79 replies to this topic

[Kamikaze]

(I had used a translator for ,,Winkel'' and there stand: angel, radian, (angel-)bracket, elbow, corner, chevron, nook, recess... i had used the first one.)
Yes, i know that the whole helicopter must rotate. That's not possible in RA3?
I thought, because the Twinblade rotate forward in flight, it would possible... but if it isn't possible, ok.

[Destiny]

Ohohoh wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong! It's tilt, not rotate. Rotation and tilting are two VERY different things.



You see in reality, rocket pods have quite (long) range so the rockets will automatically have a drop in trajectory due to gravity. Well in RA3 that would be so...OP so the rockets look silly curving down at 30 degrees like it's shooting at a neutron star.

[Kamikaze]

Whew.... i needed 3 minutes to understand what you said.
I wanted not to say that you should adapt the missiles to the corner (angel, or whatever) of the Twinblade,
but contrary, that you adapt the Twinblade to the corner/ angle/ ... of the missiles.
If the Twinblade attack, that the helicopter tilt forward.
If it isn't clear now, then reject my suggestion...

I wish everyone a merry christmas and a happy new year!

Edited by Kamikaze, 23 December 2010 - 16:45.

[V.Metalic]

It is, but what happens with helicopter when it tilts forward? It will moves forward.

[Com-Link]

Kamikaze, on 23 Dec 2010, 13:12, said:

Whew.... i needed 3 minutes to understand what you said.
I wanted not to say that you should adapt the missiles to the corner (angel, or whatever -> Angle) of the Twinblade,
but contrary, that you adapt the Twinblade to the corner/ angle/ ... of the missiles.
If the Twinblade attack, that the helicopter tilt forward.
If it isn't clear now, then reject my suggestion...

*walks in*
Wow, I take a few days of 'off-time' and I come back to this? Ah, well...

Anyway, I see your point.
Not totally unrelated to this, I'm making a 1/35th scale model of the Mil Mi-24V Hind E (the helicopter which I see as the real-life version of the Twinblade). It too features rocket pods (four of 'em... it's a flying tank for crying out loud ).

As Destiny said, these rockets just fly straight forward and are unguided. They drop a bit due to gravity.
The Hind (and the Apache) use these rockets by pointing the nose of the helicopter at the target from relatively close range (2 km, max range is about 4 km). Strafing targets is also popular, especially since the UH-1C Huey in Vietnam, because helicopters can still fly forward though the nose is tilted down.

In RA3, the rockets just make a silly arch down... (like a n00btube on steroids...)

What Kamikaze is suggesting, is that the Twinblade should tilt the nose down a bit when firing rockets. This would indeed make it look more 'natural'.

And to explain this (while I'm at it)...

"Destiny" said:

like it's shooting at a neutron star.

Neutron Stars are the size of your thumb, but got a massive gravity... Only rivalled by black holes (and similar galaxy-ending things )

(Yes, I'll post a picture of my flying tank once it's done, lol)

[CJ]

I don't know about this in real life, but in plenty of games I played I was able to maintain a helicopter static while tilting it's nose to attack a target below me...

[Destiny]

That is somewhat possible CJ, by tilting the angle of the blades of the rotor, the helicopter can fly backwards with it's nose/chin pointing up the sky. Suffice to say I think that theory can also be applied to being capable of staying in one place with the rotors tilted at a certain degree that counteracts the pushing of the rotors spinning, and the pulling of the angled rotors.








...well I'm not a physicist so I'm probably wrong

[Com-Link]

V.Metalic, on 23 Dec 2010, 17:46, said:

It is, but what happens with helicopter when it tilts forward? It will moves forward.

CJ, on 23 Dec 2010, 18:05, said:

I don't know about this in real life, but in plenty of games I played I was able to maintain a helicopter static while tilting it's nose to attack a target below me...

Real helicopters can adjust their rotors a bit, which allows them to tilt a bit while the rotors remain relatively horizontal, allowing the helicopter to remain in one spot.
The Twinblade's design, however, doesn't allow this (nor do the Helix and Tandem designs). The interlocking rotorblade system is designed to maximize lift, not to fight in combat.

But we could take a bit of gaming-freedom in this.

[Destiny]

Well if we have giant ramming battleships, transforming VTOL mecha-fighters, WEAPONIZED TESLA COILS, giant walking robots...what would tilting be compared to them?

