Ideas for the next version of Global Triumph -- Message Board / Global Triumph -- Too Much Stupid

Has anyone else thought it would be a good idea to expand the role of air power? I think if we do it right, we could practically add a new dimension to the game! Not all of this is air power, but it is all related...

In the military today, we don't sit around hoping the enemy doesn't air-strike our bases. There are defensive measures militaries take against enemy air power. Here are a couple:

CAP: Combat Air Patrol--
This is when fighter(jets) patrol an area "for the purpose of intercepting and destroying hostile aircraft before they [the hostile aircraft] reach their target" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combat_air_patrol). I think it would be reasonably easy to implement this. When you click on a sector, there can be a CAP button, and you could choose to CAP just the area around that sector, or select a second point, so the CAP would be between the 2 points. Of course we would need to decide on the details... Like how far away from a base can the CAPs be. Or how far the 2 CAP sectors can be from each other. Or how close to the CAP area a jet/missile/bomb would have to get to be attacked. And I'd imagine bigger CAP areas would have to down side of a probability that the enemy slips through the CAP, right? And CAPs should probably cost A LOT. Thoughts on CAP?

SAM: Surface to Air Missile--
This is a defensive missile that is used to shoot down enemy jets when they fly within range (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surface-to-air_missile). Again, we would need to decide range, price, etc. SAM-Sites would be the obvious place where they would be housed, but we could also consider mobile SAMs (slow moving). Thoughts on SAM?

Scud: Mobile surface to surface missile--
Pretty self-explanatory. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scud) It's a missile on the back of a truck. Harder to locate and neutralize. Price and range would need to be established. Would be slow moving. Thoughts on Scuds?

Artillery: Mobile, distanced support of ground forces.
These are mobile units able to provide accurate ground combat support from a distance. (For anyone who thinks artillery is out-dated, read this article about how North Korea's artillery could flatten Seoul: http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/ news/north-korea-and-flattening-seoul) They would be slow-moving, lightly armored, but powerful. I would say 20 or 30 sectors would be a reasonable firing range. Thoughts on artillery?

VTOL Aircraft (Helicopter): Essential platform for Air Assault--
A VTOL Aircraft is a Vertical Take-Off and Landing Aircraft, aka the Helicopter. It's use would be as the platform for Air Assault, which is the "movement of ground-based military forces by VTOL aircraft—such as the helicopter—to seize and hold key terrain which has not been fully secured" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_assault). Essentially, we would have a helicopter unit which would pick up an infantry unit and transport it so many sectors away. If helicopter must land in air bases, I think the total range should be 100 to 150 sectors. But if the helicopter can be based out of any free sector (because it really doesn't need a landing strip, right?), I would say the total range should be 50 to 100 sectors. Thoughts on Helicopters?

This is all I have for now. I will add if I come up with anything else. So... Any thoughts?

1

I like the ideas you have mentioned. Do be careful though friend. I am not sure this is a place where such thought process is welcome. Perhaps just a suggestion of steroids would be more accepted by the crowd here. Generally the individuals only have one thing in mind...simple expansion and conquest. Perhaps we could also have a defense used by killed babies, also something they would enjoy.

Nice Ideas Capt.

Saw your Ideas was letting some of you newer guys have your views first, I remember your idea of CAP has been talked about I ran a search of it it may have gone been written a different way, some items came up, I like that idea... oh you know you can do that search box on the right type something in and you will see possible threads it has been mentioned....Weather or not they are in GT2 maybe someday we will see it but the creator got married and you know how that goes ;) In Gt though some of the things are already in use like SAM you kind of have now when you fly over a turret and I know putting a range on them has been discussed as well as bombardment options which sort of covers your artillery..... Scuds, kind of the same as Turret now in GT, if your missile flies over a turret it may destroy or weaken it depending on the lvl of the turret... The helicopter that has been discussed to and I do like the idea of having a helicopter as a transport I think that would be interesting.....

