118 replies to this topic

[Kaleb Graff]

But artillery is still useful for when you don't have or need ships that big in orbit. These people just need to learn how to fight them, it is not hard. I fear AT-ATs more than them.

I concur completely. Orbital bombardment passed for artillery, which is why we have so few examples. However, they didn't get rid of it entirely.

[keraunos]

It isn't a better than others unit. The problem you are having is almost certianly not the unit, just your employment of it. To be honest, I haven't found it that much of a problem, because the imps bring the artillery up, instead of having somthing spot for it.

Well, I don't have problem with artillery, I simply used one (IMO gamey) method of destroying them, until I got bored with repetitive battles and turned it off. Now I still always win , but use more tactics, since there is no longer an obvious way to win.

BTW, without artillery bunker-storming is more difficult (if you don't wait for orbital bombardment - but sometimes your cruisers can't support your ground forces )

I think that orbital turbolasers can be good explanation for lack (or almost lack) of artillery in SW world. What would be needed is either mobile units or heavy stuff, and it's easier to use force available above...

[Kalo Shin]

Keraunos : Get off your high horse, your warped conceptions of "Balance" is just nonsense.

I know you have problems countering these things, and handling anything i say (Obviously needing me to dumb it down for you all the time) and all that, but they're not a problem as much as you say.

And if the AI can't counter them, Fix it yourself...it's not hard with someone of your intellect i'm sure. The game is very easy to Mod and i think that someone who leads their own Mod (if this is the same one i think you are) can do such an easy task.

Now i know the whole "Bunker Raid" Thing is a nice touch, but rather than removing an element of Gameplay to enforce another one (Weak as it is) try and fix it without removing it all the way.

Edited by Kalo Shin, 06 April 2008 - 03:39 AM.

[Dr. Nick]

If you take artillery out of a game, then the game would degenerate into unit spam.

Ever play one of those fast cash maps for StarCraft?
All you do is get as many minerals and as much gas as you can and either rush or build up a huge amount of battlecruisers/wraiths/carriers/scouts/dragoons/hydralisks/etc

Fun at first, boring after you play it a few times.

In fact, without arty, the game might be just like WW 1. Throwing as many troops against enemy lines as you can and hoping they run out of troops first.

[Kaleb Graff]

It isn't a better than others unit. The problem you are having is almost certianly not the unit, just your employment of it. To be honest, I haven't found it that much of a problem, because the imps bring the artillery up, instead of having somthing spot for it.

Well, I don't have problem with artillery, I simply used one (IMO gamey) method of destroying them, until I got bored with repetitive battles and turned it off. Now I still always win , but use more tactics, since there is no longer an obvious way to win.

BTW, without artillery bunker-storming is more difficult (if you don't wait for orbital bombardment - but sometimes your cruisers can't support your ground forces )

I think that orbital turbolasers can be good explanation for lack (or almost lack) of artillery in SW world. What would be needed is either mobile units or heavy stuff, and it's easier to use force available above...

Orbital bombardment was sometimes used in place of artillery, but we should still have it, because orbital bombardments don't work all the time. It should be made better, but not at the expense of artillery.

If you take artillery out of a game, then the game would degenerate into unit spam.

Ever play one of those fast cash maps for StarCraft?
All you do is get as many minerals and as much gas as you can and either rush or build up a huge amount of battlecruisers/wraiths/carriers/scouts/dragoons/hydralisks/etc

Fun at first, boring after you play it a few times.

In fact, without arty, the game might be just like WW 1. Throwing as many troops against enemy lines as you can and hoping they run out of troops first.

I completely agree.

[keraunos]

Keraunos : Get off your high horse, your warped conceptions of "Balance" is just nonsense.

That's your opinion, mine is a little diffrent. Sausage wanted solution for a problem, I provided it. I agree with him in many ways, and I'm not the only one in here who do so. A little bit of emphaty wouldn't be out of place. You can vote whatever you like, but thanks for denying me my right to think diffrently...

