OMnom wrote: ↑
I will be adding the "Smart" Attack move in response to the new merges.
Will this just make units attack units instead of buildings? Or will you actually incorporating a priority targeting list for each unit?
Unfortunately, the former. It's basically going to be my mini test that involved adding AutoTargetIgnore on all buildings except defensive buildings. I tried out using GrantConditionOnDeploy to simulate the stances, but I haven't gotten it to work as of yet.
Regarding the MCV price increase:
I'm not completely set on adding a $4000+ MCV to my next round of releases. Now that I've added more options to the game, the goal for me now is to make each option viable against each other. It's difficult to justify going tech first because going MCV first has an inherently lower risk and higher reward; the expensive MCV is just one of the ways I'm considering.
In addition, a problem this mod highlights is that a combined T1/T2/T3 blob is incredibly difficult to attack; it seems like the only option that is left is to counter-attack in a different location, away from the bulk of your opponent's army. Before, I thought this problem was because I didn't have enough money; now, it's becoming pretty clear that the full strength of any given faction is also stupidly strong at defending. At this point, I think most players are just not strong enough at late-game mechanics, but I think it's definitely worth exploring how to buff the attacking/strategically superior player.
I completley agree with buffing the attacking player. Vs top tier oppenants unless you have broke them and and are just abusing the cracks to finish the game then its not always good to be on the offensive even if you are trading evenly. I guess this where the power of the MCV comes in because crackinng even a mediocre defence without the mcv might cost you your army and the game. I dont see changing it to only let your troops shot things that are shooting back as that greatley nerfs the defenders advantage and would boost the power of blobs. My outlandish sugguestion is nerfing damage to armies that are moving forward in the sense of the perk in XCOM of Run and Gun and general dashing. Aswell nerfing artillery and V2 units as even a single nestled artillery will change a commanders mind. In most high tier games its always dynamic untill the artilleries are out and then its a static cat and mouse game with no one wanting to do the first move.
Happy wrote: ↑. My outlandish sugguestion is nerfing damage to armies that are moving forward in the sense of the perk in XCOM of Run and Gun and general dashing. .
I suggested something similar in game about removing infantry going prone and give them the ability to shoot while move like tanks can. The defenders advantage is that the moving attacking infantry have to move to the cell before shooting and when they are shot at also go prone increasing Thier time to get into cell to shoot. How many times have we seen a larger army get mauled against a stopped army. Something worth testing imo
"I love the smell of JuiceBoxes in the morning"
LT. COL. Bill Kilgore
Apocalypse Now
I was originally hoping that we could include this (on force-move) as part of the commandbar/targeting/etc changes for the next release, but we are really struggling to finish even the current restricted set of changes so it had to be cut.
anjew wrote: ↑Or will you actually incorporating a priority targeting list for each unit?
Unfortunately, the former. It's basically going to be my mini test that involved adding AutoTargetIgnore on all buildings except defensive buildings.
The next release includes support for target priorities through the yaml, but they will not be set up by default in RA. This will make it much easier for you to experiment in maps.
For me the defender advantage must be only the good positioning and/or the support of the static defence but in any case it should be the stupidity of the attacker shooting automaticaly at the wrong target while you can shoot it like a duck.
Imagine the following breifing
"Let's place couple of tent there, there and there, Why ? Because they can't stand the sight of a tent, they'll go berserk and empty their gun on it, while they do that, we might have a shot at them. In the same idea we maybe should build a ref during the attack for no reason, they are so dumb they could get scared and try to destroy it instead of shooting at us, and it's even better if we have someone to drive toward them in a civil ore truck, they hate those too, might give us more time. .... Oh yeah and if we have time we can place some pillboxes, sometime it helps too, but tents first !"
-Lt MrStrategic, in charge of perimetre defence-
I'd rather have to defend a front with some defence well placed, couple of jammer, and back artie, and work the positioning until i can see something that can hold the attacker for a reasonable price basing the fact they will ignore all non offenssive structure and strictly shoot the defenders, that would start to be a challenge or manage my game to avoid at all cost to have enemy in range of my base.
