True 3D movement - no more squares!

[Aleksander Paladin Storm]

The Earth II and III engines are certainly full-3D, but the Earth 2150 series was still restrained by a square-based map system... one unit sitting on one square... it's a useful system for managing the terrain itself as well as working with structures (but even then, perhaps more freedom for structure placement would be good too), but with units, it's very restricting.

Perhaps if Reality Pump could learn from Total Annihilation and Age of Mythology's (even it's 2D predecessors, Age of Empires didn't rely heavily on a one map square, one unit system) example and try to have a more free-style unit movement, the gameplay (as well as unit movement) would improve some... It's also just a smart idea... you see Age of Empires with it's non-restriction to unit movement, and the units are able to hold a PERFECT formation, as long as the units are in an empty field, and HOLD that formation even when moving, and intelligently position units in the formation, like melee units in the front, ranged combatants in the middle, and siege weapons in the back... Even if a formation would be disadvantageous, there could be a way to setup a 'loose formation' system, having the units within the Platoon move in somewhat erratic patterns as they swerve between trees, rocks, etc... a useful movement style for scouts and skirmishers... and most definately useful for aircraft, as it would help with evading rockets.

I'm now reminded of Homeworld, and how it's fightercraft can sometimes evade weapons fire as they move around, if their custom scripting is set to Evade, of course... this causes them to attempt to swerve out of the way of mass driver slugs and missiles, and is most definately something that I would see use in with respect to Aircraft, as I was always having to do my aircraft's evasion manually when a dumbfire rocket was launched at them... I've also found those little 'PT' type boats would benefit from evasiveness as well...
(That Dynamic attack sucks)

This would definately improve the game in my opinion and lessen how much a player focuses on what stupid crap his units are doing when he's not looking...

[ October 15, 2002: Message edited by: Aleksander Paladin Storm ]

[Earthnuker]

The square system in Earth 2150 isn't all that bad- sure, platoon scripting sucks, but that's about it. Why would you want your troops to form a formation? I don't see the use of it- exept maybe when you put a bunch of Kruchev cannons in square formation so they finish anything off that comes near, but that's about it I suppose.

PS: Bats can rotate their rocket launchers. If you set them on dynamic attack they are in continuous flight while still firing. But this will only do you any good vs unguided rockets, since Bats are pretty slow.

[imported_Coyote]

Would be a cool idea. There'd be problems with it, though- for one thing, models in Earth don't have any volume- if you've ever seen two Grizzlies stand right next to each other, or a Leviathan in a crowd, you probably noticed that the mesh passes right through anything nearby. With a freed movement system, you'd have to develop no-entry bubbles for units, or something of the sort. I imagine HW has something like this, but it's tricky, and involves lots of programming- the units would have to be even more hardcoded into the game (look at HW modding- it's hell, much more complex than TMP modding will be when we have the capacity). I suppose they could create something like the hard-polygon thing most flight sims (for one) have, but those don't work with unclosed meshes (which E2150 relied heavily on to redyce the poly count), and they'd be tough to do with things like Spiders, which are basically a single horizontal plane with legs- they could pass right over each other, since planes have no thickness.
There are other things that might be a prob, too, but not really bad ones, and I'm not familiar with gamemaking itself enough to be sure about them.

Still, it'd be a great idea.

[Aleksander Paladin Storm]

Like I said, you don't need to have them conform to that formation all the time... they could stay in it when not moving (and in a proper and intelligent formation, like Age of Empires does), but there can be different Platoon movement styles... While moving, they can stay in formation or they could move in somewhat random patterns to throw enemy targetting off... The Platoons get too spread out sometimes, and if they match speeds or move more intelligently, it would be better... the idea of a better, more directed defensive line (without much micromanagement on the player's part) would be nice... never have to worry about positioning specific unit types in defensive forces with Age of Empires (and Galactic Battlegrounds) because of the intelligent formation system they use... More than just Line and Square formations would be nice too... I could refer to the Age of Empires/Galactic Battlegrounds stuff for some useful ground-based formations and their unit compositions...
(PC stands for Poster's Comments)
Ordinarily, when you select a group of military units and command them to move, they automatically form into a line or column depending on the distance they are traveling. (PC: Basically, when on the move, units will form a thin column, but as they approach their destination, they return to the Line formation) When you order a group to attack, they fall into line formation. The units then break formation to attack. For example, if you order a group of archers and swordsmen to attack a target, the archers initiate the attack from a distance while the swordsmen close on the target.

