My Marine Boarding Idea

[Hone]

oh yes.. make marines eat also food and co stuff. Make those who supplie base...to trade even more and those who would like to assault base only bring marines 3 to 1.. and that's all. Great idea:nono:

For example.. Right now we have on our base fuel for 3 days and alloy for 4. We know that we have 3 days minimum that we can't check base.. and don't monitore base status whole day. With your idea of assaulting base with marines 3 to 1. You need only 5 hours with 5 transes.. to capture or destroy base with 25k of marines.

5 hours... you see number? I sleep 8-10 then wake up.. check status goes to uni for 6-8, return and again check status. So what stops you from capturing/destroying base in that period of time?

You can place transes in spots where turrets won't shoot you, and can sit there. only to spend around 50-100mil to destroy base.. that cost more than 4bil.

And yet.. you want US suppliers to bring stuff to upkeep 10-25k of marines.:crazy:

Right now sieges cost nothing, and upkeep always cost something. You want to make good idea on how to prevent long sieges. Your idea makes them shorter.. but you should make it more costly for attackers not for base owners.

Also.. munitions and/or light arms and/or MW could help defenders/attackers.

ah.. useless wall of text:crazy:

Actually thats 5 hours of solid feeding time. Double it to count in going to get more marines.

Then bear in mind you have to defend those transports against attackers. 1 Heavy weapons platform could take them out in seconds. If the transports can sit right next to the base without being in range of even one platform, the platforms are positioned just plain wrong. And any defenders could also take them out. You wont be able to take a base with transports alone, you'll need warships constantly taking out platforms, and repelling defenders.

As to the amounts of supplies the marines need; If we use the same amounts that spaceship crew need, for a 10k garrison, we will require 24k food 24k oxygen and 24k water every day. This seems too much to me. The good thing is the commodities are not really defined. We can make them be however much we want, a meal, a days rations, a weeks. So I propose that 1 F/W/O can supply 5 marines a day (Or 1 marine for a working week). Thus a 10k garrison would require 2k of each a day. That can almost be done on a single transport.

Finally, yes, I suggested that light arms would allow spaceship crew to fight too, but the poll doesnt seem to show that that idea is very popular. Military vehicles are also interesting, they could be used to attack and defend, but be 10 times more effective perhaps, - 1 attacking MV kills 3 defenders, 1 defending MV kills 30 attackers.


Now I realise that this seems to only benefit attackers, not defenders, but consider how costly a failed attack would be; At the moment sieges cost nothing, but if atackers try to board, and get repelled, which is MUCH more likely, given even sides, as they need 3 times as many marines, each of which they will have to pay for, and each of which will die. Aswell as the fixed station defences killing transports full of marines. A failed attack could hurt the attackers a lot more than the defenders normal fights with them would.

@ west: Currently it's a lot more effort to destroy a base than to maintain one.
I disagree with your statement.
Edit: since bases cost a lot of effort too , how about introducing different types of bases,
next to the type we currently have , a cheap easy to destroy and maintain outpost.

Yes I quite agree, I was going to make another topic about giving more uses to bases than just building special equipment.

---

User was banned for: Griefing others
Time left: (Permanent)

[Daedric]

This idea would make maintaining a base far more time consuming than it is now, thus bases should become that much harder to capture or destroy.

While your 3 to 1 suggestion had merit in this day and age, we're talking about an advanced space fearing civilization. Who knows how hard it is to board and conquer a castle surrounded by the harshest environment humans have encountered? I doubt you or I.

I like the idea, but it should follow the same premise as base destruction does now. To defeat a well supplied base it should be a war of attrition (See Smallwood as an example).

---

Helpful Discovery Guides

Get Help Here! | Player Base Guide | Mining Guide | Trading Guide

Reputation Guide | Zoner Rep Guide

OSI Information | Join OSI! | Nichols Trade Center
OSI Bounty Board | OSI Feedback

[Hone]

This idea would make maintaining a base far more time consuming than it is now, thus bases should become that much harder to capture or destroy.

While your 3 to 1 suggestion had merit in this day and age, we're talking about an advanced space fearing civilization. Who knows how hard it is to board and conquer a castle surrounded by the harshest environment humans have encountered? I doubt you or I.

I like the idea, but it should follow the same premise as base destruction does now. To defeat a well supplied base it should be a war of attrition (See Smallwood as an example).

Agreed that it would make maintaining a base harder, though not much harder, once your marines are onboard, you pretty much only need a 5k of F/W/O a day, and they can be got anywhere.

Agreed that in turn bases should get a benefit, (though again, the ability to hurt attackers so badly is a benefit, and bases are already much easier to defend than attack anyway) and I suggest giving more uses to bases, to balance it out. I need to think about it a bit before posting suggestions for base improvements though.

As for 3 to 1, your right we dont know, the tech might make it easier to attack OR defend, I think its best to just use current assumptions and keep it simple.

---

User was banned for: Griefing others
Time left: (Permanent)

[Jack_Henderson]

I don't like it. Reasons:

25k marines on a base? How the hell? You have 810 crew on a core 4 base. And 25k marines? No. Makes no sense.

Supplying even more? No. The grind for bases is already bad. It can be managed as a group effort, but it is already sometimes a pain now.

Changing ownership: Definitely no! Hundreds of hours and billions spent in a base and by some mistake by an station admin or during holiday season someone else becomes the owner by late-night-docking X transports? Never. Seriously.

