[quote who="The_Gear" reply="7" id="3587637"] Quoting HateDread, reply 6 HateDread That's normal. The new key is the upgrade key to upgrade your current edition in Steam. [e digicons]:thumbsup:[/e] [/quote] Roger that - just making sure that you weren't somehow losing a
[quote who="The_Gear" reply="4" id="3587493"] We are sorry that this has affected some of you. By design, Valve limits the number of Steam keys we can issue for games in this stage of development. With that, and the overwhelming interest in the game, there have been some orders that did not have a key properly applied to them. As a temporary measure, we will be issuing general release Ashes Steam keys to all that did purchase the Lifetime Founders product. With it,
[quote who="tatsujb" reply="9" id="3587403"] Quoting HateDread, reply 8 You don't have individual units that you micro to make sure they're all in range, right? you CAN thereby you do. [/quote] Ahh, you're worried that some players will micro to that level because they're supe
[quote who="tatsujb" reply="7" id="3587393"] As I said before directional armor implies WAYYYY too much micro for 1000 units. [/quote] I don't see why - the metaunit and the way it behaves is what matters when combined with this. You don't have individual units that you micro to make sure they're all in range, right? Same with individual directions - it's just another layer of how combat works out when one metaunit attacks another, or multiple metaunits again
I don't have a Steam key listed either, but it was included in the emailed receipt. Did you get one of those? In it, the key should be next to the title of the game above where the costs are listed.
Great points, shurtugalll, and I'm actually inclined to agree with you - I've been preferring smaller and smaller metaunits due to their pathfinding problems and the tight corridors in a lot of the maps. When you've got smaller groups, what I was saying makes more sense - I know it was a hypothetical, but would you ever expect to have two metaunits with 500 units each facing off?
[quote who="eviator" reply="1" id="3587304"] Retreat is hard enough now, this will make it impossible. [/quote] Good point - most implementations of this that I've seen have been accompanied by a 'move in reverse' button/hotkey, i.e. right-clicking while holding a button will make the group reverse to the clicked pointed instead of trying to rotate around. Would be a perfect fit, I think, and make life easier even without the directional damage stuff.
This is building off of the suggestion I made over in the unit differentiation thread, but would anyone consider directional damage as a viable feature? It worked really well in the 'Wargame' series, which to be fair was a serious modern/cold war military strategy game - tanks had armour values for the front, sides, and rear, and ambushing/surrounding them had a great effect. This also made quicker units more powerful - they could flank the slower units and deal impressive damage
[quote who="tatsujb" reply="9" id="3587174"] buffs short, but even more so stackable buffs are going to reduce the fun in the game at a competitive level because you'll always be hurting yourself if you're not using it and then not using it to the max. So there will be no choice. and we'll get a big unit deathball on a constant basis. Also gotta commend ASADDF for the sound points on air, couldn't agree more! [/quote] Yepp, stacka
[quote who="shurtugalll" reply="12" id="3587280"] Yes much agreed tatsujb. I think the group mechanic is over complicating the issues HateDread. This is essentially what R.U.S.E did with all units. It worked very well there since all units used it, but it would see rather.. off.. if it was just used for engineers. Again, I want to stress that you will only ever have so many engineers, and a good chunk will just be assisting factories. &
I'm Brody, a full-time C++ developer working with Unreal Engine 4 to create real-time simulations. My interests are networked physics, game AI, and software design/architecture. I've also been getting some experience with usability/UX by osmosis at work :D RTS games are awesome - I enjoy having to think (and are more of a fan of these types - ya know, SupCom, Wargame, etc, rather than crazy high-APM games like Starcraft). For the same reason, I'm into ArmA! My h
There's also no need to literally create 1 icon per engineer. What about having one icon per x number of engineers? I.e. the game/UI automatically group engineers together and slap an icon on top that somehow indicates how many are in that conceptual 'group'. You can then see at a glance how many are grouped in each area. It could also LOD based on zoom level - the groups become more fine the closer-in you zoom. Not sure if that should be only for idle engineers as <a id="ctl
