Potential Tactic - "Galaxy Cluster"

Grognard · 2012-01-27, 03:10 PM

... or as I like to call it; "Cluster F**K", depending on how it turns out...

First my train of thought;

1. Galaxies are big, with deployed status defenses.
2. Galaxies are spawn and repair "depots".
3. Galaxies will not bubble, so, are visible high value tactical targets anyway...
4. Forward "bases" will/may/should be required.
5. How do cowboys fight off indians in remote areas... circle wagons...

So, the idea I have is to bring 5 Galaxies, and face them ass to ass into a star/cluster formation to make something similar to a Star Fort design. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_fort ) The idea is to have interlocking fields of fire, a forward "base", and sustainability under duress.

A single Galaxy is going to be targeted mercilessly, and at some point is going down... then it will be necessary to relocate, reestablish, ect. However if a cluster of Galaxies forms up like a circled wagon train, when one goes down, another, or two, can be brought up with the benefit of the cluster still in place, hence sustainability...

With the new paradigm that we will have 1000+ soldiers, and even with the scarce information we presently have, I think this might be a good way to make a player generated push, since when the area is secured, the base (Cluster F**k... and it will be...) can "hop" forward.

More than likely I have missed something, so, where am I wrong, and/or flawed?

Edit: For the "Itll just be OSed dude" folks... this plays to my point, as the Galaxys would be seperated enough to avoid this, and it was mentioned by Higby and crew in the last video the OS's would be tuned. So this might be more resilient to OSing, as far as the whole cluster goes.

SteinB · 2012-01-27, 03:33 PM

While you have an interesting idea here I am hoping that skilled engineers will be able to deploy defenses robust enough to do the job of making single deployed galaxies defensible.

Grognard · 2012-01-27, 03:34 PM

Originally Posted by IDukeNukeml

The Galaxy will not act as a repair station, the Sunderer will. I like the idea of what you're proposing as a tactic, but you would need a sunderer and probably an engineer per bird to keep it at maximum health during it's assault. As for becoming a high value target, that cluster would become the primary objective above all objectives VERY very fast.

I knew I would have a flaw or two in there somewhere, so sunderers need to support the fort, good observation. As for the Cluster F... becoming a priority... well I sure hope so, sounds fun as hell

xXSpectreXx · 2012-01-27, 03:35 PM

5. How do cowboys fight off indians in remote areas... circle wagons...

Cowboys didn't have to worry about orbital strikes... lol

But seriously, grouping them too close together isn't the greatest idea when dealing with large area of effect attacks. They don't have to be right beside each other to provide a well defended fall back point. Just set a few within medium range of each other and overlapping lines of fire will do the trick.

General M · 2012-01-27, 03:35 PM

Won't it be a pretty tricky thing to organise with 5/6 expensive galaxies all being bought/deployed at the same time?

Grognard · 2012-01-27, 03:38 PM

Originally Posted by General M

Won't it be a pretty tricky thing to organise with 5/6 expensive galaxies all being bought/deployed at the same time?

I think with the resources being tuned to 1000+ players, 5 Galaxys shouldnt be too bad, given it creates a functional forward bridgehead. But I could be wrong...

Firefly · 2012-01-27, 03:40 PM

Originally Posted by xXSpectreXx

Cowboys didn't have to worry about orbital strikes... lol

We have no idea if this feature will be in the game.

Conq · 2012-01-27, 03:44 PM

Originally Posted by IDukeNukeml

The Galaxy will not act as a repair station, the Sunderer will.

Wat? So can two Sunderers repair each other?

xXSpectreXx · 2012-01-27, 03:44 PM

Originally Posted by Firefly

We have no idea if this feature will be in the game.

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.

Grognard · 2012-01-27, 03:45 PM

Originally Posted by SteinB

While you have an interesting idea here I am hoping that skilled engineers will be able to deploy defenses robust enough to do the job of making single deployed galaxies defensible.

Sure hope so, but since (LOL) "no plan survives contact with the enemy" including this one... Im trying to figure out a way to force a bridgehead, especially one that can bypass a bridge. Not that I dont love bridge fights!

'Cause with 1000+ players, things will get congested... and sunderers can only batter their way so much. This would be a mobile, reuseable, terrain independent (flight), sustainable forward base. Well, at least in my mind...

General M · 2012-01-27, 03:57 PM

Also, as a general strategic point, wouldn't it be better to launch multiple strikes into enemy territory (maybe over cloud cover) and to have them fight on many fronts?

I would leave the bridgehead attacks to a dozen or so sunderers.

Grognard · 2012-01-27, 04:05 PM

Originally Posted by General M

Also, as a general strategic point, wouldn't it be better to launch multiple strikes into enemy territory (maybe over cloud cover) and to have them fight on many fronts?

I would leave the bridgehead attacks to a dozen or so sunderers.

Yes, if that is the strategy. But honestly, that is beyond the scope of this particular proposal. I am thinking more along the lines of forward base, bridge flanking, proximity force projection (against a single base), concentrated dispersion, and rally points.

My idea is tactical only, though perhaps grand tactical, but certainly not strategery

Figment · 2012-01-27, 04:11 PM

Interference radius to avoid spawnpoint spam?

PS1 did that with AMSes... and those couldn't fire or camp.

Grognard · 2012-01-27, 04:15 PM

Originally Posted by Figment

Interference radius to avoid spawnpoint spam?

PS1 did that with AMSes... and those couldn't fire or camp.

Im sorry Fig, I dont mean to sound stupid, but I dont understand.

Captain1nsaneo · 2012-01-27, 04:19 PM

Originally Posted by Grognard

Im sorry Fig, I dont mean to sound stupid, but I dont understand.

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.