Firing through things

[R Hannay]

Gentlemen,

I would like to make this post with your kind permission because as I have seen in the testing builds, there is a discrepancy regarding whether or not one's units can fire through things. What do I mean by "things?" Structures, units, and terrain. In the past, projectiles have been able to travel through friendly structures and units, have occasionally been able to travel through terrain, and have not ever been able to travel through enemy structures and units.

In the recent testing builds, specifically the 20101024 and 3.0b1 builds, the issue of ambiguous turfing has been resolved, and projectiles no longer travel through terrain. However, there have been other changes alongside this positive change which I regard as negative and a detriment to the game. For one, the player can no longer fire through friendly structures to hit enemy targets. The modifications made so that hardpoints cannot fire through each other, or whatnot, I do not even know the details because there has not been a changelog yet. In the image below, the machinegun towers have valid targets within range, but are not firing.

I politely request an explanation of the recent changes and I wish to open a discourse concerning the validity of such changes. My personal position is that, at the loss of some realism, one should be able to fire through friendly structures with units if the structures are not hardpoints or hardcrete, and one's defenses should be able to fire over friendly defenses if the defense in front is the same height or lower (see the Guide for more about heights.)

Thank you for reading and I eagerly await your responses. Much obliged to you for your time.
Richard

[NoQ]

Hmm. As i've said earlier, i feel as if shooting through friendly structures should be really kept as it was. The very possibility of hiding your units behind your buildings plays a lot of role in defending your base when outnumbered, and thus seems to increase the variety of possible build orders (that is, even if you prefered technology to rush, hiding at your base gives you a better chance of surviving an enemy rush and striking back).

[Darkblade]

Wow, technical english is technical.

As far as i know (at least on the ps1 version) hardpoints arnt supposed to be able to shoot tru eachother. Every defensive tower has a specific height (mostly 1 for bunkers and 2 for hardpoints/towers, one exception i could find is the nexus link tower, has 3). Somewhere, this got removed or became broken, however, it seems to be fixed now.

This is made so you can't make an invincible wall of guns, something you could do as of late *well, doish*.

[R Hannay]

This is made so you can't make an invincible wall of guns, something you could do as of late *well, doish*.

Unless one finds oneself playing a high oil game, I think that invincible walls of guns would be very easy to break with a little bit of indirect fire. In this way, such a wall is not only not invincible, but very costly and thus a liability. From the appearance ingame, it seems that such turrets should be able to fire over one another - after all, those of tanks can. I do of course think that machinegun bunkers for instance should not be able to fire through a hardpoint, but I do think hardpoints should be able to fire through other hardpoints and towers. At the very least, a machinegun tower should be able to fire over a power module as not shown above.

R

[Darkblade]

Yes, but as a fact, on a low energy map, an artillery base is costy to build, and easy to destroy, balancing it.

[R Hannay]

Yes, but as a fact, on a low energy map, an artillery base is costy to build, and easy to destroy, balancing it.

It is to my understanding that an artillery base is expensive, but a couple indirect fire tanks are not. Also note that I would plan around the possibility of turtling on the part of my opponent by structuring my research so that some form of indirect weaponry, is somewhat accessible, whether it be mortars, mini rockets, or something else

R

[Darkblade]

Yeah, the problem with indirect fire is the following

- in all cases, reasonable costy to build
- in all cases, easy to destroy by counterartillery
- Easely destroyed by air
- Long build time, takes up the time to make tanks

- Minirockets have quite a low range, so they be shot up by the defences
- Mortars needs to be close to base, and thus are vulnerable to counter attacks. So you need to escort them, but a good enemy just destoyes the mortars because they are too slow to move away.
- Artillery gets counterbatteried by ripples
- Ripples costs are rather high.

[R Hannay]

Yeah, the problem with indirect fire is the following

- in all cases, reasonable costy to build
- in all cases, easy to destroy by counterartillery
- Easely destroyed by air
- Long build time, takes up the time to make tanks

- Minirockets have quite a low range, so they be shot up by the defences
- Mortars needs to be close to base, and thus are vulnerable to counter attacks. So you need to escort them, but a good enemy just destoyes the mortars because they are too slow to move away.
- Artillery gets counterbatteried by ripples
- Ripples costs are rather high.

Let me point out first of all that your point about mini rockets is void because mini rocket artillery outranges all T1 defenses. Mortars are indeed vulnerable to counterattacks, which is why the experienced player protects them well or mounts them on hovers for a quick getaway. Ripple rockets appear rarely if at all in low oil games, so I do not feel they have a bearing on this discussion as they are more of a psychological weapon than an actual tactic when used with power limitations. Air isn't present until T2 or later, so before that one doesn't have to worry about mortars being bombed, and after that one can simply build a few AA hovertanks.

I will concede that mortars are costly, but so are huge walls of defense.

After playing the most recent testing build, the following screenshots indicate the most recent status of the "firing through things" debacle with no official word from the developers as to the intended mechanics.

[Buginator]

What kind of 'official word' you looking for ?

The master builds don't have the same patch as the 3.0 beta builds.
The patch was put in place to fix shooting through things, and yeah, it has some issues.

We can't test everything, and the person who made said patch is here: http://developer.wz2100.net/ticket/2151

As for status of it, unsure at the moment, nobody has looked at it again AFAIK, and you could post in that ticket your issues with it.

[R Hannay]

What kind of 'official word' you looking for ?

The master builds don't have the same patch as the 3.0 beta builds.
The patch was put in place to fix shooting through things, and yeah, it has some issues.

I suppose the official word I would look for would discuss what result is intended by the eventual patching. I am aware the current patch has some bugs, but I might ask what the future goal is after those bugs have been fixed. Is it intended for units to continue firing through friendly structures, something I view as a positive good? If it is intended that units should not be able to do so, I would like to discuss this with the community and the coders before it becomes permanent.

As for status of it, unsure at the moment, nobody has looked at it again AFAIK, and you could post in that ticket your issues with it.

I have done so as you have suggested. Much obliged, sir.

[Per]

We haven't really discussed these side effects much. We all agreed missiles should not fire through terrain (well, duh). As for the rest, that was a surprise for me, at least. I am not sure personally what the rules should be on this. So your feedback is most welcome.

[TVR]

Firing through solid objects without damaging them is out of place in Warzone 2100.

However, as towers are designed to be able to fire over other structures, I suggest actually scaling their model heights by 1.5x to 2.0x times.

[R Hannay]

Firing through solid objects without damaging them is out of place in Warzone 2100.

I would opt to disagree. I think that Warzone 2100, being a strategic war game and not a literal war simulation, should employ certain features to keep gameplay fun. As you can see in this article, other RTSes that are fun to play sacrifice a little bit of realism for a lot of strategic and tactical potential. As it stands in Warzone, I would say that many innovative and even fun build orders, or early-game strategies, are possible with the ability to use one's base buildings in a defensively militaristic fashion. In addition, I would say that many of these strategies would no longer be possible should this ability be removed purposefully. In the current master build, I believe that firing through one's own base buildings is once again possible and I am of firm opinion that it should remain this way.

The one occasion where I would agree with you is on the subject of hardcrete structures. I don't think anything should be able to fire through a hardpoint or a hardcrete wall unless of course a gate is lowered or it is itself another hardpoint.

However, as towers are designed to be able to fire over other structures, I suggest actually scaling their model heights by 1.5x to 2.0x times.

This seems like a good idea to me. No objections here!

[effigy]

I agree that units and defensive structures should be allowed to fire through friendly base structures, but I'm neutral on defensive structures not firing through other defensive structures; at a minimum defensive structures should have the following height order (taller structures being able to shoot over shorter structures): Forts/Bastion > Towers > Hardpoints > Walls > bunkers/emplacements. Ofcourse, indirect fire structures (MRA, Mortor, etc) should be able to shoot over all.

Also, I'm leaning towards units not being able to fire through hardpoints and forts, but should fire over bunkers/emplacements, and through towers.

[psychopompos]

I would opt to disagree. I think that Warzone 2100, being a strategic war game and not a literal war simulation, should employ certain features to keep gameplay fun.

if i wanted to play #@%&craft i wouldnt be playing wz2100.
starcraft is not an rts its an execrable little twitch game thats more about finger dexterity, incessant micro & about the most maladroit displays of 'tactics' you can get before you find yourself playing halo.

the only kind of weapons that should be capable of firing through friendly structures/units without impact are phased particle weapons.
which are not included in wz as yet.

In the current master build, I believe that firing through one's own base buildings is once again possible and I am of firm opinion that it should remain this way.

do a better job structuring your defenses.
front lines should be staggered pills to allow vehicle/borg support fire.
second line should be your hardpoints/walls with towers at the back.

though a step wall(bunker height) that vehicles can fire over while still uslin as basic cover could be an addition.