Possible way for the developers to add more units maybe?
Moderator: Defcon moderators
Possible way for the developers to add more units maybe?
Just a thought, could it be possible for the developers to reference a separate “sailable image” for different unit types and then add these types to the game? It would allow for land units and satellites if so? Although I do agree that most land units would not be able to mobilize fast enough to really be worth the effort there seems to be a lot of people who would like to see them in? A satellite could basically be a battleship or whatever with guns removed just allowing the radar to appear etc…
-
DueAccident
- level3
- Posts: 463
- Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 2:30 am
-
Mighty Santa
- level2
- Posts: 150
- Joined: Tue Sep 19, 2006 5:10 pm
- Location: London, UK
- Contact:
Jetpac wrote:this is not at you but at everyone in general..
NO FUCKING LAND FUCKING UNITS.
It would fuck the game mechanic
Quite frankly...
(BIG tip for Introversion)...
if you want to make a quick extra £10 or so from a lot of us...
within the next year...
make a LAND based version of this, tanks, that sort of thing. Maybe have 'some' local tactical nukes, but keep it basic.
I realise someone will release mods, but the majority still don't use mods, and many would pay for a simple land based game of some form.
--
I agree, as it is, no land based units. The current game is perfect as it is.
Santa - Tank commander
Last edited by Mighty Santa on Mon Oct 30, 2006 1:11 am, edited 1 time in total.
I guess it all depends on where your coming from. I am really into reality simulations which I know this is not. I have a clan and we play everything from Americas Army to VBS1 and I am trying to get them into this game but as simulation it is lacking in a lot of areas. I know this game was never meant to be a sim but the promise of being able to mod the game has a lot of us thinking it would definitely be a great one. My suggestion was much more intended to provide an example of a possible means of implementing "spy satellites" than ground forces as I feel ground forces would play a very small role in the events that would transpire at defcon 2 and beyond. I guess what I am getting at is it seems the developers are trying to add the features the community is looking for so that we can shape the game through modding if not what is the point of even asking? If so as a game developer myself here are my humble suggestions but please bear in mind I have no idea if any of this is possible or even what language you are using to develop the game in, So any way, here is my wish list:
1) a unit dat file that lists the unit, unit image file path, its range, radar range, offensive weapon type, offensive weapon range, defensive weapon range, and "sailable image path" so new configurable units can be easily added to the game. A 0 range would indicate no range or weapon available such as in the case of a satellite.
2) Each nation playable as a selectable entity. Since the game will already allow for players to play multiple territories This would allow for easy setup of a scenario for example the middle east where US might be trying to defend specific allies in the region or North Korea where the US might need to strike a specific target without taking on all of South Asia. A nations Dat file with a list of placeable units and max number allowed for each nation would offer an incredible amount of customization with #1.
3) reduction of the size limitations placed on new newly placed units small countries should not be limited to what can be placed there by geographical area alone instead these limitations would come from the nations.dat file
4) An Objective field added to the cities dat which would allow for specific targets to be made worth more in score as a multiplier to the current score count. Washington may have less population than New York but as a military objective should be a higher priority target for the enemy.
I agree as it is now it is a great game but if you really want to offer the things that would make the game of interest to modders and sim freaks (like me) this would be a great start. As far as land based units I agree there is no need but It would be nice to separate the silos from AA that way AA could be placed separately but #1 I think would allow that. Please don't misunderstand I really like the game and I do not feel that any of this should already be included or should be in the future it is just a list of the things I would like to make the game more interesting to me and a few of my friends. As far as my opinion to Mighty Santas objection to Land Units I suggest not playing the mods that will have them ??? Why all the drama about it?
1) a unit dat file that lists the unit, unit image file path, its range, radar range, offensive weapon type, offensive weapon range, defensive weapon range, and "sailable image path" so new configurable units can be easily added to the game. A 0 range would indicate no range or weapon available such as in the case of a satellite.
