Why all the stupid rules?
Just came out of a annoyingly boring game on gsa
(do nothing 4 1,5 hours from t1 on then go into archangel melee)
No vtols, no mob arty, no dummies..
Why does everyone play with lame rules on gamespy?
Sure, all of these can be a drag, and to be honest, at times they've all been
banned at my local playing group, but really banning stuff is just saying that
you can't deal with something..
Let's analyze these problems one by one and show that there is no problem:
Vtols:
Build AA, once you got it, problem solved. What's wrong with needing to be
versatile? There's no fun in tanks only.
Mobile Artillery:
While there's a few nasty tricks I know of, they're no reason to ban these. For
one thing they count towards your 100 unit limit. For another the problem is not
that it's mobile, but that it's artillery. In my experience, mobility is usually
not the problem, but the fact that the other guy has more than you do.
Dummies:
Well, grow up. They're part of the game. It's not much trouble to blow them up
and -ironically- it takes a lot of time to build them. It's not a bad thing that
you can achieve such an effect by spending a lot of attention to something.
Anyway, I was wondering, does anyone have a good reason to want to ban these
features, or are these just crutches for bad players? I've never really had a
problem with any of these myself and I'm getting a bit fed-up with all the
whiners.
Ragnar
==============================================================
agree with u.
my first multi game, almost nothing was allowed - no vtols, artillery, etc, and
not long into the game I get rushed by a few dozen hover-python-heavy cannons. I
think a lot of the people playing WZ don't accept it for what it is; they just
been playing games like dune2 all their lives and can't accept that there is any
other way to rts. I say that even if the ban stuff, if they were stupid enough
to allow the construction of a vtol factory, then vtol the hell out of them. I
don't like ppl who have to fight a certain way; if his chin isn't tucked, punch
him in the neck.
Kage
===============================================================
The world may never know....
Ok sorry that comment just was perfect for this thread... but anyway getting
serious now. I agree the current rules of warfare do suck... but they all have
the same purpose... because the people in warzone suck at the game. Their
horrible at fighting those odds because its just 1 more thing to worry about.
Sort of replying to your breakdown... and dont get me wrong when I do comment on
both sides of the spectrum... because I am on your side of this; but I just want to
let you understand where their coming from. I should just caution you im going to
be talking from back in the day when these items were extremely well used... to
a point where the game would suck if they were NOT banned... not speaking at the
level they are now, where people just suck if they have to fight them ALSO.
Vtols: The problem with vtols comes around in the T3 level of things; because
there was hardly ANY AA that could actually fight vtols. This is because in the
T3 world balance is totally lost (fyi a problem which we are trying to solve in
1.12). Not just regular vtols were the problem... notice that lovely
transporter? yea u guessed it back in the day those were popular, as a decoy.
They would land about 3-4 of those in the middle of a tank fight and while your
trying to shoot tanks instead of those (targeting)... the enemy is blowing you
apart... and its a known fact that not targeting is a lot more effective vs.
targeting. Only solution was ban them or make arty... and arty wasn't always
easy to get into the battle field because you never know where it will be... and
in a huge battle with tons of arty.. u never wanted to get that firing because
it can just do a ton of damage to you as well as your enemy. People would do big
vtol pulse strikes with about a swarm of 30-40 and run down every truck and
factory you had... and when that happens its game over. And when your fighting
those many you need to spend so much into AA for protecting yourself it puts the
amount of power you use into AA and power spent into vtols way out of
proportion. Because you need to massively protect every part of yourself
otherwise the enemy would even be able to sneak half as many in your a dead man.
So at the time the only solution was to ban vtol production.
Mobile Arty: This threat came around in the age of archy... aka archangel. A
very simple understanding because archangel has such a long firing range that
all a person needs to do is make 10-20 and from their base target your factories
then trucks. Guess what then its game over. Because the possibility of two
people being completely = in their tech levels (meaning they'd get archy about
the same time)... whoever got archy first basically would be the winner. Because
at such ranges the only way to kill mobile arty was with more arty. But when its
shooting you but you cannot shoot it... certainly feels unfair. Its the very
fact that its mobile was the problem. Because unlike standard artillery.. mobile
artillery you can easily target specific items. Just because it counts to the
100 unit # doesnt mean that's a difference... in such a game where that level is
reached... there is so much defense and probably regular artillery in-between
you and him there's no way a tank attack of any sorts would help.
Dummies: Ok its never been the issue of its a DUMMIE... a dummie is merely only
a STRUCTURE decoy. The fact that its a DECOY is the problem. A decoy im sure you
already know what it is... but for others lemmi classify its anything used to
distract the fire of units. So in sense its so I can shoot you but you cant necessarily
shoot me back. These are what the transporters I mentioned earlier were used
for. The problem is back in the day people would ONLY use these. If you ever
heard of the person AaD-ShortStop (I think I typed it right) he was considered a
great warzone player... but he was only a decoy fighter. Without decoys he was a
horribly easy to defeat. People like him could cover half a map up with decoys merely
to prevent you from getting close... and although people may think that its a
dent in their power... its not. Because any skilled decoyer would wait till his
power hovered around 0 and then build them. your power would be so dispersed
that maybe you would have only 5 power /points/ into each item of decoy. For a Heavy Cannon-Mantis-Hover
that's about 62 decoys to = the power for 1 unit. To fight a decoyer is not
easy, the best way is to act like a decoyer yourself. You need to be able to
kill his decoys, put decoys in their place, and all at the time keep him at bay
so he cannot build up in force and merely crush you. It was so much chaos so
much trouble trying to play like this... it destroyed all of the fun of warzone.
People originally started saying no decoys just to prove that these decoy
fighters were not as great as they were considered... but then people realized
it was so much fun not to even mess with decoys... it got catchy.
With decoys there was one other problem... people would if not to make them for
the fact of a tank fight... people made them only because of artillery. If you
had a massive force of artillery but I had a force half the size but lets say
all ground shakers... id take a few trucks and make some cb's.. then decoy my
way all the way up to your artillery and get close enough that although maybe
your artillery doesnt have a sensor tower to respond to... its internal sensors
would kick in and start firing. When that happens my artillery responds to the
CB and blows the living hell out of your artillery... turning the powers to my
favor.
In general these 3 items were banned from games because people would use them to
such and extent that the pleasure of the game as you want back... was destroyed.
But now as warzone does ... things turn cheeck and instead of being horribly annoyed
with them... people are horribly annoyed not to have them. Now incase some of
this you may feel is questionable... I speak from personal experience. I've been
on the attacking and defending side of all of those different scenarios... its
not fun when they extensively do it. Now also a lot if not all of these all play
true effect in the T3 world... and the biggest problem for this is that in T3
there is no balance of weapons. If there was balance I have a slight feeling
that this would be a lesser problem
Willis
===============================================================
I don't play WZ online but the way I see it is if you can't handle being
attacked by you deserve the punishment
Oh and why don't I play online? Every single game I've ever had that wasn't with
LA was people using one kind of hover tank. That god damned cheesy mantis hover
heavy cannon. And always on TeamWar (a shitty map that should never have been
made imo), so the fun just went away. Shit, I have more fun playing against the
half-retarded AI than I do against other players.
So I don't play WZ online.
Nineball
==============================================================
Mobile Arty:
Controversial news for v1.12: Long-range arty (ripple, angel/archie, howie) have
all been restricted to defensive emplacements ONLY. Archie's range is going to
come down as well.
Short-range arty (mortars, MRL, possibly incendiary howie) will still, however,
be available for mobile use.
The primary reason for this is, we needed more room in the 'Tree for our new
stuff
Stratadrake
==============================================================
Well first off I think Ragnar knows what can be done with vtols, because I
showed him that little trick that Willis pointed out first hand, I took out all
of his factory and all of his trucks and then came in with tanks to mop up what
was left in our first game.
