Jump to content
NanoDot

How will AvC combat be balanced ?

Recommended Posts

AvA (avatar vs avatar) combat is a basic feature of DU.

CvC (construct vs construct) was added when the KS stretch goal was reached.

 

But once ships became "shooty", it automatically opened up the possibility of AvC (avatar vs construct) combat, which is inherently imbalanced.

 

A handheld weapon cannot match the power of a ship-mounted weapon.

Infantry will need man-portable anti-construct weapons to defend themselves, otherwise they will be "farmed" by construct pilots. In PS2 that's covered by shoulder-launched missiles and by mounting AAA guns on mech suits, because that calibre of weapon is not practical for a human unless they're wearing an exosuit.

Alternatively, infantry will have to operate under the cover of assault hovercraft that have anti-ship weapons.

 

Target-locking further complicates things, because it devalues evasive maneuvers. The effectiveness of running in a zig-zag pattern to throw-off a fighter's aim in a strafe attack is difficult to model in a target-lock environment. Same with "dodge" moves or jetpack bursts.

 

Bombardment from space has been ruled-out, but it's presumably possible to make your dreadnought atmosphere-capable.

That would imply that a base will have to have defenses (both passive and active) that can cope with capital ship-sized targets and associated weapons damage.

But what are the implications of that for infantry small arms ? Will they be utterly useless against base fortifications ?

 

EVE uses target-lock timers and traverse speed limits to make large guns ineffective against small, fast-moving targets. Works fine for ship combat, but infantry are really slow in comparison to a fighter-class ship...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, NanoDot said:

 it's presumably possible to make your dreadnought atmosphere-capable.

I wouldn't count on this being a common occurrence, assuming it ever really happens. I wish I could get into a full explanation, but I'm not 100% certain what's covered by an NDA and what isn't, so I'll just say that since atmosphere and space engines are separate entities, it would take a ton of extra resources to make a ship combat-effective in both.

 

35 minutes ago, NanoDot said:

That would imply that a base will have to have defenses (both passive and active) that can cope with capital ship-sized targets and associated weapons damage.

I think you're missing some of the better solutions here. There is nothing compelling NQ to provide static defenses (automated or otherwise) that can challenge a capital ship. I agree with you when you say that doing so would be incredibly hard to balance, which is why it would be best not to include them in the first place. Instead, the balance should focus around CvC combat, with bases being primarily defended by other players in piloted constructs. Not only is this inherently more balanced, it also encourages player participation.

 

I know people want static defenses because they think they're cool (a point I thoroughly agree with) or they want shiny skyscrapers that defend themselves, or "realism," or whatever, but the fundamental truth is that static defenses always encourage stagnation and risk-averse gameplay. This is bad for the game, and we would be better off without them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Vorengard said:

I wouldn't count on this being a common occurrence, assuming it ever really happens. I wish I could get into a full explanation, but I'm not 100% certain what's covered by an NDA and what isn't, so I'll just say that since atmosphere and space engines are separate entities, it would take a ton of extra resources to make a ship combat-effective in both.

 

... 

In the promotional video's released up until now, the size of some of the ships that we see flying in the atmosphere of Alioth seems... truly huge !

 

If that is not a reflection of what's possible in the game, NQ better start adding disclaimers, otherwise we'll be in NMS territory... ;)

 

It's an MMO, if it's remotely possible to do X, it will be done. If there's an advantage to be gained, "a ton of extra resources" is just a speedbump.

 

 

As for whether bases should or should not have active static defenses, that's a topic for a different discussion.

In this post, I'm only interested in speculating how they will be handled if they do exist.

 

Keep in mind that "static" does not imply "automated". It simply describes an immobile installation, which could be either a heavy weapon or a 20m-thick ferro-concrete wall. That heavy weapon may need a human gunner OR could have automated options (or even both).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Same way fighting a tank in BF1 would go. Not every well. You can't expect to fight a space ship with a rifle. You should be asking for means to sneak up to a battleship and board it. That's the realm of boarding parties, so ask for stealth tools to make your sneaking easier. Just don't expect invisibility cloaks, that's  too low-skill, it's insulting. There have been voices addvocating for both sides, NQ has cross-sections on ships and has a knack for complexity. Expect comlicated and skillful stealth mechanics, as well as explosive charges.

