Artillery-to-hover damage modifier

[Zarel]

So currently, artillery do 110% damage to hovercraft. The reason that some artillery modifier needs to be changed is because late-games generally result in a stalemate because at least one player has an artillery installation of 400 artillery emplacements and can't be killed. Because of this, I strongly suggest that people who haven't played a game of Warzone against someone with at least 50 Archie and hellstorm emplacements do not vote here.

30% modifier: Per suggested to me to change this number to something extremely low, and I've grown to like it. The rationale is that hovercraft should be fast enough to dodge most artillery damage. The reason this isn't an accuracy modifier is because weapon-to-propulsion modifiers can only be damage modifiers. If you were worried about graphical incongruity, we could even eventually have graphics that animate the hovercraft dodging out of the way, to make it look like an accuracy modifier.

110% modifier: On the other hand, TVR's been complaining for about three pages on the current rebalance thread that people should just learn to micromanage manually, and having the damage modifier reflect something that should be an accuracy modifier is just silly. This is a position that's rather hostile to people who have better things to do than micromanage their hovercraft. If this were to happen, I'd probably further tone down the artillery-to-tracks modifier from 60% to 40%, so people who can't micromanage should still have something that's reasonably artillery-resistant.

While I don't mind some forms of micromanaging, I don't think manual dodging belongs in an RTS game, or even an RTT game.

This whole thing is a consequence of the current projectile system. If there weren't so many people who loved it, I'd probably have worked around it by now... :/

[TVR]

For anyone who has not played a T3 turtle, use debug mode to place ~1000 defences, including rocket artillery, AA, hardpoints, sensors, and howitzers, then try taking it out.

(Hint: Use mobile Archangels & CB to take out any fixed Archangels you place.)

[themousemaster]

I'm going to go with the High damage, but for a slightly different reason than "should learn to micromanage properly" (which I agree with Zarel on, telling specific units to "move left" really shouldn't be a function of RTS's at all).

The thing is, the choice makes it sound like you have a choice of attacking this heavy-base with either anti-artillery Hovers or Micromanaged hovers. In reality, you can do a number of things to a hyper-artillery base which don't require megamicro, such as:

A) The aforementioned "heavyrush". If they can take artillery hits, may as well use them for such.
B) Airpower. A person who went straight up the Artillery tree will likely be short on SAMs and have "ok" AA guns. The much-maligned HEAP bomb is really good for taking out artillery clumps, or the Incendiary type bombs will do if you have them. Unless we are talking about a game that went for hours such that the opponent has a literal wall of both artillery and SAMs... but even then a "scrub VTOL" flight sent in first will draw the fire.
C) Combined arms. Bring in your own artillery battalion + sensors/trucks, and a mass of weak hovers to run in between it and the artillery. In an exchange, artillery-tanks will come out on top of most placed-artillery fights (provided the map isn't so friggin huge that no 2 artillery pieces are touching.
D) Terrain advantage. Send in a distraction force while you set up your own artillery just over a mountain range (and out of sight of your opponent)
E) Suicidal VTOL rush to take out sensor towers and trucks. Most hyper-turtlers overload the guns, and not the support structures; removing the artillery's ability to fire for even a brief period (just long enough to rush in some friendly units into their artillery platforms using any method available), and you can do a lot of damage.


You can, of course, mix and match these strategies depending on the battlemap, state of forces, or whatnot; and, of course, some options will be nulled in some maps (Ziggurat doesn't really have a place you can "set up over the mountains").


It's important to remember: if your opponent has had the money to build a bazzillion defenses like this, you also have the money to build a bazzillion things too. Either that, or you were heavily outplayed, and the opponent just decided to draw it out instead, which is a different issue.

[Zarel]

For anyone who has not played a T3 turtle, use debug mode to place ~1000 defences, including rocket artillery, AA, hardpoints, sensors, and howitzers, then try taking it out.

(Hint: Use mobile Archangels & CB to take out any fixed Archangels you place.)

Kind of hard to simulate enemies constantly rebuilding (and building CB towers everywhere you try to attack with Archie), though.

The thing is, the choice makes it sound like you have a choice of attacking this heavy-base with either anti-artillery Hovers or Micromanaged hovers. In reality, you can do a number of things to a hyper-artillery base which don't require megamicro, such as:

A) The aforementioned "heavyrush". If they can take artillery hits, may as well use them for such.

I mentioned that I would make heavyrushes easier, if we don't have anti-artillery hovers. So it's not like I'm intentionally making it seem like anti-artillery hovers are the only counter.

B) Airpower. A person who went straight up the Artillery tree will likely be short on SAMs and have "ok" AA guns. The much-maligned HEAP bomb is really good for taking out artillery clumps, or the Incendiary type bombs will do if you have them. Unless we are talking about a game that went for hours such that the opponent has a literal wall of both artillery and SAMs... but even then a "scrub VTOL" flight sent in first will draw the fire.

Of course I'm talking about a game that goes on for hours - you can't exactly build 500 Archies in the first ten minutes. And scrub VTOLs don't work against Stormy or Whirlwind.

