Facility Defense

Discussion about Production and Resources

Moderators: Balthagor, Legend, Moderators

JT
Corporal
Posts: 7
Joined: Jul 30 2002

Post by JT »

Just a quick question about facility defense. You mentioned it being a good idea to put AA assets near your power plants etc... However, what about the basic defense values of facilities? I'm thinking about the difference between attacking a factory and attacking a Nuke plant. Just look at the US- The Department of Energy SWAT teams consistently rank very high when compared to SWAT teams on every level. How can this be used in the game? I know you are planning a "Sabotage" option, how will facility differences be reflected in the game? Also, what about attack by ground forces? Let's say I drop in some airborne guys to take out a facility- how big will the difference in probability of success be between, say, a nuke plant and a factory that processes timber? Just a thought.
3iff
Brigadier Gen.
Posts: 606
Joined: Jun 27 2002
Location: Birmingham, England

Post by 3iff »

Might it be possible to assign defence units (static and non-transferrable) to defend specific facilities. Say level 1 for small factories (a few men with shotguns) to level 5 (50+ well armed soldiers with a tank or two) for nuclear bases. These would incur a maintenance cost per month and could be upgraded/downgraded at will.

That would allow you to maintain the sort of defence you feel is appropriate.

Or is this getting too complicated?
User avatar
BattleGoat
General
Posts: 1227
Joined: Jun 04 2002
Human: Yes
Location: BattleGoat Studios
Contact:

Post by BattleGoat »

Okay... after a couple of days of thinking about this how about the following.

1) No inherent "Defense Value" to a factory.
2) Assign a unit to "Garrison" a factory/upgrade etc.
3) Once assigned to garrison, the unit actually disappears on the map but the factory/upgrade then gets the strength rating to show the existance of the garrison.
- David
User avatar
tkobo
Supreme Ruler
Posts: 11833
Joined: Jun 04 2002
Location: In a vast zionist plot ...RIGHT BEHIND YOU ! Oh Noes !

Post by tkobo »

Thats a good solution I think.

Just one question, can any unit be used for the garrison or only infranty type ?

Hmm, I was wrong.I just thought of another question.
Can any building type/facility be garrisoned ?
User avatar
BattleGoat
General
Posts: 1227
Joined: Jun 04 2002
Human: Yes
Location: BattleGoat Studios
Contact:

Post by BattleGoat »

Any "Ground" unit should be usable to garrison ANY type of facility. There should be no reason that a tank brigade couldn't garison a nuclear power plant if you wanted it too.
- David
3iff
Brigadier Gen.
Posts: 606
Joined: Jun 27 2002
Location: Birmingham, England

Post by 3iff »

Would this garrison unit be able to be replaced by a different unit later on should that be desirable?

For example, the facility is in the front line so you garrison a strong armoured unit there. Later on, the front moves further into enemy territory so you want to garrison a smaller infantry unit there instead. Would the original armoured unit 'pop back' into existence?? Ditto for the reverse, where you desire to place a strong unit in place of a weak unit.

Also, would there be space for just one unit as garrison or could we have 2 or more units doing the job?

I presume the garrison unit would have orders to just protect the facility and not move (but maybe retreat?) Might it also get extra defence bonuses by being in a prepared defence position?

Your idea sounds good though. Probably the most convenient way of doing things...
User avatar
BattleGoat
General
Posts: 1227
Joined: Jun 04 2002
Human: Yes
Location: BattleGoat Studios
Contact:

Post by BattleGoat »

The way I see it...

- You should be able to garrison a facility with multiple units (Don't really see a limit to this).

- You should be able to take a unit out of the garrison at any time and give them new orders.

- By their nature, garrisons don't get much opportunity to "retreat" if they are losing. They tend to get wiped out :sad: But to their benefit, by being in a heavily prepared defensive position, they would get quite a defensive bonus.
- David
3iff
Brigadier Gen.
Posts: 606
Joined: Jun 27 2002
Location: Birmingham, England

Post by 3iff »

That's great. Easy and flexible.
User avatar
George Geczy
General
Posts: 2649
Joined: Jun 04 2002
Location: BattleGoat Studios
Contact:

Post by George Geczy »

I would point out that the Garrison idea is quite new (in response to this thread, actually), so we haven't really nailed down the details. I personally had thought that only infantry without transport should be allowed to be used as Garrison, though it has been suggested here that any unit (such as a tank battalion) should be OK to use.

Though one of the biggest benefits of this would actually be to reduce map clutter - instead of having units on top of upgrades all over the map, they are 'hidden' inside, and we simply show the unit strength bars as now attached to the upgrade. The units in the upgrade would act as 'entrenched' units, with appropriate defense bonuses, but they could unentrench and be given new orders at any time.

