Fun fact. Stationary mobile artillery is much more powerful then attacking one. Also, catapults microed will deal with attacking levelers pretty well. (Any other useless strategies to break a turtler? Because I'm a turtler and late game a good turtler is currently unbreakable [besides the aforementioned air units]).
The point of mobile artillery is to shoot and scoot rather then trying to duke it out against the static defences. And any thing microed well can deal with more then it should. So saying that mobile artillery is useless probably means that you don't use them correctly.
I think stealth gens would be a great solution, it would stop/limit the effectiveness of artillery/catapults but at the same time it would stop shield stacking. Just have the stealth gens so they block radar so the only way to get a lock is to have active sight on them, like a aircraft that could be shot down quickly but give you a chance to laugh and initial blow to there base. What do you think?
Oo i like this would be a nice compromise! Just make it expensive to maintain to nip any potential balance issue or something. And expensive to build, upper upper tier unlock. One other reason i like shield tech is just because it looks so darn cool, but im def open and willing for similar aspect compromises. Edit - And it wouldn't make tactile nukes useless either, I guess this would also nip the issue in the bud about annoying *** catapults being just out of any and every range and even though you see it and its in artillery range it doesn't see it still some how magically. So it ruins everything until you go find it -.-
Red: Shields and crap I fully expect stealth gens to be implemented. As in, I will be thoroughly disappointed if they aren't. TA had them, so there's no reason PA shouldn't in this case. They add strategic depth, and shut people up about Artillery spam.
Once again, there's no point talking about shield gens. Uber has stated their intentions on this matter, they may try them at some point, but if they don't enhance gameplay they will not be in the game. Despite this, here is my take on the matter: I would like you to imagine PA as being like your favourite competitive sport. For some reason fencing was the first to come into my head, but please substitute for whatever takes your fancy. PA is a little like fencing. You and your opponents feint and dodge around one another, looking for any opportunity to attack. You might have to parry a few strikes from your opponent, but as soon as you have the option you counter-attack to force your opponent back. The equivalent of turtling and focusing on defensive tactics like shields is like doing nothing but parrying in fencing. Sure, your opponent's attacks may all be negated, but if all you do is parry you're not going to score any points. Furthermore there is always the possibility that your opponent successfully circumvents your parry and gets to you. I realise this is not a perfect analogy, but I hope you get the point. If you can force your opponent to have to put all their energy into parrying your attacks, then they don't have time to mount an offensive against you.
Except that they always had the option of nuking you... or shelling your base from anywhere on the map with T3 artillery... or building more T3 bombers than you could possibly take out. The equivalent, in fencing, of having a gun that you use after you get the opportunity to put your hand on it.
With the nuke I'd just say that was a different (and pretty limited) form of attack. Yes it can do a lot of damage, but a player who is using the territory available to his advantage is impossible to kill with a single nuke (unless he's too stupid to move his com out the way). Furthermore, it is easy to see coming if you're constantly harassing and scouting your opponent, and easily countered with an anti-nuke silo. As for the other methods you propose, the purpose of your constant offensive is to deny your opponent the time/resources to build up lots of T3 artillery or bombers.
Re: Red: Shields and crap yeah i recon they will put stealth gens in game, also makes it interesting sneaking onto a moon around there main planet without then knowing! what i would love to see is the ability to stealth a entire asteroid and move it into orbit without the energy know! i know this would be op but would be pretty funny just being like "where did all the asteroids go?" (this probable wont be implemented just a cool idea) but yeah this would prevent op shields but still give the anti artillery/catapult solution, just have to make it energy dependent and expensive.
Turtling doesn't mean he's doing nothing but making turrets and Econ beanspoon. A real turtler knows that he must do the bare-minimum to cripple your scouting and the bare-minimum to stop your pushes and then he's free to rush T2/3, nukes and Artillery with everything that's left over. It's only those that overcommit to a defensive strategy that lose.
I would really like to see some type of defensive structure to hide your commander in. Even a bunker or multi level base where you commander would at least not be visible inside. I am so sick of the guys who just mass tier 2 bombers and run them in to attack your commander taking huge losses for the insta win. Shields accomplished this and made for good land battles to take down fixed defenses, but I would be just as happy if you could make fortified structures, multi level bases, or anything else that would let you have increased defenses and or hidden structures, units.
There is already plans for something like that. It's called the Lander and Rocket Gantry, that way you can hide your commander on another planet/moon/asteroid. Mike
And it's still completely within the realms of possibility that we'll be seeing Radar Jamming and more rarely, Stealth.
Mike, not exactly the same thing, a lot of people would like their commander on the planet in contention. A stealthed commander would be okay but I worry that given the commanders OP-ness it would be hard to balance. A hardened structure, or even a non hardened structure that was cheap and could hide units would add some extra tactical choices and keep someone from "sniping" and ending a game that was just getting interesting. Also, snarkiness tends to be detrimental to the goal of adding value. I along with everyone else who bought into the kick starter is aware of the lander and gantry. If you want a purely offensive game, state your opinion in a way that supports an offensive game and allow someone to have their own opinions and state their desires. You effectively told me I was wrong when I said that I would "like to see". I like defense and offense to be balanced. Too much offense makes for a game that neglects economy, too much defense makes for long boring games, IMHO. I am open to all kinds of iterations of the game which is why I supported it. Steve
I think Mike is correct on this. Sending your commander to an empty planet/moon/asteroid feels like the ideal solution to protecting him from snipes. Since that is already going to be an option, we should see how that plays out before adding new units/complexity to the game.
elstubert, i do understand where you are coming from, but i think that commander sniping will be fixed allot by multiple planets plus balancing and t2 air defenses you can pick hide him on another planet/moon/asteroid or defend him in the middle of your base with t2 anti air, plus stealth isnt confirmed out or in, if they have to find your com befor they can fight thats half the battle! take there scouts out befor they find him! BUT also if it really bugs you they have already confirmed an annihilation game mode, this by its self stops snipping as being effective. who cares if your commander is dead if your army is still going strong plus there will probable be the ability to rebuild him/build sub-commander.
Well if your base expands fast enough and with proper AA protection you could see enemy bombers before they find you and knock them down.
