Trains and rail system

[Stardouser]

At the moment, I don't have any detailed examples of how this would work. But, I have seen in the GDC video, an image of a tank driving under a rock formation(relevant because it's beautiful scenery), and I've seen in some BAttlefield maps and maps of other games, railyards and tracks you can't follow for more than 300m because the map ends, which is also relevant because train tracks are nice scenery.

There are two sides to this, though. The first is, how would you guys like to see rail systems in maps? EVEN if there are no trains, just part of the scenery? Tunnels going through mountains could also provide, in addition to beauty, covered approach routes, placed to set up forward bases, etc.

And secondly, having actual trains running around could be a separate discussion. Perhaps later in in the game, a couple of years from now, trains could actually have an effect on the supply system?

Personally I like airfields and runways as scenery, but since all the aircraft in PS are VTOL, there's just no way to justify it, unless it's near a ruined city from 100 years before the current lore's tech.

[EVILPIG]

Well, soldiers do need a way to get to work.

[Knocky]

Transportation systems are among the first things targeted in war.

Having a maglev track in ruins would be a nice addition to the scenery.

But you cannot have an active one.

[dai shan]

Originally Posted by Knocky

Transportation systems are among the first things targeted in war.

Having a maglev track in ruins would be a nice addition to the scenery.

But you cannot have an active one.

I think it'd be neat that if you controlled certain objectives, in a contiguous line, you could spend resources to have a working railway -- and then maybe the railway could become an objective that the other sides could target.

[Nalan]

I don't see how this would work in PS, with the distances that need to be travelled, you might aswell fly over there... A train system just seems too vulnerable to transport people and things, unless it was underground...

But I agree there nothing stopping ruins from being placed, it would add to the environemnt and bring a certain realistic feel to it all.

[Ertwin]

Originally Posted by dai shan

I think it'd be neat that if you controlled certain objectives, in a contiguous line, you could spend resources to have a working railway -- and then maybe the railway could become an objective that the other sides could target.

This idea I like. In order to give some incentive to building it, it could give a small boost to resources while it's active.

[Stardouser]

Originally Posted by Nalan

I don't see how this would work in PS, with the distances that need to be travelled, you might aswell fly over there... A train system just seems too vulnerable to transport people and things, unless it was underground...

But I agree there nothing stopping ruins from being placed, it would add to the environemnt and bring a certain realistic feel to it all.

As I say I have no idea how an actual train system would work, they'd be instantly targeted and bombed to cut supply lines. Unless they are shielded and take a full scale raid to take out!

But as far as ruins, it gives a great incentive to put in cool looking bridges and tunnels etc. There is a Bad Company 2 map, whose name escapes me at the moment, that has rail bridges you just can't get up on, and I always thought, man, if this were an MMO and we could travel throughout this whole area, I'd love to drive my jeep up there.

[Graywolves]

In one of the worlds in SWTOR there was a magnetic monorail or something and there were checkpoints that would kill everyone inside the train and stuff.


I thought it would be cool if one continent had some bullet trains on it or something, maybe even tubes and just shoot players through them. But between the entry/exit points would be places you can grab that deny its use or kill anyone trying to travel through.

Just kind of thought it was neat.

[Stardouser]

Another thought, what if you players could construct things like rail lines? In fact, construction in combat games seems like something Planetside would innovate. I mean, we've got the forward base idea already moving forward and that's definitely construction related, what's the logical next step there?

[Sabot]

Constrution could be something for the engineer class... if bridges could be destroyed (or rails or whatever), engineers would have to repair them.

[Stardouser]

Originally Posted by Sabot

Constrution could be something for the engineer class... if bridges could be destroyed (or rails or whatever), engineers would have to repair them.

The interesting thing about bridge destruction and subsequent repair, is that you've got to keep the bad guys off the engineers. This could result in bridges being a viable flashpoint for a battle all their own. Intercepting a zerg at a bridge would be a viable tactic, if you've got scouts capable of detecting it in time, and outfits capable of setting up a quick defense.

After all, you can fly infantry over the gorge/river, but you can't fly a whole army of vehicles(or maybe you can, I dunno).

That reminds me - airbases located down in gorges and on mountaintops that you can't access by land vehicles(due to steepness) would be interesting as well.

[Sirisian]

Originally Posted by Stardouser

As I say I have no idea how an actual train system would work, they'd be instantly targeted and bombed to cut supply lines.

Simple. Just make them invulnerable like the bases. Easily explained as an advanced shielded Nanite Systems armored train.

I support this. It really opens up choices for the developers later if they add this now. I'd definitely like to see say a NS train with say a vehicle spawner in the back so players can drive off the back of the train. That would just be a fun system. (Not sure if it should be capturable. Defending/using it to spawn from when it's close would be an interesting tactical thing as long as it doesn't move crazy fast.

[Stardouser]

Originally Posted by Sirisian

Simple. Just make them invulnerable like the bases. Easily explained as an advanced shielded Nanite Systems armored train.

I support this. It really opens up choices for the developers later if they add this now. I'd definitely like to see say a NS train with say a vehicle spawner in the back so players can drive off the back of the train. That would just be a fun system. (Not sure if it should be capturable. Defending/using it to spawn from when it's close would be an interesting tactical thing as long as it doesn't move crazy fast.

Actually, that's not a bad idea. Having a train system like that, even if, in the beginning, it has nothing to do with actual resources, would be excellent immersion value. It could even be a precursor to AI which I get the impression they are thinking of adding a few years from now? Which would add to the illusion that this is a living, breathing, world.

And, if they DID put trains in the game as invulnerable, as part of the immersion you ought to be able to board them when they stop. Might even be a way of sneaking troops to certain places, even if slowly. Might even be a good way of sneaking around behind enemy lines, if you can somehow sneak onto an enemy train line somewhere.

[Ertwin]

Well presumably the nanites could repair the rails, as was discussed in the destructable bases thread.

[Stardouser]

Originally Posted by Ertwin

Well presumably the nanites could repair the rails, as was discussed in the destructable bases thread.

That could be the same for bridges, actually. In other words, if you go blow up a bridge, and then don't leave anyone to defend it, it will repair itself within 30 minutes to 1 hour(much shorter if actual players go to help repair it).

Some squads might actually sit and guard bridges...