Question regardng Counter battery fire

Other talk that doesn't fit elsewhere.
This is for General Discussion, not General chat.
User avatar
psychopompos
Trained
Trained
Posts: 470
Joined: 08 Nov 2007, 09:18
Location: UK

Re: Question regardng Counter battery fire

Post by psychopompos »

Zarel wrote:You misinterpret. I am against game mechanics that require tedious micro in the first place.
thats a fail position. but im not sure how it applies here?

as it is the current cb system doesnt so much mean you cant use micro to move away, but that you cant due to the way the opponants batteries lock your unit or structure.
The evasive stance in Homeworld is different - it's about staying away from firing range of enemy units, not about dodging enemy fire.
... as much as the physics prevent the ships from evading in a meaningful way, the fighters make a good go of jagging & zig-zagging to evade 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".
i have to disagree with that, especially since you seem to be contradicting yourself.
the ai isnt likely to make the same choices a human would, besides that the individual unit ai and the the overall game ai arent precisly the same thing are they.

having evading behavior in the units, will be what makes them dodge.
having dodging behavior in the units, will be what makes them evade.
semantics.
A game in which you do nothing but watch progress bars:

http://progressquest.com/
:annoyed:
thats got to be making fun of something
Lancefighter wrote: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.
yea, thats because even the frigs are a kilometer in length... let alone the cruisers.
hard to dodge with that much mass. :lol2:
MOTHERBOARD - MSI P7N PLATINUM¦-¦PROCESSOR - C2D E7300 @ 4.00GHZ
MEMORY - 4 Gig (2x2gig) ddr2 1066mhz¦-¦OPERATING SYSTEM - WINDOWS 7 (ULT)
GRAPHICS - BFG GTX 260 OCX (requires ForceWare drivers for good openGL)
User avatar
Lancefighter
Trained
Trained
Posts: 126
Joined: 13 Jul 2010, 04:55

Re: Question regardng Counter battery fire

Post by Lancefighter »

Artillery units have more mass than your average tank as well.. wonder why... >.>

comparing frigates to artillery is not the comparison to make - comparing artillery to capital ships is. (im looking at you missile destroyer) If anything, cyborgs would get some type of evasive maneuvers, not artillery units.

Also, that progress bar game is amazing. Im almost up to level 2!
User avatar
psychopompos
Trained
Trained
Posts: 470
Joined: 08 Nov 2007, 09:18
Location: UK

Re: Question regardng Counter battery fire

Post by psychopompos »

not really, 'most' howitzer types are quite lightly armoured, and quite agile.
as they must be, since they would have to move pdq after firing half a dozen rounds.
even the manned at guns get moved every 10 mins or so by Chinook.
MOTHERBOARD - MSI P7N PLATINUM¦-¦PROCESSOR - C2D E7300 @ 4.00GHZ
MEMORY - 4 Gig (2x2gig) ddr2 1066mhz¦-¦OPERATING SYSTEM - WINDOWS 7 (ULT)
GRAPHICS - BFG GTX 260 OCX (requires ForceWare drivers for good openGL)
User avatar
Lancefighter
Trained
Trained
Posts: 126
Joined: 13 Jul 2010, 04:55

Re: Question regardng Counter battery fire

Post by Lancefighter »

Welcome to WZ. Promptly leave all RL knowledge at the door.

Howitzer weighs 10k. One of the heaviest turrets on any type of body (some high-end bomb bays are heavier)
Ripple rockets, other artillery, also incredibly heavy, comparatively... lancer, 250, tank killer, 300.. twin assault gun, 600.. )

Also, in real life most artillery is not mounted on a tank, and as you said, moved by other means (helicopter, truck..)
bravoleaderx
Trained
Trained
Posts: 81
Joined: 02 Aug 2010, 19:46

Re: Question regardng Counter battery fire

Post by bravoleaderx »

I'm thinking that counter battery towers lock onto the emplacement and can track it.
3drts
Trained
Trained
Posts: 379
Joined: 01 Aug 2007, 03:50

Re: Question regardng Counter battery fire

Post by 3drts »

RE: Homeworld (1, not 2)
Evasive did have fighters evade fire.
Depending on the stance, they would take "rolls" and execute evasive maneuvers when fired at, rather than direct pursuit of the target, evasive stance had the probability quite high, but they never did on Aggressive.
They still used collision detection, so a hail of bullets/ stray bullets/ etc could still hit, even if it got an "evasion roll".
Or the projectile velocity could be simply so fast that they would nearly always hit even if evasion was attempted (such as corvette/defender guns)

You could still "dance" your scouts/fighter on aggressively by rapidly changing formations/orders, and get aggressive scouts/fighters to "dodge" and be harder to hit.

