Supply depots camping?

[Vagabob]

Is there actually any way to disable or destroy supply depots that you own?

During a recent multiplayer game my opponenent broke through one end of the map and instead of capturing or destoring my supply depots they camped units outside of them such that they essentially farmed points from the supply trucks.

(Whilst I eventually won the game) I think there should be some way to disable your own supply depots ... a player deserves points for taking it sure - but they shouldnt be able to just sit there and farm.

Lol's in advance if there is already a way around this problem.

[Vagabob]

Is there actually any way to disable or destroy supply depots that you own?

During a recent multiplayer game my opponenent broke through one end of the map and instead of capturing or destoring my supply depots they camped units outside of them such that they essentially farmed points from the supply trucks.

(Whilst I eventually won the game) I think there should be some way to disable your own supply depots ... a player deserves points for taking it sure - but they shouldnt be able to just sit there and farm.

Lol's in advance if there is already a way around this problem.

[RUGEHEAD]

I think the constant reminder that you've lost your depot is a good feature.
Its hurting you resource wise and point wise.

[SnakePT]

I agree. Its like he has a headquartes just next to the depot.

Destroyed units should only give 50% on the income.

[Commander672]

I once farmed points from a guy totally by accident. I left a light tank to finish off a depo and returned l8er to check on it's proggress. I relized that you had to force attack structures and that was where my constant influx of points were coming from.

And the source of enemy curses...

[oleg86]

maybe you should defend them instead of whining on forum?

[Vagabob]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by oleg86:
maybe you should defend them instead of whining on forum? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Given that RUSE is in beta I would have thought that it would be a good idea to discuss game design?

You disagree? How compelling.

[senortoot]

You should camp them unless you know you can hold the depot. Theres no point taking it if you know it's going to get recaptured straight away.

[Vagabob]

But the point is they aren't being recaptured. They're being camped.

I'm saying its fundamentally stupid that Supply Trucks should automatically spawn from a depot that's surrounded by enemies, then take the shortest route.

There should be an option to turn off supply trucks. What if I suspect that a certain supply line is no longer safe? I should be able to choose to stop receiving resources in order to protect my supply trucks.

Taking it to another level, I think I should be able to choose the ROUTE of the supply trucks. Why should it always be the shortest route? What if there is a longer, safer route?

These are real-life considerations.

I mean these changes would be very easily implemented and add a whole new level of depth to supply management.

The current situation of 'build and watch' leaves much to be desired.

[senortoot]

Should give you more incentive to actually leave your base and get map control then.

What would be the point in protecting supply routes if you can just turn them off the second they get threatened?

[Rikiricardo]

I A gree with Vagabob and the ones giving him grief are the ones that prolly camp depot.Its a Beta game and he has a legit point

[Kruelgor]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by senortoot:
You should camp them unless you know you can hold the depot. Theres no point taking it if you know it's going to get recaptured straight away. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is a very good point. Although, I would not object to giving the supply depot owner the option of halting or turning off the shipment transport. It is money going down the drain which could eventually go to the player doing the camping.

[Commander672]

I agree with OP for the simple reason that it makes since. I generally don't lose my Depos becouse I defend them rigerously, but I can't see why their shouldn't be a cease convoy option.

Mabe it could appear in the same way the capture butten appears for infantry.

[woodsyx]

I think this suggestions is basically units should have settable waypoints and then you just give supply buildings the ability to set waypoints.

[Bridger15]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Vagabob:
But the point is they aren't being recaptured. They're being camped.

I'm saying its fundamentally stupid that Supply Trucks should automatically spawn from a depot that's surrounded by enemies, then take the shortest route. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

There's nothing fundamentally stupid about it at all. You lost to a strategy, and you've found a real-life explanation for why the situation doesn't make sense. You have yet to explain, however, how it hurts the gameplay/balance to have this in the game.

It is important to leave this mechanic in to reinforce the importance of guarding your supply depots. Using ruses to get next to your enemy's flank depots is part of the gameplay of ruse. If your suggestion were implemented, it would mean infantry flanking would become an almost useless tactic against depots.

So there's the mechanical issue with your proposal, problem is your proposal designed to solve? If your argument starts with "well it's not realistic" you can quit this thread pls.

Making things more realistic and intuitive is always nice, but changing things "just because" is how games become imbalanced and boring.