90% of the time I host a game its going to have vtols in it and if anybody dont
like it they can find another game. And as for AA not being able to deal with
VTOL's I disagree unless your halfway into a game and you have no AA researched
an someone hits you with them and you just started researching Hurricanes
(Besides once you get SAM's and Stormbringer, VTOL's are all but useless in the
game) Then your basically screwed but hey that's your own damn fault if you left
that happen.
Now I well say this if you start a T1 game and get into T2 and hit the other
side with a few vtols, threes a good bet there going to research the heck out of
AA and also place up a lot of AA around there base, and if the person that hit
them with vtol recycles and goes backs to tanks it was wasted power and
research, and that's what I think people hate more then anything that they can
be tricked into doing something they dont want to do in the first place, that's
way mobile AA works good to.
I will agree threes the fact right now that some people rather have that extra
power so they can build more arty and yes it has become a race to see who gets
archies first and then walk your arty up to the other sides base till they have
no base left, and then come in with tanks. Now to me the easy way to deal with
this type of game is to use vtols because if your tanks cant get in your vtols
can and your first targets would be sensor towers and trucks trying to build
them and stop the arty.
But most people forget about this because they have been raped a few times by
vtols and figure its best to keep them out of the mix. Well to me if you are
doing a 3vs3 or a 4vs4 game then at lest one person should be able to do vtols
and the rest make tanks, that's the way we always did things when I was in WZW
and that also became a rule in RBL. Now knowing what to do with the vtols and
how best to use them is another matter all together and best saved for a later
post, but if used right they can turn a battle from a total loss to a battle that's
won.
My thoughts behind the no vtol rule are simple, if you dont want vtols in the
game then I dont want arty in the game, let them take there pick.
As for the half builds, I say bring it back but threes something a lot of people
forget too, with limits mod in you can change the number of Fortress cannons and
the rest of the Fortress aloud into the game. Hey if you dont like that one
person can cover half the map up with half builds, fine give each player 20 and
be done with it.
As for speed and power to make them, I can cover a good chuck of the map in
about 3-5 mins at very little cost of power and after I got my base built its
not that hard to keep track of whets going on. I am out of practice because its
been sometime since I have done that but its like riding a bike one never
forgets.
Also that's not really the only problem you had with them, people would bring
trucks up close to your defense and build them and then hit with tanks. If you
dont know why its simple all your bunkers and hardpoints would fire on the half
build and not on your tanks, or you would have the half build rush, where one
person would come in with trucks and start laying half builds right near your factories
and the other person would come in with tanks right behind them and lay waste to
everything if you were not ready for it your tanks around your factories would
fire on the half builds not on the trucks or tanks.
Sorry to say this but the half build idea came from me and a few others back
when I was in WZW as a way to deal with Hellstorms, see back then Hells were the
arty of choice and lots of them, plus this was also a time that everyone was
still making Tracks and not hovers, so when you attacked most of your tanks got eaten
alive by the hells, well that kind of happens to hovers too if you let them sit
for to long its best to get behind the arty fast.
Anyways it was first done with MG bunkers and there really was no order to them
just something that you sent trucks out and placed them out in front before you
attacked. Well I figured that if you used Fortresses you could cover a 4 square
area and when laid in rows any tanks that came thru them would be easy to pick
off and being that tracks are slow this was a no brainer now I started the
single row of fortresses but that soon changed with the help of others to a double
row, and then it became an art work of half builds.
I kind of liked it at first because it was easy to set up a good base and it was
cheap on power because with a few TAC and lancers bunkers set up in the holes
between the fortresses your tanks could fire over the half builds and anything coming
thru. Now this was taken to the extreme by others and yes covering a side of the
map with them was not uncommon, but they worked both ways if they had there
tanks on the far side it was going to them time to get to your tanks. Now we
also knew that if you used Bunker Busters and Mortars you could take them out
really fast, lancers also did a good job early on. Also it was soon after this
that Hovers came into play because people found out that they could go thru the
line of half builds faster then tracks.
As for mobile arty well I used to use it a lot back when I was on 56k because
that and vtols were about the only edge I had, taking on tank with my tanks were
never a good idea if the other person had cable or dsl so it was pass tanks
build mob arty and defense, but to me it never was the game winner, most games
always came down to tanks, and though I could take out factories I rather use
vtols for that and truck hunting.
The problem that I saw with mobile arty was that some would layer them self's
into there base with rows and rows of lancers and yes people would waste lots of
HC tanks trying to get thru them, I think I even did that a few times, but then
it became a race to pulse. I think GER was the first to really do a number on
people on my first map Craterlake it was basically a water map for 4 players and
only one way into your base, and they would go for ripps and archies and once
they got the Uplink they would pick off factories and trucks as was said before
and trust me my first few games that I lost on there to that tactic was not fun
because I had no clue why my chit was blowing up and I could do nothing to stop
it.
But having said that they are no match for tanks and as I also found out a few
times its not good to be sitting in the back with 20 ripps when someone comes
thru with a chit load of HC tanks.
This has been a topic that come up a lot over the years and I say this, if your
not happy with the games you join then dont join them, make you own room and
host your own game with your own rules on the maps you want to play, now most of
the players that think there good now, will find out fast that if they have to
play on a map with oil they need to hunt for and keep that there not going to be
able to cover 1/4 of the map with arty, and threes a good chance there never
going to max out on tanks, and if they go for costly tanks they may not make
enough of them when you hit them with more tanks that were cheaper to make. And
this means only one thing there just to damn lazy to play the game as it was mint
to be played. But there are a few out there that still dont mind playing the old
way you just got to find them.
RBL-4NiK8r
===============================================================
Surely, if you hit the unit limit, you know you've just done something wrong,
right?
4nE> This has been a topic that has come up a lot over the years and I
say this, if your not happy with the games you join then dont join them, make
you own room and host your own game with your own rules on the maps you want to
play,
If only gsa would let me host...
4nE> now most of the players that think there good now, will find out fast
that if they have to play on a map with oil they need to hunt for and keep that
there not going to be able to cover 1/4 of the map with arty,
IMO a map should have app. 2/3 of the oil in the bases and 1/3 spread out, if
only to keep things from getting too boring. Anyway, I know that most people
actually suck, I can see it from the way they play the games they do play. They
can't evaluate a threat properly, all they know how to do is select all units
and click on a section of the map.
>and threes a good chance there never going to max out on tanks, and if they
go for costly tanks they may not make enough of them when you hit them with more
tanks that were cheaper to make. And this means only one thing there just to
damn lazy to play the game as it was mint to be played. But there are a few out
there that still dont mind playing the old way you just got to find them.
I must say that all of these topics aren't exactly new either and banning stuff,
sure we've done that. As a matter of fact, we consider the Satellite Uplink Center
to be the most game-wrecking of them all as it makes a gangbang the natural end
of any ffa. Those to lazy to scout deserve to be blind..
However, we've also concluded that all the problems we might have with anything,
be it vtols or tank rushes or arty, have to do with wrecking the game balance
that does exist. The key seems to be power. Whenever players are able to
"paint" the map with their emplacements and units, things start to go
wrong.
I've played games where you will think "Wow, 10 pulse tracks, I need to get
out of here quick!" and it's incredible how much more fun they are. The
people that dig in at such power levels do so with careful use of the terrain
and they also take pride in how they position their scourge towers. They also
take a big risk since they can't possibly really cover all their oil in this
way, so they risk getting locked up. I've seen games that had so much oil (1.11
bug) that Even 3 players could not smoke another out of his fortress.
All the problems that I've heard all come down to there being bigger numbers on
the map than was ever intended. The dummies don't slow down the advance of 30
tanks as much as they do 300. Ripples and archies cost an insane amount of cash
compared to some other things, as does researching them.
And really, it's all elementary game theory, if you think about it. A game is
about making choices and winning by making better choices than the other guy. So
anything that takes out a choice is bad for the game, period. If I can build 100
units without losing steam on any other front (research, defense), I've lost a
choice, so I've just amputated part of the game.
Ragnar
==============================================================
request to put in tutorials
would it be acceptable to use this discussion in the tutorials? differing
points of view may improve the game play of those that need it. I have noticed a
trend in the answers and it all comes to how one plays the game.
it all boils down to one glaring fact - PRACTICE MAKES PERFECT! but then again
some days your the grass...and one has to accept that fact of life - the
comments about certain tactics ( ie hover tank rush ) - I have been trying to
develop a different map series that may ( I can dream can't I) put an end to
that particular strategy - using extreme terrain - will force the players to
come up with differing tactics to overcome and beat your opponent's) without
using a massive bunch of one type unit. not that I have anything against that
ploy - but as pointed out in more than one forum - it's used more often than not
and it frustrates the novice player - creating things such as rules - you cant
use this or that - well the game players should be able to use what ever is
available to them as it is researched - if not why did the game developers
bother putting in those elements - go play a jump and grunt - (fps) - I have
found this game to be the only game thus far to hold my interest. it offers the
ordinary player a chance to use tactics that may or may not work - it forces you
to change midstream what you may have thought was a good strategy - turns out
some one else has a better strategy - and you learn from that and get better.
and one point that everyone has forgotten - it's a GAME people - just a game -
play it. have fun. learn - after all that's what life is about.
coyote25
===============================================================================
Not going to read all these post just one thing!
If you don't like the rules host a own room!!!
Dummy are wank. Noob things!!!!
Easy to win games with them. Real pro's don't need them to win.
Anyways nobody uses them anymore anyways.
LPCdiscoinferno
=============================================================================
quote:
People like him could cover half a map up with decoys merely to prevent you from getting close...
Sounds to me like it's time to whip out the old Bunker Buster ... probably the
only thing capable of putting a dent into a field of decoys.
To my observation (mostly listening to others), a lot of WZ has boiled down to
various players rushing to get weapon "X" and if they get it before
the other player . . . they win.
Now Weapon "X" may vary but from what I hear it is usually Pulse
(namely VTOL Pulse) or Archie, and for v1.12 we want to fix that. What we want
to do is make the end-results of all major weapon types functionally comparable
to each other, such that you could pick any one weapon type and do some serious
damage with it, almost to the point of being a super weapon but at the same
time, there are weaknesses that the other player can exploit.
To me a lot of WZ balance should be in the means of type-matching and if any of
you have played those critter-based RPG's, Pokémon IMO has one of the most
balanced type-matching systems around. While you could easily specialize in 1 or
2 related types of critters and flatten a lot of opposition, you run up against
someone who specializes in the kinds of stuff your critters are weak too, you're
going to get walked all over.
In short it should be a game of Rock -> Paper -> Scissors, and if you
build an army entirely out of Scissors you're going to walk all over Paper's
army but if they put a few Rocks into it, you can just as easily be history. Now
if you build an army out of both Paper and Scissors then you can take on almost
anything (except enemy Scissors), so the best combination is to simply build all
three and keep them in proper position for each kind of opponent.
One example of revisions and type-matching in our v1.12 beta testing was the
Twin ASMG, as it turns out, now that I put the full line of MG upgrades back in
(Tungsten-Tipped & Depleted Uranium) the twin ASMG became wholly too
powerful with 128 firepower per shot, 4 shots per second . . . from what I heard
it was ripping EVERYTHING apart, from cyborgs to hardpoints and VTOLs. A new
possibility for Weapon "X"? Maybe, but it's been removed from current
betas until further notice.
Another weapon that became quite powerful was the Mini-Pods, we're trying to
restructure T1 research to give Mini-Pods more of a lifespan before you go on to
Lancers, this is one thing that happened:
quote:
Death by Mini-pods that's a first in 5 years of playing WZ.
4nE
So it looks like for the moment, Mini-Pods had also become a bit too powerful?
And about artillery, one thing that has also been overlooked in WZ play is the
fact that COMMANDERS can control your base arty as well as mobile arty, and as
such if you have a commander on your side you can also tell your entire base
arty to hold fire, and then unleash a hellish barrage of shells on a single
target (or two). Just use the "Fire Support" option on the commander's
panel.
quote:
As for the half builds, I say bring it back but there's something a lot of people forget too, with limits mod in you can change the number of Fortress cannons and the rest of the Fortress aloud into the game. Hey if you dont like that one person can cover half the map up with half builds, fine give each player 20 and be done with it.
One problem I see with the half-builds is the fact that the only true decoy
structure you get in campaign WZ are TT (Tank Traps) and although you can build
TT faster than any other structure in WZ, they die the quickest of anything
because of soft armor and few body points.
Personally, I think we should up the TT armor to say 1,000, this way you can't
punch through it unless your shots are packing a helluva lot of firepower in the
first place, and where are you going to find that kind of firepower my first
answer is BB because it has a 3-5x modifier against defenses, and 500 per hit
multiplies out to 1,500 or 2,500 firepower and that'll punch through 1,000
points armor like nails through paper. Plasma on the other hand with say an AT
warhead, it may have 1,400 firepower but with only a 60-70% modifier it does
maybe 900 total damage and that doesn't even leave a mark on 1,000 points worth
of armor.
quote:
But having said that they are no match for tanks and as I also found out a few times its not good to be sitting in the back with 20 ripps when someone comes thru with a chit load of HC tanks.
That's another weakness of base arty and rocket arty in general is the overkill
factor, if all your 20 ripples fire at a single target they're going to NUKE it,
and then the opposition has about 45 seconds to come in without any fear of
being hit by more Ripples, and the same thing goes for Archies.
As for the Sat Uplink, I don't like it either *EXCEPT* for debugging purposes
when I want to see the whole map anyway. As it is though I would rather see it
being a WSS than a Sat Uplink. Speaking of which, I think that the "see the
whole map" thing is hard-wired to the Sat Uplink internal ID, meaning that
at the touch of a button or 2 we could reduce the Sat Uplink to a mere WSS and
that would be very interesting.
Another possibility would require scripting, it would make the Sat Uplink
structure go "offline" after you build it so yes you get the entire
map and know enemy positions but on the other hand, with it gone
"offline" you don't know where the enemy's units are anymore so you do
-- and yet do not -- know the entire map.
Stratadrake
=============================================================
quote:
To my observation (mostly listening to others), a lot of WZ has boiled down to various players rushing to get weapon "X" and if they get it before the other player . . . they win.
That is indeed what it boils down to. However, this will hardly ever happen if
you play the standard maps provided with the game and don't have any rules.
You'll still want to get X, but you might find yourself fighting for your life a
few times and thus you might have a few other priorities along the way.
Your idea to balance out the weapons is essentially a good one, but there's no
reason to say that there cannot be a supreme weapon. If such a weapon is to
exist however, it should, -IMO- be the laser satellite. Up the damage (like in
the campaign) and push it to the end of the techtree. It's a structure, so it
can easily be limited out of use.
The paper-rock-scissors method is a tried and tested one in games. I believe
there are 3 types of structures (bunkers, walls & emplacements) and 3 types
of units (tank, vtol, borg) that can form a basis for this system. To some
extent, WZ already uses this anyway.
But imo, the real problem with weapon "X" isn't that it's too good,
it's that there's no real price. Since there's no price, it ceases to be a
choice and it becomes a requirement and thus boring.
