What about air units?

[Brazilian Fan]

What about air units?

[TH300]

we had the debate before. we don't want offensive air units.

http://forum.outpostuniverse.net/index.php?showtopic=3149
http://forum.outpostuniverse.net/index.php?showtopic=2783
 

[Savant 231-A]

Air units are "god weapons" they can get way tooo high and bombard your base. You wouldn't like that. or your enemy if you do that to him.

[Freeza-CII]

If any one has play Empire Earth.  There is a point in the game where you can get nukes and air units.  Well once some one has that what do you think happens.  Thats right SPAM THE MOTHER f***ING NUKES.  If there wasnt air units to deliver the nukes then they wouldnt be spammed like a crazy rabid noob.

[plymoth45]

Aparently no one has heard of AA, such as Flak used in WW2, or GTA Missiles for today. Air units in most games unless its EE or EE2 are made to be quite vunerable to AA. Air units I feel would be a good idea as long as there is proper AA Units to counter them. Oh, and just a note, no, I haven't visisted the other topics because my time is limited and I need to go right now.

[White Claw]

I'm not sure if I like the idea of flying craft. It just doesn't feel right. I suppose it would depend on atmospherics. I suppose if I could build an airplane and it had a use, I would. Now you have to study the ramifications of building an airport.

Nukes are out in my opinion. Colony battle (as far as story is concerned) is about preventing the other side from stopping your progress. (Like a double negative.) Not about destroying everything.

[Chandler]

Good point White Claw. This is a battle for survival, and the fights between the colonies is only them trying to survive by stealing/setting back their opponent.

A couple of ideas of mine for non-offensive air units:
* Airbourne Surveyor: next step up from a robosurveyor, but a step down from EDWARD?
* Airbourne Scout: easier to scout due to terrain indifference.

That would probably be about it. Convecs and Cargo Trucks are unrealistic due to weight, and dozers and earthworkers would be useless airbourne.

[Freeza-CII]

This is a game about smiting the enemy while keeping to the ways of op2.  I dont try to surpress my enemy i try to wipe them off the face of the planet.

Yes Aircraft can be brought down with AAA and SAMs and other aircraft but with OP2 tech if a air craft is hit with a emp it would fall and die.  Making Aircraft totally useless.  But now youll just say well they can fly higher then that.  And that is where we get our problem.  Having the air craft out side the range of almost all weapons but some archaic earth weapons is just pointless.  Even if both sides have aircraft whats going to happen then Air craft with emp and just take them all out by crashing them that just screams gayness.

Airborne scout is pretty much pointless if it does exactly what a normal scout can do.  Dont need Carbon Copies.

Airborne serveyor is very pointless the surveyor has a nice little spike thinger that it uses to check the minerals and compisition.  The Edward works by magnetics and such and you dont get it till you get the space port.  I just dont see a aircraft servering the part of the surveyor when the one on the ground is going to work just as good.

[plymoth45]

Valid point with the EMP, and the 'Flying higher than that' is kinda pointless. EMP stops electronics, but not Mechanics. If something is worked primarily mechanical, such as my Diesel truck, once it's running, if I don't have the fuel line wired to an eletric shut off, then an EMP wont kill it. But I do see the point, and having Aircraft w/ emp in the game is kinda pointless.

EDIT: Hold up, just had an idea. Give the aircraft some sort of weak shield to protect it from EMP. If the shield is magnetic based and at the right Polarity, it should be able to deflect an EMP Pulse up to a point, hence, allowing the aircraft to continue functioning.

[Freeza-CII]

If i emp your truck it will drain the battery and your alternator might not work either its going to stop alot of the electrical activity.  Your truck will just come to a slow stop lol.  With aircraft unless your flying a Bi plane your going to have some kind of electronic because of the speeds or to compensate for the drag or even a fly by wire.  How ever all the vecs in op2 were said to not have any people in them in combat with the exception of people in scouts durring certain missions.  The AI would go offline till a redundant system restarted it but it would have fallen from the sky by then.

I think shields are totally out of the question.  It has all that aura of star trek.  Also if there are shields on the air craft people will be like well why dont we just put those on the buildings and not have to worry about emp missiles any more.  one more reason not to have it.