Deutschman and to any others

Really? You could have easily commented on his ideas and left it at that. I am taking this opportunity to call you out early to nip this in the bud. There is no reason for it and if you like the game being rude, nasty, hateful or mean on the boards is just that and a turn off. If you care about the game and enjoy playing it, just know that so do other people. I say this because I seen this before in the past where it turns ugly it is not fun. I know we have lost players in the past because some people got really offensive. Some have gotten kicked off the game for being really offensive. I know right now you have not been really offensive and not saying you will become really offensive but I am just putting this out there as a caution. So seeing you just joined 8 days ago maybe you might play for a while and get to know some people before you make such a judgement as there are some pretty nice people on here, and some really helpful ones as well..... Dont make this bigger then it is, I think most people are a bit of a jerk when they start GT cause the game seems so simple yet really is not and can get frustrating because of that. I bet you ask some of the guys who were here longer then me I might have come off as a Jerk too. It takes a few months to get the basic understanding. Check the search box on the right for questions you may have if you dont see anything ask in Help there will always be someone to answer.
As far as expansion it definitely helps just as allies do, communication does, treaties and other aspects of the game, which all take a while to get. Just as your basic expanding strategy takes a while to get.... Allies are key and if you can get one that has played a few games you can learn alot quicker. Oh And I have seen bigger nations land on the losing side in this game as well...
Land does = Money and not all land is = in money. Do you understand resources and how to see which land is richer?
Anyway gotta go
be good all

All Hail

Supreme Ruler

1

I was giving sincere suggestions to a crowd of typical human beings. I had simply realized that I am playing with common people and I should expect common behavior. That would be people trying to have the most and give the least. This is a game and human behavior will demonstrate its true desires most when there is no incentive to do otherwise. I am in no way attempting to offend anyone. I am, however, an insanely honest person who will not follow a strict morally absent status quo. I shall continue to play and attempt to live along the side of these particular individuals.

Thanks for the input Supreme_Ruler. I did see the previous mentions of CAP, but none of them seemed to get anywhere. I do think it and helicopters would be great additions (a the right price, of course).

And for anyone wonder why I am revisiting so many component of air power, I have a reason: I am a cadet in the U.S. Air Force. It is my hope that components of air power be represented as accurately as possible in this game.

Which brings me to one last question: What era is this game supposed to take place during? I feel that would help these discussions. (And for anyone who answers "now" meaning the constant present, I implore you to consider how rapidly air power changes in our current age).

Perhaps you could also have units cost different amounts in different materials. These different materials could be in different areas, where they could be captured and collected by certain countries. Then you could also add trading. That way countries could either trade, or invade to obtain the special material they desire.

Glad to Hear D.... If you go to overview you will see the resources if the map the darker it is the less material ... you can also click on the land and see how much a sector is worth.....
Capt.
I dont think there is any era, not that I know of anyway

d sorry hit Tools first then overview you then can click resources and other stuff

I am aware that some land has more resources than other land. The problem is that all these resources are the same. I am talking about caches of selective resources for specific uses.

That would be more like Age of Empires, which is a good game and all, but this is different. I like how GT is almost fully the military side of conquest. AoE focuses too much on economy in my opinion... If anything, I think we should focus even more on the military aspects by innovating even more detailed units and operations.

Anyone else?

Also, what about a bomber (I am currently thinking of the B-2 Spirit): very expensive; hard to hit from the ground; virtually limitless range; and a heavy attack that affects only one sector (in the Air Force, we call this last point Precision Engagement)... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_Grumman_B-2_Spirit

How does that sound?

edited 3x / 2m

If you want to be more concentrated on military aspect then the economy is something to worry about. Should there be a terrible economy in a country then it is in no position to wage war. Would you dare disagree with such a statement?

Of course there must be some inclusion of economy. I happen to think it is to perfect system that we currently use: "materials". I see it as an equivalent to GPD for each sector...

But if you want to see more inclusion of things that are not strictly war, then perhaps you would consider this: infrastructure. We already have it to a degree (bridges), but we could expand. I suppose we could include the ability to create Power-Plants, and make it such that no base can function (or function efficiently, ie - units cost more otherwise) unless there is a Power-Plant within 50 owned or allied ground sectors. That could be an option... I was also thinking about rail roads, but I'm not sure how that would work.

So, what would you think about an infrastructure?

I really want a really expensive air drop ability to get the players in the back into the fight.
-IC

Do you mean like the airborne infantry?

I was thinking of the ability to drop a CT but infantry works also.
-IC

I think a CT would be too much of an advantage, especially to larger nations. Just think, if one nation would take an early lead, then it would quickly snowball into an insurmountable advantage.

But I could see infantry being parachuted in.

You have the ability albeit limited with a CT and transport, helicopter would make it interesting, it would be beneficial to all nations. and remember all nations start out the same in size and resource so a distinct advantage I dont see unless your one of those players who dont believe in expanding

While it is true all nations start the same, not every starting location is the same (this is one of the main factors in early expansion in my opinion). Also, when I made the helicopter suggestion, I was thinking either just infantry, or infantry, jeep and tank. But I don't think a CT should be transportable via helicopter.

