Sabotage

Status
Not open for further replies.

DeletedUser16008

Not yet a proposal but looking for added ideas.

Fort Sabotage.

Currently forts get built and from time to time get attacked and thats it.

On older worlds and even newer ones it becomes very difficult to lose any med or large fort once held.

The idea is that you can sabotage a fort ie walls or towers or gate etc.....

An alliance could pay for a sabotage crew say no more than once a week, pick the target fort and the area Tower etc ... make it really expensive say 100K + and allow towns to chip in

No warning would be given to the defending towns and they would have to "patrol" or check the maintenance of their forts themselves and of course pay for that. Paid for out of the towns in the alliance but would have to be done by the fort member towns as they are responsible for "security and upkeep"

When weakened sufficiently the attack on said fort could be made, only then would the sabotage become apparent if the defenders did not "patrol" their forts.

Feel free to add or point out problems.
 

DeletedUser17143

What if forts had their own health bar and the health decreased depending on how many points the attacking team scored after an attack.

If you attack a fort and you successfully win it then you take control of it and must begin to build it up as normal and repair any damages. But if you attack and are ushered away the overall health of the fort decreases and thus decreases the bonus you get from its defenses. The holding team would then need to pool resources to rebuild the forts defenses and possibly expand the fort before someone attacks again. If you fail to rebuild the defenses then the fort will be much easier for the attacking teams to overwhelm on their next try.

I mean this would mean that forts would most likely switch hands more often whilst also adding an element of strategy to it for alliances that wish to continuously assault the same fort to try and gain control.

The overall health would depend on the size of fort/the number of points it has. So it would still be easier to defend a larger fort as it would take many successive attacks to whittle down its defenses to a point where you can actually stand a good chance of taking it over.

It's not quite sabotage, but it is quite similar. Plus it adds a more interactive edge to the degrading of a fort.
 

DeletedUser

When forts were originally implemented there was mention that battle damage would be added to the fort and I'm guessing that this could be accomplished in several ways.

1. All missed shots to a portion of the fort would be considered damage to that section of the fort an after 25,000 points of damage, that section would drop a level. 25,000 is an arbitrary value that could be modified after testing to see what a realistic/playable value would actually be. The value could also be different for towers, walls/gates, interior buildings.
2. Damage could be done by occupying a section of the fort and either:
.... A. A very small percentage chance of damage could occur for each round that a structure was occupied by the attackers
.... B. The structure could only be damaged if it were occupied by the opponents.
.... C. Make the check for structural damage only periodically after that structure were occupied (for a significant number of rounds like 3, 5 or 10 rounds)

This would require people to maintain their forts, make those "unconquerable" forts more vulnerable and finally add another feature to keep people active in the game (reinforce the fort through rebuilding and the product gathering associated with that rebuilding).

This is an idea I've been rooting for for quite a long time now.
 

DeletedUser22493

Im more for the occational wear and tear caused from battles than the sabotage idea.

Nevertheless you need to use the guidelines. Comeon man, you know this.
And no, this is not a minor idea.
 

DeletedUser17143

They could also include some buffs in the UPB shop that add fort damage to your player. Molotov Cocktails for instance. You wouldn't really need to have them equipped or use them to attack, but it could just provide a + to the damage caused by the player against the fort HP for however many turns it lasts.
 

DeletedUser

How about Alamo cocktails? ;-) or good old fashion TNT
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sambee

Sambee

The West Team
Forum moderator
I like the idea. It gives builders something to do and brings more surprise to battles.

I have a few added ideas but they may seem too difficult and real life type stuff:

1. We could get more products becoming useful like dynamite for transporting ammo and rounds from Guarding the stage coach or have other products being able to be crafted into items.

2. Traps should be allowed to be set for the owners of the fort which would have an effective period of 24hrs. These can include beaver traps or barbed wire or other crafted items.

3. If there is someone from the alliance who owns the fort is at the fort, they should be sent a notification which they can send to someone who can repair the fort.
 

DeletedUser

I like the idea Vic. If alliances want to hold all these forts they should be able to maintain them or lose them. You will get negative feedback from people because they can see the maintenance issue but I think the ability to damage a fort before attack is a good thing. Maybe even to the point where a hole is made in the wall, similar to the gate, which would then require addition protection during the battle. Yes from me.
 

DeletedUser

I don't think a hole would be good for the attackers at all. If it worked like a gate, it would give LOS to offliners. If you can't fit a bullet through it, you can't fit a body through it.
 

DeletedUser

Well its an idea. A hole in the wall creates another aspect to consider. Forts need something to mix it up right now. Tanks are ruling the frontier
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top