You know what'd be neat?

[Dad]

If there was a tank version of this. Your soldiers can move one direction while aiming in another, so it made me think of tanks. Adding in the fact that armor varies on the sides/front/back, it made me think of tanks even more. Maybe it could be a project Killhouse could be work on. All I am saying is that I like tanks.

[Vulpe Nebuna]

To be honest I thought a little bit about it in the past, but I'm not sure how it would add something to, say, Close Combat?

[Dad]

Originally posted by Vulpe Nebuna:

To be honest I thought a little bit about it in the past, but I'm not sure how it would add something to, say, Close Combat?

Well I really pictured like doorkickers but wiht tanks. (if that makes sense) Situation by situation basis, class system( light medium heavy, IFV, Tank Destryoyer SPG) maybe make the maps bigger, but not really have a realistic game

[woolfoma]

Originally posted by |GBG| Qberticus:

Originally posted by Vulpe Nebuna:

To be honest I thought a little bit about it in the past, but I'm not sure how it would add something to, say, Close Combat?

Well I really pictured like doorkickers but wiht tanks. (if that makes sense) Situation by situation basis, class system( light medium heavy, IFV, Tank Destryoyer SPG) maybe make the maps bigger, but not really have a realistic game

or just replace all the art/animations with tanks and names and pictures of guns with tank guns. it could almost be a mod at this rate!

[Dad]

You'd know what else would be neat (but don't expect at all) a 1st person view of the mission after you complete the mission. Itd be cool

[Code Blue]

Originally posted by woolfoma:

or just replace all the art/animations with tanks and names and pictures of guns with tank guns. it could almost be a mod at this rate!

I actually though about making vehicles mods but there are two problems with it. First, I have no idea how to lock the officer/vehicle from sidestepping or preventing it from turning on a dime if it's not a tracked vehicle. The second thing would be scale, if you keep the same scale so you can use both infantry and vehicles, the 4096x4096 max. map size is just too small for any kind of vehicle. So you'll have to scale down everything on the map and it would look like crap. The current character sprites are already as small as they can be and also show a little bit of detail.

[Dad]

Originally posted by Vulpe Nebuna:

To be honest I thought a little bit about it in the past, but I'm not sure how it would add something to, say, Close Combat?

I'm Necroing here and hel you might not even read this but... just try it. I say that not only because I really like the idea, but because what you could add would be your own style. Breach & Clear, Frozen Synapse, and Doorkickers all have a very similar concept of guiding your troops through a mission in a stratehy you see fit, but all have their own take on it. B&C uses turn based, FS uses a five second round, and DK uses realtime pause when you want. Every developer will have its own take on the same thing. To use an example, When Stanley Kubrick made The shining into a film, he did not like the inclusions of ghosts, he found the concept of ghosts optimistic because it implies that there is an afterlife, so Kubrick downplayed the ghosts. In the end The book and the movie are different takes of the same story. Both are considered classics and are still enjoyed 30+ years after they were made. While The Shining is a shining example, partialy because the amount of drugs Kubrick was on would make South and Central America concerned, it does add to my argument that a creator's personal style can add to something, and that taking gallons of drugs may be beneficial(?). So to sum up my essay:
-Give it a shot
-Personal taste and style can add a lot
-Stanley Kubrick was frakking insane

[Dad]

In addition to my college thesis up there, you could also make a quick simple scenario, similar to a single mission from Door Kickers, before starting to make a full game. Putting your hand in the shower to test the water before you jump in.

[Wotan]

Originally posted by Qberticus:

Originally posted by Vulpe Nebuna:

To be honest I thought a little bit about it in the past, but I'm not sure how it would add something to, say, Close Combat?

Well I really pictured like doorkickers but wiht tanks. (if that makes sense) Situation by situation basis, class system( light medium heavy, IFV, Tank Destryoyer SPG) maybe make the maps bigger, but not really have a realistic game

I think this doesn't make ANY sense in Door Kickers.

Door Kickers is a game about SWAT teams, and there is no SWAT on earth that has TANKS.

Maybe APCs yes, but no tanks.

This would be totally out of context and would be a new game.

[Dad]

Originally posted by Challenger:

Originally posted by Qberticus:

Well I really pictured like doorkickers but wiht tanks. (if that makes sense) Situation by situation basis, class system( light medium heavy, IFV, Tank Destryoyer SPG) maybe make the maps bigger, but not really have a realistic game

I think this doesn't make ANY sense in Door Kickers.

