Get Under that Ship Captain!

posted on July 10th, 2009, 2:04 pm

Please stay on topic this time and stop arguing about whether you want 2-D or 3-D.

So we all know that the Y-axis function has been rightfully "removed" from Fleet Ops--at least in normal gameplay  . However, because the function still obviously exists (as even witnessed when ships and stations do migrate to slightly different heights) this should be fairly feasible:

For the Noxter (or heck, another faction could have it) who rely heavily on close combat, would it be possible to introduce a feature to some specific class(es) of units to "burrow" into the Y-axis in order to close with the enemy while taking extremely little fire? Here's how I see it. You have a group of very weak completely melee based Noxter units. You order them to perform the maneuovor (it would be a special ability, so they could not stop half way through the motion) and then will fly down the Y-axis and under the enemy ships--where they will promptly "resurface" and attack those vessels. Of course, since many ships/stations have long range, the Noxter who can perform this ability would not be immune to enemy fire, but it would be an interesting strategic ability (I think).

If of course this is unacceptable, using the idea of the Y-axis again, there could be some way that a group of Noxter (perhaps even most Noxter) become "lurkers". What I mean is that they travel deep into the Y-axis on command of a button and wait there (preferably small ships so that they are difficult to spot) until the player issues an order to "surface" again.

Ok, thanks for listening and feel free to demolish the ideas presented above 

posted on July 10th, 2009, 2:06 pm

burrowing would be a very cool weapon for any race.

However, it can not fire while useing that function.

posted on July 10th, 2009, 4:40 pm

well i see no reason that all races couldnt use this. you could just give them standard cloaking devices as well

posted on July 11th, 2009, 2:44 am

The lack of a Z-axis in FleetOps is an unbelievable blessing. Stock Armada 2 had a tendency to turn into a clusterfuck when enough ships got on screen and started moving at different heights.

The designers intended the other ("tactical"?) view to account for that, but it was tremendously stupid / unusable.

The elements of the Z-axis that remain in FleetOps (namely, ships moving past each other) are great, but in my opinion its a terrible idea to bring back any elements of the old system.

[HawkShark]

posted on July 11th, 2009, 3:13 am

Last edited by HawkShark on July 11th, 2009, 3:30 am, edited 1 time in total.

First i'll restate it to see if i understand it right:
Noxter Unit A, "burrows" so its out of range of Short/Medium range weapons til its practically under another unit. Then Unburrows to appear practically in melee range.

Also: Noctis http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... _0.svg.png

Problems i forsee:
1. When it burrows the game will depict it as getting further from the camera, small ships will become rather tiny (or if it goes "up" on the Z axis it'll be alot worse, and block your screen)
2. Ship's with AI movement autonomy to red will move to be in range of the Burrowed ship automatically, negating the effect.
3. Then, adding this as a unique tool for one faction is a bit abusive if you somehow disable problem 2. They build up a fleet that Defense Turrets cant stop and it drops in.

posted on July 11th, 2009, 4:21 am

Correct restatement. As for problem one, I indeed stated that an advantage would be to become small moving down the axis (I wouldn't want them to move up) which would further add to the strategic advantage. I imagine problem two might be able to be avoided--I'm not sure if the automatic movement feature still exists honestly. If it does, it might be possible to make this an animation, rather than an actual movement (I was just hoping to include that strategic limitation). For problem three the solution is rather simple. Make the units that can do this either limited (like the Phalanx, Avalon, B-8, S-7 you get the idea) and of course, as was stated, the range of the burrowing will be relatively short. Just enough to close in range of the enemy without receiving too much fire (think of it as a sort of more limited and avoidable transwarp in effect).

Yup, just got done reading some coordinate systems stuff from FO that messed me up

posted on July 11th, 2009, 4:38 am

Also: Noctis http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... _0.svg.png

In computer graphics the Z axis usually is for the vertical direction and the Y axis for the up/down direction

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File: ... system.svg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartesian_coordinate_system#Notations_and_conventions

posted on July 11th, 2009, 4:49 am

In computer graphics the Z axis usually is for the vertical direction and the Y axis for the up/down direction

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File: ... system.svg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartesian_coordinate_system#Notations_and_conventions

EEK, my mistake... I had no idea that videogames named their axis' differently... That seems so needlessly silly, and pointless... Wow, i guess you learn something everyday. Also, this makes me loose my faith in humanities eventual ability to communicate with other races. /sigh Cant even be consistent in what you name an axis.

posted on July 11th, 2009, 4:55 am

yeah it depends on the game.  in empire at war the 3d aspect is absolutely amazing.  3d in armada 2 was annoying especially for me cause im obsessive compulsive about having all my stuff in nice neat rows. 

i once decommissioned an entire row of torpedo turrets in the middle of a game i was barely winning cause they were half a square lower than the other turrets i was connecting too.  i just couldnt handle it anymore. 

posted on July 11th, 2009, 5:21 am

Empire at War's 3D wasnt all that player controlled though, it was more incidental. Totally with you on the OCD in building, my bases in Supreme Commander are gorgeous 

@Noctis, while the idea has merit, i dont really see how you get around problem 2 without completely changing the way full movement autonomy works. If you do the animation route to dive, and then the ship cannot take damage until it undives, that might work... But then it really is the perfect way to just skip base defenses... If that's then limited by a time, where the dive only lasts 5 seconds or so, then its just a variation of cloak... A impenetrable cloak, with a VERY short usage time... Maybe an additional speed boost to use with the diving?

posted on July 11th, 2009, 6:15 am

@nathanj and @HawkShark

I stand in solidarity with you in terms of my OCDness. As I said before, stock Armada II gave us trouble.


My Supreme Commander (Forged Alliance) bases were even neater than yours

posted on July 11th, 2009, 6:46 am

I usually just built wherever as long as it worked well (shields covered by base, i got reasonable coverage from defenses, reasonable bonuses, etc.)

posted on July 11th, 2009, 1:36 pm

in stock the only race that benefited from the y-axis, was the borg.  I don't think FO needs it though.

posted on July 11th, 2009, 1:40 pm

There was once a map made (for stock) that was designed to encourage people to go under or above the default level by making the map so thin that you couldn't get enough ship to hit the defenses together, so other races can benefit.

Moving the ship up/down would be perfect for a Nebula-combat, but in open space the Sensors would negate any advantage.

posted on July 13th, 2009, 5:15 am

What if the burrow ability was to burrow into subspace.. ( kinda like cloak ) but when you did your sensor range was severely diminished and you couldn't attack....