Brad Wardell's views about technology, politics, religion, world affairs, and all sorts of politically incorrect topics.
Published on January 13, 2017 By Draginol In Ashes Dev Journals

NextOfTheQueen

We are currently working on additional units for Ashes of the Singularity: Escalation.  The T4s and more T3s are not units you will run into in the competitive multiplayer games but on the bigger maps, late game, we run into a lot of cases where the existing units just aren't powerful enough to distinguish between one civilization and another.

Below is a list of some of the units we are considering.  Feel free to suggest your names:

Name Level Description
Jinx T1 Fires a shot that slows down a unit. The more hits, the slower the unit goes
Flea T1 Splinters won't target it. Can jump up a level of ground without a ramp
Havok T1 Very fast moving light attack unit
  T2 Protects area from bombardment
  T2 Hides area from radar detection
Helios T3 Flying air Dreadnought
War Hog A3 Slow moving flying air cannon
Theia T3 Giant Mobile Factory
  T3 Greatly enhances other units in fleet
  T4 Very slow moving doomsday machine that will destroy one thing at a time.
  T4 Very slow moving doomsday machine that wipes out vast swaths of cheap units
  T4 Very slow moving doomsday machine that lays siege to a distant target
  A3 Ultimate air superiority fighter
  T4 Very slow moving doomsday machine that protects everything nearby

These units will be released for free for Escalation owners.


Comments (Page 3)
on Mar 08, 2017

Almost 2 months later any status update from those units?

on Mar 08, 2017

We have them.  But we're going to introduce the first two with Episode 3 which isn't done yet.

on Mar 09, 2017

Frogboy

We have them.  But we're going to introduce the first two with Episode 3 which isn't done yet.

 

Thanks for answering! Keep up the good work!

on Mar 09, 2017

jjandrah

Fast attack units are a welcome addition. Consider a T3 fast attack dreadnought as well, intended to anchor an army of these. Think Antorak Marauder.

Permanent radar jamming as a unit is too hard of a counter to artillery. Alternatives:

    • Radar jamming is a unit active ability, not passive. Balance can be around cooldown, duration.
    • Radar jamming is an orbital ability. Call it 'atmospheric disturbance'. Can be combined with "protects area from bombardment" and "protects ground from air attacks" in one go.

nice ideas!

on Mar 11, 2017

jjandrah

Fast attack units are a welcome addition. Consider a T3 fast attack dreadnought as well, intended to anchor an army of these. Think Antorak Marauder.

 

Permanent radar jamming as a unit is too hard of a counter to artillery. Alternatives:

 

    • Radar jamming is a unit active ability, not passive. Balance can be around cooldown, duration.

 

    • Radar jamming is an orbital ability. Call it 'atmospheric disturbance'. Can be combined with "protects area from bombardment" and "protects ground from air attacks" in one go.

 


As long as they use the nomenclature "Fast Battleship" rather than "battlecruiser" to keep my naval warfare nerd demon happy .

I'd be interested in a permanent radar jammer that merely made another player's radar "blob" look bigger - but artillery would still have their supernatural ability to get discrete target locks. I don't know how much use it'd be vs the AI, but I can see it being useful at drawing an enemy's army out of position, or covering while you moved yours. I have a real love of paper-tiger play.

If jamming was an ability, I'd prefer it to be Orbital rather than unit-based. I feel that unit active abilities are a bit of a slippery slope >:

On another note, I'd like something like SupCom's T3 spyplanes - expensive, but harder to shoot down than the T1 variant. Would be nice for the late game where recon scans are quite expensive.

on Mar 11, 2017

well we already have th issue of units being called cruisers and frigates.. and a BC is "a large warship of a type built in the early 20th century, carrying similar armament to a battleship but faster and more lightly armored." so technically it wouldnt be THAT wrong.. #justsayingtheresbiggerissues

otherwise i like the idea of the jammer in that form as well as the spy plane.. although we are getting quite a big buff to T1 scouts soon..

on Mar 11, 2017

Oh I know there are bigger issues .

