Warzone 2100 Forums

yes i know... no one want a another flamer thread, but i am still having huge problems with them on t1. so i just won a game building those slim pod towers vs a flamer boy and i was wondering why we cant have slim concrete towers with single, twin and hmg mounted onto them. i am certainly not a defense guy, most of the time i actually dont even research concrete. so this might be a chance to get another factor mixed into winning a game besides choosing two weapons... so if u all are sick of reducing the power of flamers, why not give us t1 guys some concrete that we can use? that brings me to another question.... whats up with the hmg tower? whats the reason for getting that so early into the game without having researched hmg? if u ask me,(which obviously no one does ) eradicate it out of the game, or at least let it progress with the research u already got, ie. smg, tmg, hmg wooden tower... and while im on it.... is a transporter with an hmg mounted underneath it really so a great idea? i have seen plenty of games(and high oil) where people build ~10 of those transporters, which have strong armor and let them float above your base.... but im not complaining bout the transporters... there are plenty of ways to defend yourself against them, compared to flamers....

ps.: the new balance in beta11 is a BIG step into the right direction!

tmp500 wrote:yes i know... no one want a another flamer thread, but i am still having huge problems with them on t1. so i just won a game building those slim pod towers vs a flamer boy and i was wondering why we cant have slim concrete towers with single, twin and hmg mounted onto them. i am certainly not a defense guy, most of the time i actually dont even research concrete. so this might be a chance to get another factor mixed into winning a game besides choosing two weapons... so if u all are sick of reducing the power of flamers, why not give us t1 guys some concrete that we can use? that brings me to another question.... whats up with the hmg tower? whats the reason for getting that so early into the game without having researched hmg? if u ask me,(which obviously no one does ) eradicate it out of the game, or at least let it progress with the research u already got, ie. smg, tmg, hmg wooden tower... and while im on it.... is a transporter with an hmg mounted underneath it really so a great idea? i have seen plenty of games(and high oil) where people build ~10 of those transporters, which have strong armor and let them float above your base.... but im not complaining bout the transporters... there are plenty of ways to defend yourself against them, compared to flamers....

I agree with your points.

• It makes no sense to be able to put HMG on a tower before you can put it on a tank. The initial MG tower should cost like $25 and have a regular MG.
• Twin MG hardened tower would make a lot of sense.
• I do not use those transporters but I think they cost like $900 (!!!) and you can get hurricane sooner, anyway. So whoever builds these is foolish, but whoever gets killed by them is even more foolish

JJjopando wrote:*I do not use those transporters but I think they cost like $900 (!!!) and you can get hurricane sooner, anyway. So whoever builds these is foolish, but whoever gets killed by them is even more foolish

You are the fool
First, it's not an HMG underneat the transport, it's a vtol-hmg. If you consider the armor, the vtol version is easily 3 time stronger than it's ground counter part. But beside normal Vtols, this one dont need to reload at the base.
Second, Not only the vtol is totaly immune to most weapons, but on top of that it is resistant to most weapon types.
Third, it is enough resitant to be able to retreat at medium damage most of the time. Since it's flying everywhere and can transport it's engineer, it can retreat to repair in plain innaccessible spot for anything else garanteeing the success of the repair.
Fourth, yes you CAN have hurricane by this time BUT the enemy player know exactly what weapon branch you use by that time, so he can decide if you have a decent AA or not and chose if he go for the transport with that in mind. Also, it cost nothing else to research; It use ground research. So if you invest in AA to get rid of the transporters it will be in pure waste.

Solution : replacing the vtol-HMG by a special transporter mg that is cloned based on the single machine gun.

some points

1=
There is problem with cheap hardcrete towers.. i'll try to explain
1) defensive structures can effective draw fire at themselves
2) walls dont do this
so if you have tower with first MG for 25$ price you can use this as very effective wall

so towers with cost below 100 can be unbalanced and used instead of walls
we dont have clever AI for our tanks which would skip weak mg towers and attack only stronger tanks nearby

2=
Another problem - too many defenses will make harder to select them to build because we have very long list of structures to build,
i think this reason explains why we dont have many structures like twin mg tower, or hardcrete mg tower
(i've tried to show solution for this problem in my structure design patch, unsuccessfull)
suggestion1: add twin MG tower, and put HMG stuff to appear later in research tree

