Squad Leader Archive
Thread: Artillery Deployment
Rikilii wrote:
One of the great ideas floating around for the SL Revamp is the idea of calling in artillery strikes.
Instead of just having these attacks "come out of nowhere," however,why notgive theSL the ability to deployone or moreartilleryemplacements somewhere in the world within a certain range of the desired target (e.g. 500m). Deploying the artillery emplacement could be like placing a house or a faction base, and it might even have a small complement of NPCs to "operate" and guard it. Of course, it would be destroyable, just like a turret. The SL would still have to select a target from within visual range to operate it, so he couldn't necessarily babysit it (unless of course he wants to deploy it withing visual range of the enemy).
Implementing the skill in this manner could open up a whole new element to combat, where forces could send out squads on search and destroy missions to find enemy artillery emplacements, while the rest of their comrades defend their base, etc.
The answer is simple: average artillery bombardement distance: 12km. Since the whole worlds are just 16km across it would be dooubtfull to establish such a position in a plausible and believable way.
Artillery are not just big guns!
In addition to that artillery in SWG will most likely consist of orbiztal bombardements)
Dogg
P.S.: We do not want pets, if we cant havethe rest. Have a look at the Smuggler revamp and then give me a reasonable guess of how many points of our wishlist we will get...
InquisitorPayne wrote:
Rikilii wrote:
One of the great ideas floating around for the SL Revamp is the idea of calling in artillery strikes.
Instead of just having these attacks "come out of nowhere," however,why notgive theSL the ability to deployone or moreartilleryemplacements somewhere in the world within a certain range of the desired target (e.g. 500m). Deploying the artillery emplacement could be like placing a house or a faction base, and it might even have a small complement of NPCs to "operate" and guard it. Of course, it would be destroyable, just like a turret. The SL would still have to select a target from within visual range to operate it, so he couldn't necessarily babysit it (unless of course he wants to deploy it withing visual range of the enemy).
Implementing the skill in this manner could open up a whole new element to combat, where forces could send out squads on search and destroy missions to find enemy artillery emplacements, while the rest of their comrades defend their base, etc.
The answer is simple: average artillery bombardement distance: 12km. Since the whole worlds are just 16km across it would be dooubtfull to establish such a position in a plausible and believable way.
Artillery are not just big guns!
In addition to that artillery in SWG will most likely consist of orbiztal bombardements)
Dogg
P.S.: We do not want pets, if we cant havethe rest. Have a look at the Smuggler revamp and then give me a reasonable guess of how many points of our wishlist we will get...
Yes, and the average sniper can hit targets from over a kilometer, and the average rifleman can hit targets at 300m. Obviously the ranges in this game are not "realistic." And when did you ever see orbital bombardment in any of the movies? If that was a favored tactic, why would you ever have seen artillery guns on the ground? Why didn't the empire just use orbital bombardment to obliterate the rebel base on Hoth?
The whole point of this idea is to add a level of depth to something SLs want anyway.
"The rebel base is surrounded by an energy shield sir, it is strong enough to deflect any bombardment"
"Very well. General Veers, prepare your men for a ground assault"
GadonThek wrote:
"Why didn't the empire just use orbital bombardment to obliterate the rebel base on Hoth?"
"The rebel base is surrounded by an energy shield sir, it is strong enough to deflect any bombardment"
"Very well. General Veers, prepare your men for a ground assault"
Well, that was obviously a plot choice, just like having artillery instead of orbital bombardment would be a gameplay choice. Besides, who has star destroyers following them around all the time, and who's going to perform this orbital bombardment for neutral SLs?
InquisitorPayne wrote:
Rikilii wrote:
Because it had a Shield Generator Protecting it rom orbital Fire.
Why do you think the Commandoer of the AT-AT said "Aim for the power generators!"?
Also, go read the EU. Orbital Bombardements were quite common as a military tctic in SW. The most devastating of them: Alderaan.
Was there ever an instance of "orbital bombardment" in the EU materials, in this time period,that involved non-Imperial ships? How could the Rebels perform a bombardment with no ships in orbit? How could neutrals? What you're proposing is something that should and would be limited to one faction.
It adds no depth, other than for roleplaying purposes. I see no reason to sacrifice effectiveness for people who do not have enough friends to roleplay their squad and need to rely on NPCs.
Dogg
Do you even read what I post before you shoot it down? What does this idea have to do with NPCs or Roleplaying? The only significant difference between this idea and the "orbital bombardment" concept is that it requires you to deploy a structure within a certain range of your desired target.What does that have to do with roleplaying or relying on NPCs?