Line Formation: Units are placed shoulder to shoulder; the formation is wider than it is long. If attacked, the line turns to face the threat. (PC: I'd say that's useful) If at rest (without current orders), units form a line facing the direction of their travel. This formation works well when you have a group of swordsmen and archers. The archers fall in line behind the swordsmen for protection. (PC: In Earth, I'd imagine Rocket-bearing units would fall behind Plasma-, Cannon-, Laser-, or Electro-Cannon units)

Box Formation: Units form a square. Weak units are protected in the middle of the box. This formation works well for protecting Monks or siege weapons in the center of the box with swordsmen or cavalry surrounding them. (PC: I'd imagine this would be very useful for a force escorting something like a team of Crion artillery, say, a force of Heavy Rocket Crushers surrounding a few Crions)

Staggered Formation: A spread version of a Line formation, where the units have space between them to mitigate damage by siege units that may be caused when units are too close together.

Flank Formation: Units divide into two subgroups with distance between them and attempt to surround the enemy when attacking. (Useful for swift units such as Lunars, Moons, Pamirs, Caspians, Tigers, and Spiders)

Horde Formation: (PC: not in Galactic Battlegrounds, only in Age of Empires II) A group that maintains no relative ordering. Useful when you dont need your units in a particular order but want them all to move together.

There are also combat stances...
Aggressive: Most newly created units have this stance by default. Aggressive units attack any enemy unit or building within their sight and do not retreat until they or the enemy have been destroyed. There is no limit to how far aggressive units pursue the enemy.

Defensive: Units attack enemy units within their sight but pursue them only a short distance. When a defensive unit can no longer engage enemy units from within it's boundaries, it returns to its original location or resumes the task it was performing. If a defensive unit is attacked by a ranged unit from outside its sight, the defensive unit takes damage without responding or fleeing. Defensive units also ignore enemy attacks while moving to a player-assigned location.

In a formation with ranged and non-ranged units, non-ranged units will not attack their target unless they are very close to the enemy and will return to protect ranged units. In a formation containing only non-ranged units, they will all attack.
(Amended in Galactic Battlegrounds manual) :
This setting me be useful for large groups of units, which you want to stick closely together.

Stand Ground: Units attack enemy units that enter their range but do not move from their location, even if attacked. If they are on patrol and sight an enemy they continue to patrol. If they are guarding a unit that is attacked, they engage the attacker only if they can do so without moving from their position.
(Amended in Galactic Battlegrounds manual) :
This setting is useful for units that may attack at an extreme range, as it will keep them from approaching their foes and thus minimizing their tactical advantage.

No Attack Stance: Units do not move and do not attack, even if they are attacked.
(Amended in Galactic Battlegrounds manual) :
This option may be useful for Heavy Weapons in transit, which may inadvertently injure their own forces if permitted to attack any hostiles.

Certainly, the two separate "Fire at Will, Return Fire, Don't Fire" and "Chase Enemy, Hold Area, Hold Pos" work just as well as the four stances, if not better, but putting them both in one single control would minimize space used on the multifunction control panel, as well as simplifying the general control (It could be used for standard Battle Unit scripts, and the Advanced can separate them as it does now)... (of course, Reality Pump is free to do as they wish... this is just to enlighten them to the smart ideas others have already put into games that have been out for awhile... Age of Empires II: Age of Kings was out about a year before the first Earth 2150)...

[ October 16, 2002: Message edited by: Aleksander Paladin Storm ]

[Chip]

Wow, Stryke. You certainly know a lot about this stuff. It's almost as if you've spoken to the developers...

[imported_Coyote]

Jes' enough to get by... I've got an idea of what modern graphics engines (particularly gaming engines) can do, because I spend a lot of time toeing that line for projects, that's all.

[Aleksander Paladin Storm]

I actually understand a bit about Homeworld binding spheres since I attempted to work with a few models awhile back... was actually trying to convert an original Homeworld model from a Mod into a Homeworld Cataclysm model, with very poor and amateurish methods... but not more amateurish than the person who built the Cataclysm mod i was trying to amend... it was so improper, i felt like making modifications, like adding the Missile Frigate from a very well done regular Homeworld mod themed around the same faction (The Turanic Raiders)...

Ah well... I still need more experience before I get into this field...

Still... I think the more system-intensive graphics would be acceptable... actually, how does Total Annihilation and Age of Mythology do their non-restricted movement and structure placement? do they use bounding spheres or that hard-polygon stuff?

