Realistic Units version 2

First of all, if you disagree with me, fine, let’s debate that, but not insulting or name calling or whatever.

so here’s the thing, I’m tno saying tech should be a “free win” but by the same token, tier 3 should beat tier 1 pretty soundly.

Like in real wars, aricraft bomb the hel lout of an entire batallion and then you send your infranty in to clena up 30 survivors who are hiding in the city or caves or whatever. But in Iraq 2, our airpower and artillery killed (Edt: Correction, we killed over a million infantry and 200,000 civillians) in the first 3 days of the war, and we pretty much just used our infrantry for policinig the cities and finding the stragglers and insurgents who were planting IEDs (which took the rest of the wartime to do).

Look blizzard, do whatever with SC2, you obviously don’t care anyway.

But if you want to make Stacraft 3 someday, make Teran play as close to real warfare as reasonable, and make the other 2 races “different but equal” to terran.

I’ve told you how to do that, multi-tiered damage/armor system with at least 4 tiers per unit, you don’t need all tiers on every unit, but some units do need 3 or 4 tiers to be balanced properly in a 3 race asymmetric game.

So you know, fi the game was “semi-realistic” and you’re spamming amrines and your opponent shows up with helicopters, you should lose.

The economic value of a human being is around 7 or 8 million dollars. A 5th generation fighter aircraft cost about 40 million each, and a tank costs I guess aorund 20 million each, so realisticly Siege Tanks in Starcraft 2 are actually more expensive comprd to marins than real tanks in the real world are compared to real marins, and the smae goes for Banshees compard to helicopters, even a stealth helicoper is a few million dolalrs, but a 5th generation stealth fighter is 40 million each, which mens if a marine in-game cost 50 minerals, then a stealth fighter (wraith) shoudl cost about about 150/150 BUT absolutely crucify both air and ground units, and a stalth healicopter should actually only be about 100/100/2 and massacre ground units, because that’s the real-world cost ratio, and siege tnaks should only cost about 150/50 and massacre infantry, becuse hat’s the real world cost ratio… In real world, a siege tank cost about 4 times more than the economic value of a human life, and it cna shot and kill infantry and vehicles from up to 5 miles away, far, far beyond rpgs or small arms fire range.

Like seriously, what’s fun about watching stimpack marines beat almost everything?

And if banshees are only meant to kill workers, they aren’t even godo at that any more, because static defense and or/queens really beat them pretty easily. like if you don’t get at least 6 worker kills per banshee, then it’s not even worth making the thing

So in that other thread, Terranic’s objection was that it would turn into a race to tier 3…well duh, that’ show World War 2 was, everythign actually turned into a race to atomic weaons, although Germany and Japan didn’t know how to make a true nculear weapon, they tired to deploy a “Dirty Bomb” to the U.S . west coast, and almost succeded, the submarin was sank by coincidence. But for much of the war, Germany had faster aircraft, had U-2 Rockets, ahd better encryption, had bigger and faster estroyers and battlecrusiers and it took the entire british royal navy to sink one ship, and they didn’t evne sink it, the germans sank their own ship after the british disabled it’s weapons systems.

the point is, tier 3 should wreck house, and right now it’s still the same old stuff, tier 1 beating everythign, which everyone from Broodwar complained about almist immediately going all the way back to WoL alpha, becaue Tier was ws too good in the original game,and we didn’t want tier 1 to beat everythign again in this game. When I saw “we” I mean most of the community, I don’t mena a few pro gamers who benefited from Marines beating BCs in Broodwar.

But blizzard did what th epro gamers wanted anyway, and released a game with nonsnese for balance.

Hre’s all I’m saying, and I’m done.

In the next RTS, make the Human Race as close to realistic as possible, and make the other races “different but equal” somehow.

That’s it. That’s my argument.

Do whatever the heck you wnat with SC2, I’m not playing 1vs1 or 2vs2 ever again anyway, because it took far too long for them to take a few suggested balance changes that worked, and I don’t want anything to do with a broken game.

