The Elephant in the room

Raising the issue of the problem with allied static defences

Discussion about the game and its default mods.

Is there a problem with Allied static defences?

Yes
18
64%
No
10
36%
 
Total votes: 28

User avatar
anjew
Posts: 529
Joined: Sat Nov 08, 2014 4:16 am

Post by anjew »

JOo wrote: since the problem here arent allies defense-structures being cheaper but allies being better at basewalking because of cheaper defense-structures

The (possible) solution(s)
  • Change the "Start-unit" (MCV) to a "Start-structure" being the Construction Conyard , add new lobby option to "lock" Construction-Conyards from getting undeployed once they are deployed
that would help massively against early baserushes

because increasing the price for allies defense structures wouldnt out of the sudden stop people from baserushing ...

instead of making allies and soviet "equally" good at baserushing ... we should make it harder to baserush overal
I think it's a bit more than basewalking. Most games I watch with good allies players ends up with countless defense structures littered across their base. even opting to place them right next to other.

Make them more expensive so if someone does want to spam defence structures it's at the expense of their army.
This would inadvertently nerf basewalking but not completely remove it. It is an iconic part of this game
Image

klaas
Posts: 208
Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2013 9:38 am

Post by klaas »

I agree with Anjew, the early basewalking is just one of the symptoms of cheap base defences.

I don't think "base rushing" is something bad. It takes skill (or teamwork) to pull off, and I've seen it fail pretty often too.

User avatar
JOo
Posts: 510
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2012 8:12 pm

Post by JOo »

klaas wrote: I don't think "base rushing" is something bad. It takes skill (or teamwork) to pull off, and I've seen it fail pretty often too.
base rushing takes skill ? you deploy a mcv ... plop down turrets and aim them ... where exactly is the "skill" part ?

this thread started exactly because of this issue, basewalking ... AMHOL talks about it in the first post

User avatar
Aaron_Lloyd
Posts: 46
Joined: Fri Nov 20, 2015 5:34 am

Post by Aaron_Lloyd »

AMHOL wrote:
Aaron_Lloyd wrote: Crazy idea, how about making pillboxes (and maybe turrets) crushable by Mammoth Tanks?
I don't think that fixes the problem as people hardly ever build mammoth tanks, and even with the speed buff and IC they're too slow to even make an impact crushing walls as you can't follow up with an army when there are a couple of artys behind or vs a good player that micros their base defences.
I completely agree that it's not a fix-all, just thought it might be a move in the right direction.

User avatar
JOo
Posts: 510
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2012 8:12 pm

Post by JOo »

FiveAces wrote: Static D is supposed to be placed in key locations, not spammed all over the place to turn half the map into a no-go area.
And i agree with this , the problem is ... when Soviets use their flamethrower-apcs (lets say 2 apcs filled with flamethrowers... or the grenadier-rush that tries to outplay you by sending in a bait - dog first

in those chases every second for the 2nd pillbox counts ... because your (most likely clever) enemy is most likely gonna avoid doing any of that stuff near your barrack ...

im not saying that pillboxes or turrets price and builtime is fine as it is ... but changing this (specially on pillboxes) ... can have hard effects on early rushes

an APC never cares on your "beforehand placed defense-structures" ... because your enemy is gonna avoid deploying troops in those areas ... so the best deal you can make against flamethrowers or grenadiers is to "hold" a box ... the crucial point here is , when you have to wait for the next pillbox ... because that is the time when youre potentially "delivered" to your enemys actions

so ... summa summarum ... changing price/buildtime of defense structures will put more weight on flamethrower and grenadier-rushes ...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
but hey ....
at the end , it doesnt really matter ... cause we could just all play soviet then :)

Image

Christian
Posts: 32
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2014 7:34 pm
Location: Planet Earth

Post by Christian »

Long ago pillboxes needed 2 shots to kill infantry but then there were complaints about flamers in APC rushes and even if you had a pillbox ready an MCV would just barely survive if you deployed the pillbox fast and aimed at the flamers.

Then pillboxes got a significant buff so they could kill infantry with one shot but the price stayed at $400. Increasing the price to $500 would be fair and they would still be $100 cheaper than flame towers - $400 is too cheap for what they can do.

At $400 a pillbox is a much better value than a flame tower at $600

User avatar
SoScared
Posts: 1116
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2012 6:16 pm
Location: Oslo
Contact:

Post by SoScared »

Great thread!!

Price increase seems like the most straighforward way to adress the issue. $500/$600 pillbox and $700 c.pillbox/turret looks intriguing and represents a significant nerf in build time (+25% / 50% pillbox, +16,7% c.pillbox/turret). In the case of a $600 pillbox + $700 c.pillbox, they both ought to share the same HP of 400 in order to retain the pillbox HP value vs c.pillbox stealth value.

