Building Forward Bases - Supply Bases.

[EVILPIG]

Originally Posted by Malorn

It's so radical I think its hard to say whether it works or not without playing it. It seems like a great design to me and I see no reason to muck with it until we get our hands on it and see what works and what doesn't work.

Fantastic that you support what I am saying. As it is now, the Galaxy is the flying AMS. Instead of turning it into a fold-out base, as is what has been discussed on these boards, I'm saying to keep it simple and not overly armed or armored. Engineers and other units can accomadate the other needs.

[Malorn]

Originally Posted by Stardouser

What exactly do we think the current Forward Base system is right now and where did we get the info from?

Also, here's another thought to add to this: Being able to built floating pontoon bases! Of course I'm going to get shot down by naval haters but still, just throwing that out there.

Floating bases could be an easy possibility, all it needs is 2 utility-slot upgrades.

Galaxy - Amphibious landing. Allows galaxy to land and deploy on water. (it should probably have a little platform that extends out while it is on water so infantry have a place to stand and not just get dumped in the drink.

Sunderer - Amphibious upgrade. Allows sunderer to float and move slowly through water (basically exactly like the Deli in PS1).

With those two upgrades you could deploy a forward base on water for water-based vehicles to repair and for infantry to spawn. Though I'm not sure how useful it would be to have infantry spawn in water unless there was some underwater combat options and infantry upgrades. They'd be sitting ducks out there with no cover. I suppose infantry upgrades for aquatic warfare would go along with naval warfare though.

[Malorn]

Originally Posted by EVILPIG

Fantastic that you support what I am saying. As it is now, the Galaxy is the flying AMS. Instead of turning it into a fold out base, as is what has been discussed on these boards, I'm saying to keep it simple and not overly armed or armored. Engineers and other units can accomadate the other needs.

I was referring to the current dev design, not your design. I don't really like your design.

[Stardouser]

Originally Posted by Malorn

Floating bases could be an easy possibility, all it needs is 2 utility-slot upgrades.

Galaxy - Amphibious landing. Allows galaxy to land and deploy on water. (it should probably have a little platform that extends out while it is on water so infantry have a place to stand and not just get dumped in the drink.

Sunderer - Amphibious upgrade. Allows sunderer to float and move slowly through water (basically exactly like the Deli in PS1).

With those two upgrades you could deploy a forward base on water for water-based vehicles to repair and for infantry to spawn. Though I'm not sure how useful it would be to have infantry spawn in water unless there was some underwater combat options and infantry upgrades. They'd be sitting ducks out there with no cover. I suppose infantry upgrades for aquatic warfare would go along with naval warfare though.

Well, my imagination is very one-track and fixated, so when I mention this, I'm referring to one of two things:
1. In the long term, perhaps the day when we can physically travel between continents and set up a forward base in the water from which to launch an assault on the continent in the first place
2. In the short term, simply one team going out in the water and attacking one of the other empires on the continent from the sea, instead of by land.

[EVILPIG]

Originally Posted by Malorn

I was referring to the current dev design, not your design. I don't really like your design.

My design is not different than the current Dev design. Later in the discussion I did say to take off the Equipment Terminal, but my entire point is that the Galaxy does not need to be turned into an armored structure with extra gun emplacements on it. It should be up to the players to provide extra defenses for it. I then expand on that and add the possible synergy that other suport vehicles could have with it. A Supply Base would be no more than the apporpriate vehicles to create the layout and the players would provide the defenses through engineering and the already available weapons and vehicles.

Sadly Malorn, you're too caught up in looking for excuses to be condescending towards me (with passive-aggressive remarks like implying that I don't know that Galaxies have weapons on them) to realize that you are supporting the idea.

[Malorn]

Originally Posted by EVILPIG

My design is not different than the current Dev design. Later in the discussion I did say to take off the Equipment Terminal, but my entire point is that the Galaxy does not need to be turned into an armored structure with extra gun emplacements on it. It should be up to the players to provide extra defenses for it. I then expand on that and add the possible synergy that other suport vehicles could have with it. A Supply Base would be no more than the apporpriate vehicles to create the layout and the players would provide the defenses through engineering and the already available weapons and vehicles.

Unless you have a warped definition of design, your design is quite different from the current dev design. You don't want guns on the galaxy and you want the lodestar back, apparently with overlapping benefits as the sunderer, along with new sunderer abilities. And you want tradeoffs for support roles vs transport roles. Since you seem to be accusing me of attacking you for no reason, I'm going to go out of my way a little bit and use your own words to illustrate those differences.

Here's what you said regarding the galaxy

Currently an outfitted Galaxy can deploy as just a spawnpoint. It doesn't need all the built in defenses that are being discussed. Leave it to the players to provide the defenses

What is being discussed? It has 4 guns. It deploys and still has 4 guns? Maybe I'm missing something but as best I can tell you're calling to have the galaxy stripped of its armament.

You also said this:

Add the Lodestar for vehicle spawn and rely on the engineers to deploy defenses, or use vehicles and infantry. We don't need a fold-out base in the Galaxy. Make the Gal just one component.

Again, you are calling for only engineer defenses, not galaxy guns and seem to be under this impression that the galaxy is a pocket base. It's a transport that lands and people can spawn at it. It has 4 guns. Sunderer has 2. Park them next to each other and you have a forward base with some ability to defend itself. If you want to defend it better, bring in engineers, they'll need to repair it anyway.

Here's what you said regarding the sunderer

Sunderer - Command center with resupply points, weapon points and a shield dome or interlink like detection system.
...
In my idea, it is the Command vehicle.

How can you say you have the same design as the devs when: 1) you call it your design - if it was the current dev design it would be their design. 2) You have a command vehicle, which does not exist in the current dev design. This is truly baffling.

I disagreed with this, much for the same reasons Kevmo mentioned in the vehicles webcast. Sunderer is an action-packed base crashing vehicle, but sure you could also park one by a galaxy as a make-shift forward base for vehicles to repair/rearm and to transport infantry that respawn at the galaxy. It then is in perfect position to have infantry pile into it and try to take the objective for which you have the forward deployed base. It's a nice system and doesn't require a dedicated vehicle that is parked and does nothing else.




And now for a more fundamental design difference - how vehicles with multiple roles are balanced. You said:

Each of these vehicles could be outfitted with the appropriate gear to fill other roles, or, they could be equipped to set up a Supply Base.

If you're specializing the vehicles for forward operations you're limiting their usefulness and effectively rendering it the same as an AMS in PS1. I'm in agreement with Kevmo's reasoning that the AMS was a boring vehicle. If you go back to having to specialize a vehicle for the support role vs it's transport functions then you have taken us right back to boring vehicles whose sole purpose is to be parked in a corner and left there.

It's one thing to have customizable vehicles. It's another to have completely different vehicles with the same common chassis. I do not believe the devs intend for the customization system to fundamentally change the role of a vehicle. All of the customizations thus far are minor changes to what the vehicle can do, like different types of guns, different defenses, and a utility option like flares or EMP or smoke. It isn't a "change this vehicle so it does something completely different" mechanism. At that point they may as well create an entirely different vehicle.

Multiple roles all the time is a different concept. By giving the transports these dual roles you can create forward bases on the fly without compromising the transport functionality itself. The forward base can deploy & pick up and go as needed. I think it's cool for a galaxy to deploy, a bunch of people spawn at it, then a sunderer rolls up, vehicles repair/rearm, then all the infantry pile into the galaxy and sunderer and everything rolls out. Or just be a temporary base while holding a position for a capture.

The point is that I believe it is fundamentally important that the vehicles retain their full functionality as transports and not sacrifice anything for their support roles. I don't like the idea of a vehicle whose sole purpose is support (like the AMS and lodestar essentially were). By absorbing those support roles into galaxies and sunderers they reduced vehicle clutter and made those vehicles more interesting. They also expanded tactical and strategic options with those vehicles. It's all goodness.

[EVILPIG]

Originally Posted by Malorn

...