Also... I never liked how the Spider's game form never matched it's FMV form... I liked it's FMV/Box Cover form better anyway... it was just an octagonal box with legs sticking out of 6 of the horizontal-facing square sides with a weapon turret (Plasma was used mainly) mounted on the top octagon side... the rectangle-with-legs was kinda lame...

Anyway, I'd assume a weapon would also have substance... I noticed that shadows didn't reflect the weapon mounts for some units in Earth 2150... just doesnt look right...

[Aleksander Paladin Storm]

Once you get the model files for a Homeworld ship extracted from the .big file, all you need is a hex editor or someone's conveniently pre-made editor... I had a Homeworld 1 model parts editor (I forget what the file types were, but they contained information like bounding zone dimensions and focal point, weapon ports and facing, engine port, etc... all the functional points for the ship). Haven't actually worked with the models themselves, but I'd imagine it wouldn't be too hard if it's anything like the model parts files.

I'd imagine all Reality Pump would need to do is design an easy-to-use editor, which Relic (Homeworld 1's developer) and Barking Dog Studios (Homeworld: Cataclysm's developer) neglected to include or upload for downloading...

[ October 17, 2002: Message edited by: Aleksander Paladin Storm ]

[imported_Coyote]

Slow down there, sparky. We can only read a few paragraphs at once! :D

Anyway. I think TA actually used 2D units on a 3D map, didn't it? Dunno, never could score a copy. Things like HomeWorld could generally spare the extra polygons, but that's because HomeWorld didn't have to deal with terrain (and all that comes with it), large numbers of complex structures, etc. Not to mention that it's a better engine- the E3 engine will probably be able to support a lot of this stuff, if it needed to, but then there's the question of whether you want full detail or free movement- no strat engine can do both, htanks to the large numbers of units it has to handle at any given instant.

The shadows, that's normal. E2150 ain't a raytracer, the sequel ain't gonna be a raytracer, it's not gonna give shadows for things that aren't given shadow (maps? Probably, not sure...).

The problem with Earth modding isn't that it's particularly complex, it's that neither Topware, Zuxxez, nor (as far as we can tell) Reality Pump have the slightest interest in us modding. They haven't slapped us with a cease-and-desist order to keep us from trying, byt they're not gonna exactly help or anything- and without help, it's slow going developing the tools we need, particularly with only a passel of competent programmers in the house. We might eventually crack the .msh format and the texes, but by that time E2160 will already be getting old, which means no likely modding community, which means few likely good mods...

[Aleksander Paladin Storm]

From what I could tell, E2150 was a raytracer... The terrain shadows were real-time (if you enabled them... I got them on and I like how it works)... the shadows have to follow where the imaginary sun is, right? so how does it do that when they don't know what the terrain will actually look like with custom maps, and what of the unit shadows? they also slide realistically from side to side as the day passes. I find these small details nice, because it suggests to me that they got all the big stuff out of the way and decided to add a few more things on top for realism.

It's just for some reason, the weapon turrets didn't seem to take on substance while the rest of the models (including the terrain) did...

Total Annihilation is most certainly full 3D... the units are not at all 2D, but they did have full-freedom movement as well as a very interesting terrain system... (they used tiles... I guess they thought it would be a bit difficult for map makers to work with directly manipulating the 3D nature, or they didn't want to do what Earth 2150 did with terrain shadows, as I'm sure TA had terrain shadows, but they were most likely hard-wired into the terrain tiles)...

Still, there's also Age of Mythology... that game is also full 3D and is much more recent and builds upon the gameplay of Age of Empires.

[imported_Coyote]

No. If it were a raytracer, you could most certainly tell- but few games, if any, are. It takes a ****load of memory to run one (2.4 ****loads, to be precise) with more than a handful of objects. That's why they're reserved for 3D modelers. There are many ways to rig the shadows so that they'd circle (though I recall them jerking into a new position suddenly on several occasions, never making a really smooth transition...)

And I dunno. Never got to fiddle with TA too much, but I'd bet they didn't have solid surfaces either, just spheres of no entry...

[imported_Tiger]

I WANT THANDOR TYPE UNIONS THERE!!! :D
AND WITH AI PLAYERS TOO! smile.gif

[Aleksander Paladin Storm]

Tiger, what are you rambling about...

... anyway... thx for clearing that up, Stryke...

You're probably right... spheres of no-entry would probably be the best thing... and I think Cavedog used them for TA... If i recall, when you selected a unit, a circle was placed around it to indicate so... that circle was probably the bounds unit's no-entry bubble.