It most certainly would add a level of depth, because it would give your opponents an additionalobjective otherthan spamming specials at you and your group. In addition to fighting you, they would want to deploy people to search the area for your artillery and destroy it.
Rikilii wrote:
Yes, and the average sniper can hit targets from over a kilometer, and the average rifleman can hit targets at 300m. Obviously the ranges in this game are not "realistic." And when did you ever see orbital bombardment in any of the movies? If that was a favored tactic, why would you ever have seen artillery guns on the ground? Why didn't the empire just use orbital bombardment to obliterate the rebel base on Hoth?
Because it had a Shield Generator Protecting it rom orbital Fire.
Why do you think the Commandoer of the AT-AT said "Aim for the power generators!"?
Also, go read the EU. Orbital Bombardements were quite common as a military tctic in SW. The most devastating of them: Alderaan.
The whole point of this idea is to add a level of depth to something SLs want anyway.
It adds no depth, other than for roleplaying purposes. I see no reason to sacrifice effectiveness for people who do not have enough friends to roleplay their squad and need to rely on NPCs.
Dogg
Back to the original thought, though, I think that artillary would be good. I dont know about 500m away though. That's beyond the limits of the SWG Engine I think. Stuff doesn't render much beyond 200m, so at 500m you'ld be raining invisible death upon an enemy you can't see? not to mention you'ld almost certainly be crossing a zone boundary when you did it. 100m would be fine for me.
Limit it with a 10s firing delay (5 seconds to load, 5 seconds air-travel-time), with pre-targeting (meaning you pick your target at the beginning of the 10s, and it hits at the end.. But doesn't account for motion). Give it the 15s setup time, and make it like a rocket launcher (10-shots and it's gone). I wouldn't make it an SL-only weapon, but make it a weapon that only SL gets the accuracy modifiers for, and they're group modifiers (you'ld need a group to effectively call targets & operate the weapon). Wouldn't be useful for killing individual people, but would be good for battlefield control.
Actually.. after reading what I just wrote, this sounds alot like the Commando/SL E-Web cooperative idea...
Message Edited by Rikilii on 05-07-2004 03:20 PM
Rikilii wrote:
Ok Dogg, tell me this. If you want orbital bombardment, tell me where, exactly, is it coming from? Who is doing the bombarding? "NPCs", exactly.
*shakeshead* You don't get it, do you? Ever heard the term "Game Mechanic"? It would be just another special in the form of an orbital bombardement. Where does the instant heal from stimpacks come from? Where does the instant heal from RANGED stimpacks come from? How can you revive a person in coma, back to full health in mere seconds? Where do the lights from entertainers in the wide open of the desert come from? Where do the things like houses or harvesters come from that were formerly in your BACKPACK? Where do the AT-STs hop out from your datapad?
Don't come to me with "logic" in a GAME!!!!
Just because they don't appear as stupid avatars on your screen doesn't mean they are not there implicitly. Do you want SLs to have the ability to actually TRAVEL into space and shoot giant laser beams down at the ground?
No, i want them to have a non-weapon dependant damage AE special.
So you're big beef with this idea is that it would make the artillery/bombardment idea less powerful because there would be a way to counter it? If that's your reason, then I rest my case.
No way to counter it? Armor? Heals? Resists? Tell me you were kidding. If not, whjere is the counter to your shots from your weapon?
God forbid if there was more than one layer to a battle beside 40 people running around within 64m of each other spamming specials. You're right, it's a terrible idea, because people would actually have to think.
Oh, like they dont have to now, eh? Lemme guess: You are a headless chicken in battle? I simply see no reason to "reslistically" display artillery in SWG. Thus it just needs to be a simple graphical special. I wouldnt say no to real minefields either (not the china cracker fields we have currently, with no radius and clearly visible)
Yeraze:
The zoning and distance should not be an issue. The artillery strike could be implemented just like it would be without the deployment of the weapon in the game world, only that the SL would not be able to use the ability unless there was a functioning artillery piece deployed somewhere within a certain range (200m, 500m, 1000m, whatever). Technically, this could be coded the same way the grouping XP bonus is done, where you can still get the group xp bonus even if your group members are many thousands of meters away from you. I also think I said in my original post that the SL should still have to be within the standard 64m combat range to call in strikes on targets. Really, all the artillery piece would do is enable the ability, as well adding a new objective to the battle for the opposing force.
Giving the SL's opponents the chance to counteract this ability by making the source of the ability destroyable would add depth and complexity to and expand the scope of the battlefield environment. It might also make it possible and fair for the skill to be somewhat more powerful than otherwise.
Blah, blah, bla! Hell i want the abilitiy to field a whole division as well, to make a war and not just a skirmish, but tell ya what: this game does support only so many players at once. Why dont you just give it a rest?
