TRK
Sergeant Major
Reged: 11/05/02
Posts: 254
|
Re: Towers, IDF, Terrain
[Re: Eddey]
#143901 - 01/24/07 08:01 PM (199.126.245.115)
|
|
|
Wonko, my mistake, you are correct. However I still think city zones could use a bit of building thinning.
|
TRK
Sergeant Major
Reged: 11/05/02
Posts: 254
|
Re: Towers, IDF, Terrain
[Re: CaBhaal]
#143902 - 01/24/07 08:06 PM (199.126.245.115)
|
|
|
Also...I dont see any mention of Wayward wanting to get rid of IDF in this thread. Frankly, I am not sure I understand your want to get rid of it. Seiging cities would take LONGER without it. As as one poster pointed out, takes forever to get into range as it is.
|
Katrar
Major
Reged: 09/15/02
Posts: 1314
Loc: Seattle, WA USA, Terra
|
Re: Towers, IDF, Terrain
[Re: TRK]
#143916 - 01/25/07 02:01 AM (71.231.27.146)
|
|
|
Good ideas from Wayward. Good comments from the forum. I give this thread an A+.
|
BurnRanger
Private
Reged: 12/20/04
Posts: 35
Loc: Germany
|
Re: Towers, IDF, Terrain
[Re: sdog]
#143918 - 01/25/07 03:01 AM (87.234.255.2)
|
|
|
Quote:
another very good thing would be hefty to hit modifiers for towers to hit units in the same hex, to account for dead angles in such a setup. (guns can't be raised or lowered far enough, turret can't turn cause mech blocks it, etc. this makes killing towers with close range fighters an interesting tactic, and can compensate for a slight range increase. it makes fighting towers require different armies and tactics then fighting mobile defenses.
I really like this idea and it shouldn't be too hard to implement. When towers' range mults get thrown out, i'd like to see like +1 (maybe +2) range and +1 min-range per towerlevel for each weapon.
(Example: LRM20 on a lvl3 tower would have 24 range and 9 min-range.)
Even MGs would have min-range, but it still sounds realistic.
Imo towers should keep a bit of a range advantage to make up the immobility. And a few hexes aren't that hard to run thru before you can hit the tower with your own long range weapons.
The smaller non-city zones sound quite nice. Nothing against it.
Same thing with less bumpy terrain.
IDF i always found a nice thing, but it should be limited more. You can conquer almost every city as long as you have more IDF weapons on hand than the defender.
I already suggested in another thread to make shots from IDF weapons take 1 round to reach the target (it's an indirect fire cannon with a high ballistic flying curve). The target can therefor only be a hex. Imo that's how an artillery weapon should work.
Now if this is too hard to code, decrease the ranges of IDF weapons and/or give a higher to hit penalty.
--------------------
To err is human, to forgive divine. Well, forgivness is between them and god. Our job is to arrange the meeting.
|
Kit_fox
Colonel
Reged: 09/16/02
Posts: 3054
|
Re: Towers, IDF, Terrain
[Re: Wayward_Son]
#143927 - 01/25/07 10:11 AM (129.138.30.201)
|
|
|
Ok, as far as change considerations go:
1) Towers -
Reduction of range is a good thing. I would kind of like to see them get a +1 to their maximum range for every level above 1 they are (so a level 6 tower has its max range increased by 5).
I also think that towers should not be permitted to mount IDF weapons. The big problem that has been encountered by attackers and defenders alike mostly stems from the IDF/Tower arms race and it needs to stop. In order to do so I would suggest removing the SNP in its current incarnation from the game, getting rid of IDF-2 completely (which is not needed if towers don't have range mults).
Instead maybe change the SNP to have the IDF5 weapons. This should be fine because the big threat of SNP's was all the times they could shoot, not the actual damage they did. With IDF5 weapons they will need to carry more ammo in order to shoot quite so much, meaning it is less easy to crit a defense force to death. With IDF2 removed completely you would solve a lot of problems.
In addition, IDF should not be possible to mount on towers, otherwise defenders create a couple uber towers that are very hard to destroy that mount IDF weapons, easily able to destroy an attacker with their counter bombard. Instead a defender should have to use normal IDF vehicles if they wish to be able to use IDF on an attacker.
2) Map Size -
Non-city maps being smaller would probably be a good thing. However would the number of defending units able to defend these smaller zones also go down? I would hope so, though how much smaller it should be is something I haven't really thought about.
