I think I don't like you... Your always rude and abrupt. And your avitar irritates me for some reason.
I apologize for not getting the urge to write an essay to oppose an idea which is simply every other bad idea rolled into one. I guessed that this idea would have simply died after one or two pages like every other thread about this same defensive crap, but you've kept it alive, and I commend you for at least being persistent. There, I wrote two sentences. Edit: I forgot to mention, you asked a yes or no question, and I answered appropriately.
I approched the problem with the disire to correct meny "bad" ideas from a design standpoint. Apperently some people hate the concept of "defensive structures" so fully as to ignore the specifics. That frustraits me more then websters spelling of the word "eny"!
Chris, you sorely overestimate the value of concealment, and underestimate the value of cover. While I'd like more complex structures, I heard there's a limit on the number of convex hulls you can have to make up a collision model. It puts a real damper on what you can have. Though, perhaps with some creativity, and buildings made of more than one model...
@arklansman Yea, just call everyone stupid... no need to contribute to the thread or really think about what's suggested. You're my hero
His attitude is based around the fact that there have been more than one threads about something like this and he has been around long neough to see them all; search for similar content and I am sure you are going to find a more fulfiling discussion from him in other threads...
What is the big problem with a defenceive structure? Yes it could be spammed buts that why you do testing isnt it? I mean hasnt someone made a bunker model on another thred. And the thing is its already textured so all it would take is a couple of lines of code for health and shit and u can add it, see if it works and if it doesnt then dont have it. Bunkers would give a very good balance for infantary vs tanks. This is where a bunker buster would be good or an anti-infmissile that could ownage bunker. This could deter spaming of them and to stop 'build spam' you just make them a holigram until built like on crossroads with the blockades. Bunkers are in all games (well most) and a battlefield style game without them is just not right
Yea I really don't see any problems. Defensive structures can be easily ballanced with the health, price, size and how good the built-in weapons are (if there are any). Spam won't be a problem because they could be blown away easily by an artillery or a tank, if you don't have strong tanks to support them. On the other hand, they would be very useful on the frontline in combination with infantry and maybe a few tanks and would the "defending" team give an advantage at that specific location. It's just the same like it is with turrets... if you use them the right way, they are useful. The only difference would be more variaty, more possibilites for the commander and some "hacky" features we don't need anymore. My suggestions are: 1. Sandbags (or a kind of smaller wall) to remove the problem of unbuilt cover-walls which allways get built. 2. Bunkers with a useable MG or/and RPG. They would be better for defense than turrets, but needed to be maned. I don't see any balancing problems. There are many situations in which they could be useful and they won't be too strong because arty can allways kill any defensive structure. And yes, I know this has been suggested before, but I still don't see any true arguments agains it.
It was hammer made and looked like crap . How big should da bunkers be? Can we hide the Be in it but not the nf? :eek:
Not really, because they're obvious, you can make the object camo with the map by checking the ground texture and overlaying it on top of the object texture, which I am quite certain is possible. No I don't. You get two riflemen who know where each other are, and who can't move from their piece of cover, and watch how they both either don't expose any of their body for fear of getting shot, or watch how whoever does gets killed very quickly. The best way to win an infantry fight is to kill the enemy before he can react, and the best way to do that is to attack from somewhere he doesn't expect, oftentimes this will be cover, but in the situation, it will primarily acting as concealment, an enemy behind unbreakable glass will not last long, an enemy behind foliage will be hard to kill. And for those of you who still don't get it, I don't think there are any balancing issues with these structures, I simply do not see them as contributing anything productive to the game.
You're thinking of this along the lines of infantry-vs-infantry. Infantry SHOULD be able to invade and kill any people inside the bunker easily. These would be most useful against tanks, when you need cover to shoot your RPG from to kill them or whatever you're going to do. Also, what about built-in weapons? A single bunker would be able to thus hold off more infantry/tank(s) than that single man can, and it is harder to kill the operator, but this advantage comes at the cost in resources of the bunker and the vulnerability of a fixed position to shelling and grenades.
I know exactly what is suggested, and I never called anyone stupid. I also know that it is simply turning a wall segment into a bunker. This is supposed to help you turn a camp into a compound. So let me go to the (2) pro's point-by-point. Why would you need a compound? To keep enemy tanks out? You still need an opening for your tanks to leave the compound. To keep enemy infantry out? An engineer can deconstruct a wall in a matter of seconds. The only other reason I see for this "compound theroy" is that it adds to game atmosphere. In other words, 'because itz kewl'. Gameplay takes precedence over atmosphere. Walls do this as well. Have the comm drop an armory or two. Now onto the stuff about why bunkers (and other defensive structures) are a bad idea. 1. Bunkers are a bad idea in general because they cause turtling, and in Empires, turtling = failure. We've established that so I'll move on. 2. Everything a bunker does, walls can do just as well. 3. Towers have all the bad features of bunkers x10. Just look at that one scout that sits around your starting base in cyclopean waiting for someone to come by. You know which one I'm talking about. 4. Mannable turrets won't be used. There were mannable turrets in emp42, and the fact that there aren't mannable turrets in the source version should be enough evidence that they aren't a great idea. 5. Sandbags - Not really a bad idea because it is just an unbuilt wall. But you know, there are already unbuilt walls, so it's pretty redundant. Now if anyone has anything else to suggest, I'll try my hardest to refute it.
Would you be against removing walls all-together? Not that I'd argue for them. Defense is fun, but it only either delays victory or buys you time to research a win-button. Fixing that requires bigger changes to the game than minor structure additions... Which proves nothing, since it's the same against the same. Likewise if you compare two riflemen with concealment/the hide ability. It's completely moot if they know where eachother are. A better comparison is between one riflemen with concealment versus one rifleman with cover. If the rifleman with concealment fires, but doesn't kill (perhaps because the other rifleman is using his cover intelligently), his advantage is lost. Whereas the rifleman in cover's advantage is lost when he abandons cover, such as when he's trying to fire back, but can regain it by hiding behind cover again. The point of defensive positions is that you can fire without abandoning most of your cover, thus maintaining most of your advantage. Concealment only ever works once, and best against someone without cover who is unaware of you.
If it'll save me the trouble of putting up one of these: Not that I have ever used such a thing in an actual game. Takes far too long to build, and far too dangerous to do so in a battle where you'd actually need one. Though I've occasionally seen simpler setups used to defend front lines. Usually as part of those tiny wall-forts set up to protect an apc being used as a forward spawn.