Ragnar
=============================================================
Oh common strata.. u coulda at least told them who was the mini-pod killer
Im going to avoid making about the 200 comments I could make from above
posts; instead I'll sum it up:
Strata hit the nail on the head, the problems in warzone days is your weapon
X.... and why was this a problem some may wonder... it all boils down to the
fact that warzone's Tech Tree is unbalanced. Which results into a flaw, and that
is well instead of a healthy mixture of units and such being the best method to
oppose your opponent... its if you dont build THESE units your going to die no
mater what you do.
I definitely agree that its either you play by their rules or you get your own
damn game started. Its also a game where unless your willing to learn, your
destined for failure.
The only two comments I really can make are with decoys and vtols... Strata a
problem is well as you said... BB is currently the only thing ( ) capable for
killing decoys... and although not a bad thing necessarily... it should be a lil
longer ranged so you dont get in range just to get shot and killed. Also Nik...
the problem of weak AA is early T3... sure its easy to kill your small vtols
with a little AA... but what happens when you go up against those bigger...
mantis/python class vtols? you need a lot of AA to stop those guys, and the
power ratio is horrible. Person A could build 20 of Python-HVC-Vtols and to stop
them id need to build a ton of AA everywhere (cuz u never know where they'll
strike from) and although I spend maybe 5x the amount of power... half of them
could just possibly survive to get back at base... and then he would simply
either strike again or recycle them ... and well 20 HVC alone is practically
enough to kill a guy if done properly.
Willis
=======================
Well that's why some time ago I brought up the fact that Stormbringer should
be close to the front of Pulse laser tech not at the rear of it. Now it would be
weaker then it is now, but get upgrades the same as pulse Also to make Mantis or
Python HVC at the start of T3 is not going to win the game for you unless you
can make them faster then the other side is making tanks, for defense Bug HVC
are great but all it takes is 5 or so Whirlwinds hovers in with your tanks and
there toast. And mantis or python do stand up to WW that well either.
Once some gets black bodies on vtols and yes they are costly but they are really
a pain to kill with AA, now if you have both SAM's and AA up you stand a chance
but if the player is skilled with vtols, and has the Uplink the odds are your
going to be killed shortly if you cant find away to take them out.
Now maybe some of you can understand why Rag is used to playing with 1/3 AA
tanks and though I find that a little on the high side, on hovers they can cover
ground fast and get to the area vtols are or maybe coming in.
As for bunker busters there range has been taken up and with the new T3 weapon
well lets just say that's not really a problem anymore.
Also if you have 3 players on one side, and start on a T3 game they can place
more then enough AA up to deal with any attack by vtols, trust me I have seen it
done many of times and though you many not be able to load your side of the map
with Arty you can still have a balance there to a point. And like I said before
once you get Stormbringer VTOL's are really no longer a threat.
I do agree though WZ right now is based on the few weapons not the many. In T1
if you can make it into the other sides base with TwinMG's there's a good chance
its not going to last long. If you dont then it comes down to Lancers and though
Lancer Scorpion tracks are the best there are times the bugs tracks can pull it
off just by share numbers.
If you cant take them out at that point in time its going to end up a race for arty
and he who gets more faster is going to end up winning most of the time. In T3
its Mantis HC hovers and maybe a few BB thrown in for bunkers you come across.
If you can mass them and make your run in and take out the other sides tanks
before they can mass, its a good bet your going to win.
And its kind of basic if you make HVC mantis hover even though they can shot
faster and further your still going to be toast, now I have found that TAC on
tracks and even Hovers can deal out lots of damage and they have the same hit
points as HC, but they suck vs. hardpoints and if you dont know that and run
into a row of lancers your not going to do much damage plus there costly to
make.
As for weapon X being a super weapon that's better then all other, to me that's
not going to change anything as it is today if you go that route, it will still
be a race to get that weapon and make them on tanks or vtols.
It like right now people use bunker busters yet they die very fast to any
bunkers they go against, there are 2 reasons behind this.
1. Is do to the fact there long range is shorter then most bunkers or
hardpoints, so if you tank 20 BB up to a wall of bunkers threes a good bet your
going to die faster then you can get a hole in there defense.
2. Body Points or Durability of tank is very low, to me range was the first
thing I thought that needed to be fixed here, but what happens to that group of
20 if 40 HC hovers come running up to stop them ? They are toast just the same.
Now if there armor of the turret was taken up to something higher then HC being
that they are in front or that's the main place in the battle they should be,
then there life span would be more useful.
Now to me just by adding a range of 1200-1280 or 10squares and a durability of
500 or more would make a big change in how they are used, as it is right now
your durability is only 5 and the range is 1152 or 9 squares. See by this little
tweak you are adding to there life span, now you make not have to worry about
being mauled by the tanks, yes they can still kill you, but not with 2 or 3
hits, and if you are taking arty fire threes a good chance to will beagle to
soak some of that damage before your tanks die.
One thing you still wont beagle to do it take on other tanks because that not
what the weapon was meant for, but if you have the range to long your going to
have people camping out behind there defense with BB's trying to poke a hole on
the other side. I like the fact that they have to take some damage to do some
damage, not sit back and do so untouched.
OH well something to think about once again.
4nE
===============================================================
quote:
Now maybe some of you can understand why Rag is used to playing with 1/3 AA tanks and though I find that a little on the high side, on hovers they can cover ground fast and get to the area vtols are or maybe coming in.
It's not exactly 1/3. It's about 1/3 up to 30 tanks, then u have enough and can usually switch to normal tanks only. Thing is though, imo you shouldn't ever be able to build much more than 50 tanks.
quote:It like right now people use bunker busters yet they die very fast to any bunkers they go against, there are 2 reasons behind this.
The BB should definitely have a little more range. Is it possible to increase
range with an upgrade? I'd say that if someone goes into the scourge branch,
he's bound to get some Intel on how to make a better bunker buster.
And another thing.. Emplacements tend to suck because of their low HP. Perhaps
this could be helped by giving them a higher accuracy and/or Roof than their
tank-based counterparts? Wouldn't be entirely unrealistic..
==============================================================
My opinion is that the Bunker Buster durability should stay the same, or at
least similar, and the range should be increased marginally. Increase it's range
by one "square". Any more and they will chew up lancer bunkers in T1
before the other player can defend themselves. Bunker Busters are by nature a
support weapon, and shouldn't be so good that people will suddenly use hordes of
them to tear their way through bunker lines.
When trying to chew through defences, bunker busters shouldn't be your teeth,
breaking up the defences, but the enzymes that soften up the food and make the
"chewing" easier... It's not 100% accurate as a metaphor, but I think
it's sound that the talk of 20 Bunker Busters sounds over the top to me... but
then again, every bunker buster tank is one AT vehicle less...
I want to host a game with "No heavy cannon" rules and watch people
start crying. What would they do? I mean, would they start researching lancers
or something? Or would they just fall to the floor and start convulsing?
Strata, I know I've asked this a million times and forgotten every time I ask,
but wasn't there something in the game about "Dragon's Teeth" tank
traps? I think instead of upping the standard one's health, you should create a
T2 tank trap that goes with "super-duper ultra Crete" or something, so
that You can create a legit decoy, so that half builds can finally be removed
from the game, and hopefully, people would feel less cheated... Who knows? If I
found tank traps useful, I'd build 'em too...
Flame Boy
==========================================================
quote:The paper-rock-scissors method is a tried and tested one in games. I believe there are 3 types of structures (bunkers, walls & emplacements) and 3 types of units (tank, vtol, borg) that can form a basis for this system. To some extent, WZ already uses this anyway.
Rock-paper-scissors matchups are CLASSIC
Now, to drop some clues without giving away any prized info, for v1.12 there is
one new rock-paper-scissors relationship in the works.