[Vagabob]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bridger15:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Vagabob:
But the point is they aren't being recaptured. They're being camped.

I'm saying its fundamentally stupid that Supply Trucks should automatically spawn from a depot that's surrounded by enemies, then take the shortest route. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

There's nothing fundamentally stupid about it at all. You lost to a strategy, and you've found a real-life explanation for why the situation doesn't make sense. You have yet to explain, however, how it hurts the gameplay/balance to have this in the game.

It is important to leave this mechanic in to reinforce the importance of guarding your supply depots. Using ruses to get next to your enemy's flank depots is part of the gameplay of ruse. If your suggestion were implemented, it would mean infantry flanking would become an almost useless tactic against depots.

So there's the mechanical issue with your proposal, problem is your proposal designed to solve? If your argument starts with "well it's not realistic" you can quit this thread pls.

Making things more realistic and intuitive is always nice, but changing things "just because" is how games become imbalanced and boring. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If I wanted that sort of gameplay I'd play lemmings.

This isn't lemmings. Units shouldnt just run out to their deaths needlessly.

Everything else is controllable - this should be too.

From a gameplay perspective however points are awarded based on the price paid for the units you destroyed. Your opponent already receives 40 points based on the construction cost of the building. Why should they deserve more?

Philosophically, an opponent deserves some points for cunningly destroying trucks already on their supply routes. This is fair enough as they are reducing the $3/truck the player would receive.

The moment they invade a supply depot or permanently disable a supply route - 40 points + disabling an income stream is already more than enough reward (and detriment to the player). A constant stream of free points is overkill.

Allowing them to essentially farm guaranteed points makes the gameplay more akin to 'king of the hill' rather than conquest.

Supply depots are plentiful. To discourage capturing them stagnates gameplay. Destroying enemy supply depots is crippling enough during mid/end-game when the supply depots close to HQ have dried up.

[N3V30]

If they are doing it to a supply depot you have captured from them, they are hurting their own economy more by not recapturing it than they are hurting yours.

When they do camp them, just laugh because they are destroying their own resources.

[senortoot]

It's not so much you are wasting *your* supply, you are wasting supplies that are convenient for the enemy to hold. Once resources are destroyed they are gone for good.

If you capture it a depot near the enemy, then his "area" of the map is losing it's value because there is less resources there. If you capture depots near his base, then it's just going to get recaptured.

If you camp depots on your side then...yeah I agree you are devaluing your own territory.

[Triatlus]

I do think that this farming supply depots could easily be fixed with the option to not send any trucks. Gaining points because some trucks are driving mindlessly into it's own death while knowing it, makes little sense.

As far as I am concerned, if a game is decided by points, then winning it this way would be stupid.

The option to not send trucks will not be an option without sacrefice, as you would not be recieving those $ from the depot. This in turn still gives the enemy the advantege of camping the depot, he just doesn't get a few hundred extra points for free. This will in turn require more micro from players, and add more depth to the game.

I find it to be a valid proposal. As you will still HURT YOUR ECONOMY by stopping the trucks, and your opponent won't be able to get points for free. There will still be important to keep the supply lines protected, and there will still be a good reason to seize them.

[Su_Cellus]

It is definitely better from a gameplay perspective to be forced to act than just turning off the tap and ignoring the sector. As Bridger said, it otherwise invalidates sound tactics and merely causes these exchanges to be a relatively boring portion of the game - as well as making far-flung, unsupported resource gathering almost risk-free so long as you hold it for just a short amount of time.

Support whatever play you make, regardless of what it is.

[Vagabob]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Su_Cellus:
It is definitely better from a gameplay perspective to be forced to act than just turning off the tap and ignoring the sector. As Bridger said, it otherwise invalidates sound tactics and merely causes these exchanges to be a relatively boring portion of the game - as well as making far-flung, unsupported resource gathering almost risk-free so long as you hold it for just a short amount of time.

Support whatever play you make, regardless of what it is. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think its hardly risk-free given the 40 points you instantly lose if your depot is captured or destroyed.

Preventing your enemy from getting resources AND 40 points make the supply depots one of the most valuable building targets in the game short of admin centres and bases ...

I think there is already a strong enough case to defend them without it resulting in supply truck farming.

