Walls. Walls and more WALLLS!

Walls in my own opinion have WAYY too much health. for T1 its pretty impossible and just unbearable when they put turrets up along with the walls. Get enough fabs and dedicate them to walls you can spam them up around your base along with AA and BOOM cant do Sh*T. T2 has a slight chance but by the time you get T2 the other guy already setting up an army with 3 layers of walls.
I myself say the walls need a bigger nerf than the one it was already given. I've already had to give up a couple matches and suicide because I know once he builds walls the match is gonna take too long and isn't worth it to me.
I'm not gonna dedicate almost two hours of penetrating walls while the other laughs as he raining hell with t2 artillery. Call me a bitch but I've made my point.

Imo the issue isn't the walls, but the increase in cost to t2 factories which made getting artillery to deal with walls way too costly.

T1 should have some basic arty to break through an early wall defense.

I am fine with walls doing one of two things.

A: Blocking movement

B: Soaking up damage

Not both. Units should be able to fire OVER walls, because if they block movement and soak up damage, they'll just get butchered.

I propose that walls are changed into a low-to-the-ground tanktrap.

Walls should work like they do in real life,

They block movement and soak up damage, but there should be a tier 1 counter that focusses on taking down those walls. Like a unit with a slightly longer range than any of the base defenses, but is basically worthless versus anything that moves.

You mean, like the pelter?

Except the Pelter hits walls too, lol. Unless you put it behind a mountain, in which case it shoots the walls anyways because they're closer. That still isn't fixed...

Also, walls do not work very well in real life. A concrete wall works fine against an antipersonnel round, but an armor piercing or high explosive munition will tear a hole in reinforced concrete. WWII, the over-the-top thing that it was, had plenty of walls designed to stop tanks. The tanks either drove around them, over them, or blew them up, depending on what kind of wall. They don't do a good job of absorbing damage and they don't do a good job of blocking movement, so I'd prefer Uber picks one or the other when it comes to walls.

I think it was a discussion back in the pre-alpha hype where the fact that physics has yet to create a wall that can stop a bullet. For every wall in existence there is always a bullet that can efficiently penetrate it.

A defense barrier currently has 7500 HP, a pelter does 70 damage per second. That means it would take more than 100 seconds of one pelter to take down one wall. Yet a wall costs only 1/10th of a pelter.

That means that a pelter is completely ineffective at killing walls. A wall is effectively a T2 unit that is specially designed to mitigate the damage of T1 units for quite some time. If a wall has that much HP, it should effectively become T2 tech. I am not in favour of T2 being a straight upgrade from T1, but in the current system the only way to balance walls is to make a T1 wall and a T2 wall. So that means that the current wall is used as T2 and has to become more costly, and a weaker but cheap wall used as T1.

While I do like Mushroom's idea of having a wall that blocks damage, and a wall that blocks movement. I personally think that there should be some kind of tier 1 wall destroyer unit in the game. This would create much more dynamic gameplay in my opinion.

When technology wasn't as advanced as it is now, walls were pretty effective. Walls are not effective now, because building walls out of strong metals capable of stopping armor piercing rounds would cost too much.
But in an age where robots have optimised themselves and the extraction of resources, I imagine cost being much less of an issue, these robots are already many times the size of a normal tank.

In planetary annihilation, walls with proper materials would be possible.

Actually as you get more and more advanced survivability becomes harder and harder because heavier, more survivable materials have diminishing returns. In fact the large size of PA overall is pretty infeasible.

"Awesome > Realism" yeah yeah, okay, but there's a reason most wars nowadays are fought with speed and stealth as opposed to brute force. A nation has to be able to subjugate another without going bankrupt itself, which means unmanned drones, cruise missiles, strategic weaponry and a whole lot of death threats. The kind of stuff that doesn't even give the enemy a chance.

walls should be allowed to be clicked an draged. and i don't think they're that OP anymore. sure, when we first discovered how damn usefull they could be when they had priority but the PA strategies have been taking shape. and a sufficient army will take down pelter+wall+turret or anything. I don't think they need a nerf that bad. more urgent things do though. like t2 bombers. (I'm just being honest, I can keep meerily sniping away and shut up if I'm told to)

I always like this response for why walls are fine.

But it always has the same critical flaw. Yes you have a big army. But I have the same big army but behind my walls (walls are so cheap, they don't really impact army size).

Have fun attacking now...

(Yes, building walls is a lot of micro and thats why you don't see them used all the time despite their effectiveness. But I can guarantee you, if I get walls up before our armies clash, there is nothing you can do to win that engagement.)

It would be nice to have a T1 artillery unit, yeah, or crawling bombs .

I'd like to see a different T1 wall, something more like TA's DTs, good for fortifying laser turrets against rockets and not much else. The current wall would be a decent fit for T2.

With the current game winning tactic 90% of the time being crazy unit spam I think nerfing walls would be a huge mistake.

If walls don't do both of these things, there is no point in ever building them.

And tanks definitely should not be able to deal with stuff behind walls, artillery and bombers should.

UP to that. if you're thinking walls are OP maybe that's because you're not building enough yourself.

You shouldn't have to build walls... They're a unit designed to fortify a choke point, not a unit designed to fortify muthafukkan evrehthang.

If you want to fortify "muthafukkan evrehthang." why not? Its players choice.

I played an FFA about a week ago where a player won the match with nothing but Catapults, Walls and Laser Towers. We carpet-nuked him 4 times and he still won.

Mind you, he was playing an FFA with some of The Realm's best players. It wasn't interesting. It wasn't fun. It was horrendously boring.

Was it fun for him? I doubt it. I played yet another FFA a while before that and I was forced to use Catapults to win. I think I'd rather be dragged over shards of glass than do that again.

This is a game about blowing stuff up. If there is a way to prevent literally everything from blowing you up, you are OP and should be nerfed.

So because you couldn't win with tank swarms that makes walls op?

See the problem is unit spam is ineffective against wall spam.
Turtling in a game is an instant anti-gg.at least in my eyes.

No, because someone won with turtling that made walls OP. We owned half the planet and couldn't attack them with anything. Not even NUKES WORKED.