[White Claw]

Freeza - Your objective (and the objective of most multiplayer games) might be to wipe out the enemy, but I don't think that fits the actual storyline. And if you want to wipe out the enemy, wouldn't you want more weapons available?

I don't disagree with the idea of flying scouts and surveyors. But then you run into the extension into military application. Unless you use the argument that the existing weapons are to heavy to fly. (Takes a 747 to fly a laser.) Flying scouts and surveyors would be faster.

Anyhow, you can't have your cake and eat it to. If you want to argue about shields being startrekkie and too futuristic, nobody has mentioned the fact that you can use lasers and machine guns to stop incomming weapons. The navy already uses the Phalanx system to stop inbound missiles and the army uses RPG type of system to stop incomming RPGs and TOW type missles. Not to mention that military vehicles are already hardened against EMP attacks. (EMP doesn't drain a battery.)

So a "mid futuristic" (if you want to call OP2 that) type of civilization would have the capability to stop an incomming RPG or stickyfoam round without shields...

This probably all belongs in a different thread. But I think my point here is that we're now getting into gameplay issues. If you made every weapon stoppable (and not just countered) then the battle portion would be an annoyance.

Sorry for the choppy message. I have to go...

[plymoth45]

I agree with White_claw on this one. Yes, I'm a trekkie, thats where I got the inspiration for the idea of a shield, hence why I said 'WEAK' shield, something that would stop it only 50 to 75% of the time and is availible ONLY on aircraft and/or vehicles, there not being a powerful enough functional generator for a building. I didn't say an unstoppable shield, that would be pointless, but having a weak shield that can bounce off an EMP Sometimes would make the possibility of Aircraft much larger. I believe OP2 is far enough into the future to allow an application of at least weak basic shielding against something like EMP, unless of course you're going for something back in the stone age.

[Freeza-CII]

I Do think about Multiplayer because NO one else seems to care about it.  Multiplayer and Single player use the same units and tech.  I dont see any reason why There should be a Multiplayer tech and a singleplayer tech.  Single player has a story line but when people suggest things like AIR UNITS.  Does it really sound like it belongs in op3?  I think there was a thread about air units and the majority of the people didnt want them.  Why do i only seem to talk about multiplayer is because when i fire up op3 in the future i want to have some nice battles with other players in a game that feels like op2 and really doesnt feel like a C&C AOE EE or Starcraft clone.  Gameplay is a big factor you cant just think about storyline 100% and f*** the rest.

Several times has some one brought up this Phalanx system and i ask you is it really op2ish?  I say it really isnt other then shooting down incoming s*** its really usuless.  It cant stop laser microwave Thors hammer All the other weapons use projectiles that as you say can be shot down.  I know youll say there is a percentage that they will beable to shoot them down.  But people can just spam them.  Now youll say well we can just put a limit on how many you can build.  And that makes them useless.

Shields are shields even if there weak.    Air units aint slow so if it possible for 10 out of 32 to get through a blockade then your CC is going to take it hard.  And if you lower the percentage it would be like not having shields at all really making them pointless.  And with these shields all I see is people wanting them on buildings and other vecs and that would just make having emp and the emp missile pointless.

[plymoth45]

The EMP doesn't always work anyway in OP2 if you've looked. There is already a percentage of Failure. I suggested shields because they provide a way to impliment Air Units. If OP3 is made modible when it comes out, rest assured, I'll make my own modification for the game to have Air Units, as I'm getting to be a decent modeler. I forgot to mention about my Truck. Its a DIESEL. It works on COMPRESSION. Not a spark plug, there for, if the fuel wasn't attachted to an eletric shut off, then an EMP might kill the battery, alternator, and make all the instruments fail, but a 1985 Diesel will still run regaurdless, so don't say an EMP is going to disable something that is primarily mechanical.

[Chandler]

One point... EMP doesn't work on Spiders/Scorps - why not make it so it doesn't work on aircraft (MAYBE, IF they are included) too.

