Emplacements

[Hayoo]

Emplacements Overview -

What are Emplacements?

• Emplacements are prepared-positions, akin to a foxhole or sandbagged shelter, deployed by a player with the appropriate cert and equipment.
  
  These prepared positions appear as chest-high berms of dirt topped with tech-boxes for sandbags, with two entrances cut into opposite sides for entry.
  
  
  Smaller types of emplacements appear as a berm in a semi-circle,
  
  
  as a small front-facing berm,
  
  
  And tech-box cover.
  
  
  
  Emplacements serve as cover for troops and mini-camps serving specific functions of support or offense/defense.

How are they created?

• Much like Spitfires and mines, a player uses special equipment to point at a spot, choose the desired type of emplacement, click the button, and the emplacement will appear some moments afterward.
  
  There are two types of tools used to create emplacements:
  
  Entrenching Tool: Handheld device used to create the smaller types of cover such as the ubiquitous tech-boxes, a small berm of cover called the Fighting Position (or Basic or 90 degree) Cover, and a semi-circular berm of cover called a machineg-un nest (or 180 degree cover). This tool uses a type of inventory-stored field-structure nanite in boxes of certain size to create the cover.
  
  Combat Engineering Vehicle: Vehicle acquired by a Combat Engineer used to create the support emplacements. This vehicle uses a type of trunk-stored field-structure nanite in boxes of certain size to create the emplacements.

What types of Emplacements are available and who can make them?

Using the Entrenching tool, any Grunt can create one emplacement of the following: a tech-box cover or fighting position cover.

Using the Entrenching tool, any Engineer can create two emplacements of the following: a tech-box cover, a fighting position, or machine-gun nest.

A Combat Engineer is able to create two tech-box covers, fighting position, or machine-gun nest using the Entrenching tool. The CE also has access to the Combat Engineering vehicle. Using this vehicle, a CE can create two emplacements of the following: radar post, command post, med station, support station, lookout post, supply post, and monitoring post.

Where am I allowed to create them?

• Anywhere on fairly flat terrain but inside a facility, on a road, in front of doors and entrances, or on bridges. Emplacements are not meant to be barricades that deliberately obstruct movement and will not be allowed to be used as such.
  
  There is also a set radius for each type of emplacement that determines how close to one another they can be created. The larger emplacements have the widest radius and tech boxes the smallest.

How do I destroy them?

• The current design gives deployable emplacements 2 hitboxes: the berm and the equipment inside or behind it.
  
  Like the trees and rocks, the outside dirt berm does not take any damage.
  
  The equiment inside, whether it is an ammobox, weapon mount, or support equipment, does take damage.
  
  To destroy the emplacement and make it deconstruct, you must land your shots inside the emplacement. Or you can place boomers or a satchel charge inside to blow up the equipment.

How long does it take to deploy an emplacement?

• That depends on the type of emplacement. The smaller covers take about 5-8 seconds to simulate foxhole creation. The larger emplacements may take as long as 10-15 seconds depending on how advanced it is.

So I have a limit like deployables? What happens if I reach my limit?

• Then your first emplacement will automatically deconstruct. If you try to create one more emplacement that you are allowed, a small dialogue box will appear (option toggled from menu) and inform you that you have exceeded your limit and are you sure you wish to place the item.
  
  Also, as per FeckinOtter's suggestions, each emplacement has a deconstruction panel that the owner must use if he wishes to decon his emplacement without creating another one.

[Hayoo]

EMPLACEMENT TYPES

Can you describe each Emplacement?

• Tech-box cover:
  
  1. Pre-req: none, requires emplacement tool
  2. Description: This emplacement is the same as the boxes found at facilities, with the exception that these have an armor bar and can be destroyed.

• Fighting Position (90 degree or basic cover):
  
  1. Pre-req: none, requires emplacement tool
  2. Description: This emplacement is a chest-high berm of dirt with a small row of tech-boxes as sandbags. Its area of protection is a narrow 90 degrees, but placed correctly can offer needed protection for any grunt.

• 3-man position (180 degree cover):
  
  1. Pre-req: Engineer, requires emplacement tool.
  2. Description: This emplacement is a semi-circular chest-high berm of dirt with a row of tech-boxes for sandbags. Its area of protection is a wide 180 degrees. Vehicles may also pull up behind a 180 cover to act as a Vehicle emplacement. CE's can make an armed variant of this cover called the Machine-gun Nest.

• Machine-gun Nest (180 degree cover):
  
  1. Pre-req: Combat Engineer, requires emplacement tool, and machine-gun unit in backpack.
  2. Description: This variant of the 3-man position is a semi-circular chest-high berm of dirt with a row of tech-boxes for sandbags. Its area of protection is a wide 180 degrees. It is armed with a 12mm machine gun centered on the long end. Vehicles may also pull up behind a 180 cover to act as a Vehicle emplacement.