If its okay for tier 1 banelings to 2-shot several marines at once, then why does a banshee need 5 hits to kill one marine?

That’s all I’m saying.

if 50 minerals is equivalent to the economic value ofa human being (say a clone or resocialized criminal,) then the Tanks should actulaly only cost about 100/50/2 and smoke infantry, and a viking or banshee should beabout 100/100 and smoke infantry and viking smoke banshe, anda wraith in Brodowar should wreck just about anything, and cost 150/150/2.

But yeah guy, real wars ar ein fact a race to the ultimate technology, and if you’re too far behind you’re’ dead meat when the fight happens. The Germans killed 50 million peoiple in WW2 before the allies eventually defeated them. Think about thtat. About half of that was Rusisans, Jews, and Gypsies that they killed.

But nayway, fast forward to Iraq 1 and Iraq 2, and air power and mech won thos wars in a matter of a cuple days, the infantry just cleans up the enemy stragglers who survive the inital bombiing compaign.

That’s all I’m saying. Make the huamn race at least “semi-realistic” in the next RTS, instead of everythign being backwards from realistic.

1 Like

Also, on resources, mkae it more than just 2 resources, you can have things like “Gas” and “Oil” and “iron” and even “Stone” (for Concrete) and such, nd even have Terrazzine for Psychic powers to use. You don’t "literally need ot use eery element on the periodic table, but 3 or 4 resources woudl work beter for balance than just 2 resources. Stuff costs 3 resources in AoE 3 becaue it works better than 2 resources, and it’s aslo “semi-realistic” that cannons cost Godl and wood, if you wanted to be even omre realistic cannons should cost Iron and Wood, but Godl and Wood was close enough. infanty cost food, obviously and cavalry cost food, either food and wood or food and gold. Point is 3 resource works.

And you could have stone for concrete to make structures with, not just “minerals” and “gas” like "minerals "could be anything and “gas” could be anything, and a 3rd or 4th resource is not “redundant” because they can be harvested at diferent rates and tweaked differently and exist for different purposes in the game.

In theis case, blizzard had the right idea in WoL pre-alpha,a nd the pro gamers talked them out of it, because they wanted it too much like Broodwar. And then blizzard is like INSULTING it’s own customers, by saying Noobs couldn’t undeerstand 3 resourcees, or noobs couldn’t understand a 4 tiered damage system.

How insulting is that?

I’m nto sying you should have 118 resources like Runescape or something like that, but 3 or 4 or evne 5 resources woudl provide very powerful balancing tools.

Like if a unit cannot be balanced in terms of resoruces A and B, you add 25 of resoruce C to its cost, etc.

Temparls could cost 50 miernals and whatever 100 Terrazine and 50 Vespene, ro soemthign. So Psychics shoudl cost mostly terrazin, which I think was their intention in WoL pre-alaph, and here’s a thought, reactors are nculear and hsould have cost urnaitum (and they inteded to do that, because nuclear fuel is a resoruce in the 4 resource sytem they originally coded into the game).

But you don’t need all 118 elements in the periodic table, Id’ agree, but 3 or 4 resources has powerful balance tools not available to 2 resources.

Well, somebody is liek, “I only want 2 resources because I wat options on how ot spend my money.”

Well, to be semi-reaistic, you can’t make a siege tank if you didn’t mine iron. and you cna’t make an siege tank or air unit if you didn’t mine oil, and you can’t make a nuclear warhead if you didn’t mine uranium.

So part of strategy woudl be mining the correct resource at the correct time to actually make the correct unti, that’s how the 3 resource system works in AoE and it works just fine, experts know exactly what worker mines what resources for each build order they want to use.

