Dumb artillery

[Emdek]

Currently artillery is sometimes very "dumb" and wastes it's ammunition for killing one, weak unit with for example volley from all ripple rockets. Sometimes it happens that before they reload they will be destroyed or damaged by units following that one. It really looks funny when for example 15 ripple rockets fires simultaneously to kill one cyborg...
Maybe there could be kind of computer or turret to research that would control some artillery units and better approximate how much ammo should be used or something like that?

[Zarel]

We've already fixed that in 3.0.

I recommend trying trunk: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=2969

Especially if you're thinking of suggesting something, you should try trunk to see if it's already been done.

[Emdek]

Especially if you're thinking of suggesting something, you should try trunk to see if it's already been done.

But someone said that it's unplayable right now.

[Zarel]

But someone said that it's unplayable right now.

Unplayable, not untestable.

[Emdek]

But someone said that it's unplayable right now.

Unplayable, not untestable.

OK, OK.

[frnkthetnk100]

owned lol

[Spik3d]

We've already fixed that in 3.0.

I recommend trying trunk: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=2969

Especially if you're thinking of suggesting something, you should try trunk to see if it's already been done.

I wouldn't say it's quite fixed.

Much of the time, when the artillery is firing at a mobile unit, it will misjudge the unit's velocity and miss. Which can happen enough times for an enemy to get closer than it should. This isn't the main problem though, the main problem is when an enemy is able to avoid the artillery enough to get within range of a defensive structure, but the structure doesn't fire because an artillery round is on its way.

For example, I had some hardpoints defending a radar tower and the enemy was able to get within firing range of the hardpoint and take a few shots at it while it passed. The hardpoint didn't fire back because an artillery round was on its way (and missed) -- this happened repeatedly until the artillery finally hit the enemy. So perhaps to fix this, it could be added that if a structure takes damage from an enemy, that it returns fire.

[Zarel]

Hmm. Easier way might just be to split "artillery" and "direct" damage.

[DarkCheetah]

no need to make research things, we need a future cast , like if the artillery fires, the game calculates damage before the unit gets hit, and so be able to stop the artillery for wasting more ammo

manny games have this to prevent unneeded movements/actions =/

[mrvn]

no need to make research things, we need a future cast , like if the artillery fires, the game calculates damage before the unit gets hit, and so be able to stop the artillery for wasting more ammo

manny games have this to prevent unneeded movements/actions =/

That makes things unrealistic and I think unfair. If the first 10 shots are going to miss your future cast would fire 11 shots from the start. Or exactly as many as needed to actually destroy the target.

I think it would be better to caclulate how much damage will probably be done and then add a saftey margin. E.g. if 2 hits kill the target and you have 50% chance to hit then shoot 4-8 times. The amount of overkill should be tested to leave a slim chance of the unit surviving. It could also be computed as part of the amounts of shots available. If 10 shots are ready then fire 4 times. If 50 are ready then fire 8 times.

When a target it moving there could also be more shots fired in a spread out pattern making it more difficult for the enemy to be somewhere where no bombs are falling.

Last, when a sensor has multiple (small) units within reach it would be better to fire less shots at a single unit and target the next. Instead of a large overkill factor to make sure each target is definetly destroyed it would be better to attack more units with each volley and risk some units surviving.

MfG
Mrvn

PS: When deciding who fires the site that can deliver a hit fastest should be picked. I.e. add the missing recharge time and flight time for each unit and pick the lowest.

[Zarel]

no need to make research things, we need a future cast , like if the artillery fires, the game calculates damage before the unit gets hit, and so be able to stop the artillery for wasting more ammo

It's apparent that you haven't read the thread.

Here, I will summarize it for you:

What you're proposing has already been implemented in 3.0.

[a2089539]

posts

There are a few problems with this idea which need to be worked out before the implementation in trunk is finalized.

1. Warzone research is implicit, not explicit. Other than when a player recovers enemy artifacts, you only experience the opponent's research indirectly. When an opponent completes Light Cannon, you don't know that they've gained a new turret, and you don't get the voiceover. What you do see is the opponent's light cannon tank. But even then, you don't know how upgraded your opponent's cannon tech is, you only see by how much your units are damaged.
   
   Smart artillery must fire intelligently, but without enabling cheating. Players can use the proposed system of artillery to make parts of the tech tree explicit. One could build a ripple rocket battery, design a tank with a ripple rocket, calculate damage per salvo, and figure out where an opponent stands with regard to research of alloys when observing the distribution of salvos.
   
   Salvos of artillery must be distributed on the sole basis of what the player himself can see without taking into account what his opponents can see.
   --
2. If margins for distribution are to be provided, allow the player means to micromanage them. A simple menu with adjustable salvo settings, perhaps in the Intelligence menu, would allow players such options as "distribute evenly" vs "distribute proportionally among bodies/propulsions," "distribute only among these bodies [checkboxes]," and more. For the proportional distribution of bodies, one can have an adjustable number for each body type. For simplicity, if you have two bodies A and B, to hit B three times as hard, the number for A would be 1, and the number for B would be 3: a 1:3 ratio.
   --
3. Split artillery and direct damage. If artillery and direct, quick hitting weapons are not split, then players will once again have a way to gain knowledge which have they should not. Example: There are three light cannon hardpoints, an adjacent sensor tower, and a set of ripple rockets far away, owned by player 1. Player 2, having no CB towers or turrets, takes three hover cobras and rides up next to the light cannon hardpoints, in range of both the hardpoints and the ripple rockets. The ripple rockets fire before the hover cobras get in range of the cannons, so none of the cannons fire. Before the player has seen the ripple rockets or been hit by them, he has correctly deduced that the opponent has some artillery headed for his units which he cannot see and can thus retreat before it hits. If the light cannons do fire, he doesn't retreat his tanks. Bad.

[mrvn]

What you're proposing has already been implemented in 3.0.

There might be some improvement, it feels like there is, but when I target a sensor at a weak unit that is far away from the archangel batteries I still see a awfull lot of incoming fire raining down on it. Also the sensor does not start targeting new things untill the current target is destroyed. When being attacked by a army of cyborgs that means a lot of micro management to switch sensor targets every second to spread out the overkill. What I suggest is that the sensor should designate a target, wait for a reasonable number of shots being fired and then switch to a new target even before those shots hit.

That is unless you think the sensor is actively painting the target for the benefit of the missiles seeking ability. But then it makes no sense that a painted target can run out of the hit zone. The missiles should correct course to follow the painted target then. That would also mean missiles on the fly would retarget to the new target once the sensor switches. Both is not the case.

MfG
Mrvn

[Zarel]

There might be some improvement, it feels like there is, but when I target a sensor at a weak unit that is far away from the archangel batteries I still see a awfull lot of incoming fire raining down on it. Also the sensor does not start targeting new things untill the current target is destroyed.

Are you sure you're using 3.0? Because "sensor starts targeting new things before old things die" is exactly what 3.0 does...

[mrvn]

Args, stupid me. I'm comparing 2.2.4 against 2.3.1, not 3.0. My bad.