• Medical Station Emplacement:
  

• 1. Pre-req: Combat Engineer, requires CE vehicle
  2. Description: This emplacement is a completely encircled chest-high berm of dirt with a row of tech-boxes for sandbags. Two entrances are cut in opposite sides for entry.
  3. Operation: Within the berm is set up a fabric or metal structure which comes equipped with a Medical generator for medevac spawns and health regeneration, a small cloaking field generator, and a single "basic equipment" terminal that provides standard ammo, medical items, and repair items only.

• Radar Post Emplacement:
  
  1. Pre-req: Combat Engineer, requires CE vehicle
  2. Description: This emplacement is a completely encircled chest-high berm of dirt with a row of tech-boxes for sandbags. Two entrances are cut in opposite sides for entry. To the back of one end rises a bulky radar tower and dish. A storage box is located next to the equipment.
  3. Operation: When created, the radar post provides pilots with radar data on enemy aircraft within the detection radius if they are facing in the enemy's direction. The radar radius is roughly 20% larger than an SOI.

• Support Station Emplacement:
  
  1. Pre-req: Combat Engineer, requires CE vehicle
  2. Description: This emplacement is a completely encircled chest-high berm of dirt Atop this berm is set a landing tarmac with two sets of steps on either side. A trunk is also available near the front to store extra ammo.
  3. Operation: In the back of the emplacement is a Capacitor Recharging Unit, which quickly and efficiently 'refuel's' the capacitor of any aircraft that lands or hovers over the pad, as well as any vehicle that drives up within it's recharging radius. Storing nanite canisters in the trunk will make the emplacement repair vehicles. Ammunition may also be stored here, but a pilot must open the trunk to retrieve them. Go here for more details on NTU capacitors

• Ground Monitoring Station Emplacement:
  
  1. Pre-req: Combat Engineer, requires CE vehicle
  2. Description: This emplacement is a completely encircled chest-high berm of dirt with a row of tech-boxes for sandbags. Two entrances are cut in opposite sides for entry. To the back of one end rises a bulky sensor tower. A storage box is avaiable for equipment storage.
  3. Operation: When created, the monitoring post provides vehicle detection capability to anyone's Continent Map. Should a vehicle larger in mass than a Lightning appear in it's detection radius, a warning will flash on the map of "Mechanized Unit Detected." This emplacement is useful for commanders to watch their flanks against armored incursions. The berms also provide limited infantry cover in the event of attack.

• Lookout Post Emplacement:
  
  1. Pre-req: Combat Engineer, requires CE vehicle
  2. Description: This emplacement is a completely encircled chest-high berm of dirt with a row of tech-boxes for sandbags. Two entrances are cut in opposite sides for entry. Situated on four girders is high 360-degree-view platform for above-ground observation. In the back are a flight of stairs leads up to the platform.
  3. Operation: This emplacement functions as a large motion sensor, although more difficult to take out than its smaller cousin. With the cover available troops are able to defend this position. A storage box is availabe on the bottom level to keep equipment.

• Bunker Emplacement:
  
  1. Pre-req: Combat Engineer, requires CE vehicle
  2. Description: This emplacement is a completely encircled chest-high berm of dirt with a row of tech-boxes for sandbags. Two entrances are cut in opposite ends for entry. Within this berm is constructed an armored shell of a roof for protection from high rounds. Unfortunately, this covering is its weakness. Destroying the heavily armored covering destroys the emplacement. There are two ammo boxes inside for storage of equipment. Destroying these will also bring down the bunker.

• Command Post Emplacement:
  
  1. Pre-req: Combat Engineer, requires CE vehicle
  2. Description: This emplacement is a completely encircled chest-high berm of dirt with a row of tech-boxes for sandbags. Two entrances are cut in opposite sides for entry. Within this berm is constructed an armored shell of a roof for protection from enemy fire. Within the structure is housed the command and communications equipment.
  3. Operation: The Command Post enhances the broadcast range and communications abilities of unit leaders and comtechs. Given the Proposed restriction of no command chat broadcastable within enemy 'territory', the Command Post, and towable Communications Mast, restore the flow of communication in that area. When seated inside, commanders and comtechs are also provided enhanced map functions (to be described elsewhere). Destroying the armored structure destroys the emplacement. Access to the Command post is restricted.

