Squad Leader Archive
Thread: Squad Leader Fortifications Version 2.0
gando
Tue May 11, 2004 4:17 am
#53
It has been stated already that the sl group modifiers are UNAFFECTED by the skill cap
gando
Tue May 11, 2004 4:30 am
#54
(sigh) here we go again. Ok here's a question
Would the group have to stay within the structure to get the bonuses?
If so it will just become battlefield scenery because that is HIGHLY impractical, people are not going to abandon their ideal range bonuses. plus I've NEVER been in a fight where the group stands in a tight formation to fight...IMPRACTICAL.
If not...what's the point, passive bonuses and improved sl abilities can serve the same purpose.
I'm with DiLune on this one...Keep us mobile. I give you credit for your dogged determination omegusneo, but I think deep down this is just something "cool" to show off for friends, and that's about it. So I would vote NO
gando
Tue May 11, 2004 4:39 am
#55
as far as pvp goes...I'm not going to ask my unit to stay in a position where the cm's can poison us all in one shot, or the commando's and carbineers can barbeque us all in one clean shot. I don't give my friends to the enemy giftwrapped.lol
gando
Fri May 14, 2004 4:13 am
#56
I know it may seem hipocrytical of me to say these things now. but after much thought, I have come to the conclusion that fortifications are a bad idea. Don't know how my old comments from another thread ended up on this one.
Message Edited by gando on 05-14-2004 04:13 AM
Dameos
Wed Jul 28, 2004 5:07 am
#57
I have multiple toons on multiple galaxies and one of them is a ranger, I also have a SL, the foritifications idea is great, here is a couple suggestions...
#1: Make foritifcations used inside city limits only... both player and static... this will limit the possibility of it being used for mass exp gain on outter world planets and SL's becomming the "Powerleveler" and it will make it usable for PvP sounds great for both PvP and roleplay in my opinion...
#2: Require the foritifcation to be an "Add-On" of the ranger / scout camps. This will promote both classes to work together and it will give a viable "crafting" resolution the SL makes the Sand-bags / metal walls / towers and the ranger / scout creates the base camp in which the "fort" is built... perhaps something like they did for the chef and tailor with BE items... and scale the limit of which Forts can be added to which camps... Master Ranger gets the Advanced Field BASE Camp to which this could have ALL the SL add-ons. If this is done then it could be used in outdoors. The only problem i see is then you will have the "Power Level" ability where the ranged fighters will then get a ranger and SL in the group to goto Dathomir and sit outside the NS fort and hunt until they are masters... heh..
#3:If using the Add-On theory you will then bring the ranger and SL together... to work together like a true Army would you have your scouts / survivalists (Scouts / Rangers), and you have your seargents/ lieutenants / generals (SL's) it would be possible for one person to master both classes... i believe so anyhow... so yes you coudl have a ranger / SL but that person wouldnt have much if any combat ability...
#4: If you use the Inner city only idea you then have the forts being used as defenses for cities that are under constant attack as mentioned above Bestine, Theed, Moenia used to be... Anchorhead... so on so forth... perhaps make them like a vehicle or something limitied people per fort... IE: Sand-Bag Wall woudl only allow 4 people to hide behind it...
Just the 2 creds worth from a guy who plays both and sees problem in both... but is relatively unheard...
TheRealS
Sun Aug 08, 2004 4:48 pm
#58
Im not usually one to post much, but hopefully, I will change that. I have a mildly applicable idea I think, that may help brainstorm or somesuch. If I am stepping over anyone else's toes idea wise, please forgive me.
SL to me has been just a title, but you look at the other titles in it, Commisar, Field Commander, Tactician..... What if SL werent in the thick of it with their group? But rather, commanding from a command post of some type. I figure thefortification can be a foward command tent or somesuch. From here, A SL can join into some kind of interface to see where his people are going, kind of like an overhead camera. I think it might add another level of tactics, such as flanking, surprise, and the like. He can also use his skills from here, but only within a certain radius of the tent do they work, so to avoid people traveling all over the planet with mods. Moreover, not to completely piss off rangers, rangers can build for a type of camouflage netting around it, so that enemies cannot find it on the map as usual, you know, with tab targeting. They have to specifically track and find it. And, to draw rangers more into Pvp, a ranger will have the best abilities to track and find this camp, so that it can be taken out, and thus, the advantage that the SL's group has.
What do you all think? I always thought this way to be a great way in which to expand SL's, and better involve rangers as well.
Defender_of_reality
Wed Aug 11, 2004 4:25 pm
#59
Now iam getting SL, i have more than half of skills. Squad Leader is LEADER OF SQUAD. NOT ENGINEER. If u want something like Combat Engineer, call for new profession. But SL is LEADER OF SQUAD. If u want Rangers to be something like Combat Engineer, ok, not my problem. Give them ability to make fortifications. Best of those fortifications will have command ability - some terminal which can be used by Squad Leader and he will be able to command his troops from that terminal.Or take that fortifications to Architect and give SL ability to use deed of that fortification - only SL will be able to use it. But dont morph SL to some type of craft profession ! If u do COmbat Engineerwill be new profession and SL will be out of the game! Like in real world - Squad Leader is leading his troops, not building fortifications! Thats job for engineers! Or for Rangers if u want....
Squad Leader is LEADER OF SQUAD.
Combat Engineer is building fortifications.
Thats different.
SL is some type of soldier with command, not some craft !
Repair SLs abilities, take out some useless. Add fortifications for Ranger profession. Terminals in those frotifications for Squad Leaders. And were OK.
PanzerGR
Fri Aug 13, 2004 5:23 pm
#60
Defender_of_reality wrote:
Now iam getting SL, i have more than half of skills. Squad Leader is LEADER OF SQUAD. NOT ENGINEER. If u want something like Combat Engineer, call for new profession. But SL is LEADER OF SQUAD. If u want Rangers to be something like Combat Engineer, ok, not my problem. Give them ability to make fortifications. Best of those fortifications will have command ability - some terminal which can be used by Squad Leader and he will be able to command his troops from that terminal.Or take that fortifications to Architect and give SL ability to use deed of that fortification - only SL will be able to use it. But dont morph SL to some type of craft profession ! If u do COmbat Engineerwill be new profession and SL will be out of the game! Like in real world - Squad Leader is leading his troops, not building fortifications! Thats job for engineers! Or for Rangers if u want....
Squad Leader is LEADER OF SQUAD.
Combat Engineer is building fortifications.
Thats different.
SL is some type of soldier with command, not some craft !
Repair SLs abilities, take out some useless. Add fortifications for Ranger profession. Terminals in those frotifications for Squad Leaders. And were OK.
you cant very well give soemthing along the lines of portable group-enhancing abilities liek this to anyone but a squad leader......or an SL working in unison with a ranger or perhaps a commando (the e-web is one such idea)
i guess im just annoyed that all the n00b SL's who have no inkling of what its been liek to be a squad leader since launch coem in here and start commenting on all the ideas all of us old SL's have compiled and rather liked for quite a while.
Therascalking3
Wed Aug 18, 2004 12:09 am
#61
Finally someone who understands..........well you and irott
PanzerGR wrote:
you cant very well give soemthing along the lines of portable group-enhancing abilities liek this to anyone but a squad leader......or an SL working in unison with a ranger or perhaps a commando (the e-web is one such idea)
i guess im just annoyed that all the n00b SL's who have no inkling of what its been liek to be a squad leader since launch coem in here and start commenting on all the ideas all of us old SL's have compiled and rather liked for quite a while.
