Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[CrashToDesktop]

I really see no advantage to chooseing a defensive operation in campaign over an attacking operation.  Attacking gives more FP on original start and retreating a ship will still have a large chance of getting away.  Choosing defensive needs to have more perks to it.

Which is why I'm here. Anyways, if you choose defensive, you should be able to get more Command Points (because you organize it), but less FP to start (becuase you dedicated less time coordinating attacking stances), AND be able to remotely defend points.  By this, I'm talking about mines or deployable platforms.

Mines would deploy maybe around ~5 in a pattern just inside the capture ring of the point.  They would have an explosion similar to the Proximity Charge Mine, but it is hidden from enemy view until either extremely close or when it explodes.  Requires supplies to deploy, similar to repairing fighters.  Might click a controlled point just as one would click a ship, and then click "Mine Point" and the mines would appear.

Just to lore, mines are relatively simple, and can be jury-rigged to do the job.

Platforms might need skill points to unlock.  They are basicly a large platform with weapons mounted on it capable of warding off small attacks, mainly fighters and lightly armed frigates.  Might be armed with a small missile spot and a few small universals (in code, at least.  they'd use random weapons to build, mentioned later)  They also might require supples to build/call in and must be built before a battle begins.  To add a bit of jury-riggedness to it, they might use weapons in your inventory at random.  If you've got no weapons, then they might use a standard loadout of a few light MGs and maybe a swarmer.  Nothing too bad, but enough to make a commander reconsider.

Also, these platforms can be targetted by bombers (but have a respectable amount of armor), so they aren't as powerful as to be OP.


And as a final note, the defensive mines and platforms might only be able to deploy when the enemy is far enough away, maybe around 200 in-game units away or so.

Comments?

[PCCL]

should be in the suggestions board

I agree with the points though

[CrashToDesktop]

Yea....hmm.  Thought I was in suggestions when I posted this.

[Gothars]

You are right with the assessment that defense doesn't do enough, I never choose it. It's a major disadvantage that escaping flees can't be stopped and the few extra FP are not worth it (or rather, not worth thinking about if it's worth it. I battle I can win with defense I will also win with attack). (The same applies to escape.)

I don't think that installations are the way to fix it, though. It doesn't make sense that one site suddenly gets new battlefield abilities by positioning their ships different. I think fleet goals should always be reflected in organization and the ability to enter and leave the battlefield.

Spontaneously I'd suggest that a defending party might start with one or two objectives already captured and ships deployed beside them (if the other party attacks).  I'd say the defending fleet is holding it's position (the text says so) and I see no reason while they would not capture the local nav buoys while they wait for the attackers to reach them.

[CrashToDesktop]

Defending means you spend more time forging a tough defense instead of a powerful attack.  You spend mor time coordinating your ships, while in an attack you simply throw your ships at the enemy.

[Aleskander]

It means you simply wait for the enemy, and just that. The only reason SF has ships jump in is for balance, as far as I know. It would make sense for you to be able to immediately deploy your whole fleet, but as previously stated, balance.

[Histidine]

The Defend option just means "defensive", i.e. hold position or cautious approach. (To illustrate this, consider what happens when both fleets select Defend.) Perhaps the options should be renamed?

Spontaneously I'd suggest that a defending party might start with one or two objectives already captured and ships deployed beside them (if the other party attacks).  I'd say the defending fleet is holding it's position (the text says so) and I see no reason while they would not capture the local nav buoys while they wait for the attackers to reach them.

I'm in favor of moving the buoys closer to the defender's side of the map. Giving buoys to them outright would probably be a bit excessive though - 25% bonuses/+30 FP off the bat is pretty excessive IMHO. (Of course, I think that buoy effects in general are a bit too high...)

[arcibalde]

I agree with Histidine  and Aleskander. Defend is just that: sit and wait. So as Aleskander sad it would be logical to deploy max FP worth of ships (100 right?) but that would be, unbalanced. Then maybe combine those two suggestion. More FP then it gives now and all objectives are closer to defenders. Or maybe 2/3 objectivs closer to defenders and 1/3 in "normal" position?

[Gothars]

Why move the objectives, the first wave of defenders could just spawn on the height of the objectives.

Btw, Alex has just acknowledged that the fleet goals need some love:

Now, I'm not saying the current system is perfect. In particular, I'd like to take another look at how attack/defend/escape works.

[CrashToDesktop]

Spawning on an objective might give the defenders and advantage on offense as well, being just as close to one objective as the enemy would.

[PCCL]

maybe defend/defend will result in no battle as well