Thinking about Empire footholds?

NewSith · 2012-02-22, 05:57 PM

Did anyone else notice that "footholds" were never called "bases" in any official sources? I just noticed it and it leaves some room for speculation imo...

dsi · 2012-02-22, 05:59 PM

Might as well imagine castles, makes the same amount of sense.

Zulthus · 2012-02-22, 06:03 PM

Footholds are inside a restricted area to other empires, and they said that they're in the warpgates. So they're perfectly safe.

Canaris · 2012-02-22, 06:04 PM

Originally Posted by NewSith

Did anyone else notice that "footholds" were never called "bases" in any official sources? I just noticed it and it leaves some room for speculation imo...

The Higby already stated during some interview that the footholds are the warpgates, they will have buildings inside and around them and all the necessary terminals, capable of spawning most equipment needed for an invasion force. They're not bases but close enough.

NewSith · 2012-02-22, 06:04 PM

Originally Posted by dsi

Might as well imagine castles, makes the same amount of sense.

Why sarcasm? I mean If the warpgates are ES now, then it's actually no different from original, minus the neutral conts.

EDIT: I mean I think I just realised that people whining about these footholds whine about something that was always present in PS1...

Graywolves · 2012-02-22, 06:13 PM

I always imagined them to be like warpgates, maybe with the shield a little stretched our or larger.

Aurmanite · 2012-02-22, 06:16 PM

It would be cool if they had somewhat of am empire specific theme to them. They will need spawn tubes and vehicle terms and stuff. Hopefully they are a lil creative.

Duddy · 2012-02-22, 06:41 PM

Originally Posted by Graywolves

I always imagined them to be like warpgates, maybe with the shield a little stretched our or larger.

I feel confident that they will indeed be the warpgates.

Will be interesting to see whether they have empire stylised architecture or whether it will all be NS.

Metalsheep · 2012-02-22, 07:33 PM

Im curious to know how its supposed to work when they're inside the warpgates. How do you push out with the enemy just waiting right outside of the shield? The offensive cant go anywhere, but if the defenders leave, they can just start taking whatever they want.

I still don't like the ideas of uncaptureable footholds on any cont. I'm gonna miss Sanctuaries.

kklkit · 2012-02-22, 08:20 PM

People fail to see what undesirable impacts uncapturable footholds could have on strategical gameplay :

1. It will be no longer possible to capture the whole continent
2. Uncapturable footholds in wrapgates could only imply every Empire could reach EVERY continent at ANY given time. Choosing to attack whichever continent will have ZERO strategical meaning
3. Always threeway, no 1 on 1 empire battle as every empire can reach every continent

Warborn · 2012-02-22, 11:18 PM

Originally Posted by Metalsheep

Im curious to know how its supposed to work when they're inside the warpgates. How do you push out with the enemy just waiting right outside of the shield? The offensive cant go anywhere, but if the defenders leave, they can just start taking whatever they want.

Maybe the entire hex is sealed off from the enemy. Maybe along the perimeter of the shield there are very powerful turrets that can't be destroyed. Camping a very large area like that would be essentially impossible. Plus, unless two empires are camping the third empire, how would you camp a foothold plus keep the enemy from capturing all of your assets?

Originally Posted by kklkit

People fail to see what undesirable impacts uncapturable footholds could have on strategical gameplay :

1. It will be no longer possible to capture the whole continent
2. Uncapturable footholds in wrapgates could only imply every Empire could reach EVERY continent at ANY given time. Choosing to attack whichever continent will have ZERO strategical meaning
3. Always threeway, no 1 on 1 empire battle as every empire can reach every continent

1. We don't know that. It's perfectly reasonable that there could be temporary "win" conditions or something for each continent. I think them forsaking any kind of benefit for totally beating back the other sides would be a missed opportunity on their part.

2. It had very little meaning before apart from going where the enemy had low numbers so as to cap a bunch of stuff before they responded. Camping uncontested bases and towers wasn't so thrilling.

3. This is a more legitimare concern, BUT bear in mind that you will invariably have a mix on a given continent, just like in PS1. Some bases where you're fighting one side, some where you're fighting the other, and some where it's all three. It won't be some kind of fancy "strategic 1v1" where it's just two empires on the whole continent, but who knows how it'll work out, or whether that is even something that really matters.