Static vs Mobile Defenses

I think this is where the finesse really comes in on the DEV front. In principal I wouldn't say that you shouldn't punish any styles of play that can be made viable through play testing, even people who enjoy mostly playing defensively.

Back during Old TA LAN games, sometimes a player on a team would actually do nothing but build massive economies and defenses with witch to share resources and turn infrastructure over to the attackers. I think with a game this huge we need to make sure people who like full-filling the supply role can do so.

Obviously though, it has to be balanced I agree with Kmike13 that a turtler has to 'feel' the pinch from lack of geographic expansion. I think the Mass deposits will really answer this like I did in TA to a degree. Going after new ground with Fresh Mass Depots, will always net you more MASS for less cost. I think the skill will come from figuring out the formula about how high the cost will be for conversions. The mobile, offensive player will always have mobility and flexibility as an advantage. And over time if the mobile player is aggressive about expansion it would be hard for any stationary player to compete with the immense amount of MASS coming in a cheap price.

Or maybe something totally different such as, the Ability to adjust how much resources you devote to different tasks on the fly. Such as a Economy slider (I know this has been brought up) Soon as you have a incoming attack you stop Lathing and focus on keeping your guns fed.

Obviously a mediocre defensive player, shouldn't be able to hold out against indefinitely against a skilled offensive player. But when equal skill is pared up I would it would be a fun and challenging game for both sides.

The problem with static defenses in most RTS games is that they fill the same role as mobile units. There's a reason no militaries stick tank turrets on top of towers in real life - it's dumb. Even if it's balanced to be more efficient cost/dps than mobile units, the mobile units are still preferable because they can be moved to different locations later making them potentially infinitely more efficient.

What no RTS has really explored well is lighter defensive tools like we have in real life that fill unique roles - barbed wire to slow down advancing units, trenches (cover) to force multiply existing mobile units, and land mines to soften up incoming enemies at a fraction of the cost of artillery. Then add in mobile units that need to deploy into static defense mode - the equivalent of machine guns - and you have everything you need to set up base defenses en-mass, field defensive lines, and hasty ambushes.

Really the question is how the developers want to balance their game. Obviously, making things unlike real life can be fun and exciting, but at the same time, ignoring the reasons we don't use things like tank cannon towers in real life will result in useless units.

Thinking about this, I think my favorite defensive weapon in Zero-K would be... the Crabe. Which is actually a mobile unit that gets a massive HP boost if it isn't moving.

I wonder if there'd be a better role in the game for turrets that can pick themselves up and move to a new location when needed. If it takes long enough to pack up and place down that it's useless in a pitched battle, but quick enough that your turrets can move a few meters behind your front line and plop down around every resource you capture, they might have an interesting role cut out for them.

Sounds like we have some consensus then, defenses as they are traditionally implemented are not highly useful tools. I like the idea of barbed wire, it would be very interesting to build terrain features which slowed all units passing through them.

A consensus of around 5 people.

+1
No redundent turret guarding resouces far behind the battle line so no wasted resources

You just described Company of Heroes

I think it should go like this:

static defenses > mobile units
mobile units > static siege weapons + mobile artillery & sniper units
static siege weapons + mobile artillery & sniper units > static defenses
asteroids > everything

Static siege weapons could be long range artillery weapons made for destroying bases. They have really long range but not enough range to shoot from base A to base B. Their firing rate is very slow and they can't hit moving targets well. They should also be pretty expensive so player must expand to be able to build them. I think they could be something like Intimidator or Big Bertha from TA.

Reclaim, move over, build a new one. Everything is mobile when it can be turned back into metal.

To be fair, that's enough people to go on an adventure and save the world.

:lol: Alright then!

Good point. I wasn't thinking about more tactically oriented games like CoH or DoW2. Both those games did a good job with defensive options, but were also built around microing a small number of units. I guess I'd like to see those options translated to a larger scale game.

If you can do it in one click, I'm sold. Current suggestion sounds like far too much work to be practical.

Personally I would love to have deployable turrets.

What I don't want however is it to turn into arty and I don't want it to turn into massive deployable turret armies.

They have to:
a) be defenceless or close to when not deployed
b) have a long (5 seconds+) deploy time to make it easy to rush turrets that have been caught moving
c) have a high cost and build time
d) be slow when moving
e) be limited to only one type of defence
f) be bulky and prevent easy army movement around them whilst deploying and undeployed

This stops you building them instead of tanks, using them as a be-all-end-all base protection and prevents them from being used to rush a base with them. They just allow for strategic base movement and prevents you from buffing up your army with them too much but still leaving that as an option.

Inspiriation for possible looks and comparisons of what they COULD be like
http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb2 ... Render.png
http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3372/3640 ... z.jpg?zz=1
http://fc03.deviantart.net/fs45/i/2009/ ... _fed0t.jpg
http://media.pcgamer.com/files/2010/07/siege_tank.jpg
http://supcom2.wikia.com/wiki/Jackhamme ... _Artillery
http://media.indiedb.com/images/games/1 ... omo-01.jpg

The Juggernaut and Siege tanks are close to what I'm thinking of. The Jackhammer whilst looking very much the part is NOT, due to its plain stupid range.

Note: If turrets did have some sort of way to defend themselves it would HAVE to be much more inferior to their main weapon

I don't really see the problem with the normal defences in games like TA or supcom.

If you use them in conjunction with your army then a group of engineers can easily lock down choke points on the map and build forward bases.

But what is your guys opinion?

Personally I like the idea. Slow vulnerable units that are prone to being demolished by smaller forces when not I. Their static state, but a powerful base singer when deployed. I always liked the idea of mobile bases, and this definitely contributes to the idea.

Also units that could move through the orbital layer and then land themselves on ground.

Honerable mention as potential Jachammer inspiration, the Avenger;



a bit aged at this point, was working on a Revamp, but it doesn't quite fit in due to being able to fire on teh move with a weaker weapon;



Mike

Uhm, drag and drop orders? Honestly, reclaiming one thing and building elsewhere is not much more of a chore than telling standard units to transform between siege mode and back.

As long as things can be reclaimed, someone is going to figure it out.

4 or 5 clicks. 1. hit reclaim key. 2. select old defense. 3.(optional) hit shift. 4. select from build menu. 5. select new spot. total time, say, 10 seconds for totally new, 5 for good player, 1 for player with way high APM

Also consider that some cases the amount of defenses and/or the distance required means you use one Fabber for the reclaimed of the old Defs and a second for building the new Defs at the new spot, so a big longer over all, but less time per turret;

Select Fabber
Select Reclaim
Shift click through Defenses

Select Fabber
Build new Defenses(multiple clicks, variable on how many types being built)

Mike

I remember the avengers, but I didn't like them at all.
In my opinion they became plain crazy in large amounts. Because they just became a slow moving wall of death.
If there was any major chokepoint on the map they would just advance down it and destroy everything.

If they hadn't been so cheap to build I think I would have prefered them more, although they may have been balanced a bit from last I checked