And it depends what navy you ask; the term is also used for a warship armoured like a battleship but carrying cruiser armament and speed, intended to serve as a screening warship that could survive in the heat of battle.

I've missed that bit of news; what buff are they getting?

on Mar 12, 2017

ItWasRhetorical

Oh I know there are bigger issues .

And it depends what navy you ask; the term is also used for a warship armoured like a battleship but carrying cruiser armament and speed, intended to serve as a screening warship that could survive in the heat of battle.

I've missed that bit of news; what buff are they getting?

which navy is that? the rwandan navy perhaps? i know of no navy that refers to a ship with the same armour as a BB but less armament, as a battlecruiser.. or are u russian? where everything is different? the point of the BC is to be faster than a BB.. otherwise whats the point? make a meat shield? a BB does that already.. how do u get speed by removing weapons but keeping armour? that is a weird set of physics since we know the most weight comes from the armour

theres a thread on the proposed balance changes by ggthemachine (the guy in charge of balance)

http://forums.ashesofthesingularity.com/481775/page/1/#3668218

on Mar 13, 2017

ItWasRhetorical


If jamming was an ability, I'd prefer it to be Orbital rather than unit-based. I feel that unit active abilities are a bit of a slippery slope >:

Fair point. Thinking it through, other units in this game don't have active toggled abilities. Orbital makes more sense.

on Mar 15, 2017

Quesocito


Quoting ItWasRhetorical,

Oh I know there are bigger issues .

And it depends what navy you ask; the term is also used for a warship armoured like a battleship but carrying cruiser armament and speed, intended to serve as a screening warship that could survive in the heat of battle.

I've missed that bit of news; what buff are they getting?



which navy is that? the rwandan navy perhaps? i know of no navy that refers to a ship with the same armour as a BB but less armament, as a battlecruiser.. or are u russian? where everything is different? the point of the BC is to be faster than a BB.. otherwise whats the point? make a meat shield? a BB does that already.. how do u get speed by removing weapons but keeping armour? that is a weird set of physics since we know the most weight comes from the armour

theres a thread on the proposed balance changes by ggthemachine (the guy in charge of balance)

http://forums.ashesofthesingularity.com/481775/page/1/#3668218

The German Navy actually; whose BCs were far more successful that the RNs, because the RN kept adding their BCs to the line of battle, when they weren't designed to be there.

The purpose was to act as a screening ship during fleet actions - the real killer in WWI era naval battles were torpedoes, so admirals had to take care to keep the enemy destroyers at a distance. Having a screen which could stand next to the battleships in the heart of the battle, and also with smaller guns (which therefore had a higher rate of fire and traversal speed) was highly desirable.

From wikipedia, because I'm lazy: "By 1911 Germany had built battlecruisers of her own, and the superiority of the British ships could no longer be assured. Moreover, the German Navy did not share Fisher's view of the battlecruiser. In contrast to the British focus on increasing speed and firepower, Germany progressively improved the armour and staying power of their ships to better the British battlecruisers.[51] Von der Tann, begun in 1908 and completed in 1910, carried eight 11.1-inch guns, but with 11.1-inch (283 mm) armour she was far better protected than the Invincibles"

on Mar 24, 2017

That does make me ask.

Why are T4's called juggernauts and not battleships? Or carriers? Or any kind of ship type that would make sense with frigates/cruisers/dreadnoughts?

on Mar 24, 2017

igncom1

That does make me ask.

Why are T4's called juggernauts and not battleships? Or carriers? Or any kind of ship type that would make sense with frigates/cruisers/dreadnoughts?


Naval Units are coming, so that would be confusing. It's going to be confusing either way, we might have to change our naming convention with the inclusion of naval.  

Meta
Views
» 18853
Comments
» 42
Sponsored Links