Background Image

Making Defense Feel Impactful/rewarding

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Rasako, Dec 2, 2013.

  1. It must be remembered that that this isn't anything even approaching modern style warfare. The very reason the Astartes were made was because the Emperor knew that war was going to be a lot more... WWI. If EC aproaches this from a PS2 angle it will go really quite badly. In ps2 (I'm assuming here.) the technology makes it possible to perform insane actions without consequences. Such as driving a column of armour into an enemy base without infantry support. There needs to be a lot (and I mean insane amounts) of lead flying around.

    The concept of warfare this game should be built around, should be taken from the baroque and grisly way it is waged in 40k. If that is not given the credence it deserves then it will not have the same feel to it as we want it to. So I quite agree with you there.
    Whiskey and Bishop520 like this.
  2. Bishop520 Active Member

    This reminds me of another idea of mine. They should, post launch, include classes like techmarine and mekboy who can build defencive structures. An the higher their rank, the more things they can build. From machinegun turrets to powerful, manned, slow firing but hard hitting cannons.
    Whiskey likes this.
  3. Bishop520 Active Member

    Its true. I think the way it can be solved is for the characters to take a while to die, you know what I mean? Like yeah, ok a headshot is always a headshot and is far damaging than a body shot regardless if you're a space marine or an eldar, but it takes a lot of hits to bring down a space marine, so I think the issue you addressed can be solved quite easily.
  4. I'm kinda not okay with that.. then it becomes like Starhawk.. which was fail because people would waste requisition building useless crap. I'd say there would be fixed structures that could be upgraded and repaired by Techmarines. Every outpost should also have a tech adept detachment that sends out servitors and servo skulls to repair and manage things. Players inside the base perimeter could then benefit from armor repairs from the efforts of the tech adepts in the vicinity. Outside the walls you should need a techmarine to repair armor. This would make killing the tech adepts a vital part of taking a base.
    Bishop520 likes this.
  5. Rasczak Rasczak Subordinate

    Actually, WWI style warfare developed because we had the opposite situation: people died so quickly from artillery and machinegun fire when out of cover that assaulting defensive positions was suicide. It was the survivability and mobility of tanks that made line breaking and blitzkrieg (with its all attack, no defense mentality) possible.

    So high durability makes defending harder, because it diminishes the relative advantage of cover as well as the defender's ability to halt an advance with fire. High durability also tilts the game in favor of melee classes while crippling ranged classes, because it shortens the range at which you can achieve a kill without running out of ammo while at the same time extending the amount of distance the melee class can cover while taking fire.

    Using PS2 as an example, one reason that tanks are able to roll over defenders so easily is that it takes 5-7 stock rockets to kill one, and as many as 12 lockons. An anti-tank soldier only has 3-5 rockets (Striker aside), and they take a while to reload. This means that multiple soldiers have to expend their entire ammo supply to achieve a kill at all, and as many as 7 of them have to fire at once to achieve a kill in a reasonable time.

    PS2 tries to "balance" this by making anti-tank weapons as common as dirt, meaning a tank that goes out alone will get spammed by dozens of rockets. But since tanks can be crewed by one person, things break when a tank zerg forms. The enemy can field one tank for every rocket launcher that you can theoretically field, and you need about three people with rocket launchers to bring one tank down. This is compounded by the fact that not everyone plays the same class, so it's entirely likely that the enemy will have more tanks than you have rockets.

    Even if they don't roll 100% tanks, every tank they pull takes at least three of your people out of the fight while they try to counter. The game lacks specialists, and so everything becomes about pure population: if you outnumber the enemy by more than 3:1, their tanks are useless and will get spammed to death in seconds. If you don't, then the side with the most tanks (and aircraft, which have a whole set of somewhat related problems of their own) wins.
  6. Make the defenders more durable than the attackers.. like it's supposed to be.. fortified fighting positions, interlocking fields of fire that can't be run through without dying, ect... zones being pounded by artillery non stop. Make the assault force stay back and probe defenses.. have to develop tactics.. It's become too easy to just use shock attacks to overrun positions. I'd like to see some long drawn out battles where every inch of ground is earned by making good decisions.

    ie. We need to capture that gun nest and hold it to draw fire while the assault force maneuvers into position... Strike Team Bravo captures the nest and must hold it for awhile to draw fire and attention while Strike Force Alpha infiltrate and take out the reactor that powers the void shields. Void Shields are down.. Bravo retrogrades back to the line to join a second advance to take out the artillery... you could go on and on.. but I want an event driven battle where you are teeter tottering back and forth to gain the upper hand.
  7. Bishop520 Active Member

    Valid pont. But would you still be against, say, an ability for a tech marine to deploy a tarantula turret? I also don't understand why you consider high ordenance defences useless. As for spending requisition unwisely, I understand your concern there. My hope is that there will be players smart enough to know what to deploy when with my afore-mentioned idea.
  8. Oh I don't mind tarantula deployment that would be great. But all bases should also have layers and supporting facilities. Artillery, Medicae, Power Plant, Tech Center, and then a main facility that is the resource center that that base provides whether it be a manufactorum, mine, or whatever. Taking a base should require mapping out the defenses and taking out the defensive support. For instance, taking out the Artillery is key to being able to approach, taking out the tech center removes auto repairs, taking out the power plant removes the void shields and lights, ect...
  9. If you could make it so that cover is actually quite valuable then it gives the defenders a "toughness" bonus, by having plenty of cover, with out actually increasing their durability and risk breaking the game.
    Partisan likes this.
  10. Rasczak Rasczak Subordinate

    Well, that's what things like walls and trenches are supposed to do, and that's one reason why the effective range of most weapons needs to be fairly long. It also helps if standard movement speed is slow, and sprinting is limited.

    PS2 actually has this issue with infantry too, despite people complaining about its TTK being "short" (it's actually more than twice as long as similar FPS games even at point blank). Its TTK falls off so steeply with range that you cannot get kills in a reasonable time or with a reasonable amount of ammo past 75m or so. If you outnumber the enemy it's not much of a problem, but if they outnumber you it nullifies most of the advantage of your defensive position because simply by charging as a group they can gain ground faster than you can kill them. Again, the way the mechanics are designed cause numbers to matter more than strategy or positioning.

    Of course, their bases also have approaches that provide cover to the attackers instead of the defenders and lack effective killzones, which is another problem. When you have a convenient asset like indestructible walls, designing those walls well (or not) can make a huge difference.

    Something like the above, properly manned and situated on favorable (ie open, and either flat or downward-sloping such as the top of a hill) terrain would be quite defensible.
    Partisan likes this.

Share This Page