X3M Posted February 22, 2015 Share Posted February 22, 2015 You have that principle in planetary annihilation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nyerguds Posted February 22, 2015 Share Posted February 22, 2015 Map wraparound in all directions? Unless you're on a tiny planet, that concept doesn't really work, no xD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X3M Posted February 22, 2015 Share Posted February 22, 2015 It is a macro thing. When playing micro, it indeed doesnt work well for the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nyerguds Posted February 22, 2015 Share Posted February 22, 2015 No, I mean justifying the use of that concept Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VamPyroX Posted February 25, 2015 Author Share Posted February 25, 2015 Map wraparound in all directions? Unless you're on a tiny planet, that concept doesn't really work, no xD Okay, so it's not a "great" idea. How about seasonal games or environmental games? The game varies on when you play it. For instance, you play the game at noon during the summer in a place where you're having high temperatures, drought alerts, and high winds (based on local weather report). The map will appear where the land is brownish (less or no grass), waterways are minimal (creeks instead of rivers), it's daytime and sun is out, etc. Due to the high temperatures, some infantry fight differently due to weather conditions. Some waterways will reveal pathways that infantry or vehicles can cross. Tiberium infestation is different. Air units fly faster or slower depending on the direction of the wind. Since it's hotter and windy, flame damage can easily spread to other buildings forcing us to rethink our strategy for placing buildings next to each other and not downwind from another building. If you played at night time where it's darker and cooler, you might have better advantage. If you play during a rainstorm, waterways are wider blocking off some access... and flamethrowers' weapons are not very effective. Rain might even reduce fire damage to buildings and units. You play in the dark, you have limited vision and night lights. If you played in the winter, waterways will be frozen and you can actually cross lakes and rivers. Of course, the colder it is... the stronger the ice is. If you're not too careful, your tank could sink. Think of that one mission in Generals where you blow the dam and one waterway slowly reveals a narrow pathway for walking on. However, during the mission... that pathway widens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cn2mc Posted February 25, 2015 Share Posted February 25, 2015 ... A-a-and then you're fighting on the internet against a guy in Siberia, and his soldiers wear warm fuzzy mink coats. And then you wake up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X3M Posted February 26, 2015 Share Posted February 26, 2015 Every new idea sounds stupid to other people. Here is my "stupid" idea What about a 4 dimensional game? Where units can move in 8 directions instead of just 6. We have, up (air), down (underground), left, right, forward, backwards, "deeper", "upper". The 4th dimension could be indicated with a slightly different colour scheme. For simplicity, only 3, just like air, ground, subground. Weapons can go from one dimension to another. Which all count as -1 on range. So an AA turret has -1, but an AA turret fighting from the basic dimension to air in a deep dimension would be -2. When selecting a unit in an "upper" dimension, the map to will colour to what that unit can move through. The unit will automatically change dimensions when moving. Thus we could have 4 dimensional tunneling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VamPyroX Posted February 26, 2015 Author Share Posted February 26, 2015 Every new idea sounds stupid to other people. Here is my "stupid" idea What about a 4 dimensional game? Where units can move in 8 directions instead of just 6. We have, up (air), down (underground), left, right, forward, backwards, "deeper", "upper". The 4th dimension could be indicated with a slightly different colour scheme. For simplicity, only 3, just like air, ground, subground. Weapons can go from one dimension to another. Which all count as -1 on range. So an AA turret has -1, but an AA turret fighting from the basic dimension to air in a deep dimension would be -2. When selecting a unit in an "upper" dimension, the map to will colour to what that unit can move through. The unit will automatically change dimensions when moving. Thus we could have 4 dimensional tunneling. That's a good idea. And the secret mission would be the fifth dimension where your secret character would be Mister Mxyzptlk!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nyerguds Posted February 26, 2015 Share Posted February 26, 2015 How about seasonal games or environmental games? The game varies on when you play it. For instance, you play the game at noon during the summer in a place where you're having high temperatures, drought alerts, and high winds (based on local weather report). The map will appear where the land is brownish (less or no grass), waterways are minimal (creeks instead of rivers), it's daytime and sun is out, etc. Vehicles stuck in the monsoon mud Though actually adapting it to real weather conditions is kind of dumb... especially if day/night is counted. Players don't want to always play in twilight just because that happens to be when they have time to game. And multiplayer kind of invalidates this altogether. Not to mention, the game being that much harder for players in tropical regions? What about a 4 dimensional game? Where units can move in 8 directions instead of just 6. We have, up (air), down (underground), left, right, forward, backwards, "deeper", "upper". The 4th dimension could be indicated with a slightly different colour scheme. For simplicity, only 3, just like air, ground, subground. Weapons can go from one dimension to another. Which all count as -1 on range. So an AA turret has -1, but an AA turret fighting from the basic dimension to air in a deep dimension would be -2. When selecting a unit in an "upper" dimension, the map to will colour to what that unit can move through. The unit will automatically change dimensions when moving. Thus we could