T2 bomber change..........

Those are good post. Sorry for being unclear. Mainly my point was just that I don't mind the experimentation if it leads to units with soul and character.

It's just that so far Uber doesn't really have a good track record(IMO) with "experimentation" when it comes to them actually being experiments and properly explaining thier intent.

Mike

The important question is HOW a basic defense can be overrun. There are at least 5 answers.

So far Uber can only prove they understand one: Kill it with impunity from beyond its range.

It is a time trusted classic.

For 90% of RTS games (and real life combat too) this is the trusted go to solution for most siege warfare.

Some games add abilities that can be called down to destroy a specific location on the map, PA closest analog is a nuke or KEW

Some games allow lots of small units to swarm a slow firing high burst damage defense. An example is infantry attacking an anti-tank gun. PA lacks any kind of "infantry" type balance. The Dox is currently balanced as a tiny tank and lacks any of the virtues that infantry have in most games.

Change model to Saucer design, and it looks the part. No really. I'm personally liking it, but I'm not liking how much faster they seem to take down a commander vs an ADVANCED FACTORY.

That only means 90% of RTS games don't understand what RTS games can do. Yes, there are many overt ways to achieve a particular balance desire. They tend to be blunt, super powerful and cause huge rippling effects down the line. There are also many subtle ways to reach the same goal. They address only the problem itself, having minimal impact everywhere else and thus not breaking down any other desired aspect of the game. Knowing how to accomplish the latter is true mastery.

PA doesn't have much in the way of overt balance mechanics. Things like armor class are completely non existent, and excessive use of targeting restrictions is frowned upon(because it's damn lazy). That means PA devs have to know more than ever the use of subtle balance tweaks, which I had tried to impart at one time or another.

Then please, show us your infinite wisdom that billions are clearly lacking.

Been there, done that. It's popcorn time now.

Oh, you mean elaborating on the kinds of ways that turrets can be made vulnerable to various tactics and styles? Nah. If teaching it 3 times didn't do anything, trying a fourth time isn't going to make any difference.

A link or two for those of us who just got here would be nice.

So you can whine in every post, but not at very least keep the links to when you did say when so?

If your teaching was so good, you would only need to teach it once, if you have to teach it a forth time, maybe it's not that we aren't listening, but what you are saying is wrong.

That or the packaging of it is rough enough that it's a surprise that anybody bothers to even open it.

Complaining isn't going to get your point across, it's just going to make people ignore you, and your point up there on that high horse of yours, for you to parade around on, as you do.

Igncom, let it go man. Just like I tell my kids "don't feed the troll." It's not worth shifting the whole discussion over to indulging his bad attitude.

I appreciate Bob's input when he's being constructive, he's a smart guy with some solid insight. When he's posting that insight I usually agree with him, even if there are points when we don't agree. Yeah, he can be a condescending *****, but the best you can do it let it go and keep the dialog moving.

Now, all the attitude aside, he does have a point. Relying on artillery alone to counter static defenses is fairly hamhanded, and there are other ways, but many of those require game mechanics that PA either doesn't have, or we are actively avoiding.

The "go to" in real life is just out-range static defenses, or go around them. Sometimes we use maneuverability to evade the fire.

My examples above were games using 1-shot "call ins" to assault defenses. CnC:Generals and Company of Heroes both have these. PA's closest comparable (right now) are nukes and KEWs, but game enders are usually used to end the game rather than assault some artillery behind a wall.


Other alternatives involve improved survivability against defenses...

You can make low DPS units with meat shield health to roll up to those defenses and clear them out while your army stays back.

You can use swarms of frail units with high DPS that offset the damage taken as overkill, so you only lose a small part of your horde (like the dox suggestion I've been advocating the last few days)

You can use suicide units like booms, but the balance is delicate and is prone to swaying OP or UP very quickly.

You can use very fast/maneuverable units that engage while moving. In some cases these units can move faster than the tracking speed of the turrets and can stay in the kill zone longer because they simply aren't hit.

You can use special armor classes to allow anti-defense units, but this is frowned upon in PA as a WYSIWYG violation. It is technically an option.

Or you can out range defenses... It's not always as exciting, but it works and is predictable. It's main value is that it's a diamond counter that you can rely on to break defenses with impunity, while the counter-counter to range is equally obvious, get out there and destroy it. Forcing defenders to support their towers with units is a great gameplay mechanic and range very successfully supports it. The other options all work for destroying defenses, and they may have a place in PA, but they don't reinforce the idea of making the defender get up and meet you in the middle.

Why don't we have a high health melee unit? The closest thing we have to a melee unit is the flame tank. Maybe I missed it but have we talked about melee units? It would be cool to have a bot that runs up to a tank or turret and pounds it with large fists to attack.

There are threads with all the arguments already laid out and we should refer to those instead of sidetracking this thread.

Mike