|
|
Post by Eaon's admin account on Dec 16, 2009 18:04:50 GMT -7
Okay so with the passing of the new Grid battle system it dawned on me (yes the obvious dawned on me) planetary battles would not be resolved in one swift movement. I'm thinking of dividing the planets up into grids of their own and as soon as someone attacks they can capture a square on the grid. I'm thinking a smaller 3X3 grid would be good, and each square on the grid represents a battle (if the holder) chooses or has the option to defend it.
That would make battles more realistic, costly, and dangerous meaning campaigns would have to be more skill based than LULZ ENEMY SPAM/HUGE ARMY BASE RAPE LULZ. It would require a spread of troops, and strategy on capturing planets. Anyway as usual this goes to your opinions members
|
|
|
|
Post by Grahm on Dec 16, 2009 18:21:35 GMT -7
I say yes to a certain extent, because if the battles take long enough people will start to lose interest and drop the battle altogether. So, I'd say that we should think up something that would allow people to bypass certain encounters through specific means, such as through surrounding a section and forcing a surrender. that way, you could possibly win a war in three to four battles as opposed to having to slog through nine. Also, capturing specific objectives on planets could also be used, such as if one side captured all of the stuff worth having the other side will run short on resources eventually and have to leave. And of course, each building would have to have specific advantages, such as AA towers being able to shoot down supply ships and reinforcements in an area around them. Anyhow, that's my quick brainstorm, back to you guys.
|
|
|
|
Post by Oege on Dec 16, 2009 18:31:20 GMT -7
i agree with the whole thing. I think the objectives would be good, and i agree that the battles shouldnt be drawn out and annoyingly long.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eaon's admin account on Dec 16, 2009 20:24:26 GMT -7
Well this would also force players to move defenses around, so if they didn't have a square defended then the enemies could just march in and take it because nothings there. So they don't have to fight every square, they can move quickly, but if an enemy shows up to fight in every square then they can be expecting a fight, but that's just the nature of war.
|
|
|
|
Post by Raphe on Dec 16, 2009 20:28:56 GMT -7
Sounds good but is this the same grid that they can bombard with oribital bombardment? Cause if I'm going to lose a character I don't want it to be in that fashion. We all put enough work into our characters that it should be harder then just saying. "He's in that square bomb the hell out of it."
|
|
|
|
Post by Eaon's admin account on Dec 16, 2009 20:34:47 GMT -7
No this grid will be for locating the other grids. So every square on that grid is a potential Battle ground. Also the rules have been amended saying that while all NPCs might be killed a character can come up with a legit reason to survive like they were in cover or sensed said explosion or recieved horrific wounds but survived to be rebuilt will be allowed to prevent people from going... Okay so bomb square F3...now!
|
|
|
|
Post by Sankichi Samaya on Dec 16, 2009 21:09:07 GMT -7
Basically, I say yes.
However, I think we should do 'grids' by form of land. Say, continents, and mountain passes. As opposed to random lines on a map. Unlike Canada. >.>
In case you were wondering, no, I don't have enough time to spend making a lengthy post on this.
|
|
|
|
Post by Raphe on Dec 16, 2009 21:14:28 GMT -7
Ok so this is a 3x3 grid and in each square of the grid there is another 6x6 grid that is the actual battlefield? That's huge. I understand that your taking over a planet but that doesn't mean that you fight on every continent. For now I say we see how the 6x6 grid works then if it goes well we see if we can expand on it.
|
|
|
|
Post by furionqeurel on Dec 18, 2009 5:57:46 GMT -7
I say yes to a certain extent, because if the battles take long enough people will start to lose interest and drop the battle altogether. So, I'd say that we should think up something that would allow people to bypass certain encounters through specific means, such as through surrounding a section and forcing a surrender. that way, you could possibly win a war in three to four battles as opposed to having to slog through nine. Also, capturing specific objectives on planets could also be used, such as if one side captured all of the stuff worth having the other side will run short on resources eventually and have to leave. And of course, each building would have to have specific advantages, such as AA towers being able to shoot down supply ships and reinforcements in an area around them. Anyhow, that's my quick brainstorm, back to you guys. I second this! |
|
|
|
Post by Eaon's admin account on Dec 20, 2009 19:47:00 GMT -7
Consider it seconded then. I here by Pass this under new conditions for battle. Each planet is now 3X3 on a map. Each of the squares is now 16X16. You can capture empty squares merely by going there. If combat is engaged in one thread for a square unless you have multiple players/generals you cannot attack another square to keep things fair. Players are allowed to surrender if they see fit.
|
|