C) Combined arms. Bring in your own artillery battalion + sensors/trucks, and a mass of weak hovers to run in between it and the artillery. In an exchange, artillery-tanks will come out on top of most placed-artillery fights (provided the map isn't so friggin huge that no 2 artillery pieces are touching.

I've tried that. Some people might be able to handle that, but that's a bit too much microing for me to pull off.

D) Terrain advantage. Send in a distraction force while you set up your own artillery just over a mountain range (and out of sight of your opponent)

Doesn't really work on flat maps (cough, TeamWar, Squared), which is where the endgame stalemate problem is the worst.

E) Suicidal VTOL rush to take out sensor towers and trucks. Most hyper-turtlers overload the guns, and not the support structures; removing the artillery's ability to fire for even a brief period (just long enough to rush in some friendly units into their artillery platforms using any method available), and you can do a lot of damage.

If aforementioned hyper-turtle isn't smart enough to have redundant sensors (and most do), you still only have a brief window before they rebuild, which isn't really enough time to punch through their 500 hardpoints.

It's important to remember: if your opponent has had the money to build a bazzillion defenses like this, you also have the money to build a bazzillion things too. Either that, or you were heavily outplayed, and the opponent just decided to draw it out instead, which is a different issue.

If you build a bazillion defenses, well, you're just asking for a stalemate.

If you build a bazillion tanks, well, you're limited at 200 tanks, and 200 of the heaviest tanks possible isn't even enough to make a big dent in your opponent (you'll take out most their hardpoints and half their artillery before you get completely wiped out, but then you'll be out of attack power for long enough for your opponent to rebuild completely).

[themousemaster]

For anyone who has not played a T3 turtle, use debug mode to place ~1000 defences, including rocket artillery, AA, hardpoints, sensors, and howitzers, then try taking it out.

(Hint: Use mobile Archangels & CB to take out any fixed Archangels you place.)

I suppose I should quote this...

There is a difference between a turtler and a "why on earth did the game last this long" turtler. I don't really think games that last long enough to have defenses int he thousands should be what balance is based off of ;p

[Zarel]

There is a difference between a turtler and a "why on earth did the game last this long" turtler. I don't really think games that last long enough to have defenses int he thousands should be what balance is based off of ;p

"Thousands" is a bit excessive, but "hundreds" doesn't take as long as you'd think.

Situations where it usually comes up:
- 3+ player games. Two players focus their attacks on each other, and the third player quietly builds up.
- 2 player games on 4P or 8P maps. By the time you've destroyed one of the enemy's bases, the others have built up significantly.
- Any other situation. If you rush someone, well, the turtle strategy counters the rush strategy, so while your rushes are getting destroyed by the enemy's defenses, the enemy is building more defenses.

Remember: They usually haven't built up that much the first time you attack them. It's just that by the time you amass an army good enough to deal with what you saw the first time you attacked, they're already mostway into their extreme turtle mode.

[Deus Siddis]

110% modifier: On the other hand, TVR's been complaining for about three pages on the current rebalance thread that people should just learn to micromanage manually, and having the damage modifier reflect something that should be an accuracy modifier is just silly. This is a position that's rather hostile to people who have better things to do than micromanage their hovercraft. If this were to happen, I'd probably further tone down the artillery-to-tracks modifier from 60% to 40%, so people who can't micromanage should still have something that's reasonably artillery-resistant.

My argument is that you should be able to tell your units to do their own "micro". Move in random directions, or move between waypoints until you give them new orders. Anything you can manually command your units to do to gain a tactical advantage, the interface should be able to handle for you.

While I don't mind some forms of micromanaging, I don't think manual dodging belongs in an RTS game, or even an RTT game.

See above.

This whole thing is a consequence of the current projectile system. If there weren't so many people who loved it, I'd probably have worked around it by now... :/

I would recommend shelving your copy of Starcraft for a while and playing Spring or Supreme Commander. Both descend from TA's legacy of simulation over abstraction, if I am not mistaken, so just look at how they handle a real projectile simulation and game balance.

This isn't meant as a serious suggestion, not an insult or anything. There's not shame in following the successful.

[Zarel]

My argument is that you should be able to tell your units to do their own "micro". Move in random directions, or move between waypoints until you give them new orders. Anything you can manually command your units to do, the interface should be able to handle for you.

Um, giving them a 30% hover damage modifier is the equivalent of telling them to do their own micro... that's the whole point. I even mentioned in my own post that I'd make them move in random directions.

I would recommend shelving your copy of Starcraft for a while and playing Spring or Supreme Commander. Both descend from TA's legacy of simulation over abstraction, if I am not mistaken, so just look at how they handle a real projectile simulation and game balance.

I haven't managed to get Spring to work on my computers (so there's some truth to the theory that they somehow manage to be even more unstable than Warzone is). I rather dislike SupCom for the real projectile simulation bits, actually, but at least they have stable enough netcode for it to work properly, which is more than can be said for Warzone. When Warzone gets better netcode, I may reconsider, but that probably won't be for at least a few years.

[TVR]

... Kind of hard to simulate enemies constantly rebuilding ...