[quote who="MajorDespair" reply="16" id="3587024"] Quoting HateDread, reply 15 It doesn't make sense, though, for a future military to rely on visual line of sight for missiles. I mean, the missiles themselves aren't likely to be using optical recognition (lest they fail in poor weather conditions), but instead heat, radar, et
[quote who="MajorDespair" reply="14" id="3587014"] One of the things I like about this game, is the vision aspect aka LOS. Units can be shooting you that you cannot see and target. Your archers, artemis and nemesis may not be able to use there full range(like tat mentioned) because they lack LOS. So what provides better LOS?, I think it should be scouts and air to name a few(or other?). The reason I don't wan't to change the radar schema without upgrade/research, is that the curr
I feel like trading mobility for strength is tried-and-true: mobile artillery is somewhat weaker than an artillery installation/structure, but can obviously be redeployed. So, my answer to your "OR" is an "AND" :D In regards to the Artemis: I feel like it may be a function of the current radar (or lack thereof) - requiring an almost-visual confirmation of enemies can gimp the artillery a bit, and makes the times where they can attack at long range unreliable and surprising
[quote who="bTonyd" reply="6" id="3586830"] Well...seems like some people had hard times dealing with shields [e digicons]:grin:[/e] . What's the harm in having one? or two? The shields don't just stop you from expanding. They are merely there to protect a bit some key points...and yes, if there's a hard counter unit, I don't see why the shields shouldn't be implemented (or at least a unit with a small/medium mobile shield). After all, we need
I disagree re. the limit - if someone builds that many, they're deciding to give up control of the map/resources, and making it very easy to out-maneuver them. No use stopping someone from throwing away those resources - it should be up to them. Plus, they were really fun to use. and to attack! I loved building crazily-shielded bases, particularly against the AI. I also liking cracking turtles :)
[quote who="eviator" reply="35" id="3586650"] So if I may summarize, and please correct me where I'm wrong: - You are forced to fight over something that does not provide any kind of tangible advantage by owning it, and this flies in the face of known RTS and real-world strategy, where such conflicts would be pointless and wasteful. - Traditionally a superior economy equates to a win, barring mistakes or surprises, not so with Turinium, - There is a f
[quote who="The_Gear" reply="8" id="3586293"] As it's still early, the forum posting will work for now. After we get a bit further contacting support/forum posting will be the best option. Support so we can gather your data and compile it with any other data we have. Since things can change rapidly this early, keep an eye on your list for things if they change/fix/get removed. [/quote] Yepp, that makes sense. Some of the points are UX/UI feedback rather than bugs, howeve
[quote who="The_Gear" reply="6" id="3586286"] Right now posting to the Founders forum is the best way to do it. It's private and available only to Founder's purchasers. [/quote] Makes sense, although it's not really a good platform to drill down into individual bugs, repro steps, any necessary attached files, etc. I'm currently sitting on a few pages of bugs and individual bits of UI/UX feedback that I've written down, but I'd hardly dump that into a
As per the title, if you select multiple engineers and all tell them to build something (inc. if you tell them to build a sequence of buildings using the shift key), only one will participate in the construction at a time. As a result, I have to micro-manage them and make sure that they all take part (which they can do, once you manually assign them to build).
[quote who="shurtugalll" reply="3" id="3586216"] Quoting HateDread, reply 2 Quoting shurtugalll, reply 1 Make more t2 artillery. &nb
[quote who="shurtugalll" reply="1" id="3586211"] Make more t2 artillery. They crush buildings, and are incredibly (perhaps to much so right now) effective against units. You really can't go wrong. Be sure to have plenty of t1 spam to soak up damage when you attack positions. [/quote] Would you also consider using T2 bombers? They seem to distract the missile defences while also dealing hella damage.
I'm having trouble taking on the AI when they mass their missile defences on the control points. It ends up a rush to get as many as I can before they lock them down. At that point, I end up on the defensive (since I can't break through) until I get the capital ships, at which point I've got enough of a force to effectively attack. Not sure if this is intentional, but it means that I'll often have a really stale stage where I can't attack anywhere, since ever
Do we know when this will end? Looking to move to the lifetime edition soon.