Bacchus - Feedback Request!

[ClaytoniousRex]

For those of you who don't follow the Modding forum: Yurch has created an interesting new unit type called the Bacchus. It's a powerful air defense vehicle. I'm posting about it here in the main forum because we are going to include it in the upcoming 1.1.4 release and I would like to invite everyone to comment on the implications a unit like this has on gameplay. If you see any serious problems with the introduction of a unit like this we would like to hear them now, but please also include specifically what it is that you would like to see changed in order to address your concerns if you have any.

Some data on the Bacchus:

</font>

• It's a variant of the Paladin that carries a SAM missile launcher</font>
• The SAM launcher fires automatically (like the air defense gun on the Hermes)</font>
• It does not provide point defense - it does not shoot down any projectiles or missiles ever. It only shoots down dropships and pods.</font>
• The missiles have a very long range, so just a few of these things positioned well can lock out the smaller maps from dropping completely, and can lock out most of the bigger maps.</font>
• Since the Bacchus uses loud active sensors to do its job of impressive air defense, it cannot be sensor jammed and it is always visible to everyone. You can see it on the tac display, on the minimap, and on the 3D planetside display (always with a red pipper).</font>

Remember, you now have deployment zones even if the enemy does lock you out of dropping with units like this.

A vehicle like this represents a new kind of strategic asset - one that is mobile and player controlled. This is a very interesting development!

After some beta testing with it, we've learned how to manage it pretty well, but the first few games were learning experiences. Since it is always visible, and it is not very well armored, any decently coordinated team should be able to take them out in order to clear a DZ. The big difference, though, is that the introduction of the Bacchus greatly increases the chance that you will, in fact, need to work together in order to clear a DZ. In the past, this was only sometimes necessary (depending on how the enemy deployed his AA turrets and what kind of static AA was available on the scenario in question).

So, in summary, our feeling here is that the unit is pretty well balanced but does definitely introduce a high impact change to how the game is fundamentally played - dropping wherever you like "willy nilly" is now even less feasible than it already was. As far as tactical gameplay goes, I see this as a Good Thing, but would like to hear all of your opinions on the subject before we commit 1.1.4 to the update system.

[Dark_au]

I can see the tactic already. Herpes, bachius working together. Maybe with a mercury in between to call down mine pods on their enemies and to quickly call down the galaxy to protect them from the tanks too. IMHO the last thing this game needs is more gimicks or loopholes to be exploited.

[ClaytoniousRex]

OK, but in order to prevent any gimmicks being introduced, we need to know what it is about the Bacchus that is a gimmick. Could you please explain what it is about it that makes it a gimmick?

[Dark_au]

well what does it really have to do with tactical armoured combat?. Its just another piece of air defence, which is already over represented. Believe me with the way people play someone will find a loophole with it to ruin tactical play.

Plus it is another item that requires no skill on the part of the player using it to score "kills". If they had to actually guide the missiles manually then maybe it wouldn't be so bad.

[Dark_au]

Oh and it will probably used in conjustion with another player in a herpes. They will use it to run around behind the enemy and kill him from the rear ( especially the dumb bots which people are too busy to sheppard). Then hang around killing the same dumb bots that probably try and drop close by. Imune to artillery because of the herpes, and call down galaxies to defend them from anyone in a tank while the herpes uses its magic invisibility to butt slap them.

[ClaytoniousRex]

well what does it really have to do with tactical armoured combat?

I think that Yurch's design is meant to address what is currently a serious obstacle to tactical armored combat, which is a team's inability to protect itself from rear and flanking drops by the enemy. Particularly in Objective games, without the Bacchus, the attacker can execute excellent maneuver, gain advantageous positions, and do a good tactical attack, but no matter how clever he is the defenders can always simply drop behind him or on his flanks. Enemy units appearing out of nowhere in your rear ruins any plan you might be working on. Some longer range air defense would finally give an advancing team a way to cover its rear and flanks from enemy drops, though it does nothing at all to protect from enemy advance through cover over land into those areas. And if the enemy manages to maneuver into your rear or flanks, well then that is good tactical combat. But simply dropping there with one mouse click? Not very tactically interesting, but very effective (and with the Bacchus, it would stop being so effective).

