Stationary Fortifications, Radar Sites, SAM Sites

Post by **George Geczy** » Jul 25 2002

We seem to be having some back & forth ideas on how to handle certain stationary military units like Radar facilities, permanent SAM sites, and gun emplacements, etc.

The issue is when the player wants to build a new one - do you build it on the map like you would a power plant or coal mine, or else do you build it as a unit and then 'move' it into place and install it?

Because they operate like units (with ammo requirements, strengths, etc) they would make sense to use the unit build & unit stats screens; but since they are permanent fixtures, they would seem to work better as map upgrades than units.

Hmmmmm.... anyone have any different suggestions?

-- George.
<Lead Programmer, BattleGoat Studios>

3iff · Post by **3iff** » Jul 25 2002

I think they should operate like units but with a zero move capability. If they need to be moved, they are ordered to "relocate" - which takes time.

For modern sam batteries, I (guess) they need a week to 'set up'. I'm sure someone can research that for you.

So, they would be ordered to relocate. They would have to travel there - probably with their own inherent transport, then would be rebuilt/setup which might take a week or so, they they would be active.

Is that reasonable and possible?

tkobo · Post by **tkobo** » Jul 25 2002

If the choice is one or the other, I'd say go with the facility way of handling them.

But it seems to me the best way is a third catagory that is a mix of both.As you point out,they have some of the properties of both.

Post by **BattleGoat** » Jul 25 2002

Here's a more detailed description of how we're thinking of handling these items...

RADAR: We assume Radar coverage of your own Region. As well, Airports generate Radar coverage a certain distance, so if you put an airport on your border you will get some radar coverage into your neighbour. Otherwise, for extensive Radar coverage of another player you would have to deploy an AWACS.

SAMs: There are constructed as a unit and would then move to a given destination and deploy. Once deployed, the debate becomes whether they can then be moved again, or are there until they are destroyed. Currently I'm leaning that they can be moved (with of course the time element of packup, moving, and redeploying being taken into account).

GUN EMPLACEMENTS: Essentially the same as SAMs for construction and original deployment, but there is less discussion regarding whether they are re-deployable... they aren't. Once set up in a given location, they're there until destroyed.

Let us know if you think this makes sense...

Post by **George Geczy** » Jul 25 2002

I think they should operate like units but with a zero move capability. If they need to be moved, they are ordered to "relocate" - which takes time.

Yes, a process of 'build-deliver-setup' and 'packup-move-setup' might work for these things - even Gun emplacements, given a time and cost factor for the setup and packup segments. It sounds like a useable idea for handling these items.

David also raises the question of whether we should have a unique 'radar station' facility, or just use this capability from airports. The question I guess would be whether you could stick radar stations along the borders with your (potential) enemies, or just use airports/SAM sites/Recon units for this purpose instead. Any thoughts?

-- George.

MrWhite · Post by **MrWhite** » Jul 25 2002

Well I would have to add that Radar stations are standard for airports but range I think is limited... Military grade radar probably should be buildable as both mobile vehicle based, ground and air, but also a fixed station should be allowed more powerful but not mobile.

3iff · Post by **3iff** » Jul 26 2002

Some sort of radar station (mobile or static) is a must. Vital for areas that 'stick out' and where an airport is inconvenient.

Building a string of airports to ensure continuous radar cover would be expensive, time consuming and extremely wasteful.

Post by **BattleGoat** » Jul 26 2002

After a couple of days of review, Radar Stations will also be a "Deployable" unit so that you can watch the skies into your neighbours.

We are still discussing whether "Gun Emplacements" can be packed up and moved... Although you can re-deploy SAMs, and now Radar Stations, Gun Emplacements will likely be a permanent upgrade.

ajax · Post by **ajax** » Jul 27 2002

Gun emplacements seems a bit vague..

in terms of static defensive positions, are we talking about strong points??.. fortifications?...

if this is the case then yeah, gun emplacements should be a build feature.. part of the static defence network..

unit versions would include AT weaponry and arty.. which im sure youve got ooddles of..

XeroMan · Post by **XeroMan** » Sep 07 2002

When you say gun emplacements, are we talking forts like the Maginot line and the guns that watched over Gilbrater? Ore are we talking about units such as a Patriot Missile Battery?
(OT: The guns in Gibralter were massive with tremendous range. Would they be able to engage targets that were more than one hex away?)
What is the advantage to stationary emplacements? No fuel consumption? Superior defense from the concrete bunkers? There is a saying that speed is life, so what is the incentive to build units that are for all intents & purposes "stuck" somewhere? If the enemy can bypass them, what is the point?
Don't get me wrong, I LOVE fixed defenses, if handled properly.
In Starfire OWP's (Orbital Weapon Platform) required only 5% maitenance as opposed to the 15% of fleet units.
In RTS's such as Empire Earth and AOE they have massive hit points that allow them to survive (and distract) the enemy for long periods of time.
In real life, the Germans went around the Maginot line for a good reason: It would have been a massacre for them to face them head on.
Fixed fortifcations should be extremely tough, as this is thier nature. They are purely defensive units and take a long time to build. However, they can unbalance a game. Make the fixed defense too powerful, and who wants to attack? Granted, fixed fortifcations may be obsolete in today's environment....
As for SAM sites and RADAR posts, they should defintely be of the sort where you move >> unpack/setup. It takes time, but they are meant to be moved. These items I could see being built as a unit, and the massive forts such as the Maginot line being built as facilities.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: XeroMan on 2002-09-07 16:39 ]</font>

Post by **BattleGoat** » Sep 08 2002

There would definitely be lower maintenance costs to a stationary gun emplacement than an artillery piece. Depending on the scenario, they would have "artillery" type ranges so that could mean multiple hexes.

I don't believe they are obsolete in today's world, they just are not as impenetrable and invulnerable as they were in WWII.

Decision on items like "Gun Emplacements" will only be finallized through play-testing. They sound good in the design doc, but if they don't work out in the game, they still might end up on the cutting room floor.

XeroMan · Post by **XeroMan** » Sep 08 2002

Sounds good to me!
One question I forgot to ask: Can you emplace a stationary gun on an upgrade?

Post by **Balthagor** » Sep 09 2002

Juergen · Post by **Juergen** » Sep 12 2002

Talking of gun emplacements:

Against what kind of units would they be effective against?
I can imagine that they would do well gainst tanks but engineers armed with explosives could crack them pretty quick.And unless protected by Anti-air units napalm bombs (in game?) could fry the crew.

Are bunkers in the game?
Light infantry could get a big defense bonus when hiding in them.Maybe bunkers themselves might only be found when stumbled upon.Perhaps the bunkers could also be used to keep population safe form attacks.

What about other underground facilities?
Underground factories (like the ones in WWII),or perhaps labs,power plants...and so on.They would be able to withstand air attacks better,might be undetected until someone finds out and,of course,would be A LOT more expensive and perhaps less effective than their conventional counterparts.

XeroMan · Post by **XeroMan** » Sep 12 2002

Excellent points! In addition, what of an underground supply system similar to the one used in the maginot line?