There is one new weapon in v1.12 which is primarily an anti-tank weapon. In the
right hands, you can level an army with it. Of course, you can level entire
armies by using Pulse or Scourge or Gauss, so this doesn't necessarily mean
Super Weapon.
This weapon is, of course, not without its weaknesses. The primary weakness is
its effectiveness against cyborgs. Though it still does damage to 'borgs, there
are a few cyborgs out there that can walk all over it without receiving hardly a
scratch in return.
And cyborgs, as we all know, are easy victims of Pulse and (in v1.12) ASMG,
especially by tanks....
quote:
Well that's why some time ago I brought up the fact that Stormbringer should
be close to the front of Pulse laser tech not at the rear of it. Now it would be
weaker then it is now, but get upgrades the same as pulse
WZW, one problem with the Stormbringer is that in v1.10 and v1.11 the Stormbringer
are actually AA Flak -class weapons (serious!) which means that they get like a
+250% firepower bonus, whereas regular lasers only get a +90% bonus. That I
think is one of the reasons why they were too powerful . . . merely switching
them over to Laser class (like they SHOULD be anyway) reduces their
effectiveness by about 50%.
quote:
As for bunker busters there range has been taken up and with the new T3
weapon well lets just say that's not really a problem anymore.
Actually it's a mid-T2 weapon (is that too early?)
quote:
Now to me just by adding a range of 1200-1280 or 10squares and a durability of 500 or more would make a big change in how they are used, as it is right now your durability is only 5 and the range is 1152 or 9 squares.
Another thing, Fornie, it's not merely the range of BB that's the problem, it's
also that the BB may have 9 squares of range but you get it in T1 and your
average T1 sensor range is only 8 sq., so while the ol' BB may be able to shoot
9 squares, in reality it can only "see" 8 squares (that is, until the
T2 sensor upgrade).
quote:
Is do to the fact there long range is shorter then most bunkers or hardpoints,
I imagine we could fix that . . . easily
quote:The BB should definitely have a little more range. Is it possible to increase range with an upgrade? I'd say that if someone goes into the scourge branch, he's bound to get some Intel on how to make a better bunker buster.
Yes, it is possible to increase a weapon's effective range . . . but only
on one condition: SENSOR UPGRADES.
Weapons like Pulse have 16 squares range, but in early T1 your average sight
range is only 8 squares so a Pulse in T1 would only be able to shoot 8 squares.
(Proof: Build a unit, surround it with bunkers, build targets 6~16 squares away,
and tell the unit to open fire on them)
Now in T2 and T3 with those sensor upgrades, this increases the average sight
range to 11 squares, so the Pulse is able to shoot across 11 squares out of 16.
Come to think of it, that stat in WZCK's Weapons Editor saying "Line of
Sight", I should change that to something different to say exactly how much
the weapon can benefit from sensor upgrades. Or something....
quote:
When trying to chew through defences, bunker busters shouldn't be your teeth, breaking up the defences
Tell that to my VTOL BB When playing the AI, those ARE the teeth I use to chew
up enemy Fortresses.
However FB you're right about the support ability of the BB. The BB is best
suited to "shoot & scoot" modes of operation, rather than direct
combat. But I have to agree with Fornie here that their range is less than
useful.
quote:
Strata, I know I've asked this a million times and forgotten every time I ask, but wasn't there something in the game about "Dragon's Teeth" tank traps?
Just check out "Names.Txt" and you'll find them listed
quote:
I think instead of upping the standard one's health, you should create a T2 tank trap that goes with "super-duper ultra Crete" or something, so that You can create a legit decoy, so that half builds can finally be removed from the game, and hopefully, people would feel less cheated... Who knows? If I found tank traps useful, I'd build 'em too...
You read my mind A cheap, durable defense would have the following effects:
1. Able to effectively barricade areas against enemy advances.
2. "Dig in" to defend against enemy army -- err, I mean enemy arty
-- in preparation for assaulting their base. b. Trench warfare is a 2sniper's
paradise
Stratadrake
=========================================================
Ya know I had a nice message typed up at school... then my dummy teacher was fooling
with the switches and killed the power going to about 5 comps... one of
which was mine.
Neway to sum up what I woulda had said... BB I think should be increased enough
to in logic... range= Bunker/Emplacement < Bunker Buster <
Fortress/Hardpoint/Tower ... like BB would be don't know 2-3 tiles longer then
the bunker/Emplacement
Now why do I say make it long enough to shoot? Well here's why... BB is a
special weapon... and to me a special weapon is a weapon that is really only
good at doing one damn thing... and even more/so to me a special weapon should
be bloody damn good at what it does. But what good is it if the only good thing I
can use with this thing is doing one thing... but soon as I try using it for
that it gets killed so easily. Since the BB is so weak in defensive points... to
stop a rush of BB units all you need to do is meet them with a few opposing
tanks... send vtols... artillery... or merely only stick with the
fortress/tower/hardpoint class defenses. The trick is very simple when people
attack with BB's... meet them before they are in range of your defense... because
then has basically throwing away free units. And also remember, BB units (in the
introductory T3 world)... takes at least 2 shots to kill a bunker... and if I recall
6 for a fortress... so although their special their not that special. Besides
... even if u increased it by say that 2-3 tiles... when someone tries to come
at you with 20 BB's their all going to crowed and the farthest back will push em
even more forward... getting em in range to die... so basically ur def although sacrificing
some... already killed prob over half...
When it comes to tank traps... strata I think you should play with this for the
next 1.12 build... either greatly increase the current trap so its hard as fn
hell to kill by a t3 weapon (prob be safe to push it back in the tech line
then)... or create a second model trap and have that hard as fn hell to kill
(again by a t3)... I like the later better.
Willis
===========================================================
The Joys of Bunker Buster Debate 101.
Well the nice thing about them is that there made to take out bunkers, other
then that they are useless on the field of battle. They have no chance of taking
out a group of tanks in equal numbers and once that break thru the line of
defense if it is a line there job is done.
Now the added range is a nice factor, but with a durability of 5 it kind of
kills the idea of close in fire support for your tanks that they made need to
deal with bunkers and hardpoints they come across. You want longer range behind
the anti-tank threat add mortars to the mix. Besides there is range later, and
yes Strata T2 maybe a tad bit to early, T3 would be better maybe after you get
Scourge.
The idea to have 20 or more BB to lay waste to someone's defense maybe good from
your point of view or an overkill, but what happens if you have 20 or more HC
tanks or some gun happy borgs just looking to take out them BB's, now you may
have put a hole in there defense but your going to be eaten up by anything on
the other side and that's all well and good but you now have 20 less tanks then
the other side and that's not good.
See right now if you have BB on long range they can pick off TAC bunkers and not
get hit, something I have known since I first started using them, that's why I
always mix them up with lancers to stop any would be camp outside my base
defense bastards, and pick each bunker off one by one that cant fire on them. To
me what's the point in having bunkers if they cant at lest do some damage to what's
trying to kill it. I would rather just put my power into tanks that's going to
take out any BB's that think I have a defense.
As for sensor range in T1 I dont see that as being a really problem, that why
you have scouts or you should. If you take 5 tanks and send them all to
different points on the map and 1 makes it thru but the others dont your still
going to see what killed them and you can now target bunkers or hardpoints in
that area if that where you want to go.
I think BB come late enough in T1 to early T2 that there are plenty on other
tanks that can deal with it if you give it more durability, maybe 500 is a tad
on the high side but 5 really gives it nothing, so somewhere around 250 should
work, maybe more but I dont want to see this a weapon that sitting in the back
of your main battle tanks.
4nE
=============================================================
quote:
Ya know I had a nice message typed up at school... then my dummy teacher was fooling with the switches and killed the power going to about 5 comps... one of which mine.