• Supply Post Emplacement:
  
  1. Pre-req: Combat Engineer, requires CE vehicle
  2. Description: This emplacement is a completely encircled chest-high berm of dirt with a row of tech-boxes for sandbags. Two entrances are cut in opposite sides for entry. Within this berm is constructed a fabric or metal structure.
  3. Operation: Inside can be found a large trunk for on-site storage of equipment, an equipment terminal, as well as a row of Lockers. These lockers only function if the emplacement is located in a friendly SOI. The equipment terminal only provides standard weapons and ammo.

edit: 09-27-2004 - Changed Fortification Tool to Entrenching Tool, added sketch images of emplacements.
10-4-2004 - Added descriptions for Med Tent, Med Station, Support Station, Monitoring Station, Lookout Post, Bunker, Command Post, Supply Post.
10-22-2004 - Added weapons emplacements. Added silouette graphics for emplacements.
12-30-2004 - Restricted Field Engineer creation to heavy emplacements only
07-19-2005 - Removed heavy weapons emplacements, removed Field Engineering references, updated images and overview.
07-22-2005 - Removed more references to FE, and changed "90 degree cover" to Fighting Position, and "180 degree" to 3-man Position. Split 180 into two variants.

[7ruth]

This is absolutly awesome, those overhead images are just awe inspiring.

Hope you come through Jeanne in one peice.

[Firman]

Nice work, another good idea. I especially like the Combat Engineering Vehicle idea.

You make great images.

Good luck with the huricane.

[Ubu]

I like this idea a lot! With these in the game, base defense could be really fun!

I hate to sound like I rag on peoples ideas but don't you think that this ability should only be accesable to the engineer or techs? If anyone could put up the little 90 degree basic cover, wouldn't there be a LOT of them all over the place?

Keep up the hardcore work! :D

[Earlydawn]

That's actually the idea. Any old grunt can dig a simple foxhole with the proper tool (In this case, the foxhole being a wall barrier, and the tool being an entrenching tool.)

That way, any grunt can make himself an effective strongpoint to use for defense. Then, the combat engineer can deploy all his regular ACE gear to deploy the defenses we know and love, or he can alternatively deploy support emplacements. These are more focused on keeping soldiers in the fight and maintaining communications and control. However, combat engineer emplacements require the CE Vehicle to deploy.

This way, if a commander believes the zerg is marching on a given base, they can send messages back to set up emplacements around the perimeter to bolster defense and infantry support. That base now has a reasonably better chance of holding out against the zerg.

However, if you want fire and artillary support, you'd better grab a field engineer and stick him in an engineering vehicle, too. These guys can set up more heavily armed emplacements with weapons like anti-tank guns, Flak to serve as AA, and artillary.

The entire idea, the way I look at it, is to provide grunts with a home away from bases, urban areas, and towers, and to bolster defense in the game.

[Ubu]

What's the limit on wall barriers for the grunts? My only concern is that a couple of grunts with no engineering will be able to set enough of these to block off vehicle entry to a court yard.

Otherwise it would be pretty cool. How big is this entrenching tool going to be?

[Earlydawn]

A grunt can only make one. Also, it's not buildable to block areas like courtyard entrances and doors, so no worries there.

[7ruth]

Player created field bases *Druels*

[Hayoo]

Well, I made it. I'm a little pissed about the whole ordeal, but none the worse for wear.

So besides damage control, what did I do in the boring no-electricity hours? Why sketch of course. Here's a slew of extremely rough drawings of possible emplacement designs.

Specific Designs:






















Study for Field Gun Designs:

[Hayoo]

Study on SAM Site Designs:












Other Emplacement Designs:

[Hayoo]

Style Designs:

[7ruth]

Adopt me?!?!

:lol: ok Im just kidding, Have a lot of time at your parents house?

[Hayoo]

Originally posted by 7ruth@Sep 28 2004, 03:57 AM
Adopt me?!?!

:lol: ok Im just kidding, Have a lot of time at your parents house?

lol.

Yeah, except for the time period between 2am and 7am Sunday morning, I basically just sat around, sketched, listened to the weather, sketched, looked outside, sketched, ate, sketched. Etc.

What's shown here are just scanned and edited images from my notes. There's tons more, but these were more presentable as sketches.

[7ruth]

Ok... but do you have any ideas for specific vehicle cover? Say a one of them van'aguards rolls in and this emplacement covers the hull, but there is a slot for the turret. oh oh oh and! Covers for BFRs too!

[Hayoo]

Originally posted by 7ruth@Sep 28 2004, 04:05 AM
Ok... but do you have any ideas for specific vehicle cover? Say a one of them van'aguards rolls in and this emplacement covers the hull, but there is a slot for the turret. oh oh oh and! Covers for BFRs too!

I did originally, but I came across some interface issues with the player facing such a big thing in the right direction on the first try and such. But then I noticed that my 180 cover is actually about vehicle length, so an engineer can create one of those and a tank pull up behind it, as illustrated in the top-down graphic.

