Jump to content
3000AD Forums
Sign in to follow this  
Supreme Cmdr

Battlecruiser Multiplayer Discussion

Recommended Posts

With regard to concerns about shuttles dropping directly on a base, if you've kept your AD assets up, they'll get trashed & hashed before they can deploy anything (unless the EMD stays as effective and ever-lasting as it currently is.)... Also, as opposed to heavy reliance on DJPs (which, as fixed points, place alot of predictability into the game), the shuttle system places HEAVY reliance on teamwork and parimeter security (find the enemy LZ before they can build up enough to attack you).

On the issue of ship-jacking, I've allways been a fan of 'you can use anything, but don't expect to be any GOOD at it' style restrictions. Basically, player-based PRY (troops) and accuracy or HP modifications (pilots) so Marines don't drive well, and Pilots die real easy if they are dumb enough to play Rambo.

Plus, in the current unarmed-shuttle environment (as opposed to, say, having a 'planetary assault shuttle' with door guns instead of hyperspace capability (like the modern-day Blackhawk or Huey helicopters, which are by no means gunships, but have .30 cal door guns in case things go south while landing troops)), the Pilot should have some means to help defend his ship (i.e. at least a rifle, like the MP5-carrying helo pilots in Blackhawk Down), or he'll just dust off when things go south, and maroon his teammates...

Once again, more off-the-top suggestions...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:


Originally posted by Epsilon 5:

*looks at Locutus' posts*

Where DO you come from? never seen you post before And especially not good enough to get the SC's interest


He's a Beta tester - or didn't you notice. And they know better than to come up with anything less than interesting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well...

I was one of those guys who generally lived inside the Beta Discussions (now Area 51) forum, and didn't step out too much...

That and I dropped the '701' from my name (it's still in my sig)...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Psst... Locutus..... They carry M60s (.308/7.62mm), M2s (.50 cal), or the .308/7.62 miniguns as door guns. They even have seperate windows for the gunners. American forces haven't used .30 cal MGs since Nam....

The air crew flying the aircraft rarely use their personal defense weapons. Those are provided in case they get shot down and have to defend themselves. But, there was one documented case in The Battle Of Mogadishu of a AH-6 pilot using his MP5 while rescuing a crewman from the first crash. Usually they are too busy flying the aircraft to shoot. They depend almost entirely on their door gunners to spot and eliminate ground threats.

[ 12-11-2002, 03:32 PM: Message edited by: CedricB ]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

re bases:

in earlier games i had played on line where object was to either wipe out or capture the base

it just was not suspenceful enough. i just would like to propose this as a scenario.

if enemy is certain to capture the base why not have a "commander" order evac and self destruction of facilities? put a "vote" option to defenders if they agree to actully commit such course of action. not only would it put more preasurre on attakers to capture facility intact but to find a "off switch" for a timed self destruct device. have some sort of vehicle that can be a mobile construction base that can be moved or moved out prior to self destruction so a new base can be build for defenders somewhere else.

enemy could try to knock it out while it is moving out putting more preassure on defenders.

this would force more cooperation between teamswether they would be defenders or offenders in given scenario.

just an idea my buddies were tossing around while messing around on some other games.

is it even viable ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by matrix:

[QB]

if enemy is certain to capture the base why not have a "commander" order evac and self destruction of facilities? put a "vote" option to defenders if they agree to actully commit such course of action. not only would it put more preasurre on attakers to capture facility intact but to find a "off switch" for a timed self destruct device. have some sort of vehicle that can be a mobile construction base that can be moved or moved out prior to self destruction so a new base can be build for defenders somewhere else.

enemy could try to knock it out while it is moving out putting more preassure on defenders.

this would force more cooperation between teamswether they would be defenders or offenders in given scenario.[QB]

An interesting idea BUT:

1. Are people really going to take the time to vote when they are trying to make those base capping jerks pay for their last few feet to victory with as much blood as possible?

2. A simple "down time" feature would simulate the required repairs and such to any destroyed equipment before the base becomes completely operational. During this time while defenses are repaired and the shelves restocked.... perfect time for a counter attack. The first thing any attacker is going to do is destroy all the base defenses... these will remain down until rebuilt. The attackers now become defenders of a dilapidated base while things get repaired.

3. The resources and build time represented by those static buildings are far too valuable for any government to destroy before capture. It would be better for them to let them fall into enemy hands with the prospect of capturing them back later. Plus with #2 in effect, the counter attack would come almost immediately.

4. Moving the base would be interesting, but there are a LOT of facilities in one fully functional base to move. The new reestablished base would be nearly useless until it was rebuilt, if it survives the journey. As soon as it leaves the garage, it will come under direct attack. Assuming this was done when the base was about to be lost anyway, there will be little to no defense for it and it goes boom anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

that reminds me of the mobile construction center of C&C

it could would work indeed , but the time needed to defend the thing would be long

and how about that transportation problem wouldnt it be cool if 1 person would hop in a vehicle drove or fly to the enemy waypoint and drop some sort of teleport device , so that the strike team can then enter trough it ...

tadaa no more long walks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

30-06 and .30 Carbine have been out since Korea (IIRC)....

But of course, 7.62mm NATO is a 30-cal round (.308) in the generic sense, which is what I was referring to (since the 2 most common door-guns are the GE Minigun & the M60, both in 7.62)...

As for the personal weapons issue, I was commenting that since we don't HAVE door guns (or any guns for that matter) on shuttles, and since BCM shuttle pilots will find themselves on the ground waiting for their troops to come back, they should have some means of self/ship defense above the pistol... Otherwise, they face 'If I stay, I get trashed & my team has a long walk home. If I bug out, my team has a long walk home'...

