|
Post by Jinn on Dec 23, 2011 6:02:10 GMT -5
Yeah I agree. I say we nuke most of it and rebuild from the ashes. Start fresh.
Crud this means we’ll have to give the TV tropes pages a massive overhaul.
|
|
|
Post by wax on Dec 23, 2011 13:26:32 GMT -5
Exactly, but the combat system is the question. For the TVTropes page I could do a major part of the work alone.
So... since I am rather inexperienced, I let more proficient heads decide of the very beginning. (Yeah, I'm letting you down, but I can't get a grasp starting from scratch.)
|
|
|
Post by Jinn on Dec 24, 2011 3:28:25 GMT -5
You’re not lletting anyone down. Heak I have no Idea how these sort of games work at all! (apart from the rollplaying of course).
Since that is the case though we should probably use our time proactively to work on other aspects of the game. I agree that devising a good combat system should be the first priority, but ther’s no reason we can’t do other stuff as well.
|
|
|
Post by shadow on Dec 24, 2011 19:12:36 GMT -5
I personally think we should take the approach of another site I'm a Mod in. The Mod's share the work, but only do what they feel comfortable doing.
Also, with the Combat system. Anyone know the exact stats and formula for AWs? We'll need that to start, and then if we make any modifications like extra units, it would be a lot easier.
Secondly, the 'nation' system will need a lot of work...
Oh, damn. I just realised I'd completely forgotten about the revised history! >.<
Merry Christmas all!
|
|
|
Post by Jinn on Dec 25, 2011 6:21:31 GMT -5
Mary Christmas to you too Shadow. I don’t know about formulas but I do have a damage chart. That should be a good place to start.
|
|
|
Post by wax on Dec 25, 2011 11:08:38 GMT -5
First, merry Christmas to everyone. Then the formula, I think, is close to that in DS. DMG= ((BD+LT)*HP)*(200-TD)% BD= base damage LT= Luck Total. Total of positive and negative luck. Though most COs have 0 negative luck, I myself have 5%. HP= Percentage of HP for the attacking unit TD= Defense. Adds terrain defense to CO abilities in a single factor. Then we have conditions about how COs can't heal if they have more than 200% defense. If it was only by me, I'd change the damage formula so defense doesn't kill the enemy luck. It'd give this. DMG= (BD*HP)*(200-TD)%+luck*HP HP is listed twice so a 1HP unit can't one-shoot a megatank in case you reach a potential of 100% luck. Here was my Christmas present, a pack of un-understandable theorytarding. Good luck
|
|
|
Post by shadow on Jan 14, 2012 10:01:12 GMT -5
Actually, I like the altered formula, Wax. And since I see no reason to really mess with it too much, we have a perfectly good place to start. Next is Nation Building and working out whether we want to be lazy and stick with traditional AW units, or to get creative and flavour the unit selection to better reflect what continent we're on.
|
|
|
Post by shadow on Jan 15, 2012 6:58:20 GMT -5
Well, I've nuked the Roleplay section. I don't think I've gotten rid of anything important.... Though I can recover anything I accidently got rid of that was important.
Onto Nation Rules:
I propose that there is a stable, base, income. And the nations themselves decide how to split that between military actions or somehow .... advancing? I'm thinking possibly it could be a case of gaining units or advantages as each nation advances.
Though we don't want it to become a case of those who get ahead on the tech tree become more powerful...
Also, I'm proposing that the units ARE all the same for the nations... except they're slightly modified. For instance, if any of you have played Dune 2000, they may remember the Ordos using Raiders instead of Trikes. Which were faster, but weaker. Well, that's the proposed idea, though it all depends on the opinions received.
|
|
|
Post by shadow on Jan 18, 2012 1:31:07 GMT -5
No input?
|
|
|
Post by Jinn on Jan 18, 2012 14:31:46 GMT -5
I don’t think the whole “same but different” for individual units will work in Advance wars though. The units are meant to be the same with the difference in capabilities coming from the Cos. Messing with that is likely to trow the games balance out of wack. Not to mention it could easily break the game.
Let’s say for example, one faction’s tanks move one space faster in exchange for reduced attack and defence. Now what if a CO joins said faction whose has a Day to Day similar to Adler’s (increase movement of everything). So now instead of having fast tanks that CO would have stupidly fast tanks that no-one could possible keep up with.
|
|
|
Post by shadow on Jan 18, 2012 18:19:14 GMT -5
Point. I'm still thinking on the tech tree idea. Similar, perhaps, to the way you gain bigger units as the game goes on in the original AW games. (Though with, of course, a little more input.)
Anyone seen Wax recently?
|
|
|
Post by shadow on Jan 19, 2012 7:12:32 GMT -5
Basic Income Rate first idea:
Keeping the 1000 for each city might be good.
But say After it's been captured, possibly some sort of reduced income due to the fighting around it, which is fixed up either after a set period of time/set amount of money inputted.
And say, something akin to 50,000 needed to increase the output of the cities in monetary value.
First Draft, it could easily be simpler if nothing else is liked.
Any thoughts on Tech Trees? I'm trying to work out how they could be implemented without breaking the balance of the game.
|
|
|
Post by Jinn on Jan 19, 2012 21:28:15 GMT -5
Oh I love Tech Trees, I’ve been spending the last week playing civ 5 so I would love to help with this. Though if we are going to pursue this train of thought we’ll have to decide what the baseline is.
I think if everyone starts with the ability to produce standard Infantry, Tanks, Recon, APCs, Artillery, Dusters (or something simaller) Anti-Air and Cruisers. Then each faction can start research on the bigger tanks, Rockets, better infantry, Subs ect.
And of course you can use Tech to use stuff that can aid indirectly in battle like land mines and whether control machines.
Also if where only getting 1000 per city then the price of units may have to go down to support multiple COs fighting in multiple battles.
|
|
|
Post by shadow on Jan 20, 2012 1:07:43 GMT -5
Probably we could improve the amount gained per city, as you'd have to support tech advantages and fighting. And perhaps lowering the unit costs.
Also, Building a 'tree' so that advancing in one branch is different than another would be interesting, but have the 'tree's intercross occasionally...
Still not sure how to keep this balanced, though.
|
|
|
Post by Jinn on Jan 20, 2012 16:29:34 GMT -5
Perhaps we should wait to hear from the others first.
|
|