[inf.daunt]

imho, fine as it is. Overextending is a common mistake, if you're not ready to protect a supply route you shouldn't build the depot in the first place.

[Cameron1124]

Its kinda stupid because if he cant destroy your trucks hell jsut destroy the supply dept(40 point) and build a new one. its basicly the same thing just short term or long term.

[StyrisAlba]

Don't take this wrongly, but essentially you are whining that someone has found a way to out strategise you. Learn to fire up your barracks quicker, that way you have soldiers to "take care" of said campers.

It's dull when people camp, but you need to accept and adapt, like in most games. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[Bridger15]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Triatlus:
I do think that this farming supply depots could easily be fixed with the option to not send any trucks. Gaining points because some trucks are driving mindlessly into it's own death while knowing it, makes little sense.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Making little sense is not a valid reason for change. Provide the impetus for the change. What behavior are you trying to encourage/discourage in the players? The current system encourages players to take and defend depots or there will be dire consequences.

Your suggestion would make it less important to defend them (as the consequences are lower).


Either way though, it's a moot point because nobody at a high level really sees this as effective nor will a high level player let it happen to them. If they are camping a depot next to your base, their units could be much more valuable by destroying it and moving on to the next one.

It would take 4 minutes to get 40 points by camping a supply depot. It will take 10 seconds to blow it up.


If he is camping one on his side, he's devaluing his own economy, as has been pointed out above.


So if the tactic never even happens with experienced players, why does this thread even exist?

[senortoot]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bridger15:

So if the tactic never even happens with experienced players, why does this thread even exist? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

scrubs gotta whine somewhere

[DrakenL]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">It would take 4 minutes to get 40 points by camping a supply depot. It will take 10 seconds to blow it up. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Not 4 minutes... Only 2 minutes 20 seconds.

And what he can do is camp it for a little, then destroy it and retreat when you come defending it with your troops. This way he gets 40 points + whatever points he got from killing the trucks.

Also camping a depot can be a ruse to attract your main army while he paratroop capture your main base. Or he might not want to destroy the depot because he plans on capturing it later.

In all case it is a fine game mechanic and there is nothing wrong with the way it works right now.

[Sqwerlpunk]

This thread is sorta silly, as people have pointed out...

It's more efficient to burn the depot to the ground/capture it than it is to "camp" for points. If you dominate that area of land so badly he can't even push your units off of it, he either built a depot next to your starting headquarters or the game is going in your favor pretty badly.

Also, good players won't ever make a depot where his opponent can just lolrazeit or lolcampthetrucks. Most of my "good" games, where the game isn't over in the opening moves due to stupidity from someone usually has the "middle" depots untouched 'till late game. I valued that as a gameplay mechanic, actually. If the game stretches down to the wire in a tight battle, suddenly it's hugely important to own those middle depots and land, you can't just camp in your base (with the lead or anything). It actively makes you seek your opponent near the end of the game, regardless of circumstances.

[sylph_uscm]

Harassment is a good and valid tactic. There's nothing wrong with it - if your oponent wants to destroy your supply trucks, he's using the supply depot for score instead of money, but has to babysit it to gain that advantage, and doesn't get the 40pts for taking it down. If you can't save it within 3 minutes, then yes, you're giving up 40pts to the enemy. That's a rather meagre reward for holding an enemy supply depot to ransom for 3 minutes...


Nothing wrong with this score reward at all. If you don't see the real-war advantages, consider the morale breaking effect that all those reports from those guys you All I gotta add is that I disagree that good players would never use it.

There are plenty of situations where you have an infantry squad sitting in a town or forest, relatively near to an enemy supply depot, ready to ambush enemy tanks.

Let's say no enemy tanks come - leave your cover, your solo infantry squad will get killed before doing any damage (more often than not). Attack the supply depot itself - you capture it, gain 40 points, but the enemy just comes and captures it back - you spend $5 to cost him $5 and a little more on supply.

Alternatively, camping his depot will damage his economy just as much as stealing it (ir, until he goes and fortifies the area, he will obtain no cash from that depot), but it will also cost him more than $5 to take it back, and most significantly, if he comes without recon, he might lose the unit he sends to an infantry ambush.


In this situation (and similar ones involving AT guns), it's better to camp the depot than destroy it.

[Designer_Hat]

the mechanic is fine as it is

If you can't protect a supply line, don't build it.