Orange Zone

[CaPeFeAr]

Tosa had a great idea and wrote about it in the general discussion....however it was so wraped up in red zone talk we couldnt really debate it.. i personly wish we could implament this today if it were possible.

the orange zone would be an area between the red and green that would allow point and click access for troops but would have the same movement restraints as the red zone: units must be kept in motion or they will return to the green zone on their own.

what do you think and how can we patch this in???

------------------
do you have a comment to make, a question to ask, or a concern about a current fearful ways member? plz feel free to stop by
Fearful Ways - The Mori Family

[Polar]

i like tosa's idea. an orange zone acts like a buffer zone. unlike the current red zone, a player should be allowed to target enemy units in the orange zone with his own units. this way its easier to counter the units coming from red zone and reduce the advantage of using red zone.
another thing is to adjust the deploy zone on large maps. when players are deployed in the middle of the map, edge camp and red zone wont be such a big issue anymore.

------------------

• UglyPolar •

[TosaInu]

Konnichiwa,

Thanks for joining this brainstorm. Yes, units should be targetable when they are inside the OrangeZone.

Deployment zones. The current deployment zones of enemies are too close together, there should be about 4 tiles no man's land between the players to avoid quick rushings.

In a Teamgame it should be possible to place any of the teamunits anywhere inside that teams deployment area (built a joint army formation).

In STW teamgames it's possible that 1 teammember hits ready, while the other members wait. The one who is ready can see the enemy units and can chat the information to his team (unfair advantage). Chat is a required thing during the entire battle, but the enemy units shouldn't become visible until everyone has deployed and is ready.
True about better deployment zones on big maps making RedZoning less of an issue, but I think more than just one 'fix' is needed.

------------------
Ja mata
Toda MizuTosaInu
Daimyo Takiyama Shi

http://www.takiyama.cjb.net

[Krasturak]

The easiest solution to implement is to build maps with low ground around the edges.

Not even flat: the RedZone areas can be LOWER than the nearby playable areas.

Then the use of the redzone will not be a big problem, everyone will be happy, and life will return to a long serving of soup for all.

[Cheetah]

yep, I agree with Krast, but this would result some very ugly maps. that is why u need three zones. the orange can be lower than the green, and in the red u can have the scenery.

[Toda Nebuchadnezzar]

mmmmmmm Terry's Chocolate Orange! Oh sorry I was just reading this and I said to myself...
God damn it! why wasn't this thoughtof earlier its an ingenious idea. Well done Tosa Yet it will be hard to impliment no?

------------------
Grand Master of
The Knights Templar
"non nobis Domine non nobis sed Nomine tuo da gloriam"

[Kraellin]

i dont agree with tosa in full on this one; at least not as originally stated in the GD forum. first is the scale of it all...3 tiles for red and 6 for orange? that's 9 tiles all the way around the map. the current small maps are only 20 x 20. that leaves a 2 x 2 tile area left to actually play in. even on the larger maps, taking away 9 tiles all the way around is going to be a big loss of playing area. and secondly, i really dont like the idea that a given area must be flat. 6 forced flat tiles all the way around the play area? no, i dont see it...and dont want it.

the idea of a zone that you can click into and then be forced out of does make sense given the current limitations on borders, however. but i'd do one tile red, and 1 tile orange if i were going to do it and no more.

it is also possible for map makers to simply make current red zones impassable ...completely. i made one a while back just to tease elmo with, so i know it's possible.

a large red zone and a large 'orange' zone are simply adding to the problem, in my book. you are simply expanding the area of weird rules in topography, not eliminating it.

i dont really have a problem with red zoning and almost never have. once you learn how to get into the current red zone and defend against it, then it's just another part of the game play. most dont use the red zone at all anyways, so why this unusual solution to it? you see? you can argue that having only 1 red zone tile and 1 orange zone tile would allow more corner camping, but it wouldnt. if one can get into a corner, one is still going to be booted out of it by the orange and red zones. in fact, i could see getting rid of the red zone tile completely and just using 1 orange zone tile or at most, two. so some bright person is going to see that by having 2 orange zone tiles that there could be maps where a person could walk the length of the map in the orange zone completely hidden...walk a whole army down it. yup. you could, but guess what, that happens in real life battles anyways. and someone else might see that having only 1 orange zone tile would allow for a corner camper, but guess what, i can make maps that allow for this anyways, and not just in the corner.

ok, so i guess my disagreement isnt in the orange zone idea itself, but in its size and forced flatness...too weird. too unusual. and i certainly dont want to have to make 3 tiles of dead space, red zone 'scenery' that has no play value whatsoever...wasted space in an already too small map area.

btw, happy birthday, tosa! we love ya, bubba :)

K.


