Potential Tactic - "Galaxy Cluster"

[Grognard]

... or as I like to call it; "Cluster F**K", depending on how it turns out...

First my train of thought;

1. Galaxies are big, with deployed status defenses.
2. Galaxies are spawn and repair "depots".
3. Galaxies will not bubble, so, are visible high value tactical targets anyway...
4. Forward "bases" will/may/should be required.
5. How do cowboys fight off indians in remote areas... circle wagons...

So, the idea I have is to bring 5 Galaxies, and face them ass to ass into a star/cluster formation to make something similar to a Star Fort design. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_fort ) The idea is to have interlocking fields of fire, a forward "base", and sustainability under duress.

A single Galaxy is going to be targeted mercilessly, and at some point is going down... then it will be necessary to relocate, reestablish, ect. However if a cluster of Galaxies forms up like a circled wagon train, when one goes down, another, or two, can be brought up with the benefit of the cluster still in place, hence sustainability...

With the new paradigm that we will have 1000+ soldiers, and even with the scarce information we presently have, I think this might be a good way to make a player generated push, since when the area is secured, the base (Cluster F**k... and it will be...) can "hop" forward.

More than likely I have missed something, so, where am I wrong, and/or flawed?


Edit: For the "Itll just be OSed dude" folks... this plays to my point, as the Galaxys would be seperated enough to avoid this, and it was mentioned by Higby and crew in the last video the OS's would be tuned. So this might be more resilient to OSing, as far as the whole cluster goes.

[SteinB]

While you have an interesting idea here I am hoping that skilled engineers will be able to deploy defenses robust enough to do the job of making single deployed galaxies defensible.

[Grognard]

The Galaxy will not act as a repair station, the Sunderer will. I like the idea of what you're proposing as a tactic, but you would need a sunderer and probably an engineer per bird to keep it at maximum health during it's assault. As for becoming a high value target, that cluster would become the primary objective above all objectives VERY very fast.

I knew I would have a flaw or two in there somewhere, so sunderers need to support the fort, good observation. As for the Cluster F... becoming a priority... well I sure hope so, sounds fun as hell :D

[xXSpectreXx]

5. How do cowboys fight off indians in remote areas... circle wagons...

Cowboys didn't have to worry about orbital strikes... lol

But seriously, grouping them too close together isn't the greatest idea when dealing with large area of effect attacks. They don't have to be right beside each other to provide a well defended fall back point. Just set a few within medium range of each other and overlapping lines of fire will do the trick.

[General M]

Won't it be a pretty tricky thing to organise with 5/6 expensive galaxies all being bought/deployed at the same time?

[Grognard]

Won't it be a pretty tricky thing to organise with 5/6 expensive galaxies all being bought/deployed at the same time?

I think with the resources being tuned to 1000+ players, 5 Galaxys shouldnt be too bad, given it creates a functional forward bridgehead. But I could be wrong...

[Firefly]

Cowboys didn't have to worry about orbital strikes... lol
We have no idea if this feature will be in the game.

[Conq]

The Galaxy will not act as a repair station, the Sunderer will.

Wat? So can two Sunderers repair each other?

[xXSpectreXx]

We have no idea if this feature will be in the game.

No they have stated orbital strike is in fact returning. They just haven't released exactly how devastating or frequent they will be.

Also, they mention it again in the nanite systems vehicles webcast on 1/26.

[Grognard]

While you have an interesting idea here I am hoping that skilled engineers will be able to deploy defenses robust enough to do the job of making single deployed galaxies defensible.

Sure hope so, but since (LOL) "no plan survives contact with the enemy" including this one... Im trying to figure out a way to force a bridgehead, especially one that can bypass a bridge. Not that I dont love bridge fights! :D

'Cause with 1000+ players, things will get congested... and sunderers can only batter their way so much. This would be a mobile, reuseable, terrain independent (flight), sustainable forward base. Well, at least in my mind...

[General M]

Also, as a general strategic point, wouldn't it be better to launch multiple strikes into enemy territory (maybe over cloud cover) and to have them fight on many fronts?

I would leave the bridgehead attacks to a dozen or so sunderers.

[Grognard]

Also, as a general strategic point, wouldn't it be better to launch multiple strikes into enemy territory (maybe over cloud cover) and to have them fight on many fronts?

I would leave the bridgehead attacks to a dozen or so sunderers.

Yes, if that is the strategy. But honestly, that is beyond the scope of this particular proposal. I am thinking more along the lines of forward base, bridge flanking, proximity force projection (against a single base), concentrated dispersion, and rally points.

