Expand and Exterminate version 0.163 Released
Moderator: Moderators
For me its always been tanks and steampunk.
Why?
Cause Tanks are cool (seeing as how they are, well, tanks) so I gravitate towards GD. Also their resource scheme, design stand point and general feel is very cool. Now if they were...say Steampunk tanks, that would be cool. But for that I have Rise of Legends (Vinci for the win!).
Oh and about Steampunk, aren't zeppelins cool? Zeppelin's are by far the coolest things ever! Why? Cuase they are. I mean Zeppelin pirates are even better then Space Pirates. Or am I completely off my rocker?
Why?
Cause Tanks are cool (seeing as how they are, well, tanks) so I gravitate towards GD. Also their resource scheme, design stand point and general feel is very cool. Now if they were...say Steampunk tanks, that would be cool. But for that I have Rise of Legends (Vinci for the win!).
Oh and about Steampunk, aren't zeppelins cool? Zeppelin's are by far the coolest things ever! Why? Cuase they are. I mean Zeppelin pirates are even better then Space Pirates. Or am I completely off my rocker?
Those were the best Zeppelin's ever...until Rise of Legends showed up and blew away those wimpy Zeppelins with siege Zeppelins and Air Destroyers and Pirata flyer's and all those fun, impossible flying machine things.
On track, why is it I never see more then two EE games and both of them are either passworded or in use?
And yes...the Chernobyl needs a louder, deeper, more 'room shaking' subwofer taxing noise thing.
On track, why is it I never see more then two EE games and both of them are either passworded or in use?
And yes...the Chernobyl needs a louder, deeper, more 'room shaking' subwofer taxing noise thing.
Hey again all,
Im disappointed with the feedback i have recieved after my last post.. =(
It all seems to generally consist of STFU joo n00b, if you dont agree with what i have to say thats fine, but you could at least attempt to read and understand what has been said, consider why it has been said and actually take a moment to see if any of it is relevant etc rather than simply dismissing everything instantly.
I have played a little more, if you can even call it playing when you dont really have an opponent.. heh.
Still i got to build some shit and get more of a feel for costs etc.
Anyway i now have much less of a problem with the light artillery, though i think that the range of a GD and URC arty should be the same, i think im right in thinking atm the URC light arty has less range than the GD. It should be equal, and the URC's ability to climb should allow it to get to move favorable ground than the GD giving it the advantage.
URC should not have to use its racial special skill to bring it into line with the standard ability of another race, when racial bonus is applied it should be better than the opponent.
Other weapon ranges dont matter so much but artillery is used to break defensive lines that cannot be broken with a direct assault.
In this standoff like situation range is everything and if one has more than the other then there is no contest.
A Person with a smallish area which is well defended should have the ability to wage an attrition war against their attacker. The Attacker would need the extra resources to take out the cheap defences of the enemy with a rush strategy and also in doing so would feed the defender with metal.
This would lead to the smart attacker using artillery to wear down the defender which would result in a better game experience
on hilly ground URC should win, on flat ground GD should win, in terms of artillery (e.g. the GD would push the URC back with its greater firepower to the hilly ground where the URC's ability to use hills to increase its range gives it the advantage and the push is halted.)
Ofcourse you need to be able to use an air attack (or nuke attack, but really nukes should come WAY WAY at the end of a game, its there to be the ultimate desiding factor, it will end the game, no defence can stand against it, nothing can stop it breaking your lines.)
Which brings us to the issue of air...
I sumbit that bombers due to their attack style / movement etc, slow speed and 'broad side of barn' like profile and emence lack of hps makes them pointless. there is no situation where a bomber is more effective than a ground attack vtol or even viable in a deep striking role.
A bomber is a deep strike unit, it should have the ability to attack all static or very slow moving units completely unphased by any amount of non AA specific defences.
It should even have a reasonable chance of taking out AA installations too, though that should obviously be more cost effective for the defender.
Atm air is on even terms with rockets, and not at much advantage if any vs a plasma or cannon.
Air effectiveness should be more as follows..
