Force of Arms

*
 
  FOA Portal Home Help Login Register  
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
May 23, 2013, 11:02:57 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:
    Advanced search
Automatic Registration is in effect (no e-mail verification).
Heck, Spambots easily defeat such checks, so why make it harder for you.
9,581 Posts in 1,080 Topics by 3,133 Members
Latest Member: Einherjar
Pages: [1]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Mechs or not  (Read 739 times)
Beovvulf
Special Agent
Mech Leader
*****

Karma: +3/-0
Posts: 81



« on: November 20, 2009, 09:02:28 AM »

I have not been very active in the threads recently due to consideration of what I am about to talk about.  This all came to a head with the Insurgency thread.  My post there was an immediate response but caused me to continue to think about where the posts regarding FoA seem to be going more recently.

While there is still discussion regarding Mechs it seems to me that more and more posts are related to combat infantry.  The Mech Warrior series of games, and even some of the cloned games, were all about the Mechs.  That is what I am missing and was looking forward to FoA filling that void.

Now, based on these more recent posts and developer responses, I am starting to believe that FoA is going to wind up being just another sniper/call to arms/jihad terrorist/etc. game that has mechs included.  There are only 100 games, or more, already out there that address combat infantry and special ops scenarios.  Why does FoA have to consider even including this aspect?  Just because some gamer wants an ego boost by being able to say that he took out a mech all on their own, without a mech?

Maybe I am too much of a purest regarding mechs but with all the effort to get the Mech side working is it really worth it to have to add combat infantry beyond whatever NPC aspects you decide are necessary?  Based on prior Mech games will the control center of a Mech really be large enough to let your avatar be dressed in full combat gear?  Seems to me if there is that much space you should be thinking about adding more equipment for the Mech.

I am a bit disheartened at the moment due to this recent trend focusing on combat infantry in the game.  The only "people" in the games I remember were ones that you wanted to avoid stepping on because they were civilians and NPC soldiers were never even an issue as they did not have weaponry that could do any real damage to your Mech.

The games were about mechs vs. mechs and I thought that was what FoA was supposed to be.
Logged
Hamilton
President
Wardog
Field Marshall
*****

Karma: +15/-0
Posts: 1,996



WWW
« Reply #1 on: November 20, 2009, 01:59:11 PM »

To let you know, I'm not a fan of the David vs Goliath situation (or even with today's armored warfare of one person with a rocket launcher taking a 40 to 60 ton tank).  I'll try to give some detailed explanations here with infantry and Mechs, which I hope clarifies.

First, FOA is meant to be an avatar centric game (ie: You playing the character), with Mechs (or tanks) as the pet... that does not seem fitting, how about, an extension of the warrior spirit.

That is not to say, Mechs act as suits of armor or can be eliminated by single shots, especially from small caliber weapons.  They are to act similar to naval ships (multiple weapon and defense systems and compartmentalized for damage).

Infantry vs Mechs:
- Infantry have no effective range capabilities against most Mechs (I have to say most, because some light Mechs may be designed with paper thin armor).
- For Infantry to defeat Mechs, close-combat is required, primary weapon would be a demo charge.
- Planting mines or charges into the ground and wait for a Mech to stomp over it is possible.  But that takes time and/or planing.
- When near or on a Mech, Infantry have the capability to hitting a vulnerability (exposed joint for example).
- Infantry are difficult to detect, this is to provide some survivability for players.
- To have a fighting chance, Infantry must be in Power Armor.  If not in power armor, then the body count is likely to be high.
- Players are Heroes and NPC's (for the most part) are the common people.
- NPC's will have moral checks (Charge that Mech? [roll] No way sir, I'm not a drone.)
- But a single Hero charging in the open zig-zaging at a Mech, dodging machine gun fire and area effect blasts and whatever other systems the Mech has... should be very rare.  I would like to say impossible, but somehow the impossible becomes possible with players (by shear luck, poor judgment on the opponent, cheating, glitch, etc).
- Urban environments are deadly ground for Mechs.

Mechs vs Infantry:
- Whenever there is a vulnerability found with Mech's, a new system will be designed. (Example: Mine detection sensors in the legs)
- Primary anti-infantry weapons are Machine Guns or Pulse Weapons (or any other rapid firing weapons), though large caliber HE rounds may be effective.
- Mechs may be equipped with Anti-Infantry Pods (ie: mounted claymore mines) at all locations.  Providing another layer of defenses.
- Mechs may execute physical attacks against Infantry as a last ditch effort.
- If large caliber weapons have a hard time penetrating Mechs, then small caliber weapons of Infantry will fail to penetrate.  Even concentration/combine fire by Infantry will fail as each attack is done independently from one another and armor needs to be penetrated or hit by over-power damage to be reduced in effectiveness.  Thus, for game purposes, ten 5mm automatic rifles firing for a solid week non-stop (disregard barrel wear) at thick armor, will not form a dent. 
- Cockpits are available in three types depending on either visibility or protection is desired.
- Cockpit armor (windows/view ports) is only treated as one layer weaker (considered as transparent armor).
- Flat lands are deadly ground for Infantry when fighting Mechs.


There are problems to iron out with being character centric and using Mechs.  Infantry have a hard time against Mechs, but an ejecting player pilot from a Mech should have a decent chance of survivable when escaping.


Also, certain technologies will not be possible or allowed.  Teleportation and anti-gravity systems I am very picky of and limiting their use.  There will not be Grav-Tanks flying in the skies or teleporting missiles/bullets.  So no grav infantry using portable teleporters placing small bombs inside cockpits.
(If such systems are allowed, why have Mechs?)


