Should Artilery Paint "cost" at their attack targets

In real life artillery can be used as "suppressive fire," or firing at a certain point to keep enemies from going over there (if things are blowing up in that area, it's probably a good idea to stay away from there...). So, adding cost to where artillery is raining down is very similar to sending artillery for suppressive fire. If I don't want an enemy to get through a canyon, I start firing artillery and then they won't try to go through. They'd have to send in aircraft, or get through in between shots. Which brings up the point, I think the cost should only get there a few seconds before the round hits, and shouldn't stay permanently. So, I fire it round, it scares the crap out of whatever unit wanted to go through (cost goes up), but then after the dust settles the unit trys to get through again (cost goes down).

The thing is, that shouldn't be for the AI to decide but for the player. Hey the enemy has got tons of arty that can concentrate fire in that spot... let's not go there it's a silly place. Or ignore it and get destroyed.
Having every little damaging component add cost, makes the game "dumber". Being observant and making good decisions on where to put or send your army should be rewarded.

I actually like the idea a lot. It gives artillery an other function than just long range dps.
You can mess up a formation of an incoming enemy. Just shelling an enemy army at long range wont hurt that much. But you can really mess up the formation of an enemy, like spread them all out and then take them out 1 by 1 with a flank-attack or defenses take them out 1 by 1 if the spread out army is attacking. So you actually need to use artillery smart instead of just click and autoattack.
I can foresee a scenario that you are attacking a base with an big army, but cause of the artillery shelling they had to go through they are so spread out you have to decide to
1) have some more losses or
2) make an tactical retreat and get units back in formation.

It cost micro of artillery units, but it also cost micro for the player with the army to keep his units closer together. Or to navigate the army through the explosion field.
I think some people dont understand the 'cost-field'. You can't send units to impassable area (red on stream), but you can send units to unfavourable terrain (green on stream) if you actually set the destination there. It just dont like to go through it. Pity he did not show that on the stream.

There can be different kinds of artillery. For example high explosion shells which deformate the terrain and create artillery holes which permanently slow units.
Or some sort of clusterbomb which spreads his bombs out over an larger area but does not deformate terrain. It will temporarily create severals 'dots' on the 'cost-field' to spread out an army heavily. So that basicly will be army deformation artillery.

These artillery pieces can be balanced in several ways. Time of the extra dots on the 'cost-field' to appear in advance of impact. slow reload or continue shooting. Or fire 10 shells and then reload. Target only ground (not units). Or if it is to micro intensive have some creeping barrage or overwatch artillery options like in company of heroes.
I think it really adds some nice depth to strategy.

The way I see it, is we as players are commanders of the army. We give orders, and then our units are to obey them. In real life commanders of armies do the same thing. They give an order, and then the soldiers are to obey them. However, when you actually get onto the battlefield other things may happen, unexpected events that the commander didn't plan for. So, when artillery starts going off, soldiers start scattering, getting away, rallying to a different point, etc. This is what they are taught to do, not just stand there and take it. I think adding this component doesn't dumb the game down, rather makes it more real.

I am a member of the armed forces currently. When given a mission, my job is to accomplish it. However, plans may need to change slightly just so me and my guys don't get blown up. Adding cost to artillery, in my mind, is just light this. Change the direction or plan a little, but still accomplish the mission.

Real life/realism and whatnot is all far less important than gameplay to me. The game is pure science fiction. You could also see the units as the mindless drones that they are seeing as they are drones so it would be even explainable that they would not move on their own.

The thing that bothers me is that adding cost to arty or other damage inputs like missiles/nukes/stuff makes them less effective.
If I built artillery and position it so that I can shell your units, that's good playing on my side. If you anticipate that and move your units then that is a good reaction. Both actions are rewarded.
Now if one of us should slip up: Poor arty placement or not moving your units away will result in losses. When you start to automate input usually done by the player, it takes away gameplay elements.
I know it will not be that black and white, but again adding cost would "reward" players for not doing anything by themselves.

For the example you give about your job, adjusting the pathing yourself or moving units yourself is also slightly adjusting the plan and still trying to accomplish the mission, but it takes a little bit more effort, but will reward you for doing so.

I am for keep it stupid and simple. you don't want units to get pounded by arty, scout and have them move around the area that is being shelled. Having them scatter or route for realism's sake is only going to add needles micro.
Developed tech offers possibilities but what I am reading here does not add top gameplay value in my opinion. Adding a dodging switch for instance only means I have to keep remembering which units are on dodge mode and adds micro and ui complexity.

Maybe a compromise, where I could select shells that do damage, or shells that do no damage, but suppress and add costing?

at the end of the day, cost is to help with pathfinding and after every artillery shell land there is not necessarily any guarantee that another shell will land, let alone in a similar spot. obviously the cost would gradually go away after each shot but what effect that this would have on the other player?

One person concentrates some artillery on a choke point, while powerfull its not necessarily devastating to anything that goes past it. The other player chooses to move some units through that pass but couldn't see the artillery... hey wait why are my guys going all the way over there instead of through that pass? I didn't tell them to go that far or through that line of turrets i knew was there...

Cost painting for artillery should be left for the craters that they make. Otherwise its only game play implications are unintuitive and or annoying.

Well summed up Mr Yogurt. Craters are what will increase movement penalties...at least you have a visual cue then...whether Artillery leaves craters or not is up to the devs methinks.

I think it is a great idea but it raises another question. Should units stay out of range of enemies and only get into range when they are ordered to shoot said enemy? Using "cost fields" could end up with an extra layer of strategy.. nice idea..

I wonder if it is hard to implement for us to try it out during the alpha and beta so we can decide if it is fun enough to implement for the final game?

If you make it user selectable behaviour (think Hold Ground/Manouver/Roam from TA), then I don't see how it's unintuitive. A shell is detected, a symbol appears on the ground where it is expected to land, and units move away (if they are set to). Also important to note that those behaviours don't kick in unless idle - this wouldn't interfere with move commands.

It's visually obvious, user enabled deterministic behaviour - not annoying or unintuitive.

nayzablade, it's not actually a movement penalty - units don't go slower. It's only a deterrent, or hint, to pathfinding.

I would chime in and say that I think it'd be cool to see my massive bass assault force attempt (slow units would be SOL) to part like the red sea as a large arty shell comes in. What is the point of AI if it isn't actually intelligent enough to try to avoid obvious death. Then after the shell lands, the cost goes away and your force falls back into rank. I've always the TA/sup com line of games because success wasn't based on clicks per minute, it was based on actual strategy. A general tells what units get sent to accomplish what goal, and not have them call him and say, "hey were about to all die from an incoming arty shell we can see, just fyi", then wait for him to individually order units to disperse to each side. I feel like truly epic rts games make you feel like a general, not a stand in for the brain of every single individual unit.