Discussion of The World Remade

Phlegmak

Phlegmak

Deity
Joined
Dec 28, 2005
Messages
10,966
Location
Nowhere
Hewwo. I'm making my own game as some of you know. It's called The World Remade. I'm basing the map on Civ 2. The game engine itself is basically a scenario engine. You will be able to make a set of files that represent a Civ 2 game, and you can load that and play with all of the rules of Civ 2. My default scenario which I'm doing the game for is going to be something similar to Gamma World (which will be vastly different from Civ 2). I intend for my game engine to be able to play Civ 2 scenarios and load Civ 2 maps. I guess it'll be able to load Civ 2 saved games too. If I ever learn the Civ 3 map file format, I'll be able to load those too.

Related to my Gamma World scenario and Civilization style games in general:

My question to all of you at this moment, is about Settlers and Workers.

1. How much sense does it make for a city to build Settler units to send out and make new cities? Would it be better for the player to designate a spot on the map for a new city and for citizens to go there on their own? The citizens would go to the new city site abstractly: they would disappear from your extant cities and would build up at the target site. Basically, I'm just wondering if the construction of Settler units makes any logical sense and if not, what is the alternative? In real life, how often does a government tell its citizens to build a new city somewhere? I suppose this is how Jamestown was born; however, in the 19th century, American citizens decided by themselves to go to certain sites to build their settlements, like during the Gold Rush.

2. How much sense does it make to build worker units and have them go around the map changing terrain or building improvements? The alternative would be to designate map tiles where certain work has to be performed. Then after a while, the new tile improvements would appear, such as irrigation for example. I've grown fond of the worker units, like in Colonization, Alpha Centauri, or Civ 3; however, it never made much sense to me.


This next part is about combat.

3. It is my belief that armored knights with armored horses would be superior to early gunpowder troops. Imagine this. A knight and his horse have strong enough armor that they can withstand early musket balls. The musket balls would simply dent the armor. The obvious advantage for musket soldiers would be that it's vastly cheaper to have a soldier with a musket than a soldier with heavy armor riding a horse with heavy armor.

So, if a musketeer doesn't use a horse, then the knight should be vastly superior in one on one combat with a musketeer. The musketeer shoots at the knight, hits, puts a dent in his armor, while the knight is charging the musketeer. It takes a minimum of 5 seconds for a musketeer to reload. During 5 seconds, the knight should be almost on top of the musketeer. The musketeer shoots again, aiming for the horse. He hits, but it bounces off the horse's armor. Then the knight impales the musketeer on his lance.

Am I crazy in believing this?

EDIT: Infrequently updated official website of the game:
http://cctg.us/~alex/theworldremade/
 
Hi Phlegmak. I'm basically answering these question with Civ in mind so apologies if the answers aren't 100% applicable to what your doing.

1. It's better in terms of gameplay, IMHO, to have the player build settlers and move them out to new city spot ala Civ. It adds an extra layer of interaction and makes the player feel more like a part of the process than simply clicking on an empty tile and having a city sprout up a couple turns later. There is also the added risk that comes with moving the settlers across the board - I want to build a city on tile X, but to get there I have to go through barbarian country, is that worth the risk? Should I wait afew more turns and send out a warrior with the settler to protect it? Or would another civ have settled the tile by then? These kinds of gameplay questions come inherently with actually having a settler unit on the board, and whereas you could model all these factors abstractly, that wouldn't be as much fun as actually moving the units yourself.

It is true, I would think, that settlements tend to pop up of their own accord without much interference from the government except in cases like the colonisation of America etc, but in terms of realisticness it helps to think of the player not as the government but as kind of invisible hand guiding the Civ through the ages from behind the scenes.

2. Again I think that it is more fun for the player to actually be moving units around the map rather than doing tile improvements abstractly. The settlers basically represent the ammount of labour available to the Civ, which is perfectly realistic.

3. No your not crazy for believing it - AFIAK early muskets/arquebuses were not all that effective, not being able to shoot farther than ~100 yards and taking more than five seconds to reload, more like fifteen-thirty seconds. So yes if the knights were able to start a melee then the musketeers would be in deep trouble (which is why you keep some pikemen around;)). As for penetration vs armour I don't know, though I would think that the musket would penetrate the armour at close range.

Longbows were actually more effective than early gunpowder weapons, IIRC, but required much more training to use and didn't have quite the same psychological effect. (wft is all this smoke and noise and what is that burning smell?? the work of satan!!)
 
1. Having to build a settler is an effective safeguard against unchecked expansion. In time it takes to build one, you could have build a military unit instead, for example.
Having to make these kind of choices, is what makes games like Civ fun. If you only specify the location of the future city, and settlers come by themselves, then this choice is removed.
Another problem i see is that in most TBS games, you specialize your cities/planets/etc. You have dedicated production, science and population centres. New settlements are meant to draw their pioneers from the population centres, not the other two.
By introducing settler units, you give the player the choice which settlements are to be weakened in favour of new ones. Settler units are not the only way to achieve this, however, a checkbox "Do not draw population from this settlement", would work as well.
I just think it is important that the player is given this kind of control over his population.

2. Your suggestion was implemented in Civ Call To Power. Each empire generates a certain amount of "public works" each turn, which can be translated into tile improvements. It's not a bad concept, but it removes the entire worker game, which is essential to Civ.
I think it is more interesting, if the player has to trade off direct power gain (military unit) against long term power gain (worker), when he decides on what to produce next. The fact that workers can be captured gives the player choices, where he can pick between gaining a very useful unit for free, or keep good relations with the worker's nation.

PS: Good luck with your game! :thumbsup:
 
Here's another issue:

For the Gamma World scenario, I'd like to add RPG like elements. For example, I'd like the player to be able to research some technologies, and if he goes down certain paths, other technology paths are closed. Supposedly, this is how it works in Galactic Civilizations if you're good or evil.

However, this makes no sense whatsoever in the real world, or any civ game approximating the real world. Every technological possibility should always be open all the time.

How much sense would it make to have this RPG like element in a sci fi scenario? Let's say you discover the way to merge human brains to computers. Then you might lose the ability to research certain life saving drugs, for example.

Actually, now that I think of it while I'm typing this, it would make more sense that if you implement some negative technology, like human brain to computer merging for recreational purposes, then other parts of your society simply suffer, such as productivity. In this regard, it would resemble Alpha Centauri's social engineering. So in this case, researching is never limited.
 
I liked how this was handled in the Knights of the Old Republic games and Arcanum. The further you developed towards one pole (Dark side vs Light side, Magic vs Technology), the harder it became to use the other one.
 
Till said:
I liked how this was handled in the Knights of the Old Republic games and Arcanum. The further you developed towards one pole (Dark side vs Light side, Magic vs Technology), the harder it became to use the other one.
Click to expand...

Sounds interesting. The problem I have with the whole good vs. evil thing is that they don't really exist in real life.
 
well they do it's just in the eye of the beholder.
 
More issues on which I request your opinions:

1. Undersea units should be able to move under sea units. If the sea unit cannot see the undersea unit, then the undersea unit should be able to move with impunity. Scenarios:
a. Nation X owns a submarine. The submarine is invisible to a battleship, which is owned by Nation Y. The submarine can move into the same tile as the battleship, not attacking the battleship in any kind of combat if it chooses not to. The battleship can never attack the submarine because it can't see it.
b. Nation X owns a submarine. The submarine is not invisible to an AEGIS cruiser, owned by Nation Y. The submarine must engage in combat if it tries to move into the same tile as the AEGIS cruiser. The AEGIS cruiser is free to attack the submarine because it can see it. Neither unit may freely enter into the other's tile without starting combat.