The settings also modified firepower, projectile velocity, acceleration, and speed (scouts had the additional afterburner/speed boost special function that could be micro'd for even more effectiveness - evasive speed bursting scouts were quite hard for missile destroyers to take down, and were good distractions/cover for attack bombers to take it out)

Personally, I don't like micro'ing how the individual units fight.
I don't like spell caster units and such.

Its not progress quest - its choosing which unit types to build, which order to send them in (ie, evasive scouts, speed bursting at a missile destroyer to get it to deplete its missile supply (particularly effective if your opponent liked to use missile volleys where all missile tubes were dumped at once) *then* send in the attack bombers)

When do you advance, retreat, where do you amass your units (more important on terrain with chokepints, and maps where you must spread out more than just high oil turtling in base), what is the order of engagement, etc.

There is far more to strategy games than a clickfest of micro'ing individual units.

Sure in starcraft you can use a single marine to kill a lurker if you micro the crap out of it, but.... that like a lame fps, or old atari shooter game.

Homeworld had just the right amount of micro and "casters" for my tastes

Micro was proportional to unit number.
Micro in battles was done at a mass level of entire fighter formations, or by chosing specific enemy capital ships as targets, and individual unit micro was basically only done with capital ships

It also possessed very few hard counters - not like heap bombers against flamer tanks, with water separating them.

Every unit could kill every other unit, with enough numbers.

Though the defense field frigate was a pretty hard counter, I remember a game where I was being overwhelmed and lost the early fighter battles, and held out much longer due to the timely introduction of defense field frigates - which blocked over 90% of incoming projectile fire - making them and nearby units extremely resistant to anything except mines, missiles, or ion beams.
My Assault frigates clustered around a DFF or two were thinning his strike craft swarm- he focused heavily on corvette research, which the AF gun's could semi reliably hit, a support frigate was able to somewhat manage the amount of damage getting through the field, the early attempts at using mine layers on bombing runs were somewhat effective, but I was able to micro my frigates to target the slower and more expensive minelayers - he gave that up.
Then he came out with his own frigates- fire an assault frigate or two, easily dispatched, as their weapons are blocked by the DFF most of the time as well, then Ion cannon frigates appeared - while a lone assault frigate can beat an ion frigate by micro, trying to keep all my frigs (all 5 or 6 of them :( ) out of the ion beams fire, and within the DFF field, was hard.
2 ion cannon frigates, beat two assault frigates, by simply spreading out and covering each other.
The only way an AF beat an ICF, was using its 8% higher speed, and likewise higher HP, to close the distance, and circle just outside the firing arc of the ion cannon (fixed forward firing - though even a lone ICF occasionally picks off a scout or two when swarmed), where 2 of the 4 turrets of the AF can still fire at the ICF- this leaves 2 turrets on the other side, and the fixed forward plasma cannons of the AF useless, and it takes a while to kill the ICF- the ICF.
At this time, my AFs simply outnumbered his ICF, and could take them out 1 by one as they were made (it was a small map, I could see his mothership).
But the damage from his swarm, though reduced to < 10% was taking its toll, all was focused on my DFF or support frigate.

His swarm had moved on and taken out my collectors ( I managed to get a DFF to protect them, which allowed them to take in enough loads to more than pay off the DFF) but I was spread to thin - the fighters could strike at my resource collectors, and be gone long before my frigates got there to help - which left my MS/ research ship vulernable, having no interceptor wings, my resource collection collapsed when the local resources were depleted and I had to move them farther away.
It was only a matter of time, as my frigs fought on inside their bubble.
more ICFs targetted my DFF, he mass launched mine layers on bombing missions (fly at target, release the mine like a bomb) he had stored inside his Mothership, my DFF's fell, and the rest of my forces were obliterated shortly thereafter.
User avatar
Lancefighter
Trained
Trained
Posts: 126
Joined: 13 Jul 2010, 04:55

Re: Question regardng Counter battery fire

Post by Lancefighter »

I missed that in hw2, the fact that mine layers had some pointless gun. minedropping was so much more fun and realistic..
3drts
Trained
Trained
Posts: 379
Joined: 01 Aug 2007, 03:50

Re: Question regardng Counter battery fire

Post by 3drts »

I've also had games where My DFF's were knocked down by kamakaze scouts/resource collectors, etc.