Didn't realise the pillbox occupant gained veterancy over time. It surely adds to the issue but if there's an another efficient way to deal with the problem we might want to keep that cute little detail.
Aaron_Lloyd wrote: Crazy idea, how about making pillboxes (and maybe turrets) crushable by Mammoth Tanks?
Why not? Crushable pillboxes sounds like great fun.
Last edited by SoScared on Thu Oct 27, 2016 2:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
JOo
Posts: 510
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2012 8:12 pm

Post by JOo »

christian wrote: Then pillboxes got a significant buff so they could kill infantry with one shot but the price stayed at $400. Increasing the price to $500 would be fair and they would still be $100 cheaper than flame towers - $400 is too cheap for what they can do.

At $400 a pillbox is a much better value than a flame tower at $600
a flame tower for $600 can wipe out a whole cell with infantry (thats 5) ... with their 2-shots ...

allies dont have any "rush-units" like flamethrowers and grenadiers that soviets have to defend against ...

AMHOL
Posts: 79
Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2016 7:24 pm

Post by AMHOL »

JOo wrote:
FiveAces wrote: Static D is supposed to be placed in key locations, not spammed all over the place to turn half the map into a no-go area.
And i agree with this , the problem is ... when Soviets use their flamethrower-apcs (lets say 2 apcs filled with flamethrowers... or the grenadier-rush that tries to outplay you by sending in a bait - dog first

in those chases every second for the 2nd pillbox counts ... because your (most likely clever) enemy is most likely gonna avoid doing any of that stuff near your barrack ...

im not saying that pillboxes or turrets price and builtime is fine as it is ... but changing this (specially on pillboxes) ... can have hard effects on early rushes

an APC never cares on your "beforehand placed defense-structures" ... because your enemy is gonna avoid deploying troops in those areas ... so the best deal you can make against flamethrowers or grenadiers is to "hold" a box ... the crucial point here is , when you have to wait for the next pillbox ... because that is the time when youre potentially "delivered" to your enemys actions

so ... summa summarum ... changing price/buildtime of defense structures will put more weight on flamethrower and grenadier-rushes ...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
but hey ....
at the end , it doesnt really matter ... cause we could just all play soviet then :)

Image
Yeah we discussed the APC rush strategy too, Christian mentioned that it was the reason pillboxes were buffed in the first place, don't forget a flamer APC rush costs $2350, the fact that you can counter it with a $400 pillbox is already ridiculous IMO, having said that, if this were to become a blocker for Allied defence structure nerf, I wouldn't be opposed to also nerfing flame infantry.

User avatar
FiveAces
Posts: 516
Joined: Sat Apr 25, 2015 11:22 pm
Location: Vienna
Contact:

Post by FiveAces »

And i agree with this , the problem is ... when Soviets use their flamethrower-apcs (lets say 2 apcs filled with flamethrowers... or the grenadier-rush that tries to outplay you by sending in a bait - dog first
Granted, but that's why you hold off on placing your pillbox until you know what type of cargo the APC is holding.
If they unload a dog, you can safely assume it's a bait and hold on to your pillbox.

If you place your defensive structure prematurely and the opponent gets to your mcv with 5 flamers anyway,
it does not matter whether the pillbox build time is 10 or 15 seconds, as they take roughly 8 sec to kill a con yard.
At that point, your best bet is to unpack and relocate, as flamers can't hit moving targets.
I've come back from this situation countless times, don't think it's a big deal.

User avatar
JOo
Posts: 510
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2012 8:12 pm

Post by JOo »

the dog bait is different...

you build a dog and 5 grenadiers ... then let them move together to the enemies base ... then you place the dog infront of his barrack ... which will make your enemy let deploy the box he is holding (what else should he do at that point he only sees the dog) ... - i know he could have had some rifles holding position in his base ... but lets say he used them to scout the area ... because thats what almost everyone is doing in 1v1s

thats the point when you flank with your grenadiers ... not the conyard , but the refinerys (and thats the point when he need a 2nd pillbox asap)

and beside, those 2 seconds are still better then 7 seconds

.. if i can catch only 1 or 2 of them meanwhile ... lets say with an almost empty hind or a rifle ... that is a big difference

i also come from those situations countless times , you know that .. and you dont need to tell me that i have to hold my box till i know whats coming out ... i was talking about 2 apcs ... and this particular grenadier rush

it would even work with just 1 apc .. you fill it with flamethrowers ... then block your enemies refinery until he deploys his defense-structure .... and he will deploy it ... or else he cant get any money ...

bingo ... 15 seconds of flamethrower action ... instead of 10

changing the buildtime , will make a difference for such rushes ... 100% ...

User avatar
FiveAces
Posts: 516
Joined: Sat Apr 25, 2015 11:22 pm
Location: Vienna
Contact:

Post by FiveAces »

Ah, that's what you are talking about. If a dog is camping your barracks,
you can safely ignore it until your first vehicle is out, saving your pillbox for a real threat.

