Jump to content
Raap

Siege and Hostile Waters Check-Up

Recommended Posts

Hey guys,

I was digging through the server statistics to find some information on what works well in the current gameplay meta and what should be avoided. Turns out, Siege and Hostile Waters are the least played maps (especially HW), the only maps less played are not in the default rotation but admin-triggered special maps.

So while I won't be able to do major reworks on these maps, I cannot help but feel the need to ask, given that these were my contributions, what the problems are within the gameplay on these maps today?

For Siege I already know that most rounds end via time-out. This is very unpopular but unfortunately it is how the map was designed intentionally. How has the game been since Pushwall added the extra bridges? The data here is hard to read as there is no patch filtering available. Did the extra route make the map more enjoyable and less meat-grindy? Whatever the answer, know that I will not create tug-o-war style maps again given their lack of popularity.

And how is Hostile Waters nowadays? I noticed it is barely being played, despite having received more revamps than most maps in the history of APB (YES! I BEAT FOI'S RECORD!?!?). I brought it back from the pre-Beta days based on a LOT of requests when Delta launched, I redesigned it from scratch, and overhauled it twice afterwards. It uses experimental gameplay and graphical effects and all of this creates a very non-standard gameplay - could this be the simple fact that non-standard gameplay just isn't enjoyed enough by most people? Or is it something else?

Anyhow, just trying to figure out where I went wrong with these maps. I might be edging towards repeating mistakes if it turns out that most people dislike anything that deviates from the core gameplay, so better for me to take the hint early and avoid doing it a third time. Thing is, my aim is typically to deviate - and perhaps my aim is off.

Let me know!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't played much lately (for a few reasons), but I did catch a game on Siege recently. My first time as Allies on the map actually.  It ended in a time out, but both teams managed to destroy buildings in the other's base.  I feel like if we'd have had an extra 10 minutes or so Allies could have won by base destruction, but the thing is, the bases are just *so big*.  We just ran out of time.  I honestly don't think that's a bad thing. Big bases are nice sometimes.  I do think time is the key though.  More time might mean more base destruction victories, but also more time might mean less interest in the map if people who already don't like it are forced to play it for longer.

Oh, and since it's the relevant change, the side path did help, we made great use of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Siege is pretty good at eliciting these kinds of reactions out of players:

Quote

Jul 06 21:55:05 <Volkov>    Loading level RA_Siege.mix
Jul 06 21:55:18 <Volkov>    @Voe: THIS MAP
Jul 06 21:55:20 <Volkov>    forg0ten1: skip
Jul 06 21:55:21 <Volkov>    @Voe: PLEASE
Jul 06 21:55:21 <Volkov>    Fegman891: aaaggggg it's always this map
Jul 06 21:55:28 <Volkov>    @Voe: i can skip it
Jul 06 21:55:31 <Volkov>    forg0ten1: do it now
Jul 06 21:55:32 <Volkov>    bakfiets: !skip
Jul 06 21:55:34 <Volkov>    @Voe: if i hear enough yeses
Jul 06 21:55:38 <Volkov>    Threve: skip
Jul 06 21:55:39 <Volkov>    Fegman891: yeses

Quote

Jun 28 23:50:28 <Volkov>    Loading level RA_Siege.mix
Jun 28 23:50:46 <Volkov>    +forg0ten1: skip
Jun 28 23:51:01 <Volkov>    cnc95fan: this map is awful
Jun 28 23:51:10 <Volkov>    Burt: its onluy good with thousands of players
Jun 28 23:53:37 <Volkov>    Rawshark1985: !skip
Jun 28 23:54:00 <Volkov>    Totd: WE'RE GONNA PLAY SIEGE AND YOU'RE GOING TO LIKE IT

Quote

Dec 10 23:40:51 <Volkov>    Loading level RA_Siege.mix
Dec 10 23:41:08 <Volkov>    Swirly: for all that is good., please skip this shit.
Dec 10 23:41:28 <Volkov>    Flareon17: how to skip
Dec 10 23:41:44 <Volkov>    Totd: !tempmod Totd
Dec 10 23:42:37 <Volkov>    bakfiets: skip pls

Shame they hardly ever actually say what the problem with the map is (even after a year or so of me requesting to hear their thoughts instead of giving them all the skips they want), but oh well. One bit of criticism that actually makes sense, from Burt: it, as well as Hostile Waters, only really work when you have a ton of players. With Silverlight's "dynamic rotation" plugin they would have been restricted to only appear in rotation when there are a lot of players, so the problem of "4 players are building up the server, they get sent to Siege, they all quit and activity is back to the drawing board again" would be a thing of the past, except that the plugin doesn't work properly and has a habit of looping maps too quickly which is more harmful to activity than Siege popping up when it shouldn't :( With the recent surge in activity I may be able to add the maps back, but that surge only came after I removed these maps... Some of that may be because lolrivals, some of that may be summer, but Siege/HW popping up at playercounts too small to support them and causing everyone to quit is also likely to be part of the equation.

And yeah, people just don't seem to like non-standard gameplay. Here's some other maps that generate a non-negligible amount of skip requests: Antlion/Wasteland (nowhere near as much as Siege/HW), RockTrap/Forest of Illusion (even more hated than Siege which is why they're completely gone from the game instead of just not in rotation, and RockTrap is being reworked into not a domination map), and Pipeline (teetering on the border of "non-negligible" - it just gets more requests than the standard maps). All maps with varying degrees of "non-standard" gameplay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For me, my biggest issue with Siege is the cannons. I've mentioned it before but I recall being summarily dismissed.  I think they are far too effective as base razing due to where they're positioned, seeing as only infantry or artillery can damage it in any way. It feels cheap seeing as you probably already have lost control of mid for the enemy team to get that far forward. If you haven't already lost mid, you'll probably lose itas a consequence since you either need to hang back to repair; grab an arty unit and hanging back to snipe it, but also at immediate un-dodge-able of being 1-hit killed by the cannon yourself; or use inf to get up to it, but pray that you won't be pummelled by the vehicles holding mid as you try to get to and run up the slopes to reach the cannon.

That's my feeling of Siege anyway (Hello me @Fegman891 in the logs).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, ok. Maybe try removing the two outer cannons for now. The internal one should be fine given that it cannot reach bases.

It is true both maps were certainly made with bigger populations in mind. HW can be a real hand full to manage both the icebergs as well as defending your naval building AS WELL AS CONTROLLING THE SEA amagahd too many things (hey guess what, there was even another bonus objective in design phases that involved capturable gun emplacements to take down off-map naval convoys of your opposing team, SURE GLAD I AXED THAT!).

My biggest take on this is that non-standard maps should not be created ever again. So, this means that my current 'asset salvage project' will have to included bases. Fortunately, I have enough room in the map to do so.

I wonder, what do you guys think of a Missile Silo in the middle of the map, two teams fighting for control over it and after some time it fires at the ene--- oh, what? EA did this? Oh okay, guess no Missile Silo's for Dread Plateau...

Edited by Raap

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Raap said:

Yeah, ok. Maybe try removing the two outer cannons for now. The internal one should be fine given that it cannot reach bases.

The internal cannon actually can reach bases. Only the outermost structures though. I've seen it being paired with the outer cannons to double up on siege power.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Pushwall said:

The internal cannon actually can reach bases. Only the outermost structures though. I've seen it being paired with the outer cannons to double up on siege power.

Well, shiet. Easy fix though? Lower the projectile lifetime and/or increase projectile gravity.

OR

Keep all cannons and make Shrapnel Blast the only firing option? That might actually be more fun.

