| Author |
you overdone your job |
Ulven Skyblade
Marshal
Non Omnis Moriar
Joined: March 04, 2007
Posts: 230
From: Timbo400
|  Posted: 2008-07-10 06:48
i wanted to test bombing how it was now in the new version. well this was what figured out it is impossible. i was in a bomber cruiser and i couldn't even take down a planet with 9 def wich included 2 depots and 2 sensors so a 5 def planet wich where lvl 2 i couldn't take it down. i needed to presision bomb but to do that you need to be close and able to be close to c your target. well this was the problem when i get close the def bases where very much able to take down the bombs because it wasn't a stack as much i love 2 c def up you over done it could you plz make bombs a bit stronger so it still is possible to bomb but not so strong as in 483. i am thinking in terms of bombs have a splash radius of about 3 or 4 building spaces.
_________________
The more you see, the more you read, the more you hear, the more you know that you know nothing. And that the truth is nothing more then a personal judgment on the world around us by the people around us.
|
Gejaheline
Fleet Admiral
Galactic Navy
Joined: March 19, 2005
Posts: 1127
From: UGTO MUNIN HQ, Mars
| Posted: 2008-07-10 06:50
In short, you'll need more than one bomber. Also, scanners will let you see targets on the planet from more than your maximum bombing range, so you'll either have to forego ECM or get someone else to do scanning for you.
_________________
[Darkspace Moderator] [Galactic Navy Fleet Officer]
|
Supertrooper
Marshal
Pitch Black
Joined: March 18, 2004
Posts: 1895
From: Maryland, U.S.A
| Posted: 2008-07-10 07:36
It'll take actual teamwork to bomb a planet.
You'll need more then one bomber, more then two, and maybe more then three.
_________________
|
Fattierob
Vice Admiral
Joined: April 25, 2003
Posts: 4059
| Posted: 2008-07-10 16:24
Quote:
|
On 2008-07-10 06:48, Timbo400{recruiting} wrote:
i needed to presision bomb but to do that you need to be close and able to be close to c your target.
|
|
Scanner. Use it.
_________________
|
Doran
Chief Marshal
Galactic Navy
Joined: March 29, 2003
Posts: 4032
From: The Gideon Unit
| Posted: 2008-07-10 16:28
in the old days we made ecm scouts sit next to the target planet and we camera'd them to target
_________________
|
Fattierob
Vice Admiral
Joined: April 25, 2003
Posts: 4059
| Posted: 2008-07-10 17:12
Quote:
|
On 2008-07-10 16:28, Doran wrote:
in the old days we made ecm scouts sit next to the target planet and we camera'd them to target
|
|
Whatever happened to a "spy" infantry unit being used again?
_________________
|
Axianda The Royal
Fleet Admiral
Terra Squadron
Joined: November 20, 2001
Posts: 4273
From: Axianda
| Posted: 2008-07-11 05:57
Quote:
|
On 2008-07-10 17:12, Fattierob wrote:
Quote:
|
On 2008-07-10 16:28, Doran wrote:
in the old days we made ecm scouts sit next to the target planet and we camera'd them to target
|
|
Whatever happened to a "spy" infantry unit being used again?
|
|
Im afraid 00LG has been lost in action quite some time ago... ever since we lost the master the students never managed to get above heavy infantry rank.
_________________
- Axi
|
Enterprise
Chief Marshal
Raven Warriors
Joined: May 19, 2002
Posts: 2576
From: Hawthorne, Nevada
| Posted: 2008-07-11 08:13
Quote:
|
On 2008-07-10 16:28, Doran wrote:
in the old days we made ecm scouts sit next to the target planet and we camera'd them to target
|
|
I remember you could camera enemy planets. 
-Ent
_________________
|
Mersenne Twister
Fleet Admiral
Joined: May 11, 2003
Posts: 1161
From: Sector C Test Labs and Contol Facilities
| Posted: 2008-07-11 10:26
Quote:
|
On 2008-07-11 08:13, Enterprise wrote:
I remember you could camera enemys.
-Ent
|
|
fixt
_________________
I wouldn't screw with it if I were you. The doctor already holds you in poor favor. Messing with this might really fry his shorts.
|
Fattierob
Vice Admiral
Joined: April 25, 2003
Posts: 4059
| Posted: 2008-07-11 10:49
Quote:
|
On 2008-07-11 10:26, Mersenne Twister wrote:
Quote:
|
On 2008-07-11 08:13, Enterprise wrote:
I remember you could camera enemys.
-Ent
|
|
fixt
|
|
I liked that feature. I still miss it.
_________________
|
Mastakazam *P2*
2nd Rear Admiral
Joined: May 27, 2006
Posts: 26
From: Pickering, Ontario, Canada, Metaverse
| Posted: 2008-07-16 12:35
Quote:
|
On 2008-07-10 07:36, Crim {OLIOLIO} wrote:
It'll take actual teamwork to bomb a planet.
You'll need more then one bomber, more then two, and maybe more then three.
|
|
As it should be!
A planetary defense grid.... is pretty worthless if a single ship can destroy the entire planet.... if a single ship can destroy the entire planet just by dropping a pile of bombs onto a very small area of the planet...
_________________
|
Malorn
1st Rear Admiral
Joined: December 11, 2003
Posts: 42
From: USA Eastern Time
| Posted: 2008-07-19 02:49
I agree completely, it should take more than a single bomber to reduce a massive fortress world. It's called teamwork, folks, and it's what the game is about. ; )
It should be possible to make planets that are immune to bombing from even a single bomber dread.
Issue: Frankly I think cloud bombing makes teamwork less attractive, so long as cloud bombing is possible defenses have to be more powerful, thus meaning that defenses that can withstand a single cloud can ignore steady bombing from many ships in orbit.
Idea: Steady bombing makes more sense, is more possible to do with teamwork, and allows much closer balance between defenses and bombs. With reduced bomb launching and travel range, cloud bombing becomes less useful, meaning that teamwork becomes more useful. And teamwork is, as I said, the heart of Darkspace.
Just some thoughts, but with building as it is now, it should require a fleet to bomb a planet clean. And a decent sized fleet just to take one.
_________________
There are things in this world that man was not meant to know . . . and we have most of them convieniently arranged alphabetically by title.
|
Malorn
1st Rear Admiral
Joined: December 11, 2003
Posts: 42
From: USA Eastern Time
| Posted: 2008-07-19 06:29
Update: Did bombing tests, I must say I love the durablity of the buildings, it took real effort to destroy them even when completely unopposed. I feel I've confirmed my concerns about cloud bombing, at the moment even it is not really very effective against ground based defenses.
But then neither is a massed fleet of ships, leaving us with an attempt to work together with cloud bombing attempts, something that given the low blast radius of the bombs(something I really approve of), tends to waste a large amount of firepower and annoy all involved. It might be much cooler if bombers and supply ships could gather a short distance off the planet and just start launching bombs.
Actually, the only serious weakness in ground defenses involves the ease of ground combat, something which can be prevented completely with a good planet build(i.e. don't let them shoot your infantry or land any of there own).
Idea: Still it would be interesting if infantry were far more durable, maybe even more than buildings. That way people who wish to take the planet intact would have to land troops even after the defenses were destroyed. Makes more sense to me, I guess.
If you consider modern warfare, infantry are far more resistant to aerial bombing attacks than are buildings. From a gameplay prospective it also adds purpose to transports and adds to the depth of the game.
Idea: Ground warfare at the moment is a very short affair, even with large amounts of troops. If I drop 32 infantry onto a planet with 32 defending infantry, I can expect the battle to be over as soon as the two forces make contact, certainly only a matter of half a minute at most. This gives me no time to drop reinforcements as I lose infantry, nor does it give the enemy time to chase me away and drop their own infantry on the planet to help defend it.
Consider such a thing as this: what if ground combat took place much slower? There'd be several ways to slow it down, but the main point would be that it was slower. Infantry would be slowly lost over a matter of time, not all at once.
This would do several things. First, and most important, it would reduce the 'omg we lost a planet before anyone noticed the blockade message' problem that can be so annoying. But also it would give defenders time to make daring runs in lone transports to reinforce the planet, or simply to show up with enough ships to drive the attackers out of orbit, which would allow them to drop reinforcing infantry at will (meaning that they wouldn't lose the planet).
This makes control over the space above the planet a serious influence on who takes the planet, giving players more to fight over, and more oppertunity to engage in enjoyable and meanfully combat with each other. As it stands now there can be a single major battle over a planet, if everyone happens to be at the same place at the same time, and then right after that, whoever wins takes the planet near-instantly. No counter-attacks, no raids, nothing.
Idea: Back to bombing, an idea that might allow cloud bombing without making it overwhelming, while also allowing stationary bombing to be effective: add energy to planets. Basically have a pool of energy that all the bases draw on to fire their beams, I wouldn't tie it to generators, but rather to the number of defense bases, that way bases on the other side of the planet are equally useful on your side. And while cloud bombing might break through the refire rate on the beams, steady bombing with supply ships would slowly wear overwhelm the recharge rate of the beams.
Thereby, drop enough bombs at once, you can break through, and drop enough bombs over time, you can break through. It allows two very useful strategies, one that is more of a hit and run trick, the other which is perfect for large well-supplied fleets of ships.
Just some ideas based on playing around with bombs for two hours.
_________________
There are things in this world that man was not meant to know . . . and we have most of them convieniently arranged alphabetically by title.
|
c0ld
Midshipman
Joined: June 24, 2003
Posts: 342
From: UK
| Posted: 2008-07-19 11:33
Quote:[/small]
|
On 2008-07-10 07:36, Crim {Fear?} wrote:
It'll take actual teamwork to bomb a planet.
You'll need more then one bomber, more then two, and maybe more then three.
|
|
So, assume it takes three bombers to take a planet down. Those bombers need at least 1 supply ship, likely 2. And since it would take quite some time to bomb the planet, even with those numbers, the enemy would have to time a muster a defence force. Assuming the enemy has an equal number of players, that gives them 5 combat ships to repel 5 non combat ships. So your three bombers would be easy to repel, unless they had a combat escort of say 3 combat. Even then it would be hard to hold the ground whilst bombing, but already we are at a total of 13 players, 16 if we assume equal numbers on both sides. That's about the number you'd expect to see in MV spread across 3 factions at peak times atm.
What are the people who come on at non-peak times going to do? Nothing but dog-fighting?
It should never be a prerequisite to require so many players in a game as small as darkspace. The key to good bombing is tactics, not teamwork, imho.
Also, if you make it too ardious and time consuming, it'll just become boring. You know, like construction is currently;)
[ This Message was edited by: c0ldfury on 2008-07-19 11:35 ]
_________________
|
Malorn
1st Rear Admiral
Joined: December 11, 2003
Posts: 42
From: USA Eastern Time
| Posted: 2008-07-19 16:34
I think the primary point is that we won't be glassing planets as often, primarily because it will take too long. And considering the time it takes to build them, I wouldn't want to glass them anyway.
Now honestly, I want the enemy to be able to respond. That's the idea. If each side can attack and win before the other side can react you end up with a game where all sides run away from each other and try to attack wherever there aren't players. Considering the theme of darkspace is starship combat, that can get pretty boring. Unless we decide that the new theme is bomb and than build, which then gets bombed again and built again. Frankly, I'd rather play chess if that's the new theme, less frustration and more overall progress.
In any case, to answer your question: the way to bomb, if you wish to hear my humble opinion which you probably don't, would be to have a lesser number of ships fighting a holding action over the planet while the bombers bomb things. You are quite right that those ships would be most likely outnumbered, but all they have to do is distract the enemy, not defeat them.
While it's fun to fight in battles where you have more numbers, my major gain in skill comes from fighting battles where I don't have overwhelming numbers. Equally the most enjoyable battles I have ever seen involved holding actions against larger numbers. It's more fun when we win, I admit, but if I wanted to win easily I would play games against the computer.
Frankly, it shouldn't be all that difficult for a smaller force of skilled players to keep the enemy busy while the bombing happens. It might succeed, it might fail, but everyone would likely have fun. Either way it would be a tight battle, and tight battles are the fun ones. It also would mean that players would actually have to fight a battle, as it currently is players more often engage in random firefights and then run away when their armor is gone.
Now all of that does not address the issue of number of players, and you are quite right in your reasoning, though frankly I rather like 'dogfighting'. However, it seems foolish to design a game around the idea that you will always have a low number of players. Part of the reason there is that low number is the issues in past few years. It's why I'm only hear for each beta, I show up hoping the game will come back, and this time it looks like it might. But easy bombing of fortified planets has never helped this game. During low player times, I suppose it would be a good idea to take over planets that aren't so well defended. That is place for 'hit and run' bombing, and the majority of planets will not be very well defended, we all know that.
[ This Message was edited by: Malorn on 2008-07-19 16:40 ]
_________________
There are things in this world that man was not meant to know . . . and we have most of them convieniently arranged alphabetically by title.
|
English
Deutsch
Nederlands
)