InquisitorPayne wrote:
Rikilii wrote:
Ok Dogg, tell me this. If you want orbital bombardment, tell me where, exactly, is it coming from? Who is doing the bombarding? "NPCs", exactly.
*shakeshead* You don't get it, do you? Ever heard the term "Game Mechanic"? It would be just another special in the form of an orbital bombardement. Where does the instant heal from stimpacks come from? Where does the instant heal from RANGED stimpacks come from? How can you revive a person in coma, back to full health in mere seconds? Where do the lights from entertainers in the wide open of the desert come from? Where do the things like houses or harvesters come from that were formerly in your BACKPACK? Where do the AT-STs hop out from your datapad?
Don't come to me with "logic" in a GAME!!!!
Everytime I read one of your posts, I understand better and better the true meaning of that joke about arguing on the internet and the Special Olympics. What you just wrote makes no sense. I can come up with a dozen reasonable rationalizations for every "game mechanic" you listed. But I bet you can't come up with one for "orbital bombardment" that doesn't implicitly involve NPCs or some kind. Hell, I bet you couldn't come up with one at all, you obviously have no imagination. If you're so obsessed with game mechanics, why don't you just play APBA baseball and save yourself $15 a month.
No, i want them to have a non-weapon dependant damage AE special.
Great, and I want letters and numbers to appear behind my avatar when I emotea fart. Since when does what YOU want matter. You might want this game to be a hollow series of 1s and 0s. That doesn't make it a good idea. You basically want an AE damage magically to appear out of nowhere. Why aren't you playing EQ?
So you're big beef with this idea is that it would make the artillery/bombardment idea less powerful because there would be a way to counter it? If that's your reason, then I rest my case.
No way to counter it? Armor? Heals? Resists? Tell me you were kidding. If not, whjere is the counter to your shots from your weapon?
/Deathblow? Incap? /Burstrun. Countering something, resisting it, and fixing it are three different things.
God forbid if there was more than one layer to a battle beside 40 people running around within 64m of each other spamming specials. You're right, it's a terrible idea, because people would actually have to think.
Oh, like they dont have to now, eh? Lemme guess: You are a headless chicken in battle? I simply see no reason to "reslistically" display artillery in SWG. Thus it just needs to be a simple graphical special. I wouldnt say no to real minefields either (not the china cracker fields we have currently, with no radius and clearly visible)
What it needs to be and what it can be are two different things. Maybe you "simply see no reason" because you're blind. Maybe this idea wouldn't make the game anymore interesting for YOU. But explain to me how it could possibly make the game any LESS interesting.
Here's an idea: Why don't you just go play PacMan. It's really simple and straightforward. It's even 2 dimensional, so you don't have to worry about getting confused by any extra depth.
Yeraze:
The zoning and distance should not be an issue. The artillery strike could be implemented just like it would be without the deployment of the weapon in the game world, only that the SL would not be able to use the ability unless there was a functioning artillery piece deployed somewhere within a certain range (200m, 500m, 1000m, whatever). Technically, this could be coded the same way the grouping XP bonus is done, where you can still get the group xp bonus even if your group members are many thousands of meters away from you. I also think I said in my original post that the SL should still have to be within the standard 64m combat range to call in strikes on targets. Really, all the artillery piece would do is enable the ability, as well adding a new objective to the battle for the opposing force.
Giving the SL's opponents the chance to counteract this ability by making the source of the ability destroyable would add depth and complexity to and expand the scope of the battlefield environment. It might also make it possible and fair for the skill to be somewhat more powerful than otherwise.
Blah, blah, bla! Hell i want the abilitiy to field a whole division as well, to make a war and not just a skirmish, but tell ya what: this game does support only so many players at once. Why dont you just give it a rest?
ME???? If you're so tired, just shut up. You're not making any sense anyway. If everything in this game boils down to a "skirmish" in your narrow mind, how does it make any sense for there to be "orbital bombardment"
Dogg
Message Edited by Rikilii on 05-08-2004 03:27 AM
Rikilii wrote:
... a lot of utter BS!
You call me narrow minded and sef-focussed?
Ans what is your behaviour?
YOU want NPCs
YOU want NPC Control
YOU want to sacrifice our revamt to get what YOU want.
I am lot more open minded than you ever will be, regarding your posts.
But even posting this is a waste of my time.
You are a worthless little voice in the netherworld and you opinion is of such miniscule intreest for me, that is see no reason to argue with you.
I will simply object all your ideas without further reading them.
You haven't come up with even one single reason, why implementing NPCs would be beneficial to the game, other than your wantings and some rather ridiculous proposal who you haven't even thought through thoroughly.
Dogg