Edited by Raap

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My main problem with Siege other than the problems mentioned earlier is that (at least when I have played) the match was basically decided as soon as one team snipes a building with the cannons (usually the RD. And I've seen it done by soviets more than the allies, though that last bit could just be the games that I have played as the balance stats shows the allies winning more than soviets so *shrugs shoulders*.) Then the team that got their building sniped usually loses due to not being able to get enough points to make up for the loss of a building or kill one of the other side's buildings. More often than not, I've often seen one side control the middle of the map and when that happens, it was extremely difficult for the team on the backfoot to take it (though the bridges have helped as it provided an alternate attack route, however it usually does not help enough turn the game around, as it is either ignored or rendered irrelevant by the other side having aircraft. Thus removing the element of surprise or stopping the attack completely.)

TL;DR My main problems with this map are that it is basically take the middle or die and that it is near impossible for the team on the backfoot to make a comeback.

All of this is from my experience with the map, so feel free to take any part of this with a grain of salt. And I have not got enough time on Hostile Waters to get a feel for any problems it may have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This might be a completely stupid idea, but what if we added a link from the side path to the middle.  The actual fort only had two ways in.  We addressed this issue with the bases themselves, but it seems to me that the fort itself is kind of a base.  The actual bases can be flanked now and that helps, but what if we added a way for a team controlling the middle to be flanked too?  Only problem is I don't think there's any "easy" place to make such an addition without redesigning the whole fort.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that any further level design iteration will be hamstrung regardless due to the perception of power on the part of the cannons. So a first step would be to alter those somehow, as mentioned above.

Keep in mind that level iteration can be time consuming. Siege is a little unwieldy, difficult to work with using the aged 3DS Max 8 software we use. So before anything is committed to, the design process has to be carefully finalized. The cannons are too much of a 'what if' as of now, so let's see what happens when that is resolved.

As for HW, a notable lack of feedback might indicate that the map has not been played much since the last revamp it received. Maybe just switch it back into rotation manually when the population is 20+?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll admit, I've never actually gotten to play on the modern Hostile Waters map.  All my memories are from long, long ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, OrangeP47 said:

I'll admit, I've never actually gotten to play on the modern Hostile Waters map.  All my memories are from long, long ago.

Try popping it up on a singleplayer local match. It uses a lot of custom art and two semi-new buildings, along with capturable tech buildings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Raap said:

As for HW, a notable lack of feedback might indicate that the map has not been played much since the last revamp it received. Maybe just switch it back into rotation manually when the population is 20+? 

I think this may be needed, as I have only played it 4 times since the revamp, one of which devolved into "who can rush down the other side's naval building first?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Blujet said:

I think this may be needed, as I have only played it 4 times since the revamp, one of which devolved into "who can rush down the other side's naval building first?"

There's the thing though, something I've noticed from the recent times I played it is that if the naval building doesn't die in the first 3 minutes, then it never dies - it's far too easy for the defenders to spam golden wrenches and LSTs are never going to get close to the enemy base once ships and helis start taking to the seas/skies, and in the rare instance that they do the infantry rush is going to fail due to the 10 defending infantry camping inside the naval building anyway. Adding frontal base defenses back will only make it impossible for the naval building to die period.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Pushwall said:

There's the thing though, something I've noticed from the recent times I played it is that if the naval building doesn't die in the first 3 minutes, then it never dies - it's far too easy for the defenders to spam golden wrenches and LSTs are never going to get close to the enemy base once ships and helis start taking to the seas/skies. Adding frontal base defenses back will only make it impossible for the naval building to die period.

Disable Engineers? I mean, the tech buildings no longer require them anyhow.

Would require a unique purchase roster though, and that's always a pain in the arse...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Pushwall said:

There's the thing though, something I've noticed from the recent times I played it is that if the naval building doesn't die in the first 3 minutes, then it never dies - it's far too easy for the defenders to spam golden wrenches and LSTs are never going to get close to the enemy base once ships and helis start taking to the seas/skies. Adding frontal base defenses back will only make it impossible for the naval building to die period. 