have 4 dimensional tunneling. Seems... bizarre. I know one game actually used time travel as gameplay element though. You could use resources to move units back or forward in time, and had a timeline of established events at the bottom which you could scroll through freely. Worked perfectly, somehow, but it got really chaotic O_o Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X3M Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 Aaaaawwww, yes!!! Achron Yeah, the chaos is what eventually kills the mind of every player. Thus the one with the best overview of the time line wins eventually. With enough resources, you can make the first kill too. However, it is a good thing there is a limit in how far back you can go. Or else, you could make a proxy and send in an army to kill the beginning. Any way, the multiple dimensions, they use this concept for one of the star trek chess games. Although, I would say, you made the game 3D instead of 2D. How about the minecraft principle. Where new terrain generates when you explore. One player could start moving away to a ridiculous distance. But still has to move that far. And exploring needs a lot of clicks of the mouse though. Like how aircraft in TS explores terrain. Higher tier units would contain fast units, like the bike. And thus useful since they are good in hit n run tactics on the spread world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VamPyroX Posted February 27, 2015 Author Share Posted February 27, 2015 Vehicles stuck in the monsoon mud Though actually adapting it to real weather conditions is kind of dumb... especially if day/night is counted. Players don't want to always play in twilight just because that happens to be when they have time to game. And multiplayer kind of invalidates this altogether. Not to mention, the game being that much harder for players in tropical regions? It can always be optional. In order to enable that option, you would have to have the game check the computer's clock. You could make it a drop menu with something like CURRENT/DAWN/MORNING/NOON/AFTERNOON/TWILIGHT/EVENING/MIDNIGHT. The same goes for weather. Seems... bizarre. I know one game actually used time travel as gameplay element though. You could use resources to move units back or forward in time, and had a timeline of established events at the bottom which you could scroll through freely. Worked perfectly, somehow, but it got really chaotic O_o What was that game? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X3M Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 Achron Here is a link: http://www.achrongame.com/site/ How about choices of advancement for your veteran units. For example, your hoover mrls has gained 2000 XP by destroying an heavy factory. However, it is up to the player to decide to spend this on what? extra health? more damage? perhaps 1 extra rocket? Better range then? How about making this one faster. Any way, after choosing something, this costs XP. And the whole list (or most of the list) of choices becomes more expensive. Players should also be able to decide on before hand, so that it goes automatically when the XP is reached. ProjectY has this. It is pretty cool since some players actually spend time training their units. On the other hand, it is very addictive, spending all XP on 1 unit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VamPyroX Posted March 3, 2015 Author Share Posted March 3, 2015 Achron Here is a link: http://www.achrongame.com/site/ How about choices of advancement for your veteran units. For example, your hoover mrls has gained 2000 XP by destroying an heavy factory. However, it is up to the player to decide to spend this on what? extra health? more damage? perhaps 1 extra rocket? Better range then? How about making this one faster. Any way, after choosing something, this costs XP. And the whole list (or most of the list) of choices becomes more expensive. Players should also be able to decide on before hand, so that it goes automatically when the XP is reached. ProjectY has this. It is pretty cool since some players actually spend time training their units. On the other hand, it is very addictive, spending all XP on 1 unit. That actually sounds like something that could be put into an adventure version of Command & Conquer. Know those games like Elder Scrolls, Fable, Fallout, etc? How about one for Command & Conquer. It doesn't have to be directly military where you're building bases, but can be something where you take a role of someone who decides to take sides depending on how you play. There could be quests that lead you to the NOD side, the GDI side, the Mutants side, etc. You gain access to different technology. You go on missions or quests to assassinate different people such as lieutenant, general, commander, etc. You start the game as a civilian. You go through town. There's a news report of a meteorite that hit in River Tiber. You can become a scientist and research the tiberium. You can remain a civilian and join the army, which eventually becomes GDI. You can catch someone talking about NOD and get yourself into that. You get yourself exposed to the tiberium and become a mutant. You end up in a town that's taken over by viceroids. The possibilities are limitless? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X3M Posted March 4, 2015 Share Posted March 4, 2015 It is very common to have like 20 tanks with rank 8 to 12. Where you specifically give some extra health and speed while others get the extra damage and range. Thus making 2 groups out of the 20 tanks. 