3=
i think flamers still too strong
why this happened? we reduced power of flamers, but also we reduced power of anti-flamer weapons: MRA, AG
suggestion: reduce constant damage (~100), this damage very strong in early game and very weak later.
better make this damage variable and dependent on flamer upgrades

4=
ticket complaining to HMG tower #3120
stop lie to players!
suggestion1: rename Mg tower to HMG tower (same with MG bunker)
suggestion2: make HMG hardpoint easier to get

Reg312 wrote:some points
...
2=
Another problem - too many defenses will make harder to select them to build because we have very long list of structures to build,
i think this reason explains why we dont have many structures like twin mg tower, or hardcrete mg tower
(i've tried to show solution for this problem in my structure design patch, unsuccessfull)
suggestion1: add twin MG tower, and put HMG stuff to appear later in research tree
...

Having lot of defenses won't make them hard to select, because a defense with a new weapon can/could replace the old defense.

tmp500 wrote:is a transporter with an hmg mounted underneath it really so a great idea? i have seen plenty of games(and high oil) where people build ~10 of those transporters, which have strong armor and let them float above your base....

I agree, lately it's become a sort of fad to use transporters more than just a utility unit. They are beatable, sure, but the idea of misusing a game mechanic seems to bother me a bit. Transporters were introduced in MP to be used for transporting units, but they are now turned into an army. I think transporters do not require to have any weapon at all, they have sufficient HP to keep them alive and fly over enemy AA defense, and their payload itself can be used to protect them in desperation. I don't see the reason for it having a HMG turret, or any other weapon for that matter.

Where is your anti-air? They are only pythons, and they cost $900 apiece! Hoo boy! If you get killed by these on a regular basis and refuse to build AA, whose fault is it?

My AA was all destroyed, if you see the black spots on the terrain. But the point isn't that transporters are beatable or not.

JDW wrote: I agree, lately it's become a sort of fad to use transporters more than just a utility unit. They are beatable, sure, but the idea of misusing a game mechanic seems to bother me a bit. Transporters were introduced in MP to be used for transporting units, but they are now turned into an army. I think transporters do not require to have any weapon at all, they have sufficient HP to keep them alive and fly over enemy AA defense, and their payload itself can be used to protect them in desperation. I don't see the reason for it having a HMG turret, or any other weapon for that matter.

+1

JDW wrote:My AA was all destroyed, if you see the black spots on the terrain. But the point isn't that transporters are beatable or not.

So what is your point? It is an overpriced garbage unit that happens to have a crappy gun with infinite ammo. Attacking with a unit is not "misuse" any more than attacking with a tank is. If you get killed by these, you are doing it wrong. You cannot pick targets with transports, so build a good amount of AA in and among your base buildings such that the transporters cannot take it out before dying.

If you get beaten by a tactic, come up with an effective counter instead of nerfing everything you can't beat.

I don't see the reason for it having a HMG turret, or any other weapon for that matter.

+1

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_t ... elicopters

Transport helicopters are operated in assault, medium and heavy classes. Air assault helicopters are usually the smallest of the transport types, and designed to move an infantry section and their equipment. Helicopters in the assault role are generally armed for self protection both in transit and for suppression of the landing zone. This armament may be in the form of door gunners, or the modification of the helicopter with stub wings and pylons for the carriage of missiles and rocket pods. For example the Sikorsky S-70 fitted with the ESSM (External Stores Support System) and the Hip E variant of the Mil Mi-8 can carry as much disposable armament as some dedicated attack helicopters.

It's not a powerful unit. Counter it properly and you won't have any more problems.

JDW wrote:I think transporters do not require to have any weapon at all, they have sufficient HP to keep them alive and fly over enemy AA defense, and their payload itself can be used to protect them in desperation. I don't see the reason for it having a HMG turret, or any other weapon for that matter.

+1

JJjopando wrote: It's not a powerful unit. Counter it properly and you won't have any more problems.

lol, you are treating the core of the BDC clan like noobs.

Iluvalar wrote:lol, you are treating the core of the BDC clan like noobs.

It doesn't really matter.