The one potential problem I see with this is that it would make it much easier for a defender to setup towers in such a way that when an attack comes it immediately comes under very heavy fire and takes heavy losses. This is especially true if you smooth out terrain as you seem to want to below. It would be pretty easy to set up 6-12 towers so that they can cover the entire edge of a 60x60 zone so that you will always be under fire of several of them at once. This isn't a problem with normal units because they have roughly normal durability, but towers can carry enough armor that an attacker can be confident about surviving any counter-fire safely. To counter this you should probably limit towers to the center of a zone. This would be a good move in general. The restriction doesn't have to be huge, just they shouldn't be able to be set up within... say... 20-25 hexes of the edge of any zone.
To prevent attackers from taking advantage of this by hanging out by the edge and just moving out quickly when they are about to get overwhelmed, only to return with more IDF weapons, my thought would be that there should be some sort of way to make retreating units vunerable if they don't stick around for some period of time. Say a battle lasts less than X number of rounds retreating units are exposed to some amount of persuit fire. This persuite fire could be one round of taking fire from enemy units over some certain speed if the retreating units are slower than a certain speed. (Say for example, persuit fire happens from 5/8 units on units that have a speed of 4/6 or less). Persuit fire should probably only happen when an attacker withdraws completely, and only on the units which have withdrawn in the past 2-3 rounds. This allows an attacker to safely withdraw heavily damaged units, but also requires an ordered withdraw with a rearguard holding action. It also makes faster units have a nice roll, as persuit of a retreating attacker and for recon purposes where they can run into a zone, look around, and get away without suffering persuit fire.
3) Terrain -
Terrain is something that definately needs to be fixed, but features should stay. Someone mentioned that they would like to see ridges and the like. I think the biggest measurement should be that most zones should be traversable in a decent amount of time by any unit. This could be accomplished in large part by simply making a change to how quickly elevation can change within a zone. Honestly I think that most zones should not have much more elevation change than what is currently called 'hilly'. This gives a nice mix of open manuvering, terrain features to hide behind, and LoS.
As far as trees go, they should be grouped together much more closely in stands, getting denser in the center. What I envision when I say this is a 3-5 hex radius formation of trees. Stands of trees should be no more closer together than 15 or so hexes. This lets non-mech units get around a zone still, but provides a potentially battle-deciding feature to the terrain. It also makes it impossible to jump from area of cover to area of cover in a single bound.
Rough I am simply not sure about. I both love and hate it. I am thinking that this is somethign the defender should be able to decide, either by clearing out unwanted rough in his zones or by adding more. In either case, there would be some sort of large cost associated with it. In either case, rough should probably happen in something simular to trees. Happening in patches, but not covering a whole zone and slowing down everything. More of a barrier to manuvering with complete freedom for most units than a pain in the ass.
Cities, on the other hand, should be almost completely flat. Buildings in larger cities cause enough of a manuvering/LOS problem. How flat a city zone is should be determined by the number of buildable spaces in them. Zones with over 500 buildable spaces should be completely flat and open.
When you make this change it would also be good to make terrain more continious. Maybe some algorythem to limit the amount of change from zone to zone so that zones that share borders seem more or less rasonable. No moving from a super crappy zone to a open plains in a single transition.
--------------------
_____
The RNG mugged me in a dark street, killed my dog, and cancled Christmas.
When the winds of change blow hard enough the most trivial of things can become deadly projectials.
Knowledge is power. Power corrupts. Study hard. Be evil.
|
Eddey
Sergeant
Reged: 03/06/06
Posts: 196
|
Re: Towers, IDF, Terrain
[Re: BurnRanger]
#143928 - 01/25/07 10:15 AM (64.59.144.87)
|
|
|
As was stated many, many times in this thread and in others IDF is only one part of warfare wws wants to encourge (at least thats how it appears) combined arms battles ones that involves all types of weapons.... However its still quite difficult to get battles like that unless your just enjoying yourself (which is quite rare) but how will effect the already steep learning curve or will it, and conquering a city with just IDF weapons that is possible but are you just sitting in a corner with IDF because if thats the case.... Then i really feel sorry for the defender...
