Fortresses should be togglable

[Assault Gunner]

Did pumpkin implement Forts, or did they come in a later unofficial patch, I know they weren't included in the original game.
Doesn't the rocket bastion fire at air target? or was that changed, I remember it always tried, but rarely ever hit any VTOLs.
Lastly, Everything is wide open the a LasSat attack if the enemy has one, no matter how much AA and AP you have

Question 1 first: I think it was an official patch/alteration, since when I downloaded the last Pumpkin version it had forts.

Rocket Bastion stopped firing at air targets around 1.10, and most buildings more advanced than a research center(no modules) can withstand at least 1 hit from a LasSat.

[RBL-VipeR]

First off, I want to thank you so much for putting so much effort into one of my favorite games I have ever played! I use to play this game in the good ol days of Mplayer and keep the very best players on their toes at the time

You have iterated most of the faults this game had, and addressed new improvements as well! I very much like where this game is headed ^^ Like the improvement of cyborgs, structure HP scaling with built %, and balancing of the ever terrible AI.

Wow that's ... different. The rail used to be the high end anti tank turret, and pulse was the high end anti structure weapon. Thanks for the info, say is there a document showing current balance structure? perhaps this would help me to prevent making this error twice.

Hmm... I had forgotten I changed that. :/ Well, do you like the change? Personally, I think a cannon or railgun should do more damage to a reinforced concrete-like wall, than a machinegun or laser.

The current balance structure can be found here:
http://guide.wz2100.net/w/#weapontable

Rockets, missiles: Anti-tank
Lasers, MGs: Anti-personnel
Cannons, rails: All-rounder

You can hover over the damage of each weapon to see what damage type they do.

I use to always help 4ny beta test his stuff before he released it and have been alpha/beta testing many games for a multitude of years. I too am a designer, on the other end of the spectrum, and can respect the love and passion you put into a product

Just the other day I downloaded beta8 (and just now beta9) after not playing the game for a number of years. Biiiiiiig wakeup call when some of the very very key weapon mechanics do a complete 180 in how they work.

I for one, do agree with you that real world uses of railguns and lasers coincide with how you balanced the game, but for those veterans and old players that wanna pick up this game and enjoy it with the important balancing knowledge from the 5-7 years of playing this game previously being changed is enough to frustrate someone by relearning the tech tree and trying to now think: "Now was it this way or the other way before it was changed?"

I felt that one of the best balances was that of how lasers and rail guns interacted 'back in the day' and found it a bit disappointing to see this one take a 180 from what it was before.

Like I said, most everything you have done has been done to improve the game, but the simple fact of changing a single important part in a tech tree 180 degrees from what it used to be really detracts a veteran that use to play from playing again due to the simple fact of having to relearn the new balances, then keeping it straight.


~RBL-VipeR

[RBL-VipeR]

Now to hit back on topic...

I noticed that during my last T1 skirmish that these fortresses had an obscene amount of armor/hp in comparison to most of what damage the weapons could produce for the fortress's placement in the techtree. Getting these things built about the time that light cannons are being researched seems kind of off.

I will continue to test these out and give you a more thorough & concise conclusion

[3drts]

Cannon forts need 5 additional cannon upgrades after light cannon has been researched.....
So you could have heavy cannons before a cannon fort.
Heavy Cannon, needs APFSDS
Cannon Fortress, needs APFSDS mk2, plus engineering and hardcrete upgrades
As for the rocket Bastion, you can get Bunker buster at the same time, which do 4x damage against forts

Given one hit will probably kill a tank from one, you should make the tank as cheaply as possible (unless you expect it to get off a second shot after being hit), you can make a BB tank for under $250, so you can get 5 BBs for one bastion.
5 tanks x 4x damage multiplier x 240 damage = 4,800 damage on the first volley.
The base bastion HP is 3205, bastion= dead in the first volley, but it will probably take out one tank before it gets in range: 4 tanks do 3840 damage, the bastion still dies (of course, armor and upgrades need to be factored in, but even if the bastion survives the first strike, it likely wont kill all the attacking units before they fire again).