As for the combining T1/T2/T3, Ofc they are amazing togather, few unit well chosen, well mixed but more than everything well managed by placement, micro and timing can take over an army twice as big and with minimal losses. That's the only reason i have been trying to do some "tech-rush" build with both allies and soviet. Soviet have the IC "flak/apc" with V2 and infantry support and allies have tanya/jammer with armor and infantry wich allows a blob to be impenetrable from both infantry/vehicule. So far my success only depend on te skill on my opponents, means only the skill define the effectiveness of this build, means I need more training to be able to tackle better players than me. I can see every game i lose with that build by the replay that the mistake is my own, not to blame on the build and/or the opponent. Sometimes i can kill for 8000 to 10000 without significant loss and sometime when the jammer get berserk on it's own, the armors are camping behind the infantry, tanya for no reason stand few cell alone from the blob just to get sniped, i can lose everything without inflicting any damage. So ... yeah it's freaking hard.
In a game defending with only 2 pillboxes, a turret, a jammer(behind a peice of concrete), 5 rockets and 2 artie total : +-5000 defense, i killed for 10000 and forced my opponent to retreat and the pillboxes were frontline so no barrack to tank or anything, just good positioning/micro of the static/jammer/artie and few rocket soldier. (My army was elsewhere pushing and i was expeting this counterpush).
I think the behaviour can unlock more strategic potential than just "Hey dude where is the skill if your unit are smart, it's too easy !".
Defender's advantage is a very complicated thing to balance. In my view, the defender's advantage should not be permanently 60/40 in favor of the defender; the tables can start at 60/40, but both players should have multiple options to turn the odds in their favor. At the moment, the easiest way to flip the odds is by bringing along an MCV to basepush, thereby negating the defender's advantage completely. Adding more options helps provide other ways to beat these odds, but so far, it seems like there is no counter to the MCV other than the MCV itself. As a result, I feel like the depth of the game is limited to how quickly one can spend his money and how well can one guess where the army movements are going to occur, rather than how efficiently one can spend his money and plan a winning strategy.
At this point, from a purely YAML standpoint, I believe the most feasible way to address this is to create scoutable timing windows in each build. The meta MCV rush basically has no exploitable weakness; even though I know my opponent is going to go for an MCV first build 90% of the time, it's just not worth my time or my money to try and deny that MCV from getting where it wants to go. Increasing the movement speed of all other units, increasing the price per second of the MCV, and increasing the effectiveness of light vehicles are all possible solutions, but I have yet to decide what would be a smart way to go about this.
As for defeating late game blobs, I think something just has to be done about providing an alternative source of DPS...it's not that infantry is too good, it's that everything else is essentially a support unit for the infantry. Perhaps adjusting the LT/MT/HT/Mammoth damage values would be something worth considering here.
OMnom wrote: ↑create scoutable timing windows in each build.
This is an issue I hear quite often. And it's kinda true, I find it quite hard to scout in RA. I don't know if this is because its too hard to get scouting units out or because T1 units are too shit to invest in (at least allies).
WhoCares wrote: ↑
For me the defender advantage must be only the good positioning and/or the support of the static defence but in any case it should be the stupidity of the attacker shooting automaticaly at the wrong target while you can shoot it like a duck.
OMnom wrote: ↑Defender's advantage is a very complicated thing to balance...
At the moment, the easiest way to flip the odds is by bringing along an MCV to basepush
Defenders advantage traditionally refers to the fact that someone defending is next to their production facilities so they can reinforce faster.
MCV negating this is true. At least for the infantry (which is arguably the most important unit).
By defenders advantage ive seen it really only referred to A moving an army into a stationary army and because the attacking army cannot move and shoot therefore the still army will always have a DPS advantage. Standing next to Rax and pills is like the oppenant having extra tanks and also the production queues being right next to the defender. Im not suprised that people base push because attacking a passive player would be a nightmare.
Happy wrote: ↑By defenders advantage ive seen it really only referred to A moving an army into a stationary army and because the attacking army cannot move and shoot therefore the still army will always have a DPS advantage.
I understand this, I was being pedantic about the semantics since defenders advantage is already a concept in RTS games that has more to do with distant travelled.
