Thread 720273546

Regression.

>>720273546 (OP)
Future military with smart siege shells that have secondary thrusters for rapid trajectory changes

>>720273641
>realism argument to make your game shitty

>>720273546 (OP)
>what are homing missiles
just admit you have bad taste in games, makes you less like a faggot.

>>720273761
>realism argument to make your game shitty
>doesn't even understand the implications of homing missiles and their drawbacks

>>720273546 (OP)
Games that do pic?

>>720273546 (OP)
Due to air resistance, projectiles don't actually follow true parabolic arcs within an atmosphere. The latter trajectory is accurate.

>>720273931
>realism argument to make your game shitty
>doesn't even understand aerodynamics to think that is a valid trajectory
>doesn't understand that you want the projectile to be fast to actually do shit
>doesn't understand that they are giant cannons

fixed

>>720273546 (OP)
Starcraft has vision blockers to simulate the bottom situation though. And you can float buildings or use science vessels to spot over them which also allows siege tanks to shoot farther than they can see. It's kino

>>720274243
>adding snowflaked mechanics to make the game more complicated instead of just letting physics run to add depth
Starcraft lost.

>>720273546 (OP)
that radar should not detect anything to its left either to make it balance

>>720273546 (OP)
I don't think you can shoot through terrain like that in starcraft

>>720274107
That's how it works. The projectile has no forces acting on it besides gravity and air resistance. The air slows forward velocity, while gravity always works at the same rate. These forces combine to make projectiles start with a shallow arc that rapidly deepens until it hits the ground. Here's a graph to help you understand.

>>720273896
Fuck you now I have to go reinstall it.

>>720273896
Any "Scorched Earth" type game. Worms, Gunbound, etc.

>>720273546 (OP)
The only thing regressing here is the quality of threads on this board

>>720273546 (OP)
And then you actually install total a and remember how it was total ass

>>720274317
siege tanks are sci-fi artillery that can do high arcs like a mortar. deal with it.

>>720274126
A. Sate was my favorite

>>720274550
That is not a for scale depiction. They can have steep angles but they curve before that. Also the projectile would lose so much force by the time it hits its target. Anything that behaves remotely similar to that would lose so much potential range too. We're talking about heavy artillery here.

>>720273546 (OP)
nobody fucking cares its a game. if you want an autism sim then play a graviteam tactics game.

>>720275054
Notice how close the mortar has to be to hit that target. It's about the implications.

Gotta make it easier for the retards

>>720273546 (OP)
Whats the point of realistic representation, when units still shoot at landscape like retards?

>>720273761
The SC Siege Tank explicitly says it has canons, not missiles.

>>720275342
So that the game is more sophisticated than maximising the amount of circles that have an enemy in it while minimising the amount of enemy circles that have one of your units in it.

>>720273761
Well, they ARENT homing missiles so thats retarded

but even if they were, top is better, as it provides better gameplay, making you be spacially aware of the terrain and fight over advantageous land, as well as providing balance from turtles with cover you can use.
you, as a brainlet, wouldnt understand.

>>720275186
You sure are a massive retard, huh?

>>720273707
>making the game more shitty because of "realism"

>>720273546 (OP)
The only thing I’ve ever felt looking at this image is a sense that TAfags are really insecure

>>720274550
Thats not how projectiles move IRL, theres waaaaay too much drag factor in your graph. Most projectiles have a much shallower arc - especially things like bullets or missiles that are more aerodynamic and have less drag than a cannonball.
Pretty sure mythbusters even perfectly demonstrated this when they tested if a dropped bullet and a shot bullet hit the floor at the same time; They do.
So the arc would look about the same as OPs top picture for a good while. Itd only look like yours if it was a long-long-long-long range shot into a sudden massive headwind.

>>720274720
weird, just the other month I got the random memory of this game and went to go reinstall it (have the disc still, dont have a discdrive anymore though)
then I found its not only on steam but its a patched version that released like a year ago, from the devs

just strange such an old game came up so much recently kek

>>720274126
a nak would fuuuuck that shit up

There are already guided artillery shells in real life, retard-kun. Why would they not exist in a sci-fi RTS?

>>720275106
>Also the projectile would lose so much force by the time it hits its target.
It's explosive. The explosive doesn't care about its kinetic energy when the target is reached.

>Anything that behaves remotely similar to that would lose so much potential range too
Well that's just how artillery works. Use rocket artillery if you want a true parabolic arc.

>>720276065
We can argue about the drag factor of a graph I made in 1 minute, but bullets in milsim games actually do still follow that kind of deformed arch. You have to shoot them into the air to notice it, though.

>>720275929
> but even if they were, top is better, as it provides better gameplay, making you be spacially aware of the terrain and fight over advantageous land, as well as providing balance from turtles with cover you can use.
it sounds cool on paper
but on practice terrain will not work as it seems it should
or game thinking for one unit that there is no obstacle on the line of fire, and that an obstacle is there for another, resulting in no retaliation and forcing you to micromanage the game's miscalculation

>>720275025
stu pid

>>720274849
this unfortunately

>>720276678
Wrong. The explosion comes from hitting the ground hard, not that it's filled with explosives.

>>720276960
>but on practice terrain will not work as it seems it should
works just fine for Supcom and all the other TA inspired RTS

>>720275960
The mortar has to be closer to achieve a higher angle. The pic you are replying to literally shows why.

>>720277208
Riiiiight. Sure Anon.

>>720273546 (OP)
StarCraft is very heavily abstracted. It's just a representation of the battle at hand, not a direct depiction. For example, siege tanks are about the same size as science vessels in game, which is obviously ridiculous because the latter is a (mobile) space station. A handful of marines would also never be able to do much to a science vessel (or much of anything else), but game mechanics come first.

>>720276960
>>720277307
same, supcom, zeroK, TA, PA and BAR dont have this issue for me
"im bad at programming" seems like a weird reason to let the enemy do the bottom of OP

>>720273546 (OP)
>Total Annihilation
Literally who
>StarCraft
Enjoyed by billions

>>720277390
NTA, but he didnt argue that it had to be closer or not, he said >>720275186 is a retard for saying "look how close it has to be"

mortars can be far away, even if theyre closer than the others. he wasnt challenging that.

It's so stupid that it comes around to being cool.

>>720277571
The terrain forces the mortar to be closer, otherwise it would just hit the terrain instead. The pic straight up proved that.

>>720277570
Koreans aren't people.

>>720277746
you cant read.
>he didnt argue that it had to be closer or not, he said >>720275186 is a retard for saying "look how close it has to be"
>mortars can be far away, even if theyre closer than the others
just shoot them higher, nigger.

>>720277746
... anon, are you okay?
HE JUST covered that point.

also >>720275960
>not to scale, shaps of trajectories only comparable
counters the statement
>>720275186
>look how close it has to be

no one said "its not closer", you dumb idiot, just that its NOT TO SCALE and its NOT THAT CLOSE

>>720274720
I bought the first one on PC years ago, I still have the disc
didn't click for me, I'm a supcomfag, and I discovered Beyond All Reason and it's cool

>>720275054
this is not a dead space thread, nice try faggot

>>720277920
If you shoot them at a higher angle than needed for maximum distance, then the range is shorter. The mortar would have to be closer to achieve the angle and avoid the terrain. Look at >>720275186. It explains why. If you need more than that to understand then you should kill yourself.
>>720278032
The figure depicts the mortar has to be closer than its maximum theoretical range to actually hit the target. It has to be that close. See >>720275186.

>>720277475
Its this
Battle cruisers are the endgame late unit but should take up 2 screens for a single one.
Its ok tho its just small army mans fighting

>>720278107
kek

>>720273546 (OP)
Aren't howitzers meant to counter this exact scenario?

>>720273546 (OP)
that configuration of terrain doesn't exist in starcraft

>>720278974
I think that's more of a mortar range

>>720278974
see >>720275054
Ignore what the anon said though. He posted a pic that assisted my point.

>starcraft is...le bad game!
I want 2016 tourists to leave

>>720279073
I guess it really depends on the range, but I thought mortars were more for targeting infantry in reinforced positions like trenches since they're usually some type of HE ammo, not destroy fortifications. that's a nice pic tho

>>720273896
Well you can chip down on a mountain in BAR...

>>720279351
been here since '06, and I think its a shit boring rock paper scissors game themed with a ripoff setting executed by inexperienced devs

>>720280572
ah, so you're an original 4chan retard-contrarian

>>720279028
some maps have walls that everything can shoot through

>>720273546 (OP)
Both are dead oldslop that /v/troons pretend to play so what does it matter?

>>720274778
A modern Scorched Earth would be cool, but I guess even Worms isn't popular enough for it to really make a comeback

>>720274389
ANON you just got everyone looking at this thread from Texas arrested.

>>720275916
based, I actually had this when I was a kid. It was on an old ass computer

>>720278202
you are a retard and you cannot read
he isnt arguing that it doesnt have to be CLOSER THAN THE OTHER weapons, just that its not "that close"
you stupid illiterate nigger, how many times must this be said?
The post you keep linking is a retard who thinks you have to be close to hit based off an off-scale diagram, mortars have a high angle which forces them closer than a rocket or artillery, yes, nigger, thats not what he was arguing
you dumb, dumb faggot.

look at picrel and learn a lesson.

>>720273546 (OP)
siege tanks are basically mortars, that's the least offensive innacuracy to terrain as far as starcraft goes. plenty of other units that do the same but don't have the weapons to do so

>>720273546 (OP)
I agree, TA is a retarded game promoting regression

>>720273546 (OP)
>too retarded to know that siege tanks can aim high to drop down on you
Imagine not understanding basic artillery includes height adjustment.

REMINDER!

Planetary annihilation was a scam and one of the main devs went on an alt account on steam to flame and berate reviewers who left negative reviews.

People will not forget mikey you piece of shit fuck you and your shitty game

>t. the one reviewer who recommended getting supcom FA.

>>720282760
Still not as bad as Supcom 2

>>720273546 (OP)
>op has never played worms
>op has never played gorillas.bas
Aim the siege tank higher. It doesn't have to be closer. I mean shit at 89.99999999 degress it can probably drop artillery on itself. Modify the amount of fuel used to launch the mortar and the height/art and you can hit fucking anything.

>>720273546 (OP)
Why do video games have to be realistic or make sense in order to be enjoyable?

>>720283283
they don't but strategy games benefit from more depth such as trajectory arcs and terrain as it opens up more strategic options
The focus is shifted away from the atomic skills (stuff like APM) and more toward the tactical and strategic skills.

>>720276678
>what is perspective

>>720283462
If that was actually in the game it would just mean more APM required to accomplish the things that can be done right now lol.

>>720283283
Realism is the skeleton that all the fantasy meat is attached to in a game. It's what grounds it, giving it a foundation to branch out into amazing things.
It's a balance to strike though, too grounded = no fun, no grounding = no fun.
Usually you just need a little realism and sensibility to launch into creativity though.

>>720273546 (OP)
I mean that's the point of siege mode for these tanks ain't it?
You shoot in the air and they fall back down and hit whatever was there.

>>720283462
Having trajectory arcs, terrain and so on can be fun, but at that point you're creating a milsim, not a fast pace rts, and both TA and SC are the latter.

>>720284112
No it wouldn't, it would require you to plan ahead
Play an actual TA-like

>>720284250
>Having trajectory arcs, terrain and so on can be fun, but at that point you're creating a milsim
>but TA, with those things, isn't a milsim

>>720282431
It's not for scale but it is approximate and relative to the others for that situation. The mortar has to be that close to hit the target and not the terrain. We don't care about the exact measurements and absolutely no one claimed it was for scale. In your picrel, the slower mortars are weaker. You are arguing with a strawman, which makes you incredibly retarded since you can't have a substantial conversation.

>>720273896
Company of Heroes 1 you can blow through houses and other shit on the map.
2 and 3 as well but they're new, woke pay2win bullshit.

>>720283167
Okay so why doesn't the siege tank have infinite range and shoot from off the battlefield?

>>720284368
TA is an arcade rts, yes. Slapping on one milsim feature doesn't suddenly change that.

>>720283462
>more depth such as trajectory arcs and terrain
You have first-person shooters for that. Accounting for physics is not the job for the flying general high in the sky giving out the orders. That's the troopers' job, and in RTS we can already assume they carried out their duty to task. We as generals can't do the handholding for them, otherwise what's next? Do we also have to put on their boots for them and change their diapers?

>>720284112
APM can not fix the requirement that artillery would need to move to limited locations, usually closer to the enemy, in order to hit a target. Simulated projectiles also make army formations and positioning much more important so that they can reliably shoot at the enemy, which also makes some units scale better than others based on their possible trajectories. It changes how the game is played and moves it away from death balls.

>>720284637
>Accounting for physics is not the job for the flying general high in the sky giving out the orders
Yes it is dipshit, its your job to position them in a place where they can do their job or accept that they can't do it.
>>720284576
Then what was the point of your comment? We're explicitly talking about TA

>>720284932
The original question was about realism in general and had nothing to do with TA

>>720275025
kek

>>720273546 (OP)
>total annhilation devs don’t know about defilade fire
Retards

>>720284985
>The original question was about realism
While quoting the OP which is about TA vs SC. To which i responded that the "realistic" mechanics of TA aren't there for muh realism they exist for additional strategic and tactical depth.

>>720284446
Picrel has a maximum range of 9 to 13 KILOMETERS you utter ESL retard. How 'that close' do you fucking need?

starcraft was never meant to be realistic

>>720284332
Ah yes the common misconception that fast players are just stupid and if only a game had more tactical options then you the 10 apm retard could easily surprass them with your vast intelligence.

>>720285516
>a whole bunch of bullshit that has nothing to do with my post
Play TA or Supcom nigger, additional APM has diminishing returns at the strategic scale where trajectories enter play

>>720285516
>strawman

>>720284446
>muh strawman
you dont know what a strawman is you fucking retard
YOU said it had to be "that close"

no, no it doesnt, and that picrel PROVES that. 3 mortars, same arc, 3 different distances.
stupid mouthbreathing niggerfaggot retard. stop doubling down and fold already. You are wrong, and a nigger.

TA should honestly be considered amazing for the metal shells it leaves on the battlefield when units are destroyed which act as barriers to incoming fire
In just about every other RTS, units just magically vanish once killed

>>720285595
Yes the original comment is a strawman. The truth is that people who play rts competitively are still able to understand "deep" mechanics just fine.

>>720285393
>>720285602
You might not have enough IQ to understand the concept of discussing not for scale things and relating them to an approximate world. There were multiple interpretations of >>720275186, and you took the most retarded one possible. If you still can't see what I was saying, you might have hit an IQ barrier that you will never be able to overcome. You do not have the genetics or intelligence to understand that concept. The only logical conclusion would be for you to kill yourself. Do you really think an anon would come here and think a mortar can only shoot from a few meters away? Consider your comprehension before engaging in such a retarded argument.

>>720284551
Because it's a game. Even IRL artillery doesn't have infinite rage.

>>720285975
>he is still going despite being proven to be retarded
>he instantly starts projecting that onto everyone else
it'd be a shame if people could read the thread and see how dumb you were being.

>>720276975
>stu pid
oy, nutter

>>720285218
Except they aren't realistic. The radar is behind a hill, so it wouldn't detect shit, and the hill is 4 times higher than the radar, so it's either a fuckhuge building (rts radars equivalents irl aren't buildings to begin with) or it's a fucking 10m mound you coulnd't hide anything behind. Not to mention that for longer ranges you need steeper shooting angles, therefore it's even less of a factor.

>>720286167
anyone play worms forts under seige?
quirky worms game, I liked it honestly.
except the AI literally cheats with god aim even in the first world. Full 3D worms game yet theyre coasting pin point shots from across the map through obstacles.

I beat it as a kid, mustve been like, 9 or 10ish.
I tried replaying it a few years back in my 30s and I just couldnt do it kek I dont know how I did it back then but fuck me that game is broken.

>>720273546 (OP)
HURRR

>>720286269
Yeah but I didn't really like the building system. It just felt like you rush building X for most power and don't really rely on worms movement placement like in the older worms 3d.

>>720273546 (OP)
Depending on the ranges you're working with, descent can also be flatter.

>>720286454
Like

>>720286174
>The radar is behind a hill, so it wouldn't detect shit
Correct and more recent games like BAR have this. It was probably seen by a spy plane and is just auto targeted. The building is fairly large the hill is larger but there's no human scaled thing to be a point of comparison so you can't really tell.
I honest to god cannot understand what you are trying to argue with me about. Its not about realism and has never been about realism its about strategic depth which TA-likes introduce using those kinds of mechanics that reward a better tactical understanding and is the primary focus of micro after the early game since it has a greater watershed on the macrogame

>>720286174
>The radar is behind a hill, so it wouldn't detect shit

It doesn't have to be a radar, it could just be a dish connecting to a satellite, or some strictly one directional radio or whatever. No reason to worry about being behind a hill when all you have to listen to is in another direction.

>>720273896
Worms

>>720286373
Tard.

>>720286038
>look reddit I defeated a retarded strawman I made up
90 IQ behaviour. Rope.

>>720286497
>high angle trajectory in the first place
>90% of the velocity is lost by the time it reaches impact
It's artillery, not a supersonic feather.

>>720273546 (OP)
It's Sci Fi. It wouldn't be unreasonable to assume they had curving ammunition.

>>720289674
>realism argument to make your game shitty

>>720289523
define strawman, because you dont know what one is.

>>720284521
>coh2 new
coh2 is already old enough to be legal.

>>720289809
>see post about the positioning of the mortar in a not to scale diagram
>warps it into an argument about mortars only being able to shoot a few meters away even though absolutely no one claimed it was for scale
Underaged faggot. You need to go back now.

>>720289615
That's how artillery works.

>>720290248
No it isn't. Artillery does not receive enough drag to cause that trajectory.

>>720290360
It does.

>>720290493
They wouldn't design artillery like that. It would be too slow to deal any real damage.

>>720289615
You do know what a fucking contact fuze is right?

>>720290238
>warps it into an argument about mortars only being able to shoot a few meters away even though absolutely no one claimed it was for scale
YOU did, anon
see the chain;
>720275186
>Notice how close the mortar has to be to hit that target
>720275960
>points out its not to scale, its not really 'that close'
>720277390
>"The mortar has to be closer to achieve a higher angle"
replied to with
>720277571
>NTA, but he didnt argue that it had to be closer or not, he said he is a retard for saying "look how close it has to be"

you were the one who said it needs to be close, then changed to "u-uh no I meant closer than the others!" when called out over it.
mortars dont have to be close, they just need a high firing angle, as >>720282431 pointed out

you stupid fucking goalpost shifting nigger.

>>720289428
Yes, that's what OP is.

>>720290752
Those won't work well. We want armour penetrating stuff.

>>720290631
You realize artillery isn't cast iron cannonballs anymore right?
The shells explode on impact. That's why rockets and grenade launchers are subsonic but still kill you dead.

>>720290961
Kinetic penetration? On artillery?
Do you not know what a HEAT round is? Nigger we use shaped charges for that now.

>>720290961
>Those won't work well. We want armour penetrating stuff.
What the fuck are you talking about. I was responding to OP about how seige tanks in starcraft can still hit targets, not whether or not contact fuzes are viable or not. They are viable, but that is not the fucking point I'm making twat!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artillery_fuze

>>720273546 (OP)
>anon learns about artillery

>>720290868
>needs to be close
This does not imply that the pic was for scale. Again, if you think a post is truly retarded, consider your comprehension, though at this point it would be better if you killed yourself. Everything you built upon that assumption is a strawman.

>>720291141
Explosions diffuse. We want all that energy forwards. Shaping can only do so much. We are talking about absolutely giant artillery cannons here.

>>720291424
Reentry velocity is going to be a minimal factor on your penetration. Are you trying to bust a bunker? Why are you not using a plane? Artillery is for clearing the surface and forcing them into the bunkers. Combine your arms.

>>720291424
Nigger what the fuck are you talking about?
Shaping does the lot. Energy isn't leaking out sideways because it's hyperfocused into a jet. Look up the Munroe effect you illiterate little tardgobloin.

>>720291545
Because everything is a bunker that needs to be busted. It's the future.

>>720291575
The munroe effect doesn't work well for plasma.

>>720291613
As if. The canon in StarCraft is that the arms race has been an absolutely decisive victory for offense. The dudes stomping around in 18 inches of power armor die as fast as if they were naked when faced with the hypersonic acid bones shot by their enemies. The arclite shock cannon of a siege tank regards the neosteel that selfsame tank is made of like aluminum.

>>720291815
It only works because it hits the target.

>>720291905
The shells explode with such ridiculous force they only have to get pretty close to liquefy people. Consider that the explosions are ALSO of the future.

>>720292210
Explosions of the future are a waste for the same reason 100 megaton nukes are a waste. Direct impact is the way. Remember that they have armour of the future.

>>720292423
Now you're writing fanfiction. As stated, StarCraft goes with the canon that defense has lost the relevance. The only things that can survive sustained assaults are colossal, walking fortresses with literal meters of armor. And even those can't last long, just longer. Nothing can survive for long, every battlefield is a meat grinder of scrap metal and vaporized flesh.

>>720291203
It would actually need to be able to damage the target, so it is relavant. That trajectory is not valid since it would lose the force.

>>720292768
Scrap metal and flesh of the future. Starcraft's offensive weapons being direct impact is what made defense irrelevant in the first place.

>>720292784
Yes, they damage shit because the fucking shells explode on contact, or with a timer, or in the air to drop penetrative munitions if the explosion is not what you're after. Are you just fucking retarded? We're talking about a fictional siege/artillery unit and you're arguing using reality, while being fucking wrong about reality.

>>720293060
The explosions won't be enough. We want direct impact.

>>720293126
>The explosions won't be enough
You're retarded. Got it.

In my opinion Desets of Khatak has one of the best, if not the best physics engine of all RTS on the market.

>>720293126
I direct impact your mother

>>720293126
>explosion larger and more intense than what was used to launch the shell
>for some reason this is not enough

>>720293060
>because the fucking shells explode on contact
>We want direct impact.
I wonder what contact means.

>>720293334
The explosion to launch the shell is bigger than what you can possibly fit in the shell.

>>720293126
meant for >>720293126
>>720293432
Propellant/ launch explosives are fucking less than high explosives contained in the shell.

>>720293412
Touch.

>>720293574
No they're not.

>>720293586
You reckon all contact has varying levels of impact?

>>720293649
But what we want is strong impact

>>720293636
Artillery isn't launched with HE you fucking mongoloid.
>>720293714
The impact is strong enough to cause the fuze to detonate. Creating and explosion which incudes other shit if you want. Shit that WILL cause impact damage.

>>720293636
>No they're not.
Anon.
If the charge to launch the shell was stronger than the shell..
The tank would fucking explode.

>>720293874
It's launched with fusion. The fuze explosion wouldn't be enough.
>>720293945
It actually doesn't, which is why we want it to be direct impact in the first place.

>>720294156
I'm absolutely amazed at how fucking retarded people like you can be, despite the fact that the internet exists and you can actually look shit up before saying stupid shit.

>>720273641
>Future military with smart siege shells and secondary thrusters for rapid trajectory changes
Or hear me out. Just use a mortar. You'd spend millions per space age shell when basic math and a mortar could just get you to arc over anything in the way

>>720294289
It's starcraft.

>>720273546 (OP)
What is this pic is supposed to prove? That SIEGE fucking TANK that shoots literal arced projectiles at an angle shouldn't bypass terrain?

>>720294387
Anon you're not wrong, but they already exist
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M982_Excalibur

>>720294156
It's launched with magnets, actually. Gauss technology is the standard for terran projectiles.

>>720273546 (OP)
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SMArt_155
Yes and?

>>720294601
The magnets are powered by fusion.

If one dragoon is standing at the bottom of the cliff and the other is shooting from the top of the cliff at max range, is he shooting through a cliff or not?

>>720294691
>a trillion parts for a bomb
We must return to ball of rock.

>>720294496
No, don't you see? RTS isn't about strategy, it's about accurate ballistics simulation.

>>720294691
>realism argument to make your game shitty

>>720294496
See >>720275186 and >>720275054's picrels.

>>720294719
WTF is a dragoon? I only know of the Wolf's Dragoon's and they're a merc company.

>>720294905
>We must be better projectiles, boy

>>720294958
What's the deal with that argument? Why do you think something being realistic inherently always makes a game shitty? Do you hate games with gravity as well?

>>720295110
We must be bomber men

>>720295267
Because we won't want to play games where you have to piss and shit. Physics are a good way to add depth to a game, and trying to invalidate it for realism is just unbelievably retarded.

>>720274126
>>720274616
>>720293496
I haven't thought about this game in 20 years. What a blast from the past
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8G8-2Vk8-z8

>>720273896
Pocket Tanks

>>720295597
>realism argument to make your game shitty

>>720273546 (OP)
Starcraft is more realistic because we have smart artillery munition nowadays to correct trajectory

>>720295397
>Physics are a good way to add depth to a game
>invalidate it for realism
>Invalidate physics
>for realism
Physics is realism.

>>720295734
>realism argument to make your game shitty

>>720295759
That doesn't contradict it being invalidated for realism. Now where is your pissing and shitting mechanic?

>>720295761
Sorry but that's how warfare is these days. your game needs to update on the new meta

>>720294524
>Max range up to 70km
I think the problem is that most RTS games have a scale that doesn't really work with realistic on-map indirect fire aside from mortars. Even an excalibur round has a minimum range (about 2.6km for an M777) just because of gun elevation limitations. It's a different use case to a mortar almost entirely

>>720296057
Warfare involves pissing and shitting. Where sre the pissing and shitting mechanics?

>>720274389
>yapping
Garbage aisloppa

>>720295827
Games have in fact implemented pissing and shitting mechanics and they have been fun. Postal 2 lets you piss on people until they vomit. My Summer Car lets you piss into your mouth to hydrate yourself. Death Stranding lets you piss on ghosts to scare them away and also throw poo grenades at them. Here's a video of Snoop Dog rage quitting ARC because he shat too much.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0m8tHPg32Kw

>>720296391
So where is Starcraft's pissing snd shitting mechanics?

>>720296102
well in starcraft the marines just go in their armor, the zergs have 100% digestive efficiency, and the protoss subsist on water alone so they get by with showers

>>720296481
But where does the shit go? What about entropy?

>>720296456
Have you seen the z*rg?

>>720296456
You've just conceded that realism is fun and professed to wanting a realistic mechanic in Starcraft. The argument of the thread is now officially debunked. I think my work here is done. Thank you for engaging with me!

>>720273896
RiP cortex command.

>>720296713
Terrans: into the waste tanks to be recycled later. Powered by fusion.
Zerg: no waste product, waste is inefficient. They run on space magic (Essence)
Protoss: no intake means no waste, they run on space magic (Psionics)

>>720296770
But Starcraft is neither realistic or have depth. It doesn't have pissing snd shitting mechanics. No entropy.
>>720296828
Terrans: Entropy problem.
Zerg: Entropy problem.
Protoss: Entropy problem.

>>720294958
>your game is shitty because it doesn't do this realistic thing
>actually realism does this, so the game is right
>you're making game shitty by being realistic
You're all fucking retarded.
>>720294905
But anon, the shrapnel does more damage
>>720296075
>I think the problem is that most RTS games have a scale that doesn't really work with realistic on-map
Of course it's not realistic. A battlecruiser is a capital ship and is like 2x the size of a siege tank on the map.

>>720297497
>game is shitty because it has no depth to it
>actually realism does this, so the game is fine having absolutely no depth to it
>you're making game shitty by being realistic

>>720283283
Sometimes it's fun pointing things out anon.

>>720273896
https://youtu.be/k8Asfw32wxw

>>720273896
Awesome pic, anon, you can tell that you had fun drawing it.

>>720274389
That's exactly how Total Annihilation works.
A radar on the left also wouldn't find the target on the right

>>720298859
So tell me what StarCraft is a shitty game because it has siege units that can shoot over hills and down cliffs like artillery can in real life.

>>720301515
>realism argument to justify making the game shitty with no depth

>>720301658
See >>720275186
If you actually played the game, you'll notice your artillery won't be able to hit specific targets that are in range regardless of trajectory setting, unless you move your artillery piece to a different location.

>>720301932
So you're saying StarCraft is a shitty game because it has artillery. Got it.

>>720302390
see >>720275186

>>720302803
I don't care anymore. Fictional siege units behaves like a siege unit in a fun game. OP has been BTFO'd and you're a gifatard.

>>720303165
Wrong. It just boils down to putting things inside circles while staying out of their circles.

>>720273546 (OP)
>brand new games in 2025 with tab target combat
>new fps games with static viewmodels that don't simulate any sway or actor movement
>new rpgs with attack 1 turn heal 1 turn combat
>new games that are the n'th copycat of some formerly popular thing but with less features less mechanics and less content
this is like watching somebody choose to drink dirty parasite water because they've only drank dirty parasite water most of their life and when you point out that what they're doing is outdated token doormat fanboys insult you