---

+ IMG| DISCORD: https://discord.gg/TWrGWjp
+ IMG| IS RECRUITING: Click to find out more!

[Hone]

I don't like it. Reasons:

25k marines on a base? How the hell? You have 810 crew on a core 4 base. And 25k marines? No. Makes no sense.

Supplying even more? No. The grind for bases is already bad. It can be managed as a group effort, but it is already sometimes a pain now.

Changing ownership: Definitely no! Hundreds of hours and billions spent in a base and by some mistake by an station admin or during holiday season someone else becomes the owner by late-night-docking X transports? Never. Seriously.

1: It would be up to the owner how many men to have garrisonned on the base, 25k seems a bit high to me.

2: As said above the extra supplies would not be much, and in compensation bases should get some benefits.

3: If you dont watch out for your stuff someone will take it, space is dangerous. At the moment they could just destroy it anyway.

Besides, think what you could do, aswel as just what could be done to you.

---

User was banned for: Griefing others
Time left: (Permanent)

[jerkovile]

If you ask me its great idea:)but how much time need for build it 6 months maybe :/

---

[FREELANCER] 4LIFE

[jerkovile]

If you ask me its great idea:)but how much time need for build it 6 months maybe :/

---

[FREELANCER] 4LIFE

[Lennox]

I don't like it. Reasons:

25k marines on a base? How the hell? You have 810 crew on a core 4 base. And 25k marines? No. Makes no sense.

Supplying even more? No. The grind for bases is already bad. It can be managed as a group effort, but it is already sometimes a pain now.

Changing ownership: Definitely no! Hundreds of hours and billions spent in a base and by some mistake by an station admin or during holiday season someone else becomes the owner by late-night-docking X transports? Never. Seriously.

I am just gonna say yes at this post and disagree with the OP post. Sieging a base is entirely sufficient when it comes to playerbases. Not really necessary to add more into that, in my opinion.

Nobody should be ever able to take something from another player by actions such alike. And as mentioned already...not every person has as much time as those, who can effort that amount of time to siege a base 24/7 or whatever. Forcing a base owner to now care even more about a base, because the ownership can change...seriously?

As far as I see this, such a feature would make the whole base stories a lot more serious. And really. Ask yourself. It's already serious enough. No need to push it. As for that no good idea...no, no and no.

[Ronnie Rayburn]

I gotta say that even though I own a base, I'm not completely against the general idea. But I see some problems with it. If a base is to be captured, I don't want to rely on some computer making the decisions for me. I'd like it to be some sort of duel. Like a game of chess, if you will. I don't like the idea of simply pouring enough marines into a base, and that's that. This would mean that both players have to be there for the event. That could probably be solved.

Even if this could be done, technically speaking, it does take a lot of focus away from what the game itself is really about. FL is about flying around in various ships, and doing RP. Even though this would be a cool feature, I think it belongs in a different game.

If this is to be implemented into FL, then it can't be the base owner who's the only one who stands to lose more than some resources. It has to be on equal terms. To build and upgrade a base to level 4, you need to put in a minimum of 1 billion credits. That's if you buy at the cheapest spot for all materials. Add to that the costs for not buying at the cheapest spots plus supplies, and you're probably closer to 2 billion credits. In some cases even more.

If I was to risk my base, with everything that's inside it... money, guns, equipment... Then I'd like to see that all ships involved in the attack was turned over to me if the attack fails. That would make people think twice. As long as the risktaking is a one-way street, then... No thanks! But if all those CAU 8 battleships were willing to risk it, then sure. The way it is now, these ships can simply die and come back in 4 hours to do it all over again. Eventually, they will succeed.

---

[Hone]

I gotta say that even though I own a base, I'm not completely against the general idea. But I see some problems with it. If a base is to be captured, I don't want to rely on some computer making the decisions for me. I'd like it to be some sort of duel. Like a game of chess, if you will. I don't like the idea of simply pouring enough marines into a base, and that's that. This would mean that both players have to be there for the event. That could probably be solved.

Even if this could be done, technically speaking, it does take a lot of focus away from what the game itself is really about. FL is about flying around in various ships, and doing RP. Even though this would be a cool feature, I think it belongs in a different game.

If this is to be implemented into FL, then it can't be the base owner who's the only one who stands to lose more than some resources. It has to be on equal terms. To build and upgrade a base to level 4, you need to put in a minimum of 1 billion credits. That's if you buy at the cheapest spot for all materials. Add to that the costs for not buying at the cheapest spots plus supplies, and you're probably closer to 2 billion credits. In some cases even more.

If I was to risk my base, with everything that's inside it... money, guns, equipment... Then I'd like to see that all ships involved in the attack was turned over to me if the attack fails. That would make people think twice. As long as the risktaking is a one-way street, then... No thanks! But if all those CAU 8 battleships were willing to risk it, then sure. The way it is now, these ships can simply die and come back in 4 hours to do it all over again. Eventually, they will succeed.

You do realise that bases can currently be destroyed right? So this wouldnt be changing that, and currently bases are destroyed by a BSs sitting in front of it with the fire key taped down for hours. Not much more RP than flying up to it and starting the board command. You could still do fighting and RP, by coming along and fighting the transports.

This way actually makes the attackers have MORE to loose. They WOULD loose a lot of marines, and you COULD make them loose a HELL of a lot of marines, (and fail) if you blow up thier transports. Whereas currently when you blow up besieging BSs, all they loose is regens.

---

User was banned for: Griefing others
Time left: (Permanent)