Don't you think the game of tactical maneuver will be improved if teams have a way of preventing the enemy from dropping all around them? Or do you think this is already possible, and the Bacchus goes too far in making it even easier?

Or, if I misunderstood your question and you meant more generally what does an air defense vehicle have to do with tactical armored combat - well, air defense has been of paramount tactical importance for some time now. Air defense AFV's that are integrated into armored units are a very old thing: we've seen everything ranging from the M6 Linebacker with stinger missiles to the older VADS vulcan systems and ZSU, all the way down to the German Wirbelwind, etc. - you know the list.

Its just another piece of air defence, which is already over represented.

Compared with the modern battlefield, but even more importantly in this setting where the enemy deploys via dropship right onto the battlefield, I think that air defense in DropTeam is drastically underrepresented, don't you? Maybe not. Do you find that you don't need something like the Bacchus in order to protect your advancing force from drops? If so, can you share some of the tactics you're currently using that are working well for this? If a new, more powerful AA unit isn't needed in order to fill this role, then that's exactly what we want to know!

Or, are you simply saying that you don't think a team should be able to protect itself from drops? Would love to hear more about that, too, if that's what you mean! (This would be pretty surprising, though, since you're a fan of more classic maneuver).

They will use it to run around behind the enemy and kill him from the rear ( especially the dumb bots which people are too busy to sheppard). Then hang around killing the same dumb bots that probably try and drop close by. Imune to artillery because of the herpes, and call down galaxies to defend them from anyone in a tank while the herpes uses its magic invisibility to butt slap them.

The Bacchus cannot be sensor jammed. Not only that, but it is always visible, even if not in LOS. So if the Hermes player intended to go around the rear and do some butt slapping, he was a fool to bring a Bacchus with him. The bots are quite good about avoiding the Bacchus, so hanging around to kill the same dumb bots isn't a worry. And finally, Galaxies are a very poor defense against a tank, unless the player using it is both by himself and has forgotten how to use his coax. In this case, that player is not much of a threat with or without the Galaxy. It has no bearing on the Bacchus one way or the other, at any rate.

[Dark_au]

Maybe you should try playing with these kids at some point and see how ruined the game already is from a tactical point of view.

What I am Simply trying to say is that Air defence is already the most important thing. I thought this was a game about Armour not air defence.

[poesel]

(edit: both Clay and Dark overtook me with their respective last messages)

Ummh dark, did you read that bit about 'unjammable'?

The Hermes will only stop the easy arty kill on the Bacchus.

This tactic will also bind two humans to a mere defensive role (which is, sadly, in my experience 50-100% of available humans).

And since the Bacchus will share the speed of the Hermes it will soon fall prey of a 76mm, Ion or even a 120mm Apollo. Easy prey

I have to say I'm not very afraid or disturbed by AA in this game. This is different to darks opinion/experience. Taking out AA turrets is part of the job and easily done early in the game. Taking over stationary AA is hard and if accomplished will mostly win you the scenario if its the one in the enemies base.

PD is another thing but mostly AP will go through. The coax/HEAT combo takes care of other situations.

So, really, I'm not concerned.

[Alexander SquidLord Williams]

Maybe you should try playing with these kids at some point and see how ruined the game already is from a tactical point of view.

If they're winning consistently, then it'd appear their grasp of tactics is significantly more in tune with the tactical situation than yours. They're either out-maneuvering you on the battlefield, out shooting you, or taking advantage of local conditions (which includes technological manifestations) to destroy first your expectations, then your plans. That, by definition, is good tactics, as Rommel would support.

If they're not winning and you are, then its clear that your execution of traditional tactics is being wildly successful, and you are simply engaging in curmudgeony, borderline-whinging behaviour without actually trying to point, in particular, to the folks in question and improve their tactics.

Since you've repeatedly gone out of your way to bad-mouth the game, with little supporting argument (beyond "well, its this way now," which is no argument at all when I'm in a setting where I can drop a force of 3 sixty tonne tanks anywhere within over a 100 square kilometres within 2min of those exact same tanks and drivers being on the other side of the battlefield), I can only assume if it were the second, we'd have heard more "Ha ha! I kicked you whippersnapper's butts with good ol' Patton's Pattented Fake-and-Flank! Here's how I've been doing it!" We haven't.

