Katrar
Major
Reged: 09/15/02
Posts: 1314
Loc: Seattle, WA USA, Terra
|
Slowing Down the Attacker -or- A New Speedbump System for a New Era
#161560 - 06/09/11 01:42 AM (76.28.186.150)
|
|
|
Speedbumps used to be essential to the proper setup of an empire's defenses. They were incapable of saving an empire all by themselves, what they did instead was greatly increase the time necessary to take an empire's zones. This gave the defender time to respond to an attack, time to move forces into contact, get in touch with allies, etc.
Few of us might miss actual speedbumps, but I think most of us miss the slowing down of an empire's destruction that they accomplished.
I'd like to propose the following:
Units taking an empty zone would require (at minimum) the same amount of time to clear as it would take to transit the zone under normal movement.
The Details
The zone itself would immediately conquer and change ownership, however, the units that took that zone would be in effect -in transit- for a duration necessary for the slowest unit of that formation to transit a single zone.
This would eliminate the rapid taking of zones, the click and click moving from one zone to the next in ten seconds. It would not result in the half an hour stealth tower hunts that proved to be the speedbump's killjoy.
This would also mean that faster units would be a bit more useful for in the field maneuvering. Hovertanks, faster mechs, etc would be able to cover more ground, encircle, trap, etc better than slower, heavier units.
Doesn't it just seem right that a lance of J. Edgars should be able to penetrate more enemy territory in 10 minutes of movement than a lance of Imps?
Currently, due only to game design, it can be faster by an order of magnitude for an attacker to conquer 20 linear empty zones than it can be for a defender to order units to move through those zones. That's just nutty.
Anyhow is this a critical issue? No. But once something is done with walls, hd only emps, etc, and holding actual territory again becomes necessary (dare I say even preferable)... this seems a reasonable change to recommend.
As a note, it could be argued that additional time could be required to take and clear an empty zone. Units crossing the frontier into enemy territory would be expecting opposition and be taking the appropriate precautions... leapfrogging, slow movement, combat formations, etc. Maybe it takes twice as long as normal friendly zone movement. Either way, empires can no longer fast click their way into the heart of an enemy's core, and ownership of all its empty zones, etc.
Summary:
Change empty zone conquest for an attacker to take at minimum the same amount of time as a formation's slowest unit's movement. Just like normal formation movement currently does.
Thoughts?
[Edits]
Mantis brought up a good point. Units engaged while they were "in transit" (or whatever it may be) in a recently conquered zone should go straight to combat, NOT be kicked back to their original neighboring zone. This would need some code tweeks, or a new type of "unit pause" that functioned similar to in transit, but did not follow its rules. Perhaps it would say "clearing zone" or something.
--------------------
HoC Gaming - Come war with us!
The HoC Archive - Neveron's definitive historical document
Edited by Katrar (06/09/11 02:47 PM)
|
rantamplan
Sergeant Major
Reged: 03/26/03
Posts: 341
|
Re: Slowing Down the Attacker -or- A New Speedbump System for a New Era
[Re: Katrar]
#161561 - 06/09/11 04:34 AM (88.25.23.151)
|
|
|
I completelly agree with this,
i would agree too with doubling the amount of time needed for crossing the zone when taking an enemy zone.
Just would add one consideration: We have to think in something so that units who are in transit becouse of having conquered a zone should engage in combat instead of pulling back when the zone gets attacked.
the reason is that if we use common "in transit" rules, we could get a zone permanently changing hands with no actual combat becouse of 2 forces alternativelly taking the zone from enemy hands (once one takes teh zone, the other pulls back, then it gets out of transits and attacks the zone but the previous attakers are still in transit so they pull back, when they get out of transit they engage the zone but the other force is still in transit so they pull back... and so on).
other than that I think that the idea is cool
Edited by ShadowMasterCM (06/09/11 05:17 AM)
|
Toten
Sergeant
Reged: 03/18/08
Posts: 147
Loc: Australia
|
Re: Slowing Down the Attacker -or- A New Speedbump System for a New Era
[Re: rantamplan]
#161565 - 06/09/11 05:12 AM (118.208.69.78)
|
|
|
Yes, please.
--------------------
To secure peace is to prepare for war.
|
mattbuck
Eeyore
Reged: 02/13/04
Posts: 3285
Loc: Nottingham, UK
|
Re: Slowing Down the Attacker -or- A New Speedbump System for a New Era
[Re: Toten]
#161566 - 06/09/11 05:50 AM (128.243.253.112)
|
|
|
I say bring back stealth tower wars - make people WORK for their zones. That also worked as a good way to train pilots with variable maintenance.
--------------------
Haha, you people think admins still look at these forums.
Visit the Platonian! Updated! Stuff! Things! Click!
Edited by mattbuck (06/09/11 05:51 AM)
|
KJI_3x6
Lieutenant
Reged: 09/11/06
Posts: 650
Loc: Minnesota, North Korea
|
Re: Slowing Down the Attacker -or- A New Speedbump System for a New Era
[Re: mattbuck]
#161573 - 06/09/11 09:27 AM (71.193.82.41)
|
|
|
yes please
--------------------
My d*** rumble in the jungle; your d*** got touched by your uncle.
My d*** double feature screen; your d*** went straight to dvd.
ME > you
|
Katrar
Major
Reged: 09/15/02
Posts: 1314
Loc: Seattle, WA USA, Terra
|
Re: Slowing Down the Attacker -or- A New Speedbump System for a New Era
[Re: KJI_3x6]
#161574 - 06/09/11 02:45 PM (76.28.186.150)
|
|
|
@Mantis, Very good point. I agree that if this change were to happen, units that were engaged while they were stuck in a recently conquered zone should go straight to combat, not be kicked back to their original zone.
@Mattbuck, personally I never disliked the stealth tower game. I actually had a lot of fun killing stealth towers with ostscouts. I had several >100 rep OTTs over the years simply because of this, they were fun. =)
--------------------
HoC Gaming - Come war with us!
The HoC Archive - Neveron's definitive historical document
|
buc
Captain
Reged: 08/12/05
Posts: 710
|
Re: Slowing Down the Attacker -or- A New Speedbump System for a New Era
[Re: Katrar]
#161634 - 06/15/11 03:49 PM (125.239.230.191)
|
|
|
Yeah I like it. Like many things, I dont think it would do much by itself, but similarly, I'd like to see a min FABR time too, so you can still force an ABR, but its not instant. I liked speed bumps.
|
TRK
Sergeant Major
Reged: 11/05/02
Posts: 254
|
Re: Slowing Down the Attacker -or- A New Speedbump System for a New Era
[Re: buc]
#161645 - 06/16/11 11:27 AM (209.89.3.33)
|
|
|
Good idea.
|
wonko
Sergeant Major
Reged: 03/08/06
Posts: 273
Loc: park city UT
|
Re: Slowing Down the Attacker -or- A New Speedbump System for a New Era
[Re: TRK]
#162161 - 09/30/11 05:06 AM (76.23.60.40)
|
|
|
heck yes, and why not allow units that are in normal transit to have the option to enter battle or run?
you're tellin me we diddn't see that batt of hunters comin a few miles away?, in territory we control? not one of my sensor units has his gear turned on?
my drivers aren't that stupid and neither are yours.
they have time to deploy into defensive positions if they want to, or they can run.
all i'm sayin is that we see them coming
--------------------
Democrats are the root of all evil
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit
Reply
Quote
