ADV Laser Defence Turret

Right now formations just scatter the units about, but it's planned that they'll arrange themselves in a smarter formation allowing for better tanking of towers by units like the inferno.

I like how powerful turrets are, heck I think they could probably due to be a bit tougher, but I would like if the Advanced turret was something cooler than a bigger version of the basic turret. A big death ray which does lots of overkill damage but isn't as good against swarms would be cool.

+1 and also love the look and feel of the ddm... One of the best weapons ever made in a game imo.

I am not against diverse turret behavior. Rapidfire short range turrets with equal or less range than average turrets, peck damage current ranged turrets, turrets with low damage but aoe...

I wouldn't mind the mundane enjoyment of a tower defense game while my enemy fails miserably lol.

I'm all for different style turrets the pictures of the one above your interesting. This is a thought I've had after reading this thread. If ants are not meant to beat towers, then perhaps they shouldn't be tanks. They should be a different unit, the proper tank should be the leveller. Perhaps an alternative unit to the Ant or hiercleisure can't spell it, it is now and always an ANT. Maybe heavily armoured jeep or truck like vehicle with a heavy RPG on top. bit confusing having a tank that doesn't break through enemy lines. People expect tanks to be tough not expendable units.

Tanks aren't supposed to destroy enemy fortifications.

So I don't get your point.

Why not? Common sense says they are.

Common sense says that job is for siege units like the flame tanks or artillery to deal with.

You don't have artillery until T2 which invalidates any T1 ground combat if you defend your bases with static defense.
All I am saying is that T1 ground should not be helplessly shreddered when going vs static defense when they greatly outnumber the defender, when siege units are not (yet) available. Else the game starts at T2 and everything before is turtling up.
Also I don't think making melee units the intendet counter to ranged defense towers is the optimal solution. After all the Infernos are so slow they have quite some trouble with closing the distance to defenses to be able to deal any damage.

Pelter?

You can tech 5 mins in, so not have artillery, bombers or snipers isn't a reason.

Not that it's really much of a problem when you can (and I have) take down enemy towers with T1 land scouts.

Should high power turrets pierce through enemies and inflict a whole line of destruction (length dependant on unit HP) within a blob of units?

the concept is you can move an army anywhere. Your enemy can't build turrets if your there. You take most the map and let him turret till you overbuild, then trample him.

turrets are good, sometimes you can stop unit floods sometimes not.

then there is air. So, air, or overwhelming land, beats turrets.

then there are pelters, those beat them.

I mean, if a turret can't beat a single type of unit, then why have turrets ingame? Why not just armies? Why not remove air, artillery, nukes, orbital weapons, and just have tanks?

I am very well aware that the smartest counters to towers are artillery/bombers/etc, so stop suggesting that
(Pelters are not really an argument btw - why would the enemy let me build them when he has - according to you guys - T2 anyway after 5 minutes?).
I was merely pointing out (over and over again) how this turns into starcraft style rock-paper-scissors, even much worse than that, since even in games like starcraft you would be able to overwhelm enemy defenses with superior numbers.
We are at a point where a single tower can take on 20 ants, the ratio of effectiveness is just off here.

The root of the problem here is that tower damage is so massive it nearly instantly kills any ground unit which comes in range.
Again - I love defensive structures but they just feel totally off right now. (except for the Pelter, I think he is fine).

Uh, yes they are. Perhaps a repeat will help you.

okay, let me compromise. The only reason turrets kill so many units is walls and repairs right?

okay, so walls could use a small nerf, simple fix. Or...

they should add different walls. Some walls that two way block shots and are higher health, some that block pathing but allow shots both ways with high health, and one with lower health and allows current one way fire.

call one a wall, one an obstacle, and one a barrier.

Here is a new mechanic. How about just balance walls, so they require an investment to build like the cost of a single laser turret, and then keep their health so repair gets a bit more expensive too. Then it is still good but requires a cost and time investment and can now reasonably be destroyed.

Just make walls wreckage like in TA so they cannot be repaired. That walls are repairable seems to be the biggest issue with balancing them.

I can read - stop being hostile.
Why would the enemy let me build pelters in his defensive perimeter? He is on the defending side here so he will most likely have pelters on his own. This is likely to turn into an artillery-only warfare at some point which is pretty boring.
This is not really part of the problem I am tackling here.

I agree that walls are a big part of the problem.
In TA you had dragon's teeth which were low and could be shot over by anyone, and actual walls (T2) which were tall and blocked fire for everyone. This way the walls would not only provide an advantage to the one who built them, but had to be placed more strategicaly.

Three types of walls might be overkill, but I think some changes are needed.

So they've investing massive amounts of time and resources into this impenetrable defence?

Go around it.

pelters might be the most long to build t1 structure. If one is built, it was an investment. There is always beating it to t2 and sniping pelter with holkin.