Cyborgs,Mechs and size of objects...

[Shadow Wolf TJC]

I wouldn't exactly say that artillery is any more powerful than a cannon. In fact, they typically have much lower dps than a cannon, laser, or railgun of the same price. Rather, I'd say that, due to their longer range, not only can they attack many targets well before they're able to get close enough to return fire, but since they can cover a wider area, it's easier to have multiple artillery units positioned so that their areas of coverage overlap, meaning that they're more likely to gang up on individual units.

Likewise, I wouldn't say that artillery is necessarily easy to destroy either, since they can be mounted on all sorts of vehicles, including ones that are as durable as any front-line tank, though as defensive structures, they're sadly restricted towards being mounted on the normally-fragile emplacements. Although that might not be of concern if faced with tanks, artillery weapons mounted on such fragile bodies make them especially vulnerable to counter-battery fire and VTOLs, though artillery weapons mounted on sturdier, if more expensive, bodies are more likely to survive these kinds of onslaughts. Then again, if the opponent uses some powerful weapons to one-shot such a sturdy body, then it would most likely one-shot a cheaper, more fragile body, though then, that would be overkill.

Since my idea for what these mecha would be like involves trading survivability for additional firepower compared to a tank of the same cost, you can guess what strengths and weaknesses they'd have over tanks, and what kinds of targets they'd have an advantage or disadvantage over compared to tanks.

[Emdek]

Well, I'm as usually comparing from campaign point of view, which has a bit different stats (not sure how big differences are between artillery in both modes).
Here artillery is extremely powerful and very easy to destroy using CB turrets.

So from that point of view they would more like short range artillery equivalent.
So I wouldn't let them to carry any artillery like weapons too.

[Shadow Wolf TJC]

Actually, some mecha could mount artillery weapons, like GDI's Juggernaut walkers from the Command & Conquer series, or the Naga battlemech from the BattleTech universe. They would just be less expensive, and less durable, than a tank mounting the same weapon, or they would have more dps than an artillery tank of the same price, but less durability. Like I said before, they would trade survivability for extra dps, though they could technically mount just about any weapon that a tank could, from short-range flamers to long-range Archangels.

[Emdek]

For artillery ones I would go for multi legged only (maybe spider like, maybe walker like), using existing tank bodies probably. They could be able to use all types of weapons available for tanks currently.

[Shadow Wolf TJC]

My earlier ideas, as to what a mecha would be like, primarily focused on the more bipedal mecha. For quadrupedal or spiderlike mecha, on the other hand, they seem like they could use the same bodies as any of the tank bodies. While I wouldn't expect these kinds of mecha to carry anything bigger than a tank of the same body, I'd expect them to come with advantages of their own, but what?

I doubt that they'd be any cheaper to produce than a tank, though I also doubt that they'd be at least as durable as one either (although I also doubt that they'd be less durable than a bipedal mecha either, since they at least have redundant legs ). Perhaps they could have some benefits towards navigating across rough terrain (at least compared to wheeled, half-tracked, or tracked propulsion)? Maybe they could even climb up cliffs? Who knows?

[Emdek]

Shadow Wolf TJC, for me bipedal mechs and all multi legged other are two different kinds (so it would be good to state about which ones we talk about at given point, to not confuse ), first ones require custom body (since existing ones would look really weird, especially bigger / longer ones), but for second I would treat them mostly like typical tanks and only try to find a way to make propulsion more unique (faster and weaker or cheaper and weaker or stronger but slower - maybe combination of those, plus something extra, like you have mentioned).

Maybe there could be even a third group, since spider like probably would require custom weapons too (due to propulsion mount point) or could use tank ones mounted on top of propulsion (more like VTOLs do).

Improved ability to move on more harsh terrain is also a possibility, but for cliffs (if should be allowed at all) there should be additional limitations (easiest to check would be a maximum height of cliff, maybe with ability to upgrade to have access to bigger ones?) and should be only available for possible multi legged ones (I suggest to start with bipedal ones, probably easiest to begin with, though would need more custom models or weapons).

