Page 10 of 62
Posted: 14 Jun 2006, 22:24
by Aun
neddiedrow wrote:Well, at this point, any metal in defenses is really a useless sink... if they were effective to some significant degree, that might make a mixed (read: balanced and logical) overhead strategy more viable. At this point, low infrastructure headlong rushes are the way to go, and that just doesn't sit well with me.
ONLY ON MAPS SMALLER THAN 16X16.
And defences offer better HP and range for their cost than units. They can kill a small force quite effectively, especially if you use the height differences of the different levels of defences.
Posted: 14 Jun 2006, 22:25
by smoth
Not true, a walled in turret IS better because it will live longer due to the walls protecting it, with more damage, more range and it has a lower profile.
Posted: 14 Jun 2006, 22:37
by krogothe
seems to me that a few versions back walls were made worse, walled cannon turrets used to kill 5-10 lvl1s now 2 of anything kill any lvl1 defenses, walls or not most times. Did i miss something or what?
Posted: 14 Jun 2006, 22:39
by Forboding Angel
neddiedrow wrote:Well, at this point, any metal in defenses is really a useless sink... if they were effective to some significant degree, that might make a mixed (read: balanced and logical) overhead strategy more viable. At this point, low infrastructure headlong rushes are the way to go, and that just doesn't sit well with me.
Heh, not if you back them up with units. The turrets do more damage and have a lot more range. Back them up with units and their usefulness goes up 10x.
Defences from the beginning were designed to be backed up by units. Geez, I'm getting tired of explaining tactics to people.
Plus, I'm betting you have never even used lv2 or lv3 defences. Much more bang for the buck.
Posted: 14 Jun 2006, 22:41
by Forboding Angel
krogothe wrote:seems to me that a few versions back walls were made worse, walled cannon turrets used to kill 5-10 lvl1s now 2 of anything kill any lvl1 defenses, walls or not most times. Did i miss something or what?
GD tanks have an arc. It can't be helped unfortunately, cause that's the way spring is, so therefore if they happen to be the perfect distance away sometimes the shots will arc over the walls. URC units on the otherhand have a flat trajectory on the plasma because it's a laser, therefore plasma shots almost always hit the wall.
Posted: 14 Jun 2006, 22:43
by Min3mat
hmmm.
if defenses are supposed to be support:
increase the range
lower the health
increase the damage
(per cost compared to normal units)
(if this hasnt been done already. EE balance is all fish to me)
Posted: 14 Jun 2006, 22:45
by Aun
Forboding Angel wrote:krogothe wrote:seems to me that a few versions back walls were made worse, walled cannon turrets used to kill 5-10 lvl1s now 2 of anything kill any lvl1 defenses, walls or not most times. Did i miss something or what?
GD tanks have an arc. It can't be helped unfortunately, cause that's the way spring is, so therefore if they happen to be the perfect distance away sometimes the shots will arc over the walls. URC units on the otherhand have a flat trajectory on the plasma because it's a laser, therefore plasma shots almost always hit the wall.
It helps if you place the walls one unit away from the defences, because plasma and cannon weapons both have a small AoE, which can damage through walls.
Posted: 14 Jun 2006, 22:52
by Forboding Angel
True Aun.
@min3mat,
they do not need fixed, there is nothing wrong with them, and they already have the things you mentioned.
---
People, keep looking for the ub3r guardian of doom, sigh. If you want that then build the defence emplacement that urc has at lv3. It's cannon has a 1 shot kill on almost all lv1 units, plus the bastard has 9k health. Geez.
Posted: 14 Jun 2006, 22:56
by Forboding Angel
Yet another double post...
You know what I use defences for? When I'm trying to take over a high priority area and don't have very many units there, That way the units that I do have can help with the defences to guard an area.
For all you AA players out there who think that AA has supreme balance... How come I can win just about any game with two units? Ak's and bladewings. 200-300 ak's can take out ANYTHING in AA, period.
Posted: 14 Jun 2006, 23:11
by Min3mat
not in recent versions, look to the storm!
but yeah AA is fairly imba if you start looking at it at a deep level, but its getting better occasionally (although... noobs >.< Caydr...

)
Posted: 14 Jun 2006, 23:16
by Neddie
It's lovely how you dismissed my post, I recognize that static units are meant to be supported by active troops in a mixed game - it's simply the case that every replay I have ever watched and every game I have ever played has fallen down to the player that floods units, never runs real static defenses... and indeed never spends time attempting to hold territory. Toss up the metal makers and keep running headlong!