10 are the meat shield and the other 10 become supportive. This is one of the new depths of strategy to apply in a RTS that has lots of options for ALL units. Of course having just 1 hero unit that constantly gains XP is also possible. But that is more for games like warcraft. where you have a distinct difference in "hero's" and fodder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aggknowledged Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 I'd be most interested in a coop mode for TD and RA, similar to what RA2 had. Not only in skirmish, but also being able to play the campaign with 2 players. I could imagine Covert Ops missions where player 1 controls a Commando, and player 2 has a Chinook helicopter and a couple engineers. You'd have to work together and communicate in order to beat the mission. Likewise there would be missions where both players start out with an MCV next to eachother, or on the opposite sides of the map. There would be all sorts of fun and challenging puzzles missions where both players start with different units and have to cover eachother's weaknesses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FunkyFr3sh Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 I'd be most interested in a coop mode for TD and RA, similar to what RA2 had. Not only in skirmish, but also being able to play the campaign with 2 players. I could imagine Covert Ops missions where player 1 controls a Commando, and player 2 has a Chinook helicopter and a couple engineers. You'd have to work together and communicate in order to beat the mission. Likewise there would be missions where both players start out with an MCV next to eachother, or on the opposite sides of the map. There would be all sorts of fun and challenging puzzles missions where both players start with different units and have to cover eachother's weaknesses. There are already co-op missions for ra1, i ported the 4 ant missions and echo ported a few missions from the campaign Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VamPyroX Posted March 5, 2015 Author Share Posted March 5, 2015 I'd be most interested in a coop mode for TD and RA, similar to what RA2 had. Not only in skirmish, but also being able to play the campaign with 2 players. I could imagine Covert Ops missions where player 1 controls a Commando, and player 2 has a Chinook helicopter and a couple engineers. You'd have to work together and communicate in order to beat the mission. Likewise there would be missions where both players start out with an MCV next to eachother, or on the opposite sides of the map. There would be all sorts of fun and challenging puzzles missions where both players start with different units and have to cover eachother's weaknesses. Red Alert 2 has that? I know Red Alert 3 has it. How does that work? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aggknowledged Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 I'd be most interested in a coop mode for TD and RA, similar to what RA2 had. Not only in skirmish, but also being able to play the campaign with 2 players. I could imagine Covert Ops missions where player 1 controls a Commando, and player 2 has a Chinook helicopter and a couple engineers. You'd have to work together and communicate in order to beat the mission. Likewise there would be missions where both players start out with an MCV next to eachother, or on the opposite sides of the map. There would be all sorts of fun and challenging puzzles missions where both players start with different units and have to cover eachother's weaknesses. Red Alert 2 has that? I know Red Alert 3 has it. How does that work? They are skirmish modes basically, but cooperative against the AI. If I remember correctly, there was also some sort of mini campaign where you play through several missions with 2 players. I'd be most interested in a coop mode for TD and RA, similar to what RA2 had. Not only in skirmish, but also being able to play the campaign with 2 players. I could imagine Covert Ops missions where player 1 controls a Commando, and player 2 has a Chinook helicopter and a couple engineers. You'd have to work together and communicate in order to beat the mission. Likewise there would be missions where both players start out with an MCV next to eachother, or on the opposite sides of the map. There would be all sorts of fun and challenging puzzles missions where both players start with different units and have to cover eachother's weaknesses. There are already co-op missions for ra1, i ported the 4 ant missions and echo ported a few missions from the campaign Sweet, didn't know that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AchromicWhite Posted March 7, 2015 Share Posted March 7, 2015 I thought that an alternate timeline Tiberian game would be cool. Like, if Nod's campaign plays out in TD, and then have a games that takes place JUST after that. So, still a lot of modern weapons mixed with sci-fi stuff, taking place where Nod has taken Africa and destroyed one of the monuments/political buildings. -Liam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacko Posted March 7, 2015 Share Posted March 7, 2015 I thought Nod's campaign in TD DID play out at about the same time as GDI's campaign Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X3M Posted March 7, 2015 Share Posted March 7, 2015 GDI wins, cannon NOD wins, end of game TS follows up the GDI winning What he meant is that there could be a following up on NOD winning. @Jacko: GDI and NOD are in the same time frame, yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacko Posted March 7, 2015 Share Posted March 7, 2015 No, I mean I'm 95% sure that the 2 storylines are part of the same storyline, as opposed to RA where you get 2 different endings, because while Nod succeed in Africa they slowly are defeated in Europe, and then stuff happens and then Tiberian Sun happens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aggknowledged Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 But doesn't Nod's ending completely destroy GDI's reputation? It kind of implies GDI loses public support and gets disbanded by the UN. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VamPyroX Posted March 10, 2015 Author Share Posted March 10, 2015 But doesn't Nod's ending completely destroy GDI's reputation? It kind of implies GDI loses public support and gets disbanded by the UN. Maybe, that's why they designed it that way? If you beat the game one way, it's done. If you beat the game the other way, it leads to a sequel. If they were to make a sequel to every ending, we would have 2 endings in Red Alert, 2 editions of Red Alert 2 with a total of 4 endings, and 4 editions of Red Alert 3 with 16 different endings. Yikes! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X3M Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 Some games have each race after each other. Warcraft 3 is such example where you play 1 race at a time. The next race follows up on the cannon of the first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now