I Beam Assault - C-Show 5

[ThePhantom]

I just got on the receiving end of the "I beam assault." Granted I like the thought of up gunning the I beam. It was weak before and kind of useless.

Now..... My God what have you created. Jung and Noach bring six or a million of these things at me. I seriously couldn't tell how many were approaching. I was being hit by this annoying pulse every 1 hundredth of a second and then "Boom." I'd blow up. Change over to another Thor... and then "ZAP (one hundred times) Boom." I watched as my fellow bot dropships came crashing to the earth. I even had to hide.... Yes hide behind a building. That had to be the most embarrassing time playing dropteam.

My entire defensive system was holding very well before this attack..... and then this???? You've been slapping me around for two weeks Jung. Just stand by......... No more playing nice, "MR. I Beam Boy."

[Chilibird]

Yeah, he's a pain with those, isn't he?

[__Yossarian0815[jby]]

I beam assault? interesting new tactic, maybe the answer to the impossibility of winning in "raid" on the attack.

on second thought, aren´t turrets invulnerable to ion attack?

[Junglist]

Ions now target turrets, and destroy turrets, with little difficulty. Personally I think they are too plentiful on creature zoo; six is too many - you should be able to come up with a way or destroying a couple of these long distance terrors and move on with the game. Maybe 3 or 4 Ion Thors would be a better number.

As for me being the I Beam Boy, I think that title belongs to Nexus. Lately I've been using them as an experiment, mostly to try to come up with a weakness in this tactic. And yes, there are ways to overcome the ion tanks - emp attack followed by a mass drop of infantry on the beamers is one way.

For the most part, I'd have to say, the Ions are a little too much zappa-zappa and not enough pow-pow, if that makes any sense.

[poesel]

CZ4 had very few ions and you complained about that. CZ5 has more and you complain about that.

Ok, 3 Thors and 5 Apollos?

And doubling both ablation rate and recharge time?

[aittam]

notice that yesterday night poesel

[Toby Haynes]

Originally posted by Junglist:

As for me being the I Beam Boy, I think that title belongs to Nexus.

I wondered if anyone would notice

It's a devastating option on CZ5. With well-placed Thor ICs, I managed to hold the Twin Hills Objective 1138 to 28. Think about that for a little while - I lost three dropships and six tanks in that foray in 30 minutes.

[ThePhantom]

I don't think the number of I beamers should be reduced. You've just made them more useful. I've never bothered playing any type of strategy with them. I assumed they were useless... Of course, we all know what happens when you "Assume" anything!!!! Sure, I was upset last night when I wrote my story. I was beaten hands down and made a fool of. I could imagine my enemy laughing at his computer. Shocked at this new vehicle that is extremely effective in numbers now. Continue the course, Poesel. I will not let that nightmare happen again.........

[Junglist]

I still think 3 or 4 ion thors is a good number.

While were at it, could I have a pint of vodka with that? Thanks Poesel, I always said you were the best (server) host around!

[poesel]

I think 0 is a good number for ions. :mad:

Well, had not much fun yesterday and what makes it even worse is, that its all my fault.

I have several issues with ions (and other things):

1) numbers: has been said and will be changed (no, not zero - don't be afraid nexus )

2) range: I propose that ions should work like AP in respect to loosing power over range. Thers an XML tag that describes the beams thickness (currently 3), ablation is currently 6. For example: <1km: thickness 3, ablation 6, <2km t.2 a. 4, <3km, t.1 a.2. Maximum range would thus be 3km and we also have an indication of the strength of the beam

3) vision I: the bots see VERY far and even through trees, smoke and water. That makes looking for cover a bit pointless.

4) vision II: infantry should be invisible to humans and bots when they are prone and not shooting. It would also help if there would be a marker that shows when the jumpjets go 'hot'. It would also be nice if we could order the group not to use the jetpack at all.

5) accuracy: even at great distances the bots stay on target even if you move. If they are so good why don't we all have bots as gunners? Bots are currently mobile AA platforms which they IMHO shouldn't be.

6) underwater: ion should simply not work from or into water. Ion is good for vacuum and maybe in gas but ion through a fluid doesn't make sense at all.

Ok, rant over.

[__Yossarian0815[jby]]

Originally posted by poesel71:

I think 0 is a good number for ions. :mad:

Well, had not much fun yesterday and what makes it even worse is, that its all my fault.

I have several issues with ions (and other things):

1) numbers: has been said and will be changed (no, not zero - don't be afraid nexus )

I would suggest 4 ion thors (and no other ion units. difficult to destroy but 4 ions wouldn´t totally rule the battlespace.

OR

7 (or max bot number)Ion apollos (and no other ion units). This would allow the "Nexus ion trick", but the apollos would be vulnerable to infanty/artillery etc.

