Static vs Mobile Defenses

I'm just gonna say that turtling makes for a very boring game.

Mobile war fair has indeed replaced static defences for the most part.

Doesn't mean that static defences have lost any of their teeth however, only that sitting still for 30 mins isn't a good idea.

However in a game like this resources are essentially limited to space and time, meaning that even when you waste more resources then your enemy, you can still win.

Efficiency is good, but not absolute.

And I can't say I recall static defences in Zero-k being cheaper then units, quite the contrary, they are much more expensive, and bunkering down leaves you vulnerable to missile bombardment.

And while defences can go and hunt down an opponent, you can always use them to prevent your enemy from doing the same until you can conjure up a little surprise like an army, a nuke, or an asteroid.

Turtling ain't what it used to be..but by god is it funer then ever.

Again . . . I am not proposing that turtling be a viable tactic, that is not the intent of anything which I have written.

Look at the Zero-K numbers if you wish, DPS. HP. range, they are cheaper. Missiles are always an issue, obviously, though shields can stop that in Zero-K.

Well what type of defence are you referring to, the smaller cheaper ones might be what you say, and I agree they get outclassed.

But once you get to the doomsday machine then really you need somthing really heavy or artillery to deal with it.

(And what is wrong with turteling? I like to turtle if its not a 4 hour game and I am in a corner.)

I really do feel like turtling could take a leaf out of Perimeters book and make it more about land control for resources.

And because I like the network look once you get a base set up.

I agree that the defender's advantage is something that's been poorly represented in RTSes and should be revisited. However, static defenses (fixed emplacements) have already been obsoleted by the advent of units that can deliver tremendous firepower from long range (bombers, artillery, and missiles). It's not really surprisng that game implementations of static defenses don't make much logical sense.

What's missing might be field fortifications, perhaps. Normal units could be able to dig in, trading mobility for defensive bonuses, but would still be able to sortie quickly to escape incoming artillery or counterattack. Heavier defenses could be modeled as deployable units, for example, an artillery or TML unit that has high cost, takes a couple of minutes to deploy/undeploy, and is unarmed and vulnerable while in transit.

Agreed. I would be satisfied if PA had a static defense balance similar to TA's.

The problem with turtling is that it's boring for both the opposing players and anyone spectating. And making a game enjoyable for the spectators is a big part of a game. (That's why I think turtling is bad)

Indeed, the simple effect of being able to move is a big deal. Any investment that takes away from the front line is too expensive when it comes to a serious competitive view. There will be little need for gun defenses, since units already accomplish a huge number of mobile roles.

Defenses will still be handy if they provide something that normal units can not. Anti ordnance guns and physics tools(magnets, tractors, etc.) are a great way to protect against long range bombardment, for example. TA laser towers were all purpose weapons that did pretty good against many theaters of war. Big Bertha artillery is very useful even as an immobile structure. Zero-K had an extreme range air defense that fired huge alpha strikes of missiles. Support structures like radar, energy, and the like will always have a place at home. Basically, if something is too good to have on the move, anchor it down and see if that works.

Don't forget that worker units can build static weapons on the front line, which can be extremely lethal if they find some kind of terrain advantage.

A good suicide run should be able to shut down the doomsday weapon. No shields, remember?

:lol: OW bob how I am amused.

Just wanted to single this line out as it highlights something I haven't seen in any other game - how desperate the front-line battles in TA could be. Combat resolved slower, so re-inforcing was possible, and trying to get defences up while missiles were flying left, right and center was extremely rewarding. The front line fight could last the length of the game, moving as it went towards one player or the other.

I am going to have to disagree and say this is a matter of opinion, I could say the same thing about mad rushes. I personally dislike quasi-suicide commander+20 peewee rushes 71 seconds into the game. You might as well just play roll-dice over voice chat...

I think that is boring, but some people actually enjoy that so I'm not going to crap on it. I think the game should make as many play-types viable as possible. I want to make sure you have half a chance of pulling off your commander rush as I have building the turtle planet fortress of DOOM that sinks fear into the hearts of all!

I personally like the idea of a player, or a team of players effectively turning a planet into a giant, nearly invincible doom-bringing planetoids. It would give a hell of a good time to the attackers trying to exploit the turtle defenses.

I'm pretty sure that a large majority of people would much rather watch 2 rushers then watch two turtles launching artillery and see who dies first.

As folks have already mentioned, Zero K did a good job at balancing the defenses, as did the TA: Twilight mod, and both had a huge array of static defenses to choose from, especially Twilight.

The point in both of these games is that static defenses are very strong and can repel an unexpected attack in a pinch, but in the end, mobile units are much more efficient and will quickly overcome the static defenses if used correctly.

And, of course, Knight brings up the very good point that static defenses mean squat when you have 50 asteroids en route towards your planet.

I agree with this. Sometimes it can be really fun to try and break a turtling players defenses. And with multiple planets and thus multiple ways to attack (e.g. asteroids, invasion, moon bombardment), it could be really entertaining to conduct strategy around a turtler. Plus it will be much harder to win the game for a turtler as you have to defeat an opposing player on their own planet or destroy their planet. So sooner or later you're gonna have to come out into the solar system.

Someone above also said the defenses in TA were a good example of how defenses should be done and i reckon thats spot on. If defenses are anything like they were in TA, i'd be happy. Also re: missile tower spamming; see TA Escalation mod where they only shoot at air.

This would be just awesome, it would present several different tactics, like landing in a blind spot and making and assault force right on the doorstep, or using commando style units to sneak in and knock out defenses so you cna attack with an army or orbital strike, or the old "Hit with bigger hammers till it cracks" using KEWs, or even just zerg rushing the planet using superior resources till they die under a wave of units.

Or Noah unit cannon moon invasion like in the KS video? Blind side with an asteroid and then rush a galactic gate to warp in your army? Focused aerial invasion to claim a beachhead?

So many possibilities

and for the turtle, wait till they are preoccupied with cracking the planet, then sneak-attack their now underdefended bases with your stealthed armies

Except this is exactly the point, Zero-K *tried* to balance the defense, and even with their extreme efforts, it still wasn't cost-effective. Defense should be a viable and useful part of a game, even at the competitive level. If they are not worth using at the competitive level, which indeed in almost every game they are not, they are clearly underpowered.

In other words, if in most pro games defenses make up 2% of the units on a map, there might be something wrong with that. Just as if air or land was similarly underrepresented.

Well you can't use defences in the same way as land, air or naval units.

Defences are for...defending, not pushing out, but by fortifying a position and hunkering down.

So you can't expect them to work the same way, they can be avoided and bombarded from afar, but their point isn't to take the fight to the enemy, but to let the enemy take the fight to them.

Static artillery fights back against mobile artillery, and nuke silos are your way of striking across the map, pd fights enemy tanks and aa clears the air, you even have stealth emitters to hide from radar.

But you can't move, and that's why people don't turtle much.

I really won't mind turtling if one thing is true. A turtler who stays in one area will NOT have a superior economy to someone who spread out and. This was a huge problem with supreme commander 2 with mass conversion. Mass conversion was so cheap that turtler a often had a much higher economy then others who were spreading out and producing units. Edit: I'm talking about the unpatched Xbox version.

If you turtle up you should be getting a lesser economy, not a better one. If this is true then turtle away!

Don't worry, the patched version of SupCom2 still has this problem. :lol:

But yeah, if defences are strong but economy dependant thrn turtling in a corner will drain your economy to extinction.

Nothing quite like having half your turrets sitting there because they all overkilled a scout.