Ground attack vtol = less hps more more firepower than a tank, but on pretty even terms with them, they can both fire at each other and deal damage effectively. the fire power of the vtol breaks through the high hps of the tank where as the tank has more trouble hitting the vtol but a good hit or 3 will kill the vtol.
Ground attack vtols should stand no chance vs AA air or AA emplacements. It is the tank of the air, used for area patrols, skirmish, assaults on underdefended positions etc.
AA aircraft, should be invincable to a non AA attacker like a cannon or plasma. Have the speed to outrun missles but to have the chance of them being caught and annihilated (due to low hps) remain.
These craft should have the ability to fire at ground and air targets but really only be effective against air targets or as an annoyance to ground targets.
Bombers = Should take fire from pretty much everything, but have high hps to be able to soak it up dealing mighty area damage to the things underneath continulously as it moves. So basically if you can get the bomber to a location everything on the way there is damaged.
(Atm bombers attack a target then fly around soaking up fire til they die, they never make it to another target and they dont attack other targets as they go, which basically makes them attack one spot then die, which is a nuke, not a bomber)
Bombers get mullered by AA defences there is little to no chance of taking anything out if the defender has even light AA.
Taking ground should always be possible. Its no fun if a game is completely locked down and its pointless to try an attack because it will fail without dealing damage due to the power of the defending units. But Defending should be easier than attacking, it should be costly to take ground from an enemy, if its too easy to kill an enemy then games are short, one sided and equally unentertaining.
Fun is the bit in the middle where ground is hard to take but possible to take, so that you can feel achievement having taken it and loss at having lost it, while still being in the game.
The desiding factor on who wins should be down to who is able to hold the important ground and who is able to take important ground from the enemy. in meaningful exchanges.
Big fun comes from big amounts of units tearing it up, trench war fare. OMG their pushing through the left flank ARRGHHH! etc. if you cant establish control of an area then you cant loose it and then you dont get the emotional hit.
Command and Conquer is whoever wins the first fight wins the game. its very fast and very one sided, EE is like that atm.
XTA / AA etc is a porc fest and there is no point attacking with anything other than nukes and arty and that makes it pointless and boring as whoever gets thiers up first wins, equally one sided, but it takes 5 hours to play out and there is little killing going on in that time.
What you want is 5 hours of wall to wall bloodshed and pushing and shoving and ground being taken and lost etc.
That is achieved by having the right balace between defence and offence cost and strength.
If defence is in terms of combat, weaker than an attacker then it will always be possible for an attacker to beat a defender, the units can physically break through and win.
If those defences are equal in cost in terms of economy to a mobile attacking unit then building them is pointless, the money would have been better spent fielding an offence.
IF however the defence is suitably cheap and quick to build then what you get is attacks that can be won, but at an economic cost. OR attacks that can be won with a strategic advantage aka skill, that application of the correct unit counters etc so that you are attacking with economic efficiency.
This also gives you the racial differences.
An Aggessive side would have weak artillery and strong assault. Forcing the player to lead daring full frontal assaults on the enemy using its vast armour to survive in the thick of battle.
A defensive side would have weak assault skills but have better artillery, this would let it attack over its defensive lines, this would force the player to build alot more, you would have to grow out line the rings of a tree.
A 3rd option could be mobility and stealth, you would be able to take and hold areas by not having the enemy even know you are there, you could bypass defences etc, make key attacks.
So which are you? Do you like building massive armies and attacking people? Do you like to build a vast empire and defend it? Do you like to be a sneaky bastard doing something so annoying and crafty the enemy wont even notice it at first and then later will say.. OMFG? What happened to my >insert key structure here< You bastard! lol
Obivously all sides need to have all of these options to some degree, Regardless of a racial preferance / style all who are involved in war would see the importance of having each element.
An aggressive side would have an intelligence section, but they would probably have it to ensure that there were sufficent nme forces to fight before travelling all that way, where as a defender would have intelligence cos they want to know whos coming to beat them up! (They are paranoid)
And the Stealther side specialises in intelligence, they would probably see territory as a weakness, if you are in one place then your enemies know where to find you etc, Also that the best way to defend yourself is to make your enemy think that you are its friend.
