Game design question: Fliers and "Anti-ground"

Codex
1

So fliers in codex … if you are not in a flier vs flier game, they are only usable for attack, not defense. And, to me, this makes no sense.

This is not about a change in Codex 1 – it would imbalance things badly. This is more, “Why was this designed this way in the first place?”, as in, what was the goal of this decision, and since Sirlin is working on Codex 2, maybe that can get a design pass to incorporate this.

In the “source material” of RTS games, units can walk under fliers. But those fliers can attack. Fliers can actually be useful defending your base. As much as letting ground units “ignore” flying defenders “sort of fits”, like letting air units “ignore” anti-air ground units, fliers are as much “anti-ground” as “airborne movement”.

Worse, there is one starcraft unit that is completely impossible to recreate here as a result. Zerg has a long range bomber upgrade, that turns an airborne fighting unit into a very long range, only-attacks-ground, unit. And this unit was good at taking out siege tanks, for example. Even when defending.

So, just as air units can fly over anti-air, and take damage, why, if ground units are allowed to walk under anti-ground, why not have them take damage in the process?

The clearest way this would break Codex 1 would just be having a hive as defense for a base – something I learned you cannot do last night. Not that you cannot do this in an RTS game – flying patrollers are real, late game carriers as base defense are possible – but it is not in C1.

Anti-air was explicitly stated as “Never harmful to have”. It never reduces your functionality. But flying?

From a space of “Lets design a card combat game”, saying “These patrollers have a job of not letting someone in” makes sense. Then, the idea of a flier coming out of the air to stop ground invaders makes sense. It’s like saying, if something in the patrol zone could attack you, then it will attempt to attack/stop you.

But we have a stronger design decision – model RTS games in cards. Never mind the inherent all players at once vs ordered players and different timings which breaks the RTS game model. [Trying to find a way that lets everyone take their turn at the same time is possible, but it really requires a moderator. Might make a good computer-moderated game, questionable for an in-person, cards-on-table game.]

Once you say “Fliers cannot land, and cannot stop ground”, flying defenders can only do damage, not base isolation. Codex one prohibits this defense.

What was the design goal of this?
Can Codex two consider the other choice: Anti-ground means ground units take damage for ignoring fliers?

2

That’s a question you’d have to field to Sirlin, though I believe he’s answered it before somewhere. Maybe in one of his podcasts?

3

I think one thing to mention is that flying and anti-air are not equal: flying is much better on the attack, because fliers can often skip over a patrol entirely, and anti-air units can not. Having fliers be “equivalent” to anti-air on defence would make them much more powerful overall, so my guess is this was done to keep them balanced, otherwise they could easily dominate the board.

1 Like
4

What you’re saying thematically makes sense and would be consistent, but as was already said it would give fliers even more power than they already have. A thought I had is what if every unit and hero had had listed if they ground, air, or both? Then you can have anti air fliers like an sc2 phoenix or anti ground fliers like broodlords. It also creates another knob to use for balance (a tech 3 flier might hit both, but a tech 1 flier might only hit air). That said, this just adds another layer or complexity to an already complex game, without enough upside to justify it.

By the way, its probably better talk design on sirlin’s discord because he’s more likely to respond. He’s guaranteed to respond if you’re a patron :wink:

1 Like