TheSpork
Corporal
Reged: 08/10/05
Posts: 67
|
Re: IDF
[Re: Celt]
#125269 - 02/09/06 12:28 PM (70.237.232.88)
|
|
|
Quote:
I'm sorry for thinking that a weapon that's basically an "I Win!" button should be removed, after all vehicle/mech fighting is so boring compared to sniping, retreating, sniping, retreating.
Snipers are the "I Win!!" button? Nice. To bad if you have defenses set up, active folks to pilot them, and a plan to counter attack, that "I Win" button gets turned into an "I am almost surrendered" button after a couple of counters, and defesnive manuevers. Unless you are fighting Vs. anything over lvl 8, then you have to actually do something besides sit inside your city and let your towers/trash units do the work, but then, you are going to lose anyways at that point, as you are taking a back seat to your overall defenses.
Yes, IDF has become a huge factor on the battle field. SNipers are/were necessary to off set the double and triple range of stationary towers, so simply removing IDF without tweaking the range of towers is leaving a huge gap in the abillity of attackers to overcome city defenses. I KNOW some of you want impregnable city defenses, so your "worrys and fears" while being away from the game are alleviated, but that leaves us in the same position as before, but now we have to sacrifice Mechs to take out those citys, and with the cost/payout of LW at the higher levels, its just not worth it. So Land War suffers another setback, we still have gobs of units, but now as opposed to IDF ruling the field, we have double and triple range AC 20 and PPC towers dropped everywhere, and are still in the same boat.
Tweak the range, then look at removing IDF, if that is what it comes to. Simple sollutions are nice, but more often as not, they only fix small, simple problems. THere is alot more besides IDF that needs to be tweaked/worked over to make combat more fun, and enjoyable all around.
--------------------
Opinions are like assholes, everyone has one, and they all pretty much stink -------
Anonymous
"We must respect the other fellow’s religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart."
-H.L. Mencken
|
Celt
Sergeant
Reged: 12/14/03
Posts: 199
|
Re: IDF
[Re: TheSpork]
#125280 - 02/09/06 01:06 PM (62.254.32.17)
|
|
|
"To bad if you have defenses set up, active folks to pilot them, and a plan to counter attack,"
That's a lot of "If"'s
|
TheSpork
Corporal
Reged: 08/10/05
Posts: 67
|
Re: IDF
[Re: Celt]
#125350 - 02/10/06 11:54 PM (70.237.232.88)
|
|
|
And if you dont, simply removing IDF solves your problem?
I am not a huge fan of IDF. I see alot of uses for them, especialy in regards to sieging a large Empire though. I AM a fan of towers, and in anything we have where we can increase the range exponentialy, we have to have a counter. I wont say we CANT simply take out IDF, nerf towers to 1.5-1.75 range, and work from there, but I will say it takes out a rather interesting tactical aspect of the game, which I rather enjoy.
I have had an Empire get a beat down. I had defenses, though not enough set up to turn the tide of battle without people able to act from within the Empire to direct it (my biggest mistake, and the one that proved fatal). Having defenses set up, having people who are able to assist/control your Empire, and having counter attack forces ready/available (and NOT sitting in your main zones, waiting to get pinned/killed) can turn the tide of an attack. I have fought off attacks from 4 different Empires on one, and all but 3 attacks were on a single zone. around 50 k BV killed, and these were ONLY defensive manuevers, with less than a Company of reinforcements over the course of 5 hours. Granted, I had a login, full access, and time to pilot, but it wasnt My Empire, and they had/have taken the time to plan out thier defenses. Removing IDF changes the face of War, and guarentees a return to more Mech battles (though I am doubtfull it will be as large a shift as many would hope for), but you are STILL going to see massive buildup of other "scrap" vehicles to assist in sieging citys and use Vs. ABR, and simply throw away in general.
If you plan things out, being sieged by a battalion of SNP's with mechs as a back up is not a instant "I Win!!". If you DONT plan things out, and make your preperations, then your are just as likely to lose a war without IDF capabillitys as with.
Problem I have is, I dont see the removal of IDF as ending/changing the "tedium" that already exists. It may further some aspects, but they willl simply be replaced by something else (once again).
--------------------
Opinions are like assholes, everyone has one, and they all pretty much stink -------
Anonymous
"We must respect the other fellow’s religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart."
-H.L. Mencken
|
Celt
Sergeant
Reged: 12/14/03
Posts: 199
|
Re: IDF
[Re: TheSpork]
#125371 - 02/11/06 01:47 PM (62.254.32.17)
|
|
|
Well, I have practical experience from before IDF, and even from when being lvl10 was extremely rare.
Even back then it was a common tactic by the highest levels to have hundreds of throwaway units a zone, be it inf or units like strikers/hetzers.
Still, IDF and towers didnt make that better, it just made things worse.
|
cbtgod
Lieutenant Colonel
Reged: 12/14/05
Posts: 1813
Loc: IN A BOX UNDER A HOUSE
|
Re: IDF
[Re: Celt]
#125378 - 02/11/06 03:33 PM (71.100.240.191)
|
|
|
i had one pilot take out 6 snipers it depends on your mechs and your pilots yes?
--------------------
yes its a toad, if you didnt know that you dont know anything about cbt
|
sdog
Lieutenant Colonel
Reged: 09/01/03
Posts: 1791
Loc: europe
|
Re: IDF
[Re: cbtgod]
#125397 - 02/12/06 07:04 AM (139.174.165.124)
|
|
|
not necessarily, it depends also how carefull or skilled your opponent is.
|
Shai
Private
Reged: 03/12/04
Posts: 47
|
Re: IDF
[Re: Bloodhawk]
#125676 - 02/19/06 02:06 AM (69.243.17.154)
|
|
|
I beleive he was suggesting to add further penalties to movement. I.E. nerf IDF ~again~. It obviously is still overpowered if majority of fights are IDF vs. IDF.
Yes there are penalties vs. moving targets- but perhaps they need to be higher? Even if IDF was nerfed again it would still be useful in certain situations. It just would not be the end all battle equalizer it is now.
Or perhaps it would force battles to take place in sequences, Attacker IDF engages and squares off against Defender IDF. If victorious, Attacker Mechs move in to the "cleared zone" for the kill. Mech vs. Mech fights would return. And you would still have a "long fight" which is good for defenders. No one wants to login and find they are wiped- they want a chance to duke it out.
~No need to remove IDF- just nerf it some more.
~No need to remove towers- as Pimp said just nerf the range multipliers. Even a 1.25 or 1.5 Multiplier could make life difficult for a DP Mech force. Do we really need x3?
Or if such long range tower conversions are deemed necessary then nerf the hell out of their min range again. Make it so bad that they cannot fire at all on units within a ~large~ range. They could still change up battle, force attackers to stay mobile, but wouldnt be the end all super tower.
Anyhow- we all have opinions, but so far it seems everyone agrees they want to see Mech vs. Mech LW again.
-Shaitan
|
nes
Newbie
Reged: 09/05/05
Posts: 11
|
Re: IDF
[Re: Shai]
#125678 - 02/19/06 02:44 AM (83.21.149.194)
|
|
|
Mech vs. Mech is fun indeed, but as long as you pilot your mechs, not AI. IDF wasnt introduced without a reason.
|
MatthewAce
Captain
Reged: 06/25/04
Posts: 774
Loc: Neveron
|
Re: IDF
[Re: nes]
#125682 - 02/19/06 06:47 AM (202.156.6.52)
|
|
|
Nerf tower multiplier range....
Previously, I was sticking to x1.25 and x1.5 range.
But now, I would suggest x1.33 (or 1 1/3) and x1.67 (or 1 2/3). Rounded down. And firstly, to apply it to short range. Then multiplied by the usual 2 for medrange and 3 for longrange.
Means that IDF2 would have a range of 21/42/63 at x1.33 and 26/52/78 at x1.67.
As for increasing min-range, I'm all for it as well. Maybe in proportion to tower CF, as well as range multplier?
Say...
[(CF/25)-1] as a base increase in tower minimum range. Then multiplied by a certain number in accordance to tower range multiplier.
--------------------
Urbies are good.
|
|
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit
Reply
Quote