The Aggressive attacks and destroys a mex, it then builds on it to increase its attack power and moves on, the defender attacks a mex and then builds its own and then defends it, seeking to take new ground. The Stealther corrupts the mex, it syphons off some of the resource making it stronger while leaving the enemy clueless that they are even being attacked!!
Sorry the post is a bit incoherant and rambling.
Guffrus
P.S.
Can someone please post a link to a game which shows GD vs URC with full tech levels and displays how each unit is viable and is to be used, if you are going to use the arguement of you need to play the mod more etc to nullify all of my points without examination then show me what you are talking about, Show me what im missing, or at least describe it.
P.P.S. GD seem overpowered to me, also their having an ion cannon doesnt fit with their style imo, they are brute force i thought, not crafty weapons.
Im disappointed with the feedback i have recieved after my last post.. =(
It all seems to generally consist of STFU joo n00b, if you dont agree with what i have to say thats fine, but you could at least attempt to read and understand what has been said, consider why it has been said and actually take a moment to see if any of it is relevant etc rather than simply dismissing everything instantly.
I have played a little more, if you can even call it playing when you dont really have an opponent.. heh.
Still i got to build some shit and get more of a feel for costs etc.
Anyway i now have much less of a problem with the light artillery, though i think that the range of a GD and URC arty should be the same, i think im right in thinking atm the URC light arty has less range than the GD. It should be equal, and the URC's ability to climb should allow it to get to move favorable ground than the GD giving it the advantage.
URC should not have to use its racial special skill to bring it into line with the standard ability of another race, when racial bonus is applied it should be better than the opponent.
Other weapon ranges dont matter so much but artillery is used to break defensive lines that cannot be broken with a direct assault.
In this standoff like situation range is everything and if one has more than the other then there is no contest.
A Person with a smallish area which is well defended should have the ability to wage an attrition war against their attacker. The Attacker would need the extra resources to take out the cheap defences of the enemy with a rush strategy and also in doing so would feed the defender with metal.
This would lead to the smart attacker using artillery to wear down the defender which would result in a better game experience
on hilly ground URC should win, on flat ground GD should win, in terms of artillery (e.g. the GD would push the URC back with its greater firepower to the hilly ground where the URC's ability to use hills to increase its range gives it the advantage and the push is halted.)
Ofcourse you need to be able to use an air attack (or nuke attack, but really nukes should come WAY WAY at the end of a game, its there to be the ultimate desiding factor, it will end the game, no defence can stand against it, nothing can stop it breaking your lines.)
Which brings us to the issue of air...
I sumbit that bombers due to their attack style / movement etc, slow speed and 'broad side of barn' like profile and emence lack of hps makes them pointless. there is no situation where a bomber is more effective than a ground attack vtol or even viable in a deep striking role.
A bomber is a deep strike unit, it should have the ability to attack all static or very slow moving units completely unphased by any amount of non AA specific defences.
It should even have a reasonable chance of taking out AA installations too, though that should obviously be more cost effective for the defender.
Atm air is on even terms with rockets, and not at much advantage if any vs a plasma or cannon.
Air effectiveness should be more as follows..
Ground attack vtol = less hps more more firepower than a tank, but on pretty even terms with them, they can both fire at each other and deal damage effectively. the fire power of the vtol breaks through the high hps of the tank where as the tank has more trouble hitting the vtol but a good hit or 3 will kill the vtol.
Ground attack vtols should stand no chance vs AA air or AA emplacements. It is the tank of the air, used for area patrols, skirmish, assaults on underdefended positions etc.
AA aircraft, should be invincable to a non AA attacker like a cannon or plasma. Have the speed to outrun missles but to have the chance of them being caught and annihilated (due to low hps) remain.
These craft should have the ability to fire at ground and air targets but really only be effective against air targets or as an annoyance to ground targets.
Bombers = Should take fire from pretty much everything, but have high hps to be able to soak it up dealing mighty area damage to the things underneath continulously as it moves. So basically if you can get the bomber to a location everything on the way there is damaged.