Probably wouldn't be too hard... merely set the center point of the unit then set the Radius of the bubble... with Homeworld: Cataclysm, they wanted tighter boundaries for the massive Command Ship, so they made it in separate parts with each having it's own boundary bubble. Not sure if they should bother with that for oblong units, like the Hydra and Leviathan in Earth 2150, but it was an interesting idea (would probably add a bit of resource demand, with the extra polygons and all for the separation points, but probably not much that it would be noticed)

The terrain shadows... yeah... the times when it does that kinda thing are in the transitions between day and night... it flashes for a second with shadows for a certain time of day (I think it's around 9:00 AM type shadows)...

[Chip]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>merely set the center point of the unit then set the Radius of the bubble...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is the way the Earth engines work, thus the squares. One way you could increase the fluidity of lateral movement(not accounting for restrictive terrain)is hexagonal or octagonal locations vs. squares. This would be prefereble to a point/location system, as it would increase by 50-100% the directional movemnt option, without taxing your system as much as referencing location by single points. As well, units could, conceivably take up a little bit (though not much) less space on the board. The decrease in unit spacing, and the extended movement options would appear as a major leap forward, in terms of playability. Regardless, a different movement/location system would require an extensive re-write of the engine... which would likely mean another game. That's an issue for the future. smile.gif We'll get there, though.

[Aleksander Paladin Storm]

Thanks, Chip... for the insight and the vote of confidence on the part of the idea... I'm still waiting on Earthnuker to admit it's a good idea though... my first re-post on this thread was in response to his irreverent attitude towards this subject (the one with all the Formation and Stance crap from the Age of Empires-based games... the really really long one).
I guess it is a little demanding... still, i wasn't thinking about space usage, except when it came to units that were too big for their squares, namely Hydras, Leviathans, and Grizzlies...

The enhanced group AI would be nice (The stances and formations in Age of Empires affected how they fight and how they organized themselves at all times, which is pretty clear if you read that post up there), and I'm sure they will enhance the AI scripting for the game... good examples of well-done individual unit and grouped unit AI scripting are Homeworld and Age of Empires and all it's kin (including Galactic Battlegrounds)... Conquest: Frontier Wars does a good job with group AI as well with the Admirals/Magistrates/Warlords system... it also makes sense to have field marshal-type units like they do. No strategic commander does it all by himself... he's got field commanders to take on his orders and complete the objectives assigned him in his own way. It certainly would remove some of the combat micromanagement from gameplay...

[imported_Coyote]

Bleah. There's a reason nobody fights in formation any more... any half-competent commander can take a Napoleonic Square to pieces in minutes with half a dozen decently trained troops and some cover. Earth's platoon engine is particularly aggregious, but Earthnuker's right- formations are not all that hot in the first place.

Please don't post another damned list- the first one really didn't say much, and they're annoying to have to look at.

[Aleksander Paladin Storm]

I don't plan to... But I did say that there could be some rhyme to the randomness of their movement between locations... a specially-built script that would help with evasiveness while on the move...

But there are areas where formations are still useful... like in an open area (if you're stupid enough to send through, or if there's no other area).

Perhaps Formations are fairly useless on a terrestrial planet, but they certainly are a must in space battles... a disorganized flight of fighters or capital ships will be taken out easily if not in the proper formation... fighters usually benefit from using something called the Claw Formation which is like an X that extends it's tips forward to the enemy (so the fighters engulf their target from all sides as they move in), and CapShips are usually used in a Wall Formation (don't think it needs a description).

Certainly we probably use Formations in modern military, it's just not as obvious and has probably 'evolved' over the years since the Revolutionary War (Which is obviously when the style of war began to change and adapt more like what is called 'guerilla tactics', or tribal tactics if you wanna use a historical reference)...

Perhaps some research into the subject instead of stabbing blindly in the dark would benefit us greatly here.

[Amend] Again... sorry about the lists... I'm somewhat scientific and logical in my approaches (sometimes... other times, I'm a pure loose cannon... sometimes I think this Zodiac stuff makes sense... Gemini... twin personalities... lol)...

[ October 21, 2002: Message edited by: Aleksander Paladin Storm ]

[imported_Coyote]

Er... they work in Homeworld. That doesn't mean that they'd work in real life- much like what goes in most strats doesn't go in real combat. They're games, and only very rarely anything close to accurate simulations.