 

Also, you confuse "hard lock" with "soft-lock".  Weapons on ships do not lock a person or a ship ,they just cast "aoe" damage bubbles. That IS "
lock-on but it's also something people cna avoid. A person must "lead" their shot to h it you inside the damage buble, think of it like in MOBA games, you have to cast the aAOE skill in front of a moving target to hit them. What DU does is consdiered a "soft lock".  If NQ was to add a "red zone" for incoming attacks while a construct weapon is "casting" the damage, it would also be helpful, incliude some "dart" abiltiies, like dodge rolls or dashes, and you got some dynamic PvP, without having to rely on hurp-durp Simulation.

No, ships won't be able to avoid them AOE damage bubbles - not always - cause of many reasons, one being you cast the damage bubble on terrain, and ships, technically in-engine, are considered terrain and for many reasons - I won't even try to explain here - ships work with statistics to determine avoidance or damage mitigation. Yes, your ship can go so fast, it has som much mass, bullet sbounce off of it, it's physics, it's terrifying and makes viewing Star Wars as interesting as watching Power Rangers.

However, do not expect a 1500mm battleship railgun to hit you in its damage bubble and you waliking away scot-free. In fact, expect to be one-shotted. That's some Wrath of Gods type of weapon. 

On the bright side, you are so tiney tiny, you can't be locked on - cause of science reasons you don't really wanna know - so you don't have to worry that giant guns will magically lock you in space. Giant shells need long targeting solutions - it's how the word "problem" came to be, means "before the artillery shot" in Greek. So, if you wonder "will them giant 1500mm cannons dunk me?" the answer is "not possible at all" - unless you are standing still on top of a rock, they may not be able to lock onto you, but they CAN target the rock beneath you.
 Be smart, don't stand on rocks.


As for base defeness, that's something - again - that has to battle a possible "sneaky" gameplay, like infiltration suits that ignore RDMS but limit oyu on weapon sizes, i.e. Infiltration Suit ignores RDMS like the ability to access guns inside a Territory Claim, but you can only hoslter on it small firearms, like pistols, you get the idea. So Territory Claim defeenes become viable, cause they are meant  to catch sneaky people of guard.  NQ has said "no auto-targeting guns on constructs", that's a solid stance on their part. And again, infiltration suits, they could do things like hide your name when people pass their reticle over you, and infiltrators - unlike in Planetside 2- could act as "Spec Ops, and rushing on enemy MBTs on the ground, placing some C4 and bailing out.  Yes, you may say "that's op, omg", well, guess what, actual MBTs have ground support to prevent that, it's a team game, play it with a team. Teams work together.

So, to sum it up, it's about "can we have means to sneak up to Cosntructs?" not as much as "can I pelase be able to survive a hit fro ma 1500mm railgun shot?".


Cheers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, CaptainTwerkmotor said:

Same way fighting a tank in BF1 would go. Not every well. You can't expect to fight a space ship with a rifle. You should be asking for means to sneak up to a battleship and board it. That's the realm of boarding parties, so ask for stealth tools to make your sneaking easier. Just don't expect invisibility cloaks, that's  too low-skill, it's insulting. There have been voices addvocating for both sides, NQ has cross-sections on ships and has a knack for complexity. Expect comlicated and skillful stealth mechanics, as well as explosive charges.

I'm sure there's a place for your "Space Ninja" fantasies somewhere, but hopefully not in DU, lol

 

I'm thinking more along the lines of the good 'ole Colonial Marines here...

Squad tactics...

Fire-and-movement...

Grenades...

Infantry support weapons...

Heavy armour...

Demolition charges...

Hovertanks...

Artillery...

Dropships...

 

Glorious frontal assault ass-kicking combat in full Michael Bay technicolor:D

 

Not namby-pamby waltzing about in the shadows while wearing a stealth-tutu and armed with a pea-shooter and a stiletto... :unsure:

 

Now, the discussion is about how we're going to balance all the disparate elements in a satisfactory way.

Hiding is not an option... ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, NanoDot said:

I'm sure there's a place for your "Space Ninja" fantasies somewhere, but hopefully not in DU, lol

 

I'm thinking more along the lines of the good 'ole Colonial Marines here...

Squad tactics...

Fire-and-movement...

Grenades...

Infantry support weapons...

Heavy armour...

Demolition charges...

Hovertanks...

Artillery...

Dropships...

 

Glorious frontal assault ass-kicking combat in full Michael Bay technicolor:D

 

Not namby-pamby waltzing about in the shadows while wearing a stealth-tutu and armed with a pea-shooter and a stiletto... :unsure:

 

Now, the discussion is about how we're going to balance all the disparate elements in a satisfactory way.

Hiding is not an option... ;)


That's good and all, but like in EVE, people do not like a mind-numbing brute force battle. It's okay once a year or once a half year for it go down, but most of the times you just get bored having "glorious clusterfucks".

Boarding parties can go down, that's why many EVE people are itnerested in DU. The possibility of boarding a superior ship and taking it out fro mthe inside - or taking it over if possible - is something that makes combat asymmetrical.

Nobody likes symmetrical combat, and it should be emphasised, asymmetrical does mean unbalanced but not one-sided. Ship can one shot you if you get hit by its guns as Avatar and you can take over a ship if you board it and succeed boarding it, or sneaking up to it.

If an enemy traitor flies a transport shuttle with a platoon from your alliance on board his side's most powerful ship, that means your platoon has a limited time-frame to do whatever they can and blow that ship up.

That, could require infiltration suits that won't register any detection means on board enemy ships, but again, having limited access to gun sizes.

That's asymmetrical warfare. One alliance's strength may be its money - but not its numbers - while another's strength is its numbers but they are dirt poor. And NQ has to cater on both sides to keep things interesting. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, CaptainTwerkmotor said:

That's asymmetrical warfare. One alliance's strength may be its money - but not its numbers - while another's strength is its numbers but they are dirt poor. And NQ has to cater on both sides to keep things interesting. 

No, NQ does not have to artificially balance anything to "keep it interesting". That's the player's job.. strategy... tactics... planning... meta gaming...

 

All NQ have to do is to ensure that all weapons and constructs have a counter, even if it's not a direct counter.

That's why I referred to things like shoulder-launched missiles for infantry: it gives them a way to fight back against flying and hovering constructs that may have big weapons. Just like they do in PS2.

Giving us AAA turrets that can be mounted on hovercraft gives infantry an indirect counter, a mobile anti-construct option, as long as they stay close to the guns.

 

I can't imagine anything more tedious than spending an hour searching for 5 guys in stealth suits that infiltrated a base or capital ship...

 

IIRC, Goonswarm started off in EVE by fielding large fleets of frigates... typical zerg tactics, and it worked !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, NanoDot said:

No, NQ does not have to artificially balance anything to "keep it interesting". That's the player's job.. strategy... tactics... planning... meta gaming...

 

All NQ have to do is to ensure that all weapons and constructs have a counter, even if it's not a direct counter.

That's why I referred to things like shoulder-launched missiles for infantry: it gives them a way to fight back against flying and hovering constructs that may have big weapons. Just like they do in PS2.

Giving us AAA turrets that can be mounted on hovercraft gives infantry an indirect counter, a mobile anti-construct option, as long as they stay close to the guns.

 

IIRC, Goonswarm started off in EVE by fielding large fleets of frigates... typical zerg tactics, and it worked !

Who said balanece artificially? Adding stealth suits or infiltration suits is a counter to tougher enemies you want to avoid. It's not a magical protection, it's an option. NQ can't balance the fact people CAN be bought.

Also, you don't seem to remember Goonswarm defeated the Band of Brothers with guile, not brute force. Call Mittani any name you'd fancy, the guy got Goonswarm to a certai nheight cause of guile and fighting dirty. That's what stealth suits are for. If the enemy is not an organised force, they will be steamrolled and theri ships boarded and destroyed by numerically inferior force. That's a fdact of life, it has happend IRL, it will happen in DU, cause that's when warfare is interesting and tactical.

Sun Tzu attacekd an opponent 10 times larger than him, attacked through the night and even used himself as diversion for his main force to attack the capital of hios enemy.