But these are my thoughts...

Transporting troops, tanks, and jeeps would take too much (playing) time. Those units all get chewed up in the fight by the dozens and it could take to long to build enough units and ship them there one at a time.

Unless there was some big shortcut that could be used to transport large sections of units, or like an air attack where the attack actually transforms into a unit placement. Then you could spam the sectors of interest with the hot key "4".

edited 1x / 3m

I want a spy unit.

Undetectable by the enemy. Does not capture sectors, just moves through them. Has a range of sight of 50 sectors. Real expensive something like $50k +

No defense. No offence

My premise here is that you would use this unit to see specific parts of your enemies territory in the world view. It would work like radar only mobile, on land and undetectable.

But the unit could still be destroyed. It has no defense so even the weakest infantry unit would kill it.

You can have your spy I want a team of special unit internet hackers so I can mess with my enemies troop orders

To the spy comment:

What about an ISR UAV? Show you sections of the map wherever you designate. No attack, low armor, fairly expansive.

So?

I like the idea of drones

Submarines and or Nuclear Submarines.

have ships able to be equipped with sonar to detect subs (radars at ship ports should be able to detect too)

edited 1x / 1m

So, would subs be undetectable to normal viewing?

Capt_Ches wrote on :

So, would subs be undetectable to normal viewing?

i would think since i stated the sonar could help detect them. subs would be underwater, and maybe when they attack on a turn, they are viewable by everyone starting at the new day cycle for that one day they attacked and then disappear in the next cycle or something.

what about land and naval mines?

edited 1x / 4m

I was actually thinking about underwater mines, but land mines sounds great as well! I think mines could be that one thing I have been looking for to create an artificial wall. And I think a basic characteristic of mines should be that the more powerful something is, the more damage done by mines. ie damage to battleship> frigate=carrier>transport>>tank>>jeep>infantry

But I like it!

i was just thinking about air transport, or paratrooper/ commando/ sabotage units. this would definitely add depth to the game, and would require all of us to concentrate on defense as well as offense.

I really like the helicopter transport and spy ideas. Those could be very interesting new dynamics.

The reason I've avoided artillery or scuds is that I feel like they could throw off the balance too easily. A larger nation could have a line of artillery behind tanks and flatten a smaller country and never have to use up any resources in battle. If they have to send units in, though, then they at least have to take losses.

I did a bit more development on the new system this weekend. It's going to require modern browsers, but I think the game is going to be a huge improvement.

I'm likely going to have an album with screenshots and videos on the Too Much Stupid Facebook page. (The reason I'll be posting there is that likes and shares can help promote the game and spread interest, whereas posting updates here would really only be seen by existing players.) So, please be sure to like the page if you'd like to see the updates!

I wanted to get your opinions on something I've been mulling.

In GT2, a unit will be able to move across an ally's land. Considering this, do you think units should now be able to move/attack through another unit? Meaning, if there's an open sector on the other side, it will pass through. If not, it will stop before passing the unit. I'm strongly leaning towards yes.

Without this, allies would be forced to go around your units. Or, an ally could be completely blocked off by having a line of units at your border.

On a related note, although I could develop it to allow more than one unit to occupy a sector, I don't want to go that direction. It could lead to sector stacking, which means you could effectively have a unit of strength 18 or 27 (by keeping multiple units in the sector) instead of 9.

Also, to clarify, leaving an alliance will cause any units you have on an ex-ally's territories to immediately die. (Civilian uprising, perhaps. haha)

movement through allied spaces is awesome. if they are stuck, they should die, yeah.

Johhny,

question on shared land is this for only alliance members only or if you have a treaty with someone (an unofficial ally) this is what activates it, I would advocate that this work with anyone in your alliance only , I would also add a treaty for Air rights. If you join an alliance both treaties are automatically activated and you can move through land, outside your alliance you can have a treaty with someone not to attack land, works the same way it does now but not let them fly over unharmed unless an air treaty is signed. There have been times when I had a treaty with someone and they used it to fly over and bomb someone I did not want them to.
As far as stacking and passing through let it pass through however if the pass through final landing space is already occupied it would have to stop at the last open space in its path.
Helicopters are a good idea work like transports it would definitely speed up play and spies not so sure about

my 2 cents
cant wait to see GT

:)

SR

Johnny wrote on :

In GT2, a unit will be able to move across an ally's land.