You cannot make a reasonable RTS that works well with that kind of disparity:

  • The difference in resources, research time, etc would be too massive for late-game units to be feasible or for the game to have a reasonable length.
  • Computers cannot handle enough units on the map to account for the disparity
    in strengths and costs between tech choices, so developers would have to “approximate” by combining multiple units (and their different weapons) into one. That brings you back to the case where infantry are shooting down air planes and battle ships.
1 Like

Um, AoE 3 was like that, and it’s already what 15 years old or so. 4 tiered damage system.

When dutch gets tier 3 the other races are on the defense for awhile.

When british gets tier 4 they get a huge advantage because Dragoons are the most powerful ranged cavalry, but British needs 100 supply workers to really mass units, so they only get about 100 army supply, so you can’t split yoru forces and can’t make a lot of mistakes or you’re dead with british.

Each tier is not a “Free Win” vs lower tiers though, but it does matter, tech matters. So tier 5, you still end up using tier 1 units to compliment your tier 5 units, like pikemen surrounding heavy cannon and such, so hussars cna’t reach your cannons.

I didn’t mean literally amke a real world warfare simulator, but you can do a lot betterjob than SC2.

A 4 tiered damage system with each unit having 4 unique tiers of damage woudl be a LOT more powerful balancing tool than what blizzard did with SC2. Two tiered damage is just not powerful enough balancing tool, as evidenced by 9 years of complaints abou tbalance.

Like when people lose in AoE 9 tmies out of 10, nobody rages and calls “Imba” becaseu 9 times out of 10 they lost because they were out played.

and I don’t want randomized maps, no that would be stupid, that’s bad in AoE and C&C.

I don’t mean literally a super computer simulation of warfare, like I said you don’t need 118 elements, but 4 resoruces woudl be fine, and a 4 tiered damage system should be enough to balance such a game.

You ever seen how much it cost to tech up in AoE,and yet experts still end up teching up much of the time? Veterancy cost like 1000/1000 to research for each unit, and some people still get it, and some tier upgrades are like 4000/4000 or whatever, and its’ still worth it to get it…

I’m nto saying a tank should one-shot your opponent’s entire army, but in A0E field cannons one-shot infrnatry and penetrate big distane and linear splash evertygin behind the first target. And they like 2 or 3 shot even most cavalry, even though cavalyry “counters” cannons…because its so fast…

No it wasn’t. Age of Empires varies a bit based on the faction you play, but the gamees often involves a decent amount of infantry that are available near the start of the game and keep getting upgrades; remaining relevant throughout.

have you watched pro gamer AoE? Have you watched someone like me play AoE?

Dutch teis to mass skrmishers,a nd british tries to “boom” and survive through Age 3 when Duthc is strongest, then britsih tries to mass Dragoons and dutch is in trouble unless they got a good harass through age 3. If Briths gets a “critical mass” of dragons, duthc gets face -planted.

I don’t know how every pro level matchup works in AoE, but tech does matter, and tier 1 doesnt beat everythign. British mass tier 1 in the mirror match at pro level, but they don’t mass tier 1 in cross-faction matchups, they go for Dragoons…

to give you an idea how one-sided helicopter vs infantry is in the real world.

An apache, or evne a stealth helicopter has missiles that one-shot a tank or light armoed vehicile.

It has a chain gun that has incendiary, armor piercing rounds that explode on impact, and a fire rate of up to 6000 rounds per minute for the first mintue, and half that every minute thereafter. A few roudns on average is all you need to destory a light armored vehicle, such as a truch or dune buggy with machine gun mounted on it, or you cna wipe out an entire batallion of enemy infantry in about a minute or two…and that’s one helicopter vs infantry or mech…in the real world…and the helicopter doesn’t really cost any more money or resources than the tank costs either…they just serve different roles.

You don’t use infantry to fight enemy infantry in the open battlefield. You used air power and armored vehicles to fight enemy infantry. You use your inftantry to clean up caves and city scapes where the last enemy survives arehiding.