[Com-Link]

Destiny, on 24 Dec 2010, 0:29, said:

Well if we have giant ramming battleships, transforming VTOL mecha-fighters, WEAPONIZED TESLA COILS, giant walking robots...what would tilting be compared to them?

My point exactly

We could try to rig the pods to tilt on their own axis, but that would probably require some model editing...

Oh, you forgot weaponized vacum cleaners, matter teleportation, shrinking vehicles, and time travel...

... and Armored Bears...

To name a few

[V.Metalic]

Comparing huge battleship and tilting is not right. Tilting is something what you must respect anywhere, even there with these fancy stuff, along with gravity and all other basic physical laws. The only exceptions are these which are shifting these laws like anti-gravity/repulsorlifts. Ramming battleship is nothing, every battleship could do it. Weaponized Tesla Coil, Nikolai Tesla thinked about it and had a plans of it. Transformational robots... only a matter of superior mechanics, same goes to giant robots. Armoured bear also isnt hard to make, just no one dont see a point to do it. The other which Com-Link said, they are currently impossible.

[R3ven]

Giant magnets in space that are powerful enough to take something off of the face of a planet and dropping satellites onto buildings don't happen in real life.

And a weaponized tesla coil would be impossible wouldn't it? How would you direct the current?

[V.Metalic]

R3ven, on 24 Dec 2010, 2:35, said:

Giant magnets in space that are powerful enough to take something off of the face of a planet and dropping satellites onto buildings don't happen in real life.

And a weaponized tesla coil would be impossible wouldn't it? How would you direct the current?

If I will know it, it will already exists and I will be millionaire. Nikolai Tesla thinked about it, by his calculations it was possible, but like with many things, this idea died along with its creator. Tesla was a genius.

[Kamikaze]

Ok comrades, change of theme:
I have already, since the Release is out, often thought about, why you all ground to air missile launchers have made so inaccurate.
I can not imagine that you've done this in jest ... but for the topic ,balancing' is it (in my eyes) counterproductive.
And then I became an idea:
Why did the planes not specified in three criteria?...So in a figurative sense I meant...
Slow, fast and very fast.
Slow would be: Kirov airships, Century bomber and the giga fortress, they could be shot down by everyone, including infantry-anti-airs.
Fast: Vindicator bomber, Twin Blades, Chopper VX and Skywings. They could be shot down by computer-supported rocket-launchers (Reapers, Multigunner IFV's ...)
And the very fast ones, Mecha Tengu, MiG and the Apollo can be brought down only by other fighters or the air-defenses of the three parties.
I can imagine that this would be a horror to program, but wouldn't that be alternative to the imprecision that reigns currently in RA3?
Because honestly........................................................................
that sucks

Edited by Kamikaze, 28 December 2010 - 19:42.

[V.Metalic]

Kamikaze, on 28 Dec 2010, 20:37, said:

Ok comrades, change of theme:
I have already, since the Release is out, often thought about, why you all ground to air missile launchers have made so inaccurate.
I can not imagine that you've done this in jest ... but for the topic ,balancing' is it (in my eyes) counterproductive.
And then I became an idea:
Why did the planes not specified in three criteria?...So in a figurative sense I meant...
Slow, fast and very fast.
Slow would be: Kirov airships, Century bomber and the giga fortress, they could be shot down by everyone, including infantry-anti-airs.
Fast: Vindicator bomber, Twin Blades, Chopper VX and Skywings. They could be shot down by computer-supported rocket-launchers (Reapers, Multigunner IFV's ...)
And the very fast ones, Mecha Tengu, MiG and the Apollo can be brought down only by other fighters or the air-defenses of the three parties.
I can imagine that this would be a horror to program, but wouldn't that be alternative to the imprecision that reigns currently in RA3?
Because honestly........................................................................
that sucks

Few things. Its "I have an idea" or "I got an idea", not "I became an idea", this makes that YOU are an idea

And your categories... its not that bad idea, but how you describe it is not good. Why you think that soldier can hit easier four-engine bomber flying high in the skies than slower helicopter flying only few meters above the ground? Helicopters will be in "slow" and Century in "fast" categories.

[Kamikaze]

That's true V.Metalic
But as seen, I am also an idea Incarnate, namely the idea of my parents.
Which aircraft in which category is reserved for the modders, I wanted only get rid of the idea.

Edited by Kamikaze, 28 December 2010 - 20:35.

[V.Metalic]

Kamikaze, on 28 Dec 2010, 21:09, said:

That's true V.Metalic
But as seen, I am also an idea Incarnate, namely the idea of my parents.
Which aircraft in which category is reserved for the modders, I wanted only get rid of the idea.

By this we should say everything is idea but nevermind that...
Yes, I see your point. Its good idea thought, but its up to developers to decide if it is worth it or not.

[Kamikaze]

Good day comrades,
here I am again with an idea where I want to first seek your permission, to introduce you it.
I'm stumbled in the internet over an older concept of a tank, where I thought ,,hey this might be a good ,epic unit' for the Soviets.''
The idea did not let me go and I work on the programm ,paint' for a RA3-variant concept, like the concept of the old ,Rampager'.
Now I ask you:
,,Give you me your permission, to imagine you a possible competitor for the ,Rampager - Land Battleship' ?''

Edited by Kamikaze, 12 January 2011 - 17:25.

[V.Metalic]

I think that the appearence of Rampager is somehow set.

[Com-Link]

V.Metalic, on 12 Jan 2011, 20:08, said:

I think that the appearence of Rampager is somehow set.

With the new forum, a new group of people can discuss the Rampager, so nothing is really set.

I will allow the reopening of the Rampager discussion, if there is need for it.
- However, should these discussions fail, the old concept will be used (I still got it in my head).

[Kamikaze]

me too...
do we need a new topic, or do we make it here?
Uh .... and how to insert pictures here? please thank you

Edited by Kamikaze, 13 January 2011 - 19:18.

[TheWorms]

I don't know if I remember that tank being discussed in the old forum or somewhere.
But you can post it. If it interests me... let me see it first.

[Kamikaze]

The Rampager was an amphibious land-battle ship that had to be assembled on land by the Construction Yard.
He was armed with, according from the drawing from paint which, i dont know, made from V. Metallic or Com-Link and I treatments, with four Flak cannon, two Gun turrets
of the Apocalypse tank, so four 125mm ,,Drako''cannons, and a bigger version of the Katyusha Rocket launcher
which was activated by its special ability which attacks an area with a heil of missiles.
Was that all right?

My idea is really different to the Rampager, I call it first only Siege Tank.
This ''super'' Siege-Tank, is also too large for the construction yard too, but needs as prerequisite a weapons factory, a Battle Lab and an airfield. weapons factory builds the parts together, battle lab provides the engineers and the airfield becomes the flight of the parts needed and assembled will it on the battlefield.
Thats what i've thought would be the best description of why this three buildings as prerequsites.

The Siege Tank has Aqua-sensitive pontoons, also amphibic too, one Gun turret with two 10-cell missile “Katyusha” rocket launcher (the same as the Reaper has) for the fight against aircraft and other groundtargets, one hull-mounted Twin Flak Cannon (normal Flak cannon like the bullfrog, so AA too), and now comes the best: two 135mm “Adskogo” cannons (Adskogo means hellfire, like an apocalypse tank only more powerfull.)
But thats not all... the icing on the cake is the special ability ,that' makes him a Siege Tank:
This Tank has one experimental “Katastropha” Artillery cannon, (the name is from me)
This Artillery cannon has a range like a V4, but has a larger surface damage and a higher accuracy against vehicles , certainly not at the very fast ones. the ability is a ,,weapon change''-ability the other weapons can even fire indeed yet, but the direct order to fire go to the artillery. you have to switch back to command the 135mm cannons and the rocket launchers again.
Because of the setback, I think this cannon would not be used on the water, so the ability isnt avaible on the water, that would be balanced I think.
Interested to see this unit?

I would then purely write a detailed description of more balancing points here. and insert the concept when I finally knew how to show pictures here.

[V.Metalic]

Hell, how you know so detailly the description of Rampager? I thought that these were team-only informations...

Well, your idea sounds interesting, but I cant imagine how it would look like with this arnament. Rampager had at least explanation why it can have so large arnament, but this is a tank like Apocalypse, just heavier I think, and put this all on tank is... well, I cant imagine it. Show it, because I think I am not the only one who cant imagine how it would look like.

[Com-Link]

No, it was discussed in a public topic... Vader333 created the discussion, Kamikaze was one of the participants...