------------------
The only absolute is that there are no absolutes.

[Polar]

kool! happy bday tosa!

------------------

• UglyPolar •

[Vanya]

GAH! Clearly you people have yet to play Vanyasake map. Play it. And yee shall see the solution to the 'red zone' you all cry about so much.

And if you need me to explain why to you, then you haven't played Vanyasake enough.

GAH!

[TosaInu]

Konnichiwa,

Thanks.

I haven't said all. I'll expand and reply to your points Kraellin.

Ideally I would like to be able to make a layout for my map in the mapeditor: how big, where are the deployment zones (no man's land), which part is Green, how wide is the Orange zone (1-3 tiles), how wide is the Red zone scenary (I guess you know that absurd mountains can be made, which can add a nice view but also very nasty advantages in this GAME), Red zones inside the play area. The RedZone doesn't even need to be a symetric perimeter: 10 tiles for a big mountain in the east, 1 for a small bump in the west.

After the layout of the different zones is made (a window/overlay in 2D that shows the tiles), the normal mapediting can be done.

When the map shows that some zones should be different, 'simply' edit the layout. You realise that that central plain should be bigger? Insert tiles. Should the wood be smaller? Delete tiles.

"i dont agree with tosa in full on this one; at least not as originally stated in the GD forum. first is the scale of it all...3 tiles for red and 6 for orange? that's 9 tiles all the way around the map. the current small maps are only 20 x 20. that leaves a 2 x 2 tile area left to actually play in. even on the larger maps, taking away 9 tiles all the way around is going to be a big loss of playing area. and secondly, i really dont like the idea that a given area must be flat. 6 forced flat tiles all the way around the play area? no, i dont see it...and dont want it."

I think about 50*50 tiles map (at least).
And flat, textures can add some illusion of depth. Furthermore, the author of a given map is FREE to make hills/bumps in the Orange Zone.

It depends on how the heightadvantage will be implemented wether small bumps will be 'fair': I recall that in STW being 1" higher gives the same advantage in HTH combat as 1 yard higher. Textures can create the illusion of heightdifferences. Personally (I speak as mapeditor) I don't see a problem with a 'forced' 5 tiles all around flat area.

"the idea of a zone that you can click into and then be forced out of does make sense given the current limitations on borders, however. but i'd do one tile red, and 1 tile orange if i were going to do it and no more."

OK to me.

"it is also possible for map makers to simply make current red zones impassable ...completely. i made one a while back just to tease elmo with, so i know it's possible."

Yes, but.

"a large red zone and a large 'orange' zone are simply adding to the problem, in my book. you are simply expanding the area of weird rules in topography, not eliminating it."

In my view this game needs a RedZone, no RedZone at all would make gameplay even nastier. So the OrangeZone acts as a bufferzone. Unrealistic, but so are maps with edges.

"i dont really have a problem with red zoning and almost never have. once you learn how to get into the current red zone and defend against it, then it's just another part of the game play. most dont use the red zone at all anyways, so why this unusual solution to it? you see?"

Personally I don't care about being RedZoned, it's my own 'fault' if it happens. There are some maps and situations where you almost can't prevent to deploy near the zone.

"you can argue that having only 1 red zone tile and 1 orange zone tile would allow more corner camping, but it wouldnt."

My point is: you would have a legal tool to flank the cornercamper (anyone can click a unit through the OrangeZone).

"if one can get into a corner, one is still going to be booted out of it by the orange and red zones. in fact, i could see getting rid of the red zone tile completely and just using 1 orange zone tile or at most, two."

That makes a map without scenary, I don't like the sky backdrops on flat maps that much. That aesthetic aspect is the reason (ihmo) that also flat maps like Totomi have high edges. But it's up to the author of a map to decide whether he'll make a RedZone or not.

"so some bright person is going to see that by having 2 orange zone tiles that there could be maps where a person could walk the length of the map in the orange zone completely hidden...walk a whole army down it. yup. you could, but guess what, that happens in real life battles anyways."

