Let's talk turrets

[stefanstr]

There is literally nothing to discuss on turrets, they are not broken so stop ignoring this and stop trying to think how to change them.

Thanks jaeden for enlightening us, ignorants! We were lost without your guidance. Please, show us your magnanimity and present us with a list of jaeden-approved topics that have something valuable to discuss. I will personally ask the moderators to pin it to the top of the forums so that no one makes our mistake ever again!

On open field you'll see parts of the frontline panicking, a stalemate might be met with an abduction plan. Most battles with an entrenched setup were only getting fun for me (were only registered as a non-nuisance), once my killbox was breached.

This made me think about one more problem with turrets. Their ubiquity makes it necessary to balance the game against them instead of against the colonists' strength. I.e., the amount of enemies is sent based on the premise of "How many turrets can be bought with the amount of wealth the colony currently possesses?". It has to be, as the game would otherwise become laughably easy.

This is fine as long as you manage to keep repairing your killboxes. Once a second raid comes a little too soon, though, they will steamroll you, because their strength is balanced against the turrets you didn't have the time to rebuild.

This might be the most important reason of all to take another look at how turrets work. I want the challenge to be adequate to what my colonists can do (I think Tynan has done this to some extent with Alpha 7) and not to some arbitrary self-serviced line of turrets.

I want the game to encourage me to be an active participant. And turrets (and their implications) do not do it at all. Manned vehicles suggested by some of you would be a much better option because of that - they encourage active warfare instead of hiding in a bunker.

[Varnhagen]

Manned vehicles suggested by some of you would be a much better option because of that - they encourage active warfare instead of hiding in a bunker.

Hiding in a bunker is fine for any one who wants to do that. Some activity in doing so would be apreciated as well. So let me throw in a couple things (for thoroughness' sake) that are about these forums for a while:

• Pillboxes
  
• Embrasures
  
• Traps
• Trenches

Some new, some old ones:

• Turret Consoles
  
• Mountable Turrets
  
• Vehicles

Sounds a lot better, than just "Turrets", doesn't it?

[Akalaël]

I would like to stop building turrets. I really would like.
What do I got for alternatives ?
What can I do when a 10 mens raid comes right in my early 4/6 months-old colony with 4 guys under-armed ?

Have I got any other way to send my drafted colonist to a certain death ? I get them cover, I micro manage them as hell, and eventually one of them will survive the battle ?

Because the colonist who is the nearest of the wave is going to take the aggro, blown off by the burst of ten shots at once, when my 4 mens just scratch the first assaulter. Rince and repeat for my second colonist, and so on.

If I had alternatives, anything, I'll use it eventually.

[jaeden25]

There is literally nothing to discuss on turrets, they are not broken so stop ignoring this and stop trying to think how to change them.

Thanks jaeden for enlightening us, ignorants! We were lost without your guidance. Please, show us your magnanimity and present us with a list of jaeden-approved topics that have something valuable to discuss. I will personally ask the moderators to pin it to the top of the forums so that no one makes our mistake ever again!

Sorry that you feel that way, but, can you tell what the problem actually is with turrets? because nobody, as far as I have seen has come up with a reason that actually makes sense. Killboxes do not count as a reason because you have the choice to not make one, it's completely up to the player if they want to abuse the AI.

[Mikhail Reign]

The problem is that the game becomes a tower defence game, with very little emphasis on the colonist, other then to be there to build and repair turrets.

My colonists have stories, stats and attribute. They are what is mean to be the focus and driver of the 'story' and gameplay. Currently the way the game plays out, I may as well name every colony 'Turretworld'.

You say it is up to the player to not explot the AI. I say it is up to the game to not be explotable. At least so so basically and and straight forward. What am I mean to do? Intentionally build my turrets so that they aren't as effective as I can make them?

[stefanstr]

What Mikhail said.

If the reasons provided don't make sense to you, I have no problem with that. People tend to disagree and that is fine. You can try and convince us why our reasons don't make sense. So far, none of your counter arguments made sense to me.

[jaeden25]

The problem is that the game becomes a tower defence game, with very little emphasis on the colonist, other then to be there to build and repair turrets.

My colonists have stories, stats and attribute. They are what is mean to be the focus and driver of the 'story' and gameplay. Currently the way the game plays out, I may as well name every colony 'Turretworld'.

You say it is up to the player to not explot the AI. I say it is up to the game to not be explotable. At least so so basically and and straight forward. What am I mean to do? Intentionally build my turrets so that they aren't as effective as I can make them?

Exploits are only a problem in multiplayer games, because it gives players an advantage over other's by abusing exploits. In a single player game though it does not matter at all. If you really have a problem with killboxes being overpowered then just don't make them, it is that simple. For people like me who want to play open colonies how the hell am I supposed to defend a colony without any turret's?

