Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
DFD-R4: 1009 vs. 349, 510 vs. 765
#10
Fight 1
Hmm, this is the last round. One should think the fights are harder to judge. But no, they are not. Add a "Guard area" or "Combat Air Patrol" feature.

Fight 2
I don't know what exactly the garrisonable buildings issue would do. If it's indeed just used to put weapons on garrisonable buildings and it has no other usage cases (can't think of any, but I'm unimaginative) that would definitely lose out to battleships or multiple turrets. Renegade gave good examples how a turret can be abused (if) to just provide optical gimmicks. Ok, he wants battleships.

Yeah, I'm leaving the path of "don't add features if there are bugs and limitations in the current implementation". Let me explain why. There are several limitations in the engine, some making sense, some don't. I don't understand, why EA didn't implement the Force Shield on tanks. They just added it to buildings. The logic is there, but the color is wrong and units only get the Iron Curtain one. Buildings cannot be loaded into transports. Makes sense. And the Lightning Storm Warhead will always display the explosion anim defined as LS explosion and ignore the AnimList on the warhead. This is the latter. It is a limitation, but it would not affect that many people, because it is no essential feature.

And, having said that, I vote for the multiple turret battleships.


Messages In This Thread
DFD-R4: 1009 vs. 349, 510 vs. 765 - by Renegade - 03.10.2010, 21:37:07
RE: DFD-R4: 1009 vs. 349, 510 vs. 765 - by Orac - 04.10.2010, 00:26:57
RE: DFD-R4: 1009 vs. 349, 510 vs. 765 - by AlexB - 10.10.2010, 00:51:50



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)