In that match both buildings died, the only reason the soviets won was because I was repairing the sub pen non-stop (I never left the base), and their NY died and completed the chain reaction first because of it.

EDIT: the match also didn't have a ton of players, and the entire allied team attacked (I don't remember the NY ever being repaired.)

Edited by Blujet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Raap said:

Disable Engineers? I mean, the tech buildings no longer require them anyhow.

That's a possible option.

Something else I was considering for naval combat in general is increasing the damage that naval units to do all buildings that aren't the NY/SP (and their HW equivalents) so that boat/sub rushes (on all naval maps, not just HW) have more reason to go after buildings that aren't the NY/SP. More often than not, it's a death sentence for destroyers/missile subs to try doing this because they have to get much closer to land where they're vulnerable to more units than just rocket soldiers and arty/V2.

Problem is the recent changes to HW have disincentivised hitting non-naval buildings even further; the rock formations and indestructible walls circling the islands have made many buildings impossible for dests/missubs to hit, forcing LST rushes which are underwhelming and take too much manpower off of the seas/skies.

More options:

  • remove the CY so people actually have to leave their NY/SP camp-post if a building in the back of the base needs repairs (I'd have to put ladders up to the rear Flame Towers but that's not a big issue) and also so that there's a higher chance of rushes (LST or not) against non-NY/SP buildings actually succeeding. Doing this also means there would be room to put a War Factory if LSTs ever get the option of carrying vehicles, or maybe even missile silos so that infantry LST rushes to the back of the base could be more fearsome.
  • raise the tech level to 5 so that LST rushes can contain Tanya/Volkov, again making them more fearsome. Would the lack of mines be a concern for Tanya? Considering how impossible it is for frontal LST assaults to succeed past the first few minutes, and how Tanya has no hope of getting past the rear flame towers unless the Soviets are negligent enough to not notice a Destroyer taking 3 minutes to slowly trundle over to the rear of the base to destroy those, I feel it wouldn't be too unfair. The other problem is Volkov on icebergs now that he's basically an anti-vehicle sniper held back from being spammy by his 1800 price tag, except not really because the economy is still a joke on HW - gem silo may have to go back to just being an ore silo. (Maybe just in terms of mechanics while retaining the appearance because it's a nice asset.)

Something else that Voe brought up with me before: the weapon crates encourage camping the middle and make it too hard to retake the middle (hey look, it's something similar to the Siege issue). A lone captain, sergeant/medic with a PKM, rocket/engineer with a PKM/MP5 (who also have the bonus feature of being able to repel vehicles/recapture if needed), or pretty much any unit that isn't a technician with a Dragunov basically prevents engineers from being able to land, forcing you to make a landing with units that don't have capturing capabilities, and then if the lander manages to trade favourably then they have to go back home and get engineers. And the more failures there are, the more the beaching zones get clogged up with empty LSTs. Though there is a bit of a solution for this in the works.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The island changes were done in the last revamp, based on feedback that the islands were too easy to assault, which used to be the main criticism the map was receiving... So how we go from that to them being too difficult to assault... I do not think this is the real problem. 

Besides, the only buildings truly unreachable are the Gem Silo's, as is intended. Gem Silo's were created as the economic fallback in the event your team cannot secure an iceberg silo, as well as ensuring the early game economy is not a snail simulator.

As for powerup creates, feel free to axe them entirely or remove the weapons from them. That still leaves some credit packs and other things for flavor. They were added to help increase the value of holding the islands but it is pretty clear that there is already enough value without them.

... So in short:

Siege:

Option A: Removed the two outer cannons and adjust the central cannon primary weapon to fire at a shorter range.

Option B: Keep all cannons but make Shrapnel Blast the only weapon mode (for both primary and secondary firing), reducing the role of the cannons purely to anti-infantry and close range anti-vehicle. This also means no more cannon anti-air wonder shots however.

In both cases, remove the cannon game hint message as it becomes obsolete.

If this still results in negative map feedback, the only option is to dry up the river entirely - literally, despite the severe loss of map aesthetics.

Hostile Waters:

Increase non-naval building damage taken from naval units by some percentage.

Remove Engineers.

Reduce the power of crates, or remove them entirely.

For both maps ideally any terrain alterations can be avoided due to the time requirements that would go along with that.

Edit: T5 infantry on HW might make the icebergs a Volkov Party.

Edited by Raap

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Raap said:

Edit: T5 infantry on HW might make the icebergs a Volkov Party.

Yeah, that came to mind shortly after posting too. However, if Soviets commit too much into using that to hold off naval units (unlike holding vs engineers where you really just need 1 unit on the icebergs, and doesn't even have to be as expensive as kov, camping the 1 landing zone), then they run the risk of Allies deciding to go around the icebergs, kill the Volkovs' transportation, and hit a poorly-defended base or force the Volkovs to suicide and lose their $1800 unit if they want to defend. It might not be too bad, it depends on how much ground those Volkovs can cover.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another possibility for HW (which I guess would be mutually exclusive with T5 infantry since it makes infantry assault more feasible): maybe enable Chinooks? They may be better than LSTs at a lot of things but aren't exactly so strong that they render LSTs completely obsolete:

Upsides:
+ Moves faster
+ Avoids Gunboats/Attack Subs entirely
+ Doesn't get targeted by Flame Towers/Pillboxes... not that this helps much since the infantry it drops off do get targeted.

Downsides:
- More expensive... though under the current economy, this only really serves to prevent *instant* nook rushes and discourage spamming them onto the island.
- More vulnerable to Rocket Soldiers/Destroyers/Missile Subs.
- More visible - both in motion (even through distance fog) and when purchased (anyone watching the enemy base can easily distinguish a landing chinook from a landing longbow/hind; purchased nooks on other maps are the one thing that everyone who knows how to chat is basically guaranteed to raise alarm about)
- Louder. (though with how far out the map boundaries are, this is negligible on HW)
- Gets targeted by SAM sites/AA guns. Which the bases are very well defended with, so you can't realistically make Chinook assaults unless multiple SAMs/AAs have been cleared from a specific area - which requires the use of LSTs or Dest/Missub sneaks.
- Can't refill C4. And given that the few occasions I've seen LSTs successfully used for mid/lategame assault on HW mainly involved sneaking an engineer to poke multiple targets, this is hardly insignificant.

Now those are definitely two massive upsides compared to everything else, but still. LSTs are so bad at frontal assault that it's not uncommon to see Allies on HW suicide a bunch of Longbows over the ASP to try to get infantry inside, and if LSTs are made too much tankier it may break the other naval maps, especially if they ever end up being able to transport vehicles. Like the T5 infantry, this may demand a slightly more stringent economy so that the difference in price between an LST/Chinook is felt enough to make it a less obvious choice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Enabling Chinooks would require re-positioning of some of the AA defenses as they are currently relatively restricted in their line of fire, with intentional blind spots.

This is certainly mutually exclusive to T5 infantry.

The reason why I disabled Chinooks originally was my concern that they would too easily bypass the defenses and icebergs, as well as being an 'opt-out' option of dealing with naval units. I am concerned that their inclusion wil result in nobody bothering with naval units any longer and at this point the map might as well be called Hostile Airways. :) And of course having Chinooks available does kind of render LST's obsolete unless LST's offered something that Chinooks do not offer. Being significantly cheaper helps but will it be enough during late game? It should be a strategic investment and not a default spam option.

 

Edit: Maybe... Maybe there should be two additional capturable SAM Sites on the outskirts of the iceberg cluster? It would make this a little more challenging to pull off while also encouraging sending forth a landing unit to capture the SAM Site you're attempting to fly over. Could probably highlight the SAM Sites on the radar instead of the other objectives, or you could link the SAM Sites to the Ore Silo capture logic, these now use a dummy mesh for this (to avoid script crashes, although Dan fixed this crash later).

Edited by Raap

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Before going all out removing the cannons on Siege I might try just lowering their range, so that the outer cannons can only hit the most forward buildings in each base and the inner cannon can only hit the other cannons and units within the castle walls. Maybe also tweaking their damage down slightly again as well.

e: ok, less range may not work out due to the base layouts and distances from the cannons. A 240m range cannon on the Soviet side can hit the SD, coil and CY, but the same ranged cannon on the Allied side can hit the SD, barracks and dome. Barracks being quite a bit more important than anything else there I'd say. Add 20m of range onto both of those and suddenly the Allied ref+pp+gap and Soviet bar can be hit - and at that point it's probably too many buildings in range of the cannons, especially on the Allied side.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Something from me regarding Siege. I noticed that the bridge on allied side is used way more often than the one on soviet side. It usually ends up with soviets chargin into power plant in early game. Reason for this is pillbox position, which currently is next to the wall pillar. Soviets can easily drive their supply truck to the wall of allied base and use pillar as cover to shred pillbox in seconds and then proceed into the base. Same thing cannot be told for Soviet side Flame Tower, where you have no such blindspot - you have to rely on range of rocket soldiers to take out flamer from safe distance and only then you can use the passage. You cant teamwork your way unless entire team takes infantry units that outrange the flame tower.

Another thing regarding siege is how air tends to dominate this map, but i think Pushwall already have planned solutions for that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That air dominates should be no surprise, Siege started development a decade ago with the purpose of being an airplane-enabled map, which is why the level design is so open. Of course, back in those days, there was also talk of Allied airplanes... So we're half way there after a decade!

Fun side effect of this map requiring to be so open was the insane design challenge at making it look remotely decent. And unfortunately due to performance issues with older iterations, a lot of detail had to be cut. So now you're left with a map that only partially achieved its design goals from so long ago, while also having suffered a lot from unanticipated requirements. OH WELL!

Edited by Raap

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Back to Hostile Waters: according to the poll in the old thread, the second-biggest issue that people had with it was the interaction between air and naval units. gammae102 specifically posted that Destroyers/Missile Subs should be "very, very effective against aircraft".

Of course, Destroyers/Missile Subs being "very, very effective against aircraft" has been the intended balance from day one. It just unfortunately doesn't work out very well because tracking is awful. Destroyer/Missile Sub missiles got a 25% damage boost against aircraft at one point but even that doesn't suffice. Missile Subs tend to miss Longbows about 2/3rds of the time, and Destroyers miss Hinds about 1/2 the time, and trying to lead instead doesn't work very well with a tracking projectile - so the results tend to be underwhelming for the boats. While Destroyers are still almost guaranteed to win against Hinds in a straight fight, owing to Hinds having mediocre anti-boat damage and Destroyers having a huge health pool, they aren't particularly great at protecting Gunboats from Hinds. Suicide hinds easily bring down GBs even under Dest protection, attack subs mop up the remains, GG. Meanwhile on the Soviet side, it's not even worth trying to take down Longbows as a Missile Sub - a sub group is better off trying to goad the Longbows into wasting missiles against submerged targets that receive barely any damage from them. And if the AA damage goes much higher it just runs the risk of being even more polarising: is it OP due to fringe instances where tracking actually works properly and the missile sub miraculously one-salvo's a Longbow, or UP because the tracking never actually works? While tracking has been removed from the Redeye/Strela, vehicles unfortunately have had to live with it since they don't have the luxury of being able to instantly turn to face any direction like Redeye-wielding infantry can, and the Longbow/Missile Sub in particular don't even have turrets so they would be completely unusable against anything other than buildings if they didn't have tracking.

