Problem 1
GLA heavy rocket artillery is ineffective against defenses, because their missiles are often shot down before reaching the target.
Consequently, GLA players have either to rely on light artillery, which is just not possible in certain situations (due to minor range/AoE and poor pathfinding), or to build ridiculously large numbers of heavy artillery (in order to deliver at least some rockets to the target).
Building heavy artillery en masse stalls your warfactory, is expensive and extremely risky, because its quite easy to conter large numbers of artillery while they pummel on defenses, and almost impossible to protect them.

Solution
There are certainly many ways to solve this dilemma (like reducing price/buildtime of heavy rocket artillery) but they would inevitably make heavy rocket artillery even more effective in their other roles (against tanks and buildings) which isn't desirable.
Enought talk. My proposal is to introduce a second firing mode, with the same RoF, same damage, same AoE, but 2 times the range and a scatter equal to half the initial range (therefore, the maximum theoretical range would be 2.5 times the original range).
The scatter- effect would render single long-range attacks almost useless, but the additional range would make the use of heavy artillery against defense-walls viable (because you could protect them better), although the overall time to crack the defenses would probably increase.
1vs1 balance wouldnt be affected at all, because those games end (almost always) before large numbers of heavy artillery can be build.

Problem 2
Larger numbers of railguns (more than 2 or 3) are extremely ineffective, because they tend to waste all shots on the same target.

Solution
Introduce a second firing mode ("delayed fire"), which delays the blast just as long as the projectile normally (on maximum range) travels- similar to the chinese mortar-guys.
This would allow the player to set some of his railguns on "delayed fire"- they would then wait till the first target is destroyed by the "normal" railguns, and destroy another one (2 * <delay> later). You could additionally signal the current firing mode (-> tomahawks in ROTR), and/or give the delayed fire a small boost (e.g. +10% damage).

Yea, I know that suggestions are closed... but I felt that this are some really useful things, especially since they seem quite feasible (though I dont really know how much time/effort this would require).

--edit: typos

Problem 1:
Mix your arty with other unit. I also believe the GLA arty is somewhat weaker due to stopping SCUD popping.

Problem 2:
Now this one is easy, macroing do wonder.

A makeshift solution to this is using attack move. This will make the units spread their fire a lot more. It also works on rocket buggies, which somewhat suffer from the same problem. In the end, micromanagement will be the most effective solution, though.

Problem 1
Defense structures are design to protect against these rockets. So, I suggest you choose another target for heavy artillery. Using heavy rocket artillery against it would be like using infantry to attack gattling cannon. GLA rocket buggies are very good agiainst these (if you have large number, you would still do damage even the enemy is using ECM).

Heavy artillery is very useful if used with tunnel.

Wall of defense is quite expensive and by the time they got it, you would have a lot more units to attack (with exception of AI wall of defense).

Don't you mean micro, Raptor-san?

He obviously does. Or not.
@Topic: I think it depends where the Heavy Artillery of GLA is useful. They can smash most enemy unit formations and normal buildigns do not stand much a chance either. Against base defenses should rocket buggys or other medium artillery be used. Try to disctract the enemy while preparing the attacks, when he is busy with e.g. an Ambush or Sneak Attack (the latter filled with Bomb Trucks ) try to attack asap. Speed is the key, and GLA have plenty to share in this point. After all, GLA are a tactical faction and best described as the thorn in the lions paw: it is at first only annyoing, but can become dangerous since if the Lion bleeds too much, it will die.

As KamuiK said, the GLA cannot hope to win in one steamroller attempt across the battlefield.
They are better of to keep harassing the enemy and wearing them down slowly.

Of course online this is different as they GLA just try to prevent the enemy from getting into higher tech tiers

I guess it demoralizes GLA players when they hear "Search and Destroy", does it? The GLA in general is a low-tech faction, you can't really expect them to be able to directly counter advanced stuff like PDLs and etc. with a mindset of "shoot at everything with missiles and win", it's not really how the GLA was made for. The most I could think of is that Ballistic missiles take more than one PDL shot to down.

How rude, Raptor-sama!

On topic, GLA have tunnels use them.

First: I'm not talking about Compstomping or competitive 1on1, but about teamgames (2v2 or more) with human players only.
We play with limited superweapons (due to various reasons)- thus superweaponspam is not an option!

I'll now try to explain why (IMO) some of GLA's heavy rocket artillery (especially TOPOL-M and the vanilla Scud-Launcher) needs this small buff:


You are right. But the problem is, that base defenses are an extremely cost effective way to prevent a GLA from harassing its opponent AT ALL. Furthermore, in teamgames there are seldomly 3 different routes to each enemy base- there is rather ONE frontline, which is easy to protect with turrets, and puts GLA's generally at a disadvantage.

The suggested change would allow you to still harass your opponent from afar, even if he had some defenses- which would IMHO be the right thing (because currently, there is just nothing you can do as GLA vs. a decently defended opponent).


Sorry, but sacrificing shitloads of scorpions or quads is NOT a viable option just to get some scud- rockets to the enemy defenses. Let alone the fact that it probably wont do you any good anyway, because defenselines are seldomly cracked before you run out of cannonfodder- some defenses will last (and the rest is rebuilt quickly), while you are helpless against the counterattack (defenses are not expensive enought to prevent your enemy from building up an army).



Agreed. But there is a large gap between "being able to directly counter" and being helpless. And currently, GLA is helpless against decently defended opponents, because they cant harass them, nor breach their defenses. This is especially true considering that GLA lack aircraft (really important in teamgames/on larger maps!).

Summary: vGLA and GLA-Demo lack anti-defense artillery. Just compare the TOPOL-M with an SSNR- Nukecannon (same price!). Not even "tunnelpopping" can compensate for that difference- in fact, your tunnels offset the lack of airforce, at best!
My suggestion would just even the odds a bit- in small games (without much defenses and artillery) the change would be neglectible, but in games with more player it would grant the GLA at least a chance to harass a dug in opponent (without relying on Superweapons: SW-spam is lame). And unprecise long-range harassing fits (IMHO) the GLA- doctrine pretty well.


PS: I play Generals since 2003 (and SHW since hosted on former E-Studios). Obvious tactical suggestions, like "use tunnels" really ain't necessary.

First off, we are balancing the game around a completely no rules mindset. This generally means that in a competitive 2vs2 game when one player fortifies himself (or rather manages to as that is hard to accomplish anyway in my mindset) in such a way that artillery may be less effective, you do have the option to go spam superweapons against the other player.

Even in 2 vs 2 games, the fortification point where rocket buggies are not effective anymore is still rare. The problem with the Scud and TOPOL M is speed, as they are too slow to be effective in a GLA sieging strategy. I can inform you that the balance team has already realised that the Scud Launcher and (especially) TOPOL M are underpowered and they will be taken care of. The TOPOL M's set up time and damage are it's flaws.

I don't like your suggestion, it's too radical and being able to launch small scud storms from twice the Scud range will have unforseen balance effects. You are partly right about the fact that when a USA or China player is fortified, the GLA may have a harder time, but this is compensated by the general situation that a China/USA player who fortifies himself has to give up on map control, which automatically is the GLA's superior feature.

Exactly what I wanted to hear.

One thing about defences though - you can go around them...
They are fixed and have limited range.

Well, a defense would not be a defense if it was mobile, however they have commonly higher range and more power than units else they are useless. </meanRA3reference>
However what he meant is walls of defenses.

People have "strategies" that consist of destroying their opponent with defenses alone in that game. It's called the "turret push". The game's build orders are limited due to the existence of these "strategies", a side effect of the fundamental flaws inherent in the game's design.

Would love to see someone try that in Generals/ZH... since Dustin Browder left EA, they have never been able to get it right.

On topic: Defenses are a bit too strong in 0.951, which is why ground units fair badly against them and there is a need to bring along a lot of artillery to pass. Defenses should serve as a speed bump and nothing more than that.

Well, then how are people supposed to bunker in?

How are people supposed to attack if the defenses are too strong?

Nuclear Missiles, SCUD Storms and Earth Shaker Cannons for the sake of it
Nah I understand what you mean.

Defences can be taking out as long as a player can coordinate the defence's weakness.

Against the USA it's best to try and use aircraft to hit and run the anti-ground artillery before sending your ground units in to pave the way for deeper air strikes

Simple.

They are not.

You make one of the ECA doctrines unusable if that's the case.

Captain obvious: Non sequitur!

I have but one question for you: why on EARTH would you let people build defensive walls?????!!!!! If such a player exists, I would like to play against them and absolutely annihilate them!

If you think you can always prevent you enemy from closing down their frontline, you're just delusional. For instance, have you ever played "Fallen Empire" (a popular 2vs2 map)? Two turrets (three, on the left side) can cover almost half the map, and spoil about 80% off all GLA- tactics...

If you want a game... just PM me the Hamachi network- I'll gladly take you on...

QFT.

Hahahaaha How enjoyable this is who would honestly Make a Thick line of defenses

Wall of defense is very hard to attain. If you let your enemy build such thing, then you must admit that your attack would be significantly less effective.

GLA players commonly do, and a lot of them.

Why waste money on bunkering up when you can spam Quad + Buggy?

If you have enough tunnels just guess the right counter to that..

Exactly, scud launchers. If they were just a weeny bit faster...

Hey, don't leave me out D:


I agree though, ballistic missiles might need a bit more speed...

Oh yeah, sorry how DARE I forget my favorite ghost buddy who bunkers with all factions?

Bunkering is, and even more so, will be, very actively discouraged in ShW. From what I feel, in the next version defences will not be able to be used for destruction of units, only for slowing the enemy down.

Bunkers WITH ALL Factions?

This is quite...saddening. I do hope they still retain their effectiveness in shooting down ballistic missiles to save some PDL shots, though. (Ironic that the point of this topic is about the weakness of missile-based artillery )



And yes, I'm a turtler through and through. Be it vUSA, AFG, Leang or Deathstrike.

As a player doesn't really care about massive defence line but play comp stomp. This is really not welcoming.

TBH, there is more player comp stomping and PvP'ing so make your choice.

Right, if that were to be true they would be just completely useless.

Then they are useless, at least internally - Stinger himself said they weren't supposed to be more than speed bumps. It's just the way I feel about them currently.

1.
Then make units ? when i used to compstomp i never ever bunkered as i just got showered with Hostile artillary
dont like 99% of the forum play with 50000000000000000$ dollers anyways, so just spam away and win its really freaking easy
2.
Im not gonna say defensives like they said , should just be speed bumps , i mean if so then People who actually perfer to play defensively are screwed

I think turtling should be a viable tactic, defences should be at least worth building if you are going for that playstyle, just that the counter must be effective to said tactic. Hence, artillery should always be able to effectively kill defences no matter what you do.

ofc

Well I only turtle with defences if I have access to convenient close air support, and that's why I play Granger 100%.

Well yea, but the "thing" here seems to be making them speed bumps, which wouldn't be that useful, would it?

Indeed, as building fortress bases becomes less and less available in the community. See RA3, all defenses are absolutly useless, no wonder why most mods increase their stats considerably.

Now people are starting to get the wrong idea before they have even had a chance to play it.

Nice one.

Thread's over.