Aircraft

[Bulldog61]

I'm not seeing any aircraft in this game. Is that a future DLC?

[zgrssd]

It was part of the recent poll, slightly behind Naval Forces for "Big expansion":
https://www.vrdesigns.net/?p=2014

Also there are a dozen questions on this already. Please search before make #1025[;)]

[FAA]

Hope we get both navies and aircraft in the next DLC!

[Erdoszb]

ORIGINAL: FAA

Hope we get both navies and aircraft in the next DLC!

You mean "next update"

[Zyphtan]

Guess people are used to having to pay money to get stuff that should is really part of the game lol

[Sieppo]

I might be willing to pay if both air and naval stuff was made complex. I mean ship design, shipyards and building and complexish naval warfare (as in War in the Pacific) and shore bombardment. Same with aircraft design, airfields and air combat. Then people could also opt out of not using that part of the game.

[FAA]

I might buy an air/naval DLC only it mechanics were made more complex than in Decisive Campaigns series. I hope that in line with the current logistics complexity, building new airports and ports is nicely complex and difficult. Both require a lot to function properly.

I also hope we see a lot of tech for different levels - from scrap fighters on a WWI/WWII level to orbital installations. It would be amazing if we had the ability to deploy satellites as a part of the endgame - GPS, spying, anti-ICBM installations, possibilities are endless.

Fallout Old Blues Mod for HoI4 has some nice tech that’s somewhat similar to what the game needs.


Having them as a DLC might be problematic though. These features are usually present in even basic wargames so selling them might not be wise. I’d definitely buy a DLC with more planet variety though, with new creatures and more complex mechanics.

[Maerchen]

You can opt out in the planet generation phase. Arid planets, no ships. Thin or no atmosphere, no aircrafts.

[FAA]

ORIGINAL: Maerchen

You can opt out in the planet generation phase. Arid planets, no ships. Thin or no atmosphere, no aircrafts.

I agree, it makes no sense that we have no planes on planets that can support them. Jetpacks but no aircraft? That’s by far the weakest thing about the game.

[Astyreal]

Dudes
Come on. Shadow empires has a million things that no other games have or have ever had
Obviously air and naval implementation will be tremendously complex even if it is more abstracted than the rest of the game
Stop chiseling, the game is stupendous value already

[ObeseMonkey]

no it does make sense. Firstly yhe variation in atmoshphere means it would be quite a bit of work to first of all settle on what is required in realtion to tmepreture, gravity and the make up of an (if any) atmosphere that would allow planes to fly. Then there is the question of whether you are able to build basic planes or more spaceship like ones that could work on a moon with little to no atmopshere. The same with ships, Can they go on Lava lakes? Can they go on lakes of Methan? It would also require new creatures to be viable meaning a whole lot of work for what is basically a single dev. Added as a DLC we could get ocean bases, new types of planets, flying creatures, sea creatures, new events and maybe even some new minors (pirates?). The game really does not need them to be enjoyable as it stands now.

[Kamelpov]

And after aircraft you usually got sub orbital bomber or spacecraft.If you got icbm tech (that end tier bomber should exist too)

[FAA]

ICBMs work the same on every planet, too, even though they would be much more difficult on planets with dense atmospheres or high gravity.

[Simulacra53]

If you look at air power in DC games it appears that VR has become somewhat reluctant of implementing it.
From direct unit control in DC1 to abstract in DC3 - which IMO was a poor design choice.

In the futuristic setting of SE it really doesn’t make sense that gameplay is restricted to land warfare, other than to simplify the core game design - like DC3. If we cannot make it work well enough, let’s not do it at all. All other technology is advanced, a lot beyond what we have today - yet we have aircraft and 50 years ago we went to the moon.

Sure it adds a layer of complexity, but if you want a game that makes sense, without arbitrary restrictions, you need to tackle air and if relevant sea power.

Of course land, sea and air depend on the environment.
Gravity, atmosphere, temperature, toxicity/hostility etc. all influence weapon design.
What works on one planet does not on the other - no ships on a desert planet.

But judging by VR’s history I do not expect them to change the core mechanics.

[ggm]

Helicopters(scout, transport and attack) and hovercraft. IFVs. deeper immersion with tank MGs and spaced armour skirts and reactive armour options.

[GodwinW]

I've mentioned in quite some threads about it that I'm fine with navy, that would allow island worlds which would be cool (depending on design: water should have some harvestables (oil platform, kelp farm, maybe an oyster/muscle field etc)). However it's also nice to be able to disable it if you want water to be an impenetrable barrier, kinda cool strategically.

