Static Units: Discuss!

[DeuZerre]

Or if both sides want to secure the same global area, if, for example, one sides control of that area was detrimental to the other, then both sides would, presumably, fight for that objective.
Or simply the goal of one of the forces is to secure an area, while the other just wants to destroy the first one.
And that's just theory anyway, we haven't seen any modern wars with roughly (In the broad sense) equal armies facing each other with technology.


I'll admit repairing, refuelling, rearming are not realistic at all, but nor do vehicles have hit points. They have structural damage and maybe should become less and less effective as components are blown off the hull, and highly damaged ones should be extracted from the battlefield for a refund, things like that... This bit has been abstracted to give importance to logistics.

But what would minefields, tank traps and barbed wired do? They'd slow down the game quite a bit and don't bring good gameplay reasons (except as has been pointed out in a siege mode).

I mean, look at Company of heroes: You build bunkers and things like that really fast, but for the game, it's needed since otherwise there would be no way to hold the opponent. In W:EE (and probably W:AB), terrain offers a lot of defensive opportunities. Adding some other defensive features would break the game.

Due to the scale of the game, there has to be an amount of abstraction going on. Would you really want your HEMMT to carry fuel only?

[chema1994]

Maybe capturable SAM sites (HAWK, S-200) or bunkers in some maps

[loosebruce]

I was just thinking to a more recent example in Gulf War 1 (Operation Desert Storm) . The Iraqis had guidance from the CIA during the Iran- Iraq war to construct lots of bunkers and underground military installations.

When it came to the USA and coalition forces invading Iraq these bunkers had to be taken out before advancing as they could cause troops, weapons to pop out behind enemy lines.

In wargame I guess this could be the same, for example in a town there is a bunker that has been captured and is garrisoned by some infantry. If you bypassed it those infantry could potentially hit you in the rear , so its probably better to call in a bunker buster air strike (ties in with the air units in the game) and deal with it now rather than later.



In terms of Radars , HQ / Comm centers, etc. I was thinking these could be more of a secondary objective in the game. For me at the moment I consider FOBs as secondary objectives in multiplayer.
I like to recon them and kill them as they stop arty spammers etc.

Comm centres could maybe increase deployment points rate, and if the enemy destroys them then the income rate is reduced.

---

I like how the discussion is progressing.

Keep the ideas up people!

[REDDQ]

Well... constructions wouldn't be alone in costs... first engineering units, second supplies and building alone. But something more than a wooden shack take a lot of time to build.

And I don't think devs would like to make W:ALB just another RTS with building stuff... practically clone of COH.

[loosebruce]

Well... constructions wouldn't be alone in costs... first engineering units, second supplies and building alone. But something more than a wooden shack take a lot of time to build.

And I don't think devs would like to make W:ALB just another RTS with building stuff... practically clone of COH.

Yes but there would be no construction as all statics would be placeable during "Deployment" phase only. No construction or placement during the battle.

Keelah se'lai

[Major Snails]

I think stationary units are a very good idea, maybe with the option to be carried away by transports too.

btw: everybody who talks about realism and stuff like that should think about the fact, that the arcade elements of this game, like live repair while fighting, reinforcing infantry from supply trucks, fuel capacity and stuff like that are very unrealistic but still add to the fun of the game.

So I think fortifications, bridge layers, mine fields, stationary artillery and other systems would add to the game too.

[DeuZerre]

I think stationary units are a very good idea, maybe with the option to be carried away by transports too.

btw: everybody who talks about realism and stuff like that should think about the fact, that the arcade elements of this game, like live repair while fighting, reinforcing infantry from supply trucks, fuel capacity and stuff like that are very unrealistic but still add to the fun of the game.

So I think fortifications, bridge layers, mine fields, stationary artillery and other systems would add to the game too.

The question is: Would they add fun or would they add an even more static approach to the game, with every attack preceded by artillery to clear the defences?

[REDDQ]

Yes but there would be no construction as all statics would be placeable during "Deployment" phase only. No construction or placement during the battle.

Well... it is an idea... but would you like have the team working on something which will be deployed only at the beginning of the game and hardly used like 80-95% of a game?

Keelah se'lai

[DiabloTigerSix]

You guys dont like 1337 turretz deployed in 1 second by 1337 Shinukz like this?

[jihad_joe]

an ability to resupply FOBs would be good for longer games. or an option to have that abillity at the lobby screen in case of haters.