2. Air units can move over sea and ground units. Scenarios:
a. A biplane may not fly over ground units armed with any kind of gun like weapon, such as a cannon or muskets. Biplanes are such low flying planes that simple projectile weapons, even arrows, can reach them. For a biplane of Nation X to move into the same tile as a longbowman of Nation Y, the two must start combat.
b. A WW2 style monoplane can fly over troops with simple projectile weaponry such as bows, muskets, pistols and rifles. It cannot pass over troops equipped to shoot down planes such as Mobile SAM units (from Civ 3) or flak cannons like this one (http://empires.strategyplanet.gamespy.com/images/empires/buildings/germany/flak.jpg).
Also, any soldier equipped with a shoulder mounted AA gun can also shoot it down. So the monoplane cannot move into tiles with these kinds of units in them. For other units, it can move into the units' tiles and either choose to attack or pass without attacking. Likewise, units that can't attack the monoplane may pass underneath it without starting combat.

Concerning air units:

A great many of the units in my Gamma World game will have ranged capabilities. In other words, many of them shoot like artillery in Civ 3. For example, soldiers with laser rifles can shoot around 4 tiles away (scale is different than Civ 3). So would it be reasonable for an air unit to expect getting shot at if it wanders into this area, or only when it moves into the same tile?


Does all of this sound reasonable or "fun" in a Civ style game?
 
Hi again Phlegmak. :)

Phlegmak said:
More issues on which I request your opinions:

1. Undersea units should be able to move under sea units. If the sea unit cannot see the undersea unit, then the undersea unit should be able to move with impunity. Scenarios:
a. Nation X owns a submarine. The submarine is invisible to a battleship, which is owned by Nation Y. The submarine can move into the same tile as the battleship, not attacking the battleship in any kind of combat if it chooses not to. The battleship can never attack the submarine because it can't see it.
b. Nation X owns a submarine. The submarine is not invisible to an AEGIS cruiser, owned by Nation Y. The submarine must engage in combat if it tries to move into the same tile as the AEGIS cruiser. The AEGIS cruiser is free to attack the submarine because it can see it. Neither unit may freely enter into the other's tile without starting combat.
Click to expand...

Sounds perfectly reasonable. :)

The naval model has always been one of the weakest parts of Civ, IMHO. A couple of things I would like to see in a Civ-like game is more importance on sea-based trade and an a more feasible/viable way to use naval blockades.

2. Air units can move over sea and ground units. Scenarios:
a. A biplane may not fly over ground units armed with any kind of gun like weapon, such as a cannon or muskets. Biplanes are such low flying planes that simple projectile weapons, even arrows, can reach them. For a biplane of Nation X to move into the same tile as a longbowman of Nation Y, the two must start combat.
b. A WW2 style monoplane can fly over troops with simple projectile weaponry such as bows, muskets, pistols and rifles. It cannot pass over troops equipped to shoot down planes such as Mobile SAM units (from Civ 3) or flak cannons like this one (http://empires.strategyplanet.gamespy.com/images/empires/buildings/germany/flak.jpg).
Also, any soldier equipped with a shoulder mounted AA gun can also shoot it down. So the monoplane cannot move into tiles with these kinds of units in them. For other units, it can move into the units' tiles and either choose to attack or pass without attacking. Likewise, units that can't attack the monoplane may pass underneath it without starting combat.
Click to expand...

Neither sound very realistic to be honest. I don't know much about modern/post WW2 aircraft, but AFAIK in both WW1 and WW2 alot of aircraft were able to fly above the effective ceiling of ground based anti-air fire. WW1 planes could reach ~20,000 feet and would mostly be safe from AA fire at 10,000-15,000 feet. WW2 planes could reach about 35,000 feet, which was above the range of almost all AA guns, and would be able go as low as 20,000 feet before AA guns became a major threat, generally speaking. So for the most part, AA guns would ward off ground attack planes/dive bombers, but if you wanted to take out high-level bombers, you have to get planes of your own into the air. The catch of course is that you will have a hell of a time trying to acheive any sort of accuracy vs ground targets if you are above afew thousand feet. WW2 bombers flying at 25,000 feet often missed their targets by miles.

