Star Trek: Defense Line (Developing a new ST RTS game)

posted on April 9th, 2022, 2:34 pm

How is this coming along?

posted on April 9th, 2022, 3:44 pm

How is this coming along?

We're alive and working with the away team functions and special abilities of the Federation fleet. Alas we've met some issues with communicating some people who stopped answering our messages, so we need to find someone to fulfill what is needed (some 3D models and textures).

posted on December 31st, 2024, 11:34 pm

Good day, everyone!

We are finalizing the mechanics, fixing bugs. The current major tasks are the development of AI and some ship abilities that we haven't done yet. This post is about one of them:

USS Nagasaki carries a squadron of fighters on board. And we have two options for its implementation:

Option 1: the squadron will be permanently attached to the carrier, and the player will not be able to control fighters directly. Only through the carrier's menu switching between available commands like "attack the carrier's target" or "attack the one who is attacking the carrier", etc.

Option 2: the squadron is a separate group of objects. The player will not be able to control each craft, only the entire squadron. When one is selected, they all are selected. The whole group gets orders, and all the fighters carry out the order together. Similar mechanics are made in C&C 3 Tiberium Wars, where almost all infantry is combined into groups. In this way, fighters can be sent far from the carrier and even perform some reconnaissance missions.

Which option would you prefer?

Gryphon model & textures by TUB_Husker

posted on January 2nd, 2025, 9:47 am

First of all: WOW!!! I was looking forward to this project and I thought it was dead. I'm very glad I was mistaken.

Regarding the question:
I would strongly argue for Option 1. First off, it's a more simplistic and elegant design. Less micromanagement and it also helps the I assume very expensive carrier to remain alive. Plus the squadron's won't be very big, so even selecting a whole ball of them could be problematic. And finally, it would theoretically be possible to have then several squadballs without carriers, or you'll still have to tie the squads to a specific carrier, in which case it may be become confusing which ball you would lose if a carrier gets destroyed.

posted on January 3rd, 2025, 9:24 pm

First of all: WOW!!! I was looking forward to this project and I thought it was dead. I'm very glad I was mistaken.

Regarding the question:
I would strongly argue for Option 1. First off, it's a more simplistic and elegant design. Less micromanagement and it also helps the I assume very expensive carrier to remain alive. Plus the squadron's won't be very big, so even selecting a whole ball of them could be problematic. And finally, it would theoretically be possible to have then several squadballs without carriers, or you'll still have to tie the squads to a specific carrier, in which case it may be become confusing which ball you would lose if a carrier gets destroyed.

Thanks for your oppinion! We'll think of it!