And my version of the mobile base idea came from (gasp) Tribes 2. A mobile base doesn't have to be a full service base, with all buildings, and such. The idea is to have a forward outpost of the main base, which can transport in reinforcements & supplies, and quickly fix or evac injured players & damaged hardware... Then again, we're dealing with 4 players per team on the public servers, IIRC...

[ 12-15-2002, 01:03 AM: Message edited by: Locutus ]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't posted in a long while, or read the forums too heavily in a long while but I thought I'd check back in and saw this discussion. Following Locutus' ideas it seems like a simple solution could be implemented if the SC were willing, I don't know though...

...I'd say give the shuttles some sort of gun which would behave like the gun on an OC or the main gun on a CC(when decoupled). The catch would be, this gun would only be functional when the shuttle isn't in flight. So, while landed it would have SOME fire capabilities. Nothing super, just like a machine gun to be used to provide mild cover for troops on insertion and extraction. Er, I mean to say, a little popgun so the pilot feel as if he's doing something and won't just flee. Like a halfway decent MG.

Sorry for the helter-skelter nature of this post, heh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Fox__Trot

that would work but why not just have a lone marine escort the shuttle? or do what i do and park your ship on the ground near an enemy base (park as in shot down)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Fox__Trot:

that would work but why not just have a lone marine escort the shuttle? or do what i do and park your ship on the ground near an enemy base (park as in shot down)

'Cause we don't get NPC marines in MP, iirc...

Basically, we're dealing with forces the size of a Star Trek away team. So whoever flies (since unlike ST, redshirts don't fly) either joins the assault party or sits back to defend the ship. Due to the nature of BCM character classes, he can't really expect to survive as a member of the assault team (i.e. do things the Star Trek way, where they just leave the shuttle and hope no one finds it). So he sits back and defends the shuttle. Of course, he can't do that well with the pistol, so he bugs out or dies (neither of which help gameplay)...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, if the team was well coordinated I would land the shuttle (or better yet, if everyone had jetpacks, let them jump for it) and then fly the shuttle a ways away and hide it behind a hill or some such. When the team was ready for extraction (assuming they all don't just get themselves killed, as is the tradition in FPS games) either have them hoof it to the shuttle, or if that's to far, then to have the shuttle rendezvous at an extraction point and pick everyone up. Otherwise I would want one of the marines in the shuttle with me at all times.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well in MP if i had to land a shuttle with some Mariens in it i would land with the back of the shuttle facing the base. second of all i'd like to have some of them driving ATVs for support.

after the drop off i could either be a decoy for air defenders(i.e: interceptors in the sky) or just hide out somewhere with the shuttle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you walk into a gun store and ask for .30 cal you'll get something very different than .308 winchester. .30 cals were used at the beginning of nam. Semantics... on to better stuff.

Dragon Lady brings up an interesting point. Shuttle pilots defending themselves assumes that the shuttles will be staying on the ground. This is a bad tactic to begin with. The prefered doctrine is to have the shuttle leave and loiter, in the air, a short (time wise) distance away. There would also be gunships to provide LZ security for the shuttle when it was making it's drop, and to protect the SCs while they were loitering. The shuttle would be extremely vulnerable on the ground, so just don't land.

With the current sensor modeling, you'd have to go WAY FAR AWAY in order to be undetected. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but hills do not provide any kind of sensor masking what so ever. The only way to disappear from them is to go outside their range.

As far as the moblie base goes, isn't the one in tribes 2 more of a foreward supply point? If so then the SCs already provide that kind of capability.

Call me silly, but what's IIRC stand for?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hills don't provide radar cover, but they do provide visual cover, and radar has a lower limit so the trick is to stay literally beneath enemy radar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:


Originally posted by Locutus:

Basically, we're dealing with forces the size of a Star Trek away team. So whoever flies (since unlike ST, redshirts don't fly) either joins the assault party or sits back to defend the ship. Due to the nature of BCM character classes, he can't really expect to survive as a member of the assault team (i.e. do things the Star Trek way, where they just leave the shuttle and hope no one finds it). So he sits back and defends the shuttle. Of course, he can't do that well with the pistol, so he bugs out or dies (neither of which help gameplay)...


Correct.

Also, there is no hard and fast rule that says a pilot can only be the one who flies a shuttle. In mp I am going to relax the rules so that anyone can fly a shuttle, but only a pilot can fly a fighter etc

And anyway, in BCG, pilots can use other weapons instead of just the pistol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still think it's a good idea to hide the shuttle with a single pilot (or marine, or whatever). I wouldn't want to leave the shuttle unattended and if I was in the shuttle alone I wouldn't want it to be anywhere that would be easy to find.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:


Originally posted by Dragon Lady:

I still think it's a good idea to hide the shuttle with a single pilot (or marine, or whatever). I wouldn't want to leave the shuttle unattended and if I was in the shuttle alone I wouldn't want it to be anywhere that would be easy to find.


heh, if I was paying attention and saw an inbound shuttle landing, guess where I'm going?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hail All..

" Kiran "

Has the right Idea, a team oriented game play

Enviroment, Different levels of team support would be a good thing.

Ground Support Forces, Transport elements, and of Course, Close AIR support, and the Ultimate Orbital Bombardment on those Pesky " HEAVY " targets.

So one could invision, a planing stage to bring all the elements togeather. But then again if these planed senerios are to be limited to 1 hr or less, It sees to me it would be back to

" In a CAN senerios "

OUCH !!

" That Spelling had to hurt "

As far as the Mobility issue that seems Mute, due to the deployement of shuttles and the CC's Transport function..

TACOPS

Can pretty well drop your forces right on top of a

Target,, If one was to Plan for shuch an assualt.

But I see your delima,

This game has so many facets, And to bring them all into a single offering must be a daunting task.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×