Besides the question of range is the fact that the projectiles from a musket/cannon etc just wouldn't travel fast enough to allow any real aiming, when you consider that many WW1 era aircraft could make 100+ miles per hour. Flak cannons don't actually fire projectiles like bullets, becuase they would be too hard to aim at a fast moving plane - they actually fire explosive shells set to explode at a certain altitude, showering the area in metal shards.

But gameplay must trump strict realism, IMHO. The most elegant solution would be to allow planes to fly over any tile that doesn't have an AA unit on it. I wouldn't count bows/muskets/cannons/whatever as AA weapons unless your talking about very, very early, pre-WW1 aircraft.

It always annoyed me in Civ2 that planes couldn't fly over any enemy unit, even if it was a warrior armed with a club.

Concerning air units:

A great many of the units in my Gamma World game will have ranged capabilities. In other words, many of them shoot like artillery in Civ 3. For example, soldiers with laser rifles can shoot around 4 tiles away (scale is different than Civ 3). So would it be reasonable for an air unit to expect getting shot at if it wanders into this area, or only when it moves into the same tile?

Does all of this sound reasonable or "fun" in a Civ style game?
Click to expand...

That doesn't sound very intuitive, IMHO, unless the air unit is flying very low, and it's probably a bad idea to blur the line between ground and air units like that. But if you think it will add to the gameplay, by all means put it in.

Good luck. :)
 
Sounds fun enough to me.

The one thing that doesn't sound fun to me is the idea of laser rifles hitting planes 3-4 tiles away.
 
Darth_Pugwash said:
Sounds fun enough to me.

The one thing that doesn't sound fun to me is the idea of laser rifles hitting planes 3-4 tiles away.
Click to expand...

Well, the scale I intend is zoomed in compared to Civ 3. So a normal ground unit might move 2 or 4 tiles per turn, for example, with a normal vision range equal to his speed.

Your arguments against ground units interdicting air units' movement has convinced me.
 
This is my idea for combat for Gamma World.

A. I've decided that instead of 1 to 1 combat, like what Civ 2 has, I'm going to have much more detailed combat. I have decided to give units action points which they can spend on various activities. If an action requires more points than the unit currently has, then his remaining action points are used on the current turn, and his action points on successive turns are consumed until he's able to perform the action.

1. Example of more action points needed than what a unit currently has: An infantry unit wants to fire a mortar. That takes 20 action points. The unit has a maximum action point total of 20 per turn, and it has 2 remaining this turn. It uses its 2 points, then next turn, 18 points are consumed and it fires the mortar.

2. Example of general action point related combat.

A musketman has 20 action points. It takes 5 action points for any foot unit to cross a grassland tile. It takes the musketman 10 action points to fire once. So, at the beginning of the turn, the musketman has 20 action points. He moves from a grassland tile to another grassland tile. He fires at a dog two tiles away (this is similar in effect to ranged attacks in Civ 3). He then moves from his current tile back to his original tile.

B. Now, there are two more considerations. One is melee combat of a unit vs. the aforementioned musketman. Another is range capable units being put on "guard", and then they can shoot at hostile units that come within their range.

1. Let's say the dog from example 2 above closes in with the musketman. Let's say the dog has these statistics:
Maximum action points: 25 (allows for faster movement on land; crossing a grassland tile still takes 5 action points)
Bite attack: 5 action points.