I know you have problems countering these things, and handling anything i say (Obviously needing me to dumb it down for you all the time) and all that, but they're not a problem as much as you say.

Good for you to know so many things, but if you're so omnipotent why are you at all interested in such a lowlife as my humble person? My handling of artillery? Actually, I removed it becouse I found it too easy to win battles when I used it... Mentioned ATAT+artillery combo is killing me. Also that's why I added Rebellion fighters - without them it was far too easy to kill rebel scum

And if the AI can't counter them, Fix it yourself...it's not hard with someone of your intellect i'm sure. The game is very easy to Mod and i think that someone who leads their own Mod (if this is the same one i think you are) can do such an easy task.
Now i know the whole "Bunker Raid" Thing is a nice touch, but rather than removing an element of Gameplay to enforce another one (Weak as it is) try and fix it without removing it all the way.

I am this person indeed. But if you also noticed the topic called "Quick question thread", you'll see that I started it. And I'm still learning. And the mod is beeing done by Me, Myself and I, so obviously I don't have much spare time that I could spent to try to overcome this problem. Not that I want to. For me artillery is unbalancing and uncanon, and I enjoy game more since I removed it. "Bunker Raid" is a nice addition, but it wasn't a purpose of this modification.

If you take artillery out of a game, then the game would degenerate into unit spam.

Ever play one of those fast cash maps for StarCraft?
All you do is get as many minerals and as much gas as you can and either rush or build up a huge amount of battlecruisers/wraiths/carriers/scouts/dragoons/hydralisks/etc

Fun at first, boring after you play it a few times.

In fact, without arty, the game might be just like WW 1. Throwing as many troops against enemy lines as you can and hoping they run out of troops first.

Well, I don't play RTSs much, I prefer regular strategies. I play EAW becouse it's closest to SW+Strategy+playable formula:P

It would be unit spam indeed. But I prefer it that way. Unit spam in GC, but you can't build any more units during fighting. And I think that SW tries to represent massed+maneouver warfare - at least that's what we see in Ep II and III. In EAW I would simply deploy Republic Artillery and LAATs - cheaper, simplier, victory is mine anyway. Not mentioning it's more difficult to take planets, you need more then a couple of artillery units combined with flyers and some heavy/shielded stuff As for Skirmish, keeping artillery is reasonable. That could represent prolonged warfare as seen in many comics/novels. Then reinforcements and heavy stuff would find their place.

Throwing as many units is still not a good idea - you'll have to bring them back from reinforcements points. Not mentioning unit-vs-unit formula still applies. You simply won't have one unit that can destroy half of enemy army (type-wise), so you only have to find a way to fight off the other half.

Finally, balance. If creating few superunits and running through galaxy is fine for you, then keep artillery. But I like to have things more complicated. To use full array of units. After all, Rebellion still used Nebulon Bs after introduction of MC80s etc. My mod will try to make each unit useful in some way - as they should be. I'm referring to history & real world here as well. Warfare isn't all about one/two kind of units, look into detailed unit composition of today's armed forces if you don't believe me.I think that artillery, no matter how modded, will remain efficent infantry killer, and I find infantry one of the most characteristic part of SW-world. If anybody can mod artillery to keep with all points mentioned above - then sign me in. And I'd be happy to try such a mod.

[Dr. Nick]

Reading the last few parts, I think you'd want less accurate artillery rather than the removal of artillery.

That way, they can still hit massed units and large unmoving targets like buildings, but against smaller targets like infantry, they have a hard time pinpointing a specific unit.

[Kaleb Graff]

That's your opinion, mine is a little diffrent. Sausage wanted solution for a problem, I provided it. I agree with him in many ways, and I'm not the only one in here who do so. A little bit of emphaty wouldn't be out of place. You can vote whatever you like, but thanks for denying me my right to think diffrently...