Not hidden as it's level ground, but the current RedZone does allow what you say: hidden movement, you can even march alongside an army and attack it's back. On some maps this is quite nasty. And when he marches, he's not a camper. A camper has 'fresh' units, a OrangeZone marcher hasn't.

"and someone else might see that having only 1 orange zone tile would allow for a corner camper, but guess what, i can make maps that allow for this anyways, and not just in the corner."

In real life you could 'corner'camp near a cliff (and risk that the enemy throws rocks to you) or near a river/lake, which is frequently on lower ground. Or at the edge of a forest (which will hinder enemy cav, but will also cloak the advancing of enemy infantry. The latter two things are already implemted in this game. The first could be a nice addition (missile units benefit from it to some extend already).

"ok, so i guess my disagreement isnt in the orange zone idea itself, but in its size and forced flatness...too weird. too unusual. and i certainly dont want to have to make 3 tiles of dead space, red zone 'scenery' that has no play value whatsoever...wasted space in an already too small map area."

I've read a review that claims that MTW maps will be twice the size of a WE map. The Large WE maps are 961 sqr tiles, *2=1922. That would make 44*44 tiles. I hope 100*100 tiles will be possible.

The Reinforcement code might require 2 tiles RedZone, so it might be that 2 Orange tiles is a minimum (if no RedZone will be used). It might also be that the presence of the OrangeZone requires the presence of a RedZone (offline battles), as the Reinforcements might need a safe load/unloadzone.

Thanks for your comments Kraellin.

[TosaInu]

Konnichiwa,

I've played Command & Conquer Red Alert1 (years ago). The editor shipped with the game wasn't much special, although it did allow to set the deployment zones.

There was a 3th party editor (RaEd), which allowed scripts to be attached to a Multi Player map. If I remember well, you could make triggers that caused an AI controlled army to enter the map, at least you could trigger how, when and where your own reinforcements entered the field.

RA even allowed that stats for unitbehavior got attached to a map, units could be disabled for usage.

I would like to attach scripting, triggers, unitstats, custom deployment zones and AI controlled units to a map.

The StrongHold editor allows adding animals, trees are animated (wave in the wind), waterfalls :-). And something RA had: innocent villagers to kill... protect (also linked to an event/trigger/script).

This would allow scenarios to be played online. One could even make historical campaigns for online play (a small series of linked battles). In contrast to full campaigns, these could be played within 3 hours. The outcome of the first battle decides the how of the second. A save option would be very nice: play the mini campaign in 2-3 sessions.

------------------
Ja mata
Toda MizuTosaInu
Daimyo Takiyama Shi

http://www.takiyama.cjb.net

[Toda Nebuchadnezzar]

This is a very happy sign Tosa. The RA editr seems to have quite a lot of the solutions that we wan to impliment in our editing.


Just one question, Could you therefore script it so that in a multiplayer game between two human players, an AI army suddeny arrived on the map ready to fight anyone? This would be great! No need for 4v4's where everyone drops (unless you have 7 friends LOL) because you could have a 2v2 plus 4 AI armes. (4 human vs 4 AI??) I like it.

Deployment zones moved: Again another ingenious idea. I think I remember some-one saying about all allied armies deployed in the same zone. I know some units would be put on top of others but they can just move!
A 3rd of the map for each allied arm, with a 3rd as no-mans-land! Solves another problem!


------------------
Grand Master of
The Knights Templar
"non nobis Domine non nobis sed Nomine tuo da gloriam"

[TosaInu]

Konnichiwa,

An AI army could be either an ally or an enemy to all. And it should be possible to have 6 AIarmies: 3 allies to each human or 6 more enemies to fight.

This has been raised before, the AI should take over the control of dropped armies (optionally!). I remember that C&C did that.

As long as units deployed on top of each other are allied units there will be no fighting (it doesn't happen in the scenarios I made, and in teamgames you could place two units on the same spot for a while).

I think the entire deployment area for a given team should be a mutual area so that the teammembers can build a common armyformation. The enemy units should stay invisible until ALL players are ready.

At this moment a fast deployer can peek and chat the information to his center ally who hasn't deployed yet: unfair.

No man's land would stop fast rushings. What's worse than losing is losing before you know where you are.

------------------
Ja mata
Toda MizuTosaInu
Daimyo Takiyama Shi

http://www.takiyama.cjb.net