What does that leave us to believe save you're a disgruntled buggy-whip maker?

I have to say I'm not very afraid or disturbed by AA in this game. This is different to darks opinion/experience. Taking out AA turrets is part of the job and easily done early in the game. Taking over stationary AA is hard and if accomplished will mostly win you the scenario if its the one in the enemies base.

PD is another thing but mostly AP will go through. The coax/HEAT combo takes care of other situations.

So, really, I'm not concerned.

Really, I'm not concerned, in the sense that I don't look forward to playing with the Bacchus. I want to see how it affects overall gameplay.

My main concern is two-fold:

</font>

• It requires the human touch.
  You don't want to send your Bacchus out driven by a bot, 9 out of 10 times. They're not so good at using terrain masking and turret-down positions to stay hidden, which is what a Bacchus needs to do to survive long. If you have a bot in it, you'll need a human nearby to take out the definite in-bound threats unless you're truly confident in your bot-wrangling.</font>
• Infantry drop-pods are going to be really screwed by this thing.
  Unless I'm mis-cuing and the missile rack ignores drop pods, in which case ... well, ignore this point. If it does ignore pods, its the perfect reason to keep a Hermes nearby enough to interdict ... which means the moment a 76mm or so rolls in, that force'll have lost two very important, irreplacable units. Which is a good thing to have to worry about.</font>

The third worry wasn't important enough to make the two-fold, but its out there, mainly that, especially on the larger maps, its going to cut the pace of combat way back, as it'll take time to get to the Objectives over-land. Get your DZ drop-turreted heavily and you'll be hard locked out and might as well call for a scenario ender.

I think the Bacchus'll need to be watched for a bit. I'm not big on putting it into all the inventories right out of the gate in 1.1.4, but in, say, 33% to 50%, just to introduce it. At least the rotation'll keep the scenarios turning, so if it turns out the Bac needs tweaking or is overpowered or simply overwhelming, there'll be missions not containing it.

If, after a couple weeks, you see folks reporting, "Man, I really wish I'd had a Bacchus!" on both sides of a given battle, you know you're hitting close to the sweet spot.

[Dark_au]

when all i can see is bunny hopping loophole play thats what I'll point out. Mine dropping, all the other **** you idiots pull to avoid dealing with the tactical situation. Again I have an oppinion so I'm a villain?.

Look at what happened to Hide n Seek. There is a flaw so people have to exploit it. No concept of maybe it isn't the intention or maybe have some discipline and not utilise a loophole but no... That might mean actually having to deal with a real tactical situation. Instead spawn raping / bunny hopping etc are the way people have to play.. To me this game is becoming more and more like BF42. Something that could have been a good tactical exercise ruined by idiotic spawn raping type play. If that is TBG's intention with this game to be a competition for BF2142 then good luck you are on track.. Of course they have more money and a bigger dev team so its not much competition. And you can keep it. I will continue therefore to warn away people who think this will be a realistic test of skill and strategic knowledge.

[poesel]

What do you mean by realistic? This is a SciFi setting so its TBG who makes reality.

Test of skill? Of course its a test of skill but obviously not the set of skills that you think of.

And finally this game is IMHO not a stretegic game at all. It would be strategic if we had to handle resources and such.

[yllamana]

It sounds like a very strong asset for attackers to use to limit defender drop advantage. I can imagine it on Ice Fields already.

Does it carry a weapon other than the SAM launcher? I guess it's probably like the Hermes, with the launcher mounted on the back, but it wasn't mentioned in the description.

It sounds cool to me. What if someone parks it under an ion tower? Depending on available cover they might be able to dodge ions and use the tower as cover from HEAT. Could that be too strong?

Dear Dark_au: I am sorry that you're having problems with the game. However, it's really hard for them to be addressed when you don't make coherent points in your posts.

An obvious counter to your hypothetical situation is to use a force of tanks with some air cover to keep silly mine dropping tricks from working (like the Bacchus!). The force you listed has no significant ranged capability at all, so anything with a gun bigger than 20mm will be able to rip it up from a distance. Voila! Cheesy tactics defeated through the power of teamwork, and the children sing and dance and play.

I would really love to hear a nice, precise response as to why this is impossible, though.