I don't know if anything can be used for BFR cover except maybe forests and such. :) Any emplacement would be too tall. I guess they can hide behind a lookout post. :P

[7ruth]

Oh.. well I really like my sketch :P

[7ruth]

Sketches now... They are crude but would give you a better idea.

[Hayoo]

:D Post the sketch or send it so I can take a look then. Who knows, I maybe be able to include vehicle cover after all.

[7ruth]

Warming it up now =P

[Cass]

buildable cover for BFRs but why would we want people building mountains everywhere (i wish they where that big)

But yea i think it would be cool to give vehicals cover but its kind of a bad idea you cant move if a Reaver comes for you.

[7ruth]

hehe its your choice =)

[Earlydawn]

Good to see you're okay, boss. And great sketches.

As soon as the writeup on functionality is done, 7ruth and I can continue on our Permissions V 2.0 screen.

Best regards to family. :D

[7ruth]

My Quicky sketches, from left to right:
Top- BFR Cover, BFR Cover 2, Prowler cover W/ pilot exit.
Bottom- Magrider Cover, Vanguard cover, Prowler cover

They aren't great, I could do better. Feedback?

[Earlydawn]

I like them. The drawing itself is a little unclear, but the designs seem sound.

[7ruth]

BFR cover 1 is now laid out in more detail. Just wait for me to post it below.

[piolet68654]

can u sketch combat enginnering vehicle man that things awsome

[Cass]

Great sketchs.

I like the idea but there should be a low max amount of them you can make and a big radius around that you can not make another to many would start to lag up the servers with Alot of them.

[7ruth]

How about for the BFR cover, we make it so that a Field Engineer can only make 1 BFR cover and nothing else.

First of all I have to say (V-V-F) "Fantastic!" lol
Truly inspired designs here. One question on functionality. Will the various emplacements be only placeable on flat terrain?
If not will they take X amount of seconds longer to deploy? (X dependant on severity of angle or unevenness)
Will the monitoring station pick up all communications in a given area? Or am I mistaken about it's function? If it does pick up communications will that include /tells?

[Earlydawn]

I'm not Hayoo, but I can answer a few of the questions:

Comtechs (See the "New Certs" segment on the main idealab page) will be able to access the communications post to tap into enemy command (/c) communications. Enemy leaders can either encrypt or scramble their communications (but not both) if they, too, have a comtech in the squad or platoon.

Encoding makes it possible for the comtech to detect the leader's position, but not the actual contents of the message. Scrambling makes it impossible to determine where the enemy commander is, but his message can be read. Choose carefully.

For the record, I'm also proposing some additional comtech ideas to Hayoo, including the ability for a comtech to mark a landing zone for HART drop pods, and create a jamming field to cover troop movements from detection by the "Reveal Enemies" command ability and commanders on the orbital stations (Future design idea by Electrofreak).

And welcome to the forums!

[Hayoo]

Originally posted by 7ruth+Sep 28 2004, 09:17 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (7ruth @ Sep 28 2004, 09:17 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
My Quicky sketches, from left to right:
Top- BFR Cover, BFR Cover 2, Prowler cover W/ pilot exit.
Bottom- Magrider Cover, Vanguard cover, Prowler cover

They aren't great, I could do better. Feedback? [/b]

Nice sketches, 7ruth. :)

Are the emplacements completely armored all around or vulnerable from the rear? Just wondering if the field engineer has the ability to rotate them in a desired direction or if it'd be self-contained. That was my main concern with including these, ya see, since they're so big.


<!--QuoteBegin-LazerusKing
Will the various emplacements be only placeable on flat terrain?
If not will they take X amount of seconds longer to deploy? (X dependant on severity of angle or unevenness)
Will the monitoring station pick up all communications in a given area? Or am I mistaken about it's function? If it does pick up communications will that include /tells?[/quote]

Thanks, Lazerus. They would need to be on relatively flat terrain. Granted this would be difficult on a continent like Ceryshen. But the emplacements are designed around the physical model of a vehicle terminal. That is, the sides extend through the ground a ways so if the terrain slopes a little, it won't create a gap under the emplacement.

I can consider them being created on steeper slopes, but that might be technically difficult and also expose the vulnerable center to direct fire from the horizon.

The monitoring station is actually a modified motion sensor emplacement that monitors siesmic data, that is, approaching vehicle vibrations. When a vehicle of certain size is detected, a warning flashes on the continent map. This allows commanders to guard their flank a little since every soldier is needed on the front.



As EarlyDawn states, Communications monitoring is done through the Command Post which also doubles as a communications post (they were originally seperate but I combined them to streamline the whole concept). This post enhances the abilities or range of Commanders, Unit Leaders, and the Comtech.



Also of note, the Lookout Post acts as a larger radius motion sensor. Its exposed height makes it vulnerable to direct fire, but its detection range can prove very very useful to local facilities and troops.

