IMO, if there are any plans to update base design/layout, bring back alpha walls

[ringring]

Originally Posted by Figment

To nuanciate, the ballustrade were the same on both in- and outsides of the wall, aside from the large merlons on the outer side. Basically firing cover wise, it was the same for both attackers and defenders. The defenders did have a couple design advantages over the attackers:

1. Merlons to take cover and heal up.
2. "Towers" extending from the walls to the outside only, with turrets on top.
3. Getting to the walls was only possible from within the courtyard.
4. Turrets only usable by defenders.
5. Two CY entry points, one base entry point from outside the walls.
6. Distance to wall from spawns (within keep) is advantageous to the defender due to their centralised access with walkways and small courtyard and thus smallish circumference. The walkways provide extra height advantages for courtyard control.
7. Relatively small courtyard and complete circumference and radius. An attacker usualy can only reach one side of the wall, where defenders can get height advantage everywhere, including over all openings in the wall. This also allows defenders to maintain a good overview on which side of the walls need defending.
8. Turrets can be repaired from a relative protected position at the base of the stairs to the turret.

#1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, #7 AND #8 have become fastly more "neutral" to become useful for both attackers and defenders:

1. Merlons on both sides.
2. Towers connect centralised to the walls.
3. Walls can be scaled by Light Assaults and not just from inside the courtyard any more, despite the stairs/elevators being on the courtyard side only.
4. Turrets can be hacked by any basic infiltrator and used against the defenders outside the walls.
5. There are walls on Esamir covered by snow, creating additional entry points, NEXT to a third and fourth unshielded courtyard entry point or even tunnels leading under the wall
6. Defenders can only defend one section of wall well and have very poor access to other areas of the wall. The speediest way is a disconnected jump pad. Defenders cannot cut across the center of the base using walkways.
7. Relatively large courtyard and thus big circumference. Due to the holes and jetpacks, one cannot always have a height advantage. It also makes it quite difficult to see what's going on on the other side of the base and respond to that. A situation worsened by a larger (unusable) keep obscuring vision, poor render distances, non-zoomable map, poorly functioning communication channels (/b vs /re) and the amount of other obstructions in the CY (that not just block viewing lines, but also firing lines).
8. Despite of significantly faster (potential) repair rates, turrets cannot be repaired from a relatively unexposed position.


In fact, the only thing that improved *by simply something being present*, is overhead cover.

And air isn't the problem in Amp Stations.

Also replying to a reply above. Only capitols in PS1 had a complete bubble force fields, those could not be entered by any enemy and even if they could the base could not be captured until surrounding bases had first been taken over. I'd say the two do not compare.

[stordito]

base defense would be so much better if we could actually see what's in the CY.
visibility would improve walls effectiveness too.

[Figment]

Originally Posted by ringring

And air isn't the problem in Amp Stations.

Quite.

Also replying to a reply above. Only capitols in PS1 had a complete bubble force fields, those could not be entered by any enemy and even if they could the base could not be captured until surrounding bases had first been taken over. I'd say the two do not compare.

Force Domes like in PS1 over capitals, had the annoying side-effect that the defender could not defend its perimeter well unless they already established choke points in the field.

It resulted in a camp situation till the dome would collapse, a complete ignoring of defense of the base as "it protected itself", camping by artillery units that would quickly retreat into the shield at any sign of danger, a complete plug in the lattice, effectively reducing the options for fighting to just two paths around the capital (too restricted, where PS2's hex-system/lattice is too unrestricted even with adjecency (PS2 lattice) rules).

The worst offender being the DSC on Ceryshen, which resulted in a complete choking of any fighting there due to the Igaluk-Nerrivik and Sedna-Nerrivik links being made impossible by Galaxy Gunship camping of the one viable route (the high altitude bridge) in combination with the steep cliffs (nobody would use the canyons due to being too logistically demanding). Basically, since the DSC introduction, there have been no good fights on Ceryshen.




If domes are introduced, it must be ensured that they do not obstruct an in-out flow of battle, do not create dome camping or induce all sorts of other problems due to disconnecting the in- and out fights. Much like how the Bio Domes already create flow issues, due to the way the inside is connected to the exterior.

[Ruffdog]

Something they could fix today: jump pads for defenders only.

Longer term, perhaps spheres of influence that make attacking bases harder. Maybe Q spotting doesnt relay enemy positions to friendlies unless certed for?

[SturmovikDrakon]

Originally Posted by Bags

Where did you get those alpha shots from? I followed PS2's development religiously and I've never seen any of those.

First three are from Totalbiscuit's videos and the last two are from their GDC demo

Originally Posted by Stanis

Those walls are hideous.
I say this from a tactical viewpoint.

Enclosed, inward facing arcs of fire.