Also, to clarify, leaving an alliance will cause any units you have on an ex-ally's territories to immediately die. (Civilian uprising, perhaps. haha)

This is for alliances not treaties correct? that would make that distinction a little clearer then it is now.

On leaving an alliance could you have the units get placed at the nearest possible border?

It would block a potential set up, "Ally hurry get through my country to the front line" then when he has all his troops in you're borders drop. Thus killing all his units and letting you sweep right on in.

Supreme_Ruler wrote on :

my 2 cents

I'm going to revise the entire treaty/alliance system. I haven't decided on the final details yet, though. I think alliances will automatically mean treaties, especially since you'll be able to move through an ally's land.

I like the idea of having different treaty levels, separating air space and attacks on one another.

dman56 wrote on :

It would block a potential set up, "Ally hurry get through my country to the front line" then when he has all his troops in you're borders drop. Thus killing all his units and letting you sweep right on in.

Actually, leaving an alliance would destroy any of the units you have in your enemy's land.

I'm thinking that if they have units in your land when you leave, they'd capture it. So, you can't gain anything by leaving.

Johnny wrote on :

Actually, leaving an alliance would destroy any of the units you have in your enemy's land.

I'm thinking that if they have units in your land when you leave, they'd capture it. So, you can't gain anything by leaving.

interesting and if you were kicked from an alliance I guess the reverse

Supreme_Ruler wrote on :

interesting and if you were kicked from an alliance I guess the reverse

I hadn't even thought of that. I think that makes sense, though. If you're kicked out, then your units stay in their land and the other players lose the units they had in your land.

That definitely puts a lot more stress on the importance of alliances!

Like I said, though, I'm still thinking things through. Nothing final just yet. These kinds of discussions definitely help, though!

Another Idea

When viewing units in the world view have a slider so you can view units by strength.

The way I was thinking was a three position slider - LOW - MED- HIGH

So you pick the units you want to see i.e. Jeeps and then the strength i.e Med and all you would see would be your level 4-6 jeeps.

Its would be a great planning tool for when you have large land battles going on.

Hanibel wrote on :

When viewing units in the world view have a slider so you can view units by strength.

I like that idea! I was thinking about having a simple query language on the world view, where you could type something like "tanks without attacks" or "tanks with strength over 6" and it would highlight those units. That may be too clunky, though. Maybe a combination.

FYI, I've created the album where I'll share screenshots:

http://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.10150943295348604.442591.11688543603&type=1&.....

Another request.

Make jets and missiles selectable as units.

Its great to where my airbases are but it helps to know where the units are

Johnny wrote on :

I like that idea! I was thinking about having a simple query language on the world view, where you could type something like "tanks without attacks" or "tanks with strength over 6" and it would highlight those units. That may be too clunky, though. Maybe a combination.

or just have selectable options like there currently are, but below that have the strength scale:

[ ] Construction Truck
[ ] Infantry
[ ] Jeeps
[ ] Tanks
[ ] Transport
[ ] Carrier
[ ] Frigate
[ ] Warship

1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9

Johnny wrote on :

I like that idea! I was thinking about having a simple query language on the world view, where you could type something like "tanks without attacks" or "tanks with strength over 6" and it would highlight those units. That may be too clunky, though. Maybe a combination.

How bout click active guys (attacks set) to idle guys so you can see which ones are not set

Hanibel wrote on :

Its great to where my airbases are but it helps to know where the units are

Hah! Good point.

New building process...

Creating a base:
- If it's on a capital, it is built immediately.
- If not, it's in build mode. After attacks are processed in the Game Cycle, if you own the sector, the base is created.

Creating a sea unit:
- The unit is placed in the sector in build mode. You can do this even on a sector that currently has an existing unit.
- After attacks are processed in the Game Cycle, if you own the sector (for land units) and if it isn't occupied by another unit, the new unit is created. If the unit is a construction truck, then the base that created it must also still exist.

This means that infantry, jeeps, and tanks built from base will be there even if the base is destroyed. However, trucks will not. This will help offset some of the new difficulty in attacking with the delayed building, without creating an infinite loop of base/truck building.

Hanibel wrote on :

Another request.

Make jets and missiles selectable as units.

Its great to where my airbases are but it helps to know where the units are

Johny,

Maybe use a modified "strength" gauge like the new one you've shown us for units, but that shows approx how many jets, missiles, bombs are in each base on the map.

Global Triumph

Thread

Messages / 1 to 47 of 47

Message Board

Categories

Search