2) range: I propose that ions should work like AP in respect to loosing power over range. Thers an XML tag that describes the beams thickness (currently 3), ablation is currently 6. For example: <1km: thickness 3, ablation 6, <2km t.2 a. 4, <3km, t.1 a.2. Maximum range would thus be 3km and we also have an indication of the strength of the beam

Yep, 3km max sounds sensible.

3) vision I: the bots see VERY far and even through trees, smoke and water. That makes looking for cover a bit pointless.

hums "vision thing". the trouble is that we got what we wanted in a way, better bots

4) vision II: infantry should be invisible to humans and bots when they are prone and not shooting. It would also help if there would be a marker that shows when the jumpjets go 'hot'. It would also be nice if we could order the group not to use the jetpack at all.

100% agreement here.

5) accuracy: even at great distances the bots stay on target even if you move. If they are so good why don't we all have bots as gunners? Bots are currently mobile AA platforms which they IMHO shouldn't be.

I think this can only be changed by introducing maximium ranges.

maybe one could intoduce a maximum elevation for all guns, so that the bots (and humans) couldn´t fire up

6) underwater: ion should simply not work from or into water. Ion is good for vacuum and maybe in gas but ion through a fluid doesn't make sense at all.

if they realoly are ion beams, you are correct. my favorite sci fi gun was the tachyon cannon in Privateer

Ok, rant over.

I expected worse after yesterday

[Toby Haynes]

Originally posted by poesel71:

I think 0 is a good number for ions. :mad:

Well, had not much fun yesterday and what makes it even worse is, that its all my fault.

I have several issues with ions (and other things):

1) numbers: has been said and will be changed (no, not zero - don't be afraid nexus )

I think the problem is that the Ions are simply too powerful as they stand, mainly for the reasons below. So I think the numbers of IC tanks are right but they are unbalancing right now.

Originally posted by poesel71:

2) range: I propose that ions should work like AP in respect to loosing power over range. Thers an XML tag that describes the beams thickness (currently 3), ablation is currently 6. For example: <1km: thickness 3, ablation 6, <2km t.2 a. 4, <3km, t.1 a.2. Maximum range would thus be 3km and we also have an indication of the strength of the beam

I'm racking my brains trying to remember whether lasers follow an inverse-square law for power/distance. I used to know this stuff :-( Something about the dispersion of the beam...

Originally posted by poesel71:

3) vision I: the bots see VERY far and even through trees, smoke and water. That makes looking for cover a bit pointless.

Right now the bots see too much. I don't mind them firing over intervening terrain - I do that myself (hull down on a powerful tank, mark the range, back out of sight and fire slightly above the tank, maybe following up with another round a little lower). I do get narced when I get taken out by a HEAT round when dropping in a Dropship some 4k away from the enemy tank.

The Ion cannon makes that far worse because it has no limit to its distance (you can be blown up from 9k away without ever realizing that you were under attack).

Originally posted by poesel71:

4) vision II: infantry should be invisible to humans and bots when they are prone and not shooting. It would also help if there would be a marker that shows when the jumpjets go 'hot'. It would also be nice if we could order the group not to use the jetpack at all.

Infantry needs serious support to get anywhere in 1.2.6. I've taken engineering squads into buildings for captures using the heavy Thor carrier and the Paladins for rides. Arriving on jetpacks is a short and painful trip...

Originally posted by poesel71:

5) accuracy: even at great distances the bots stay on target even if you move. If they are so good why don't we all have bots as gunners? Bots are currently mobile AA platforms which they IMHO shouldn't be.

I don't mind the accuracy of the bots in general tank-to-tank. Tank to Dropship is a little extreme.

I can take out enemy tanks at 4-6km range with HEAT rounds while the tank is moving but I think I've only twice taken out a Dropship at that range with HEAT rounds and that was far more luck than judgment.

Originally posted by poesel71:

6) underwater: ion should simply not work from or into water. Ion is good for vacuum and maybe in gas but ion through a fluid doesn't make sense at all.

No projectiles should work under water, period. The expenditure of energy required to enter water is enormous - bullets and missiles would tear themselves apart almost instantly. Ion cannon should work at very short range only - they would vaporise the water along the length of the beam. Maybe 100m tops. If the beam dissipation could be given one value for air and another for water in the scenario file, that would be perfect.

The only weapons that should work under water are contact explosives (i.e. mines) and torpedos. Missiles fired under water should be able to exit the water but not re-enter.

[ThePhantom]

Toby, that's a good idea. I've stopped trying to think of any ideas with the infantry assault "Pipe" dream. It's truly pointless. However, bringing the engineer unit by transport to capture facilities. 3 Ion Thors in front and a Thor transport following. How many tenths of a second do you get trying to disembark? I've got to try this.