An airborne scout is quite a good idea, as I pointed out. It would be able to go across any terrain, whereas a scout would have to go around.
Example - Total Annihilation - it has Aircraft scouts, but at the same time has KBot, Vehicle and Ship scouts (radar vechs.) - why? Because aircraft can go anywhere. Why bother having the others? Aircraft are weaker, due to having more limits (More Armour = More Weight = Need More Power = More Weight etc) due to the fact that they need to counteract gravity, whereas vechs and ships have land or water to do that for them.

The same can be said about an airborne surveyor - movement advantages, and nothing stops it from using the same system as EDWARD, just a lot shorter range. Why use it? Cheaper. get it sooner than EDWARD, and can survey more beacons than a robosurveyor in the same amount of time due to its movement advantages.

If you wish to expand on this, perhaps have an airborne sureyor only able to find the beacons (if they are kept invisble until they're found - this was covered in another thread), and then have a robosurveyor survey it.

[White Claw]

I never suggested "Let's add a Phalanx system" or anything else to stop an incomming round. (And I wouldn't want it added.) What I was saying is that you can't use the argument that "It's too futuristic" to fend off shields and then say "they can't have aircraft" when we're talking about a race that has built an interstellar starship capable of freezing humans. I'm fairly certain they would have a grasp of aerodynamics.

Let me be clear. I'm not for shields. I'm not for a phalanx system or a reactive point defense system (unless it was a simple upgrade that enhanced hitpoints or "chance to hit" only).

What I said was that I'm not against aircraft because to me it's completely feasable. But I'm not sure I like the weaponization of aircraft.

I also never said I was against multiplayer considerations. That's why I said...

Freeza - Your objective (and the objective of most multiplayer games) might be to wipe out the enemy, but I don't think that fits the actual storyline. And if you want to wipe out the enemy, wouldn't you want more weapons available?

My point here was again, you're using the argument against a technology that "it doesn't fit OP2". But I argue that complete anniliation of the enemy isn't with the spirit of the OP universe either. (Though I do completely agree that it should be a goal of multiplayer games.)
OP1 goal = convince the breakaway colony to come back to your side...
OP2 goal = build a starship to get off the planet before the other side does...

That was my point.

[Jgamer]

Yanno, White Claw is right there. You're not fighting to kill your enemy, you're fighting for survival. Your enemy just happens to be one of the many obstacles, maybe even the easyest of them.

And then, remember that in OP2 they did not have aircraft because New Terra was atmostphere-less. Aircraft are not beyond their skills, New Terra just couldn't support them

[dm-horus]

Actually, New Terra does have an atmosphere. Its mostly Co2, like Mars.

Aircraft are very possible in an atmosphere like this. Personally, I like the idea of non-offensive aircraft but NOT in OP2. In a sequel I could see them as a natural advancement since aircraft could cover a massive area in little time with cheap equipment. Making sort of "sensor drone" aircraft would be feasible and believeable but giving them weapons would sort of introduce some negative issues that could easily be avoided simply by making them non-offensive.

[Betaray]

I like the idea of a light sensor drone, expecially if the atmosphere does not have oxygen in it, then it cant use jet engines, so the only form of propulsion avaible would be electric moter driven props, powered by cool fusion

that configuration would not allow it to be overly fast, nor be able to carry a heavy weapons payload, I could see with reshurch that it might be able to carry a targeting laser, increasing the accuracy of your ground units

so they would fill a niche like a preditor drone

[Freeza-CII]

having non offensive air craft just makes it all sound pointless to even use.

and the preditor can carry 2 hellfire missiles

[dm-horus]

Beta, theres a surveyor aircraft set to explore mars sometime in the next 5 years and it uses propellers. CO2 is the same as O2 where aerodynamics is concerned.

If i were actually to enable this, i would have research:

LVL0: Enables build of small, propeller-driven surveyor drones with one-shot movement; e.g. they cannot return and after one use (order), they fall to the ground. Very Cheap to build.

LVL1: Upgrades the surveyor drones chassis to something larger that can carry a conventional power system, Savant uplink and more sensor equipment. I havent decided if it should still use props or use jets. Cheap to build.