And no, I've never used L3 defenses. Most E&E games seem to end markedly before that point. I'll admit L2 Anti-Air is quite useful, however.
Whoever said AA had supreme balance? It has many flaws, though I have never seen an AK & Bladewing winning move. Anyway... If you're going to continually bag on players that happen to play E&E and AA, perhaps you should stop talking. It's really getting quite offensive.
Posted: 14 Jun 2006, 23:32
by Forboding Angel
neddiedrow wrote:It's lovely how you dismissed my post, I recognize that static units are meant to be supported by active troops in a mixed game - it's simply the case that every replay I have ever watched and every game I have ever played has fallen down to the player that floods units, never runs real static defenses... and indeed never spends time attempting to hold territory. Toss up the metal makers and keep running headlong!
And no, I've never used L3 defenses. Most E&E games seem to end markedly before that point. I'll admit L2 Anti-Air is quite useful, however.
Whoever said AA had supreme balance? It has many flaws, though I have never seen an AK & Bladewing winning move. Anyway... If you're going to continually bag on players that happen to play E&E and AA, perhaps you should stop talking. It's really getting quite offensive.
It's getting offensive that you continually refuse to accept that EE is different from AA and want everything to be balanced in kind. That's not the way it works. EE different game from AA.
Sorry, there are no metal makers in EE. BTW I don't bag on players that play either or both. I simply keep mentioning that they are seperate games in their own right.
Why run static defences if you don't need them? If I have the units to guard my base/expansion, then why would I want defences? Units are mobile and can be used to ambush.
I didn't respond to you directly because you never take advice and slough off the opinions of others who understand how the mod works better than you do as being wrong, it gets really annoying. Would you rather be ignored or be told you are wrong?
Having mroe units is a tactic, the same as airdropping, amphibs or a gazillion of other tactics in EE that work really well. You need to understand a very important concept for E&E.
The game is made to be primarily fought with lv1 units. Lv2, lv3, Air, and ships are primarily BACKUP units. Therefore it makes sense. You do not HAVE to have Lv2 or lv3 to win, BUT, it makes your forces much mroe useful, however don't send 2 lv3's off by themselves and expect them to do much cause they will fall quickly, HOWEVER, when backed up by lv2 and lv1 they are OMGWTFPWN at what they do.
Break out of the TA box will you please? It would make all the guys who understand the game, lives much easier.
Edit: unless you're playing a super metal heavy map, you MUST control more territory due to the fact that there are no metal makers in E&E. Try playing on bigger maps such as 20x20 or bigger. If you play on smaller than 16x16 maps then you will get some odd gameplay.
Lastly, why don't you start posting some replay's of the games you've had and then we can help you understand what you did wrong and what you did right that you can do even better.
Posted: 14 Jun 2006, 23:36
by Min3mat
(and laugh at yuor f33b3| 5|<1||5)
Posted: 14 Jun 2006, 23:53
by Fanger
ARG... defences are not something you haphazardly place about like an AI.. they are supposed to be put in tactically sound locations.. so you set can take advantage of their strengths and offset their weakness.. build rocket turrets out of direct fire lanes... and for god sakes.. lvl 1 defences are = to llts.. they are not meant to be super... they are meant to be a cheap easy to place set of defences that can help your defence forces, or stave off a small group of units they are not meant to stop a dedicated assault.. if you want to do that build walled in lvl 2 turrets... ffs..
Posted: 15 Jun 2006, 00:19
by esteroth12
may we have a taller wall? currently the dragon's teeth and gd wall are quite short, and they do not take advantage of the lv2 defense' height (at least, for URC).. i have to find a hill to put them behind because there is nothing tall enough, and normally a hill like that isnt in the middle of your base

Posted: 15 Jun 2006, 00:21
by Aun
You build defences in the middle of your base? That might be your problem.
I build level 1 URC plasma towers in front of level 2, to get that extra bit of firepower.
Posted: 15 Jun 2006, 00:23
by Min3mat
hehe Earth 2150 vs the AI as the URC
Fortresses with Large Towers behind >:D and ALL equipped with heavy plasma / light plasma
and a few scattered small towers with AA plasma guns
Posted: 15 Jun 2006, 00:26
by Fanger
how bout a lvl 2 wall?
Posted: 15 Jun 2006, 01:38
by Min3mat
GOD NO
Posted: 15 Jun 2006, 01:40
by Aun
Fanger wrote:how bout a lvl 2 wall?
Only if rockets can still get over them.