Potential Tactic - "Galaxy Cluster"

[Grognard]

Originally Posted by Captain1nsaneo

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]

Originally Posted by Firefly

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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 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]

Originally Posted by Captain1nsaneo

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]

Originally Posted by xXSpectreXx

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]

Originally Posted by Figment

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]

Originally Posted by Firefly

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]

Originally Posted by 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 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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.