Super turtle castle

I would prefer a less static game, where T1 units are actually useful and territory changes hands more regularly.

So mobile warfare?

I can see the appeal, not my kind of play-style personally.

Hopefully the game will support both.

That's really what I'm hoping they can pull off. Currently the game is more static due to the cost of turrets compared to what is needed to kill them.

It's weird. Some say turtle artillery beats all attacks. Some say t2 hornets kill anything. Some say t1 spam blobs beat all.

I like myself a very spread out artillery network.

Either way, how is that broken? Everything needs to be slightly less effective, and a lot of different flavours and roles need added. How is that too unfair atm tho?

I personally tend to loose in big games against turtle players, although that's more down to the fact that I'm always overly aggressive in FFA games- attacking everyone and getting into fights early. I usually beat my neighbours, however by then the turtle player on the other side of the planet who has been quietly keeping out of trouble is so far ahead I have no hope. This doesn't bother me, all RTS games I've played tend to be like this- including TA.

I'd rather be brawling with a nice up close early knife fight than play sim-city for an hour to get the eventual 10 minutes of combat to win it- it's just how I play (also if they had started next to me they would never have gotten that fortress!).

As for people screaming OP to everything- bombers fail against fighters unless you have an overwhelming force of fighters to send in first (in which case you probably have allot more resources than your opponent so you're going to win anyway). Bot's can be annoying but a few well placed missile turrets thin them out quite easily and are cheap. And now anti nukes are cheaper I don't view nukes as that OP. Protect important factories and T2 P Gens with antis, leave lightly defended areas of expansion uncovered as they are so quick and cheap to rebuild I think the enemy is worse off wasting all the metal on a nuke to kill it.

P.s. to OP- nice base

I find that what is broken at the moment is that there are only a small number of viable strategies in the game. Turtle + nuke, T2 bomber + fighter are 2 of the small pool of choices on offer. Hopefully the game will make it so that there are more and players need to diversify rather than repeat the same thing every game.

I love how people argue against general health buff saying "it would be too static" then say the game's not the turtler's paradise enough already and should be even more static.

Uhh buddy? I was for it.

And a turtler's paradise isn't anything like what I am suggesting, so you better check yourself.

I didn't say you were. he idea is people around the forum say this then contradict themselves.

I think the forum contradicts itself occasionally. Maybe not even individuals usually. Just the forum. I mean, besides huge-blob-armies, t2 bombers, and turtle/nuke, which turtle nuke really divides itself into immediate gather up nuke rushing or flourishing t1 artillery and still slowly teching, there is still orbital laser rushes since nobody seems to ever use deepspace radar, and there are levelers which are a beast themselves. In some games, naval is a viable way to win, and I don't mean "rarely" as much as I mean "when water is available".

Point is, most people hate turtlers, but there was no way that was an overly viable strategy what they did. However, there is a threshold where static is stronger than ground and that is intentional because if a tank was stronger then why not build a tank and sit it upon the ground as a turret? Turrets win point wars, for sure. Their drawback though is that air bombing, really even t1 bombers, tend to beat out turrets, and "land units" do have ranger variants that can snipe turrets from safety so it isn't like there are no options. And above all else, a full army production player can always produce more firepower faster than one using turrets, factories pump in volume and health is paper thin in this game so turrets die fairly easily enough when hit with hoards.

So yes, turtling should have successes and rushing should have successes. Which basically means they should both have failures as well. As much as people hate "their playstyle" not winning all the time, it is necessary for everything to lose some of the time, thus creating a "game" of entertaining struggle. Because, as that Twilight Zone episode demonstrates, it isn't a game and it isn't fun if you are guaranteed to win 100% of the time. Even the winners of those circumstances don't stay with the game very long, and they drive away the rest.

Honestly some nicely placed mid sized t2 bomber attacks and a nuke or 3 could easily destroy that base...
Through in some fighters mixed with the bombers and in the confusion take out the anti nuke, then launch the nuke(s). Boom Base gone.

Turtling is, always has been, and of course always should be, a viable strategy. Mind you, not the most effective startegy, and easily countered with a good asteroid strike (or lasers, nukes, bombers, levelers, etc...) but still a nice strategy. It's a different kind of play style, and I find it really fun to play sometimes with insane turtling.

You're short by about 150 fighters. I would have just bombed you. I've killed turtles with meaner looking bases than that. Almost no amount of missile towers will stop a decent T2 bomber attack.

I agree. I was just simply pointing out where his could easily fail. If he wanted to have the ability to stop what I had suggested above, he needs a lot more fighters petrolling around his base, 2 more anti nukes, and his t2 power more spread more out instead of in clumps.

I do not normally like to turtle, I find it ... boring or in the heat of things a bad strategy. Sometimes it is necessary when playing extremely aggressive opponents, but most of the time it is a wast of resources that I could be using to expand, go interplanetary, pelter creep, catapult creep, nuke rush, etc ... I find expansion interplanetary or not is a better strategy in general than turtling.

That being said I find it extremely fun to pop turtles or decimate them entirely. It brings a certain joy to my heart.

I've given up on expanding too much at the moment; turtling up, racing to t2 and bombers beats expansion and land forces in the current build

racing t2 bombers only work when the enemy does not have fighters. I race t2 bombers with my expansion and always have a mass amount of fighters circling my main base and proxy bases at all times. With good eco management you can do a number of different strategies at the same time.

Well T1 fighters are on the tech path to get T2 bombers, so air superiority isn't hard at all.

Power nuking an T2 air sniping is sooo damn effective!

agree with the more recent posts here
been in some game 2v2v2v2, all players turtled up like this
and were very frustrated to be broken by t2 bombing their antinuke then nuking the **** out of them (-:

and had to have minimoose after zim and gir and pig (-:
nyah!