oh Single Laser Turret, why are you here?

Thats my point. His answer of 'use the T2 mobile artillary that costs more than the tower to kill the tower' as being viable is laughable. it would be a lot better with T1 mobile arty, but we do not have those yet.

If anything, the T1 laser tower definitely needs a range nerf.

Then use bots. You can breach defences, it's not that hard. Bots move faste enough to quickly get into range and can then use their superior damage to take the turret out.

And the complain that it costs more to attack than to defend: Isn't that.. normal? Attackers always have more causalities against defenders, as long as the defenders have good defences.

unless of course the defender adds land barriers to the equation. that's where the turret is REALLY op XD. but seriously, yes, a horde of tanks should, in theory, be able to overwhelm a single defense tower, but that usually ends up being because the defender neglects the use of land barriers. i see it all the time. and to defeat turrets behind land barriers, one uses artillery units, because those actually have the AI to pick the right target, whereas a tank blob is like throwing an angry mob of retards against a chain-link fence. granted with enough of them the wall will fall, but it will have to be a CUBIC ****-TON of them.

and as far as the T2 tanks go, people seem to forget that, at the moment, their range is greater than their vision. so they require the aid of radar or spotter units (scouts, for example) to truly maximize their effectiveness.

i will vouch that bot swarms work well....perhaps a little TOO well.

Would you complain if it took 200 bots to kill a laser turret considering its 'costs more to attack than to defend'?

Static defence is supposed to be stronger than the unit counterparts, but there is also a need for balance. bots are garbage for 'breaching defence', i would much rather use ants to do the job considering their increase of range and firepower.

But Ants are way slower so they die before they can even get in range.

It looks a bit like an engineering turrent - nanolathe type thing. Those would be handy.

To me it looks like it shoots bullets. Perhaps Uber is planning on adding different stats for different projectiles?

Yes you can use bots. At the moment they are just better then Ants. But again your dismissing the problem. Ants should be able to overrun a single laser turret.

Precisely how many bots and ants does it take to overrun a turret? What about a turret with a wall? Two turrets?

I want some hard numbers! Get to it Commanders!

Should add attacking from one point and attacking from two points.

I predict that when attacking from both sides you can win with half as many units.

You can build them now by the by, adv engies make them.

*Normal engies*

would be nice if the commander could build this, as iirc they can't build the double turret. it'd be nice to just put a super cheap turret beside lone extractors and stuff just so that a rogue DOX doesn't blow it up

We already have those. They're called rocket turrets. Less than a third of the mass of a laser turret and beats more than its mass in mobile T1 units. 90% micro-proof due to firing homing missiles.

indeed. i was thinking something even cheaper and crappier, but i suppose that's getting redundant and their usefulness would be pretty limited.

That would just be a unit would it not?

But a unit might move away (select all land and send them somewhere, realizing later: Oh, there was someone on guard duty) while a turret can't and will stand until it's overrun...

What about expanding upon the functionality that the bombers currently have: Powerful weapons that require a recharge time.

The Defense Towers should be powerful, i don't disagree on that, but maybe they could have 3-5 very powerful burst shots, then require a bit of recharge time just like bombers.

Neutrino often talks about the Tesla Coil/Obelisk from the C&C series as a reference, and they were indeed powerful, but were balanced at the cost of a recharge time.

This would also mean that Defense Towers are most useful against raids, and can't be relied on for ultimate defense, making troops again more valuable to have, as it should be.

The issue here is that you can't have an Obelisk or an Annihilatior in PA as it stands. The advanced laser tower kills every mobile unit in one shot except the Leveller, which lasts two shots. Unless your opponent is using exclusively Levellers, there's no use for a stationary direct fire unit with more damage than the advanced laser tower, which fires two shots a second. And you can't really nerf the advanced laser tower until there's room for an Annihilator without making the ALT uncompetitive against Levellers. Extra range on an Annihilator-type unit can only go so far if you're aiming for something that shoots once every few seconds.

You reply makes it look like im talking about an additional defensive structure. What i am talking about is changing those already implemented, because they are silly right now. They are so powerful that you can base your entire defense on those structures, without any need for land units at all. This promotes boring turtle tactics. This needs to be addressed.

Of course, the "addressing" part could be as simple as keeping them as is, and adjusting the cost. And i do realize the game is not balanced as it is, so we'll see just how big a problem it really is.

The turrets arent OP and turtleing isent viable for one simple reason.

You need map control and turrets suck at map control.

Sure you can build turrets everywhere, but the enemy can buy so many units then that he will be able to crush your turrets one group at a time. If the enemy instead gathers all turrets in the same area (to be able to counter said crushing of turret groups) he wont have map control = hes scrued either way.

Heres another example:
Lets say you and your enemy wants a mass point, he builds a turret to control the area making it unfeasible for you to take said mass point, the result is that he "won" that mass point.

However (and heres the good part), at the next mass point your fighting over you will win, why? Becuse you used the resources on units instead of a unmoveable turret = you have more units then him (Unless your stupid enof to focus on the mass point you cant have and lets him have economic supiority and thus build a simular army even with turrets).

And you can continue to push that advantage using those forces taking the next mass point, since your units will allways be mobile, while turrets isent. Before long you will have superior eco and can steamroll those turrets (or use long range weaponry to take them out without losses).