Door Kickers is a game about SWAT teams, and there is no SWAT on earth that has TANKS.

Maybe APCs yes, but no tanks.

This would be totally out of context and would be a new game.

I'm not suggesting adding tanks into doorkickers. I'm suggesting making a tank game because Doorkickers reminds me of tanks due to the moving in one direction and aiming in another.

[Wotan]

Originally posted by Qberticus:

Originally posted by Challenger:

I think this doesn't make ANY sense in Door Kickers.

Door Kickers is a game about SWAT teams, and there is no SWAT on earth that has TANKS.

Maybe APCs yes, but no tanks.

This would be totally out of context and would be a new game.

I'm not suggesting adding tanks into doorkickers. I'm suggesting making a tank game because Doorkickers reminds me of tanks due to the moving in one direction and aiming in another.

Your response about the tank thing came out of nowhere and did not even make much sense ( not in this context ).

It clearly looked like you want DOOR KICKERS with tanks.

If you are talking about a complete different game-idea, yeah why not?

However, I am here to play door kickers, not to drive tanks ;-)

[Dad]

Originally posted by Challenger:

Originally posted by Qberticus:

I'm not suggesting adding tanks into doorkickers. I'm suggesting making a tank game because Doorkickers reminds me of tanks due to the moving in one direction and aiming in another.

Your response about the tank thing came out of nowhere and did not even make much sense ( not in this context ).

It clearly looked like you want DOOR KICKERS with tanks.

If you are talking about a complete different game-idea, yeah why not?

However, I am here to play door kickers, not to drive tanks ;-)

Well I started the thread with, "a tank version of this." so it really didin't just come out of nowhere, it is the topic of the thread.

[Wotan]

Originally posted by Qberticus:

If there was a tank version of this. Your soldiers can move one direction while aiming in another, so it made me think of tanks. ------------ Adding----------- in the fact that armor varies on the sides/front/back, it made me think of tanks even more. Maybe it could be a project Killhouse could be work on. All I am saying is that I like tanks.

Your English is very hard to understand.

Just impress yourself more 'clear'.

[Dad]

Originally posted by Challenger:

Originally posted by Qberticus:

If there was a tank version of this. Your soldiers can move one direction while aiming in another, so it made me think of tanks. ------------ Adding----------- in the fact that armor varies on the sides/front/back, it made me think of tanks even more. Maybe it could be a project Killhouse could be work on. All I am saying is that I like tanks.

Your English is very hard to understand.

Just impress yourself more 'clear'.

The sentence is correct. 'Adding in the fact that armor varies on the sides/front/back, it made me think of tanks even more.' is fine. 'Adding in the fact that armor varies on the sides/front/back...' is a gerund phrase and therefore a dependent clause. The sentence is a complex sentence and I put the dependent clause before the independent clause. The sentence is grammatically fine.

[Wotan]

Originally posted by Qberticus:

Originally posted by Challenger:

Your English is very hard to understand.

Just impress yourself more 'clear'.

The sentence is correct. 'Adding in the fact that armor varies on the sides/front/back, it made me think of tanks even more.' is fine. 'Adding in the fact that armor varies on the sides/front/back...' is a gerund phrase and therefore a dependent clause. The sentence is a complex sentence and I put the dependent clause before the independent clause. The sentence is grammatically fine.

The sentence is grammatically fine in the US. But not in the UK obviously.

This is not clear at all, and it is also not clear what exactly you are referring to. Especially when you use the term " soldier " at the beginning, what soldier are you talking about? You start writing like you cut your whole context out from the middle of some article. I maybe can't teach you much about grammar, but I can teach you about ' how to write informative, clear & pregnant '
There is no need to continue this discussion, since you are not even able to impress yourself. Also, I am not complaining about where you put the ind.clause and the dep.clause, I think we all know where a dep.clause and a ind.clause has to stand! I complain about the content of each clause, it is NOT clear at all. Not informative, not pregnant. Your introducing sentence refers to something totally different than the actual claim you are trying to make.


However, this is not the point of the discussion.

Using the troopers as an example for tanks is a bit 'wrong' since a tank-game would include a much higher complexity.


I am done here, because I feel like I am wasting my time.

[axios2006]

Please keep the discussion calm and kind. Thanks.

We came all from different countries, so misexpressions could happen.