[1.04b11] Make Unit Types More Generic In OOB's (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Shadow Empire >> Suggestions and Feedback


Malevolence -> [1.04b11] Make Unit Types More Generic In OOB's (6/22/2020 4:32:55 AM)

Clearly my suggestion to modify OOB's was not a hit. [:D]

Eliminate or modify the Assault Infantry Formation

The new suggestion: make the model requirements for OOB's less restrictive of model types.


Infantry can be Infantry, MG Infantry, RPG Infantry

Transport can be Truck, APC, IFV

Artillery can be towed-artillery, self-propelled artillery

Tanks can be Light, Medium, Heavy, etc.


With respect to OOB's, I keep thinking all the different model types (i.e. dimensions) are causing unnecessary complexity. It's a combinatorial explosion. Each model type adds an exponential increase of possible OOB's. As the potential for new models becomes a reality, I think it's important to consider the implications.

In the current WW2 models, we had a certain amount of history as a guide. With science fiction, we have historical, post-apocalyptic, modern, post-modern, and future models to consider and perhaps suggest.

Since we can already pick multiple models in the Raise Formation dialog window, allow players to choose any model in keeping with it's super-type.

With the current OOB design pattern, the players are left to negotiate and lobby for their method to be included as a hard coded design. This change, however, puts the responsibility on the player and not the OOB design. If you want a specific model equipped in a formation, the onus is on the player to provide the technology and the resources. If someone else wants something different, the onus is on them to provide it.

This also allows the game developers to retain their control and vision for the strengths and weakness of each super-type and type. MG Infantry are good in the defense, etc.

MatthewVilter -> RE: Make Unit Types More Generic In Formation OOB's (6/22/2020 6:20:25 AM)

Seconded. This all makes total sense.

There is of course the possibility of whatever extra complexities seem appropriate. E.g. some formations might call for "transports" while others still specify trucks or APCs.

In an ideal world I would like to see a whole system for tweaking/evolving/designing OOBs over time on top of this but in the meantime/reality this seems like a pretty straightforward way to solve a lot of problems.

In any case it does still seems like "motorized" should just be a checkbox (basically just telling the commander of a unit or formation to requisition enough trucks to get around) to me especially if the truck-manpower issue gets resolved.

Malevolence -> RE: Make Unit Types More Generic In Formation OOB's (7/8/2020 10:45:29 PM)

Repeat. 1.04b5.

For reference...

* I dislike the OOB's and the whole approach to unit composition

* Unit types for the various OOBs

EDIT: Made sure to distinguish between "OOB" and "Formation" to avoid confusion. For example, when discussing other abstractions like classes and objects, sometimes people don't implicitly understand the connection, similarities, and differences.

zgrssd -> RE: Make Unit Types More Generic In Formation OOB's (7/8/2020 11:34:41 PM)

Absolutely, this needs a rework. For the sake of both the players and Vics sanity:

Pymous -> RE: Make Unit Types More Generic In Formation OOB's (7/9/2020 4:59:35 AM)

You have also my vote [;)]
I won't repeat what others said already in details.

Malevolence -> RE: Make Unit Types More Generic In Formation OOB's (7/28/2020 4:09:38 AM)

Repeat. Version 1.04b11.

Page: [1]

Valid CSS!

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI