What does true simulation really add?

I see the particle nature of SupCom touted frequently, but I don't see what it adds to the gameplay. Ok, so sometimes you get a nuke that blows up your own base, but that's not a particularly satisfying ending for either player. Yeah you can shoot down Czars with artillery, but it's not that much of a game changer. It makes a great marketing tool, but I can't see what the purpose of it is.



Does anyone have an opinion here? Unless someone has a really good point, I don't think King sand Castles should go the SupCom route here, because the system requirements attached to true simulation are so steep.|||it makes the interactions and relationships between units more dynamic. it allows for natural cover. it is wtf awesome.|||pkc|||Christ. everyone around here sounds like Wankey. next someone will complain that lots of units adds nothing to gameplay and is a silly gimmick.



WAKE UP SHEEPLE: THIS IS GAS POWERED, NOT BLIZZARD.|||I'm just asking questions. Your response makes it sound like you don't have an answer.|||I do agree that it's exaggerated for marketing, but how else are you going to have the ability to accidentally hit something else, including one of your own units?|||AngryZealot|||Im not sure what you mean by true simulation but the game would lose _alot_ without any sort of simulation. That units actually fire and miss is the the biggest benefit of CT's games.|||Using physical statistics rather than a dice roll and armor types is much better because it's much more visible, intuitive, and flexible, and substantially less random. When you didn't kill someone because you rolled a 4 instead of a 6, you feel cheated. When that Siege Tank doesn't one-hit that Marine like you thought it would, you get seriously pissed off that the game didn't care to mention this.|||DeadMG|||DeadMG|||Simple: physics in video games are awesome. Simple as that.

Hitting your ASF with my nuke is fun!|||@AZ



I think this is a fair question and certainly this has been way overhyped.



I think it's more of an remnant of TA, where because guns shoot farther from hills, and there actually was a level design which incorporated the physics engine it made the game way way better. And of course it gives another tool in fire randomness for the balance designer.



However I feel that in Supreme commander it hasen't been really used in meaningful ways. Return to the roots.|||pkc|||_PINK|||So my opinion after this discussion: It really doesn't matter for something like SupCom, because the maps were never designed with trajectories in mind. If anything little bumps just pissed players off.



If Kings and Castles tries to exploit this feature, especially by allowing custom castles or by putting a focus on wall building, then simulation would be pretty awesome.|||hath995|||AngryZealot|||One thing it adds and which I really like a lot is that you can avoid shots using micromanagement - at least in vanilla supcom with the rather low projectile speed. Another thing it adds is the ability to put a unit in between to block shots.|||TheBigOne|||AngryZealot|||so, we've established that SupCom's implementation of projectile simulation is underutilised... not that simulation in general is gimmicky.|||BulletMagnet|||It was used well in TA but the balance sucked.|||Why did SupCom do away with TA's more interesting terrain? Processor requirements on the pathfinding?