My idea is tactical only, though perhaps grand tactical, but certainly not strategery :D

[Figment]

Interference radius to avoid spawnpoint spam?

PS1 did that with AMSes... and those couldn't fire or camp.

[Grognard]

Interference radius to avoid spawnpoint spam?

PS1 did that with AMSes... and those couldn't fire or camp.

Im sorry Fig, I dont mean to sound stupid, but I dont understand.

[Captain1nsaneo]

Im sorry Fig, I dont mean to sound stupid, but I dont understand.

He's talking about the 40m distance you had to have between 2 deployed AMS.

Also stick 2 Sundy's in the middle of your ring, auto repairs for everything.

[Grognard]

He's talking about the 40m distance you had to have between 2 deployed AMS.

Also stick 2 Sundy's in the middle of your ring, auto repairs for everything.

Oh ok, I know what Fig was refering to now, and its a good point, especially in that it would force the spacing, which is good to avoid the OSing, built in spacing range... Fig might have found a flaw though, if the range is too large, but I dont think it will be.

You are right about centering two sunderers in the middle, if they can get there, if not, engineers are critical.

[Trolltaxi]

Well, personally I'd either gather an aircav swarm against this forward monster or simply pulled back my men and let it rot where the enemy has placed it while making a push somewhere else on the frontline. It is too static to effectively use in advance. And if they want my base, they'll have to crawl out of their nest.

But if you find a ditch large enough, equip all the gals with AA weapons, place sunderers into the center you pretty much made a good forward base, as ground fire cannot (easily) shoot there, but all the AA on the gals make it hard to attack from above.

[Bags]

We have no idea if this feature will be in the game.

>we have no idea if it's returning
>mentioned multiple times, even in yesterday's webcast

[Grognard]

Well, personally I'd either gather an aircav swarm against this forward monster or simply pulled back my men and let it rot where the enemy has placed it while making a push somewhere else on the frontline. It is too static to effectively use in advance. And if they want my base, they'll have to crawl out of their nest.

But if you find a ditch large enough, equip all the gals with AA weapons, place sunderers into the center you pretty much made a good forward base, as ground fire cannot (easily) shoot there, but all the AA on the gals make it hard to attack from above.

Precisely. Because... 'if you build it, the zerg will come' (and crawl out). Directing the zerg in this way has merit (I think anyway). Cutting down the movement to contact phase of the zerg is critical, cause a lot of them get "lost", or disrupted, so this makes point A - point B more obvious, and safe, to the most mindless of point and shooters.

As for pulling back, that would allow the bridgehead to remain in place, and cause a "micro D-Day" to ensue, which is the point of doing it in the first place :evil: It shouldnt be too immobile to adjust, because they can undeploy. However, I see your point, because then the forward base was removed by manouver rather than force, so location is very important when selecting touchdown.. damn good point.

Edit: Anyway... who wouldnt want to see 5 Galaxys worth of smoke canisters blown, and lift off for relocation? :P

[Figment]

He's talking about the 40m distance you had to have between 2 deployed AMS.

Also stick 2 Sundy's in the middle of your ring, auto repairs for everything.

Wasn't it 75m? Anyway, exactly why I am predicting that landing is not the same as deploying. One may presume you can man and fire, but not get three spawnpoints deployed. But, if one blows up, pilots deploy the next. It is a possibly viable zerg strategy to keep a spawnpoint running, while new Gal is pulled.

Sundy doesn't need to deploy I suppose?

[Shogun]

that would make a good question for higby!
if the sunderer has to deploy to activate vehicle healing.

[Warborn]

No they have stated orbital strike is in fact returning. They just haven't released exactly how devastating or frequent they will be.

Also, they mention it again in the nanite systems vehicles webcast on 1/26.

It's fairly clear from their mention of it that they don't at all like how it was handled in PS1, so it's very doubtful that orbital strike will be a viable solution to this tactic.

Either way I like the idea of the attackers having a valuable strong point they spawn from, rather than a hidden, expendable spawn vehicle.

[Figment]

@Warborn: It's not the landed vehicle that worries me, it is the flying one. I'd put a recharging vehicle shield (like field turret, starts at zero charge) on a deployed (not landed!) Gal. Then in flight it is not invulnerably strong, especially when used in numbers, while providing a more sustainable field base.

[Grognard]

Wasn't it 75m? Anyway, exactly why I am predicting that landing is not the same as deploying. One may presume you can man and fire, but not get three spawnpoints deployed. But, if one blows up, pilots deploy the next. It is a possibly viable zerg strategy to keep a spawnpoint running, while new Gal is pulled.