The cannon fort does better, as it is 80% the price of the bastion, and has more hitpoints.
But a HfTx scorpion should be able to take one hit from the cannon, and HfTx Scorpion BB costs 150+39+75 = 264
For a little more than the cannon fort cost, you get 4 scorpions, which should all survive to get within range, and deal 3840 damage, which should kill the cannon fort (again, ignoring upgrades, and armor, though armor would only be 15x4= 60, not enough to matter if neither side has alot of upgrades)

What I do find lacking, is a T-3 bunker buster, that would be effective against missile forts and mass drivers.
Instead of a Bunker buster rocket, I want a Bunker Buster Missile.

Note structure HP can increase to over 500% with upgrades, but BB damage can only increase to 250% - so eventually, the BB looses its punch against the T-1 forts.
Vehicle HP only goes up to 370%, so that doesn't even it out, and even so, with the rocket salvo fire, I still think a relatively cheap BB unit is doomed from the first salvo - even if you spend the extra 13 power to go from a scorpion to a Mantis (the weapon really is the most expensive part most of the time).

Anyway, the defender should have the advantage, defense should be a "force multiplier", so if it costs more to take out a defense, than it did to construct it.... good I say

Of course a static defense should be able to be destroyed cost effectively by tailoring your attacking force to the weaknesses of the defense.
Lancer based defenses? Use cyborgs.
HMG defenses? Use heavy tanks+ Bunker busters/cannons
No CB tower or artillery = use artillery and bombard the defenses to rubble.
90% of the cost of the defense was spent on something other than AA? spend 100% of your attack money on VTOLs, overwhelm and destroy the AA, and then destroy the remaining 90% of their defenses with impunity.
They spent 90% of their power on AA (such as fields of AA behind a single line of hardpoints -> Send in the heavy tanks, breach the line, and destroy the AA field with impunity.
etc...

Forts are easy to take down if you don't go at them with tanks.... (or at least with tanks that aren't specially tailored for taking them down).
A missile fort isn't much worse than a sam site, every other fort has no AA, no fort has any defense against artillery.

Of course, as I said, I'd like to change that, but the forts I'd like would cost much more than the current 250-400 per tile they occupy (which is about the same as hardpoints), and would require more research (such as more than just one weapon would be needed to unlock a fort)

[Zarel]

What I do find lacking, is a T-3 bunker buster, that would be effective against missile forts and mass drivers.
Instead of a Bunker buster rocket, I want a Bunker Buster Missile.

Have you tried Seraph Missile?

[Mysteryem]

What I do find lacking, is a T-3 bunker buster, that would be effective against missile forts and mass drivers.
Instead of a Bunker buster rocket, I want a Bunker Buster Missile.

Have you tried Seraph Missile?

Zarel, did you ever play a version of warzone that had the devastator missile? It was one of the 1.1 versions. It was a t3 (might've been t2) bunker buster.

[Zarel]

Nope, haven't (I've only played 1.00, 1.10, 1.11, and one of the 1.12 betas). Why was it removed?

[lav_coyote25]

if it is the one i think it is - it was HUGE like as in fracking bloody huge.... looked like an elongated buck rodgers space ship xD truly huge/massive/bigger than big.... etc.

[Mysteryem]

lav, this weapon:

It did huge damage against buildings, but had a really long reloading time.

[Zarel]

lav, this weapon:

It did huge damage against buildings, but had a really long reloading time.

Should we add it back in?

[KukY]

Should we add it back in?

Please.

[lav_coyote25]

ok that isnt the one from the original...perhaps a mod ... all i remember is the rocket was huge... cant remember the mod. xD

[KukY]

ok that isnt the one from the original...perhaps a mod ... all i remember is the rocket was huge... cant remember the mod. xD

Still, it looks good.

[Assault Gunner]

How'd the devastator do against mobile units? I mean, sure, you can build a Hydra Dragon Devastator Gauss Cannon, or whatever, but, also:

Fortresses' biggest vulnerability is that even the longest-ranged of them has less range than a wide spectrum sensor tower. At least, that's how it was last time I got to forts...

[Tenoh]

Omg i cant belive ppl qq about Fortresses! Place few arts outside its range,get scout with wide spectrum sensor,watch the fireworks... any questions? ..no? good.