That's the key to attrition against a turtle.

The theoretical impervious field of 1000 defences suffers from one flaw, it's impossible to rebuild, most of the defences will be unreachable because all the passages in the base have been clogged, and the ones that are reachable will quickly be destroyed by 200 units over 15 trucks scrambling to rebuild.

[Deus Siddis]

Um, giving them a 30% hover damage modifier is the equivalent of telling them to do their own micro... that's the whole point. I even mentioned in my own post that I'd make them move in random directions.

If it is all the same to you then just do it the right way and have their moving in random directions be their defense, not a damage modifier that makes no sense and will look crazy (like paperdolls surviving amid an inferno) or not taking damage when they are hit or moving out of the way suddenly. Abstraction and visual hacks just never look right.

I haven't managed to get Spring to work on my computers (so there's some truth to the theory that they somehow manage to be even more unstable than Warzone is). I rather dislike SupCom for the real projectile simulation bits, actually, but at least they have stable enough netcode for it to work properly, which is more than can be said for Warzone. When Warzone gets better netcode, I may reconsider, but that probably won't be for at least a few years.

You've tried fairly recent releases too?

[Zarel]

That's the key to attrition against a turtle.

The theoretical impervious field of 1000 defences suffers from one flaw, it's impossible to rebuild, most of the defences will be unreachable because all the passages in the base have been clogged, and the ones that are reachable will quickly be destroyed by 200 units over 15 trucks scrambling to rebuild.

1. They will leave enough space to move trucks to rebuild their key locations.
2. Your 200 units will be dead before they destroy the 1000 defenses, and then the trucks can rebuild at their leisure.

If it is all the same to you then just do it the right way and have their moving in random directions be their defense, not a damage modifier that makes no sense and will look crazy (like paperdolls surviving amid an inferno) or not taking damage when they are hit or moving out of the way suddenly. Abstraction and visual hacks just never look right.

Um, did you forget the part where I said I would eventually have them moving in random directions?

You've tried fairly recent releases too?

Well, it was a few months ago...

[Deus Siddis]

Um, did you forget the part where I said I would eventually have them moving in random directions?

You said:

"If you were worried about graphical incongruity, we could even eventually have graphics that animate the hovercraft dodging out of the way, to make it look like an accuracy modifier."

Which at least makes it sound like they aren't actually dodging out of the way, it is just a purely graphical visual trick to make them look like they are evading fire, when it is really an abstract damage or accuracy modifier that is deciding when or how much damage they are taking.

If this is the case then it is just a hack and it won't look right. If they are actually dodging then it will look right, because it will be a real simulation.


BTW, won't missile artillery be homing soon enough anyway? Because then they'd be the counter to hover. And maybe howitzers already are a little stonger against cyborgs by nature, which makes for an interesting balance.

Well, it was a few months ago...

If your systems aren't too unordinary, they'll problem fix the problem eventually, might have done so already.

[TVR]

1. They will leave enough space to move trucks to rebuild their key locations.

It would take around four times as much space to create a spaced crystal structure, for reference, Start-up is ~60 * 120, or around 7000 squares, 4/7 of the area on the map is unachievable by turtling.

Less dense defence formations, while easier to rebuild, are conversely easier to destroy because of less force multiplication.

[Zarel]

...

Which at least makes it sound like they aren't actually dodging out of the way, it is just a purely graphical visual trick to make them look like they are evading fire, when it is really an abstract damage or accuracy modifier that is deciding when or how much damage they are taking.

If this is the case then it is just a hack and it won't look right. If they are actually dodging then it will look right, because it will be a real simulation.

Yeah, well, I don't see why it won't look right.

BTW, won't missile artillery be homing soon enough anyway? Because then they'd be the counter to hover. And maybe howitzers already are a little stonger against cyborgs by nature, which makes for an interesting balance.

Yeah, that's an issue. I'm not entirely sure how to deal with it.

It would take around four times as much space to create a spaced crystal structure, for reference, Start-up is ~60 * 120, or around 7000 squares, 4/7 of the area on the map is unachievable by turtling.

Less dense defence formations, while easier to rebuild, are conversely easier to destroy because of less force multiplication.

It only takes around two times as much space to easily build a structure that makes all areas accessible (something like this)

Code: Select all

xxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxx

xxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxx

xxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxx

They're harder to destroy because you can't take advantage of splash damage as much, and unless you're right at the edge of enemy artillery range, it'll have the exact same force multiplication.

[Per]

I don't actually think flat terrain favours the turtler. To the contrary, on very narrow terrain like Miza it is impossible to attack with huge amounts of units at once, making it much easier to bottleneck the enemy and destroy them with artillery. On a totally flat map, you could advance all units at once in a line formation and there would be no way the artillery could take them all out at once (the micro AI not exactly being brilliant at distributing shots).

I had great fun playing turtler on Miza for a while against 7 teamed AIs - until I fixed some AI bugs and they sent in too many VTOLs to handle.

The irony of Zarel's proposed changes is that the improvements to the AA that nobody complained about will make it even harder to fight artillery turtlers.