--------------------
May the rng smile on you and smite your enemies... -Commander Tal Gladys
Im currently going to try and make an introductory guide for newbies from lvls 1-7 any suggestions
just pm me thx you xD
http://mattbuck.irongalaxy.com/neveron/faq-irc.html
|
sdog
Lieutenant Colonel
Reged: 09/01/03
Posts: 1791
Loc: europe
|
Re: Towers, IDF, Terrain
[Re: Eddey]
#143934 - 01/25/07 12:14 PM (139.174.165.124)
|
|
|
IDF are in my oppinion very unbalancing, as they benefit only old empires and empires with lot's of LWs won already. A noob could only field gun 2 IDF units, wich are almost useless. A few empires however can field considerable numbers of gun 0 and better snipers. Nerfing them by increasing to hit numbers, makes this inbalance actually even worse.
@Kitfox, if towers would not be allowed to have IDF, while IDF vehicles are available, towers would be only usefull in some niches. most of the time towers would be destroyed without even having a chance to engage their attacker.
With a sensible terrain and city building clustering, we can have a rather stable and balanced game system. There would be actually hardly any need for IDF, except an ultra short ranged system.
SNIPER WARFARE IS BORING!
--------------------
I realised soon that the fun part of playing a military game is that we have lots of lifes and in the end knowone dies, ...
- Skaven, ArmA modding community
|
Kit_fox
Colonel
Reged: 09/16/02
Posts: 3054
|
Re: Towers, IDF, Terrain
[Re: sdog]
#143937 - 01/25/07 12:45 PM (129.138.30.201)
|
|
|
Quote:
@Kitfox, if towers would not be allowed to have IDF, while IDF vehicles are available, towers would be only usefull in some niches. most of the time towers would be destroyed without even having a chance to engage their attacker.
Assuming that the defender is thick enough to not keep his own IDF vehicles in the zone, you are absoutely correct. My reasoning behind keeping IDF off of towers is several fold:
1) The IDF problem would not be solved by allowing them to be there. In fact, it would be made worse because of super IDF towers. You will start seeing 125CF IDF5 towers mounting 2 IDF5's and enough ammo to launch 90 vollies. AND it will still have over 60 armor each location. The only way an attacker can deal with that is either retreat/attacking and exchanging IDF fire for hours, waiting for lucky crits (which I believe everyone has stated is really hurting war for both sides), or somehow get under the IDF5's minimum range. Given how things work out today, everyone knows which attackers are going to pick.
By requiring that defenders not put IDF weapons on towers you give them a choice. They can have IDF vehicles, which are fairly specialized, and assuming you remove IDF2 on SNP's are rather limited in their uses, towers, which cannot fire indirectly but mount massive firepower, or vehicles, which are mobile and useful in defense, but vunerable to crits. This effectively forces a combined arms approach to defense where you need towers for their heavy hitting, vehicles for their flexibility, and IDF for their ability to counter bombard enemy IDF units.
MOST of the problems with IDF units would honestly be solved by this. SNP warfare is mostly bad because it covers the entire damn map and they have such huge ammo reserves. Unfortunately, IDF towers basically require that you have them. By completely getting rid of IDF towers there is no need for SNP's with their broken IDF2 weapons. So they can be replaced with IDF5's, which have MUCH less ammo per ton.
--------------------
_____
The RNG mugged me in a dark street, killed my dog, and cancled Christmas.
When the winds of change blow hard enough the most trivial of things can become deadly projectials.
Knowledge is power. Power corrupts. Study hard. Be evil.
|
sdog
Lieutenant Colonel
Reged: 09/01/03
Posts: 1791
Loc: europe
|
Re: Towers, IDF, Terrain
[Re: Kit_fox]
#143938 - 01/25/07 01:01 PM (139.174.165.124)
|
|
|
hm, i'd consider a player thick who leaves his snipers in a city, same as with the mechs. they are very difficult to replace* offensive units and a limited resource (SP), wasting them in defense is a waste.*
those super IDF towers die as easily as others, by crits. 60 or 30 armour doesn't really matter. typicaly IDF towers now have hardly any armour, people sacrifice it for smaller size and more ammo.
In my oppinion the IDF as it is now just breaks the balance of the game. If you fix one problem, like preventing tower use, you create new ones.
However reducing IDF range to corresponding LRM range would help already a lot. you can take out em idf towers with direct fire. Only reason for IDF towers would be to shield your own direct fire towers from attack from blocked los. But there you got tactical possibilities for attackers (kill idf with los, then los towers with idf, or any combination)
*i had a LW last week, i got 2x35 training checks. from a bat skill 0 snipers only 1 skilled down! from a comp green snipers,, only 2 skilled down to 0. Allmost all snipers have been better skilled, and have tier 4 skill mults, due to old FWAR activity. geting good snipers is very very hard now.
**Just a simple scenario: Defender defends with towers, and snipers (nerfed, with idf5). Attacker attacks, waits outside of tower range, waits for Snipers to come, and kills them with lrm. then pulls out and kills towers without risk from behind a hill, or building. Defenders Snipers are dead, counterattack is hampered.
--------------------
I realised soon that the fun part of playing a military game is that we have lots of lifes and in the end knowone dies, ...
- Skaven, ArmA modding community
|
mattbuck
Eeyore
Reged: 02/13/04
Posts: 3285
Loc: Nottingham, UK
|
Re: Towers, IDF, Terrain
[Re: sdog]
#143940 - 01/25/07 01:29 PM (128.243.220.22)
|
|
|
I like Kit's idea.
--------------------
Haha, you people think admins still look at these forums.
Visit the Platonian! Updated! Stuff! Things! Click!
|
amerzone
Newbie
Reged: 10/08/06
Posts: 6
|
Re: Towers, IDF, Terrain
[Re: Malachi]
#143941 - 01/25/07 01:35 PM (213.22.89.149)
|
|
|
Quote:
wow, ever fought in a 1K city? .
is the city size the issue here? I don't think so.
Have I ever conquered 100KBV or more cities?
mmmm, let me see.. oh yeah.. around 20...
I guess I know what I'm talking about
|
amerzone
Newbie
Reged: 10/08/06
Posts: 6
|
Re: Towers, IDF, Terrain
[Re: amerzone]
#143942 - 01/25/07 01:49 PM (213.22.89.149)
|
|
|
You need ideas?
here's a simple one.
a)attackers BV less or equal to denfender BV
or
b) City AI defense orders for present units. Something to prevent kamikazes.
|
Malachi
Sergeant Major
Reged: 04/19/04
Posts: 369
|
Re: Towers, IDF, Terrain
[Re: amerzone]
#143944 - 01/25/07 02:12 PM (172.143.36.86)
|
|
|
With current rules city size IS important, fighting in a 200 buildable is a lot different to fighting in the confines of a 1K city. In a 1K city you are often forced to come in close and engage targets simply because you don't have LoS. This means think about your defences, LRM towers work for fire corridors if you spot them, place short range towers out of these corridors so the attacker has a choice, brave concentrated LRM fire, or go through a very close range area where shorter range towers can really smack him about. Oh yeah, and include vehicles that can move to meet the threat, with all that cover vanguards and zhukovs creeping up is a major health hazard to an attacker. As for your ideas:
A) do you mean once an attacker has attacked with the amount of bv the city has defending it he cant attack again? or can he only use less BV than the defender has in each attack? Either way both are absolutely stupid IMHO. Tactical doctrine dating back over 60 years has always been the same, ideally for an attack you want 3 to 1 attackers to defenders. Not so much of an issue with the unit specialisation we have in nev but at the same time rather silly when you can encounter 216 freaking units. Also, we're not CBT Clanners.
b) Battalion orders work pretty well if you have things set in battalions. If units don't move to engage though people will find methods of just picking them off one by one, you don't want stuff to not kamikaze, but complain that towers get picked off from being stationary. Make your mind up.
|
CaBhaal
Lieutenant
Reged: 10/11/04
Posts: 599
|
Re: Towers, IDF, Terrain
[Re: Malachi]
#143947 - 01/25/07 03:37 PM (24.32.84.216)
|
|
|
My problem with AI stems from attackers corner or hole sitting and letting the enemy come to them on AI, plinking away with Snipers. Yes, a BPer can stop that but being able to set preferred AI behavior would be a better solution.
If the enemy has IDF but is out of range, it makes no sense for you to charge them coming out from under your own IDF umbrella. Yet the current gen AI mindlessly charges to 0 range with nearly every unit type getting slaughtered in the process, regardless of weapon configuration.
