Move Catapult to basic tier

I'm wondering if it might be a good idea if the catapult is put at the basic level. It doesnt seem to get much use where it is. It would need a hit point reduction probably. It would be like a basic nuke with the advance nuke being ...well.. the nuke ;-)

I'd choose "other."

The catapult would need to be nerfed if this were to happen.

If it stays advanced, it needs to have a greater range than the Holkins to be valid.

I'm indifferent.

It depends on what role you'd want to assign it and how it'd carry that role out.

Mike

If walls and lasers keep on being the go to defenses, I think people will start to realize how useful the catapults can be. I think they're there fine being advanced, but I would like to see them better differentiated from the holkins.

I agree. Right now the catapult is better suited for taking out structures, but it has less of a range than the Holkins.

So the Holkins has greater range, splash damage, and higher dps. It's an all around better structure. The catapult's homing missiles don't make up for the lower stats in my opinion.

I think the holkins should have a range reduction and the catapult a range increase. Maybe nothing drastic – just swap their ranges.

Lowering the cost and stats of the catapult and moving it to a basic structure could work as well.

As KNight said, it all depends on what role this structure is meant to be suited for.

I'd love for the catapult to fabricate missiles and be able to automatically pick targets with them, assist missile production with fabbers, store five missiles and rapidfire them, and be balance adjusted in damage and range.

bring it in line with nuke, as a tac missile launcher. More unique. Then, leave it top tier unless making it expensive enough to limit its t1 use.

If anything, all the arty should be t2.

It is already hard to counter catapults once they are build in range of your base since the'll oneshot everything. Having them T1 would mean we just revert to the previous patch but the new pelters are the catapults.

If you are not seeing many catapults then you are wasting their potential. They are literally the bast thing for keeping high health units at bay and destroying enemy bases if you can sneak them in.

That'd be fun.

A mix between the current Catapult and strategic missile launchers from SupCom.

If basic shortrange tracking but only medium damage per missile no aoe
If advanced longrange non tracking but high damage small aoe

Also IF basic then i suggest to make the launcher into a turret with visible missiles

It is actually a bit weird that a T2 guided missile has a shorter range than an artillery shell.

I would like the Catapult to automatically target exclusively high valued assets, like Factories and Power Plants, but not Artillery and specially not normal units. Perhaps it could target big ships, that would be appropriate.

Maybe unless the player directly commands them otherwise.

Doing so the Catapult should consume a bit of energy, similarly to the Nuclear Launcher - but obviously much less.

That way the Catapult will not overlap with the Holkins, and it will not be abused even if placed massively. Artillery will still be able to get closer.

Also, I envision one or more units able to shot down a Catapult missile, like a gathling gun (big ships should have it onboard by default). Perhaps the flak turret could fit that role already.

Thats the kinda think I was thinking off in the op...

Interesting.

I'd rather the catapult target economy buildings and defensive structures.

If the catapult takes out the defensive structures, I can attack without greater losses.

Factories are a low priority – except for the first advanced factory. Economy buildings are always the best target. But if I can take out defensive structures without losing any units, that's a big win. Follow up attacks will be much more successful.

The previous version of the Catapult was very precise and capable of a wide range. It was overkill. But the real problem wasn't the range.

Due the nature of a guided missile (high cost, long range, extreme precision), I believe that it would fit well the role of an expensive weapon designed to destroy valuable assets. So, not small units that would be cheaper than the missile itself.

Turrets and defenses can be targeted by the Artillery, as well as units. Units have a production cost, so also the Catapult's missiles need to have a cost - higher than an average unit.

If there will be an unit to counter the Catapult, like a Gatling Gun of some sort, perphas pre-installed on T2 ships (high valuable target after all), than we would have an interesting interaction between Artillery, Catapult, what counter it, and all the assets you need to protect, and the units you would use to damage the defenses of the enemy.

For instance, I could send troops for specifically taking down gatling guns, therefore exposing many other assets to the fire of my Catapults.

But I couldn't abuse of a long range weapon with an extreme accuracy, 'cos the Catapult wouldn't target incoming tanks, or Turrets. We well know the problem with the old style Catapults: once you are under fire of a couple of those, it's hard to find out where they are and to destroy them.

In fact, I feel strange that a guided missile has a shorter range than an artillery piece. Makes no sense to me.

A guided missile should be way more expensive per shot compared to a shell. Deliver more damage, and be more accurate. The trade of being the cost of each single missile.

In my vision the Catapult should reload consuming energy and metal, like the Nuke or the Anti-Nuke. Obviously much less, and in a shorter time. Nevertheless it should be an effective weapon (more effective than a Holkins) on some specific assets - not everything on range.

I just remark this point. Wouldn't be too easy then? We should use Artillery and a good mix of Units for taking down the enemy defenses. I some times use Nukes for the same purpose: I launch my attach and seconds before the fronts clash, I hit the area with a nuke, so that my units have an easy entrance into the enemy's base. Usually it works like a charm But the trade of is that it is very expensive. Also often it declares the end of a match. Only occurrences when it doesn't work is when I miscalculate timing, and I wipe out my own forces... but that's an other story

So the structures should do a poor strategy?

I don't think auto prioritization is a good thing though.

Different players have different strategies and different situations call for different strategies.

So, what if my strategy involves Ships walking on land like bots, and cost 20 metals?

Or T1 tanks shooting Nukes Missiles? Could I do it?

Would you use Nukes to take out a single tank? If that would be your "strategy" would you ask the Devs to modify the Nuke so that you could adopt your way of playing?

Strategy doesn't define the rule set of a game. A structure doesn't do any strategy, 'cos the strategy is defined afterward by the player, once you have structures to play with. You first define what the rules are, and then you develop a strategy in order to win with those rules. Simple as that.

In the case of the Catapult, I'm trying to find a satisfactory use for it. Before it was overkill, right now it is very poor. I'm not even use it any more. And it is sad to see such a potential for a rich unit like a guided missile being so banalized and trivialized.

Allow me to stress this point a little more.

We already have "auto prioritization" for every units. Think about it. You do not see Laser Turrets targeting Bombers, and Fighters shooting at Bots. So what? Couldn't the Catapult target appropriate stuffs for its caliber as well?

And that's the point, if you notice I'm trying to elevate the caliber of the Catapult, giving it power and consumption, taking it outside the role of a simple Artillery piece because we have already Pelters and Holkins, and some other units for that.

And doing so making out of the Catapult an instrument to enrich your strategy with.

Let's face it. Right now it has been a different flavour than the Holkins. Same dymamic, different range, that's it. You're telling me that this *enrich* your strategy?

Dude. You are talking about a COMPLETELY different thing.

Your replies were so random and off base that I considered not bothering to reply.

It's like me saying, "I would prefer that Pounders not be able to shoot at aircraft" and then you say "But what if Pounders could shoot nukes? Your argument is invalid!"

Also. Did you not read my several possible balancings for the catapult? One of which is to lower the holkins and increase the catapult?

I'm talking about a unit automatically doing something and I may want it to do something different.

You're talking about units and buildings doing things they aren't capable of doing, which is very different than units doing something they can do in a different way.

Also, auto prioritization is completely different than laser towers not being able to shoot at air units. Being able to shoot at air units is a structure limitation, not prioritization.

This topic has actually been brought up by the devs and the community on a larger scale. Players have asked about the possibility of an AI on your team or an AI taking over your units if you disconnect. The counter argument was primarily that the AI cannot possibly know and follow your strategy and could possibly do more harm than good.

With this, you're proposing that the catapult follow a certain procedure that you like, but I don't like. So you're wanting the catapult to follow your strategy and not my strategy.

Oy.

What you are proposing, that a catapult target certain structures rather than other structures is strategy. It is the decision that a certain structure should be destroyed before others. That is strategy.

I want to be able to dictate the strategy. Not be a slave to the strategy that a certain structure decided was more important and won't adapt to the situation.

Mine is a proposal. As much as yours. Topic closed. Not worth my time, specially after your reply.