Thinking this through - not just light assault but any enemy troops able to secure a single entrance to those walls can now use the Courtyard as a Barbican to massacre the DEFENDERS.

We already mentioned that the walls facing inside of the base should be open

I have a problem with walls being specifically open to the outside.

Originally Posted by Ruffdog

Something they could fix today: jump pads for defenders only.

This should definitely be changed and I am confident it probably will

[Rivenshield]

Call me an atavistic old fart, but God those are beautiful.

[Archonzero]

Figment, an others thoughts to this design?

base design idea simple but straight forward presentation.



(A) Gatehouse Towers

-each tower has 2 AV guns, there are 2, 3 or 4 gatehouses depending on the base design/location.
Accessibility
- outside, from along the walls, jump troops, or galaxy deployed
- inside, they have access points from the ground level that go into the base, just like they do currently.

(B) Wall Towers

- 2 AV guns wall level
- Top of tower has heavy overhead screening to shield infantry
Accessibility
- outside, from along the walls, jump troops or galaxy dropped troops
- each Tower has a fortified catwalk bridge that ties into the spawn barracks at an oulying forward camp
- Shielded doorway - stops munitions, but allows access to an upper level building inside the inner courtyard of the base.
- Hackable panel to disarm or rearm shielding?

(C) AA Towers

- 2 AA guns per tower
Accessibility
- Shielded (hackable?) portals secure the jump lifts that grant access to the lower tower rooms that access the Upper Deck of the upper level.

(D) Bridge Ramparts

-One Ramptart extends to each outlying base camp. I should mention, these are infantry only accessible.
Defensibility
- crates, crenelations, sections of overhead cover. Very similar to most vehicle bridges, but with more infantry scattered cover along the pathways.

Solid Line linking to B Tower

- Optional underground hallway of connected rooms? Extends to a barracks of an outlying forward camp. - This allows defenders to transport materials, troops and equipment safely to those forward areas during an attack. (similar in concept to the trench tunnels on esamir at some bases)
This allows attackers and defenders multiple avenues of approach. Tunnel system can come up into either a building inside the inner courtyard of the base itself or into the tower.

Outer Base Wall

- red dots are AI turret emplacements
-wall design aesthetics can be identical to the current design, just no gaping holes.

Airpads

Airpads if placed outside on the upper dome, would have terminals inside on the upper level.
If the airpad is placed under the shielded section of the dome, then they would auto launch up an out.

(1) SHIELDED sections

protect from enemy vehicles from passing, shelling or bombarding into the facility. Infantry can pass through them without harm (other than the enemy shooting them)
-Dome Shield - generator located on the upper level.
-Gatehouse Shields - generators located inside the inner courtyard.

Inner Court

- very similar to building sprawls outside of the main structure of current base designs, aside from a few key modifications.
- Would have a layout of single an two level structures along the outersections of the inner court.
- Catwalks grants access from taller buildings to Upper level + other buildings inside the inner court.
Interior design could offer a very Core Combat (lite) playstyle, with multiple tiered balconies overlooking below. An area that is practically a light assault an cloakers playground.
- 2-3 ammo towers, one near each gatehouse
- Central main building that contains vehicle spawn points/equipment terminals/ as well houses the SCU generator.
-Should be 3-4 buildings inside the inner courtyard that allow access routes to the underground section.

Underground layout

- Corridors, supply rooms, stairs an jumplifts
- Medical Bay + equipment terminals
- MAINSPAWN + Defense teleporters (2-3) to Upper level Rapid Response Teleport room (RRT).
SCU + CCR shield gen rooms

Upper level

-Air terminals
- Supply rooms with equipment terminals
- Upper deck pillbox balconies allow defenders to view/overlap the inner court
- Catwalk balconies access down to the outer sections of the inner court
- Dome shield generator room. Protected by a hackable shielded doorway
- Command Control Room.
- Rapid Resonse Teleport rooms.

With this layout.. attacking a defended Major installation will require the attacking force to secure the outlying camps FIRST to guarantee success, unless they have sheer overwhelming numbers. Still they will have to bypass the outer defenses, secure the interior court.. then the main facility an finally the capture. Which should be a hack n hold timer.. with a chance to resecure.

Also to consider the more layered approach to defensive measures an access would make Galaxies a more frequent option for troop deployment runs, to disgorging soldiers up onto the outer wall battlements, AA turret sections, gatehouses an the like.

[Figment]

Image isn't showing Spartan (invalid attachment specified, probably internal forum attachment only), could you upload it elsewhere? (Would recommend to imageshack, as it can be done without resizing, photobucket resizes these days)

[Archonzero]

Originally Posted by Figment

Image isn't showing Spartan (invalid attachment specified, probably internal forum attachment only), could you upload it elsewhere? (Would recommend to imageshack, as it can be done without resizing, photobucket resizes these days)

OOps, fixed so image shows.