(Atm bombers attack a target then fly around soaking up fire til they die, they never make it to another target and they dont attack other targets as they go, which basically makes them attack one spot then die, which is a nuke, not a bomber)
Bombers get mullered by AA defences there is little to no chance of taking anything out if the defender has even light AA.
Taking ground should always be possible. Its no fun if a game is completely locked down and its pointless to try an attack because it will fail without dealing damage due to the power of the defending units. But Defending should be easier than attacking, it should be costly to take ground from an enemy, if its too easy to kill an enemy then games are short, one sided and equally unentertaining.
Fun is the bit in the middle where ground is hard to take but possible to take, so that you can feel achievement having taken it and loss at having lost it, while still being in the game.
The desiding factor on who wins should be down to who is able to hold the important ground and who is able to take important ground from the enemy. in meaningful exchanges.
Big fun comes from big amounts of units tearing it up, trench war fare. OMG their pushing through the left flank ARRGHHH! etc. if you cant establish control of an area then you cant loose it and then you dont get the emotional hit.
Command and Conquer is whoever wins the first fight wins the game. its very fast and very one sided, EE is like that atm.
XTA / AA etc is a porc fest and there is no point attacking with anything other than nukes and arty and that makes it pointless and boring as whoever gets thiers up first wins, equally one sided, but it takes 5 hours to play out and there is little killing going on in that time.
What you want is 5 hours of wall to wall bloodshed and pushing and shoving and ground being taken and lost etc.
That is achieved by having the right balace between defence and offence cost and strength.
If defence is in terms of combat, weaker than an attacker then it will always be possible for an attacker to beat a defender, the units can physically break through and win.
If those defences are equal in cost in terms of economy to a mobile attacking unit then building them is pointless, the money would have been better spent fielding an offence.
IF however the defence is suitably cheap and quick to build then what you get is attacks that can be won, but at an economic cost. OR attacks that can be won with a strategic advantage aka skill, that application of the correct unit counters etc so that you are attacking with economic efficiency.
This also gives you the racial differences.
An Aggessive side would have weak artillery and strong assault. Forcing the player to lead daring full frontal assaults on the enemy using its vast armour to survive in the thick of battle.
A defensive side would have weak assault skills but have better artillery, this would let it attack over its defensive lines, this would force the player to build alot more, you would have to grow out line the rings of a tree.
A 3rd option could be mobility and stealth, you would be able to take and hold areas by not having the enemy even know you are there, you could bypass defences etc, make key attacks.
So which are you? Do you like building massive armies and attacking people? Do you like to build a vast empire and defend it? Do you like to be a sneaky bastard doing something so annoying and crafty the enemy wont even notice it at first and then later will say.. OMFG? What happened to my >insert key structure here< You bastard! lol
Obivously all sides need to have all of these options to some degree, Regardless of a racial preferance / style all who are involved in war would see the importance of having each element.
An aggressive side would have an intelligence section, but they would probably have it to ensure that there were sufficent nme forces to fight before travelling all that way, where as a defender would have intelligence cos they want to know whos coming to beat them up! (They are paranoid)
And the Stealther side specialises in intelligence, they would probably see territory as a weakness, if you are in one place then your enemies know where to find you etc, Also that the best way to defend yourself is to make your enemy think that you are its friend.
The Aggressive attacks and destroys a mex, it then builds on it to increase its attack power and moves on, the defender attacks a mex and then builds its own and then defends it, seeking to take new ground. The Stealther corrupts the mex, it syphons off some of the resource making it stronger while leaving the enemy clueless that they are even being attacked!!
Sorry the post is a bit incoherant and rambling.
Guffrus
P.S.
Can someone please post a link to a game which shows GD vs URC with full tech levels and displays how each unit is viable and is to be used, if you are going to use the arguement of you need to play the mod more etc to nullify all of my points without examination then show me what you are talking about, Show me what im missing, or at least describe it.
P.P.S. GD seem overpowered to me, also their having an ion cannon doesnt fit with their style imo, they are brute force i thought, not crafty weapons.
