Question regardng Counter battery fire

[Zarel]

...makes sense. I suppose that is better.

I still don't like changes that increase the level of micromanagement required for playing Warzone.

[TVR]

Actually, it would be a decrease in micromanagement, compared to even 2.0.10.

Recall that hypothetical situation involving mobile Archangels against a 1000+ field of CB sensors, artillery, and assorted structures?

Having CB sensors target the launch location only would mean those Archangels wouldn't need to move around constantly, just once per volley.

[Zarel]

Actually, it would be a decrease in micromanagement, compared to even 2.0.10.

Recall that hypothetical situation involving mobile Archangels against a 1000+ field of CB sensors, artillery, and assorted structures?

Having CB sensors target the launch location only would mean those Archangels wouldn't need to move around constantly, just once per volley.

You're right. That is a good idea.

[Tren]

What I think would be a good idea for CB is if it detects artillery firing, then the (last known) location of the artillery to be shown on mini map, for a limited ammount of time, kinda like a blip. Or a few seconds after the last salvo was fired.

[Per]

Actually, you can take it one step further. Instead of making mobile artillery require micromanagement to avoid CB fire, just assume mobile artillery is, you know, mobile, and make CB ignore them. Any mobile artillery operator who has survived basic training ought to know that he should move after giving away his location. Then mobile artillery can be given some penalty so that there still is a good reason to build stationary artillery, like having shorter range or longer time to reload (eg incorporating the time needed to move about).

If we need more fluff to make this in-game realistic, the projectiles fired by mobile artillery can be considered stealthed and/or have erratic ballistic trajectories that are more difficult to trace.

[NoQ]

There is one more reason to build mobile artillery: heavy tracked tanks have an excellent resistance against enemy artillery nowadays, so mobile artillery is good for breaking enemy artillery anyway.

But that is also a reason not to build it, because building it prevents you from building tanks, and so you can be wiped by a good tank army.

Still, i think that this idea is very good, and i also wonder if the trunk's new artillery targeting model (targeting many targets at once) will overpower the artillery (?)

[TVR]

... make CB ignore ... mobile artillery ...

I can list so many reasons why that is a bad idea.

In this post, I will explain the most important, stationary artillery would be completely obsoleted.

CB mechanics dictate that defencive artillery will never be more effective than offencive artillery, for the sole reason that defencive artillery operates in proximity of allied structures, thus there is always collateral damage in an artillery exchange which favours the attacker.

Now if mobile artillery were to become artificial immune to Counter-battery fire, this would mean the attacker would lose the advantage of mobility, and thus artillery exchanges would reduce to who has the most mobile artillery and sensors, which obviously favours the entrenched defender.

Any range increase given to stationary is totally pointless for the both the assault and defence, as it would still be completely helpless against mobile artillery, both the attackers' and defenders'.

[Zarel]

One solution would be to make stationary artillery subject to unit limits. That would fix the biggest problem with artillery spam.

[psychopompos]

...makes sense. I suppose that is better.

I still don't like changes that increase the level of micromanagement required for playing Warzone.

wherent you going to make the droids evade on their own?

i think the modifications suggested here play quite well into irl military design.
most self propelled guns have light fast-tracks & wheels until you get the 10"+ guns

[Lancefighter]

about that. Can we make unit limits more obvious somewhere? Like a giant *400/500 <vehicle picture>" in the top corner, like the timer or the transport icon thing...

[Zarel]

wherent you going to make the droids evade on their own?

i think the modifications suggested here play quite well into irl military design.
most self propelled guns have light fast-tracks & wheels until you get the 10"+ guns

Making droids evade on their own is something I never want to do. You might as well just make the AI play the game for you, and rename the game to Progress Quest. That's why I am against any change that would cause that to be a good idea.

[psychopompos]

Making droids evade on their own is something I never want to do. You might as well just make the AI play the game for you, and rename the game to Progress Quest. That's why I am against any change that would cause that to be a good idea.

i thought i had read that somewhere though...
regardless, its not like it would make warzone the only rts where the unit ai had such a feature.
the evasive stance in homeworld for example.

i dont see why you would be so against leaving tedious micro to the machines that do it so well, freeing the player to focus on... playing.

... progress quest?

[Lancefighter]

the evasive stance in homeworld for example.

you can not compare artillery of wz to fighters in homeworld. In homeworld, you cant be expected to micromanage your fighters doing anything, because, well, fighters are fast. If you set capital ships to evasive mode, they hardly moved.. and well, thats the important bit.

[Zarel]

i dont see why you would be so against leaving tedious micro to the machines that do it so well, freeing the player to focus on... playing.

You misinterpret. I am against game mechanics that require tedious micro in the first place.

i thought i had read that somewhere though...
regardless, its not like it would make warzone the only rts where the unit ai had such a feature.
the evasive stance in homeworld for example.

The evasive stance in Homeworld is different - it's about staying away from firing range of enemy units, not about dodging enemy fire. I would be fine with an evasive stance in Warzone. On the other hand, dodging enemy fire crosses the line from "AI making your life easier" to "AI playing the game for you".

... progress quest?

A game in which you do nothing but watch progress bars:

http://progressquest.com/

[Lancefighter]

That. Is an awesome game.