why does this community hate defensive suggestions

seriously whats so bad about, AT turrets advanced walls, bunkers and shit like that, people here seem to hate any idea of turtleing WTF

 

Because turtling doesn't win you the game unless you have a superweapon, and it isn't any fun for the the other team, because they're doing very boring things. Your team has the vain hope of regaining map control, but their team already has map control and has already won, the problem is there's twenty minutes of mindless shelling to go before the game realises that.

Your team has nothing better to do, their has already done all the better things and wants to play the next map.

 

battle bunkers would be great, advanced walls could work if a lot of thought went into them. TBH turtling sort of fails, so nobody does it by choice. you only turtle if you have already lost, and TBH adding a bunker won't change things much for the worse in those situations. It's just 'oh look another point for our arty tanks'. on the other hand battle bunkers on something like the slaughtered S-bend, or on a canyon warzone or something might add quite a bit to gameplay.

 

it isn't turtling if its just making the enemy crush his offense against your defence while you attack from the side with a considerable smaller force, but still win because you flank them


big walls could add a lot of tactics, as long as they are somehow "limited" to a "china wall" type of defence, basically a wall with holes in big enough to make the enemy come trough determined, but small enough to cut them off from supplies


walls have never succeeded that well to keep an invader out, they do however work miracles on turning advantages, stakes, and tactics around

 

the only defensive structure I would like to see is a bunker about the size of the armory. Maybe not so much a bunker as a curved set height wall or ramp. Something that has a ramp one one side or what not. Other than that, automated weapons are just annoying.

howerver, due to the new patch, a damage increase to turrets would be nice, or a upgrade in damage as well as fire rate from level 2's and 3's

 

i would like a placeable something to stall or prevent tank movement

a small bunker with barbed wire and tank traps around, so you can place a fortified front very durable against tank attacks, but infantry can clear it by foot and reconstruct in true invasion style

 

You can do amazing things with the current walls.

 

Making 'hacky' things out of walls is no match for a proper defensive structure, although if it is simply making it easier to do things that you can already do with normal walls then there should be no problems.

 

agreed, some DECENT defensive structures would be appreciated

 

a ramp that works in conjuction with the current walls. Would allow vehicles to move through an area 1 way like on cross roads. if that was a defensive prefab structure a com could drop (- the roof), it would be perfect.

 

The problem is the command styles of a lot of players. A shitty RTS player will turtle from start to finish, and move slow through the game because they want to build their nice bases.

If you remove that, then you'll remove a commander's incentive to bring their team down by making their nice little turtle bases.

Now, Im not saying defensive structures are bad, in fact I would like to see wall connectors and mini towers, however in general there would need to be a lot of tinkering if something like this were to be implemented because in a regular RTS, only 1 person loses, and empires is not a game of individuals.

 

restrict defensive structures to 2-3.

That would make the only used at important choke points only. It would also make them a fall back point, so that when you lose 1 bit of your defense, the entire enemy force can rush right into your base. Currently, there is your base, then the front lines. it is difficult to set up a sort of wall inbetween that lets your troops out and keeps enemies out. a better way to do this is needed.

 

agreed

 

I love the cappable defenses, including bunkers, walls, etc. Which imo is a better way of doing it than giving commander or any class a box of lincoln logs to play with.

 

cap able defense are up to mappers to put in, and would still be much easier with a prefab or entity for it.

 

The reason they dont like defence is becasue they r tards

 

The problem with defences that aren't easily breachable is that they are generally overpowered.

Take the suppressor in HL2 for example, it's a big sky laser which is on top of a huge building, if it were controlled by a player it would be death on a stick, but the game carefully constructs the world so that the player has a specific route to go through and it never really poses any threat.

But in a game like empires you can't ensure that will happen, people will always block all the holes in a defence if they can, and that would make the defence impenetrable.

So defences cannot interconnect, you can't let people build a suppressor building in empires because the sewers and bunkers and craters designed to let players get close to it would be blocked with walls, the floor turrets would be spammed to hell, and the force fields would not have conveniently located buttons which can be unplugged with the gravity gun.

You could let people build a suppressor building at the expensive of losing the ability to build walls and turrets, but that is still an easily breachable defence, just like turrets are currently.

Defences need a weakness, and defences also need to be designed so they can't negate each other's weaknesses.

 

what about a bunker that has a few shoot holes and a lot of tank traps outside to prevent tank motion but generally lets infantry pass? unless the friendly infantry can put up a decent defense

if they don't, then infantry can easily charge the bunker and decon it
if they do, arties can shell the hell out of it preventing reinforcements to arrive, and then infantry can mop up the remaining troops

ether way it stops tanks but prevents the whole "lets build walls and hide behind them without firing a shot" defences