In the words of Daniel Jackson:Guffrus wrote:many, many, MANY words
'Hoooly...buckets...'
Is there some way to break that down into non-brain-tumour-inducing-sized chunks?
I don't think even giant tortoises have an attention span that long...
Seriously lol, I'm sure there was much wisdom in your words...but I don't think my brain is ready to run your proverbial marathon of a post - I just haven't had time to train for that kind of endurance.
(and I thought *I* tended to type too much...)
Last edited by Soulless1 on 13 Jun 2006, 21:30, edited 2 times in total.
i read up to the bit where you said bombers were useless, which is a couple paragraphs below when you said you never played this online. So sorry i wont read the rest. Against my will I wont say stfu noob either, im in a good mood today!
Please PLAY the GAME a lot before opinionating on GAME PLAY issues, its a shame having such an enthusiastic poster talking with so little experience!
Please PLAY the GAME a lot before opinionating on GAME PLAY issues, its a shame having such an enthusiastic poster talking with so little experience!
Because people play on small maps, anything lower than 16x16 means that you have a small attack force at the nemy base in 3 mins.Zoombie wrote:People keep saying that the first battle decides the game, but I've seen plenty of times where this is not the case. Where do people get these opinions from? I've seen teams that win the beggining, fade in the middle and then die.
-
Guessmyname
- Posts: 3301
- Joined: 28 Apr 2005, 21:07
I wish people would not assume stuff..
note 1: GDs racial ability is their range/hp.. the main factor of GD is their ability to dish it out and take it.. in this capacity all their units outrange any other side.. URCs racial ability is its all purpose all terrain advantage combined with stealth elements.. URC arty is shorter ranged because it can easily get into a much more viable attack position than GD arty
note 2: Aircraft cannot be balanced specifically with ground units for 1 very important reason.. surface area.. ground units fighting air, or fighting other ground units have one main problem surface area.. not all the ground units can engage the same target at the same time either due to being out of range, or being blocked by their fellows.. and no amount of micro or uber leetness on your part will utterly aleveate this.. aircraft however have no problem with this.. aircraft do not block other aircraft in pretty much any capacity which allows all the aircraft to attack the same target allowing them much more surface area to attack with.. this advantage doesnt show up till numbers start increasing but it becomes an exponential advantage as the numbers increase.. 40 aircraft is far far far more effective than 40 tanks as all 40 aircraft can fire at once where the tanks are likely to be limited to about 20 if their lucky.. this just gets magnified as we go up in scale.
note 3: I have seen battles where it was one sided and seen battles where it was not.. I feel that the reason people get this impression is that they are playing people better than them or worse than them by a decent amount or are not playing in a manner condusive to some sort of rebound.. I have seen it happen and so have other people so stop using this as an example..
note 1: GDs racial ability is their range/hp.. the main factor of GD is their ability to dish it out and take it.. in this capacity all their units outrange any other side.. URCs racial ability is its all purpose all terrain advantage combined with stealth elements.. URC arty is shorter ranged because it can easily get into a much more viable attack position than GD arty
note 2: Aircraft cannot be balanced specifically with ground units for 1 very important reason.. surface area.. ground units fighting air, or fighting other ground units have one main problem surface area.. not all the ground units can engage the same target at the same time either due to being out of range, or being blocked by their fellows.. and no amount of micro or uber leetness on your part will utterly aleveate this.. aircraft however have no problem with this.. aircraft do not block other aircraft in pretty much any capacity which allows all the aircraft to attack the same target allowing them much more surface area to attack with.. this advantage doesnt show up till numbers start increasing but it becomes an exponential advantage as the numbers increase.. 40 aircraft is far far far more effective than 40 tanks as all 40 aircraft can fire at once where the tanks are likely to be limited to about 20 if their lucky.. this just gets magnified as we go up in scale.
note 3: I have seen battles where it was one sided and seen battles where it was not.. I feel that the reason people get this impression is that they are playing people better than them or worse than them by a decent amount or are not playing in a manner condusive to some sort of rebound.. I have seen it happen and so have other people so stop using this as an example..