The problem with your argument is that you're saying you feel like you have to build underground and use killboxes, because you don't feel like you have the choice to play any other style. So how does it make any sense at all to remove or make turrets harder to build, do you honestly believe the change will stop you building an underground base and abusing the AI? 100% it will have the opposite effect and drive you underground quicker.

...and yes it is totally fine and quite fun to impose limits on yourself when playing through a game like this.

[jaeden25]

What Mikhail said.

If the reasons provided don't make sense to you, I have no problem with that. People tend to disagree and that is fine. You can try and convince us why our reasons don't make sense. So far, none of your counter arguments made sense to me.

You need to expand on why my counter argument's don't make sense to you.

[Varnhagen]

I would like to stop building turrets. I really would like.
What do I got for alternatives ?
What can I do when a 10 mens raid comes right in my early 4/6 months-old colony with 4 guys under-armed ?

Have I got any other way to send my drafted colonist to a certain death ? I get them cover, I micro manage them as hell, and eventually one of them will survive the battle ?

Because the colonist who is the nearest of the wave is going to take the aggro, blown off by the burst of ten shots at once, when my 4 mens just scratch the first assaulter. Rince and repeat for my second colonist, and so on.

If I had alternatives, anything, I'll use it eventually.

It's actually no place hear to discuss infantry tactics, but since you asked, this might benefit you or others.
The problem in your statement is "under-armed". That's where you loose. Get your trade going form the getgo and invest in some serious armament. I purchased an M24 and an M16 as soon as possible. That's between 700 and 800 Silver depending on the trader or 320 cotton. With the M16 I killed a centipede, that, I guess it was a lucky day, dropped a minigun for my pleasure. But even without the minigun, armed with the M24, M16 and Lee-Enfield my three colonists dispatched with 10+ adversaries.
As soon as you get the event notification you draft your imps and sally forth. I play on large maps to have as much room to maneuver as possible. Once you've made contact you let your colonists cover each other and take shots at the attackers. Rather than forming a line of fire, you set them apart, each one being further away from the enemies. Ideally all weapons can come to bear on the horde, but that's not mandatory.
You use any kind of cover you can find preferably walls or mountains, and once your front colonists comes under fire from multiple enemies you retreat him to a back position with the last one, so that they still can fire on the enemy. You slowly retreat across the map, and the path you take will be littered with the corpses. Anticipate flanking, or it might break your back. Once you know the map better you'll want to build some walls, where not enough cover is provided by the surroundings.
Remember, you needn't kill all, it suffices to roughly kill halve, and that should be easy-peasy with a 4 to 10 headcount.
It'll still take a heavy toll, and you need good access to limbs and medicine. But it IS playable without turrets.

[Johnny Masters]

"What is this variety? First the game has to be more defined in its purpose. Is it more of a sim builder or a strategy survival? Does or should it last as long as the player want it or does it have an ending? Should it be a tense or a chill experience? "

That is dictated by the AI Storyteller and your difficulty.  Regardless, the first choice on research is still to build turrets, to reduce the risk to your colonists.

No offense, but if you've kept reading a bit longer, you'd see how i mention AI director answers only partially to this.

In a discussion/dialog its important to actually read what others are saying, otherwise its a monologue not a discussion (and i say this to everyone in here)

[Varnhagen]

So how does it make any sense at all to remove or make turrets harder to build, do you honestly believe the change will stop you building an underground base and abusing the AI? 100% it will have the opposite effect and drive you underground quicker.

Making them harder to build or to remove them from the game on it's own wouldn't do much else, than to annoy players.
Look at this thread, look at other threads: You'll mostly find the impression, that living outside is impossible. The first few pages of the "How to ..." thread are a sequence of, "Would love to, but it's impossible statements." You know better, you play in the open, I know better, Mikhail knows better, Akala and stefanstr would love to leave the mountains as would others. Thus the question of how can turrets be redesigned to offer more deployment options than a killbox setup. Killboxes hamstring opponents and players alike and offer a repetitive gameplay. They have severe drawbacks that limit their usability as a perimeter defense for open world gameplay. You'll most probably have a perimeter wall with guarded gates to allow easy access to and fro your colony. But turreted gatehouses are just a killbox-in-disquise. It's still an artificial choke point with turrets pointing at it. Let's think of more choices than to build medieval castles, town walls or a Dwarf Fortress (there's an entire game dedicated to it, there's no need to clone it "with graphics"). Momentarily, the only vanilla defense option you got aside from civilian militia, is the turret. The charge was removed limiting designs and thus most players will try to think of ways to maximize their turret deployment.
I think we have stated a lot of good reasons, why turrets are flawed in this thread. We've pointed to things that might open up new possibilities and possibilities is what's needed.

