resource gathering scheme

[AngelX]

can you invent more reailstic resource gathering scheme rather then "kill enemy soldier and get a cash" model? It should be realistic and similar to real battlefields .

[PsychePsyche]

It's new, it's different.

You'll like it. :tup:

[nastykiller]

don't u run soldiers into a bank and u get a steady income?

[Cymru]

Isn't it a POW system where POW give you cash?

I think there is oil too but the POWs are the main source.

[Some Idiot]

I think the Gens/ZH system was quite realistic...

[Cymru]

it was a bit boring though...

From what we've been told it sounds like you will have to accualy fight to get more money in this game, which hopefuly makes camping less attractive.

[Remote]

Personaly I like the idea of having to carry out objectives to earn resource credits. Earn being the key word here. Only then you are force to use what you have at your dissposal to fight the good fight. Also forcing you to value your troops and exersize more tactics. Most RTS games have strayed or never use this tactic or feature. C&C came close with the capturing oil rigs and other stuctures to give you a bit of an egde in the favor of the capture but in C&C there where so many resource spots. Not to mention near your base made resources so abundant those struture didnt really matter. It turned into a case where if i dont have it nobody can. So it must be distroyed where C&C failed Act of War will succeed makeing this stuctures and other odjectives to only way to conquer. Gladiators Galactic Circus came the closest where your resources where limited anyway i got to go later gamers

[Warhawk88]

It would be nice but they should also have a secondary source of income, somthing that you wouldnt get filthy rich out of, like a supply drop like in C&C. there would be drop zone and a C-130 would drop off supplies. Because then if you run out of resources and your soldiers die then your dead, i would like to be able to somehow get more soldiers and keep on the fight.

[AgmLauncher]

Originally posted by Cymru
it was a bit boring though...

From what we've been told it sounds like you will have to accualy fight to get more money in this game, which hopefuly makes camping less attractive.

It wasnt too boring because the frailty of your economic units required that you played under the paradigm of supply protection. USA's ENTIRE existence in the early game was for no other purpose than to protect it's own economy from a stray gatt or quad. GLA and China learned to use buildings to box in their supplies which altered BOs and changed the game around. The threat of supply raping led to some interesting combinations of defense and offense. However directly fighting for resources would be a lot cooler than Gens/ZH's setup. The strategy would be much deeper that way I think. You would have to pick battles you knew you could come out of with a profit. If you lose more units than the man power you gained, you havent accomplished anything other than hurting your opponent.

[Slacky]

Yes and when the UK and US went to Iraq there were huge piles of recources the locals forgot were there and didn't nick anything from them and choppers gathered them to a base right nest to the place.... sure. Generals was a bit far fetched that manner although the whole Black Market and UN help thing ruled, if only that was the econemy it may have been better, it seemed more realistic. But the AoW system sounds good. Although I think the most realistic one so far has been on game like GC2 where you got further and your superiors thought you were doing well and gave you more crud to play with, that is realisticish.

[Waraddict]

Fact is, if you want realism in the area of resource gathering for an RTS, you simply can't have it, the best you could do is not to make it rediculously goofy (such as gathering ore that's already on top of the ground).

AoW have done this, the resource method is not stupidly ruining the atmosphere they are trying to build, even better is they have turned it to influence the player to have an artificial conscience for their infantry (by saving them) and an artificial need to retain POWs, just like a real commander.

[AgmLauncher]

You cant truely ever go wrong with economy though. As long as it doesnt just trickle in out of no where, and you have to fight and micro and keep yourself busy to get it or protect what's getting it for you, the game will be entertaining and challenging.

GLA had a resource system similar to AoW. When you killed a unit, you could collect scraps. If you used a fully scrapped up vehicle or an infantry unit, it woudl give you money. Then you could purchase a promotion that automatically gave you money for killing units. Obviously the amount was too little to make a full economy off of it, but the idea is there. It would be pretty interesting to see what GLA play would be like if you made workers gather less money, make scraps give you more money, and made the money promotion start at General Level 1 and provide more money. It should in theory, promote more aggressive play from GLA, more resourcefulness, and more micromanagement from the opponent to keep as many units alive as possible to prevent GLA from getting too much money. That's kind of how AoW should be, in theory.

[BOMBLORD]

I wish that it will be realistic.that in order to get supplys,you need to capture a seaport/airport/train station/some roed/and you will need to protect the supply convoy(just an example) so the fight will be on reasurces(just like in real life).but it will work only if it will be balanced

[PqLear]

See the $ gain for POWs as a way to represent that humans are more valuable than tanks and guns, etc.

Another part of this mechanic is that you also earn funds from bringing your own downed pilots/tank drivers/non-combat personnel back to your HQ; which of course also prevents the enemy from capturing them.

Most single-player missions include some strategic resource points (oil wells, banks) as well, to allow the player to get the resource model started before enemy contact, to provide strategically imporatnt geographical locations, and to make it easier to get into for players familiar with more traditional RTS gameplay mechanics.

In multiplayer games, eventhough there may seem to be plenty of strategic resources on the skirmish maps, the player who best manages to manage his "human resources" will win in the long run -- as POWs keep generating funds while in captivity.

Another nifty little feature is that you can interrogate POWs to reveal the location of enemy units, sort of like a radar.

[Cymru]

Originally posted by AgmLauncher
It wasnt too boring because the frailty of your economic units required that you played under the paradigm of supply protection. USA's ENTIRE existence in the early game was for no other purpose than to protect it's own economy from a stray gatt or quad. GLA and China learned to use buildings to box in their supplies which altered BOs and changed the game around. The threat of supply raping led to some interesting combinations of defense and offense. However directly fighting for resources would be a lot cooler than Gens/ZH's setup. The strategy would be much deeper that way I think. You would have to pick battles you knew you could come out of with a profit. If you lose more units than the man power you gained, you havent accomplished anything other than hurting your opponent.

rofl you know I know all about ZH supplys and that but it is just so similar to ever other RTS (omg wow you collect supplies and not wood/gold!!!!111!!11one). This is something compleatly different and sounds very interesting.


btw AGM did you ever get that mod map of Gens where there was no supplys and only 4/8 modified AD (so that it has a good mix of units) and you could only get money from a modified Cash bounty (so it gave you 100% or near enough of the value of the unit)

[Slacky]

Truly I think we will all have to wait for a game which has a perfect econemy system, but this game is one hell of an advancement for modern war games, games where you garther wood and gold and so forth are still the most realistic overall, but then again when EE got to the point when you were in the cyber ages it was a bit wierd to send guys off to gether still... wouldn't there be robots to do that... but oh well. This game still appears to have the best system to date for all other RTS games with base building.

[BOMBLORD]

I just hope that it will not be slow like in generals.considering the cost of every unit,and the reasurce gathering units are not FULLy defendble(not on all maps anyway)

[Col. Maxwell]

Ok, I was too lazy to read all the posts but in PC Gamer I'm pretty sure it was or maybe I read it on Gamespot they said that to get money you have to capture banks from where you will get a steady income... I don't know of anymore sources of resources but that's what i've read:)

[Ad-Aware]

Im reallly relally looking forward to how they implemtned the Caputring of enemy units sytem.
From wat i understand, Wounded enemy units, that arnt Evaced by medical teams by their own faction, can be captured by your forces, and thuse provided money.
Im eager to see how this works, likewise im eager to start flying in Medivac units, becasue my units not dying will actually matter in this game.