AoWFever

Movement Speed

Movement Speed

This topic is cropping up everywhere, so I figured why not give it it's own home and organize things a bit ;-).

Here are a few specific issues that I have with slow unit movement:

  • The current pacing makes the game feel like naval warfare.  This will probably diminish with time as pathfinding/routing is optimized.
  • Having all the units move slowly and the prevalence of choke points on maps prevents players from employing flanking tactics.  By the time any effectively armed units make an end-run around the enemy, the battle is over.
  • Hit-and-run harassment campaigns are not viable right now, except for with bombers, which are quite fragile.
  • Unit slowness and extensive radar coverage also enable the enemy to see you slowly rumbling towards them 8 minutes out, which gives the enemy tons of time to set up a greeting party and eliminates the element of surprise.
  • I am struggling to understand why there are units defending map resources at the start of each game.  They bog things down even more.  Perhaps that is the point, but I find them more annoying than anything.  Maybe static defenses would make more sense than a gaggle of random units?  I guess it would help if I understood why they were there in the first place.
Some thoughts:
  • I do not think that all the units should be sped up.  It makes sense for the heavies to feel like the lumbering land battleships they are.  The game needs some kind of "cavalry" unit, though, that is relatively weak in a stand-up fight, but that moves swiftly and does increased damage when attacking from behind.  Maybe it's in there already and I just missed it in the three hours I played, but I did not find any units particularly effective in this role.
  • An expensive unit that can mask either the radar ping of its meta group, or the size of the force, would be lots of fun.
  • An inexpensive, weakly armored Tier 1 or Tier 2 "raider" unit that moves fast and has no radar could be fun for early game harassment.
126,835 views 32 replies
Reply #26 Top

Quoting Andre_B, reply 25

Agree with almost all of the above.


Quoting AoWFever,

The AI also does not identify flanking opportunities and seek to exploit them. Instead, it lines the units up from more to less armored and proceeds to slug it out with the enemy units in front of it.



Still id rather have the player control and choose to flank than the the AI itself. I prefer to have control on such big manouvers rather than making a meta unit to do it for me.

Yes, a very good point.  I struggle with wanting the AI to at lest try to out flank and encircle enemies -- particularly when you clearly over-match your opponent.  I notice this the most with creeps.  Rather than outflank them and finish them off as quickly as possible, my units just sit there firing at the the front armor, unless I affirmatively tell them to "move" right on top of the enemy.

Asking the AI to flank larger forces seems like a bad idea the more I think about it.

+1 Loading…
Reply #27 Top

I personally believe that just making smaller t1 units that traverse on wheels/tracks would really help visually.  Since the scale of this game is immense, but so are the scales of our units it makes it hard to really get a grasp on how fast things are moving.  I think having small agile vehicles/bots that are maybe 1/4 the size of current t1 units but are obviously moving quickly relative to their size would help.  I also believe that the turn speed/pathing are also both aspects that make units feel even slower than they are.  

I just loaded up the game and noticed another issue that I believe would help with a sense of scale/speed.  I think that the units should be small compared to the buildings.  The t2 tanks are pretty close in size to the t1 missile defense platforms which look like full size building with multiple large SAM launchers.  I think that SupCom did scale extremely well personally with the first t1 units being absolutely tiny even compared to the t2 varieties 

+1 Loading…
Reply #28 Top

I agree land units would be cool as well as hovering units. There could be quite significant gameplay differences between the two- such as having land units be very slow compared to larger flying ships. They would also lend scale by contrast with the really large ships.

Bots as infantry loaded into flying ships as vehicle transports would be very cool. Bots would be very small, and operate in groups as a single unit. If a bot is approximately human-size (does not need to be the case) this would lend some scale to even the smaller ships. Especially if you can fit a large number of troops in one ship.

 

Still, the game could totally work without them, with just hovering ships as units.

Reply #29 Top

I don't know if it was already mentioned but instead of having faster land it would make more sense to have a larger variety of air units like some sort of helicopters which would be faster and can attack land vehicles while "hovering" (maybe also landing for cover). But to balance that these units should be extremely weak against any attack of other air units or vehicles anti aircraft weapons (including defensive structures). 