A U.S. Naval Destroyer has Chain Guns that shoot down income missiles by simply firing so many rounds that the missile physically cannot get through the wall of metal in the air…not even counting that you have anti-missile missiles, i forget how many of those they have, but again chain gun has a rate of fire approximately 6000 rounds per minute for the first minute, and 3000 rounds per minute every minute after that. Cooling is an issue.

That’s real world warfare with modern technology.

anyway, we destroyed 6 divisions of the Iraqi army in 3 days, which was about 1million infantry and 200,000 civilians, and we were trying not to hit civilians, those casualties were accidental. Destroying a Division doesn’t mean you literally killed every person, but it means you killed so many of them from top to bottom that they no longer function as a unit, and most of them either surrendered or ran for their lives when they saw how much air and mech we hit them with anyway.

You have a primitive idea of modern infantry my friend. The time of scores of savages attacking with camels, units equipped with Maxim machineguns are far away…
Today infantry has special groups that are specialized in the fight against armor (Tanks and IFV) and air (Helicopters, Fixed Wing Aircraft and Attack-Drones). Not to forget that SAM units (S200, S300, S400, S500) that will do a short work of everything that flies up to 500 km range…

2 Likes

Lucky shot =/= average typical behavior.

Sure, you could get very, very lucky and shoot down a helicopter with small arms,but that’s unlikely. US Aircraft are more likely to malfunction and crash due to a random malfunction than they are to be shot down by the enemy.

Also, I wasn’t using the term “infantry” broadly, but referring to small arms, which is comparable to Marines in Starcraft.

It’ snot “impossible” to shoot a helicopter down with like a 50 caliber machine gun or something like that, but it’s not common either.

I could wish there was no such thing as war in the real world, but that’s a pipe dream.

One day, we won’t use human infantry in war at all, we’ll just use air power and drones and robotic infantry, with random frequency modulation, same as used in missiels and torpedoes, so it can’t be hacked.

Darpa has been working on some robots that can be armed with machine guns and RPGs, or used to carry small cargo over terrain. It can do things, eventually, that no ATV can do, with a payload of about 300kg cargo. It looks like a dog or horse, and is nicknamed “Big Dog” currently. They’ll eventualy get one that workds in the field if they keep working at it.

LOL, yea sure, if they fight Tier 2/3 opponents goes like that. In a real war my friend against an equal or superior enemy they will be forced to operate under heavy EW (Electronic Warfare) and what’s worst: EMP attacks.
If opponents will try to attack Apaches with Mauser 1914 then you might be right…

the aircraft itself is similar to the economic value of one human being. Then you have the crew, so basically if a marine costs as much as one real world human being, then the helicopter and crew in-game would be like 100/50/2 or maybe 100/50/3 and would wreck marines and even tanks.

Tanks on the other hand should one-shot bunkers, an dpretty much wiper out marins and even marauders in like one shot, ore you could have two-shots vs marauders, simulating a “near miss” on the first shot, but still.

I was a bit off on air dominance though, it appears 5th generation stealth fighters are more like 160 million each, not 40 million, but they fly os high small arms and even bigger machine guns and such could never hit them at all, much les shoot them down. So they’d wreck both air and ground, but would cost (relatively) as much as a Battlecruiser in-game in Starcraft…but again pretty much immune to SAM weapons and invisible to most radar types. So basically, a Wratih or Banshee should colst as much as a Battlecruiser, but it’s weapon should be like 5 times as powerful and do splash damage against both air and ground, and it should fly above the range of misile turrets and small arms…if you were trying to scale cost to real world effectiveness.

You could have multipile layers of air altitudes, so like low altitude air units and high altitude air units. Ground units wouldn’t be able to hit high altitude air units.

1 Like

Yes, that would make SC2 more realistic (Marines that kill Carriers/BC that till that moment were incinerating entire Planets from orbit are an avoidable absurdity).
I like also the third resource, it will ad another layer of decision-making which is always a good idea.