A DFF is the bane of a "Swarmer", particularly one who focuses on faster, more offensive units, and forgoes minlayers, when their swarm is big enough, they often turned to kamakazes, and it was often worth it.

Of course, DFFs were too slow to respond to fighter attacks at distant resource operations, unless hyper jumps were used.
They made a good "offensive defense", send one to enemy resource operations, along with frigs or corvs of your own (it helped fighters too, but their speedy arcing paths meant they were outside of the field 80+% of the time), and draw the enemy swarm to where your DFF is, rather than trying to get your DFF to where the very mobile swarm is.

It was a force multiplier, not a hard counter, not like mutalisks vs seige tanks in starcraft, thats for sure.

Attack bombers vs Ion cannon frigs were a pretty hard counter, the attack bomber wings could easily be micro'd such that they never attacked anywhere near where the single fixed forward ion beam was pointing (though fixed, it did have a firing arc of like 5 degrees), but a group of ion frigs could occasionally pick off bombers or even scouts (I find their game data file name more fitting: light interceptors).

Only units without guns were completely unable to fight another unit type.
It was mostly all "soft counters"

"Defender" fighters countered scouts, interceptors, (and I suppose attack bombers, but I think interceptors are better for that), but if the scouts or interceptors had a 2:1 advantage, expect the interceptors/ scouts to win - especially if suicide scouts were used- depending on formation use, tactics settings, and deployment, kamakaze scouts could even be cost effective against their counter.

Corvettes generally were harder counters to fighters in general, but fighters could still easily wing if they had enough numbers (or say a 30% resource advantage when looking at cost)

I was amazed how they balanced all this with just projectile velocity, ship acceleration, and damage values- after playing with modding the stats
Increase the attack bomber projectile velocity, and they became somewhat effective corv killers (their plasma bombs that mostly missed the semi-fast corvettes started hitting... ouch).
Lower defender or corvette projectile velocity, and the scouts/interceptors f*** them up.
Lower the velocity, but raise the damage and/or rate of fire, then they still counter the fighters, but then start f***ing up frigates which are supposed to counter them,.
Frigate/destroyer/cruiser guns seem to have a projectile velocity just high enough that they can take down the bigger, slower corvs, but not so high that they hit the small, fast, fighters (which actively dodge on evasive)

There was a lot of thought and testing put into the strike craft combat dynamics, without requiring individual strike craft micro, or arbitrary "modifiers" like: Gun A has an X% chance to hit against target class 1, Y% against target class 2, etc, or something similar for damage modifiers.

It was nothing but uniformly applied damage, aiming, collision detection, ship speed/acceleration combined with AI or user input.

The result, was that one didn't have to micro units much, but rather set general formations and tactics, assign priority targets, and position groups before the battle started (getting the assault frigs to stay in the DFF field wasn't micro, I just selected my frigs and told them to form a formation)
User avatar
Lancefighter
Trained
Trained
Posts: 126
Joined: 13 Jul 2010, 04:55

Re: Question regardng Counter battery fire

Post by Lancefighter »

STOP IT your wanting me to play hw again :x
Assault Gunner
Trained
Trained
Posts: 358
Joined: 02 Jan 2010, 16:40

Re: Question regardng Counter battery fire

Post by Assault Gunner »

Besides, you are trying to compare apples to oranges with the SC to HomeWorld comparison. SC is a fairly small-scale RTS, whereas if I'm thinking of that game I was looking at at Target the other day, HomeWorld is very large-scale. Also, SC's 3 races vary on macro/micro intensiveness. And then there's Point Defense Drones in SC2, which make all missile weapons (read, weapons where you can see the shot, minus those that shoot a continuous beam) very ineffectual if properly used. Very strong vs. terran, not so much vs. toss and zerg. But like I said: apples to oranges, maybe apples to pears.
"There is no greater Void than the one between your ears." - Void Ray, StarCraft 2.
Especially the Void between the ears of people who think that No VTOL is a good idea, and won't lead to arty wars. I've won one, and I have to say: I hated it.