As for removing IDF from towers, you've got to be out of your mind. Again, I'm hearing this as: people who want to take well defended 1k zones without taking losses. I've desiged some of the best zone defenses in the game at all levels and every one of them has flaws. I've taken some of the best defended zones in the game. It can be done, once you stop trying to handcuff your opponent and try to think for yourself.
CaBhaal
|
Octurion
Private
Reged: 01/30/04
Posts: 37
|
Re: Towers, IDF, Terrain
[Re: CaBhaal]
#143948 - 01/25/07 04:10 PM (172.145.91.224)
|
|
|
What about set a max best to hit for IDF weapons? Dont need to change it ranges or limit it used. Just make it that the best to hit for a IDF weapon is 3, 4, or even 5. This would make it an useful cap of support fire as you assult the enemy yet it wont be powerful enough to win battles itself(hence the need for the combine arms forces we want). It would make all IDF more of a player control city artillery which is useful yet needs to be defended.
|
Pimpslap
Sergeant Major
Reged: 03/13/03
Posts: 365
|
Re: Towers, IDF, Terrain
[Re: Wayward_Son]
#143969 - 01/26/07 12:04 AM (74.195.171.180)
|
|
|
Repost from under the LW revamp suggestion thread just easier to find here.
If you really want to scale down war and still make the game manageable, try this.
Defending forces : No more then 36 units per per 1,350,000 Building points (thats a 1k pop zone). This is then very easy to scale with zone size so zones with lots of TC, or factories and stuff could have more then 36 units as they are worth more. Zones are also allowed to be built up to 1k using the builder class!! just a quick example of how this would reduce units, The largest pop empire in game would only support about 5-6k units. Their zones would still have defense, not the 200 we have now but enough to hold off 12 attacking units.
Attack Forces : 12 units max. Sp is scaled by level, NOT by pop. Large level empires should be able to have nothing but damn mechs if they want, since they can ONLY attack other large empires. Huge mech empires really only matter to about level 7-9 or so, after that it should be up to the empire owner, not some goofy ass rule no one likes. Abr is removed with the exception of auto-abr, people now have to pilot their attacks.
Mech Market is fixed. Mechs are now normalized cost using their actual production values, not some goofy ass code. Mechs are ordered from OFF-World, and their is a delay in shipping depending upon demand of mech.
Black Market is Added: This is more like the market we currently have, driven by players buying whats their now. Mech price from this can flux alot, and supply. Also mechs from Black Market could also be slightly modded from normal.
Inf, Towers, and abr are all removed from game, they all completely suck ass and all they do reduce the fun of the game and limit any actual player vs player combat.
Terrain is redone globally, Any zone with buidings should be fairly flat, with very little in the way of obstruction. Light trees, and light rough. Maps add alot of combat, but the maps we have now suck so hard they are just a pain to think about player against player combat. We dont want to spend 3 hours just moving mechs to get to the other people. Cities will only show 25% of the buildings in zone to also further speed up battles.
Fwar is removed till the faction ladder is fixed.
CF is changed to be 5, 10, 15, 20 % With removing abr lowering the %'s needed will keep wars speedy, but since people are actually piloting and not just tossing junk at each other war might actually be fun.. Wars should be fun between people, with that in mind people can now offer empires the chance to surrender at ANY %. The % will effect the payout paid by the surrendering empire, and or faction.
Above CF change is only for empires 10+, empires under 9 and under keep same rules to keep lw meaningful, but still mean you must lose stuff in order to CF.
Scouting is added as a attack zone option, this is a limited 4 unit max attack that can only last 10 phases. After the 10 phases units must be retreated off map, or they are captured. Scouting units can only scout once per nevday on the same zone.
Attacking a zone is 12 units, the same 12 units can only attack the same zone once per nevday, and assaulting a zone is a minuim of 2-6 turns (random).
--------------------
Harbingers of Chaos
COME WAR WITH US!!
|
Eddey
Sergeant
Reged: 03/06/06
Posts: 196
|
Re: Towers, IDF, Terrain
[Re: Pimpslap]
#143972 - 01/26/07 12:49 AM (64.59.144.87)
|
|
|
Pimp..... those are absolutly great, but classes are currently from the looks of it postponed indefinatly (code not implemented), black market is a great idea is it realistic? Mech market is so screwed up right now, the costs are just out of hand its getting better slightly with player made mechs roling off the assembly lines but come on.... however it will stabilize in time (will not stabilize because greater influx of demand from the 'growing' playerbase) everything else i would think is attainable.... (hopefully)
--------------------
May the rng smile on you and smite your enemies... -Commander Tal Gladys
Im currently going to try and make an introductory guide for newbies from lvls 1-7 any suggestions
just pm me thx you xD
http://mattbuck.irongalaxy.com/neveron/faq-irc.html
|
KingDiamond
Lieutenant
Reged: 04/12/03
Posts: 689
Loc: Germany
|
Re: Towers, IDF, Terrain
[Re: Eddey]
#143977 - 01/26/07 03:59 AM (128.176.216.116)
|
|
|
Quote:
Mech market is so screwed up right now, the costs are just out of hand
Meaning no offense here, but stating that Mechs are too expensive is complete bullshit. Browsing the market right now, I see - at first glance - at least 4 or 5 useful mechs in the price range under 75 mil. You say 75 mil is a lot? Yes, it is, especially for small beginner empires. But buying a mech involves long term thinking. Mechs are more mobile, they got init advantage, they don't crit at once, they got sensors... to sum it up: they live long. If you know how to handle them.
And that brings me to another point. Too many people cry that mechs are soo damn expensive to buy and then get destroyed easily and quickly. Why is that, I ask myself. It is mainly because people don't know how to fight. Regularly, I see in arenas (or even in LW) level 8 or whatever empires whose mechs are piloted without the slightest idea of move modifiers, terrain, pc, and even worse, the initiative concept. So I say: First learn your math, THEN buy mechs. You will see that their life expectancy is multiplied. And then divide cost by lifetime. You will say: "woot! That was one cheap mech".
There are ways to learn. The FFA, to a certain extent, as the whole environment is too different from LW situations. The Simulator. Slightly better, but still just stupid AI. Arenas. Here we go. Real piloted opponent units, with comparable bv. Start with vehicles. Play around with their speed, with terrain, with their strenghts and weaknesses. Get a feeling about what to do to stay alive as long as possible. If you get creamed, ask your opponents for tips. Get better. Win cash. Buy mechs. Take care of them.
Okay, okay. Old KD again with his feeble attempts to breathe life back into the arenas, you say... Probably. But still - I was just sick of people crying about high mech prices, that's all. You all want more PvP combat situations? Then for gods sake prepare yourself, or people who do know their battle interface will crush you like you were AI on valium. And if that happens, please don't cry "Unfair! I had to buy that thing for XX mil, and it died in minutes".
Enough off-topic ranting. Please return to this thread's original purpose now, heh
|
Bear21
Sergeant Major
Reged: 04/08/06
Posts: 205
Loc: Australia
|
Re: Towers, IDF, Terrain
[Re: KingDiamond]
#143990 - 01/26/07 08:43 AM (59.167.100.238)
|
|
|
Well said, KD.
Eddy how about you think before you post.
|
Eddey
Sergeant
Reged: 03/06/06
Posts: 196
|
Re: Towers, IDF, Terrain
[Re: Bear21]
#143994 - 01/26/07 09:07 AM (64.59.144.87)
|
|
|
Okey maybe i was exagerating a little teeny bit, but still how long would it take for a newbie to save up for say a decent mech? Lets go with my favorite the CN9-AH and the CN9-AL those 2 mechs go from 62 mill to 77 mill or for a real budget mech FS9-H 47 mill, yes i was complaining that mech prices are high... AND YES MECHS DO LIVE LONG, thats obvious if piloted that is and im not sure what you were implying in that post if anything at all but it seems a little demeaning to me just a little XD and i dont play FFA no point because its completly random and arenas i dont duel i just bet on them 
and yes i do agree that not enough ppl kno how to fight...
and Bear im sorry to say this but i dont 'think' so theres no hope for me save yourself :P
KD i thot that you were going discuss pimp's post and not kick me in the nuts XD
--------------------
May the rng smile on you and smite your enemies... -Commander Tal Gladys
Im currently going to try and make an introductory guide for newbies from lvls 1-7 any suggestions
just pm me thx you xD
http://mattbuck.irongalaxy.com/neveron/faq-irc.html
|
KingDiamond
Lieutenant
Reged: 04/12/03
Posts: 689
Loc: Germany
|
Re: Bear and Eddey
[Re: Eddey]
#143999 - 01/26/07 09:47 AM (128.176.216.116)
|
|
|
just to make this clear:
@ Eddey: when I stated I am meaning no offense, I meant it.
@ Bear: no need to hack on Eddey. That's my job, even if I don't mean it :-)
@ everyone: My post was off topic, as I stated. So please take it as a collection of general remarks. Mainly as a sign of hope for newbies who think they need to have loads of uber mechs as quickly as possible to be competetive. They do not. They just have to learn how to use their stuff before they grow, that's all :-)
|
Eddey
Sergeant
Reged: 03/06/06
Posts: 196
|
Re: Bear and Eddey
[Re: KingDiamond]
#144003 - 01/26/07 12:11 PM (64.59.144.87)
|
|
|
lol tis all good o well hopefully when these 'big' updates happen the face of nev will be changed forever again xD
o and by uber mechs (plural yes i kno u can have more than one) he means a lance of decent skill urbies trust me they arnt that slow and unwieldly well ya they are that slow but imagine the firepower they can bring with them XD just dont go charging at a horde of jeeps or at anything for that matter xD
o and when he means learn how to use stuff he means practice with your pea-shooter mg-jeeps :P
--------------------
May the rng smile on you and smite your enemies... -Commander Tal Gladys
Im currently going to try and make an introductory guide for newbies from lvls 1-7 any suggestions
just pm me thx you xD
http://mattbuck.irongalaxy.com/neveron/faq-irc.html
|
Kit_fox
Colonel
Reged: 09/16/02
Posts: 3054
|
Re: Towers, IDF, Terrain
[Re: sdog]
#144007 - 01/26/07 12:43 PM (129.138.30.201)
|
|
|
Super IDF towers are vunerable to crits, but not so much as vehicles are. More to the point, when you move from IDF2 to IDF5, actual damage becomes much more of a factor. It has more than doubled. More to the point, SNP's are great for crits because they can shoot 45 times, that is 45 chances to crit assuming you hit. Move to IDF5 and you can only shoot 20 times. That is just 20 times to crit assuming you hit.
Most crits are movement, which don't effect towers. That means that the majority of critical hits on those 60 armor towers will do NOTHING to them. With only 20 chances to crit, you arn't going to get very far waiting to disable them by critical hits. By contrast SNP's only have 30 armor. They can be crippled easily by crits (movement crits do hurt them). If you let a defender mount IDF on his towers than you just continue the problem, and there becomes a need for IDF2 again, so you can sit out of enemy IDF range and crit his towers. Nothing is solved. By contrast, if you force defenders to use standard IDF units, then you let them have a defense that can counter enemy IDF, but which is roughly equivilant in potential power.
*Getting neg skill people is very hard now, but that is good. Honestly, I have used gun 2-3 SNP's and done just fine. Yes bigger empires have batts of neg gun snp's, but once you are that size you can work on getting those too. Nevermind that with all the skill ups people are getting in recent years you need to LW very actively to keep units around that skill, so unless people stay active waring they won't keep those batts of neg gun SNP's for long.
**Your example has huge flaws. First off, you are assuming that the defender has no other mobile units than SNP's and that he is inactively defending. Lets see what really happens:
Attacker attacks, stays outside range of towers. Mobile units move to engage. Fast mobile light units (SNP's with their 3/5 move arn't exactly quick on their feet) get there first and die, eating up your LRM ammo.
or
Attacker attacks, BPer shows up and takes control of the SNP's, sits them outside the range of your LRM's and hits you. If you move forward he moves back and you eventually come into the range of his towers.
or most likely:
I keep SNP's defending my cities, but they are dedicated defenders. Sure they are only skill 3-4, but that is fine, especially since it is easy to get your hands on SNP's with everyone making them. You attack, and perhaps attack with your own SNP's which obviously are going to win the artillery attack, but your good skill SNP's take losses. In effect I trade 36 ok skill SNP's for disabling your own SNP attack force, putting it out of comission enough that you cannot destroy all my towers. Sure you get some, but now you have to reload your SNP's, repair them, and probably buy a couple new ones. Then your conventional forces move in, and things go from there.
This is a perfectly fine senario. It gives the defender a chance to defend, but the attacker can still take the city. Nothing says you HAVE to defend your cities with your very best forces, and if someone does than they deserve to lose them. What you are basically saying sdog is you want to be able to make cities impossible to take. To make the perfect defense. Not only is there no such thing, but if there was it would only hurt the game.
--------------------
_____
The RNG mugged me in a dark street, killed my dog, and cancled Christmas.
When the winds of change blow hard enough the most trivial of things can become deadly projectials.
Knowledge is power. Power corrupts. Study hard. Be evil.
|
TRK
Sergeant Major
Reged: 11/05/02
Posts: 254
|
Re: Towers, IDF, Terrain
[Re: Kit_fox]
#144010 - 01/26/07 01:58 PM (199.126.245.115)
|
|
|
o_O Did anyone else understand Kit Foxes post? So what are you saying? Removing IDF from towers helps attackers then? Taking away the 2x range does that adequately, IMHO. BTW, just an FYI Kit Fox, IDF2 2x range hits everywhere on the map, if placed in 50, 50. Take away 2x range, that will be suficient in my eyes. Get rid of IDF altogether as some people suggest? Fighting hordes of VNG-A4s, ZKVs, DEM-A1s in holes isnt fun, and takes a long time. Just my opinion mind you.
|
cbtgod
Lieutenant Colonel
Reged: 12/14/05
Posts: 1813
Loc: IN A BOX UNDER A HOUSE
|
Re: Towers, IDF, Terrain
[Re: TRK]
#144011 - 01/26/07 02:38 PM (70.126.173.120)
|
|
|
for people who dont use IDF or lack the skills to handle them it is easy to say get rid of them?lets just get rid of all the vechs today? and all the towers. errrrrrrr yeah right. range 36 is by far more than enough in my eyes. but to remove it from other types or weapons i dont agree with. x2 range for other weapons should be allowed. they will need LOS so its still not to overbearing. getting rid of IDF towers wont change anything people will buy snipers or ripostes stick them in a hole and put them on defend?then you guys will all start bitching about that.
--------------------
yes its a toad, if you didnt know that you dont know anything about cbt
|
TRK
Sergeant Major
Reged: 11/05/02
Posts: 254
|
Re: Towers, IDF, Terrain
[Re: cbtgod]
#144012 - 01/26/07 03:14 PM (199.126.245.115)
|
|
|
Quote:
range 36 is by far more than enough in my eyes. but to remove it from other types or weapons i dont agree with. x2 range for other weapons should be allowed. they will need LOS so its still not to overbearing.
|
TRK
Sergeant Major
Reged: 11/05/02
Posts: 254
|
Re: Towers, IDF, Terrain
[Re: TRK]
#144013 - 01/26/07 03:16 PM (199.126.245.115)
|
|
|
GAH, didnt do that right.
Was asking if you meant that 2x range is ok for direct fire weapons only? Thats not a bad idea, imo. I would accpet IDF2 at range 10/20/30 for example. Anything shorter and one might as well make LRMs capable of indirect fire with a +2 modifier.
|
sk7
Corporal
Reged: 09/01/05
Posts: 86
|
Re: Towers, IDF, Terrain
[Re: TRK]
#144016 - 01/26/07 04:30 PM (68.202.15.0)
|
|
|
Another possibility is to give individual weapons multipliers instead of the whole tower. That way you could have one multed weapon and one unmulted. Also, the cost/space could be dependent on the weapon. So, if for some crazy reason, someone wanted a x3 machine gun, it would cost very little. Make it so that only 150CF towers could use mults on IDF, if any could.
I also like the dead range idea. It's realistic, fair, and gives players another option besides sniping.
|
cbtgod
Lieutenant Colonel
Reged: 12/14/05
Posts: 1813
Loc: IN A BOX UNDER A HOUSE
|
Re: Towers, IDF, Terrain
[Re: sk7]
#144018 - 01/26/07 05:00 PM (70.126.173.120)
|
|
|
yes trk thats what i mean direct fire only should get x2 range only. and i df should just have normal ranges dont think thats really unbalanced?
--------------------
yes its a toad, if you didnt know that you dont know anything about cbt
|
TRK
Sergeant Major
Reged: 11/05/02
Posts: 254
|
Re: Towers, IDF, Terrain
[Re: cbtgod]
#144019 - 01/26/07 05:20 PM (199.126.245.115)
|
|
|
I dont really think thigs are that unbalance as is. Just trying to explore alternatives that would make more people happy and less bored with current LW. I think your idea is a good one cbtgod. Also the idea of point blank modifiers is a good one.
|
|
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit
Reply
Quote