Anarak is right, when he asks for more variety in gameplay options and in goals to achieve. Looking at a map, with distinct features, localized advantages or general disadvantages would lead to every game playing out differently. One time you'd build a town, another time a fortress and in the cold wastes of the north you dwarf your way to riches, cause there ain't much else to be done. I'd be interested in the current statistics where most players chose their starting position to be at. I wouldn't be surprised if well over half of them headed straight for mountain and another chunk for large hills.
That's not variety and it offers no adaptation, because most games play out the same anyway. One player needs heavily fortified turrets for his killbox, while the next one would need light, mobile turrets for his perimeter defense. With the current turret and its singular application only one of both will get what he needs and the other one is required to do the same. For lack of an alternative he'll build a killbox or somesuch derivative.
How do you defend your open colonies?

Welcome to Ellis (challenging Cassandra)! You'll see no turrets or perimeter wall, because they are inapplicable for my situation and game goal. Most enemies are routed or killed before the even reach me.

[jaeden25]

So how does it make any sense at all to remove or make turrets harder to build, do you honestly believe the change will stop you building an underground base and abusing the AI? 100% it will have the opposite effect and drive you underground quicker.

Making them harder to build or to remove them from the game on it's own wouldn't do much else, than to annoy players.
Look at this thread, look at other threads: You'll mostly find the impression, that living outside is impossible. The first few pages of the "How to ..." thread are a sequence of, "Would love to, but it's impossible statements." You know better, you play in the open, I know better, Mikhail knows better, Akala and stefanstr would love to leave the mountains as would others. Thus the question of how can turrets be redesigned to offer more deployment options than a killbox setup. Killboxes hamstring opponents and players alike and offer a repetitive gameplay. They have severe drawbacks that limit their usability as a perimeter defense for open world gameplay. You'll most probably have a perimeter wall with guarded gates to allow easy access to and fro your colony. But turreted gatehouses are just a killbox-in-disquise. It's still an artificial choke point with turrets pointing at it. Let's think of more choices than to build medieval castles, town walls or a Dwarf Fortress (there's an entire game dedicated to it, there's no need to clone it "with graphics"). Momentarily, the only vanilla defense option you got aside from civilian militia, is the turret. The charge was removed limiting designs and thus most players will try to think of ways to maximize their turret deployment.
I think we have stated a lot of good reasons, why turrets are flawed in this thread. We've pointed to things that might open up new possibilities and possibilities is what's needed.

Anarak is right, when he asks for more variety in gameplay options and in goals to achieve. Looking at a map, with distinct features, localized advantages or general disadvantages would lead to every game playing out differently. One time you'd build a town, another time a fortress and in the cold wastes of the north you dwarf your way to riches, cause there ain't much else to be done. I'd be interested in the current statistics where most players chose their starting position to be at. I wouldn't be surprised if well over half of them would head straight for mountain and another chunk for large hills.
That's not variety and it offers no adaptation, because most games play out the same anyway. One player needs heavily fortified turrets for his killbox, while the next one would need light, mobile turrets for his perimeter defense. With the current turret and its singular application only one of both will get what he needs and the other one is required to do the same. For lack of an alternative he'll build a killbox or somesuch derivative.
How do you defend your open colonies?

Welcome to Ellis (challenging Cassandra)! You'll see no turrets or perimeter wall, because they are inapplicable for my situation and game goal. Most enemies are routed or killed before the even reach me.

I agree with everything you say, they are good point's. The problem is though that the majority of players that want to change turrets don't seem to be willing to try new tactics and experiment with open colonies. So the question is... would changing anything, change anything?

[Johnny Masters]

Adapt or die seems fitting. Isn't that the underlying theme of the game?

That is, if the game has several and distinct features every time you start to a new game, and you are not quick to adapt to it, you die. The trick is to actually have several and distinct features every time you start a new game.

[Varnhagen]

Adapt or die seems fitting. Isn't that the underlying theme of the game?

I sure hope so. Part of the great appeal for me are its wild-west, firefly-ish themes of concurrence of low- and high-tech, dog eat dog and surviving against all odds. Strange, that the low-tech part receives few love. I'll be reconciled when Maces pop up in A8, though.

[stefanstr]

You need to expand on why my counter argument's don't make sense to you.

I actually have in another thread. Correct me if I am wrong but your main argument seems to be that nobody is forcing us to use the optimal/easiest play style and that RimWorld does not need to be balanced as it is a single-player game. Let me quote a part of my answer to you on another thread that is applicable here:

I am not a masochist, and if I have two choices, and one is superior in every way, I take that choice. I hate the kind of argument you're making. "If you want, you can challenge yourself and play a different way." No, I want to play the game the way it was intended.

... if the turret is there as the only automated defense, and it is available from the start, I assume the game is balanced around that. Which I have already talked about. So, if I voluntarily give up turrets, I am basically playing an imbalanced game.

Also, your argument doesn't address any of my concerns mentioned in the OP, so there is that, as well.