[Cass]

*Worship*

Great drawings and Ideas Hayoo but i think these thing are getting a little big for ACEs things or buildable things, but maby these could go towards the territoy and outpost areas idea.

Great ideas everyone.

wow..... dude, you are *ahem* "teh roxorz"

these need to be in game, it would inject far more life into the game than bfr's

[Lazerus King]

More questions I'm afraid.

The "commander" everything referrs to. Is it necessary to be a cr/5? My outfit is very small. We do tactical raids with the occasional zerg. As such I am not BR20/CR5 as of yet. (Well that and I have alts)
Anyway. Can the commander be of any CR or is it going to be limited?

[Earlydawn]

For which function, specifically?

[internetn]

This post enhances the abilities or range of Commanders, Unit Leaders, and the Comtech.

Just my 2 cents but, I believe that probably would include lowly squad leaders such as myself... I could be wrong, but it's just an educated guess.

[Hayoo]

Correct, when I say commanders I'm really saying "anyone with CR and is commanding a unit of soldiers, however big or small." I don't really go for that "must be CR4 to do this" kind of thing and try to avoid it when I can since CR doesn't mean you're actually leading anyone.

[Tiletron|Hyncharas]

If you like, I could whip up a couple (if not most) of these tower-diagrams on this thread in a matter of hours on one day...

[Hayoo]

Originally posted by Tiletron|Hyncharas@Oct 3 2004, 03:49 AM
If you like, I could whip up a couple (if not most) of these tower-diagrams on this thread in a matter of hours on one day...

You mean the deployable emplacements, right? If so, sure, by all means. :) Although I'm not done with the designs yet and I'd hate for you to have to redo anything.

If you mean 'towers' from someone else's idea, then ignore the above. ;)

[Hayoo]

Updated Emplacement Descriptions with Medical Tent, Medical Station, Support Station, Ground Monitoring Station, Lookout Post, Camo Netting Upgrade, Supply Post, Bunker, Command Post

[Earlydawn]

:D Nice.

[Redford Blade]

These are definitely too big for ACE's. I mentioned somewhere in the Wishlist that we need Mk. 2 ACE's, but those were just for simple machine gun nests and barricades. These things would either require Hayoo's (I assume it was yours) construction vehicle, or an entirely new class of ACE's. Mk. 2 ACE's were the size of ammo boxes, but Mk. 3's will need to be about the size of vehicle ammo boxes, if not larger.

[Hayoo]

Originally posted by Redford Blade@Oct 5 2004, 12:05 AM
These are definitely too big for ACE's. I mentioned somewhere in the Wishlist that we need Mk. 2 ACE's, but those were just for simple machine gun nests and barricades. These things would either require Hayoo's (I assume it was yours) construction vehicle, or an entirely new class of ACE's. Mk. 2 ACE's were the size of ammo boxes, but Mk. 3's will need to be about the size of vehicle ammo boxes, if not larger.

Yup, these deployables would require the Combat Engineering vehicle.

[Redford Blade]

Any designs available on the CE vehicle?

[Hayoo]

I can provide a quick concept summary, still working on visuals.

The CE vehicle not only builds emplacements but it can destroy them as well by deploying a dozer blade, which restricts its speed severely but allows you to ram/push/knock an emplacement apart more quickly. The dozer blade is actually split and each piece is mounted on either side of the vehicle's front, with the emplacement creation device jutting out between them. When in dozer mode, the emplacement tool retracts into the hull and the dozer blades link together and lower to the ground.

While doing this you're a sitting duck though, and the CE vehicle has slightly less armor than a tank, so make sure you have some covering fire. Tentatively the deployed dozer blade can also push aside mines without much damage, but I'm still thinking about that.

[Earlydawn]

Should defenitely allow for the laying of mines too.

[Redford Blade]

While a minelaying capability would fit with the vehicle's Combat Engineer usage, I would caution against overpowering it. After all, a minelaying vehicle is theoretically much more capable at its task than even a squad of CE's.

[Earlydawn]

Yes, but you have to counterbalace the ability for a vehicle to clear entire minefields. Its only fair that there be a method for mass-field deployment.

[Tiletron|Hyncharas]

While I have been skimming this thread (since a day off would help), I wondered something.

Couldn't you make a carrier design that could air-drop these emplacements, which means that only a certain number could be placed in an area (much like normal deployables)?

In any case, the thread gives a renewed use for the term "repair our deployables"!

[Hayoo]

Originally posted by Tiletron|Hyncharas@Oct 14 2004, 07:00 PM
Couldn't you make a carrier design that could air-drop these emplacements, which means that only a certain number could be placed in an area (much like normal deployables)?

Afraid not. The name Deployable Emplacement can be misleading, you see. These things are supposed to be like foxholes, dug out of the ground, not metal or concrete bunkers that unfold or activate or whatnot. Just like you can't 'drop off' a foxhole, DE's can't be dropped off either. In game these would look like they're part of the dirt and grass..because, well, they are. :)

I've been contemplating renaming them to something more intuitive like Entrenched Emplacements or whatever. At the time, Deployed sounded sexier.

And also, already only a certain number of emplacements can be placed in an area. Each one has a deploy radius that prevents these from clustering together too closely.

Where am I allowed to create them?
Anywhere but inside a facility, on a road, in front of doors and entrances, or on bridges. Emplacements are not meant to be barricades that deliberately obstruct movement and will not be allowed to be used as such.

There is also a set radius for each type of emplacement that determines how close to one another they can be created. Weapons emplacements have the widest radius and tech boxes the smallest.

[Hayoo]

Added the weapons emplacements and descriptions.

Added silhouette graphics to each emplacement. They may be a little dark, so I'll have to go back and put an in-game screenshot behind them or something.

[DviddLeff]

Very nice :D

[Hayoo]

Thanks, Dviddlef.

Incidentally, I won't be publishing the silhouettes of the emplacements that don't have passengers. Don't know why I bothered to make one for each since you won't ever see them in-game like the mountable ones. Silly Hayoo.

[Hayoo]

Originally posted by Hayoo@Oct 23 2004, 03:49 PM
Incidentally, I won't be publishing the silhouettes of the emplacements that don't have passengers. Don't know why I bothered to make one for each since you won't ever see them in-game like the mountable ones. Silly Hayoo.

Whoops! Scratch that. I will be keeping and publishing all silhouettes. I forgot they're needed for the engineer's vehicle/asset pane.

[Earlydawn]

Very nice, bossman :D

[DviddLeff]

Hmm, perhaps on the vehicle/emplacement schematic, the arrow head could blink when the weapon is being fired?

Also, I remember an idea about the arrow lengthening, depending on the angle it is at (ie, long for when its horizontal, short when its near verticle).

Not specifically to do with emplacements, but the schematics reminded me of it.

[FeckinOtter]

I vehemently stand by my belief that these things should take some damage from being shot somewhere other than the control box :P

I know this argument has been done and done and then some but the idea of invulnerable deployable ideas doesnt sit well with me. I can think off the top off my head of a few places i could get a nice gun position where access would be very difficult and someone in one of these would be far too difficult to take out. Even though they have gone to the effort of getting up there :D
And it doesnt sound right, even with nano technology why should something as quickly constructed as a small fox hole be invulnerable except for a box in the middle?

The concept of proper artillery fire called in against fox hole entrenched areas, wether it is the low arc artillery we have atm or the new mortar should be able to pound fortifications and take them out. Having to assault and decontruct every single fortification will make assaults too hard.

If troops are prepared for the dug in troops and have bought along some hardware to take them out them it adds that little bit more into the game.
And by hardware i mean serious hardware, in my mind these things can take a beating, even the small weaker ones will require a good chunk of AV ammo and the larger ones will require a vehicle with FE entrenchments requiring at least 2 minutes of fire to take out.

That way the defenders have an advantage but not one that is overpowering and allows the defenders several options to take them out instead of what i could see being a mad bum rush to try and decon it.

[Hayoo]

Here we go again. :lol:

I'd rather grunts be rewarded for skillfully landing shots inside the foxhole or against the exposed parts rising above the foxhole lip. If the whole thing had armor value, there would be no point to targeting the area or defenders inside if you can kill 2 birds with one stone without exposing yourself to the defenders. I also don't want splash damage affecting the outside of the foxhole because it's the cover that infantry have needed for so long.

Why the resistance to having to aim inside the foxhole? Players are able to land their shots on all kinds of targets. Do you think players won't be able to land their shots inside at all? :o

Actually, the technoboxes and 90-degree cover (anything that doesn't have the ammo box) are the only ones that have armor value, as these are readily available to every grunt in the field and I've never wanted multitude of impenetrable barricades dotting the landscape. Most players won't even bother carrying the extra hardware and tools needed to make cover (and only one cover at that), instead relying on specialists like CE and FE to make foxholes for them in strategic locations.

As for difficult-to-reach gun positions, you have to keep in mind the guns you're talking about. The AA gun? It can't defend itself against ground units. The field gun? It can't defend itself against close targets. The SAM site? It can't shoot ground units either. The mortar? Like the field gun, this can't defend itself against close targets. The Machinegun nest? A nuesance to infantry, sure, but not against medium and heavy vehicles.

And it doesnt sound right, even with nano technology why should something as quickly constructed as a small fox hole be invulnerable except for a box in the middle?

The trees and rocks are invulnerable, aren't they? Same vein of thought. I decided early on that troops should be able to place their own cover like the current "trees" and "rocks." But since the idea of placing rocks was silly, I twisted the idea around the concept of foxholes: i.e. Invulnerable cover you could hunker down within. But immunity is not good, so I have the equipment vulnerablity inside or poking above as a way for enemies to remove these "rocks."

As for having to assault and destroy every emplacement (I'm trying to figure out why you used the word "decon"), forces will eventually overrun a position. The emplacements will be abandoned. and just like spits and sensors, the emplacements can be cleared by the attackers easily when they don't have to worry about being shot at. Just like Normandy, engineers and infiltrators can place boomers and satchel charges to clear out emplacements left behind or their owners will automatically decon them when they build another emplacement somewhere else...just like deployables.

Case in point, if you see infantry behind cover you either land your shots in the foxhole or close with them to assault it....just like actual warfare. Bring thumpers, radiators, grenades. Pounding the foxhole with indirect fire or bombings will have the exact same effect: eventually the occupants will die and the equipment destroyed. Emplacements are vulnerable because they're static. Mobile attacking forces will have the advantage if the defenders don't have response forces of their own.

If troops are prepared for the dug in troops and have bought along some hardware to take them out them it adds that little bit more into the game.
And by hardware i mean serious hardware, in my mind these things can take a beating, even the small weaker ones will require a good chunk of AV ammo and the larger ones will require a vehicle with FE entrenchments requiring at least 2 minutes of fire to take out.

I want troops to aim with effective hardware. Players will too often take the easy way out if you give it to them. An exposed armored target does not promote aiming (why do you think the turrets are called coffin boxes?). But a sheltered vulnerablity does promote it. Grunts need to aim, otherwise they're wasting their ordinance like they would against a tree or rock.

That way the defenders have an advantage but not one that is overpowering and allows the defenders several options to take them out instead of what i could see being a mad bum rush to try and decon it.

Defenders do have the advantage but it's not overpowered because the inside is vulnerable even if the outside is not.

What do you mean by rush to decon?? :blink: Are you refering to your idea that enemies can deconstruct an emplacement? Sorry, but I don't have that in there. I relented to have a decon panel, yes, but not the one you are thinking of. Only the owner uses that to decon his own stuff without having to build another emplacment. Enemies, however, must destroy the emplacement by blowing up any part of the exposed equipment inside. If the owner leaves the continent, it soon deconstructs on its own.

Well, you already know my position on it. :D I want something that feels in every way that it is part of the planet and not something just placed there.

[FeckinOtter]

I think the basic difference between how you and me seeing emplacements work is what we class as accurate fire, i can simply not see accurate fire being able to take out emplacements with any kind of regularity unless the vehicle has some kind of height advantage, otherwise the shots will harmlessly fall upon your invulnerable exterior. Hence the problem i see with cleverly (but annoyingly placed) entrenchements.

One of the basics of warfare is artillery barrages against entrenched enemies, if they are sitting inside invulnerable entrenchements with the current set up of low arc weapons then there is no way that they can killed from any sort of distance that could be construed to be bombardment.

The only realistic way of killing troops inside such fortifictions is too assault them and then to blow them up. A large proportion of your emplacements have roofs, or camo cover that would act as this invulernable cover, and the gun mounts would have an excellent defence against the low arc weaponry in this game- from what I remember the guns are also tied to the bases healthwise as well.

If troops cannot carry the ordinance to take out anything more than a very basic cover then i cannot see any of the problems you bring up with them attempting to take out the cover. There are many stupid players out there i will admit but i cant see many of them shooting at cover with their MA in the knowledge that the gun will do next to no damage and tey are wasting ammo.

When i say armoured target i really do mean armoured, even a lighting would have problems blowing up one FE emplacement with full ammo. That is the kind of armour i am talking about, infantry trying to take one out from a distance is not a good idea, especially if someone is shooting back.
I feel that this is needed for 2 reasons. To add another effective way to destroy these emplacements other than assaulting and blowing or getting above it and blowing it, and to make it possible to actually barrage the emplacements and know that you are causing some kind of damage.

Now dont get me wrong i would still have the box inside to blow it up much easier, it is there to allow troops that close in or forces that flank to take out the emplacement that much easier but i dont like having such a narrow oppourtunity to destroy such a thing easily. Hence the other option (barrage), it isnt the best option, it takes longer and takes lots of ammo) but sometimes you need a second plan if the first one cant work.

And the entire invulnerability thing doesnt quite sit well with me i think because every other player created object can be destroyed, walls, trees, rocks e.t.c were all there to begin the deployables and the tanks and everything else we move about on the surface of the planet can be destroyed i just cant see why these entrenchments we would place down quickly would be any different nanite wise than the spitfire we would also put down.

[DviddLeff]

I do support the idea of having them invulnerable on the outside, easy to kill on the inside.

You could barrage them, just get any lob weapon, a Flail thats actually used for artillary purposes would do wonders to entrenched troops.

These things are meant to be annoying for the attackers, while not being deathtrabs for those inside them, as current bunkers are now.

Also, it would be a lot of fun routing the enemy out of them and taking the cover as your own.

[Hayoo]

Originally posted by FeckinOtter@Oct 26 2004, 10:47 AM
A large proportion of your emplacements have roofs, or camo cover that would act as this invulernable cover

No, no it doesn't. I have never said the roof, shed, or camo was invulnerable. I have said over and over that any part of the emplacement that sticks up above the sloping sides can take damage to destroy the thing. This includes the support emplacements as well as the weapons emplacements. I have always said that only the dirt sides were invulnerable and have never gone away from this.

I guess I'm going to have to make another diagram again, showing angles of attack according to weapon and emplacement types.

And the entire invulnerability thing doesnt quite sit well with me i think because every other player created object can be destroyed, walls, trees, rocks e.t.c were all there to begin the deployables and the tanks and everything else we move about on the surface of the planet can be destroyed i just cant see why these entrenchments we would place down quickly would be any different nanite wise than the spitfire we would also put down.

Um...emplacements can be destroyed, just not in the way you want them to.

And you're not "putting these down" like spitfires. Spitfires are machines. Foxholes are not. Emplacements are being 'dug up' from the planet surface and the equipment erected inside them anchors the "terain reformating" in place. That is why destroying the equpment/shed/roof/weapon destroys the emplacement. Once destroyed, the terrain goes back to what it was. You cannot think of these as machines.

I'm going to have to change the name of these obviously. "Deployable" has become too misleading. :(

[FeckinOtter]

No, no it doesn't. I have never said the roof, shed, or camo was invulnerable. I have said over and over that any part of the emplacement that sticks up above the sloping sides can take damage to destroy the thing. This includes the support emplacements as well as the weapons emplacements. I have always said that only the dirt sides were invulnerable and have never gone away from this.

You know if only that had been made clearer from the start, reviewing the entire discusiion from the start that ive had with you on this i couldnt find anything that sets that out clearly :D
Setting it out like that means that we have been arguing about nothing i think we both have exactly the same viewpoint we just didnt know it :(

I was under the impression that the entire emplacement was invulnerable and only a small segment inside the sturture could be damaged for the destruction on said item. That is why i felt that it was far too powerful- i am sure that if you look at it from where i was looking that you could see (my now pointless) objections.

If it is simply a small earth bank that is invulnerable and the entire contruct above it that can be hit then effectively that is what i have been saying about, a large structure with lots of armour that can be attacked (rather than this invulnerable structure with a hidden weak spot on it somewhere that has seemed to have been created out of nowhere).

Of course if this earth bank makes up a sizable amount of the defensive portion of the emplacement i would still have qualms, just as long as a goodly portion is open to attack.

I seem to recall that we get wires crossed quite a bit, not quite sure what it is :P

And you're not "putting these down" like spitfires. Spitfires are machines. Foxholes are not. Emplacements are being 'dug up' from the planet surface and the equipment erected inside them anchors the "terain reformating" in place. That is why destroying the equpment/shed/roof/weapon destroys the emplacement. Once destroyed, the terrain goes back to what it was. You cannot think of these as machines.

That makes a lot more sense now, the only thing that i would worry about is how much this terraformed earth (and hence invulnerable sections) shields the attackable sections of the emplacement.

I think from know on i am going to post what i think you are saying as well as what i am saying, hopefully that should stop future confusion.

[Hayoo]

Originally posted by FeckinOtter@Oct 26 2004, 06:40 PM
You know if only that had been made clearer from the start, reviewing the entire discusiion from the start that ive had with you on this i couldnt find anything that sets that out clearly :D
Setting it out like that means that we have been arguing about nothing i think we both have exactly the same viewpoint we just didnt know it :(

:lol: Isn't it always the way? Oddfish and I had a similar run of confusion only to realize later by "deployable" he meant towed weapons, and I meant the emplacements. So no worries.

That makes a lot more sense now, the only thing that i would worry about is how much this terraformed earth (and hence invulnerable sections) shields the attackable sections of the emplacement.

The dirt/techno-bags are about as high as the current techno-boxes or barricades, i.e. a grunt cannot fire out of an emplacement while kneeling, this balances out with the increased protection a player behind cover would have against rushing infantry.

I think from know on i am going to post what i think you are saying as well as what i am saying, hopefully that should stop future confusion.

Sounds good. :)

I have to rush to work now, but I'll be back later tonight.