Re: [Glob2-ideas] non-flat terrain

[Quinn Yee Qin Teh]

Actually there is a difference. Imagine building a tower on high ground, then attackers will have a harder time attacking the tower as they will be moving slower uphill towards the tower, giving the tower more time to kill them.

 

Also, you can prepare your army on the other side of the hill near your enemy's base, so that they won't be able to see your army until you cross the hill to attack unless they have explorers nearby or towers on top of the hill.

 

As the purpose of the game is to minimise micromanagement to encourage high-level strategy, I believe things like this will make a substantial difference to the overall gameplay of glob2, compared to other conventional RTS games.

 

 

On 7/21/08, DusteD <address@hidden> wrote:

Quinn Yee Qin Teh wrote:

How about having different height values for the terrain so that there are hills (and maybe cliffs)?
 Hills:
-ground units move faster downhill, move slower uphill
-ground units and buildings can't see the other side of the hill
 Cliffs:
-unpassable for ground units
-ground units and buildings can't see what's on the other side if they're on the low side of the cliff
-dynamically placed on the map if the difference between the height values of 2 adjacent tiles are above a certain threshold

------------------------------------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________
Glob2-ideas mailing list
address@hidden
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/glob2-ideas
 

I think height diffrence is highly overrated, it won't add anything to gameplay.

A illusion of heigt diffrence can easily be achieved anyway, just look at the way red-alert handles it, even though there are no real diffrence in height, the player get a clear impression that there is.

_______________________________________________
Glob2-ideas mailing list
address@hidden
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/glob2-ideas