So the dog is 3 tiles away from the musketman. He moves 2 tiles to be adjacent to the musketman. He now has 15 action points remaining. He attacks the musketman. It goes like this: for each melee attack of the dog vs. the musketman, if the musketman survives, he gets to do a melee attack in return (not a ranged attack). Let's say the dog has these characteristics (using Civ 2 methods):
Melee attack:
ATT: 2
Firepower: 1
Action points per attack: 5​
DEF: 1
Hit points (not a multiple of 10): 6, remaining 3
Max action points: 25


The musketman has these characteristics:
Melee attack:
ATT: 1
Firepower: 1
Action points per attack: 5​
Ranged attack:
ATT: 6
Firepower: 3
Action points per attack: 10
Range: 2​
DEF: 1
Hit points (not a multiple of 10): 12, remaining 12
Max action points: 20

So it will work like this, in this order. This melee combat is fought until one unit dies, retreats, or the attacker runs out of action points. Neither unit can retreat, so one unit must die or the attacker will run out of action points.
1. Dog attacks musketman and hits. Dog uses 5 action points and the musketman loses 1 hit point. During this attack, the dog's ATT was used against the musketman's DEF in determining if the dog hit.
2. The musketman retaliates. His ATT is used against the dog's DEF. (NOTE! That is handled like Galactic Civilizations, NOT like Civilization 2.) The musketman has an ATT of 1 vs. the dog's DEF of 1 and the musketman misses. (During this combat, the musketman has a maximum action points of 20 which will be used during this combat to determine how many times he may retaliate vs. any one attacker.) The musketman used 5 action points for defending and has 15 more that he can use for defending.
3. Dog attacks musketman and hits. Dog uses 5 action points and the musketman loses 1 hit point. The musketman is now at 10 hitpoints. The dog has 5 more action points remaining.
4. The musketman retaliates as explained in step 2 above. He hits. The dog is now at 2 hit points. The musketman has 10 action points remaining that he can use for defense.
5. The dog attacks the musketman and hits. Dog has 0 action points remaining and cannot attack anymore.
6. The musketman retaliates and misses. He now has 5 action points remaining for defense. He won't use those though, because the dog ran out of action points.

Ok, so I made the dog live through that for the next turn. The musketman uses 10 action points to do a ranged strike at the dog and he kills the dog. The musketman uses his 10 remaining action points to walk towards his home city to heal.


C. Now let's say you have one musketman in a fortress, which is on a grass tile. Another musketman is one tile away. The musketman in the fortress is already on guard, from a few turns ago.

I'm going to use this unit in this discussion in addition to the musketman unit:
Maceman
Melee attack:
ATT: 4
Firepower: 2
Action points per attack: 6​
DEF: 3
Hit points (not a multiple of 10): 12, remaining 12
Max action points: 16 (due to heavy armor)

Longbowman
Melee attack:
ATT: 1
Firepower: 1
Action points per attack: 5​
Ranged attack:
ATT: 4
Firepower: 2
Action points per attack: 8
Range: 2​
DEF: 1
Hit points (not a multiple of 10): 12, remaining 12
Max action points: 20


1. The musketman outside the fortress moves into the tile with the fortress, and he has 15 action points remaining. He gets put on guard.
2. Opponent's turn: He moves a maceman one tile forward from a hill to a grassland. The maceman now has 11 action points remaining. He is within 2 tiles of the two musketmen in the fortress.
3. The musketmen both shoot at the maceman. First, the one with the larger number of action points shoots. He does a ranged attack of ATT 6 vs. the maceman's DEF of 3. The musketman hits and the maceman loses 3 hit points. The maceman is incapable of retaliation.
4. The same musketman shoots again. He hits the maceman. The macemen is now at 6 hit points.
5. The next musketman shoots once (because he only had 15 action points remaining) and he hits the maceman.
6. It's still the opponent's turn, and he moves his maceman forward one more tile, and he has 6 action points remaining.
7. The maceman chooses to attack one of the musketmen. The maceman uses up all 6 action points and he hits a musketman.
8. The musketman retaliates at the maceman and misses. The musketman had an ATT of 1, and the maceman had a DEF of 3.
9. A longbowman moves from a hill tile to a grassland tile, and is now within the range of the musketmen. Both musketmen have used all of their action points for guarding. Neither fire.
10. The longbowman has 15 action points remaining and he can fire 1 time. He fires at one of the musketmen and hits, doing 2 hit points of damage.
11. The opponent ends his turn.