Hmmm..... must've been an . . . 'accident'
quote:
but I dont want to see this a weapon that sitting in the back of your main battle tanks.
Unless it happened to be a BB arty (pretend you never heard that )
Stratadrake
===========================================================
quote:
Originally posted by Stratadrake
quote:
Ya know I had a nice message typed up at school... then my dummy teacher was fooling with the switches and killed the power going to about 5 comps... one of which mine.
Hmmm..... must've been an . . . 'accident'quote:
but I dont want to see this a weapon that sitting in the back of your main battle tanks.
Unless it happened to be a BB arty (pretend you never heard that )
============================
atomic Annie - 155mm howitzer with nuke payload - now there was a bunker buster
( actually bunker vaporizer more like it)
coyote25
==============================================================
Well I dont think I did that in VTOLFUN, but I know in my weapons update mod for
sept01.wdg I did just that for the Ground shaker's I changed there warhead
status to BB, as well as Bombard I think not sure it was that one or Incendiary
Mortar its been awhile since I looked that over.
Now this made it a really nasty CB weapon as well as taking out most things in
its way but tanks. As for nuke arty
Well maybe it could fit but its going to be costly and very slow to reload like
maybe and hour or so. Plus I would rather see it come into play like the Las Sat
so you dont get what used to happen when that first came out. That's were its
got to load after its built.
If not your going to have the people building them, firing it, taking it down
and building it again to fire. I hated it when people did that with the Las Sat,
now wait I did that too and did it a lot nevermind.
4nE
[Edited on 29-4-2003]4nE
===========================================================
quote:
Originally posted by RBL-
Well I dont think I did that in VTOLFUN, but I know in my weapons update mod for sept01.wdg I did just that for the Ground shaker's I changed there warhead status to BB, as well as Bombard I think not sure it was that one or Incendiary Mortar its been awhile since I looked that over.
Now this made it a really nasty CB weapon as well as taking out most things in its way but tanks. As for nuke arty
Well maybe it could fit but its going to be costly and very slow to reload like maybe and hour or so. Plus I would rather see it come into play like the Las Sat so you dont get what used to happen when that first came out. That's were its got to load after its built.
If not your going to have the people building them, firing it, taking it down and building it again to fire. I hated it when people did that with the Las Sat, now wait I did that too and did it a lot nevermind.
4nE
[Edited on 29-4-2003 by 4nE]
===================================
you misunderstood - I was pointing out that there is more than one "type of
Bunker Busting weapon" not advocating the use of nukes - I believe we have
already discussed that. has anyone tried to make an indirect firing weapon that
has a homing type round - for example a Pepperpot round that once fired will
"look for its target and direct itself to that target - the way it is now
it just goes straight up and then arcs down however many squares ( what is the
range - cant remember) I propose a round that will fire straight up and then
does the scourge missile thing for short trip to target.
coyote25
==============================================================
quote:
Originally posted by coyote25
quote:
Originally posted by RBL-
Well I dont think I did that in VTOLFUN, but I know in my weapons update mod for sept01.wdg I did just that for the Ground shaker's I changed there warhead status to BB, as well as Bombard I think not sure it was that one or Incendiary Mortar its been awhile since I looked that over.
Now this made it a really nasty CB weapon as well as taking out most things in its way but tanks. As for nuke arty
Well maybe it could fit but its going to be costly and very slow to reload like maybe and hour or so. Plus I would rather see it come into play like the Las Sat so you dont get what used to happen when that first came out. That's were its got to load after its built.
If not your going to have the people building them, firing it, taking it down and building it again to fire. I hated it when people did that with the Las Sat, now wait I did that too and did it a lot nevermind.
4nE
[Edited on 29-4-2003 by RBL-4nE]================================
you misunderstood - I was pointing out that there is more than one "type of Bunker Busting weapon" not advocating the use of nukes - I believe we have already discussed that. has anyone tried to make an indirect firing weapon that has a homing type round - for example a Pepperpot round that once fired will "look for its target and direct itself to that target - the way it is now it just goes straight up and then arcs down however many squares ( what is the range - cant remember) I propose a round that will fire straight up and then does the scourge missile thing for short trip to target.
===========================================
I tried that once, didn't work. it just worked as normal artillery
Kevin
==============================================================
Tank traps are fine, people just use em wrong.
When building defences, it's best to cover the largest area with the smallest amount
of power but still be able to hold... the best way to do this? Space out your
bunkers. But when you space out your bunkers, it allows the enemy to move
between them... so what do you do? build a row or 2 of tank traps behind the
bunkers.
When you have 3 rows deep of 2 bunkers, 1 space, 2 bunkers 1 space, if you going
with hovers and they are TAC, and you don't have a clear picture of exactly what
is there, your going to die.
Bunker busters, need range, I say bunk it up to 1500 range and keep everything
else the same, you put them on long range and do a quick sweep across their
defence you going to cause problems.
Ground shakers and hell storms kill bunkers plenty quick.
I would like mortars to have more range, then they could be more use later in
the game...
Pulse lasers DIE vs. tanks. Hvy cannon tanks will waste pulse lasers.
Papa Lazarou
===============================================================
Coyote:
"it all boils down to one glaring fact - PRACTICE MAKES PERFECT!"
that strikes me as being the antithesis of warzone 2100; u shouldn't have to, or
get any benefit from practice. ideally, there should be no set strategy to the
game - u should adapt your strategy to the circumstances at hand. while your
statement is true in most rts (unfortunately, this includes WZ), a rts shouldn't
boil down to who can click their mouse the fastest, or build derricks the
fastest, etc. I think a good rts game should be more kin to chaos when
improvisation is key, and those who can not adapt to new situations should be
punished. however, like Ragnar, I don't play online games anymore because the
only strategy used is rushing with hover tanks, and thus leaves me no room to
express myself.
(btw, sorry I haven't been here in a while)
Kage
==============================================================
quote:
however, like Ragnar, I don't play online games anymore because the only
strategy used is rushing with hover tanks, and thus leaves me no room to express
myself.
I believe the solution to this is rather simple. The game has limits (100 units,
5 factories, etc). Simply play in games that will not let you max out these
limits.
Let me elaborate.
You can have up to 5 factories.
So if, at any time, you can produce more power than those 5 factories can spend,
you've configured your game wrongly. If you don't understand, imagine a game
with 50 power yet only 1 cyborg factory. Units become meaningless.
You can have up to 100 units.
So if, at any time, you or another player cannot build any more, you've
configured your game wrongly. It's hardly fun if you cannot, by clever strategy,
create a substantially larger tank force than your opponent.
You can have up to 15 trucks.
So if, at any time, you feel like you've got more construction jobs than you
have trucks, you're doing something wrong.
Games are designed and tested only within their limits. Mixing out the limits is
therefore, by definition, wrong. It's like a game of risk where *everyone* is
running out of armies to build. At that stage, why even bother with occupying a
continent?
In my experience, a stock map with 8 oil per player balances out very nicely for
any kind of game. In fact, most maps out there and especially those supplied
with the game are like that. Something of a pointer, if you ask me.
Another important thing to remember is that nothing should ever be outlawed, not
even dummies or mob arty. IMO, people that make it an art to get to the other
side of the map with 100 cannon hover tanks first, should not play strategy
games, but try something more akin to their tastes, like a first person shooter.
Ragnar
=============================================================
quote:
Originally posted by Papa Lazarou
Tank traps are fine, people just use em wrong.
Pulse lasers DIE vs. tanks. Hvy cannon tanks will waste pulse lasers.
Tank traps, especially in huge quantities, are useful enough. Since they don't
get targeted by tanks, it's hard to maneuver 100 hovers through 5-6 rows of
them.
