Artillery Defense

This brings up the possibility for radar jammers to make things interesting as well.

I'm seeing a lot of, "Just throw an asteroid at a turtler and be done with it." But shouldn't there be some kind of asteroid defense as well? Like in the Kickstarter Video, there were missiles or nukes or whatever fired at the asteroid in hopes of countering it. But what if there were more of them and they were fired earlier? Couldn't the asteroid get turned into a harmless meteor shower? Maybe you could build those but it would be very resource intensive and take a while and maybe the number of them required would be based on the size of the asteroid. Of course, you would also have to wait for the missiles inside of them to be built as well. Btw I think some kind of artillery defense is a good idea.

I always turtle with artillery so I can shoot down their artillery.

What's with the hatred for turtlers? As someone upthread mentioned, it's a valid play style, why are we trying to control how everyone plays? Do you not realize that only offering one style of play (rush/conquer) turns this whole thing from being an amazing game out to change the genre, into StarCraft3?

Aggressive isn't the only way to play RTS, and in a game with entire solar systems at your control, I'd expect that the more strategic and logical folks would excel, not the brutes. Chess, not checkers. I might be turtling now, but what will I be doing in 5 minutes, after you've dismissed me as a lame turtler?

I don't like the idea of having something to "shoot down" long range artillery shells. Using Total Annihilation as an example, Big Bertha/Intimidator was a pretty expensive unit and could be destroyed by several bombers. It really added a whole dimension to the strategy of the game. In 2v2 GD2 matches, it was always a race to who could build one first, hide it, and protect it. It made for some very fun and interesting matches.

They force you to keep up with reconnaissance and be aware of where you are placing your structures. Their effect was mitigated by placing your structures behind walls and hills or just plain out of range.

Off-topic but related: One thing I've always wondered about TA was anti-nukes. You could have 4 anti-nukes protecting the same area, and the opponent could send 2 nukes and be successful. It seemed fairly non-deterministic... meaning all 4 of your anti-nukes could go for the same missile. Was this intentional?

It's because turtlers aren't proactively going out and trying to kill their opponent. All they do is put themselves into un-defeatable positions where they can just wait it out forever.

That's boring.

That's why I feel we should promote the ability to offensively turtle by building bases across the map to get in range of the enemy.

There are some that don't consider that turtling.

You're expanding, and taking ground as your own.

If your base is in range of the enemy, isn't his base in range of yours?

No, there are several bugs with anti-nukes in TA. That wasn't intentional.

Exactly. So you want everyone to play the game exactly the same way, and that doesn't seem even more boring to you?

If I wanted to play StarCraft, I'd play StarCraft.

I like that different play styles exist, and I'm hoping since there is just one race, that multiple different play styles help break the monotony. Otherwise it's just a hunt to find the most optimal build order and spam units at each other... just like StarCraft.

Yes, because CLEARLY there is only one valid play style available if turtling is removed.

I don't think there is any point in trying to explain the finer points, due to how Black and White you think this is when it's anything but.

Mike

No, it doesn't. I want everyone to fight with the explicit intention of winning.

I'm not worried if you go demolish your opponents economy then kill him. I not worried if you drown your opponent under an ocean of tanks. I'm not worried if you melt your opponent in a nuclear fireball, or club his/her head in with a comet.

No, as long as you're doing something I'm happy. If you're not doing something to win, then I'm not happy.

If you think playing to win equates to playing exactly the same way then basketball, chess, and rally car racing are all the same thing.

That's an absurd notion, and your argument is just as absurd.

Try harder.

I don´t really think that turtle is a problem in PA. Just think of all the possibilities how you can destroy a planet or a base on a planet. Asteroids, metal planets, satellites/orbital units and moon/asteroid bases.

But more to the point. I really would like it if terrain provided cover against artillery. Artillery's range and angle of the projectile could be made realistic so that the artillery shell could hit cliff or mountain. But this depends on there your base is located.
T1 Artillery should work the same way as well. Then you could micro your units to cover and so on.

It probaly depends on what artillery can do exactly, can it only shoot on the same planet. Than you probaly counter by attacking him, if the range is not too big. Else if artillery can shoot between planets or astroids then you would require some kind of counter measure. But since planets rotate the artillery can probaly not always shoot every other planet. So we will first to find that out.

well turtlers don't neccesarily just "sit it out and do nothing" i am a HEAVY turtle player but i tend to play aggresive turtle i.e make one immovable base, then move forward and make another, building the occasional nuke silo here and there as well as some artillery.

Back in TA there were also no shields and it worked quite well even with the T2 artilleries. The main counter to them was to build important stuff in a hilly terrain. And as we saw how terrain looks in PA then that will be your defense against artillery fire.

Of course since this is a macro game having just one base puts you into a serious risk of losing against an artillery. That also applies for unit cannons, kinetic energy weapons and asteroids.

If I'm turtling I am almost certainly planning to melt you in a nuclear fireball... That's the beauty of long range weaponry... so your argument about turtles not trying to win is a bit weak...


Also, hi everyone

The way I figure it, artillery shouldn't be able to fire with any degree of accuracy without a spotter or something similar designating targets. You could call it the SpotBot

Or just set it for line of sight for normal units. That way, artillery isn't massively effective unless you already have units in their base.

On that note, I think there should be some sort of penalty for firing the artillery blindly, since people will inevitably try it.

I'm not sure I get the whole anti-turtle long debate... Any seasoned TA, SupCom or in fact RTS player knows that you can't get away with 'just' turtelling...you need to expand and take resources otherwise you'll be overwhelmed and overrun. As far as anti-artillery defence goes... Sure you should be able to have but it should be balanced enough not to be completely overpowering so people feel turtlers always have the upper hand.

Given though that PA is likely to be spread over planets I see turtelling as limited to small maps only... You should be able to defend strategic points though in my eyes with turtelling if necessary. Hell the other player should stop them bedding in right?