2) Each nation playable as a selectable entity. Since the game will already allow for players to play multiple territories This would allow for easy setup of a scenario for example the middle east where US might be trying to defend specific allies in the region or North Korea where the US might need to strike a specific target without taking on all of South Asia. A nations Dat file with a list of placeable units and max number allowed for each nation would offer an incredible amount of customization with #1.
3) reduction of the size limitations placed on new newly placed units small countries should not be limited to what can be placed there by geographical area alone instead these limitations would come from the nations.dat file
4) An Objective field added to the cities dat which would allow for specific targets to be made worth more in score as a multiplier to the current score count. Washington may have less population than New York but as a military objective should be a higher priority target for the enemy.
I agree as it is now it is a great game but if you really want to offer the things that would make the game of interest to modders and sim freaks (like me) this would be a great start. As far as land based units I agree there is no need but It would be nice to separate the silos from AA that way AA could be placed separately but #1 I think would allow that. Please don't misunderstand I really like the game and I do not feel that any of this should already be included or should be in the future it is just a list of the things I would like to make the game more interesting to me and a few of my friends. As far as my opinion to Mighty Santas objection to Land Units I suggest not playing the mods that will have them ??? Why all the drama about it?
=dB=Ed wrote:Sorry Might Santa I meant Jet pack!
AA and silos should not be separate.. this si the entire point... you go all out offence you leave yourself open, if you have separate AA then then that fucks everything up.
why are so many people so insistant on turning a perfectly good simple game into another command and conquer.
-
DueAccident
- level3
- Posts: 463
- Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 2:30 am
Jetpac wrote:=dB=Ed wrote:Sorry Might Santa I meant Jet pack!
AA and silos should not be separate.. this si the entire point... you go all out offence you leave yourself open, if you have separate AA then then that fucks everything up.
why are so many people so insistant on turning a perfectly good simple game into another command and conquer.
QFT!
As far as my opinion to Mighty Santas objection to Land Units I suggest not playing the mods that will have them ??? Why all the drama about it?
oh and as far as this comment goes...
it would mean that the very small development/coding team would have to do extra work to code more units in, including patterns, behaviour, speeds etc.
when they could be building on the game with more important features and tweaks etc.
if everybody wants units so bad wait until IV release a source disc and mod the sodding game to high heaven but until that time there is no need for any talk of iv adding land units.. it would fuck up the dynamics of the game and make it near impossible to control effectively.
Jetpac wrote:=dB=Ed wrote:Sorry Might Santa I meant Jet pack!
AA and silos should not be separate.. this si the entire point... you go all out offence you leave yourself open, if you have separate AA then then that fucks everything up.
why are so many people so insistant on turning a perfectly good simple game into another command and conquer.
My bad I forgot all AA guns come equipped with 30 Megaton war heads and that they stop functioning every time we launch a missile. I hope the DOD never losses sight of that fact! OK I surrender now no more stupid suggestions from me... I enjoy the game for what it is but feel a lot more would if these things were added. Apparently we shouldn't do this though because it might catch on and Jetpac would have to change his style of play. Bad idea, really bad, silly me! Maybe I should go check out command and conquer? I wasn’t aware it is played on a global scale but I haven’t played C&C since the early versions so maybe I am missing something. Better yet maybe I should try adding Silos, nukes, and population to the open source Global Conflict Blue Game http://www.gcblue.com? They seem to understand what I am going for but I really like the simplicity of the the user interface as it is in Defcon.
Honestly though without these things we may as well be playing the old war card game with the cool world map graphics added in and knowing that at least for me takes something from the game which could be added without changing the way Jetpac likes his Defcon played. This being the case I still don’t understand his objections and I hope the developers (who I really hope Jetpac is not one of) might at least consider the suggestion.
