Walls and Anchors Need Nerfing.

So if a player defends vulnurable structures that makes them a troll?
Introducing a load of micro is not the solution to anything, and isn't fun at all.

Targeting issues aside I actually think walls are a bit weak and should not be further nerfed. Right now they are just barely useful for area denial in particular areas and I think if any weaker would be totally useless. Anchors probably need some adjusting, likely less health.

A single T1 Wall row should not require an army of specialised units to force through. I'm not saying Walls should be nerfed so that they're useless, I'm saying they should be nerfed so that T1 Ground units can do their job.

I disagree with this binary counter method. Most units should be useful in sufficient numbers.

Outflanking is not always viable.
People may use more than a single row of walls.

Furthermore, as I mentioned in my OP, Avengers do not enter into the equation. They require an investment at T1 which we cannot spare. If we sink all those resources on cracking orbital turtles, we are not left with enough ground troops to push through walls.

We do need some sort of anti-Orbital mobile ground unit. But first and foremost, Anchors need to stop being so effective at locking down areas of the planet at T1.

ArtillaryTrolls? You are kidding, aren´t you?
Folks have been complaining that this game is focused on to few strategys and once they established to work well, like in this case turtleing or artillarying they are either called OP or trolling.

The important part is that you have to have a strategy that CAN counter them. They shouldn´t be invincible, but they shouldn´t be down in two seconds. And ATM they aren´t invincible! They can both "easyly" coutered with Hornets!

So you agree building artillery for the sole purpose of making your opponent rebuild his base using micro 3 inches further back isn't fun. I agree.

As to the whole "tanks should ignore walls when attack moving", no they shouldn't at least for walls which would physically block the most direct route to the attack move point. Other walls, your right why should they shoot them when there are more relevant targets.

Maybe just change walls to be like Wrecks with colors, this way units wont target them and its actualy worth reclaiming them. xD

Well walls are already worth reclaiming because they get eaten so quickly.

Rebuilding a base isn't really micro. While I agree it sucks when the game devolves into artillery and missle throwing, I think the solution to that is to ensure ground combat remains effective, and turtling remains difficult. Hence nerfing Anchors and Walls.

I ageee with you and others on units ignoring walls if they can take a clear shot.

It's the exact definition of micro, selecting stuff to build stuff.

Regardless artillery fires at the closet target, period. If you want it to be useful you'll have to micro it anyway, making it stop targeting walls so you can ignore them is lazy and probably won't give you the result you want.

... With area build commands.
Building a base is not micro in the sense that we need to pay attention and micro things intensively to win engagements.

Sure sure. I agree Artillery/unit targeting should prioritise offensive targets.

You still have to find your engineers, click on them, do it again coz you missed and selected some ants, click on the building you want and drag out a group of buildings, then do it again coz it was wrong, then do each one individually instead because they aren't facing the wrong way.

LOTS of micro, and you know it.

Or you press "F" to select your idle Fabricators, or use control groups. Sure you might place buildings incorrectly but as you get more experienced and the tools improve that'll be less of an issue.

Starcraft and Warcraft are micro intensive games. Having to place buildings isn't micro, especially with area build commands.

Micromanagement in the terms of video games implies issuing orders to individual units/structures, i.e. micromanaging their production. This counts, the only way it wouldn't be micro is if you didn't have to ask them to do it. Area commands are a great example of reducing but not removing micro.

If you could tell a fabricator to build buildings without telling it/them where to also place them then that would be "not micro". Even using area commands, you have to designate the area.

Walls remain the only way to set up defensive lines that actually work. Anchors are perfectly fine. It takes a lot of metal to set up an anchor, and half that to drop an umbrella.. If avengers were made better, anchors would be effectively nerfrd.

By that logic, any level of complexity and choice is micro. Ordering an army to move is micro because I have to tell them to move them.
No, sorry, I disagree.
If units/buildings have abilities and engagements are decided upon how you move your units and what abilities you trigger and how you target those abilities, that's micro. The extreme end of this is an MOBA (e.g. DotA or LoL).

In Statera we've figured out a way to make it so that when enemies catch sight of a wall it becomes wreckage, it's a hugely band-aid fix, but it means that walls cannot be repaired by fabbers, and that they are not targeted by units. Uber might want to consider making walls wreckage (without resorting to the band-aidy fix of course)

Yes that's micro. It doesn't particularly matter whether you agree or not, definitions are set in stone and not up for personal debate. If this wasn't the case laws couldn't be formed because you could debate the meaning of words indefinitely. You see I can cite this as evidence:

"In strategy games, especially StarCraft and Warcraft, macromanagement is often misused to refer to the general economy aspect of the game such as constructing buildings, conducting research, and producing units, among other things involving the intake and expending of resources. This is actually a form of micromanagement done to a relatively large number of units. Not to be confused with true macromanagement which is a general or overall goal setting.[1]

In turn-based games, macromanagement is a style of play where the player manages the overall strategy of the game, such as the overall economy or armed forces. In real-time games, macromanagement refers to a player's management of the overall game or the management of large groups of units rather than individual ones, whether those units are involved in resource-gathering or combat."

To prove you wrong.

In PA, macro would apply to what bases do what, which players to attack, what tasks other players on your team are assigned to and management of communication between players. Moving troops en masse could be considered macro but I would dare to say that would imply you are doing it wrong. (not paying enough attention to combat, treating units as sentient giving them a general directive and letting them get on with it. You certainly could do this but chances of victory are pretty sketchy.) Micro is everything else, including things you don't think are micro.

Honestly, I think both are perfect where they currently stand.
Anchors work well at chipping away enemy bases but can be destroyed if you react fast enough and also work great at decreasing the numbers of incoming attacks, and walls fall fairly quickly to Vanguards/Infernos and large armies in general. They're meant to deter smaller attacks/raids.

If anything, walls just need a lower priority like Brian said. Right now you can dot them around a base and if anyone area attacks their units will just chip away at the walls instead of more important stuff.

i disagree walls have so many ways to negate their benefits that there health is pretty spot on. i dont know too much about anchors but the only change i would make to them is making them completely fixed to their location. as long as it does not have a larger area of effect as an umbrella it will still have a purpose and a hard counter.