Edit: forgot to add, the whole "HerpesLOL" thing makes you look a little childish. I just thought you might like to know.

[yurch]

Since the Galaxy no longer fires in mid-air, the Bacchus is a way to ward off its deployment. Galaxy will be useless as a unstoppable 'combat help' if it can't be pulled in on-demand and on-location.

Hermes could concievably cover a Galaxy or Pod drop, but the Hermes 'abuse' complained about requires it to stay highly mobile, not hidden and stationary long enough to drop items. Hermes users rarely call in the Galaxy for support in combat, usually you see this being 'abused' by the slower, longer ranged vehicles.

Infantry cover distance fairly well (will outpace at least the Thor with jumps) and there's always the transport option for them. Remember the Bacchus launcher doesn't fire without LOS, so if it's hidden in extreme valleys or blocked by (terrain)walls its utility is diminished. You will know where it is at all times, so terrain and circumstance can be exploited.

I've seen you mention the massive discrepancy between attackers and defenders, Dark, and the problem is the options defenders have that attackers don't. This vehicle is the great equalizer in this regard.

[yurch]

Originally posted by yllamana:

Does it carry a weapon other than the SAM launcher?

It carries a 17mm rotary. Useful against infantry and deployables, spamming point defenses, and likely not much else. The Hermes 20mm is an utter chainsaw, the Bacchus on the other hand will be almost helpless versus a Thor. It can only penetrate the rear, and only up close.

What if someone parks it under an ion tower? Depending on available cover they might be able to dodge ions and use the tower as cover from HEAT. Could that be too strong?

Then it becomes a stationary Cobra launcher, glowing on the enemy's radar but without the resiliance of its stationary counterpart. The physical launcher is armored poorly enough to be affected by shrapnel, if I recall.

And if infantry snuck into the nearby tower...

[yllamana]

Well, it sounds very interesting.

Thought: how will adding new vehicle types interact with the custom inventory settings in the game already? It would seem you'd want the new vehicles in scenarios using the default inventory settings, but maybe not in scenarios using custom ones (like the weird ones with no Thors and very limited numbers of everything else).

I would guess that a fair approximation would be to include the default number on maps using the standard settings but to not include any on maps that use any custom inventory settings. I don't know how DropTeam scenarios work, though, so...

But it's just something I thought of playing a moment ago.

[Alexander SquidLord Williams]

when all i can see is bunny hopping loophole play thats what I'll point out. Mine dropping, all the other **** you idiots pull to avoid dealing with the tactical situation. Again I have an oppinion so I'm a villain?

Noooo, villainy usually comes with the ability to carefully and at length expouse its point of view, the better to give the hero a speech in the inevitable death-trap. What you've been doing is more akin to my henchman, Scarface, who says "Master no like" and brings me pretty girls from the village below my chateau.

I'd like to note "you idiots" isn't likely to be condusive discourse when you're trying to convince people either of your innate superiority in the tactical realm, as a discoursive sally against a perceived wrong, or on a kindergarten playground. Do try, and I say this with all sincerity, to invest at least a modicum of effort in communicating. Moreover, try to have a coherent point.

For example, "all the other **** you idiots pull to avoid dealing with the tactical situation." I'd say mine drops are currently a part of the tactical situation. Do they occur? Yes. Are they short-range in both the physical and temporal spaces? Yes. Do they affect the battlespace? Yes. One can only conclude that this is the very definition of a tactical situation introduced by "you idiots." In fact, its obvious its a portion of the tactical battlespace you, pointedly, do not want to deal with.

N'est pas?

Obviously, then, we must re-evaluate the context if the communication makes no sense as presented. So ... how are tactical mine drop effects not at least similar to modern FASCAM artillery mine drops coupled with the in-game-justified speed of low orbit tactical drops already established?

What you're doing is very much akin to going into the Steel Beasts community, stomping your feet and protesting because they had the termidity to have introduced anti-tank artillery and FASCAM, you're going to stop playing and anyone that uses them are idiots.

You do see how silly that is, yes?

Look at what happened to Hide n Seek. There is a flaw so people have to exploit it.