Heavy cannons will only waste pulse lasers if they can get close enough to
actually fire a shot. That means you need them on hovers, which means that
either my pulse tracks have a lot more hitPoints or that my pulse hovers will be
picking your cannon hovers off while you try to close in.
Fact of War: if they are attacking, you should be defending or retreating, not
attacking.
Ragnar
===============================================================
quote:
Originally posted by Ragnar
quote:
Originally posted by Papa Lazarou
Tank traps are fine, people just use em wrong.
Pulse lasers DIE vs. tanks. Hvy cannon tanks will waste pulse lasers.
Tank traps, especially in huge quantities, are useful enough. Since they don't get targeted by tanks, it's hard to maneuver 100 hovers through 5-6 rows of them.
Heavy cannons will only waste pulse lasers if they can get close enough to actually fire a shot. That means you need them on hovers, which means that either my pulse tracks have a lot more hitPoints or that my pulse hovers will be picking your cannon hovers off while you try to close in.
Fact of War: if they are attacking, you should be defending or retreating, not attacking.
=============================
says who? where are these facts? what web page you get this info? what book you
get this erroneous information from? if " THEY " are attacking - you
dont retreat nor defend - YOU attack but in the other direction...too numerous
examples from history to list here.
coyote25
===============================================================
quote:
Fact of War: if they are attacking, you should be defending or retreating, not attacking.
You attack their attacking force.
quote:Heavy cannons will only waste pulse lasers if they can get close enough to actually fire a shot. That means you need them on hovers
Not true, I don't need them on hovers, although I will put them on hovers
because they will kill your tanks quicker that way.
You are attacking me, so you will be moving towards me, if you stop moving
towards me, my arty will kill you. so I can move my tracked tanks out to engage
your tanks, now you have no range advantage because if you stay within range of
firing on my tanks, my arty will kill you.
If you try to go through my defence, you have no advantage of range either, over
my tanks, you are also disadvantaged by my high thermal armour, mantis have VERY
high thermal armour and weakest kinetic armour.
So, I am using a weapon that does kinetic damage, you are using a weapon that
does about the same amount of thermal damage. Go figure.
I also have about 1.5 more hitPoints. So your only remaining advantage I think
it's ROF, and that's such a small advantage it's not worth discussing.
Now, if I don't have arty, then that changes things, but I would have lost way
before you got pulse if I didn't have arty so it's a moot point.
Also, while the tank has a potential range of 2048, it can't actually
"see" that far. The cannons range is within the sight limit. So unless
you have sensors out there you're not going to see my tracks coming until we are
pretty close.
Now, if I had hovers, I would have more of them, and be able to have more of
them firing at once sooner than you could.
Also, I would have more of them to your tracks at only 2/3s of the hitPoints but
I will have so much more of them that the total hitPoints of your tanks will be
less than mine. I will outgun you so much, your tanks will die faster and I wont
loose as many tanks as I would if I came at you with tracks.
quote:
Coyote:
"it all boils down to one glaring fact - PRACTICE MAKES PERFECT!"
that strikes me as being the antithesis of warzone 2100; u shouldn't have to, or get any benefit from practice. ideally, there should be no set strategy to the game - u should adapt your strategy to the circumstances at hand.
Not at all cage, the more you practice, the more circumstances you will
encounter, the more circumstances you encounter, the better you will react to
that circumstance when it comes up in a game.
The environment you play in dictates what circumstances appear. There is no set
strategy, but the guy who reacts better to the circumstances thrown at him will
win. How do you know how to react to those circumstances? Practice.
I used to say/think exactly the same as Kage and Ragnar, but that was just an
excuse not to play, cause I knew I would get trashed. Once I started playing it
again I found I really enjoyed it and now play it regular like, to the point
where I loose sleep.
Papa Lazarou
===============================================================
Papa> You attack their attacking force.
I think not, with lasers, you stay on the edges, you don't assault.
Me>Heavy cannons will only waste pulse lasers if they can get close enough to
actually fire a shot.
Papa> You are attacking me, so you will be moving towards me, if you stop
moving towards me, my arty will kill you.
Whoa. I thought we were discussing pulse vs. cannon. not Pulse vs. Howitzer. No
cheating allowed! Arty will kill _anything_ coming at it if you have enough of
it.
Papa> So, I am using a weapon that does kinetic damage, you are using a
weapon that does about the same amount of thermal damage. Go figure.
Actually, the difference in a Mantis' thermal and kinetic armor is somewhat less
than the difference in damage between a laser and a cannon. So in theory, the
laser wins
Papa> I also have about 1.5 more hitPoints.
1.22 on hovers, 1.36 on tracks, actually.
Papa> So your only remaining advantage I think it ROF, and that's such a
small advantage it's not worth discussing.
Of course, for it seems that after my first few salvo's, there won't be any
cannons left to fire at. I won't ever be able to utilize even half of that ROF.
:-p
Papa> Now, if I don't have arty, then that changes things, but I would have
lost way before you got pulse if I didn't have arty so it's a moot point.
Well, I don't have arty either, so the point isn't moot at all.
Papa> Also, while the tank has a potential range of 2048, it can't actually
"see" that far. So unless you have sensors out there you're not going to
see my tracks coming until we are pretty close.
Off course I have sensors.
Papa> Now, if I had hovers, I would have more of them, and be able to have
more of them firing at once sooner than you could.
Why would you have more of them? We're discussing the merit of one tank vs.
another in _combat_ nothing else. But I'll allow you to spend an equal amount on
resources, if you like. I don't think you'll get *a lot* more of them, though.
Anyway, all you are saying is that cannons are inferior to lasers, but that you
can work around their shortcomings. Well, I can work around you working around
them, if need be.
quote:
I used to say/think exactly the same as Kage and Ragnar, but that was just an excuse not to play, cause I knew I would get trashed. Once I started playing it again I found I really enjoyed it and now play it regular like, to the point where I loose sleep.
Well, I have and even if I don't get trashed I don't like it. I've been through
it before. If the only way to defend against something is to do exactly the same
and be a little better at it, it becomes a game of skill instead of strategy.
I do agree: the more situations you encounter, the better you can adapt to them.
However, if everybody insists on playing one and only one situation, things get
a little boring.
Ragnar
==============================================================
quote:
that strikes me as being the antithesis of warzone 2100; u shouldn't have to, or get any benefit from practice.
So you want a game where a 3year vet can be beat by some newb on their first
game?.... practice is learning how, when, where, and with what... for doing
anything. That means all forms of preparing, attacking, and defending. If you
dont practice how to tank fight... ur doomed to get killed. If you dont practice
with arty... again ur doomed... as goes for all else. Practice DOES make
perfect.
One life lesson of WZ is that you never retreat or chase. When you retreat ur going to
get picked off... n if u chase... unless u know for certain 9/10 big brother is
waiting for you.
Willis
===============================================================
quote:
Originally posted by Willis
quote:
that strikes me as being the antithesis of warzone 2100; u shouldn't have to, or get any benefit from practice.
So you want a game where a 3year vet can be beat by some newb on their first game?.... practice is learning how, when, where, and with what... for doing anything. That means all forms of preparing, attacking, and defending. If you dont practice how to tank fight... ur doomed to get killed. If you dont practice with arty... again ur doomed... as goes for all else. Practice DOES make perfect.
One life lesson of WZ is that you never retreat or chase. When you retreat ur going to get picked off... n if u chase... unless u know for certain 9/10 big brother is waiting for you.
==================================================
as long as you have the resources to back you up - turn and duke it out - or as
the professional soldiers of today's military do a strategic redeployment to
where you put the others at the disadvantage - and history does vindicate the
saying of "practice makes perfect" I believe that in one other thread I
made a statement of intent - can't remember where I put that one - I guess I
will have to go and do some reading.
coyote25
==============================================================
quote:
Originally posted by coyote25
quote:
Originally posted by Willis
quote:
that strikes me as being the antithesis of warzone 2100; u shouldn't have to, or get any benefit from practice.