Reply #30 Top

Because AotS is going for more of a Sins feel, I think the unit speed is appropriate. What we've seen so far is 1v1. Think about how such a game would play out in Sins. You'd each spend a lot of time building up your nearby planets and asteroids, all the while fighting pirates, in preparation for the oncoming war. The whole game could still last hours!

Now consider a game in AotS with 8 total FFA opponents. Your nearest one is going to probably be no more than a few sectors away, which is darn close and you'll definitely be able to get in early fights and battles on that kind of map. Or you can do likes Sins and make pacts and alliances. I hope this game intends to go there.

But AotS has some problems to solve if it wants to really feel like Sins. In Sins the battle arena in each sector is gigantic relative to ship sizes, which allows ships to move THROUGH a sector tactically. Scouts can make it half way across the galaxy before finally getting destroyed, all the while being chased by pirates and AI opponents.

In Sins you generally bypass pirates until you are ready to colonize. In AotS you are practically compelled to kill off the neutrals and claim sectors, the rewards for doing so do not seem nearly as epic as capturing a planet for setting up a new outpost, and there are few decisions to be made about where and when. So that means early game IS a chore of cleaning up neutrals. You don't feel the early game is as much about building your armies, researching your techs, and developing your outposts as it is housecleaning pirates and plopping down some extractors. That boring early game makes the pacing feel slow, which is why I think people want units to be faster.

Third, I think combat kinda messes things up too. In Sins some ships are quick, darting into the fight to attack a unit, then retreating to regroup. Others act as lumbering defenders to act as a kind of powerful meat shield so the smaller units can do some damage. The fights of large fleets have the two fleets mixed up together in a large space. So far what I've seen in AotS are two battle groups circling each other, with the back half of the group unable to participate as the enemy units are out of range. To make the game feel more dynamic, which will probably improve the feel of the pacing, the battles have to be more dynamic movement-wise

So my suggestion is, if you want the pace of the game to be more like Sins, gameplay is going to need to be more like Sins. Fortunately you have many many months to try to pull that off. On the other hand, if you don't want it to feel TOO MUCH like Sins, then I have no idea how you're going to improve the feel of the pacing of the game, which compared to many typical modern RTSes feels slow.

Reply #31 Top

Quoting eviator, reply 30

Because AotS is going for more of a Sins feel, I think the unit speed is appropriate. What we've seen so far is 1v1. Think about how such a game would play out in Sins. You'd each spend a lot of time building up your nearby planets and asteroids, all the while fighting pirates, in preparation for the oncoming war. The whole game could still last hours!

 

Not 1v1`s ;), ive played them, i recall 2v2 games were all about that first capital ship and choosing the correct one and rushing to get as much planets or risk being behind all game.

 

So dependent on maps and speed option´s on phase lanes you could have both fast and prolonged games, this without mods. I still recall a guy i played with had super control with a capital ship he wouldnt even make units early game he would just move it around and harass like crasy gaining XP and levels all the time, also what about siege rushing to snipe planets that game could be fast.

Not every game was played on a 20 plus or on 40 plus planet systems, also you can design fast maps on sins having like at least 2 asteroids near the starting area for fast eco boost and a desert or earth planet as your next expantion route.

The most important feature however that was introduced by mods was dog figthing on tier 1 units giving micro and kiting with missile units a chance in the game, sadly not many people used this feature.

Quoting eviator, reply 30

Third, I think combat kinda messes things up too. In Sins some ships are quick, darting into the fight to attack a unit, then retreating to regroup. Others act as lumbering defenders to act as a kind of powerful meat shield so the smaller units can do some damage. The fights of large fleets have the two fleets mixed up together in a large space. So far what I've seen in AotS are two battle groups circling each other

 

Pretty much this, variety is what we need plus we still need some tier 2 and tier 3 badass units, also im kinda confused how stuff controlls itself on a battle group it looks like stuff hovers and moves around for no apparent reason trying to look cool rather than being effective in combat.