And actually, guerilla warfare and "tribal" fighting are completely different things. I've studied battle tactics to a fair extent (particularly the ones of the Cuban revolution, where a group of a dozen or so underarmed men landed on a dicatorial island with a thoroughly modern, very large army and eventually won), and from what I've seen, formations in the strict sense are more a restriction than anything else with modern capabilities. What you're thinking of is "strategy", which is quite different- a pincers movement is a strategy, a wedge is a formation- guess which one will result in one's troops being massacred.

Even in a large space, it's quite a risk. It's much better to spread out than to let the enemy concentrate fire in one place and wipe you out. You have just as much, if not more, firepower available at any moment and able to be focused on any one point if one's forces are dispersed.

[Aleksander Paladin Storm]

What I meant to say was that Guerilla tactics have evolved from old Native American combat styles, which are what the Americans used during the Revolutionary War against the purely formation British army...

Well then they should have a 'tactics' system instead of a 'formation' system... replace the Line and Square and let them move in however way they wish when moving and instead have stuff like that pincer which would affect how they attack... or even have both of them and only use the formation as they move, but only if a formation is selected (could have a 'random' or 'scattered' formation that wouldn't exactly be a formation) and use the Tactic when entering combat...
Just curious... what about tanks? Guerilla tactics are usually thought of as applied by Infantry, but do tanks use them? If I'm not mistaken, there was a situation where a line formation of Abrams tanks were in the desert during Desert Storm... this probably means nothing since they were fighting against an inferior foe and they could probably take risks like that, but why even take the risk? I wouldn't even do that if my opponent only had peashooters and I had all them Abrams... best to Be Prepared...

Would also like to point out that the units in games like Age of Empires don't stay in the formation anyway once they enter combat... the formation just helps while on the move and affects the initial situation... Formations may not be good for offense, but I'd like to be able to just tell a defensive force to go to a garrison point and face a direction and they'll setup their defensive lines automatically so I don't have to...

The removal of micromanagement and other tedious things is what I'm aiming at here really...

[ October 22, 2002: Message edited by: Aleksander Paladin Storm ]

[Aleksander Paladin Storm]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Earthnuker:
PS: Bats can rotate their rocket launchers. If you set them on dynamic attack they are in continuous flight while still firing. But this will only do you any good vs unguided rockets, since Bats are pretty slow.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just like to point at this finally... this is one of the things that should be changed really... the Dynamic attack only allows the aircraft to move in the four cardinal directions instead of 8 or more... this means that they have a very unrealistic corridor of attack... with a movement system unrestricted by horizon-planar squares (the vert-planar, or aircraft height, spacing squares are ok), the aircraft could come in from any angle and wouldn't have to come down a predictable vector every time... as well, perhaps having the aircraft veer off after launching one or two salvos (or even the last salvo possible before losing target acquisition) would also be an idea...

The Aircraft, therefore, are what really need the unrestricted movement...

[Aleksander Paladin Storm]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chip:
This is the way the Earth engines work, thus the squares. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
... Sorry to be criticizing you, but if the Earth engine worked with a radius system, then a unit like a Grizzly would be taking up room that possibly 2 Caspians or perhaps 2 Tigers could occupy, and a Hydra or Leviathan would occupy space that would take 3-5 Shark or Irkutsk ships to fill...

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>One way you could increase the fluidity of lateral movement(not accounting for restrictive terrain)is hexagonal or octagonal locations vs. squares. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
an octagonal space board wouldn't exactly work... the sides wouldn't match up... you'd be left with an empty space in the shape of a square on each octagon's top, left, right, and bottom sides. a hexagon is a proven strategic board unit, as is shown with classic games such as Panzer General. (which was another SSI product... They don't call 'em Strategic Simulations Inc. for nothing... er... they didn't at least... unless they still exist within Ubi Soft somewhere)
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>This would be prefereble to a point/location system, as it would increase by 50-100% the directional movemnt option, without taxing your system as much as referencing location by single points.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Never really realized that such a system really does use up resources... Age of Mythology and Total Annihilation don't seem to have any trouble...

[Ifitmovesnukeit]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aleksander Paladin Storm:


the Dynamic attack only allows the aircraft to move in the four cardinal directions instead of 8 or more... this means that they have a very unrealistic corridor of attack... with a movement system unrestricted by horizon-planar squares (the vert-planar, or aircraft height, spacing squares are ok), the aircraft could come in from any angle and wouldn't have to come down a predictable vector every time...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah i agree.

It would be much better to have a bomber fly in, launch off a salvo, bank hard to one side and then repeat,
as opposed to fly in, slow down while launching salvo, reach end of corridor, stop, rotate in midair (getting blasted by AA all the time) and then repeat... :rolleyes: