[Proposition] Ground anti-anchor measure

Discussion in 'Planetary Annihilation General Discussion' started by captainkatawa, May 31, 2014.

?

Should the game get an anti-Anchor measure?

  1. Make a unit shooting to space

    44.4%
  2. Let nukes/artilery fire to space

    5.6%
  3. Nerf Anchors

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  4. They are fine leave tham alone

    50.0%
  1. captainkatawa

    captainkatawa New Member

    Messages:
    19
    Likes Received:
    9
    Anchor is the only defensive structure that doesn't have a weakness or a counter measure.
    Turrets and torpedo launchers can be shot down with artilery or orbital laser or nukes, so there's a way around most ground and naval defence lines.

    But there's no efficient way to remove Anchors, they attack all types of targets including the builders that try to place Umbrellas underneath them. If the enemy has a massive anchor defence the only way to remove it is even more massive army of Avengers which will cost you a way more than the anchors costed to him.

    Moreover, if you're getting anchors built over right above your head the enemy can prevent you from building any avengers

    So I propose to either introduce the units that can shot to orbit (slow and expensive mobile umbrellas) or allow the nukes to be targeted at the orbital targets.
    Neither of these variants appears to be perfect to me because the ground-to-orbit shooting tanks will make orbital lasers unviable and the nukes are extremely expensive but I believe that something should be done to counter Anchors.
  2. squishypon3

    squishypon3 Post Master General

    Messages:
    7,971
    Likes Received:
    4,357
    I would like more units like this, mobile anti-orbital, mobile anti-nuke, and etc...

    So +1 for me! :D
  3. PeggleFrank

    PeggleFrank Active Member

    Messages:
    147
    Likes Received:
    43
    Anchors are immobile SXX that are vulnerable for a decent period of time before being able to fire and have lower damage. Their construction can also be interrupted, since they need to be built by orbital fabbers.

    If that's not a vulnerability, then you should probably be complaining about SXX rather than anchors.

    The only thing they have over SXX is that they can be built without an orbital factory and cost less metal.
  4. captainkatawa

    captainkatawa New Member

    Messages:
    19
    Likes Received:
    9
    By the price of an SXX you can build like 5 Anchors. and and SXX attacks only ground targets right beneath it.
    SXX costs five times more than an Anchor and can't fight back when attacked by Avengers.

    My problem with Anchors is that if I let an enemy build some airtight Anchor defence there's no way at all to remove it.
    carlorizzante likes this.
  5. PeggleFrank

    PeggleFrank Active Member

    Messages:
    147
    Likes Received:
    43
    An SXX can move, though, so there's no way to evacuate your commander if you don't have any umbrellas. Depending on the location, an anchor would also prevent your commander from escaping, but there's always a safe zone outside the anchor's reach you can run to.

    The price is definitely higher for an SXX (especially when coupled with the cost of the orbital factory and the fabbers you'll probably use to assist it), but the amount of anchors you'll need compared to SXX to be able to kill an enemy commander is much higher.

    The same can happen if you let them mass up avengers, SXX, and adv. radar satellites. (Satellites can tank just as much if not more damage than anchor)[/quote]
  6. mered4

    mered4 Post Master General

    Messages:
    4,083
    Likes Received:
    3,149
    Orbital is still very fragile compared to many ground units and structures. Going for Anchors, which are countered by having an umbrella in your base before you go orbital, is a useful strat for keeping map control mid-late game.


    Keep it. It's cool and interesting. And it opens up strategic options. Don't make it even harder to use orbital.
  7. fouquet

    fouquet Active Member

    Messages:
    143
    Likes Received:
    63
    I think nerfing catapult damage and making them able to target orbital at 50% range would be cool. could buff holkin damage to compensate
  8. igncom1

    igncom1 Post Master General

    Messages:
    7,961
    Likes Received:
    3,132
    Have you guys seen your umbrellas shooting at planes?

    I have seen mine doing so.
  9. squishypon3

    squishypon3 Post Master General

    Messages:
    7,971
    Likes Received:
    4,357
    Was it on purpose or just it flew over and got hit, because if that's what happened... that's simulated projectiles for you! :D
  10. igncom1

    igncom1 Post Master General

    Messages:
    7,961
    Likes Received:
    3,132
    Nope, it turned and went full auto an a bunch of bombers.

    And it was awesome.
  11. zweistein000

    zweistein000 Post Master General

    Messages:
    1,362
    Likes Received:
    727
    EDIT: I need to go to bed: anchor =!= umbrella.

    But on that note, anchors should have shorter range that umbrellas.

    BTW: Nukes already hit space units above them (although I'd rather see that regular nukes work line they did and nukes aimed at orbital space hit air and orbital but not ground).
    Last edited: May 31, 2014
  12. lapsedpacifist

    lapsedpacifist Post Master General

    Messages:
    1,068
    Likes Received:
    877
    I feel anchors are just a bit too multipurpose at the moment: they don't need a massive nerf, but could use some tweaking.

    Best solution I feel would just be to reduce their anti-orbital capability until they're about as effective as the same metal worth of avengers. At the moment if my opponent gets an anchor up I have to use a huge amount more metal than they spent taking it down with orbital fighters, that really is the only option available.
  13. tohron

    tohron Active Member

    Messages:
    272
    Likes Received:
    168
    Actually, Umbrellas outrange anchors, so you can build an umbrella with the anchors at the edge of its range, and then turret creep forward.
  14. LeadfootSlim

    LeadfootSlim Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    576
    Likes Received:
    349
    Problem there is the difficulty of finding that range... showing tbe umbrella range in orbit would work perhaps.

Share This Page