Anyhow, air imo would easily break the balance and the cool gameplay and the borders. I am against it actually.

And I'd really want an option to disable it then.

[Simulacra53]

ORIGINAL: GodwinW

I've mentioned in quite some threads about it that I'm fine with navy, that would allow island worlds which would be cool (depending on design: water should have some harvestables (oil platform, kelp farm, maybe an oyster/muscle field etc)). However it's also nice to be able to disable it if you want water to be an impenetrable barrier, kinda cool strategically.

Anyhow, air imo would easily break the balance and the cool gameplay and the borders. I think I am against it actually.
But, if Vic designs it very well then of course it's fine. I just think that might be difficult.

And I'd really want an option to disable it then.

It is not about what we are fine with, but what makes sense in the context of the game world presented.

Shadow Empire’s game world loses some its “credibility” when it is land locked, especially in the context of other in game technology, the type of planetary objects and the nature and history of mankind, because you end up with an illogical narrative that is both futuristic and prehistoric at the same time, a discrepancy you can’t explain away with the galactic collapse lore.

Shadow Empire ends up with a lot of complex depth, but at the expense of too little width.

To change this now will pose many design challenges, probably too many, but at least let’s be honest about the arbitrary nature of these limitations.

With all the praise being showered on Shadow Empire, I think it can withstand some criticism.

Just some ramblings.

[:D]

[Tchey]

I don’t want air stuff, beside missiles, and maybe balloon or similar if planet’s conditions allow for such things.

I thing it’s fully credible to not have access to air force in Shadow Empire universe. Air is the most difficult tech to master, even more with planet with low/high gravity, acid storms and other metal winds. Also, Air is almost always too powerfull in games, and if they are not powerfull, they are too weak too be credible...

Water stuff is more acceptable for me, it’s quite easy to have this tech, as human transport at first, machine later, gunships endgame.

I’d much prefer more control over land troops creation, and more options, like taming wildlife (a few elite lasergun warriors mounting a 9m long lizard-crab is awesome, isn’t it ?), minefield, towers and other landmarked stuff.

[GodwinW]

ORIGINAL: Simulacra53

It is not about what we are fine with, but what makes sense in the context of the game world presented.

That's an interesting perspective. One I do not hold. For me it really IS about 'what we are fine with' (in my words I'd phrase it: 'what maximizes fun'). I really understand the value of immersion as part of fun, but everyone's different and for me it doesn't hurt immersion at all really.

ORIGINAL: Simulacra53

Shadow Empire’s game world loses some its “credibility” when it is land locked, especially in the context of other in game technology, the type of planetary objects and the nature and history of mankind, because you end up with an illogical narrative that is both futuristic and prehistoric at the same time, a discrepancy you can’t explain away with the galactic collapse lore.

Well, you could actually explain it. Maybe some motorcycles always had fuel engines for fans of the sound, but airplanes were always liquid-energy highly advanced anti-grav things.
Basically in the collapse everyone knew the principle of a fuel engine. So they quickly scaled it up for trucks and tanks.

But you don't go from a fuel engine to an anti-grav vehicle just like that.
You'd have to rediscover wings for a start, with propellor aircraft I guess, then discover a jet engine maybe.

The big problem with this is how you see the collapse: if there's surviving libraries it's not going to work as all the knowledge is still accessible. But you have that problem anyway for all the tech. So as part of the game you have to assume knowledge was really lost.

And then, with little resources and conflict all around your border, are you going to try to build anti-grav "ufo's" (remember, you've forgotten all about the easy airplanes of the 20th century)? No, you're going to invest in combat armour for your infantry because you see them dying around you.

Anyway, this is just an illustration of why it doesn't bother me. You can disagree of course. Like I said: what feels 'believable' is very subjective.

But I really disagree that this point is more important than how fun the game is to play.

[Simulacra53]

I don’t find this a credible universe, one that has robotics, shields, beam weapons, atomics, icbms, jet packs and walkers, but cannot design anything that flies (whatever the technology, atmosphere and gravity) or floats on liquid water. I call BS on the conflicting advanced science levels other than practical game design.

Now if you draw that arbitrary line, because this land balance right now works for you, sure...end of discussion.
A game is a game is a game.

There may be practical reasons to exclude these elements, like DC3 replacing air power with cards as an easy way out, but credibility is not one of them.

Enough said from my part, will not push the matter any further, we simply not agree.