Turrets in Megaglest (Sir Modman Style)

[Zoythrus]

why have a sub-unit that cant be destroyed? what if we have a defense tower or something where the turret is a main part of the unit (like a tank cannon).

also, i think that the turrets should be selectable, or at least able to be forced to attack something.

[ZaggyDad]

why have a sub-unit that cant be destroyed? what if we have a defense tower or something where the turret is a main part of the unit (like a tank cannon).

Yeah, I suppose. But still, I think calling the kind of sub-unit that can't be destroyed a turret is sort of ridiculous.

also, i think that the turrets should be selectable, or at least able to be forced to attack something.

They definitely would need to be selectable. How else would you force them to attack a specific target unless you only had one turret, after all?

~Zaggy1024

[Zoythrus]

so, auto-attack, but will accept manual override. that will do.

and about the turret name thing, what do you suppose we call them? (we're sticking with "hard points" for destroyable sub-units, right?)

[ZaggyDad]

and about the turret name thing, what do you suppose we call them? (we're sticking with "hard points" for destroyable sub-units, right?)

I don't think we should call them any kind of name, I think they should just have some option like 'targetable="true/false"' in the parent units XML tag for the sub-unit.

~Zaggy1024

[Zoythrus]

well, you had mentioned hard points that affect the unit, such as taking out a motor to prevent movement. would something like this be possible?

other hard point examples would be reactors, that if taken out would diminish attack strength; processors that enables harvesting; or even wings that enable flight!

[ZaggyDad]

well, you had mentioned hard points that affect the unit, such as taking out a motor to prevent movement. would something like this be possible?

I didn't say we should call them hard points, though. I'm just saying other things that sub-units would be useful for. And, yes, that kind of thing would hopefully be possible. At least, if the engine sub-unit thing isn't, at least the repairing/building/harvesting would be.

~Zaggy1024

[Zoythrus]

i think we should give names to different kinds of sub-units. it would make it easier in conversation.  also, we should call them things which people would already know (such as "hard points)

[ZaggyDad]

i think we should give names to different kinds of sub-units. it would make it easier in conversation.  also, we should call them things which people would already know (such as "hard points)

Well, if we do do that, then we should find a name for non-targetable sub-units other than "turrets".

~Zaggy1024

[John.d.h]

Maybe we could define the axis about which it rotates.  By default, it would be the y-axis, but like somebody was saying in regard to turrets on a mech's shoulders, you could have one tilted 30 degrees or so to one direction and it would rotate about that axis.  I think the debate about naming different kinds of sub-units different things is a little limiting.  Saying "we have x number of sub-units, and they are a, b, and c" lacks imagination.  Somebody might come up with a whole new use for them that you didn't think of.

By the way, I know this is the MG board and all, but there's been a ticket for this subject in GAE for quite a while...

[Zoythrus]

i dont want to brag, but it's on the GAE ticket because of my original thread  (theres a link on the first page of this thread)

i think we should give names to the types of turrets. yes, i agree that we shouldnt call non-targetable sub-units "turrets;" i just needed a placeholder.

[ZaggyDad]

i dont want to brag, but it's on the GAE ticket because of my original thread  (theres a link on the first page of this thread)

i think we should give names to the types of turrets. yes, i agree that we shouldnt call non-targetable sub-units "turrets;" i just needed a placeholder.

Yes, but what would we call turrets that can be destroyed? Hard points? That doesn't really fit, IMHO.

~Zaggy1024

[Zoythrus]

well, every other game with that concept calls them "hard points," so i thought to might as well go with that!  i mean, if there's already a standard, why deviate from it?

[ZaggyDad]

well, every other game with that concept calls them "hard points," so i thought to might as well go with that!  i mean, if there's already a standard, why deviate from it?

Where would the name show up in the game? If it has no type of sub-unit showing in the game (which I doubt there's any use to do so), then we wouldn't need anything more than a boolean in the XML telling if it can be targeted. And, if we say whether it can be targeted in-game, it should also be printed in a clear boolean, rather than terms that some players may not understand.

~Zaggy1024

[Zoythrus]

oh, i meant that we should call them that in conversation (as to distinguish from other sub-units). in the XML, we'll just use a boolean value.

sorry for the confusion.

[titi]

If we will once have turrets I also want drive by shooting. So a tank can drive and shoot at the same time with the turret facing the opponent.
In general this whole turrent feature is not so easy to do.  ( Its a cool idea, but for me it doesn't have  high priority)

[ZaggyDad]

oh, i meant that we should call them that in conversation (as to distinguish from other sub-units). in the XML, we'll just use a boolean value.

sorry for the confusion.

Yeah. In conversation, though, one can call them anything we want, as long as it's clear what it really is.

If we will once have turrets I also want drive by shooting. So a tank can drive and shoot at the same time with the turret facing the opponent.

I agree, and with the "sub-units", that would probably make it a whole lot easier to do, since they would act as separate units moving with the parent.

~Zaggy1024

[John.d.h]

Actually, come to think of it, there is a pretty good reason to have "mount points" as an option.  Take a mech for example.  If its "die" animation has it falling over, mount points would tell the turrets to stay attached, where a simple offset would have them floating in the air.  Still, that would be a -- shall we say further consideration? -- for after the basics are done.

[Zoythrus]

i guess that mount points would be nice, because it takes the guessing out of offsets. and you make a good point with the death anims, they would just stay in one spot.

i still cant help but think of the work that would need to be done to make this possible...

[ZaggyDad]

Actually, come to think of it, there is a pretty good reason to have "mount points" as an option.  Take a mech for example.  If its "die" animation has it falling over, mount points would tell the turrets to stay attached, where a simple offset would have them floating in the air.  Still, that would be a -- shall we say further consideration? -- for after the basics are done.

Hadn't thought of that... Except if that were the case, then the mount points would have to have rotation saved in them, too, and then the turrets would have to be able to rotate up and down, which would probably be more work than it's worth.

~Zaggy1024

[Zoythrus]

i was thinking, if the turrets were pets (GAE's pet system of course), then they would die when the main unit dies...would that solve the problem?

[wyvern]

Technically I think turrets on a tank should die, unless imobilization is implemented, when the tank hull dies, however, a turret can be blown off and the tank can run away to have it replaced.

[Zoythrus]

well, it will be able to be defined in the XML on whether the turret can die separately of the master unit.

[Mark]

I think it should be more like the unit would lose it's turrets once it reaches 1/2 health.

[Zoythrus]

i think it should all depend on the unit. do you want the top of a defense tower to explode when it gets to 1/2 health?

[Mark]

i think it should all depend on the unit. do you want the top of a defense tower to explode when it gets to 1/2 health?

That is how it's done in some games-the units die once the tower reaches a certain level of health, though maybe 1/2 is a bad idea.