Good for you to know so many things, but if you're so omnipotent why are you at all interested in such a lowlife as my humble person? My handling of artillery? Actually, I removed it becouse I found it too easy to win battles when I used it... Mentioned ATAT+artillery combo is killing me. Also that's why I added Rebellion fighters - without them it was far too easy to kill rebel scum

I am this person indeed. But if you also noticed the topic called "Quick question thread", you'll see that I started it. And I'm still learning. And the mod is beeing done by Me, Myself and I, so obviously I don't have much spare time that I could spent to try to overcome this problem. Not that I want to. For me artillery is unbalancing and uncanon, and I enjoy game more since I removed it. "Bunker Raid" is a nice addition, but it wasn't a purpose of this modification.

Well, I don't play RTSs much, I prefer regular strategies. I play EAW becouse it's closest to SW+Strategy+playable formula:P

It would be unit spam indeed. But I prefer it that way. Unit spam in GC, but you can't build any more units during fighting. And I think that SW tries to represent massed+maneouver warfare - at least that's what we see in Ep II and III. In EAW I would simply deploy Republic Artillery and LAATs - cheaper, simplier, victory is mine anyway. Not mentioning it's more difficult to take planets, you need more then a couple of artillery units combined with flyers and some heavy/shielded stuff As for Skirmish, keeping artillery is reasonable. That could represent prolonged warfare as seen in many comics/novels. Then reinforcements and heavy stuff would find their place.

Throwing as many units is still not a good idea - you'll have to bring them back from reinforcements points. Not mentioning unit-vs-unit formula still applies. You simply won't have one unit that can destroy half of enemy army (type-wise), so you only have to find a way to fight off the other half.

Finally, balance. If creating few superunits and running through galaxy is fine for you, then keep artillery. But I like to have things more complicated. To use full array of units. After all, Rebellion still used Nebulon Bs after introduction of MC80s etc. My mod will try to make each unit useful in some way - as they should be. I'm referring to history & real world here as well. Warfare isn't all about one/two kind of units, look into detailed unit composition of today's armed forces if you don't believe me.I think that artillery, no matter how modded, will remain efficent infantry killer, and I find infantry one of the most characteristic part of SW-world. If anybody can mod artillery to keep with all points mentioned above - then sign me in. And I'd be happy to try such a mod.

You miss the point of keeping Nebulon-Bs. Artillery should be changed, but it is not invincible in the current mod. It is still vulnerable if mishandled. The whole point of this mod is to make the game more realistic, so we are working on that, partially by fixing artillery. It should be kept, but in a diffrent form.

Reading the last few parts, I think you'd want less accurate artillery rather than the removal of artillery.

That way, they can still hit massed units and large unmoving targets like buildings, but against smaller targets like infantry, they have a hard time pinpointing a specific unit.

I agree. Artillery should be useful against massed targets, but not point targets and vehicles.

[keraunos]

I don't really insist for it to be removed. The thing I care most is SW-feeling of this strategy. PR has it, while the original game lacked it. I'd simply like to focus on what we see in movies/novels etc., not today's world army+couple of fancy stuff. It's difficult to make artillery work: splash damage & inaccuracy don't work very well (coding-wise). Also player could respond by simply fielding more units of it. AI would probably still be

Another case is infantry. Real 'Queen of the battlefield', in SW world it played significant role. In EaW/FoC it's best to put stormtroopers behind our stronger units and use them only as drop- & emplace-points takers/PLEX killers. I don't think AI's infantry would survive fighting against human-controlled artillery.

If you really have an idea to implement artillery so it won't unbalance the game, would enable it to retain SW-feeling of battlefield, and you know how to code it - please, do it.

I could also propose one solution, based on what can be seen in EP II. We could treat artillery as as turbolaser-equiped 'heavy stuff' destroyer. AI could get something to destroy AT-ATs, Inf would still be strong. Just an idea, though...

