Malachi
Sergeant Major
Reged: 04/19/04
Posts: 369
|
Re: New IDF system
[Re: TRK]
#163325 - 01/13/12 10:59 AM (109.246.129.160)
|
|
|
Yeah, we need to get rid of tents, completely agree. Low level non-LW empires can still defend themselves, but if they don't tent then withour IDF snipers aren't there to edge camp and kill all their tank forces and direct fire towers. Now, your direct fire tanks won't be move critted out of range in some really bad position with no chance of firing back, only for the attacker to withdraw, reset their placement, re-attack with the vehicles likely facing the wrong way, unable to move.
You can still kill that massive tank in one shot. But you will get fired back at. This goes both ways. Balanced? Well now both vehicles can fire on one another and could 1 shot each other. Also you almost certainly have numerical superiority as the defender and have tailored your defences to the zone. The attacker should have aimed to build a generic force which will likely be less suited to attacking your zone, than your defence force is to defending it. With direct fire tanks set in nasty places (as I previously mentioned) the attacker has to risk units engaging rather than render these vehicles pointless. Therefore one unit, well placed with AC-20s, or tons of SRMs or even MLs (ontos) forces something to die to defeat it. Most vehicles wont live more than 1 round against them, so its a minimum of a 1 for 1 trade assuming both die in 1 shot.
Snipers and IDF actually reduce the effectiveness of every vehicle in the game. Their removal opens up a lot more viable units with better survivability. Since attackers generally use mechs and snipers, and defenders use vehicles and towers you actually have more options as the defender to set up a really nasty defence.
|
ghostrider
Lieutenant
Reged: 03/26/10
Posts: 522
|
Re: New IDF system
[Re: Malachi]
#163326 - 01/13/12 12:27 PM (70.173.25.223)
|
|
|
It was suggested to use the old btech set up for idf. It could very well work with them in effect as well as shortening the range. I would also say that it cannt fire if their is a shell in the air, ie if its 3 rounds to hit target, then the 4th round is when it can fire next. One suggestion to add is that you need to have a visual los on the target. The targetting a hex would also allow for people to fire on buildings as well as suspected hiding places of units.
Then again it could become the same thing as it is now, and just sit out of range/beyond a hill and fire away, just taking even longer to fight a battle.
The lack of being able to set an ambush in a zone is a tactic that needs to be addressed. Sensor proof or extremely difficult to spot bunkers/prepared positions would be nice. Make certain units more dangerous, as they should be. A demolisher should be feared. same with the ontos, as well as things like srm carriers.
|
Malachi
Sergeant Major
Reged: 04/19/04
Posts: 369
|
Re: New IDF system
[Re: ghostrider]
#163330 - 01/13/12 06:33 PM (109.246.129.160)
|
|
|
Without IDF, they would be. Large cities would be very nasty to fight in with AC-10/20 tanks popping out from behind corners, and to win the zone you have got to engage them with mechs or tanks rather than relying on criticals from our snipers. Your second paragraph has it about right. Its like someone sitting plinking on a 9 because you have 12 to hit and therefore eventually they will win. The reason I would go with removal is that a balanced system is simply too hard to code with what we have. We need a simple fix that is within SM's ability to code.
If at a later date IDF could be brought in, in a proper and effective manner then I would support its return, but right now the system is not good enough and would be better off out of the game.
|
mattbuck
Eeyore
Reged: 02/13/04
Posts: 3285
Loc: Nottingham, UK
|
Re: New IDF system
[Re: Malachi]
#163334 - 01/14/12 10:55 AM (128.243.253.104)
|
|
|
Remove IDF.
Remove tower range multipliers, or at least drastically reduce them.
Then maybe remove Rhinos and Nemmies.
Simples.
--------------------
Haha, you people think admins still look at these forums.
Visit the Platonian! Updated! Stuff! Things! Click!
|
dieaready
Corporal
Reged: 11/15/05
Posts: 74
|
Re: New IDF system
[Re: mattbuck]
#163339 - 01/15/12 12:15 AM (218.186.8.12)
|
|
|
Can we have more constructive criticism than just saying IDF should be removed, etc. Keep your flames and personal grudges out of this. Especially you daboss.
--------------------
In the land of the Insane, the Sane man is Crazy.
If Brute Force does not work, you are not using enough.
|
cbtgod
Lieutenant Colonel
Reged: 12/14/05
Posts: 1813
Loc: IN A BOX UNDER A HOUSE
|
Re: New IDF system
[Re: dieaready]
#163341 - 01/15/12 04:24 AM (173.168.109.218)
|
|
|
lmfao goo goo gah goo?
--------------------
yes its a toad, if you didnt know that you dont know anything about cbt
|
NeverSayNever
Lieutenant Colonel
Reged: 11/18/02
Posts: 1655
|
Re: New IDF system
[Re: cbtgod]
#163349 - 01/15/12 10:31 AM (92.226.143.135)
|
|
|
Applause, applause, a highly amusing little thread, SCNR ...
The "Too Long Didn't Read" (TLDR) it all version could be summarized as follows:
attackers telling the defenders: "IDF sucks and it needs to be nerfed or removed entirely because ...., well, there are no other targets left ..."
Correct?
Might as well watch a Tyrannosaurus Rex (a carnivore) telling a [edit: Stegosaurus (a herbivore) [not Triceratops (another herbivore)]] that bone shields / armor and a spiked tail as a weapon are entirely unneeded for defense and or survival, maybe even 'unfair', yeah, sure, and of course T-Rex's claws and fangs are for self defense only ...
Sarcasm and such has been turned off now. sorry for the inconveniences, if any ...
Have a nice day / night.
Edited by NeverSayNever (01/16/12 06:20 AM)
|
mattbuck
Eeyore
Reged: 02/13/04
Posts: 3285
Loc: Nottingham, UK
|
Re: New IDF system
[Re: NeverSayNever]
#163351 - 01/15/12 12:32 PM (128.243.253.104)
|
|
|
dieaready, that is my constructive criticism. I think that these rules are complex for no reason, and that frankly IDF is a soul-destroying weapon, the removal of which would make the game better. I'm not arguing this from the attacker perspective, it's more a general thing:
The game is more fun if you can shoot back.
As it is, we have snipers which sit in corners, plink vehicles to death and retreat without the other side being able to even get into range. It's not fun at all: For the attacker it's just plain boring, and for defender it's incredibly frustrating.
IDF was implemented because of extra range towers, which were implemented because of Nemmies etc. Now, Nemmies have range 25, which isn't too much more than 21, so a mobile defence has a better chance here, and if we just change the way range multis work (eg 1/6 or 1/3 extra range instead of 2x or 3x) then they don't have an advantage at all. Defenders still have an advantage from towers, but it's not such a big deal that you need the insanity that is IDF to counter it.
--------------------
Haha, you people think admins still look at these forums.
Visit the Platonian! Updated! Stuff! Things! Click!
|
dieaready
Corporal
Reged: 11/15/05
Posts: 74
|
Re: New IDF system
[Re: mattbuck]
#163360 - 01/16/12 07:11 AM (218.186.8.12)
|
|
|
The point of my changes to IDF is to keep it still useful to towers while making it much more difficult to use so we can still keep their effectiveness against towers while reducing the threat to vehicles, so no more
snipers in corners plinking vehicle hordes.
While it probably would be a bit to code in, it could be for future improvements when SM has the time. This would add another layer to nev that could potentially make LW more fun.
--------------------
In the land of the Insane, the Sane man is Crazy.
If Brute Force does not work, you are not using enough.
|
NeverSayNever
Lieutenant Colonel
Reged: 11/18/02
Posts: 1655
|
Re: New IDF system
[Re: mattbuck]
#163361 - 01/16/12 08:23 AM (78.49.236.131)
|
|
|
Quote:
The game is more fun if you can shoot back.
That much is true, but IDF weapons based units are available to both sides of a conflict: attacker and defender.
Of course I can see the counter complaint coming already: "... but range multis are for towers only ..."
Yeah, sure, but on the other hand towers can't move, or leave their homezone and attack, and of course the towers worth using (the ones with range multis) are prohibitively expensive.
Quote:
As it is, we have snipers which sit in corners, plink vehicles to death and retreat without the other side being able to even get into range. It's not fun at all: For the attacker it's just plain boring, and for defender it's incredibly frustrating.
Huh? As a defender one could simply use a couple of IDF2 equipped towers with range multi to shoot at the edge hugging Snipers.
Of course any attacking Snipers would have to move closer towards the range multied IDF towers while taking advantage of movement related to hit penalties for any incoming IDF shells, thus negating most of the range multied IDF towers range advantage.
IMVHO IDF towers with or without range multis are far from being the unsurmountable uber weapon for defenders simply because they are expensive to research, build and maintain, plus they can't be used for attacking (static defense only) and are vulnerable to ammo drain tactics (well, they would be without the ammoless tower designs firing exploit).
In addition any unsupported, specialized, range multied IDF towers are extremely vulnerable to attacking fast hover tanks and or fast jumper Mechs (target movement related penalties for IDF based weapons).
Quote:
IDF was implemented because of extra range towers, which were implemented because of Nemmies etc. Now, Nemmies have range 25, which isn't too much more than 21, so a mobile defence has a better chance here, and if we just change the way range multis work (eg 1/6 or 1/3 extra range instead of 2x or 3x) then they don't have an advantage at all. Defenders still have an advantage from towers, but it's not such a big deal that you need the insanity that is IDF to counter it.
Funny fact is I keep reading way, way, way more "attacker wins" messages than "defender wins" messages in the war logs, and yes, I know, lots of undefended zones out there, that much is true, but even well defended tower zones won't last forever, well, maybe except some heavily 'walled' / 'cored' ones but that would be an entirely different issue ...
IMVHO the current IDF towers with or without range multis are working as intended, they offer a way to successfully defend a zone with serious terrain and or buildings related Line Of Sight issues for some time, e.g. while sleeping, at work, etc., but they are not cheap to research, build and maintain - and you can't attack your neighbours with uber towers of doom (with or without range multis), though insanely uber upgraded, utterly unbalanced Mechs of Doom might work as "Land Acquisition Gear" ...
So much for a carebear's / defender's point of view regarding the ongoing IDF and balance discussion ...
Have a nice day / night.
|
TRK
Sergeant Major
Reged: 11/05/02
Posts: 254
|
Re: New IDF system
[Re: NeverSayNever]
#163362 - 01/16/12 10:18 AM (208.118.89.26)
|
|
|
Lets just get a new game to play... x_X
No one is ever going to agree.
IF we want a balanced game, I mean tried an true, move to CBT rules or as close as is feasible. It is already balanced for us. Some of the rules, such as regarding static defences, would completely nerf towers. Neveron isnt even remotely close to getting this right.
As far as IDF goes, we have two types of artillery in CBT on board and off board. Looking at the rules for both, they both target a hex not a unit. my information is second hand, so I could be wrong about the direct fire bit. That said, all damage is prtty much "splash" damage. Just seems like too much of a hassle to code, people wont like this either, critting and or killing 4 tanks with one shot.
So, my idea was:
Leave IDF as indirect fire. Shorten ranges to AC ranges. Get rid of multi-ranged towers. Settle terrain in buildables a bit. Remove upgrades. If all this is done, all people have left to **** about is the Clan tech on some mechs. This is the reason they created multi-range towers to begin with, so we are back to where we started. The root of this seems to be the problem with "uber" mechs that people have.
Edited by TRK (01/16/12 10:18 AM)
|
mattbuck
Eeyore
Reged: 02/13/04
Posts: 3285
Loc: Nottingham, UK
|
Re: New IDF system
[Re: TRK]
#163363 - 01/16/12 11:55 AM (128.243.253.104)
|
|
|
Oh yes, also, FIX TERRAIN.
--------------------
Haha, you people think admins still look at these forums.
Visit the Platonian! Updated! Stuff! Things! Click!
|
ghostrider
Lieutenant
Reged: 03/26/10
Posts: 522
|
Re: New IDF system
[Re: mattbuck]
#163365 - 01/16/12 06:39 PM (70.173.25.223)
|
|
|
Its not nerfing towers really, its bringing them in line with the rest of the game. It is something that most people are saying needs to be done. A few are concerned that without doing a few other things at that time, it would screw up defending oneself, I am included in this.
CBT targets hexes. You need a forward observer to even begin to do so. A few hexes are 'set' for firing on. Biggest problem with nev on the splash damage is the ability and problem of nev to stack every unit under the sun in one hex.
Otherwise, everything that trk said with the last post, has been what ive been saying on those issues.
|
Tigre
Lieutenant Colonel
Reged: 02/10/03
Posts: 1833
Loc: Atlanta, GA
|
Re: New IDF system
[Re: ghostrider]
#163415 - 01/18/12 12:58 PM (216.130.147.106)
|
|
|
As for towers, how about each level of tower adds 3 hexes to weapon ranges. EG, a level 1 has range 24 on an LRM, level 2 27, etc. . . no 2x and 3x in small towers (explain that logically. . .) Then remove IDF and expand the SOI rules on number of units in a zone (e.g. towers don't count since you can't mobilize them anyway.)
--------------------
- Tigre
Ipsa Scientia Potestas Est
- Francis Bacon
|
TRK
Sergeant Major
Reged: 11/05/02
Posts: 254
|
Re: New IDF system
[Re: Tigre]
#163417 - 01/18/12 01:12 PM (208.118.89.26)
|
|
|
Why do towers need extra range? they already get benefits that are not meant for static defences in CBT. They have turrets for one...
|
Tigre
Lieutenant Colonel
Reged: 02/10/03
Posts: 1833
Loc: Atlanta, GA
|
Re: New IDF system
[Re: TRK]
#163420 - 01/18/12 01:20 PM (216.130.147.106)
|
|
|
but they are supposed to be fortifications, yet they crit as do vechs. . .
--------------------
- Tigre
Ipsa Scientia Potestas Est
- Francis Bacon
|
TRK
Sergeant Major
Reged: 11/05/02
Posts: 254
|
Re: New IDF system
[Re: Tigre]
#163423 - 01/18/12 01:22 PM (208.118.89.26)
|
|
|
Is that why they need extra range tho? Then why not every vehicle in neveron?
|
TRK
Sergeant Major
Reged: 11/05/02
Posts: 254
|
Re: New IDF system
[Re: TRK]
#163424 - 01/18/12 01:26 PM (208.118.89.26)
|
|
|
Static Defenses:
Bunkers
Field Works
Fortifications
Installations
http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Tactical_Handbook
I dont know all the secific rules for them, but there it is. Some of them may be level 3 rules. I will do some more looking.
I know Neveron is different. However, I dont think the wheel needs to be re-invented.
|
ghostrider
Lieutenant
Reged: 03/26/10
Posts: 522
|
Re: New IDF system
[Re: TRK]
#163446 - 01/18/12 05:42 PM (70.173.25.223)
|
|
|
could use all the old arguements, such as terrain bites, or the waves of cannon fodder tanks being thrown against them to waste ammo, and other things like this.
But I will use one simple thing. You dont have an automatic reload feature on towers, nor do you have the automatic hit the enemy, unless you have someone with access to your empire. So unless you are on line 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, you need to rely on something. Towers range should be brought in to balance with the rest of the stuf, but quite frankly, an attacker can keep a battle open with a single unit, while there attack force is reloading. Without some benefit like a little longer range, towers become almost worthless. Unlike a real war, where you would be restocking ammunition in a tower as a battle rages around, this game doesnt allow for it. As for cbt. How many fights do you have that someone else isnt playing the defenders? Is there EVER a time that you dont have a human controlling the opposition? Nev has that happen all the time, and ai bites.
Now why would you feel turrets arent meant for static defense?
Really. What good would a defensive building be if it could only fire in one direction?
Maybe having to have towers create their own power would limit what can be done with them, as is in the fortification rules.
|
Phred
Sergeant
Reged: 01/20/12
Posts: 174
|
Re: New IDF system
[Re: ghostrider]
#163473 - 01/20/12 04:44 PM (137.186.132.65)
|
|
|
Static defences could not just shoot one direction. IIRC they had three sides with weapons. This covered 360 degrees. No turrets though. Those are expensive and can be used on a mobile unit.
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit
Reply
Quote