So, for this scenario C, I'm wondering, should range combat units retaliate like melee combat? I'm guessing no.

Note that a lot of the combat above in this post is similar to the video game Chaos Gate. In Chaos Gate, melee units retaliated against every melee attack against them. Ranged attacks never got retaliations.

With the notion of guarding, it's possible for a nation to build slow, crappy, heavily armored units to move into the line of fire, and use up an opponent's guarding ability. Then, the same nation can move its weakly defended units with high ranged power into range, and they fire at the guarding defenders.

D. Now let's say that ranged units can retaliate.

It should probably have these features.

For each pair of attack + retaliate, no damage is applied until after the pair is done. So that means it's possible for a tank to shoot at another tank, doing enough damage to destroy. However, the defending tank can retaliate, hit the attacker, and also do enough damage to destroy it. Then after that pair of attack + retaliate is done, damage is applied, and both tanks are destroyed.

With retaliating ranged units, the scenario I said at the end of C is done away with. Weak, slow, heavily armored units are now useless.

~~~~~~~~~~~

So after all that, does it seem fun? Annoying? Stupid? Reasonable? Logical? Above all, does it seem fun?
 
Sounds fun! :scan: :D

I assume that ranged retaliation would cost action points? Would the action point cost of relatiating on your opponents turn carry over to your next turn? Could you toggle ranged retaliation off / choose not to retaliate to save action points?

Also, if I read that correctly, when a unit is out of action points it cannot defend itself against a melee attack? I think that sounds annoying for the player - maybe action-pointless units should just defend at half strength, instead?
 
Darth_Pugwash said:
Sounds fun! :scan: :D

I assume that ranged retaliation would cost action points?
Click to expand...
Retaliation, as part of defense, uses action points merely as a means of stating how much can a unit defend each time it's attacked.

Here's an odd example. There can be a unit that fires an artillery shell. To fire it, it takes 40 action points. That is the unit's only attack method. The unit in question has only 20 action points. So, if this hypothetical unit is ever attack, it can never retaliate since its action points are too few to perform any retaliatory strike.

Would the action point cost of relatiating on your opponents turn carry over to your next turn?
Click to expand...
Basically, in the case of retaliatory strikes, there are two sets of action points. The first set, which is clear to understand, is the set used by a unit for all of his active tasks, such as moving, working the land, or shooting. Retaliatory strikes are the second set. This is only used to determine how many times a unit can hit back at an attacker. It's not permanently consumed, unlike the first set of action points. So if Unit A has 20 maximum action points, and Unit B attacks it, those 20 maximum points of Unit A will determine how many times Unit A can hit back. If Unit C attacks Unit A on the same turn that Unit B attacked Unit A, then Unit A will again have 20 action points to use to retaliate. Personally, I think of retaliatory action points as imaginary; the unit doesn't really have these as extra action points.

Could you toggle ranged retaliation off / choose not to retaliate to save action points?
Click to expand...
As explained above, retaliation doesn't consume your regular action points used during your turn for your actions.

Also, if I read that correctly, when a unit is out of action points it cannot defend itself against a melee attack? I think that sounds annoying for the player - maybe action-pointless units should just defend at half strength, instead?
Click to expand...
See above.
 
Which is a better model of handling air units?

* Civ 3
* Civ 2/Alpha Centauri/Civ 1.

I don't have Civ 4 so I don't know how it handles air units.

Personally, I'm more partial to the Alpha Centauri style. Civ 3 is too abstract.