Strudle
Wed Aug 18, 2004 12:13 am
#62
Defender_of_reality wrote:
Now iam getting SL, i have more than half of skills. Squad Leader is LEADER OF SQUAD. NOT ENGINEER. If u want something like Combat Engineer, call for new profession. But SL is LEADER OF SQUAD. If u want Rangers to be something like Combat Engineer, ok, not my problem. Give them ability to make fortifications. Best of those fortifications will have command ability - some terminal which can be used by Squad Leader and he will be able to command his troops from that terminal.Or take that fortifications to Architect and give SL ability to use deed of that fortification - only SL will be able to use it. But dont morph SL to some type of craft profession ! If u do COmbat Engineerwill be new profession and SL will be out of the game! Like in real world - Squad Leader is leading his troops, not building fortifications! Thats job for engineers! Or for Rangers if u want....
Squad Leader is LEADER OF SQUAD.
Combat Engineer is building fortifications.
Thats different.
SL is some type of soldier with command, not some craft !
Repair SLs abilities, take out some useless. Add fortifications for Ranger profession. Terminals in those frotifications for Squad Leaders. And were OK.
agreed, im not even interested in a hybrid. This war is a mobile one similar to the one today. There are semi-permenant strongholds which we fight over, the rest is a highly mobile style of fighting, that will not change.
Therascalking3
Wed Aug 18, 2004 12:26 am
#63
irott said it perfectly when he said that the forts are not permanent cant be moved structures and that they provide a way for the defenders not to always be able to wipe out the attackers because they have somewhere to recooperate. We are talking huge stationary structures. These and small areas we we can take cover or recoop and continue moving. They drop quick, can be destroyed by enemies, and are not monstrously big. This type of idea can prolong battles to more than a quick skirmish and into real struggles. It also add a whole new dimension of tactics and strategy to PvP and the SL profession. If two of our branches are labeled tactics and strategy why is it that none of that is really used by the squad leader profession. At least no more than any other profession has to think about what is going on. Stop being so stubborn. I at first rejected the forts idea until somone explained it to me like this.
ImpAceaz
Sun Aug 22, 2004 6:34 am
#64
Well, I love this idea, but here is my take on it:
I do think a combat engineer profession should be in order, but I think we could use Rangers as such...so here is what I suggest:
- Upon becoming a Novice Ranger, you get an entrenchment spade, a stack of sandbags and barbed wire, and the ability to make a simple foxhole for yourself(It's a hole in the ground for one person). As you progress upwards, you will get the ability to build camps with simple fortifications, like barbed wire surrounding it that would give you small defensive bonuses, and they would allow you to keep creatures out with more ease...
- A Squad Leader should receive a comlink upon acquiring Novice Squad Leader, and this would be how he can send group messages, etc...But, with the commlink as he progress up the skill tree he can issue commands to build progressive levels of fortifications, starting with a sandbag wall, then a trench, then a fortified trench with barbed wire and eventually pillboxes and bunkers, BUT to build this he would have to have at least one Ranger in his group within 64 meters of him. The fortifications would take awhile to build, but the more Rangers in your group the faster it builds. The more advanced, the more time they takeas well. But when I say it should take time, I mean from 5-15 minutes at least. They should only be buildable if the Ranger isn't in combat at that moment as well. This is so you can't just plop down a fortification in the middle of a raid. Fortifications would also be a permanent structure that could be destroyed by the enemy, and if the enemy manages toget to one, they can use it as well.
- Fortifications should decrease the chances for the enemy to hit from, not do damage mitigation or decrease the damage done. Like a sandbag should be -30% to hit, and it gets lower as the fortification gets better. Flamethrowers should not suffer a to hit penalty against players in fortifications (Flamethrowerswere designed to take out fortified positions), and they should get a bonus against fortifications as well.
My 2 cents 
ImpAceaz
Sun Aug 22, 2004 6:39 am
#65
*EDIT*
The last point should say, if You didn't understand what I was trying to say
- A player behind a fortification should be harder to hit, and not have added damage mitigation or whatever. By this I mean that if you are shooting at someone behind a fortification your chances of hitting them should be less. Like for a sandbag wall, it should be 30% less likely that you will actually score a hit on your target, and it gets higher with each more powerful fortification.