You mean the difficulty in seeing through foliage when its turned on, and you try to hull-down? The funny thing being that not only do most folks involved in the forum actually think that's a problem, they've gone out of their way on multiple occasions to provide reasonable discussion and even potential solutions, interim and long-term for it. They don't sit around whinging about "unrealistic tactical play," they either turn off foliage or they suck it up and play through while doing so.

They are, in short, constructive, which you haven't been being on too much, lately. That's a shame, but acceptible. It does not, however, earn you brownie points, social credit, or egoboo. And it doesn't do anything to further the things you supposedly want.

[Dark_au]

read the other post ****wit

[ClaytoniousRex]

Dark, quit the foul language.

Below is a snippet of the terms you agreed to when you created your forum account; please adhere to them.

all Members must agree to follow these simple rules:

1. No Flaming and/or Baiting. Strong opinions are welcomed but are required to be expressed in a way which is not abusive and/or emotionally charged. Any user who feels that a posted message is objectionable is encouraged to contact us immediately by email. Chronic violators of this simple, civil requirement are not welcomed here and are at risk of being banned. We like to think our gamers are mature, rational people. Please help us keep this opinion of you!

2. No foul language. Standard decency request here. If people ignore this simple request the BBS software does have a feature to block any word of our choosing being posted. Try and keep us from flipping the "censor" switch, will ya? We don't really want to use it.

3. Be constructive. The concept of this BBS is to exchange ideas and game suggestions so that as a group be better informed and understanding about each other's positions. Negativism is counter productive to this valuable goal and is quite different from rational criticism. To be clear, Battlefront and Members should welcome constructive criticism, but be free from abusive or otherwise unconstructive behavior. For example, here are two possible ways to offer criticism:

THE WRONG WAY - "YOUR GAMES SUCK, YOU SUCK, EVERYTHING BUT ME SUCKS! YOUR MOTHER WAS A HAMSTER AND YOUR FATHER SMELLS OF ELDERBERRIES!!!!"

THE RIGHT WAY - "I have been playing [game title] and have serious questions about the realism of [game feature]. I feel this is a major error which reduces my enjoyment of the game. It seems, from what I have read, that [unit name] are too powerful. In fact, all units of [unit type] appear to be too powerful. For example, according to [source] the real range of a ...." You get the point

The right way causes people to have respect for your posts and to take a CLOSE look at the feature/s in question and see if indeed there are problems. The wrong way does nothing but annoy Battlefront and those unlucky enough to read such tripe. It also makes such a Member look like an immature fool, which is a hard thing to shake once clearly established. Meaning, that while unproductive criticism is quickly ignored, the low opinion of Member lasts a lot longer. If someone wants to make a positive difference in life, being a jerk is not going to do that. If a Member can't grasp this basic concept, then he/she really shouldn't be here.

4. The act of "Trolling" is prohibited on this BBS. Trolling is defined as someone who routinely, although not necessarily exclusively, posts inflammatory, untrue, and/or generally useless statements with the primary motivation of insulting, demeaning, and in general causing disharmony within the BBS. Trolls often refrain from challenges to their flimsy arguments (when they even manage that much!) and fail to post rational follow ups to well thought out responses. This shows that the person is both a "mental midget" and a coward and does not offer anything of value to this BBS, the games being discussed here, or the community built up around them.

[Dark_au]

fine... Its ok for these lame brains to antagonise me but its not ok for me to respond... Very fair..

Tell you what gimme a refund and I will happily forget this place or the travesty it repressents ever existed.

[ClaytoniousRex]

It's perfectly OK for you to respond. I asked you to stop using foul language, not to stop responding.

[Junglist]

I can't believe anyone still listens to this guy.

+

Bacchus sounds cool, if that's what this thread is still about.

[Chilibird]

I like the sound of this. I've been looking for more of a long range piece, not to mention something a little more.. artillery-ish. I like the Thors, but if you have a well coordinated team, there is very little you can do. (And I can't tell you the number of times I've blasted my own dropship out of the sky with one) I think that these won't be as uneven as orginally figured. If they are slow, which is what i'm gathering, they are almost like SCUD launchers. On hilly maps, where getting a LOS shot will be difficult, they aren't that uneven. Same goes for the fact that once they DO fire, any Thor Heavy Artillery on the map will know where it is relative to them, and probably proceed to unload on it. I know I will.

And besides, this gives me reason to get my butt into gear and try this stuff