So, I'm thinking about doing things like this:

An air unit can be on "air superiority" mission, which works like Alpha Centauri. It stays in some base and will attack any enemy air unit which enters its visual range. (When an enemy air unit enters its visual range, the defender flies out, does a dog fight, and if it lives, returns to base.)

An air unit can fly out to some target, do a bombard action, then wait until his next turn to return. If the attacking air unit is a bomber, he'll have some low DEF and ATT to defend himself against attacking fighters. The bombard ability will have a different ATT than the bomber's usual ATT.

Let me show some specific examples. Assume it takes 2 action points to move through the air, moving 1 tile.

WW2 fighter
Attack (melee)
ATT: 4
Firepower: 3
Action points: 4​
Attack (bombard)
ATT: 4
Firepower: 4
Range: 0 (fly over target to bombard)
Action points: 4​
DEF: 3
Action points per turn: 12
Max action points: 24 (refuel at base back up to max)
Hit points: 20

WW2 bomber
Attack (melee)
ATT: 2
Firepower: 1
Action points: 4​
Attack (bombard)
ATT: 12
Firepower: 10
Action points: 4
Range: 0 (fly over target to bombard)​
DEF: 2
Action points per turn: 24
Max action points: 48 (refuel at base back up to max)
Hit points: 25

So, for a bomber to attack a target, it can fly, let's say, 6 tiles to its target (12 action points), and it has 12 action points remaining. It then bombards 3 times. On its next turn, it can bombard another 3 times, and fly back to its originating base.

Let's use the same scenario for a fighter attacking the bomber. The bomber flies out 6 tiles, then bombards. The bomber's opponent has a fighter and decides to attack the bomber. The fighter flies out 3 tiles (6 action points), then attacks the bomber using its melee attack. It has 6 action points remaining. It can only shoot at the bomber once, which consumes 4 action points. It can then move back 1 tile using its remaining 2 action points. Let's say it hit the bomber, so the bomber now has 21 hit points. Obviously, with this low tech fighter, it'll take some work to take out a single bomber. It would be much easier to use multiple fighters.

So, the actions a plane can perform are:
* Go on air superiority. Use action points to reach an opposing air unit, and attack it. After attacking the opposing air unit, the fighter on air superiority flies back to base. (Should it stay in the air?) It may not perform another defensive air attack until next turn.
* Defend against ground attackers (should it?)
* Patrol out to a certain point, then return. If an opposing unit is seen, stop and wait for user input.

I wonder if I'm missing some of the Alpha Centauri air actions.
 
I am designing custom units. It'll be similar to what Alpha Centauri has, but without the fancy 3d graphics. Here are the chassis I have. Each chassis connotes a shape and mode of locomotion.


1. foot (ground, no vehicle)
2. ground vehicle
3. ship
4. undersea ship
5. helicopter
6. missile
7. walking ground vehicle (animorph, like an AT AT or mech)
8. ornithopter
9. antigrav vehicle
10. swimming undersea ship (animorph, like a fish or dolphin)
11. fixed wing aircraft

So, what other chassis can I use? I can add as many as I want.

Some things are missing as you can tell, such as mounted soldiers or jet planes vs. propellar planes. Those are the second thing the user has to do. For some of the chassis types, there are other choices such as locomotion type. For ground units, they have the option of adding a mount.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Lonecat Nekophrodite
Exploration Age Land Units analysis
Replies
0
Views
474
Lonecat Nekophrodite
Lonecat Nekophrodite
K
Civ-Switching
4 5 6
Replies
113
Views
5K
Shirotora Kenshin
Shirotora Kenshin
Blake00
Video: "Tiberian Sun - The Best Post-Apocalyptic World in Fiction"
Replies
2
Views
822
Ailedhoo
Ailedhoo
A
Dominion of Darkness - RPG/strategy narrative driven simulator of the Dark Lord
Replies
2
Views
369
Adeptus
A
disjointaccount
Leader Discussion - Ada Lovelace
2
Replies
21
Views
2K
disjointaccount
disjointaccount
Back
Top Bottom