:siren: However! Not long ago, Eggman891 found and fixed a stock renegade bug that was causing tracking to constantly fail (yeah believe it or not it's not just a random % roll, like I and probably many others have believed for so long), and this has opened the floodgates for some more potential fun tweaks regarding tracking. I've checked the basic fix out on local FDS and it seems pretty consistent even against a moving target, compared to how it normally "works":

10/12 rockets managed to successfully track, and those 2 that didn't track only didn't track because my crosshair was not on the LB at the instant I fired. 8/10 of the tracking rockets managed to successfully hit, and those 2 that missed only missed because the Longbow went too far away and the missiles reached their maximum range. It may still look like it reflects badly on the Sub, but compare this to the average engagement in the current game, where Missile Subs simply cannot engage Longbows unless they outnumber the LBs 2 to 1 and the planets are aligned. With this change Missile Subs are now pretty well set for bringing down Longbows in 2 or 3 salvos and they still have the range advantage to get 1 "free" salvo. Oh, and that 25% damage boost I mentioned that dest/missub had against helis? I disabled it for this video. They probably won't be needing that anymore :v Tracking that actually works is also another step towards having MiGs be balanced for naval combat (assuming we ever get the assets we need).

What this means for Hostile Waters, as well as Pacific Threat, is that the Dest/Missub will become formidable AA for once, and Hostile Waters won't be Hostile Skies so much anymore. I guess at that point though, aircraft will end up being used solely for picking off patrol boats without AA escort, doing scratch damage to deeply submerged subs, and for base assault (and only after the AA defenses are downed too). Pacific Threat already sees limited use of aircraft so I may remove one or two AA defenses there, but Hostile Waters' bases are probably fine as they are. Maybe I should remove the AAs from the central buildings though, so that the option of using Hinds for anti-infantry is always there so they're not rendered too irrelevant? And I guess Longbows will need to do slightly less pathetic damage to submerged subs so that Attack Subs can't just laugh them off and Missile Subs are more encouraged to engage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Top that off with two more SAM sites near the Silo's perhaps. It might be overkill but perhaps overkill is needed in this instance, to deal with the negative stigma the map suffered over the naval <-> air interaction rules.

To remind; All you need to do for that is replace the silo capture scripts referring to a dummy preset, to an abandoned SAM site preset. Should you want to do that, of course.

Edited by Raap

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Raap said:

Top that off with two more SAM sites near the Silo's perhaps. It might be overkill but perhaps overkill is needed in this instance, to deal with the negative stigma the map suffered over the naval <-> air interaction rules.

Why though? Surely we want less SAMs in the middle now that boats can actually handle aircraft and therefore aircraft don't have much left to be relevant for? Unless you mean near the gem silos in which case, sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nope, icebergs. Purely to deal with the map stigma and encourage more naval play.

Maybe the tracking is enough though. Either way it'd be unfortunate if people came with another reason for not liking it... There is always something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure missile subs going from hitting 0-3 missiles (based on luck) per salvo out of 8 needed to kill a longbow, to hitting 3-6 (based on precision) out of 10 needed to kill a longbow (due to reduced damage), will do wonders for encouraging naval play. :v I'm certainly not adding more SAMs considering that the most expensive unit on the map will already be starved for things to do outside of scouting and hunting down the enemy's cheapest units when they're alone, something that on non-naval maps is the role of the cheapest vehicle (the ranger) instead of the most expensive one. Leaving the ones that already exist in the middle alone... maybe.

Speaking of expensive... would not having the cash to spam hinds every day encourage naval play? :v

And going back to a former point, hinds/longbows are the ultimate counter to chinooks (especially on a map where rocket soldiers can't walk on most of the terrain) so that could be a good call to bring chinooks in too: to give hinds/longbows more to do. But I guess they do usurp LSTs a bit too much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just wanted to say that seeing those missiles track like that gives me an erection.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×