adversary is the less effective the hits would be and the less likely to be accurate. This would mainly affect assult bots and tanks but could be applied to the ACU and other units as well. (Some units would have their min attack set to 0 so they can engage enemies right in front of them but others like artillery pieces would need a min range to be applied). This would make for a more realistic and smoother combat feel whereby units would not just start firing the second the enemy was within range but they could fire while the enemy was within max range and be more effective as they got closer. If you wanted further complication you could force fire even when out of max range but that's probably taking it too far.

It must be said that this idea would suit a game with distinctly different factions more than what I'm reading PA will be. Lets say Faction A has low HP faster moving assault units with longer range than Faction B which has slower but tougher such units. The strategy would be for Faction A player to stay out of range and pick off Faction B's units and Faction B to do the opposite and get in close but the difference would be gradual and that's the key. If let's say a Tital assault bot was to attack a T2 tank its lasers would be more effective against the tank's armour the closer you managed to get to it. Anyone think this would add any value and further fun factor to combat in PA?

Also if this was already a feature in TA or SupCom then I didn't notice it, but I was never a hardcore player in either.

Im guessing that in the majority of cases people will be defeated by units instead of astroids

Will there be an option to pause? Cause I went to check and couldn't find anything on that

extending foolery's idea, i think it would be cool if tier 1 units could be attached to big tier 2 or 3 or experimental units, but not like they were being carried, they would become part of them. the unit maybe would become slower, better armored and have the tier 1 units weapon or something like that. i think its a nice way to treat the ''tier 1 becoming obsolete after 10 minutes'' problem, and would really create a lot of strategic options and replay value.

Shouldn't Commander Upgrades be in the red by now?

... This is so standard it needn't even be mentioned. I mean, what was the last RTS without pausing...

If someone wants to start a new, more up to date thread, let me know. Xedi hasn't logged in for more than a month, and has only about 35 posts, and this is a popular enough topic, it should probably be more easily up to date.

If someone does take the effort to start this over (you can use the existing list as your starting point), make the post, and we'll get it sticky-ed, and this one un-sticky-ed.

Keep in mind, this list needs to stay public only information. No backers forum info, please. Though I don't think we've given away feature details in the backers forum.

I could take it on, I've prolly got more time than most, it's also tie in nicely with my Topic Index too, Would it be alright if we just made it a "Confirmed Features" and leave the suggestions out?

Mike

i suggest you do?

However, newbies may look at the new thread and not see what they think has not been suggested on the list, and start a new thread about it.

Perhaps a good compromise would be to put stuff that was suggested and shot down in Will Not Be Present, and keep acknowledged.

Two threads:

Confirmed features
Confirmed not in game

Thing is that nobody would read through a 50 page thread anyways, and most items suggested weren't even denied directly anyways, I'd still keep the list as a starting point, thought I'd re-arrange how they grouped, grouping things into groups of similar topics makes more sense to me than by 'Importance' which is fairly subjective.

Nah, that'd lead to more 'Sticky Clutter', one could easily combine those just by keeping them to separate posts in the same thread, sorta like how I did it for the Topic Index.

Mike

It probably wouldn't stop people from doing the same thing anyway. most people who create 'those' threads dont bother doing their homework first.

If you want to take it on, go for it Mike. Just let me know when first pass is ready and I'll change the sticky settings on each.

But on the other hand that's why having up to date threads like this and Topic Index let us Nip those threads in teh butt before they turn into 10 page debates about something we talked about a month ago, we can link them and get them using the existing thread all the little 5 post threads will eventually drop to nothingness, and that user will be more likely to check first next time, sure there will always be new users, but 'correcting' someone once is better than 5 or more times.

Alright, I'll get started then, it'll take some time to rearrange it all thought, so I should have something ready sometime tomorrow.

Mike