So you want a game where a 3year vet can be beat by some newb on their first game?.... practice is learning how, when, where, and with what... for doing anything. That means all forms of preparing, attacking, and defending. If you dont practice how to tank fight... ur doomed to get killed. If you dont practice with arty... again ur doomed... as goes for all else. Practice DOES make perfect.
One life lesson of WZ is that you never retreat or chase. When you retreat ur going to get picked off... n if u chase... unless u know for certain 9/10 big brother is waiting for you.
as long as you have the resources to back you up - turn and duke it out - or as the professional soldiers of today's military do a strategic redeployment to where you put the others at the disadvantage - and history does vindicate the saying of "practice makes perfect" I believe that in one other thread I made a statement of intent - can't remember where I put that one - I guess I will have to go and do some reading.
does not matter - be flexible yet like the mountain. use what you got to your
advantage - give no quarter - expect none.
Armageddon - pretty much sums it up
found a part of it...
coyote25
==============================================================
quote:
So if, at any time, you can produce more power than those 5 factories can
spend, you've configured your game wrongly.
I play most of my games on the "Low Power" setting. I get brownouts
occasionally but that's usually due to research, and I'm quick to put it on hold
if the power's needed for something else.
quote:
Also, while the tank has a potential range of 2048, it can't actually "see" that far. The cannons range is within the sight limit. So unless you have sensors out there you're not going to see my tracks coming until we are pretty close.
Wow, I've been saying this sort of thing for a very long time, nice to see
someone else point it out. But there is a bit more to it:
Cannons have a maximum range of 1024 (8 sq.), lasers have a maximum range of
2048 (16sq.), now your default sight range starts at 8sq. but you can upgrade it
to about 12sq., so when your sensors are fully upgraded, lasers don't have twice
the visible range of cannons but more like 1.5x. And as far as I've been able to
test so far, putting sensors out front will let you see them coming sooner, but
if say your sensor picks up those tracks at 15 sq. away from your pulsars, your pulsars
can't rely on the sensor data so they won't open fire at 15sq. range, they'll
wait until it gets within their individual sight range.
quote:
Actually, the difference in a Mantis' thermal and kinetic armor is somewhat less than the difference in damage between a laser and a cannon. So in theory, the laser wins
Let me clear something up. The percentage effect of kinetic and thermal armor is
actually inversely proportional to the enemy's firepower. 1 point of armor will
reduce the damage you take by 1 point, no more no less.
If you have two units, one with 30 armor and the other with 20, this may be a
huge difference if you're up against v1.10 MG's (firepower: 40) where the
difference in armor accounts for 25% of the firepower, but against something
like Cannon with 400 firepower, that difference is only 2.5% in comparison.
Also don't forget the Pulse is an AP weapon and the cannon is AT, so in a tank
battle the cannon is automatically given a +25% firepower bonus. An AP laser
with 500 firepower (I'm guessing here) will do the exact same damage to a tank
as an AT cannon with 400 firepower.
quote:
quote:
I also have about 1.5 more hitPoints.
1.22 on hovers, 1.36 on tracks, actually.
Actually, hovers give a +150% (2.5x) durability boost, tracks give a +350%
(4.5x). Without modifiers, a tracked unit and a hover unit of the same chassis
& upgrades, the tracked unit is 2x as durable as the hover unit by default.
And when you consider the damage modifiers, that tracks have better modifiers
then hover, the gap is even larger.
Shooting an AT weapon, if 4 shots will kill 1 tracked unit then the same 4 shots
will kill 2 hovers. Shooting arty, if 4 will kill 1 tracked unit, they will also
kill 4 hovers.
(returns after a minute) Okay, after checking the actual stats of WZ on the
matter:
Hover propulsion -- Tracked Propulsion:
Damage modifiers ( WeaponModifier.txt )
AP: 100% -- 75%
AT: 125% (for both)
Arty: 160% -- 100%
BB: 33% (for both)
Flame: 160% -- 80%
AA: 100% (for both)
Durability (Propulsion.txt) :
Hover: +150% (2.5x)
Tracks: +350% (4.5x)
Now for some interesting stuff. If you average all the modifiers together and
multiply that by the unit's durability, hovers actually yield an average +120%
(2.2x) durability, where tracks yield a whopping +485% (almost 6x) durability.
Now if we take this a step farther and consider just how many weapons of each
type there are in WZ, hovers yield an average of just +100% (2x) durability, and
tracks yield an average durability of +400% (5x).
So, when all the chips are down, tracks are ultimately about 2.5x as durable as
hovers.
And now let's check the stats for Hvy Cannon versus Pulse Laser:
Both the Hvy Cannon and the Pulse Laser require the same cost/time to build.
Hvy Cannon gives +500 durability, Pulse gives +250. That said, Hvy Cannons are slightly
more durable than Pulsars if you put them on tracks (considering how Tracks give
a lot of durability anyway).
Hvy Cannon is also a lot heavier, so it's slower.
The initial accuracy for Hvy Cannon is 70~50% compared to the Pulse's initial
80~70%. (Both receive the same amount of accuracy upgrades) This alone means
that the Pulse will, on average, hit more often and do more damage.
The firing range of the Pulse is greater, at T3 level, by about 3~4 squares,
because T3 sensor range is 11-12 sq.
Hvy Cannon starts out with 70 firepower, but it gets a whole load of upgrades
and its ultimate firepower is 248.
Pulse Laser starts out with 200 firepower but gets less upgrades, its ultimate
firepower is 380.
So the Pulse Laser still does more damage and more often.
Now, reload times:
Both the Hvy Cannon and Pulse Laser are single-fire weapons, and both have the
same initial reload time (5 seconds -- 12 shots per minute).
However, the Hvy Cannon gets *slightly* more ROF upgrades than Pulse, so the
ultimate ROF of Hvy Cannon is 20 shots per minute, while the ultimate ROF of the
Pulse is about 19 shots per minute. Not an impressive difference....
Hvy Cannon is kinetic and Pulse is thermal, so this gives a slight edge to Pulse
because thermal armor is generally softer.
But consider that Pulse has a 75% damage modifier for Tracks and Hvy Cannon has
a 125% damage modifier for Tracks, this means that against tracks, 5 shots Pulse
Laser = 3 shots Heavy Cannon.
When you consider firepower, 3 shots Hvy Cannon packs the same firepower as 2
shots Pulse.
Multiply both of them together and against Tracks, 9 shots Hvy Cannon = 10 shots
Pulse.
I'd conclude that the Hvy Cannon and Pulse are pretty well matched, it's how you
use them and where that determines what rules.
As it should be....
[Edited on 5-3-2003 by Stratadrake]
=============================================================
quote:
Originally posted by Stratadrake
I'd conclude that the Hvy Cannon and Pulse are pretty well matched...
Which explains how ppl can say both ways that they can rape the other in battle. Now only if we can have this across the board for weapons. *hint-hint*
quote:Originally posted by Stratadrake
..., it's how you use them and where that determines what rules.
As it should be....
I second that!
Willis
==============================================================
But if we go for direct tank vs. tank.
Hvy cannon wins on:
HitPoints
Damage
ROF
Pulse wins on:
Range...
Do I got this right?
Now, in earlier statements, I was talking about practical application of the
tank. In practice the heavy cannon tank is better than the pulse laser tank in
direct tank warfare.
However, the pulse laser wastes defences so easily that you can do a lot of
damage before you have to retreat.
Papa Lazarou -posted on 4-5-2003 at 07:08 AM
=============================================================