Massively shortsighted and way off. You must not be up to speed on the other discussions here. I didn't say that the Galaxy had no weapons on it. It was discussed elsewhere about turning it into a, practically, deployable fortress, with extra defenses. My proposal, which is just an idea, is that instead we use what else is available in the game to support it and I suggested adding the Lodestar and some extra functionality to the Sunderer. I don't need to throw 1000 words at you to reiterate that.

[Malorn]

Originally Posted by EVILPIG

Massively shortsighted and way off. You must not be up to speed on the other discussions here. I didn't say that the Galaxy had no weapons on it. It was discussed elsewhere about turning it into a, practically, deployable fortress, with extra defenses. My proposal, which is just an idea, is that instead we use what else is available in the game to support it and I suggested adding the Lodestar and some extra functionality to the Sunderer. I don't need to throw 1000 words at you to reiterate that.

If that's how you want have a discussion, OK I'll play.

Massively stupid and irrelevant. Context is important, and the only context I have is what you are writing in this thread. If there are other threads of relevance, you should reference them instead of assuming people think you are important enough to keep tabs on everything you write in every thread.

And with regards to added functionality, that entire bit I said above about adding roles to vehicles is quite relevant to the discussion, though you clearly don't seem interested in having an intelligent discussion about design.

[EVILPIG]

Originally Posted by Malorn

Context is important, and the only context I have is what you are writing in this thread.

Yet, too much has escaped you as your reply is way off. You have many assumptions that are simply not what I said. I suggest a long review of the context and try not to only see what you want. The attitude is old, as others have told you.

For what it is worth though Malorn, you seem intelligent enough. I don't know the source of your cocky aggression, and you are quite smooth with passing it off, but get over it. For everyone's sake. I'd rather just have fun discussing ideas until we can actually test the game on a large scale.

[Malorn]

Instead of getting all defensive and insulting you could explain how I have misinterpreted what you said and...you know...clear it up. That's what rational people do.

I quoted your words from several sources in this thread. Your unwillingness to clear that up and resort to attacking me is most intriguing.

[EVILPIG]

Honestly, the burden is not mine to reverse engineer your post. The primary things I think you misunderstand is that I am not trying to change the Galaxy. My point is that it does not need to become a super armored, self-reliant defensive structure. We can create "bases" by pulling together the current resources and a few new ones that I am suggesting. I am far more interested in seeing players create their own set ups by deploying vehicles and engineering assets as well as utilizing the weapons and vehicles we have available. I didn't reference any other posts, because I am proposing that we expand on the current synergy. It was inspired by the discussion of making deployed Gals so all in one and adding turrets beyond their current armament.

[Brusi]

Originally Posted by EVILPIG

Galaxies don't need equipment terminals, as you will be able to spawn in as any class. If you want to have resupply or rearm available, make sure you have the Sunderer HQ set up as well. Same for the Lodestar. You can spawn a vehicle, but you will need a Sunderer to resupply ammo if you have no other source. They all have a function and a limitation that creates a dependency.

Or they could give buggies limited radar, and that could be the command module of a forward base?

[Malorn]

Originally Posted by EVILPIG

The primary things I think you misunderstand is that I am not trying to change the Galaxy. My point is that it does not need to become a super armored, self-reliant defensive structure.

Almost there...now can you point in the direction of the source that leads you to believe it is trending toward a super-armored, self-reliant defensive structure? It makes discussion a bit easier.

I didn't reference any other posts, because I am proposing that we expand on the current synergy.

Yet per the above you are also responding to a mysterious "discussion" that somehow trends it to being something different.

It was inspired by the discussion of making deployed Gals so all in one and adding turrets beyond their current armament.

Yes, THAT discussion! Providing context isn't so hard, now if you can just provide a link to that discussion that would be great.

[EVILPIG]

Originally Posted by Brusi

Or they could give buggies limited radar, and that could be the command module of a forward base?

The possibilities is endless.

[SniperSteve]

Original Post sounds a lot more interesting than just having one vehicle (galaxy) just be able to do everything needed.