As far as a kid who hasn't read the forum, I am a 40+ year old computer teacher and programmer and I have been on here reading and modding the game all week. Since trying this game I have introduced it to around 300 people at http://www.dbclan.net and http://www.gameranks.net and a lot of my suggestions are based on knowing what they would like to see. Since this is a fairly new game I can't imagine you have that much more experience Mr. Defcon! I really am curious as to why you feel the need to try to belittle me in that manor but rest assured it has had no effect other than making me want to keep putting these suggestions out there. In the mean time I guess I will take my own suggestion and try adding what I like about Defcon to the GCB project.
Bang Bang got ya! I win to bad so sad!
Maybe I am just a kid at heart anyway - that is almost as real but honestly even more fun!its not belittlling you, they are just stupid ideas.
They are only stupid for the reason as i have stated befor the game mechanics. If it was a different game it would be an awesome idea.
AA guns and silos are the same thing because it balances out offence and defence.... you cant attack without leavingyourself vulnerable in some way.
if they were separate entities you would be able to go all out offence and not suffer any penalty for it... this takes out key strategy for the game.
again if land units are added it messes with the game mechanics, also how is it proposed a tank moves from america to russia? air drops? then what would they do? lets send a tank and an infantry unit to make a couple of million deaths.
it doesn't work, it just doesn't.
in your defence however 3) and 4) would make good additional game modes that i wouldnt mind seeing
there are no problem with suggestions, except those which have be suggested a million times and those which change the game mechanic and especially ideas that fall into both categories, and again.. game mode ideas like 3) and 4) Great.
They are only stupid for the reason as i have stated befor the game mechanics. If it was a different game it would be an awesome idea.
AA guns and silos are the same thing because it balances out offence and defence.... you cant attack without leavingyourself vulnerable in some way.
if they were separate entities you would be able to go all out offence and not suffer any penalty for it... this takes out key strategy for the game.
again if land units are added it messes with the game mechanics, also how is it proposed a tank moves from america to russia? air drops? then what would they do? lets send a tank and an infantry unit to make a couple of million deaths.
it doesn't work, it just doesn't.
in your defence however 3) and 4) would make good additional game modes that i wouldnt mind seeing
there are no problem with suggestions, except those which have be suggested a million times and those which change the game mechanic and especially ideas that fall into both categories, and again.. game mode ideas like 3) and 4) Great.
=dB=Ed wrote:Well glad you liked 3 and 4 anyway? I do see the problem with the game mechanics you were speaking of earlier too and to be honest I don't know how to get aroud that with out major changes to the way AA works. But given the chance you never know what modders can come up with?
not alot. to be honest.
untill the game has a source code release (or the developers change something) no major changes can happen really.
=dB=Ed wrote:1) a unit dat file that lists the unit, unit image file path, its range, radar range, offensive weapon type, offensive weapon range, defensive weapon range, and "sailable image path" so new configurable units can be easily added to the game. A 0 range would indicate no range or weapon available such as in the case of a satellite.
2) Each nation playable as a selectable entity. Since the game will already allow for players to play multiple territories This would allow for easy setup of a scenario for example the middle east where US might be trying to defend specific allies in the region or North Korea where the US might need to strike a specific target without taking on all of South Asia. A nations Dat file with a list of placeable units and max number allowed for each nation would offer an incredible amount of customization with #1.
3) reduction of the size limitations placed on new newly placed units small countries should not be limited to what can be placed there by geographical area alone instead these limitations would come from the nations.dat file
4) An Objective field added to the cities dat which would allow for specific targets to be made worth more in score as a multiplier to the current score count. Washington may have less population than New York but as a military objective should be a higher priority target for the enemy.
These are all things that might make an interesting game. However, that game would no longer be Defcon. It would be some other game. It would be more sim than arcade; more tactics than strategy. IV have a vision of what Defcon is supposed to be, and, while I can't speak for them, I would hope that the game they created lives up to that vision. Asking for major changes, as you are, is akin to asking Picasso to paint in red, rather than blue; or for Mozart to write his masses in English, rather than Latin.
xander
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests