Damage reduction/armor system please.

That way, we can actually get a proper balance going- it's much easier to fix units in relation to one another when one tiny change doesn't directly affect the rest of the game.|||I dissagree. Plus, where is the difficulty in balancing the current system we are accustomed to? Its also a terrible slippery slope towards Rock Paper Sissors gameplay as I see it...



Imho its not hard to balance cost/hp/dps/range/rof/speed/turnrate. Its also a staple of CT's rts games. But who knows. We see the route their taking we might see some more radical core gameplay design changes.|||A flat damage reduction in relation to some types of heavy armor and structures would be simple and make sense. I mean, it doesn't matter how long you spend poking a castle with a spear, it is not going to fall down.



Going into a more involved % thing like WCIII has can work well, but requires a more invasive UI to display that information, which would be dissapointing in a MoHo engine game, since they look so awesome due to the huegness.|||I have to agree with Phoenix with the caveat that you really want to avoid something where a unit is outright immune to another. Mitigating damage is one thing, think a wall that mitigates 500 damage, it is not necessarially immune, but it is hard to hurt. However, when you say, "this wall can only be hurt by artillery", that is not so good.|||These system isn't bad. Imagine MAA gains "immune-to-gunship" armor.|||I definitely agree with the armor classes. If you want to see why try to balance t2 mobile anti air versus t3 air and then versus everything else flying (FA standard). When you've only got only muzzle speed, dps, and splash range you will quickly find that simple changes makes it so t2 maa rapes everything flying or can't hurt t3 at all.|||The only problem I really have is when things like Elephant > Tank occur. Other than that if applied liberaly maybe it could work.



It would be nice if we could go back to the days of big berthas picking off peepers xD|||the following is something I posted at the Supremilated Mod Forums (you remember; those guys who made that awesome mod for vanilla SupCom).



I haven't put any further thought into the topic than what I here, but it's worth sharing...



BulletMagnet, on the Intertubes|||I don't mind some of this kind of stuff, as said before, a Spear won't topple a castle, but it HAS to be clearly explained somehow/somewhere and it was to be as simple and easy to remeber/learn as possible.



Mike|||Jesus, got scared there a little. I thought _PINK was suggesting this for SupCom2.





But yeah, for K&C it would make sense :).|||Spooky|||What if you selected a unit, or a group of units, and then when you hover them over an enemy it will say the total DPS this unit could technically receive from said units? I say technically because there's no guarantee that they will survive to fight it, or all be able to hit it.|||Uh.... no.|||WNxWolfinator|||DeadMG|||Heh, I say we go for a comprehensive unit type vs. unit type matrix, with full descriptions for every relationship and animations as well.



So flails and morning stars beat characters with shields, because the flails go over the shields.



Swordsmen and axemen can beat pikement by chopping at the wooden pikes.



Plate armour beats swords, whereas halberds, combat picks and mauls can beat plate armour, by using heavy force to crush or punch a hole in it.



So even though there are a gajillion combinations, they're easy to remember because they're all explained to you in a way that makes sense :)|||Idiosyncratic|||The problem with RPS balancing is that there is ONLY the designated counter to any given unit. It does give an easy way to balance things, but it is a fairly stale and boring way to play (this was always my big dislike of the AoE series).|||Armor types do not by any means imply a hard RPS sort of balancing. All they do is give the developers another tool to fine-tune the balance of one unit in relation to another without affecting the rest of the game.|||I usually do not agree with pink, but in this case, he is right.



Something has 50 armor.

It gets hit for 150 damage.



The amount of damage it takes 150 - 50 = 100 damage.



That sort of armor system is fairly easy to understand and allows you to make walls that cannot be destroyed by a stick figure banging its head against it.|||yeah but if that stick figure has a hammer and a chisel.... It will take a while =p|||I don't believe armor types can be anything but bad. It's like the devs laying down the law on how the game should be played. Either, a unit's use follows exactly it's armor/damage type predictions, and thus the game is pretty goddamn predictable, or, a unit doesn't, and they're a total waste of time and mislead new players.



There are plenty of things to use apart from armor types.|||DeadMG|||since nobody has said anything bad about my suggestion, I'll take it as a good idea.|||Universal armor, aka armor that is affects and is affected by everything evenly, is not a bad thing. RPS armor like what you want Pink, extremely bad idea. It doesnt allow allow balance, it allows for for things to be locked into one use. If a then b. I would argue that rather then enabling a developer, it locks them into only one choice on how to deal with balance. Take Age of Empires, in it they had a unit that countered one other specific type of unit at the expense of being worse to against other units. The problem there is every nation had to be able to have all the same counters. Note I didnt say units, but counters. It forced a homogeneity that limited what they could do.



Oh, I do make an exception there to anti-shield weapons, but that is because shielding is a separate item from a unit's life.