[Kaleb Graff]

I don't really insist for it to be removed. The thing I care most is SW-feeling of this strategy. PR has it, while the original game lacked it. I'd simply like to focus on what we see in movies/novels etc., not today's world army+couple of fancy stuff. It's difficult to make artillery work: splash damage & inaccuracy don't work very well (coding-wise). Also player could respond by simply fielding more units of it. AI would probably still be

Another case is infantry. Real 'Queen of the battlefield', in SW world it played significant role. In EaW/FoC it's best to put stormtroopers behind our stronger units and use them only as drop- & emplace-points takers/PLEX killers. I don't think AI's infantry would survive fighting against human-controlled artillery.

If you really have an idea to implement artillery so it won't unbalance the game, would enable it to retain SW-feeling of battlefield, and you know how to code it - please, do it.

I could also propose one solution, based on what can be seen in EP II. We could treat artillery as as turbolaser-equiped 'heavy stuff' destroyer. AI could get something to destroy AT-ATs, Inf would still be strong. Just an idea, though...

The fact is, in each movie except episode II, where there was a major ground battle, there was a circiumatance that would have made artillery less valuble. And artillery is canon. http://starwars.wiki.../wiki/Artillery It does need to be changed, but the turbolaser-equiped "heavy stuff" is somewhat odd as the total of artillery. I would say that it seems to resemble napoleonic artillery, but most of the rest of combat is modern. I suggested somthing similar in the rebel units thread, but it would be massively expensive, and likely rare, only used on heavily fortified worlds. Also, the SPHA had several armaments, including tubolasers, anti-vehicle lasers, ion cannons, concussion missiles and mass drivers. Thus, missile artillery is canon, and definitely should be kept.

Edited by Kaleb Graff, 07 April 2008 - 07:03 PM.

[Clubby]

If you take artillery out of a game, then the game would degenerate into unit spam.

Ever play one of those fast cash maps for StarCraft?
All you do is get as many minerals and as much gas as you can and either rush or build up a huge amount of battlecruisers/wraiths/carriers/scouts/dragoons/hydralisks/etc

Fun at first, boring after you play it a few times.

In fact, without arty, the game might be just like WW 1. Throwing as many troops against enemy lines as you can and hoping they run out of troops first.

Ironic considering that artillery and machine guns are what created a stalemate in the first place.

And Keraunos, would that mean you change it from artillery to anti tank gun?

[TheEmpire]

More or less artillery should be less mobile, less accurate in the beginning but as the tech progresses they become much better.

[Kaleb Graff]

If you take artillery out of a game, then the game would degenerate into unit spam.

Ever play one of those fast cash maps for StarCraft?
All you do is get as many minerals and as much gas as you can and either rush or build up a huge amount of battlecruisers/wraiths/carriers/scouts/dragoons/hydralisks/etc

Fun at first, boring after you play it a few times.

In fact, without arty, the game might be just like WW 1. Throwing as many troops against enemy lines as you can and hoping they run out of troops first.

Ironic considering that artillery and machine guns are what created a stalemate in the first place.

And Keraunos, would that mean you change it from artillery to anti tank gun?

I'm pretty sure that's what he means, but I see doing that for something more like mobile siege engines.

More or less artillery should be less mobile, less accurate in the beginning but as the tech progresses they become much better.

True, although I would add lower damage and longer range, along with less hit points to that list.

[Kalo Shin]

There are plenty of ways to balance Artillery for your own needs, Keraunos, Less FOW reveal, less accuracy, more needing Scout bikes to make Empire Artillery work, and the Drones for ye olde MPTl.

And i sincerely apologize for exploding at you, i get a bit worked up sometimes as i dislike the "Remove it cause i don't like it" arguements.

[Dr. Nick]

Here's a thought:

Lower the speeds of the artillery projectiles. That way, they miss infantry just like they do in CnC Generals

[Kaleb Graff]

There are plenty of ways to balance Artillery for your own needs, Keraunos, Less FOW reveal, less accuracy, more needing Scout bikes to make Empire Artillery work, and the Drones for ye olde MPTl.

And i sincerely apologize for exploding at you, i get a bit worked up sometimes as i dislike the "Remove it cause i don't like it" arguements.

I do too. If you don't like it, it is probably challenging you.

Here's a thought:

Lower the speeds of the artillery projectiles. That way, they miss infantry just like they do in CnC Generals

Good point. Add that to the list of stuff to do in the land mod.

[keraunos]

The fact is, in each movie except episode II, where there was a major ground battle, there was a circiumatance that would have made artillery less valuble. And artillery is canon. http://starwars.wiki.../wiki/Artillery It does need to be changed, but the turbolaser-equiped "heavy stuff" is somewhat odd as the total of artillery. I would say that it seems to resemble napoleonic artillery, but most of the rest of combat is modern. I suggested somthing similar in the rebel units thread, but it would be massively expensive, and likely rare, only used on heavily fortified worlds. Also, the SPHA had several armaments, including tubolasers, anti-vehicle lasers, ion cannons, concussion missiles and mass drivers. Thus, missile artillery is canon, and definitely should be kept.

My point still stays - artillery was rarely valuable, becouse battles weren't fought in 2 dimensions - even in game, land battles are only short pause between space engagements and build up phase I don't want simulation of modern battlefield, I want SW. As for my other main concern for artillery (balance) - shorten their range and player will kill it easily, while keeping his own art behind. You could try to use <build_something:P_limit> command, but player will keep using them in offensives only. Not easily solvable. Another idea is to use 'Genosian artillery': quite powerful yet short range unit. I'd restrain from using units that are significantly more expensive then the rest - player will be able to build them anyway, while AI will have some difficulties. Unless you mean MP

As for the rest, like I said earlier, 'canon' is IMO decided in wrong way. As it is now, Lucas simply gives somebody free hand, somebody creates something that is not SW-like, many mistakes are made in the meantime, yet later on it's somehow patched together and decided 'canon'. Examples: Bulwark-class. Excellent possibilities & idea of a unit, yet it showed up only in Rebellion. So supposedly excellent ship, yet Rebellion don't use it at all? Particle shields vs Energy shields. Ships are supposed to use only former in battles, yet destruction of Executor proves something diffrent. I could go on like this. It looks like hunting for money (reasonable), but the bad thing is that common sense went for holiday...

And Keraunos, would that mean you change it from artillery to anti tank gun?

Nope, rather as 'universal-anti-heavy-stuff' vs everything big. Like AA-gun/ATAT destroyer/bunker destroyer etc.

There are plenty of ways to balance Artillery for your own needs, Keraunos, Less FOW reveal, less accuracy, more needing Scout bikes to make Empire Artillery work, and the Drones for ye olde MPTl.

And i sincerely apologize for exploding at you, i get a bit worked up sometimes as i dislike the "Remove it cause i don't like it" arguements.

I know, I tried it. But AI is unable to coordinate it's units - that's what we see in space. On land it's the same - if I take one of the factors, it's too easy to kill it. I stopped using artillery long time ago, and I'm really way happier as it is now. I mostly use large numbers of inf supported by T2Bs/AT-STs now; I sometimes use heroes/AT-ATs as well. Believe me, much more enjoyable and SW-like.

And no problem. Apology accepted, Captain Needa And sorry for writting in such a malicious way as well.


Anyway, to conclude (becouse we actually keep using the same arguments more or less ) if you can find a way to make artillery less powerful and more enjoyable while not making it centerpiece of land battlefield, I'd enjoy it and play with it. I tried, I failed. As removing units is easy as it is now, I won't bother if you fail And maybe you won't...

[Kaleb Graff]

My point still stays - artillery was rarely valuable, becouse battles weren't fought in 2 dimensions - even in game, land battles are only short pause between space engagements and build up phase I don't want simulation of modern battlefield, I want SW. As for my other main concern for artillery (balance) - shorten their range and player will kill it easily, while keeping his own art behind. You could try to use <build_something:P_limit> command, but player will keep using them in offensives only. Not easily solvable. Another idea is to use 'Genosian artillery': quite powerful yet short range unit. I'd restrain from using units that are significantly more expensive then the rest - player will be able to build them anyway, while AI will have some difficulties. Unless you mean MP

As for the rest, like I said earlier, 'canon' is IMO decided in wrong way. As it is now, Lucas simply gives somebody free hand, somebody creates something that is not SW-like, many mistakes are made in the meantime, yet later on it's somehow patched together and decided 'canon'. Examples: Bulwark-class. Excellent possibilities & idea of a unit, yet it showed up only in Rebellion. So supposedly excellent ship, yet Rebellion don't use it at all? Particle shields vs Energy shields. Ships are supposed to use only former in battles, yet destruction of Executor proves something diffrent. I could go on like this. It looks like hunting for money (reasonable), but the bad thing is that common sense went for holiday...

Nope, rather as 'universal-anti-heavy-stuff' vs everything big. Like AA-gun/ATAT destroyer/bunker destroyer etc.

I know, I tried it. But AI is unable to coordinate it's units - that's what we see in space. On land it's the same - if I take one of the factors, it's too easy to kill it. I stopped using artillery long time ago, and I'm really way happier as it is now. I mostly use large numbers of inf supported by T2Bs/AT-STs now; I sometimes use heroes/AT-ATs as well. Believe me, much more enjoyable and SW-like.

Anyway, to conclude (becouse we actually keep using the same arguments more or less ) if you can find a way to make artillery less powerful and more enjoyable while not making it centerpiece of land battlefield, I'd enjoy it and play with it. I tried, I failed. As removing units is easy as it is now, I won't bother if you fail And maybe you won't...

This comes to the heart of the debate. As of now, artillery is unbalanced, and too powerful, I agree with you. However, that does not mean we can't make it balanced when the land mod comes out. I don't mind how powerful it is, because land battles are really only background to space battles now. I would think that there are several roles artillery could take. First, the anti-heavy stuff (MAS 2xB, SPHA-T), which would be used on heavily fortified worlds to get rid of turbolasers, bunkers, ect. Second, anti-infantry (projectile artillery). This would be used against large clusters of infantry, with unguided projectiles. It would have low damage, and be of limited use against vehicles and buildings. Infantry would not be invulnerable, however. Take cover should reduce artillery's effect greatly, and the projectiles should travel slowly enough to miss moving infantry. The two of these would likely work together, and be very powerful. However, both, but most of all the anti-infantry one, should be fragile, so that they must be handled carefully. A long range would be ideal. Both types should be expensive, and likely rare. Another way to balance is to give them slow transports, so that their use will be reserved for heavily fortified worlds.

[keraunos]

I'd still advise not to make any unit too expensive. In space it has some sense (each unit represent single ship, squadron max, so diffrences between units should be massive). However, on land we operate with groups of various sizes, so instead of giving them vastly diffrent cost, I'd simply change their size & put cost only slightly diffrent. That's what I'm gonna do in my mod - increase size of inf units & their cost, decrease cost for T2Bs etc.

[Kaleb Graff]

I'd still advise not to make any unit too expensive. In space it has some sense (each unit represent single ship, squadron max, so diffrences between units should be massive). However, on land we operate with groups of various sizes, so instead of giving them vastly diffrent cost, I'd simply change their size & put cost only slightly diffrent. That's what I'm gonna do in my mod - increase size of inf units & their cost, decrease cost for T2Bs etc.

Some units (the MAS 2xB) should be tremendously expensive. I say this because cost is a good way to limit how many exist. Also, cost is a reflection of capability, more then size is, particularly in land combat. The 501st (Imp units) is going to be more expensive then standard stormies, instead of smaller. Most artillery should be single-unit, possibly with spotters, so cost is the best way to balance them. Also, it would be good if the anti-heavy stuff artillery could shoot at landing ships (if you have it in range of the drop zone), killing the units aboard them.