Catapults on Small Planets - and artillery in general

So - the prevailing strategy on a small planet is either to A) rush with a commander or B) Turtle and build a catapult first. Profit!

Issues with this strategy: First, the guy who just sits there and does nothing wins, every time. It is still possible to beat him, but you will need t2 units to break him, and if you have those why have you not built a catapult yet?!

So, this system could be considered BINARY, like the Nuke - Anuke relationship -> which is not fun, engaging, or thought-provoking, imho.

Proposals to fix this problem:


Simple!

My idea: Remember those nifty point defense cannons from SupCom? Why not have those? After further research, no one seems to have a clue what this is besides me. By point defense, i mean a railgun that spits out 5-10 bullets at a time, at a high RoF, then pauses for a set amount of time to cool/reload, and has the ability to target incoming shells.

So, low RoF, and can intercept Catapult and Holkins fire (and maybe a limited amount of unit fire). But WAIT! You say. That will render them useless! it will need to be expensive and T2 and etc etc.

Actually, there is another solution to this problem as well: Increase the RoF of Catapults and Holkins DRASTICALLY, while reducing damage to compensate. Now, I dont mean to the point of insanity, but they should be balanced around say, 5-6 Point Defense Towers for every 2 LR Artillery to block all incoming shots. There will, of course, be a chance the shots will get through , depending on vision and angle of attack.

As for Pelters, since they already fire fast, we can up their RoF a tad, drop down damage, and voila! pelters beat point defence

I'd like for these structures to be slightly more expensive than a pelter, but just below 2/5 that of a catapult.

This way, it is still economical to build pelters or other artillery to counter the enemy. And even more economical to build factories to wipe the floor with them.

What I am envisioning here is that artillery will still be incredibly useful for base defense, but their effectiveness at *creeping* an enemy base (unless you be pelting ) is diminished. It also will promote more ACTIVE gameplay, instead of one player suiciding into the enemy because he lost the Artillery war after pushing the enemy back with units. Or just get really frustrated and delete their com.

Thoughts? Concerns?

Tactical Missile Defence.

SupCom players know exactly what you're talking about.

THANK YOU

Have a thumb.
EDIT: Not exactly but I was looking for, but close enough.

EDIT 2: Think Phalanx Turret from the wonderful US navy.

http://faforever.com/faf/unitsDB/unit.php?bp=UEB4201

That was the exact turret I was looking for, thank you

Bumpitty Bump BUMMMP

I would like artillery to require a significant amount of power to use, causing turtling players to need a significant amount of power generation to fund such powerful bombardment weapons.

Essentially requiring a proper turtle have to secure proper ground to build their power nets.

Then mobile players will be more balanced against them in their need for factory space.

I think a tactical missile defense is a good thing. It should not, however be able to intercept holkins rounds. Right now these two buildings pretty much do the same thing. Make a catapult more powerful/longer range/more energy efficient or whatever, but its missiles can be shot down. All a trade off.

Inaccurate artillery with excellent range for cheap, and accurate missiles that can be blocked by tactical missile defense can both coexist. The only question is whether, from a gameplay perspective, allowing tactical missile defense is actually an improvement.

With tactical missiles that track targets, I think there is a very strong argument that missile defense is a good idea. For a system like the Merl that is very accurate, but not very effective against moving targets, perhaps a tactical missile defense makes passive play too stable? The correct response to such a unit is to engage with troops.

exactly just like TA artillery....especially in the escalation mod. that mod uses crazy amounts of energy to fire artillery....then again a few arty pieces in that mod are game enders..... even still though in OTA berthas required a sizeable energy expense per shot

That or having an existing defence be able to also intercept them.

Perhaps a toggle on catapults to switch between attack and intercept mode?

Or what of single turret lasers being able to take pot shots?

A mobile radar jamming unit will solve the problem of radar targeting the most effectively and it will provide a variety of new tactics.

^ indeed it will force much more scouting units into play

Like scout targeting?

I dunno, I tend to have a air factory that is dedicated to throwaway air scouts.

These structures and units have been suggested for some time.

I very much want them to be added in.

^The sooner the better

I'd also like to point out that Holkins are currently almost laser accurate at long range - or at least, they are in my experience. In addition, the range of a Holkins is really not that much greater than a catapult.

Personally id like the shelled artillery to be inaccurate, but have longer range then the missiles.

I agree with all of this. YEAH

I really hate the fact that almost all the games that I have played are decided by whoever build a arty gun RIGHT inside the range of your stuff first

Half of the games I play end super quick (are rather lame) cause someone built a launcher/pelter RIGHT within the range of my base. simply put, having super long range defenses that kill everything is LAME.

A better model would have most defenses focus on what defenses should do: killing attacking units. building more defense should not be a way to attack a base

Super long range stuff (like the howster/tackmissle thing) should instead be prohibitive expensive: so building units is actually a game ender (I find units are only used to stop expand until a catapult is built). like in supcom, where lategame you can spam units, but a heavy arty station is still a investment that takes time and monies to build.

Put simply, artillery should not completely destroy any enemy force or base from tremendous range the way direct combat units constantly sweep their attack range clear of enemies. If you want to completely wipe out the enemy in an area, you should really attack with an army, seize control of the area, and sweep it clear. Alternatively, a nuclear missile can wipe out an enemy presence in an area, but has its own drawbacks and counterplay.

Long range gives units the ability to fire with impunity against enemies with inferior range. Consequently, very long range is a highly dangerous property for units to have and should have inherent drawbacks other than just high cost.

The solution I propose is inaccuracy, which would make artillery able to soften up a large group or bombard a base, but not effective for completely destroying everything in the area. To do that, you soften up the enemy from a distance and then attack in force with an army.