Man the forts! Aka, we're besieged.

[GreatMazinkaise]

Originally Posted by Figment

The way the bases are layed out right now - at least the ones we've seen - are not built around defense.

The walls that are there remind me most of the Maginot line in WWII:

Why bother storming and taking the huge defensive stronghold bits of a base if you can also ignore them completely?

Yeah, Zurvan's got two massive walls to the south and what looks like the public entrance of Hewlett Packard to the north. It's somewhat defensible in the sense that there's some cover on that end, but you can't stop vehicles from cruising right on in to your garage.

[SgtExo]

They did mention in the AGN yesterday that their will likely be generators and shields to stop vehicles just rolling in. So until the game is out or that beta is a couple of months in, I think we will be constantly seeing new things that add to the base capture gameplay. All you guys have to do is ask or suggest more mechanics and the devs will test the ones that seem like the most feasible.

I personally want to have sieges, but just shooting at the same area in a corridor does not sound fun to me. So anything to make siege long, but still dynamic is a plus.

[Noivad]

The game we have seen thus far has only been at most 180 people at e3. The game dynamics will change whan a server is full with 2000 people. I don't think anyone, not even the devs can fully comprehend that number in a FPS battle untill we actually see it happen. Its never been done before has it. If you only had a battle with just 500 people on one side at one base and the rest of the 1500 spread out along the front, it will be epic. And if its one base that all three empires want - Each Just 500 of their 2000 players that will be 1000 attackers against 500 defenders. Now thats going to be a defense. With 25 people on each tower on what 3 different levels, with the rest inside the base or scattered about the outside. Yea I can see seige battles happening. There will be breakfulls and push backs. heck the area being so big it might even be easier then PS1 to defend a base. Solo players will not really know whats going on within the big scale of things. But the Organized outfits, with their specialties, in an alliance with multiple outfits. That will decide the defense or offence. There will be some outfits that specialize in Reaction Team game play to squash the enemy break throughs, and there will be outfits designed to make the pushes out. Just like PS1, just on a bigger scale. Can't wait.

[Landtank]

Originally Posted by GreatMazinkaise

Yeah, Zurvan's got two massive walls to the south and what looks like the public entrance of Hewlett Packard to the north. It's somewhat defensible in the sense that there's some cover on that end, but you can't stop vehicles from cruising right on in to your garage.

We can stop them with a blockade! ITS FOOLPROOF

[DukeTerror]

We only saw a fairly centralized base at E3. Perhaps the ones closer to warpgates get more walls built around them. Having to hold the majority of 5-7 points for a base vs 1 point doesn't make it any less of a siege. It just solves the cramped hallway issue and puts you at a panic as you have to decide to hold your point or reinforce the one you just lost. A real siege dilemma.

Also, look up Alamo history. Davy Crockett and his boys held the gap in the wall quite well during that siege. It lends a opportunity to a great squad or outfit to grab a couple of sunderers and fill up a gap in the wall. People shoot from the sundy's turrets or between the gaps while CE's furiously repair the trucks from behind ever fearful of infiltrators or jumpers. Could be real exciting if they make the sundy's tough enough. This is why I don't mind if some bases are not fully walled, it won't stop the TR from holding.

[GreatMazinkaise]

It's not a gap in the wall that is a problem; the entire north half of the base is wide open for attack...

[Littleman]

Between how the hex system works and the open designs of structures, territory, including bases, seems designed to fall to a sufficient attack force.

If your side isn't fighting like they're on the offense, they will lose. Attack. Attack. ATTACK!

As an example, with hack points in a base turning in just 5 minutes due to the enemy controlling adjacent hexes, both sides will likely be trading points until a victor is determined once a set goal has been reached (if any.) If one side were to surround the base with their hexes, then their opponents might be looking at 30 minute long hack-conversion times on points in the base. They'd have to re-prioritize re-obtaining their lost hexes to have a semblance of a chance at taking the base.

As an aside, the hex system also encourages players to engage the enemy in the field AWAY from their base to prevent them from getting to it at all. If we're going to adopt the PS1 mentality where we just focus on hopping from base to base, we're asking to get steamrolled by the guys that are taking everything and fight to keep it.

[Rivenshield]

Originally Posted by Littleman

Between how the hex system works and the open designs of structures, territory, including bases, seems designed to fall to a sufficient attack force.

If your side isn't fighting like they're on the offense, they will lose. Attack. Attack. ATTACK!

I hope that isn't the case for more than half the bases. There ought to be somewhere you can down stakes and make a goddam stand.

[Littleman]

Originally Posted by Rivenshield

I hope that isn't the case for more than half the bases. There ought to be somewhere you can down stakes and make a goddam stand.

Make sure they don't surround your base and bring the better force.

I wouldn't expect solid walls on most if any bases, not on Indar anyway. Another continent may feature every base as having solid structural walls/rock walls/cliff sides, because then every base (local to the imperial footholds) could be designed that way and it would be balanced.

But again, this game shouldn't be fought over JUST bases. The best defense won't be a solid wall and a lot of people raining hell down upon their enemies from it; if you think that you're already gunning to lose. The best defense is making sure the enemy never gets a hex adjacent to your base in the first place. Competing for control points in the field and constantly pushing and pushing and pushing and denying them even an inch of soil is the best possible defense your empire could put up. It will work like base conflicts did in PS1 where the distance between bases wasn't too great, but to a measurable effect. And if the effect can be measured, people may be willing to fight over any stretch of land, no matter how far apart the bases are.

Currently, bases are central hubs for an army to gather and deploy from, but they're open enough that we won't run into PS1's common issue of the enemy taking the courtyard and it just being a matter of time before the bad guys push their way into the structure. Really, that was the REAL problem with PS1's bases, not the walls.

Many breaks in the walls make for hotly contested arenas with infantry, armor, and aircraft combat galore. Solid walls (artificial or natural) make them penned arenas where we should expect strong infantry and aerial fighting until the gate shields are down, if they even get shields. Remember, generators will be all over the base, powering various pieces of equipment, so it's a very real possibility.

But a god damn stand as you put it? Refer to my first point: Hold the territory BEYOND your base. You're doing it wrong if you're only fighting AT your base (or any base.) Bringing the PS1 mentality of what's worth fighting over won't do anyone any good, and I have been seeing a great abundance of that kind of mentality from PSU goers. Makes me look forward to the current base layouts, actually, as I hope they'll break one's mentality when they realize it's much easier to hold a base if their enemies can't take a point in the base within 5 minutes of hacking it. I fear, however, this will take some time before the "spec ops" play this smart, and then everyone else eventually catches on.

[Symmenix]

For me, i was merelyneondering if you guys would if it came down to it.
Also, arial bombing should be extremely effective..

[Klockan]

Originally Posted by Figment

The way the bases are layed out right now - at least the ones we've seen - are not built around defense.

The walls that are there remind me most of the Maginot line in WWII:

Why bother storming and taking the huge defensive stronghold bits of a base if you can also ignore them completely?

How can you the huge defensive strongholds when 67% of the capture points lies right next to them? And the last capture point lies inside the base which also gives the defenders the advantage since it is much easier to defend than to attack as infantry.