Why didn't programmers allow players to save missiles for future missions?

[nicewitch]

Quite curious. I mean, if I don't use a missile in a mission, then I should get to use it in a future mission. WC missile programming has been a joke for WC players.

 

[Dundradal]

Yeah, I believe that's called "arming" and is done before each mission. How do you know that wasn't the same IFF you carried in Torgo?

This post is a joke, but I posted anyways.

 

[nicewitch]

Oh, so it's a joke that I want to land my aerofighter for more missiles during a mission, huh? Maybe I'd like to load up on heat seekers or IFFs or imrecs so I can knock out easily the opposing aerofighters and then land and rearm with dumbfires to knock out the opposing ships. The programmers of WC games could take lessons from the programmers of the The Legend of Zelda games.

 

[Dundradal]

That's not what you said though. You asked about using them in a "future mission". That's not the same as landing and rearming during a single mission.

I've never laughed about the missiles in WC. Everyone complains about the overpowered missiles of WC4.

 

[nicewitch]

Each of the WC game first missions are easy enough to use without missiles (well, for the most part they are). Each of the remaining missions of those games (those "future missions) usually requires the use of missiles.

 

[Dundradal]

Yes, early missions tend to be easier while late game missions are harder.

What's the point?

 

[AD]

Wing Commander Prophecy does let you restock midmission.

 

[Ijuin]

I interpreted the phrase "saving missiles for a future mission" to mean thus: if you don't use the missiles, then they are added to your ammunition in the next mission. For example, if you had six missiles, and finished a mission with two of them remaining, then you would have the extra two the next time, and could thus launch with eight missiles. This was not done in Wing Commander because each fighter was given a maximum missile capacity--you launch with every missile mount already full on most missions, and there isn't anywhere on your fighter to mount additional ones--if there had been more mounts, then you would already have had them filled to begin with. Thus, you always fly your Hellcat with six missiles, because six is all that it can carry.

 

[cff]

Its called realism and immersion. As compared to arcade games. The Legend of Zelda should take a lesson from WC (as most modern RPGs do) and introduce something like carrying capacity!

As was said - there is a maximum missile capacity. In WC games you are usually assumed to have enough missiles on carrier, so you always get a full ammount loaded. Try Privateer or Strike Commander where you also have to take care of ammo. So saving actually does help you. There is sitll an upper limit however.

 

[Aginor]

yeah, sorry nicewitch, but cff is right. Wing Commander was always trying to be "realistic", which is the reason why you won't find 200 missiles in a small space ship and such thing. In real life a fighter plane doesn't magically get additional weapon racks just because someone didn't need their missiles in earlier missions.
(the USAF / USN etc. would like that though, because they fly lots of missions with full missile load and without firing a shot )

 

[Ijuin]

Its called realism and immersion. As compared to arcade games. The Legend of Zelda should take a lesson from WC (as most modern RPGs do) and introduce something like carrying capacity!

Actually, all of the Zelda games except for the multiplayer Four Swords ones, do have carrying capacity limits for bombs and arrows. You can only carry so many (usually 10-30) at first, and you have to go find/earn/buy capacity upgrades (though once you get all of the upgrades, you will usually be able to carry 50-99). The original Legend of Zelda for NES is slightly different in its management of arrows however, as you have no ammo for them, instead spending money directly every time you attack with the bow.