Also, since Garrisoned units would be treated as normal units with a specific order, they would also be subject to the same requirements for maintenance costs, re-supply, etc. So an attacking force could simply pocket and cut off the garrison, to weaken it before attacking to take the upgrade.

-- George.
3iff
Brigadier Gen.
Posts: 606
Joined: Jun 27 2002
Location: Birmingham, England

Post by 3iff »

Is there an option to destroy a facility rather than let it fall into the hands of the enemy? Probably only applicable where there is a garrison - as they would have the means to effectively destroy a facility...
User avatar
BattleGoat
General
Posts: 1227
Joined: Jun 04 2002
Human: Yes
Location: BattleGoat Studios
Contact:

Post by BattleGoat »

Is there an option to destroy a facility rather than let it fall into the hands of the enemy? Probably only applicable where there is a garrison - as they would have the means to effectively destroy a facility...
This brings up an interesting question... One of the combat settings in the game allows for a "Scorched Earth" policy. With this set, upgrades are automatically destroyed if you lose control of them. So.... the question I would now ask is, "Should the upgrade ONLY be destroyed if it was garrisoned? Or should the upgrade be destroyed if it was garrisoned or not?"

The argument for destroying an upgrade regardless of whether it was garrisoned would be that it doesn't have to be garrisoned to be wired for destruction. Another consideration is that any upgrade garrisoned will take heavy damage and could be destroyed in the battle to capture it, so "Scorched Earth" isn't as necessary when an upgrade is actively defended.
- David
User avatar
tkobo
Supreme Ruler
Posts: 11833
Joined: Jun 04 2002
Location: In a vast zionist plot ...RIGHT BEHIND YOU ! Oh Noes !

Post by tkobo »

Not sure I like them "automatically" being destroyed.
I'd like it better if the option allowed the player a choice.
So that if the option was enabled it would ask the pc IF he wanted to destroy a facility that is about to fall to the enemy rather than just do it automatically.

It would be even better if saying yes was not a guaranty of the facilities destruction(unless garrisoned).
But instead it(saying yes) issued an order as a covert op which would be under espionage,with a chance to destroy the facility based on your success chance for the covert op.
UNLESS there was a garrison in the facility in which case the garrison would carry out the order.

Keys for me on this issue would be choice,chance and reward.
You would get a choice on whether to employ scorched earth for THAT particular facility,you would have a chance of destroying it before in fell into enemy hands,and you would be rewarded with a 100% chance of scorching it IF you had it garrisoned and choose to scorch it.
3iff
Brigadier Gen.
Posts: 606
Joined: Jun 27 2002
Location: Birmingham, England

Post by 3iff »

Tkobo. The facility would only be destroyed automatically IF scorched earth was selected as an option.

Actually, I had forgotten about the scorched earth option. However, the point of garrisoning a facility would suggest that you do not wish it to be captured by the enemy.

How about having it where the scorched earth policy controls capture of non garrisoned facilities and garrisoned facilities have a separate 'destroy or not' option.

Finally, does the scorched earth apply to ALL facilities or does it work on classes of facilities? ie, destroy all power plants, but leave factories.

How about a flag for EACH facility that can be set/reset as desired?

Or am I getting too intricate again?
User avatar
tkobo
Supreme Ruler
Posts: 11833
Joined: Jun 04 2002
Location: In a vast zionist plot ...RIGHT BEHIND YOU ! Oh Noes !

Post by tkobo »

[quote]
On 2002-08-29 01:14, 3iff wrote:
Tkobo. The facility would only be destroyed automatically IF scorched earth was selected as an option.[qoute]

3iff,
please reread my post.I not only understand this,but I point it out .Then I point out why I dont like it working this way AND how I would prefer it to work.

Simply reput,having every facility you lose to the enemy destroyed automatically becuase you picked scorched earth in the game options does not make sense.
The option should allow you the CHOICE to destroy facilities,NOT do it automactically irregardless of your wishes.
User avatar
Balthagor
Supreme Ruler
Posts: 20504
Joined: Jun 04 2002
Human: Yes
Location: BattleGoat Studios

Post by Balthagor »

Why doesn't it make sense? You’re the president of France and the Germans start to take over your border industries. Do you get a phone call from the foreman at each factory asking you if they should blow the place before leaving? Giving you the choice at each factory assumes you are at each of them as the lose happens. You have a country to run, by the time your order to scorch the place gets to the factory, the enemy already owns it and says “No thanks…”. You need a policy so that the people under you know how they should react in the case of a literal hostile takeover.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but is that not the definition of scorched earth?
Chris Latour
BattleGoat Studios
chris@battlegoat.com
Post Reply

Return to “Production - Commerce Department”