Sundy doesn't need to deploy I suppose?

Interesting... if you are right, then I like your execution. Honestly, I had not thought of that. Landed vs deployed defense states, definately something we need to know.

[LongBow]

honestly I read this and loved it ...but it is unlikely that whatever fix for the small problems we create the repair buff probably will not stack =(

[Magpie]

Lol that sounds like a OS heaven

[ringring]

I can only see this as an effective tactic in one rather limited example, one where you are on a defensive stance and you set his 'fortress' up at a choke point where you cannot be flanked.

If your empire is on the attack I don't see the point. This would be the equivalent of Anzio. If you recall from history, the allies were advancing up Italy and got stuck at the Gustav Line at Monte Cassino. They then flanked the defence line and landed many thousands of troops at the aforementioned Anzio catching the defender totally by surprise.
However, instead of immediately attacking they dug in formed a defensive perimenter and bfore your could say the word 'panzer' came under siege. Thus instead of being stuck at Monte Casino they were then stuck at both Monte Cassino and Anzio!

If I see the enemy doing this I would think I'd immediately reach for my OS. Perhaps the GAL's would survive but squishies and vehicles wouldn't. Next I'd load the platoon up in tanks, Farm Time! (and the counter to tanks is CE, tanks and ground attack).

[Lonehunter]

We have no idea if this feature will be in the game.

Actually Higby was speaking about orbital strikes recently as if they where in the game, he quickly said he can't go into any other details. So yes they not confirmed but have been hinted at. It was in the vid with the lead vehicle designer.

I think it's not a bad concept, but I would have a couple Sundy's on the ground and a couple Gals up above. Mix in some deployed Engi barriers and manned turrets and you got one fortified position.

[Grognard]

I can only see this as an effective tactic in one rather limited example, one where you are on a defensive stance and you set his 'fortress' up at a choke point where you cannot be flanked.

If your empire is on the attack I don't see the point. This would be the equivalent of Anzio. If you recall from history, the allies were advancing up Italy and got stuck at the Gustav Line at Monte Cassino. They then flanked the defense line and landed many thousands of troops at the aforementioned Anzio catching the defender totally by surprise.
However, instead of immediately attacking they dug in formed a defensive perimenter and bfore your could say the word 'panzer' came under siege. Thus instead of being stuck at Monte Casino they were then stuck at both Monte Cassino and Anzio!

If I see the enemy doing this I would think I'd immediately reach for my OS. Perhaps the GAL's would survive but squishies and vehicles wouldn't. Next I'd load the platoon up in tanks, Farm Time! (and the counter to tanks is CE, tanks and ground attack).


Two points:

1. Defense... I would use this less on defense, if at all. Because, it localizes too many resources, and the enemy would just bypass, making it necessary to relocate anyway. For instance, as a WW2 example such as yours, large groups of russian forces being penetrated by German "schwerpunct('s)", and surrounded in eastern europe as they moved out of Poland towards Leningrad, Moskow, Kiev, and Sevadstopol. I prefer mobile defense, causing attackers to over commit, and counterstriking, or, if outnumbered, using fabian tactics.

2. Offense... Anzio is only one example, of bridgehead failure. Others were successful... northern France on D Day+, the above mentioned german break through and exploitation attacks against large Russian troop concentrations, Casablanca (LOL).

So, I accept your point, that a well organized counter thrust is a great way to knock this out, but so much the easier if just one Galaxy, and if they knock out all 5, my hat is off... and they deserve the victory. However, there still needs to be a mechanism to dislodge a stubborn defense... I just believe that a static front requires a counter, and to me, this is a planetside variant on "break through and exploitation", or at bare minimum, used as a bypass maneuver that is not inhibited by terrain. Anzio didnt have the benefit of the Zerg popping out of spawnpoints with infinate ammo, like Galaxies would, and that is a huge difference, conceptually.

Edit: Some spelling, etc.

[WaryWizard]

I can only see this as an effective tactic in one rather limited example, one where you are on a defensive stance and you set his 'fortress' up at a choke point where you cannot be flanked.

I see this being used mainly in an offensive stance. Seeing as how these are our spawn points they are required for long fights.Spread them around a little and a single OS wouldn't devastate everyone. Also you could hot drop near the landing zone and spread out a little to search for enemies. Engeneers and the sunderer can keep them protected and repaired.


Defense. Too expensive to be useful I think. You could put the galaxies around the base perimeter, but other vehicles would be better. i guess if you want to keep the enemy away from the base in general, but they could go around it pretty easily.