[Rman Virgil]

.

There ya go. As Yoggi Berra put it in one of his famous non sequiturs:

"It's like deja-vu all over again."

(2009) XANAX's Mech Assets:

viewtopic.php?f=33&t=3337&hilit=XANAX+MECHS

(2009) Kacen's Legged Propulsion propositions:

viewtopic.php?f=30&t=3682&hilit=legged+propulsion

.

[Emdek]

Rman Virgil, yeah, deja vu, I've seen those topics in the past.
But my goal is to have them (at least bipedal ones) in game, integrated with unit designer.
And if licenses allow to, then those could by reused (at least partially), why not.

[Rman Virgil]

.

Well, Emdek, that's all quite challenging but doable if your able & willing to put the hours into making it happen.

However, there's no doubt in my mind that, the biggest hurdle to evolving WZ's GPMs, in even the most simplest of modifications let alone the orders of magnitude greater complexity your proposing, is thorough MP play-testing support. You'd best have an answer for that as well if you expect any real in-game ROI for such herculean efforts of creation.

.

[Emdek]

Rman Virgil, sure, but I'm not sure if I would like to start another task right now since there are some others needing completion.
Although that structures editor diff would be a good place to start looking how the designer works internally.
And yes, real stats adjusting will require lots of playing but community would help, I guess.

[Lord Apocalypse]

I've got a working 1.10 install so let me find the old 1.11 patch and I'll get a screenshot of the jump borgs. If I remember correctly the propulsion entry is separate but they use a basic borg animation or some such.. but the prop entry could be removed/recplaced for mecha anim.

[Berg]

If you look at your 3.1 data you will see the jump borg model is still there!

If you do a forum search you are likely to find many threads on mech cyborg etc.

Code: Select all

/* header format: anim3d [filename] [frames][framerate] [num objects]            */
/* anim line: [frame] [x] [y] [z] [xrot] [yrot] [zrot][xscale] [yscale] [zscale] */
ANIM3DFRAMES "cybdpjmp.pie" 3 10
{
	  0	0 0 0 0 0 0 1000 1000 1000
	  1	0 0 0 0 0 0 1000 1000 1000
	  2	0 0 0 0 0 0 1000 1000 1000
}

Above is the animation ani for jumpborg

[Lord Apocalypse]

So like I said, unless someone wants to rebalance them and bring them back the propulsion entry can be reused for something else.

[Rman Virgil]

.......

And yes, real stats adjusting will require lots of playing but community would help, I guess.

For introducing changed GPMs in Skirmish and Campaign modes, yes, because one individual can proceed to playtest at a high level with quality, usefull, feedback for making relevant adjustments. The community has been able to consistently provide that SP playtesting support.

But with any changes that impact MP game play that absolutely will not work.

Since source liberation, going on 8 years, I've only seen MP playtesting support for changed game play under only one circumstance.

That one circumstance involved Zarel's Rebalance efforts and him having to hang out on the IRC channel, at all times practically, trying to organize MP playtesting games to get quality feedback for adjustments to his modifications. Zarel's efforts were herculean on both the creation side AND the MP playtesting side.

Number one - it's just not a practical scenario to expect one individual to have to put forth that kind of 2 pronged herculean effort for MP mode changes.

Number two - unless there is some other practical solution to this MP playtesting shortfall of the last 8 years (other than trying to duplicate Zarel's herculean 2-pronged efforts - which ain't gonna happen, let's be honest) all these proposed changes that impact MP are doomed from the get-go to become aborted efforts and there are already enough of those to validate this circumstance.

.

[Emdek]

Rman Virgil, sure, but it's worth trying anyway.
There is enough big interest in them in this topic that even if everybody who shown that in this and some other mecha related topics would test them then we would have probably enough players for initial tests.

And adding more diversity (optional or standard one) and then create some buzz about that could attract new players and maybe even developers.