What Happened To The Bases...

[Dloan]

Originally Posted by Erendil

The base is so open you can drive ground vehicles pretty much anywhere within the compound, meaning there is no solid defensible position for the defending empire to draw a line in the sand and stop an enemy advance

Far too much PS1 thinking in this thread ie the only lines people had to cross were bridges and base walls. Maybe the line in the sand doesn't begin at the base, but amongst the surrounding terrain.

I expect if PS1 didn't have base walls, we'd be getting complaints that adding base walls to some bases would be "dumbing down" the game because it makes defense easier.

[MrBloodworth]

Defenders always have the advantage. Its called war.

You can ensure the safety of your defense if you only hold positions that cannot be attacked. - Sun Tzu

When you engage in actual fighting, if victory is long in coming, then men's weapons will grow dull and their ardor will be damped. If you lay siege to a town, you will exhaust your strength. Again, if the campaign is protracted, the resources of the State will not be equal to the strain. Now, when your weapons are dulled, your ardor damped, your strength exhausted and your treasure spent, other chieftains will spring up to take advantage of your extremity. Then no man, however wise, will be able to avert the consequences that must ensue.Thus, though we have heard of stupid haste in war, cleverness has never been seen associated with long delays.- Sun Tzu

The Siege part of war seems to have been removed in PS2. Its all open arenas on a contiguous map.

[SgtExo]

Originally Posted by MrBloodworth

Defenders always have the advantage. Its called war.

Yes, but we don't want this to be a static fight where it takes 6 hours just to take 1 base.

[MrBloodworth]

Originally Posted by SgtExo

Yes, but we don't want this to be a static fight where it takes 6 hours just to take 1 base.

That's where cleverness, and deus ex machina come in.

This is the difference between a war game, and a session based single battle game.

[Shadowrath]

Originally Posted by SgtExo

Yes, but we don't want this to be a static fight where it takes 6 hours just to take 1 base.

Some people enjoy that though but for the other people it could be a drag.

[SgtExo]

Why would you want to be stuck in 1 base when you have a whole continent to fight over.

Think of it like this, what world war is more interesting to study; WWI with its front that does not move for the majority of the war, or the dynamic flow of WWII?

[SnipeGrzywa]

Originally Posted by SgtExo

Why would you want to be stuck in 1 base when you have a whole continent to fight

Because if in one session (normal, not all nighters or weekend play) if you fight over the whole continent you are either A) steam rolling your enemy or B) being steam rolled. Either case not much fun since you are manuerving more then fighting.

Don't get me wrong, I want Auraxis covered in purple like everyone else but I also want fun doing it.

Some of the best fights, and therefore memories, are from 6 hr siege battles.

[sunzen]

Yes, but we don't want this to be a static fight where it takes 6 hours just to take 1 base.

When you think about it can you call a base a base when its controller changes every 10minutes ? Sure not every base needs to be a fortress but still some should require a decent effort to reconquer, just my opinion. Hope they have a mix of different types of defence constructions.

[Charred]

Ugh, the casual in this thread make me sick.
Everyone arguing for not having walls and having an open arena that's not defendable is either stupid or don't understand how war works. When one party sieges a settlement it should be SIGNIFICANTLY harder to take it than defending it because that's how this shit works.

"B-b-but we need to have a unique style to every base and therefore no walls."
That's fucking stupid and you know it. Walls can be placed differently and have another look, making something unique doesn't mean that you have to remove something.

Please take a moment and ponder on how fucking boring everything would be if 10 tanks could come take a base easily because they can roll up to the fucking point and cap it.

I'm all for having 3 easily accessible points outside the base but when it comes down to defending those last ones it has to be TOUGH and HARD. Stop being such codbabbies and battlefags, it's sickening.

[SUBARU]

If you cant defend a base.If defenders are good for nothing except farming xp.Will anybody defend? Or will we just take empty bases.Sounds like fun.

[Raymac]

Originally Posted by Charred

Ugh, the casual in this thread make me sick.
Everyone arguing for not having walls and having an open arena that's not defendable is either stupid or don't understand how war works.

I'm not saying there should be "no walls". I'm saying they have made barriers without them looking like boring prison walls. Take another look at the view the OP posted, and take a look at the videos. You can see that the hills and the buildings surrounding the central structure of the base form walls and funnel attackers into killzones. Just because something doesn't look like a middle ages castle wall doesn't mean it's not an effective barrier.

[SgtExo]

Originally Posted by SnipeGrzywa

Because if in one session (normal, not all nighters or weekend play) if you fight over the whole continent you are either A) steam rolling your enemy or B) being steam rolled. Either case not much fun since you are manuerving more then fighting.

Don't get me wrong, I want Auraxis covered in purple like everyone else but I also want fun doing it.

Some of the best fights, and therefore memories, are from 6 hr siege battles.

What I mean is that there is more then just base fights here.

I want to start out by going and capturing some outpost around a base as a precursor of the main assault, that should take from 30 minutes to an hour. Then the main assault would start its first phase, which would be that the armor would move in and try to neutralize the defending armor, meanwhile there is a giant fur ball in the air which will decide who has air superiority and lastly, special ops teams will start infiltrating the bases to try and take out turrets and hack some consoles. The first phase could be 15 minutes to 30 minutes long and the defenders could repulse the attack towards the attackers base. The second phase would be the longer one, where the two or even 3 sides are mostly down to infantry with some tank and air cover. The squads will fight over the different capture points and this should take from 15 minutes if you control all the surrounding territory or as long as an hour if you don't.

So what i mean by not having a six hour fight in 1 base is that you should never be stuck in one place just shooting at the exact same pixel down a corridor for defense. There should be progress on one or the other side. Like this in a 4 hour play, you could go from small outpost fights to huge vehicle battles between base and then a base assault.

[Littleman]

Originally Posted by Raymac

I'm not saying there should be "no walls". I'm saying they have made barriers without them looking like boring prison walls. Take another look at the view the OP posted, and take a look at the videos. You can see that the hills and the buildings surrounding the central structure of the base form walls and funnel attackers into killzones. Just because something doesn't look like a middle ages castle wall doesn't mean it's not an effective barrier.

That is some really high tier thinking yer asking fer from the common folk.

[Baneblade]

Originally Posted by SUBARU

Why is this?

You can spawn at any intact spawn point your empire owns.

[Otleaz]

Originally Posted by Raymac

I'm not saying there should be "no walls". I'm saying they have made barriers without them looking like boring prison walls. Take another look at the view the OP posted, and take a look at the videos. You can see that the hills and the buildings surrounding the central structure of the base form walls and funnel attackers into killzones. Just because something doesn't look like a middle ages castle wall doesn't mean it's not an effective barrier.

That is much too large of an area if you count those as effective barriers, and the bottleneck not only has too large of an opening, but also has cliffs hanging above it that can be used by the enemy to shoot down on any defending units.

You also completely cut out interesting aspects of wall defense such as sabotage when you rely on natural barriers.