Quote
Maybe I am too much of a purest regarding mechs but with all the effort to get the Mech side working is it really worth it to have to add combat infantry beyond whatever NPC aspects you decide are necessary?
To tell the truth, infantry fighting is easier to put into play than Mech combat, so there is not a lot of much technical effort on that side.  Infantry are meant to be filled in by NPC's, but some people like to be the trooper, so ok...

Quote
Based on prior Mech games will the control center of a Mech really be large enough to let your avatar be dressed in full combat gear?
Good enough for body armor and whatever gear can be carried by the weight limit of the Mech (which should have an emergency escape vehicle).  But not big enough for Power Armored, maybe the Battle Suit, which is just powered Rigid Armor.

(and thus there is that possibility of some pilot getting out of a knocked-out Mech, getting their portable dirt bike out and though meant for escape, uses that vehicle to charge at Mech.  Get to that Mech, scale it to the cockpit, to plant that huge demo charge (wherever/however that got stored and carried) on the cockpit.  Blows the cockpit and kills the pilot...
Which then have to ask, why have a Mech to begin with if all a person needs is a dirt bike and a large demo charge?)


If this can be done right, the way a non-mech unit could beat a Mech outfit, would be to something of the following:
- Mine the perimeter (and hope the enemy goes through the mine-field)
- Use fast moving missile carriers with hit-and-run attacks to lure the enemy to the preferred killing zone.  Or use fast moving direct fighting vehicles (assault guns).
- The kill zone would be a box canyon, rocky place or a city.
- When the Mechs enter the kill zone, that is when the Infantry conduct their assaults.
- If fail to win, fallback to the alternate zone.

Could this happen? Yes.
Would this happen?  Not likely as it takes a lot of planning and discipline by players. 


Maybe that is how I should have responded at first. 
To beat a Mech as a trooper will require some thinking and discipline, and most certainly, teamwork.


So how does all that sound?
Logged

Sign off,
Hamilton
"You think that even with a Masters Degree, I would avoid typos.  Am a Tech, not an English Professor."
Skogar
Mech Bait


Karma: +0/-0
Posts: 2



« Reply #2 on: December 19, 2009, 11:46:15 PM »

Quote from: Hamilton link=topic=892.  msg8367#msg8367 date=1258750751

Could this happen? Yes. 
Would this happen?  Not likely as it takes a lot of planning and discipline by players.   


Maybe that is how I should have responded at first.   
To beat a Mech as a trooper will require some thinking and discipline, and most certainly, teamwork. 


So how does all that sound?

hxxp: wiki.  wwiionline.  /index.  php/High_Command



Sounds like WWII Online's player run command system in action.   If you haven't checked out this combined arms sim, you should.   I have a feeling you will have to conquer many of the same limitations they still face to this day, if you want to be able to have more than a few hundred people on a server at a time.   Long range missile engagements will require long terrain/vehicle rendering distances, which will bring most peoples computers to thier knees in battles involving more than just a few dozen Mechs and thier combined firepower streaking across a kilomter or two of desert.   You can limit this problem by limiting viewing distances with dust storms, but the game will feel false if there just happens to be a dust storm every time more than just a few people decide to go on an assualt of an enemy stronghold.   What happens when FTL is restored and we move to a jungle planet with no dust in the air?

I don't envy your task.   Technology may not be ready for FoA yet.   It definatley wasn't ready for WWII Online when it launched in 2001 but take heart.   That game is still around and growing bigger and better as technology (better home PC's) catches up to CRS's design documents. 

Skogar


« Last Edit: December 19, 2009, 11:48:58 PM by Skogar » Logged
Hamilton
President
Wardog
Field Marshall
*****

Karma: +15/-0
Posts: 1,996



WWW
« Reply #3 on: December 21, 2009, 11:16:53 AM »

Thanks for the interests!

From what I know of WW2 Online is that it operates at real time with ballistic flight paths and all.  As such the level of detail with graphics and the amount of objects on screen are reduced.  Also the client shares in the performance for calculations, but at the risk of less security.

With RPG's, there should be more customization or personalizing, which means more detail and objects (ie: helmet, hat, glasses, jewelry, holsters, weapons, clothes, footware, body armor, etc for people; missile pods, gun systems, different arms, battle packs for Mechs).  In a wargame, the objects can be controlled and limited, as with a tank may have just two objects (turret and hull) or maybe up to four (turret, hull, main gun, copula).  With Mechs in a RPG, a Mech would have more objects (two arms, main body, head (optional), legs (two or four), up to two turrets, and up to two hard points with a battle pack; up to 12 objects, not including the cockpit and pilot(s)). 

With the added amount of graphical objects, processing for a client and server becomes less available for real-time capabilities.


A hybrid or pseudo real-time environment could be done by doing predictive equations to determine the flight paths of shells and if a hit is achieve rather than going with a collision detection method.  That is what I see more of the direction of going as that would not be as impacted with communication lag.  But for now we're going with a table method, which will be portrayed as more as managing weapon systems than of being a gunner.


For long ranges, beyond visual range (BVR) and over the horizon (OTH) would be conducted as "Radar Blip Combat" to put it as someone said.  Visual range is limited to 3km (but larger structures may be seen further) by the effect of fog.  To help with these ranges, Level of Detailed models are used (degrading the quality of the models based on visual range).  Additionally with weapon ranges going past 3km, I am hoping (won't know 'till tested) that battles should be spread out to take place over a range of 16km by 16km.  I expect Mechs to be spaced out past 250m.

Though that seem good (or to me) that may not work out game wise as then most players won't be seeing enemy Mechs up close that much and could be seen as boring.
Logged

Sign off,
Hamilton
"You think that even with a Masters Degree, I would avoid typos.  Am a Tech, not an English Professor."
Pages: [1]   Go Up
  Print  
  
Jump to: