Battlezone Remake? Calling all BZ Fans

[Avatar]

Not all popular games these days are simple fps games that cater to twitch gamers.  There are plenty of other popular genres and they all contain games that have reached high levels of success.  An infantry based fps/rts could still easily enjoy moderate success as long as they put careful thought into core aspects of gameplay. 

For instance, if it is more infantry focused, large bases would probably be a bad idea as they could prove trouble some moving between buildings.  To compensate for the slower pace of soldiers (and the inability to quickly move around the map), you might want to add an easily accessible, use-anywhere satellite view for base building. 

Seems like every game falls a tiny bit short of pulling it all together.  They all push the balance too far one way or the other, or leave out the aspects I find compelling (base building, mostly, but some of the control methods like the reticule also).  Very frustrating...

Loved HALO, loved HL and HL2, even loved Doom3, loved Homeworld/HW2, Tribes/T2, Planetside, etc.. but while they excelled at what they did they didn't match poor, simple little BZ for holding my attention. 

-Av-

[Zero Angel]

This is highly interesting. These assets are definitely a start, you might want to make some alternate races as well, but these can be used to work out the gameplay mechanics i'm sure.

I would suggest that you get a solid RTS engine going, then develop first person aspects on to it. One of the reasons that the hardcore players still play BZ2 is because its a highly tactical game, an endless seige and fight where every human player matters -- each player controls the outcome somehow, and the freedom to determine which way you control the outcome is also great.  Do you command, and if you command what strategies would you use, fast tech? field emplacement? Do you as a wing hit the enemy's resources and deny him? Do you as a wing seek out other human players and cripple their effectiveness that way? Do you raid their base to distract them? Each choice you make is weighed against the enemy's choice, and the outcome matters.

The tactics of conquering areas of the field, using feints and probes, and the fluidity of the action are all very important. But they would not work without a solid RTS engine to back it up.

On the other hand, one of the failings of BZ2 is its heavy reliance on individual teammates, as its very easy to stack a team if only one player of the other team is deficient. Newbies are often not given the chance to be useful because they are dropped into a battle of soldiers with only a stick (metaphorically speaking), and the commander must pay to  re-equip them every time they die. It is not uncommon for a commander with a poorly faring team to spend the entire game rebuilding ships, unable to advance because his wingmen die too quickly.

The other failing is the strong interplay between a commander's progress and a team's progress. If a commander does poorly, then the team cannot advance, if the team does poorly than the commander cannot advance. This heavy reliance creates tension, and many are reluctant to command because of the pressure.

I suggest that you retain the hover ship aspects of it. Hover physics are very important to developing a BZ style gameplay, and without appropriate hover physics, I guarantee you that half of the BZ2 players who are currently playing would not be playing at all.

Just a few things to watch for is all. 

[bigbadbogie]

Just make it a BZ style game with new and original gameplay features, an extremely compelling storyline with room for addition (like bz has) , fully functional RTS with high level FPS elements, and of course, easy modability and modding support (for me and my gazillion fellow modders)

even if it didnt succeed commercially (very unlikely that it wouldnt), but if it is up to par with the BZ series then, well, just look around here... these games are around 10 years old and still has a fanatical group of followers

[Angstromicus]

That reminds me...

Please do include complete modding support with the game's release. Too many games are released that "post pone" full modding support. They may ship with a map editor but lack tools for modding anything else. I'm seeing more games lately that ship with incomplete modding tools but end up getting expansion packs. I believe the greater part of the the reason for not including full modding control is because developers make more profit by releasing mods of their own in the form of "expansion packs". Really, IMO, development costs are getting higher so they release an incomplete version of the game and add to it. It's a disguise for increased video game prices.

It could be a better idea to have the full range of modding tools available to the public, but allow staff members participate in major modding projects with the community modders and commercialize on such projects.

[mrtwosheds]

All that stuff costs money to make, I suspect that you will find that modding "support" follows the success of the game for good reason.
How the game is put together is more important, many games do not get modded simply because their content is protected from it by design.

[bigbadbogie]

you honestly think that bz2 would have survived this long if it wasnt possible to mod it?? it would have lasted a few months tops!!

[Zero Angel]

That statement is true. 

[frozenfire]

A while ago i just typed a 4 - 5 page of reply while the i accidentally hit BACK on  my keyboard and everything went blank. Lemme try to retype it.

I'll try to reply everything here. Anyway I'm not sure If I'm being misunderstood, but basically, I'm not looking for people to develop the game to end. My company will take care of those, I repeat, I'm just looking for some community hobbyist with some real programming experience to contribute to a prototype ( which we will NOT use in the actual game other than using it for reference ) that will a lot of similarity with BZ.

About the logical design, don't worry, professional work has been done on it. We have defined different workable layers and core layers that will ensure the game will meet both the deadline and core idea ( which is one of the biggest challenge of games development company ) .

Here are some reply ( although some of the reply will not be relevant to prototype, I"ll still talk about it)

Things to try to get into your game:
1)Improved Tap System
2)More than one person in a vehicle
3)Co-Op play
4)And, more than one turret on one craft.
5)That's it, a few small BZ2 things and a few small improvements. All are really very common in games now though, so I guess I'm not that original.

1) What do you mean by TAP? if you mean TAG, it is highly probable that will not allow units to be tagged as we don't expect much chase to be done in this game. We don't have a lot of hovering units. As infantry is a large part of it, stealth should be an important aspect.
2) This is defined in the final removable layers. Which means, technically this feature CAN be dropped if we're far behind deliverables. However, because it's on the final layer, everybody would work hard to accomplish it until we're at least a few months behind deliverable.
3) Definite yes, it's on the CORE LAYER. The layer that the game will not be released unless it's there.
4) same as number 2.
5) don't know how to answer that

What is your planned storyline? Or maybe just an outline?
This can help in suggestions since a storyline has major effects on ship design and use.

Super short summary. PM me if you REALLY want to know the longer version ( the gyst only ) .

Race 1: Humans ( one of the 3 surviving nation )
Race 2: Mutants ( Survivors of a biological warfare )
Race 3: Another faction of Humans ( a group of elite nation that was sent to space as a whole nation to experiment human life factor in space, separated with race 1 due to conflict )

NPC Race : Aliens

Not all popular games these days are simple fps games that cater to twitch gamers.  There are plenty of other popular genres and they all contain games that have reached high levels of success.  An infantry based fps/rts could still easily enjoy moderate success as long as they put careful thought into core aspects of gameplay. 

Couldn't agree more. That is why we need the prototype. Never test a core idea after game is launched. Even beta is too late. Prototype is perfect

For instance, if it is more infantry focused, large bases would probably be a bad idea as they could prove trouble some moving between buildings.  To compensate for the slower pace of soldiers (and the inability to quickly move around the map), you might want to add an easily accessible, use-anywhere satellite view for base building. 

Bases will be medium size. Think DAWN OF WAR.  Another main diff with BZ. Everybody can view sattellite anywhere. Non-commander can only commands unit assigned to them ( like BZ2). There will be FOG OF WAR.

I would suggest that you get a solid RTS engine going, then develop first person asp

That reminds me...

Please do include complete modding support with the game's release. Too many games are released that "post pone" full modding support. They may ship with a map editor but lack tools for modding anything else. I'm seeing more games lately that ship with incomplete modding tools but end up getting expansion packs. I believe the greater part of the the reason for not including full modding control is because developers make more profit by releasing mods of their own in the form of "expansion packs". Really, IMO, development costs are getting higher so they release an incomplete version of the game and add to it. It's a disguise for increased video game prices.

It could be a better idea to have the full range of modding tools available to the public, but allow staff members participate in major modding projects with the community modders and commercialize on such projects.

ects on to it. One of the reasons that the hardcore players still play BZ2 is because its a highly tactical game, an endless siege and fight where every human player matters -- each player controls the outcome somehow, and the freedom to determine which way you control the outcome is also great.  Do you command, and if you command what strategies would you use, fast tech? field emplacement? Do you as a wing hit the enemy's resources and deny him? Do you as a wing seek out other human players and cripple their effectiveness that way? Do you raid their base to distract them? Each choice you make is weighed against the enemy's choice, and the outcome matters.
The tactics of conquering areas of the field, using feints and probes, and the fluidity of the action are all very important. But they would not work without a solid RTS engine to back it up.

Actually we're doing the opposite. We're getting a solid FPS ( the one with better outdoor culling ) and develop a tactical side of it. It's easier to make an RTS out of an FPS engine. Reason being, RTS engine are a lot focused on micromanaging, and getting units to THIS EXACT SPOT, which this game will not be focus on. I believe that is not what BZ exactly focuses on. We will highly likely not to have such things as FORCE move. Maybe FORCE attack or even FORCE RUN might exist. But basically u can't get a unit to suicide like a typical RTS such as WARCRAFT . e.g " Oh mr grunt, i need you to walk THROUGH that tower and head straight to the peons".  I'll drop another hint here. Morale will be implemented on all infantry units, so you don't rush THROUGH towers. Units that got hit too terribly or loses too  much morale will not respond to any command, you'll just lose control of them until they recover their Morale. Reason being, we are trying to keep things simple between Tactical AI and Survival Instinct, in plain English, we want a unit to survive himself instead of YOU teaching him how to. You tell him where to attack not how to live. It doesn't make sense that soldiers will keep running when their getting shot at. I'm not a logic freak, but I think it's no fun to see a dying AI unit running out of range will you're chasing him on foot ain't it coz enemy commander selected him and force him back to base.  Ooww he escaped. To be fair Vehicles will not have morale. Still it will be a bad idea to run through towers.

On the other hand, one of the failings of BZ2 is its heavy reliance on individual teammates, as its very easy to stack a team if only one player of the other team is deficient. Newbies are often not given the chance to be useful because they are dropped into a battle of soldiers with only a stick (metaphorically speaking), and the commander must pay to  re-equip them every time they die. It is not uncommon for a commander with a poorly faring team to spend the entire game rebuilding ships, unable to advance because his wingmen die too quickly.

The other failing is the strong interplay between a commander's progress and a team's progress. If a commander does poorly, then the team cannot advance, if the team does poorly than the commander cannot advance. This heavy reliance creates tension, and many are reluctant to command because of the pressure.

Ahh here is the GREAT see-saw where cracks my brain for the last 6 months brainstorming with my team. Question is commander-reliance or soldier-reliance. For our project,it will be Commander-reliance. BUT WHY? I can't exactly tell you why without adding another 2000 words talking about "minion-killing" theory and theory of "how newbies quit". But i'll tell you what we do implement to counter problems faced by BZ2.

Firstly, although it's commander based, we'll be countering newbie-commander problem by allowing Good SOldiers to turtle UP beginning. If commander is poor, soldiers are good. they can go into defensive ( either by stepping INTO turrets or backing up turrets)  and turn their base into fortresses. This only apply if the good soldiers stay in the base. That's point 1

Point 2 is, infantry will be much much more relatively cheap comparing to BZ and will be acting as meatshield in the beginning most of the time. Why? I'll tell you a secret. Newbies and pros have one similarity, they enjoy killing things, in fact ANYTHING would do. So how is this relevant? I'll tell you how. In case you see a team with LOUSY commander but good soldiers, 'punchbag' army offers a buffer time for both commander and player to think of a strat to counter the enemy. I can't tell you this is why MODS for warcraft III such as DOTA gets very good reception and a good fanbase. Basically, a good game need to give some buffer for good player vs bad player. They must not lose too fast.

Point 3, Good players can use a proper weapon to destroy ANY given army, if commander just averagely support them with enough meat-shield. * Special note: Acquiring good weapons do not depend on Commander. However, good utilization of weapons can only buy you time in hoping that your commander do something.

So assuming-
Team 1:
Good commander, 3 lousy soldiers

Team 2:
Lousy commander, 3 average soldiers.

Who will win? I'll tell you how, in the beginning , team 1 will rush. Team2's economy will suffer. The soldiers go on defense. When team 1's army strike. team 2 pick off team 1's hero (player ) . Hero die. They keep pushing their army and will somehow strike a balance warfare. THEN team 1's soldiers must learn and team2's commander must learn. It will then be Team1's TECHed up units VS Team2's Good utilization of their soldier's weapon. That will give the newbie commander and soldiers time to learn. If one of the team still don't learn then i suppose they deserve to lose.

I suggest that you retain the hover ship aspects of it. Hover physics are very important to developing a BZ style gameplay, and without appropriate hover physics, I guarantee you that half of the BZ2 players who are currently playing would not be playing at all.

Just a few things to watch for is all. 

We can't exactly say we'll put hover units or not. Most likely 1 or 2. But for sure it's not a core aspect. And I do not believe HOVERing is a core aspect why BZ2 players are still playing. I believe it's simply the combination of FPS with RTS with customizable weapons. Well before i get flamed for "Oh you don't understand BZ player", i urge ladies and gentlemen here study a bit about reception of FPS/RTS games. I can guarantee you , you will find tonnes of prove FPS/RTS games always gets extraordinary good reception. But why isn't major game developer's start putting these games on the conveyor belts, I believe it's game developer's blind spot. For a start, first.. checkout Savage's reception. Savage I , Savage II . Then goto www.moddb.com find out about their popular mods such as IronGrip ( FPS/RTS) and other more of those.

All that stuff costs money to make, I suspect that you will find that modding "support" follows the success of the game for good reason.
How the game is put together is more important, many games do not get modded simply because their content is protected from it by design.

Also quoted by Total Oblivion Omnis
....Really, IMO, development costs are getting higher so they release an incomplete version of the game and add to it. It's a disguise for increased video game prices.

Yes you are right in saying it cost money to make. Actually money is not the main thing, it is time. Developers HARDLY have time to test out the games most of the time, therefore, they'll have LESSER time to test out tools. Releasing buggy tools will infuriate modding communities.

Also another sad fact is this, listen carefully... word - by - word. The cost of creating a powerful mod support tool does NOT justify the little gains it had. I'lll put it this way, creating GOOD modding tools is a GIFT from the developer to the community, it's NEVER a business strategy. There is one exception however. One big exception that i'm seeing a good trend in. You guys as a modding community MUST Understand this fact.

MOdding tools will ONLY benefit developers if they're planning to sell their engine licenses. Modders will create ENGINE DEMOS for developers for FREE ( and they called it MOD ) . This demos can be used by them ANTIME to show to potential engine buyers. Take a close look at the trend, crytek have a strong mod support ( they're working very hard to keep up to their promises of releasing sandbox patches). They sell engines. UNreal Engine has good modding tools, they sell engines. Half life 2 has good modding tools, they sell engine.

The single biggest factor in deciding MOST Game's profitability's today is if it has any MMO aspect in it. or at least online play.

you honestly think that bz2 would have survived this long if it wasnt possible to mod it?? it would have lasted a few months tops!!

A very big note to BigBadBogie, developers of BZ2 do not profit much from the 10 years of modding. How many ppl do you know of that buys the game JUST to play the mods within this almost 10 years time frame. It just make the people happier, so if a company produces modding tool, be thankful, be very very thankful of them.





Anyway, this post is getting too long, I didn't expect it to be. Anyhow, still, I'm waiting for any volunteers to step up on this little prototyping we're doing. Thanks.

[VSMIT]

About the logical design, don't worry, professional work has been done on it. We have defined different workable layers and core layers that will ensure the game will meet both the deadline and core idea ( which is one of the biggest challenge of games development company ) .

Very cool.  Hope this actually works out, since you seem to be the one company that would be willing to actually do this (I don't count Nathan and Ken here because they are doing it in their spare time).

1) What do you mean by TAP? if you mean TAG, it is highly probable that will not allow units to be tagged as we don't expect much chase to be done in this game. We don't have a lot of hovering units. As infantry is a large part of it, stealth should be an important aspect.

Small misunderstanding.  A TAP is an additional building attached to a building.  If you've played BZ2, all of the Scion buildings, with the exception of the Matriarch, have taps.  The powerlungs that are attached to all of the buildings are "tapped" onto the building, and appear as soon as the parent building is created.  Any building can have a tap, but at the moment, taps will not work on units.  You could technically even tap a building onto a building, as Avatar has done with his Ancient Hadean race.

Couldn't agree more. That is why we need the prototype. Never test a core idea after game is launched. Even beta is too late. Prototype is perfect

That is very true.  If you're still having problems with the core, the game probably won't be popular, especially if you have to patch it every week or so to fix stuff.

Bases will be medium size. Think DAWN OF WAR.  Another main diff with BZ. Everybody can view sattellite anywhere. Non-commander can only commands unit assigned to them ( like BZ2). There will be FOG OF WAR.

I don't quite understand here.  By FOW, do you mean on the minimap/radar only, or on the satellite, or when actually looking through the windshield/visor of your tank/helmet?

Morale will be implemented on all infantry units, so you don't rush THROUGH towers. Units that got hit too terribly or loses too  much morale will not respond to any command, you'll just lose control of them until they recover their Morale. Reason being, we are trying to keep things simple between Tactical AI and Survival Instinct, in plain English, we want a unit to survive himself instead of YOU teaching him how to. You tell him where to attack not how to live. It doesn't make sense that soldiers will keep running when their getting shot at. I'm not a logic freak, but I think it's no fun to see a dying AI unit running out of range will you're chasing him on foot ain't it coz enemy commander selected him and force him back to base.  Ooww he escaped. To be fair Vehicles will not have morale. Still it will be a bad idea to run through towers.

A smarter AI may be just what this kind of game needs.  Sounds extremely interesting.  But why wouldn't vehicles have morale?  Unless they're autonomous, they would still have pilots, and those pilots would probably be scared hootless if you told them to go up against an army, all by themselves.

We can't exactly say we'll put hover units or not. Most likely 1 or 2. But for sure it's not a core aspect. And I do not believe HOVERing is a core aspect why BZ2 players are still playing. I believe it's simply the combination of FPS with RTS with customizable weapons. Well before i get flamed for "Oh you don't understand BZ player", i urge ladies and gentlemen here study a bit about reception of FPS/RTS games. I can guarantee you , you will find tonnes of prove FPS/RTS games always gets extraordinary good reception. But why isn't major game developer's start putting these games on the conveyor belts, I believe it's game developer's blind spot. For a start, first.. checkout Savage's reception. Savage I , Savage II . Then goto www.moddb.com find out about their popular mods such as IronGrip ( FPS/RTS) and other more of those.

I agree with you here, because even if they're used to having only hover units, if the new game is enjoyable and still mentally stimulating, people should want to play it.  The game shouldn't be about just whether or not there are hovering units or treaded units or whatever.  The game should be about how simple the command interface is and how intuitive the controls are.

A very big note to BigBadBogie, developers of BZ2 do not profit much from the 10 years of modding. How many ppl do you know of that buys the game JUST to play the mods within this almost 10 years time frame. It just make the people happier, so if a company produces modding tool, be thankful, be very very thankful of them.

You've covered all of the bases and told off bbb.  That's a day's work right there.  And the developers of BZ2 don't profit at all from it anymore, I think.  They don't release it anymore, so any copies you want have to be purchased second-hand.

Anyway, this post is getting too long, I didn't expect it to be. Anyhow, still, I'm waiting for any volunteers to step up on this little prototyping we're doing. Thanks.

It wasn't too long, it was just the right length to get all of the information out there.  Thanks.

VSMIT.

[Zero Angel]

Well a better description of taps and why they are useful is this. A tap is like a spawn for its parent. For example, a building can have a guntower object tapped to it, so that when the building is created, the guntower is also created with the building. If the tapped object (child) is destroyed, it can be rebuilt through the constructors 'add tap' command. BZ2 modders use taps to create multifunction buildings since each building in BZ2 is otherwise only limited to being one class (relaybunker, factory, guntower, motionsensor, servicebay, etc). When the main building goes down, so does everything that's tapped to it.

And I will have to agree now, with your idea about hover tanks. They provide usefulness in some capacity, but their main purpose is to provide action, if you could develop as solid FPS engine (which BZ2 does not have, hence the reliance on hover physics), then this can be done. However I must say, that flying a BZ2 ship and commencing hover and arc attacks grants a sense of freedom that is unmatched otherwise.

Actually we're doing the opposite. We're getting a solid FPS ( the one with better outdoor culling ) and develop a tactical side of it. It's easier to make an RTS out of an FPS engine. Reason being, RTS engine are a lot focused on micromanaging, and getting units to THIS EXACT SPOT, which this game will not be focus on. I believe that is not what BZ exactly focuses on. We will highly likely not to have such things as FORCE move. Maybe FORCE attack or even FORCE RUN might exist. But basically u can't get a unit to suicide like a typical RTS such as WARCRAFT . e.g " Oh mr grunt, i need you to walk THROUGH that tower and head straight to the peons".  I'll drop another hint here. Morale will be implemented on all infantry units, so you don't rush THROUGH towers. Units that got hit too terribly or loses too  much morale will not respond to any command, you'll just lose control of them until they recover their Morale. Reason being, we are trying to keep things simple between Tactical AI and Survival Instinct, in plain English, we want a unit to survive himself instead of YOU teaching him how to. You tell him where to attack not how to live. It doesn't make sense that soldiers will keep running when their getting shot at. I'm not a logic freak, but I think it's no fun to see a dying AI unit running out of range will you're chasing him on foot ain't it coz enemy commander selected him and force him back to base.  Ooww he escaped. To be fair Vehicles will not have morale. Still it will be a bad idea to run through towers.

It doesnt take a genius to figure out that you've really thought this through. BZ2 AI is dumb in a lot of ways, for one if given a go-to, it will defend itself only when the enemy fires a first shot on it (which means you can go right up to the unit and hit it with a quick blast/laser/mortar combination taking about 80% of its life away before it fights back), and it will run past defenses and get hit by them before sub-attacking (ie: defending itself). A smarter AI would practice tactical awareness, -- It would think to a unit that gets 100m within it "whoa, this guy is all up in my space, and he's a threat! I must defend myself! -- ie: staying outside of the range of fixed defenses when moving, taking initiative during a sub-attack, refusing to advance when there's too many enemies around (unless the AI class is a bold one). I think this can be done by creating several layers of awareness (ie: 250m front-facing awareness, 150m defensive/peripheral awareness, 60m full tactical awareness) at different distances. I'm sure any engines you are using will be basing themselves off of this.

Also, look at assault tanks, they have to stop to fire. In an RTS, the tanks should be able to fire while enroute. Their movement AI being separate of their attack AI. This has kind of bothered me about RTS games.

As far as modding support goes. I still think this is important. How much trouble is it to make most things configurable? Why would you want to tweak a constant like gravity than recompile, rather than create a configuration file for these constants? Do you want your mapmakers and mission designers to be limited by hardcoded things within the game's engine, sending requests for changes upstream to the programmers, or would it be better to make some of these things configurable on a per-map/per-mod basis? Half-life was successful enough at being modded that Counterstrike became a stand-along game. In BZ2, the game is incredibly configurable. Newbies can create new weapons and units without problems, because the engine is so easy to develop for. If you can, read an ODF file sometime (the BZ2 object definition format), it may be wise to incorporate a similar structure. The more modular and extensible the engine, the easier it would be to upgrade its capability through patches and expansion packs, and the less headaches your level and object designers have to deal with.

[bigbadbogie]

Seconded ZA

You've covered all of the bases and told off bbb.  That's a day's work right there.  And the developers of BZ2 don't profit at all from it anymore, I think.  They don't release it anymore, so any copies you want have to be purchased second-hand.

You dont think that the orignal developers would feel good about their hard work being appreciated for so long...?
That is how they profit from it.

Nearly 10 years after the game was released people are still spending years on making mods for it. If I was a developer i would feel proud of myself.

[frozenfire]

I don't quite understand here.  By FOW, do you mean on the minimap/radar only, or on the satellite, or when actually looking through the windshield/visor of your tank/helmet?

Minimap/radar only. RTS view only. FOW in FPS view would be funny though. We don't want to see big black cloud soaking with enemy 100 m ahead of you. So yes,incase you're wondering, you'll see further in FPS view than in RTS view.

A smarter AI may be just what this kind of game needs.  Sounds extremely interesting.  But why wouldn't vehicles have morale?  Unless they're autonomous, they would still have pilots, and those pilots would probably be scared hootless if you told them to go up against an army, all by themselves.

Many Reasons , trust me
1) We'd like players to have the satisfaction of killing specific AI who he's badly wounded. Frustration is bad for gamers. Here's how we do it, we want to make panicked ( 0 morale ) Infantry run towards allied unit cluster, firing at these bumbling targets from their back is very satisfying for gamers generally. However, To see a tank sprinting away is actually pretty funny, on the other hand ,a panicked gun-based-vehicles ( such as jeeps)  speeding away while you're on foot is just frustrating. Zoom! bye bye.
2) a group of panicked just 3-4 tanks will get stuck. if you've done path finding on FPS engine before, this happens all the time, trust me. However, you can "sort-of" set higher buffer time for Pathfinding, making them more prudent will be even funnier, then, tank take turns to run. Doesn't look panic to me.
3) Morale calculation can get complex, we do it by putting into account unit's health, if nearby HUMAN PLAYER exist, some special abilities, factions cluster unit size ( how many units are there), and slowly decreases morale in combat based on that. Vehicles should have MUCH higher cluster value. Therefore, EVEN if we put morale in vehicle, it'll be funny when 1 tank vs 5 infantry, the infantry will lose morale before the tank does, causing them to run away from the tank that they're suppose to PWN.

About the tap buildings, we don't do tap implementation. But we do have a lot of add-ons in our prototype techtree

[Zero Angel]

Well, killing wounded units does have its sort of fun. I think its more satisfying to kill a unit thats pinned down and fighting desperately. Like the art of war says:

Throw them where they cannot leave.
Facing death they will not be routed.
Officers and men facing death,
How could one not obtain their utmost strength?

When military officers are utterly sinking, they do not fear.
Where they cannot leave, they stand firm.
When they enter deep, they hold tightly.
Where they cannot leave, they fight.

....

Throw them were they cannot leave
It is then you will see their utmost bravery

I dont know why I posted that. 

[Warfreak]

I'd seriously help, really i would, but im more of a modeler than a programmer....... but I will more than likely help test & buy this game come that time....

[General BlackDragon]

I might help with modeling