Now the refinery block with a fully loaded APC is a different story altogether, but in this case your opponent has spent $2450 on a very risky move,
and you are bound to having allocated those 2450 elsewhere.
Now if you still have some cash left over, just produce a rocket soldier to force him to undeploy, then pop the pillbox.
If you have rushed a radar or something, then yea, you are toast. Also, any amount of refineries > 1 prevents this.

What I'm getting at is that there are many counters readily available,
unless you went for a build that is straight up gamelosing versus a rush of any sorts.

Frame_Limiter
Posts: 22
Joined: Tue Feb 16, 2016 4:55 pm

Post by Frame_Limiter »

I'm in favor of both the static build speeds for defense structures and increasing the price of the pillboxes. Also the ranking system is based around the value of the unit inside and not the structure itself so pillboxes get ranked ridiculously fast.

Price:
Right now you can plop down a $400 pillbox to shoot a dog and then sell it and you only lose $60. ($200 refund + the $100 soldier inside[+$20 rank] + the $20 bounty)

Value:
It makes no sense that the pillbox is so much cheaper than the flame tower when it's so much better, you can't even tank for your infantry vs pillboxes as they are ridiculously easy to micro (click 1 pillbox and hit "w" to select them all, then spam click all the infantry). Four pillboxes cost about as much as 1 tesla coil once you consider the power requirements.

Build times:
Since the MCV builds faster than the war factory (32 seconds vs 48 seconds) spamming MCV's for fast defenses + map control is too viable. Defense structures are stronger than vehicles for the price, can be built faster, and can be sold at any time.


----
Some info on build speeds & the ranking system:

The build time reduction scale for all production facilities including the MCV is: 100,85,75,65,60,55,50.
So with just 2 additional MCV's you can build pillboxes in 7.5 seconds and turrets in 11.25 seconds.


The ranking system:
x2 value = 1st rank (rifle/pillbox needs to kill 1 dog[$200])
x4 value = 2nd rank (rifle/pillbox needs to kill 1 more dog[$400])
x8 value = 3rd rank (rifle/pillbox needs to kill 2 more dogs[$800])
x16 value = 4th rank (rifle/pillbox needs to kill 4 more dogs[$1600])

Value of ranked units:
First rank = +20% (e.g. rifleman is worth $120)
Second rank = +150% (e.g. rifleman is worth $250)
Third rank = +270% (e.g. rifleman is worth $370)
Fourth rank = +400% (e.g. rifleman is worth $500)

Upgrades granted for each additional rank:
Damage recieved: 95, 90, 85, 75
Weapon Firepower: 105, 110, 120, 130
Unit Speed: 105, 110, 120, 140
Reload delay: 95, 90, 85, 75
Innaccuracy: 90, 80, 70, 50
*Self Heal for 4th rank.

Christian
Posts: 32
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2014 7:34 pm
Location: Planet Earth

Post by Christian »

JOo wrote: a flame tower for $600 can wipe out a whole cell with infantry (thats 5) ... with their 2-shots ...

allies dont have any "rush-units" like flamethrowers and grenadiers that soviets have to defend against ...
^ They certaintly can't do that if the infantry is moving since their fireballs are pretty darn slow.

Pillboxes are much better against moving targets since they never miss a target and they got longer range, faster ROF, lower power requirements and units inside them gain veterancy. On top of that they are also $200 cheaper.

Flame towers main advantage is that they are better against heavy armor and buildings but that doesn't really make up for it.

Also...a soviet player needs to defend against those rushes as well when playing against another soviet player.
Last edited by Christian on Fri Oct 28, 2016 11:52 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
AoAGeneral1
Posts: 597
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2015 6:11 pm

Post by AoAGeneral1 »

TD Guard tower takes 24 seconds to build at 600$ pricing. power of 10. It fires only one volley:

Guard tower:

Reload Delay: 25
Spread: 683
Damage: 30

Versus armor types:

None: 100
Wood: 50
Light: 70
Heavy: 30

RA Pillbox takes 10 seconds to build at price 400$. C.Pillbox takes 15 seconds at 600$. Both at a power of 15. They both fire six volleys:

Reload Delay: 30
Spread: 128
Damage: 10 (60 after volley)

Versus armor types:

None: 200
Wood: 50
Light: 60
Heavy: 25
Concrete: 25 (I didn't know they did concrete damage.)

With them firing volleys in six shots it reduces the damage over all to armor vehicles in compared to a straight 60 damage.

10 damage of 25 heavy = 12 damage.

60 damage of 25 heavy = 15 damage. (Unless my math sucks which is known to happen.)

They do not switch targets after a unit dies however. (IE: After 3 shots kill an infantry the other 3 are shot at the ground. Then targest a new target for the full 6 shots)

Best fix is to raise the build time. I would test that and leave the price alone. Many times you can kill a pillbox box but in general circumstances you have 5-6 seconds of free killing time before another pops up.

Post Reply