LVL2: Enables scout drones that are designed specifically for spying/recon. Uses jet propulsion to give almost doubled speed. Increased speed allows the wings to be smaller, narrower. Has simple ablative skin that disperses EMP effect. Expensive to build.

LVL3: Allows the launch of a modified LVL2 scout drone that can drop a single bomb the equivalent of a starflare. Due to the removal of equipment to allow the warhead payload, the craft has only one-shot movement. I dunno if only Plymouth should be able to build these, it depends really. Expensive to build.

And thats it. Thats all you can do with them. All you can do is spy with them and then only later after youve done research, gotten rare ore, fully researched explosives can you build a drone that can launch a single starflare bomb. This should keep things even since you couldnt research these immediately in the game and rush with them, but they would be great for harassment and thats about all they should be good for anyway.

Plus, Id allow research that lets most turrets fire at airborne units except for stickyfoam, EMP, ESG since their projectiles are basically packaged devices that deploy on impact. Only beam weapons and high-order mass drivers like the RPG would be able to hit them. Plus, the Meteor Defense would provide a massive area of defense from air units.

We wouldnt want air units to become a massive element of the game because it would change it way too much. If we have them at all, they would have to be something thats useful in high mark games and things like resource operation harassment and distractions are positions these aircraft would fill perfectly. They would be weak, but are enough of a concern to force a defending player pay attention and take care of them. And that would open up a huge amount of strategic possibilities. But again, we dont want to have waves of aircraft going back and forth in a Battle of Britain type thing. Just 3 or 4 roaming around the map irritating people. Plus the way the research would be setup, you wouldnt even see them until very high mark games at which point you would expect them anyway.
 

[White Claw]

I'm still not a fan of weaponization. If (for example) plymouth already has a missile, why whould they not use that to mount a starflare instead of just EMP?

(And as a side note, you would still have to have a counter system against offensive aircraft.)

Though Horus does impose some reasonable limits. Another thing would be to limit their range. This would make them a mainly defensive weapon that could be used to soften up an incomming attack. If you wanted to have a multiplayer air-war, you can just put the bases closer together (or unlock a long range option).

Some subtle options from Horus'.

Scout class -
--Something of your Lvl0/1 with upgradable armor (ablative) and upgradable engines (more than "one shot")

Weapon class - More of the Lvl3  (Still not a huge fan of this, but it's an option.)
-- Self destructive EMP or starflare payload?

Of course, I now forsee Freeza saying that they're going to get spammed like hell. This might be something that has to be play balanced.

If the weapons are expensive enough and self destruct, they would be mostly useful to slow a large incomming force, or as a distractor. Extended range scout ability would be useful against stealthy units (if those are included)

(Inflatibles may be more practical in a thin atmosphere.)

[dm-horus]

Well I think its definately possible to have them in the game. It simply requires alot of careful tweaking and delicate placing of research and stats.

However I think inflatable units might be made fun of more than used or taken seriously. Also I dont know to what extent there would be stealth units. Probably none at all. The object is to keep their purpose very narrow so they dont dominate the game.

My reasoning behind the type of bomb they drop is that EMP missiles are huge. I dont think one could be carried and still have the same effectiveness as a missile. Starflares arent as dangerous as supernovas i.e. theyre smaller and probably easier to carry in an air vehicle. Plus, we dont want them to have super powerful weapons that can devastate someones base in one or two shots. We want them to be strictly harassment tools and I think starflares cant even destroy a cargo truck without a direct hit. We wouldnt want anything more powerful than that.

I think the one-shot movement is vital to keeping them as only harassment tools, especially the bomb-carrying units.

[White Claw]

I agree. I suppose that's why I'm in favor of limited ranges... And I wouldn't imagine an EMP as large as the missile variety.

[Freeza-CII]

Bah what the hell is the point Limit its range make it a spy drone give it one bomb all these restrictions make this aircraft pointless to have and spend ore on.  

Did you say some thing about blimps lol.  those are slow and larger be very easy to take one out.  Weather balloons why not use use a sat.  Since we arent talking about OP2 the planet is a bit different we need to get details on the planet before you go any further with the whole air unit thing.