Artillery Defense

But common artillery from games like supcom really do end up replacing nuclear missiles, and that's something id like to see changed.

That is the case mostly when it's range can reach across most of the map. In PA we are looking at planets so that won't be an issue I think. Also with the larger artillery devices and longer range, a bit of micro can make a force avoid the worst of an artillery defence. As in artillery being used as a defence and not something to defend against artillery.

Well I also hope that artillery can't reach across all of a medium sized planet either.

Just have Artillery have a slow fire rate and medium velocity and i don't care how far it can shoot. As long as there aren't any Supcom 2 Forty flashbacks...

Badly designed artillery, it gives me nightmares.

So much we still don't know about how things will be implemented in the game...I was thinking of arty like it's been used in FA when thinking that it would be nice to have some kind of static arty defense. If it were changed to have more of an impact on mobile units and less on buildings, static defense against it might not be necessary. If arty stays as it was, then I think something like a point defense laser could be cool and plausible.

It is worth pointing out that, although point defense anti-artillery is within current human technical ability, not all realistic mechanics will make it in to the game.

Submarines are extremely OP in real life, and they can't be left so in game. Point defense lasers might be cool to implement, but may complicate things when other mechanics could suffice.

Fair enough point. What other mechanics might you suggest to provide anti-artillery capability?

Many of the suggested methods already provide ways to deal with them. For one thing, it may not be desirable to prevent a shell from hitting when it has been fired from a game-play perspective. The use of energy from the player's economy to fire the shells, for example, keeps the artillery fire from being a "free" devastating attack in the first place.

I am not opposed to the idea of point-defense lasers (in fact I pointed out the current real-world capabilities earlier), but I think that they are not in the realm of realistic possibility right now given the way the game is shaping up. This necessitates looking elsewhere for effective counters for artillery.

no.

I like it the way it was in Total Annihilation

anti nukes: yes
anti artillery: no

this is a great mechanic. Honestly everyone is so worried about adding all this new stuff but I'd like to see more from the original TA, and keeping things more faithful to TA.

the concern should be and should always have been 'how fun is the counter play to artillery?'

shields really aren't that fun of counter play and have all kinds of other problems. hopefully we'll see some more interesting counter play to artillery in PA.

Stealth emitters?

Terrain?

Large power dependency?

Building bases that are spaced out rather then clustered (Works for nukes as well)?

that one isn't interesting counter play, the others you listed are all great examples though yes

Interesting little read

You know, when I played TA, I didn't mind not having any counter to artillery. I feel like the game was very well balanced, that it took a lot of effort to get artillery that would reach your opponent's base, and I was just fine without shields or a point defense system. Assuming that things are well-enough balanced here (and I'm confident that Uber will make a fantastic game), then such a thing might not be needed here, either.

If it ends up being a fairly easy thing to build artillery in the comfort of your base that can shell your opponent's base, though, I would think a counter-artillery structure could have a place.

What i don't like in this thread, is the assumption that turling IS BAD and that we must do something to stop it!

Turtling is a game play style with it's own strengths and weaknesses, same as rushing, or heavy air (whatever that's called ) or hit and run.

Designing a game so as to put a stop to that option is just as false and un-fun as building a game where that's the FOOS.

I like my defenses.
i like having a base solid enough, that if i screw up my big attack, i will still have something solid enough to hold of a counter attack.

I don't like the idea of being forced into some kind of mobile warfare.
I also don't like multiple fronts, it's a flaw of mine.

If someone wants to turtle, it should be an option.
and no better or worse than a different tactic played with similar skill.

If i have a defense against artillery i can use, i'm gonna.

I see no problem with a race between artillery and anti artillery.

No better or worse than air vs anti air.
or tank vs anti tank.

If there's no defense, then artillery runs the risk of becoming god.

First one to build a good bunch of them will win, be cause you pound down his arty, then his tanks, then his base.

It's great if you're behind a mountain, but what if you're not?

What if there aren't any on your planet?

Ok, done now.

It's a risk, but only if the artillery is designed very poorly. There's plenty of ways to balance it, but the main points are Weapon DPS, firing arcs and range (i dislike using economy as a major balance point in this situation, as "Don't let it get built" is the worst way of balancing things).
Low DPS allows defence by depth - you can't simply build a gun and win, because it's very easy to mount an attack in the time it takes for the artillery to do significant damage, especially with more spread out bases as a result of no shielding.
Firing arcs allow defence via the environment if low (I find high arc, long range artillery to be boring for this reason).
Range should not allow main base to main base firing, except on the smallest of maps (when building such an artillery piece is probably not optimal anyway, and even then it may not be possible due to the curvature of the planet).

I wonder how strong artillery would be if there are no defensive possibilities against it.
Especially if it is long range.
Defending structures or some strategic location would be a lot harder.

It is not like you can easily leave your base to be crumbled and go build somewhere else.
That would give the enemy a lot of free mass to reclaim and most likely a loss.

The best defense is offense might be the only thing left.
I would like to have options though.

Having the option to build in is something I like about FA.
Still it was not possible to cover the whole map with defenses as that would be to costly.

I am very curious how well balanced the artillery will be in PA with/without defenses.

One assumptions that is made in this thread often kinda baffles me.

Why do people expect it will be easier to build long range artillery by the enemy in range for your base instead of you building artillery right in your own base?

If your turtling, isn't it more likely that you'll have the artillery up to defend your base instead of your enemy, who has to take the risk of building a forward firing base?

I like turtling as well. I don't do it every time, but I enjoy it. At the least, I like having a good set of defenses to keep the base somewhat safe while I'm off doing something else or if a big attack falls on its face. I think that people shouldn't try to discount a particular play style, especially one that a fair number of people use.

It's a good point that if you're turtling you may well get artillery up to defend your base before someone else gets theirs going. I wasn't bringing artillery defense up as something only for the benefit of turtling, though. It's something I would want in my base whether I was going for expansion or turtling or whatever, especially if it won't be too difficult for artillery to be built from one base that can reach another. I think it would be another fun option that would enhance the game. Just my opinion!