Israel fought the Six Days War by exploiting their oppponents' lax attitude cause they were outnumbered tremendously, so "why have ships on the sea to chec k for the Israel air force?". Well, the Israeli air force obliteraed their enemies' air force and their ground forces had no aerial support.

 

The Japanese destroyed the US Navy by attacking Pearl Harbor.

Out of these 3 examples only one failed to win a war, and that's cause of advances in technolgoy nobody foresaw.

The examples are many, having the ability to be covert makes the game more interesting.  The only "counter" you can have against a bigger enemy, is the abilty to hit them where it hurts by being sneaky.

Plus, that's the stuff that make itnernet headlines. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, CaptainTwerkmotor said:

Out of these 3 examples only one failed to win a war

Except that none of those examples involved anything to do with stealth technology !

 

Good old-fashioned "cover of darkness", element of surprise and ruse tactics don't require stealth suits...

 

If stealth tech is ever used in DU, it has to be limited to a small set of highly specialised applications, not become the "go-to" tactic for boarding actions or base captures, for instance.

Why send a fleet if 5 space ninja's can do the job equally well ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, NanoDot said:

Except that none of those examples involved anything to do with stealth technology !

 

Good old-fashioned "cover of darkness", element of surprise and ruse tactics don't require stealth suits...

 

If stealth tech is ever used in DU, it has to be limited to a small set of highly specialised applications, not become the "go-to" tactic for boarding actions or base captures, for instance.

Why send a fleet if 5 space ninja's can do the job equally well ?

A Stealth Suit is usually active camouflage, not ha can never see me. Thermographic vision can see them easily (depending on environment)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, NanoDot said:

Except that none of those examples involved anything to do with stealth technology !

 

Good old-fashioned "cover of darkness", element of surprise and ruse tactics don't require stealth suits...

 

If stealth tech is ever used in DU, it has to be limited to a small set of highly specialised applications, not become the "go-to" tactic for boarding actions or base captures, for instance.

Why send a fleet if 5 space ninja's can do the job equally well ?

Stealth is the art of avoiding detection.

The Israeli Air Forcce flew under  the Egyptian Radars' heights. 

 

The Japanese employed Radio Silence and cloudy weather to avoid beingh photographed by airplanes that flew over the PAcific.

Sun Tzu was the onyl one who used the cover of darkness, cause he was fighting on land.

Stealth has nothign to do with technolgoy, technology itself has nothing to do with anything. A stealth suit is just something meant to block enemy player and gear sensors ffrom identifying you. Whatr you use said suit is a whole debate on its own.

 

Also ,since you seem to be an EVE player, the idea I proposed once was to have two types of armors for Avatars for stealth.

one is an Infiltration Suit, similar to Interceptors from EVE Online and Recon Suits, similar to Strategic Cruisers from eVE.

They both can bypass Warp Disruption bubbles in EVE Online, onl;y Ceptors have am ax DPS of 110 (really hard to get to that) if fit for speed - which means Ceptors can only do cobmat in the fashion of Wolf Packs, 30 of them jumping onto a target, and it usually doesn't end well for the cpetors, losing a large part of the fleet.

While Strategic Crusiers could be Spec Ops Suits in DU, able to do the same,. have much more comhbat capabilitiy, but cost a metric shitton as of resources and money and they are easily handicapped when in contact with Energy depletion..

Both of those ship types in EVE can't caputure points, like TCUs. They need an Entosis Link, only present on BIG BIG ships.

Ofc, the Strategic Cruisers are used depending on the occasion. Most of the time, they are used as part of a big fleet, that needs to be mobile and harrass the enemy force by jumping in, taking shots from far away and then vanishing, usually those pot shots finding the healers on the enemy fleet.

Interceptors on the other hand, are used for scouting or for pickett dudty -  standing guard near a position and reporting any enemy movement back, usualyl cloaked in Protoype Stea;th modules.

For DU, since of the AvA combat, during a fleet engagement, a small team of "Spec Ops Armors" c an board an enemy ship, and try to overtake it before its shields are lowered or its RDMS is overtaken for Heavy Armors to board. In this case, the game has a dynamic "battleground" system. Two shisp that go VERY VERY SLOWLLY (like actual ships go slowlly, cause of their mass) means that enemy Spec Ops can do boarding actions in hopes of takign out the enemy's XYZ module to help win the fihgt.

In another case, the Infiltration Suit, could be used by an Infiltrator to sneak into a forward base of an invading force and blow their supply of fuel up, thus rendering them weak for a surprise attack. And those suits balance out cause nobody likes to be in paper tank armors. Infiltration Suits are meant for just that, infiltration, noit combat. Getting in a fight with them - or dare I say gank someone - means probable death.

And of course, do not forget how much those Strategic Cruisers and subsequently Spec Ops Suits in DU's format of AvC would cost, since they require a LOT of backgroudn training to get to them and most importantly, when you die within a Spec Ops suit, like with Strategic Cruisers, you lose Skillpoints fro mthose skiullls. Strategic Cruisers are a high-risk class of ships to fly. Dying with a Spec Ops suit, means you "delevel" on your skills behind the suit.

They are no free meal. Those kind of Armors in DU would be something REALLY only capable for an alliance to keep funding on some people and those people if killed during an oepration, means they have to sit the bench for a while till they recuperate their lost SP. As I said in another thread "with great power, comes a great power bill". 


So, no, those armors won't be overused as "stealth". If anything it would make player-run police forces a thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, CaptainTwerkmotor said:

That's asymmetrical warfare. One alliance's strength may be its money - but not its numbers - while another's strength is its numbers but they are dirt poor. And NQ has to cater on both sides to keep things interesting. 

 

1 hour ago, CaptainTwerkmotor said:

The possibility of boarding a superior ship and taking it out fro mthe inside - or taking it over if possible - is something that makes combat asymmetrical.

7 minutes ago, CaptainTwerkmotor said:

They are no free meal. Those kind of Armors in DU would be something REALLY only capable for an alliance to keep funding on some people and those people if killed during an oepration, means they have to sit the bench for a while till they recuperate their lost SP. As I said in another thread "with great power, comes a great power bill". 

 

So you're saying the "dirt poor" alliance can deploy these ultra-expensive stealth suits to overcome the money advantage of the "rich" alliance ?

Or should the "rich" alliance deploy dozens of these ultra-expensive stealth suits to overcome the numbers advantage of the "dirt poor" alliance ?

 

Who's more likely to have that "superior ship" that needs to be capped by using stealth suits ?

 

And why are we discussing highly specialised and limited stealth tech in a thread about balancing conventional warfare ? :unsure:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, NanoDot said:

 

 

So you're saying the "dirt poor" alliance can deploy these ultra-expensive stealth suits to overcome the money advantage of the "rich" alliance ?

Or should the "rich" alliance deploy dozens of these ultra-expensive stealth suits to overcome the numbers advantage of the "dirt poor" alliance ?

 

Who's more likely to have that "superior ship" that needs to be capped by using stealth suits ?

 

And why are we discussing highly specialised and limited stealth tech in a thread about balancing conventional warfare ? :unsure:


"Superior" is the silyl word to use. It's not about superiority, it's about httting the enemy where it hurts.

 

I pointed out to you, those kind of suits wouyld have to be expensive to balance their innate strengths and have SP loss associated with them to add to their high risk - along with their vulnerability to Energy Drain mechanics. The idea is to give people who lack numbers a way of fighting that it's viable for them, while also giving mercs and other entities the abilitiy to be covert on a strike.

I mean, Mercs in EVE are paid to do all sorts of odd jobs by the richest people - who are not even in alliances. Give those people the ability to hire PMCs to wage war on people who pissed them off by blowing up their freighters and NQ gets ample amount of internet headlines.

Of course, those armors should be NOT and I do mean NOT magical invisibility without any means of detecting the enemy whatsover. It should have a counter - mainly ifrared goggles / heat sights. It should be an optical means of stealth, not Harry Potter. The people using thme SHOULD deploy actual skills, like timing their movement or utilising tactical assault and advance i.e. "board a ship, take out the RN, then barricade the fuel storage area, while we set up explosives on the fuel tranks". And that of coruse, would demand things like "explosive devices have a mandatory 5 minute countdown", so for a dynamic style of "battleground" to be available and the defenders having enough time to fight back.

 

And of course, if you got a battleship docked in space and the dock has no people acting as security - like how Titans have people protecting them - then the arguement : "
how many people would use it" is irrelevant. This is about NQ providing tools that can make an organised force of smaller numbers able to overcome a superior force.

That was present in EVE for years, with the Logistics ships (healers) being widely ignored, until Rooks & Kings went 20 vs 100 and won that the rest of the EVE server went like "hmmm, I guess we need healers on them fleets..." . 

Sadly, EVE is a 15 year old game and has some limited mechanics. In EVE's senario of "spec ops" situations, involves the Cynofields  and surprise enemy fleets showing up at your front yard, blowing up a building and then leaving leisurely. And who deploys Covert Cyonosural fields? Exactly, Frigate Ships with cloaking abilities. In DU, that can be a dynamic thing, of people with infiltration suits scouting ahead of a main force and updating the leader of the Spec Ops platoon of enemy forces movement.

It's all about that tactical gameplay. There is nothing tactical in EVE's clusterfucks of 1000 vs 1000 people fleets. You just are told "focus ABC" and that';s that. DU dargueably will be more of a clusterfuck in AvA, since most people will go Gung-Ho and then immedtiately start attackign different targets.

Discipline is not something everyone shares. That's why we need such suits in DU. Alone they are not "OP", a Spec Ops armor - like a Tengu - would not last against a ship of a higher class, like a Spec Ops armor would not last against a Heavy ARmor or its "Tech-3" equivalent, a possible Power Armor. Your silly Spec Ops armor avatar would wipe the floor versus a person with such a powerful armor on if you were to go "hurr durr invasion". But those Spec Ops armor, if utilised in the opportune secenario, coould make a difference - like Cyno Fields in EVE.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, so infantry will need special goggles to "see" stealthed players and kill them.

Got it.

 

Now, back to the main news of the day: "Which mechanisms can we use to balance conventional warfare, given the apparent imbalance between the power of infantry and constructs ?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, NanoDot said:

OK, so infantry will need special goggles to "see" stealthed players and kill them.

Got it.

 

Now, back to the main news of the day: "Which mechanisms can we use to balance conventional warfare, given the apparent imbalance between the power of infantry and constructs ?"

Have different damage types (different damage sphere shapes)? Use weapons the target is vulnerable to? Use AP rounds? It really depends on what you want to damage. At the end of the day, you will be going up against a superior foe if you want to go toe to toe with a tank/aircraft/spaceship. Surprise, deception and underhanded tactics are how you win against them.

 

There are things like infantry carrying AA or AT weapons, but the trick with those is they have severely limited ammo and are quite obvious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, mrjacobean said:

There are things like infantry carrying AA or AT weapons, but the trick with those is they have severely limited ammo and are quite obvious.

I like the idea of having hover-based infantry support vehicles. They could mount medium or even heavy weapons, and would be far cheaper to build than ships. Their movement speed can also be matched to infantry quite easily, and their ability to remain stationary makes them useful for area denial.

 

But those types of ground-assault hover-vehicles would either have to be built on the planet before an assault takes place, or else transported in space-capable transports.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, NanoDot said:

But those types of ground-assault hover-vehicles would either have to be built on the planet before an assault takes place, or else transported in space-capable transports.

And thus why logistics is vital when in war. You could also bring the materials to build them with you and have engineers construct them in the field. Another alternative is raid an enemy supply depot to steal theirs, but I digress.

 

These support platforms are going to have to be built by the players in the form of constructs, and building a static platform is much easier than building a mobile one. Heavy Weapons Teams could carry the materials to place down the turret and then man it when needed, and tear it back up when it is time to move.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, mrjacobean said:

These support platforms are going to have to be built by the players in the form of constructs, and building a static platform is much easier than building a mobile one. Heavy Weapons Teams could carry the materials to place down the turret and then man it when needed, and tear it back up when it is time to move.

Weapon emplacements (bunkers, pillboxes, heavy turrets, etc.) are a different matter. I'd object to them being fully recyclable, that makes it too easy.

They will be powerful, and if you can just hoover them up at will, they will be spammed. There will have to be some cost associated to building them, so that people need to make sound decisions.

 

Weapon emplacements won't be possible inside the enemy's TCU area. That's where the mobile weapons platforms will shine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...