Just a question but how come turrets cant be used to fight against navel units that come in a range of say 3 or 4 squares in any direction. Right now a base on the coast even with a turret is totally defenseless unless there are ships in the area but even back in the 1600's bases had the ability to fire back at incoming warships so why not now. maybe something to think about

Ahh, up through WWII large caliber cannon were used to defend ports.
This goes along with an idea already brought up, that turrets get a bombardment option like warships, although I don't know what Johnny's stance on it is.

i think this sounds like a great idea.

Agreed, I love turrets.

I wouldn't have it able to bombard everything like men, jeeps or tanks though, it would be to powerful but water squares at least kind of like when a plane flys overhead theres a chance of hitting, say for a ship theres a chance of hitting as well if a ship comes in an area say 3-4 water tiles from it then it rolls the dice of chance. I wouldn't use it like you get a bombardment attack like a warship though that would totally change the dynamic of the game,

Either this, or the turret shoots back if a boat hits it.

I think it should be consistent. Turrets should be able to shoot at anything within the 2-5 sector radius, not just naval units, and not jsut thing attacking it directly.

I was thinking if you saw a boat that could possibly be in range of attack fire like a warship in 3 to 4 tiles out to warter but scums Gholamasters and Commanders sound like good ideas as well, I shall ponder this more


edit

New unit Navel Turret hmmm more thought

If anything, turrets should have a smaller range than a warship's.

In the 1600's or whatever era, a warship could easily stay out of range and bomb coastal fortifications, turrets in this case. Turrets would have 1-2 range and could take out transports and other ships if turrets are not destroyed beforehand.

This would allow the defender more time to come up with a counterattack against the warships, and the attacker would need to protect their warships from the counterattack. It'll create a much bigger impact on naval warfare.

Thus, the same range would be applied on land, however there is no land unit with the same ability as a warship, so it's just storming a turret with enough units that the turret can't target them all. (Reasonable to say one turret can target once per Cycle, and is not overpowered in any sense) One could simply send two L9 infantry and push around the turret, one of them would get wounded but ultimately can still ignore the turret and advance on. However 5 turrets in a line would certainly make more of an impact and may encourage attackers to remove those turrets.

I disagree. There's no way warships would have a capacity to hold bigger cannons than their land counterparts. In fact, its probably more the opposite. If anything, the coast was probably more susceptible to getting hit since it's a stationary target where as the ship is moving blip in the horizon. If you miss the land you still get collateral damage, whereas if you miss a ship it means nothing.

I'm thinking ships should have a greater range. The whole idea of roughly 60miles per sector is flawed IMO. At least when you consider the way we actually move units and build bases.

Regarding turret ranges: If the diameter range of a turrett is smaller than the distance a unit can travel, land units will be able to essentailly stop short of their range on one turn, then run right past them on the next without getting fired upon. That wouldn't make sense. Unless of source you do it like air unit defenses that shoot one shot per volley (aka land unit icon?).

I meant the turrets would act the same way as it does against air units. As soon as an unit enter its range, it fires on the first unit. There is no manual targeting involved.

One turret wouldn't be very ineffective. Like you said, it would be relatively simple to avoid its range (in which case allows the turret owner to control more land!) however a line/circle/random shape of turret defenses would cover a much bigger area, especially if they are surrounding bases.

I like this idea. I was previously in support of a manual targeting system with turrets but I think this makes a lot more sense to have it target the first unit within range. The only problem I really see here is that people will eventually send a L1 infantry in first to take the hit, this may prove to add another layer of interesting or just end up being annoying. I'm not really sure.

Perhaps something like a set amount of damage to all passing units dependent on the turret level would prove to be a more viable solution.

I would also like to see some type of mobile land artillery unit implemented with a manual targeting feature similar to a battleship.

an alternative could be a turret's "total daily amount of damage."

for the sake of this argument; a L1 turret has 100 points of damage to throw out on each Cycle; L9 has 900.

A L1 infantry can survive through 50 points of damage, thus a L1 turret can eliminate the first two L1 infantry that comes through (or reduce the first L9 to a L7)
A L9 turret would be able to eliminate two L9 Infantry each turn.

Obviously the numbers mean nothing, it's merely to explain.

Very interesting! I like that.

If you see on Jaxarto 980.506 I have five turrets surrounding Manaco's base your saying I could keep "shooting" (but not have to do anything for that to happen) him every round until he clears the turrets or with Ricks advancing armies I would get "shots",total daily amount damage above what I get for him to running into them, Yeah that would be cool.

I think for simplicity sake turrets should be able to return fire on any target that attacks it period. Currently on land scale they do just that you attack a turret you get damaged in return. I think the only difference should be against naval units if a naval unit bombards a turret the turret can attack back even against bombardment. While this doesn't give them an overwhelming advantage as some of the options below would. More importantly it doesn't dramatically alter units value in the current game to unbalance units advantage.

Rationally speaking... Infantry are tiny dispersed units that are quite frankly difficult to target at any range other than point blank and can easily find cover in even the smallest ditch. Tanks and jeeps are similarly difficult to target due to the small amount of relative units and their ability to maneuver. Naval units are large "relatively " slow units with predictable movement even more so when bombarding where even the slightest ship movement could dramatically alter a bombardments chances of hitting a target making their movement even more predictable than normal. This rationally could explain why a turret could fight back.

I know the argument would be in counter mortar fire or indirect fire out side of naval units no other unit has that capability. If johnny wanted to add a land based artillery/mortar unit to the game thats another story. But if one does get added I would give it the restriction that it can not move and fire and can not fire the turn it gets placed.

If an artillery unit does get added, maybe it could be set that it can only either attack OR move, not both. It may even have two forms; deployed and undeployed. It takes a full cycle to deploy the artilley (which requires not moving); and as long it's in deploy state, it can indirect fire against other units similar to a warship. Simply undeploy (full cycle) to move it again but it won't be able to attack.

Why not have different types of turrets that can be built? Each would have separate costs associated with them as well.

1 turret for air defense (Cheap)
1 cannon for bombardment (Expensive!)
1 bunker for chance of kill (Moderate)

I would also like to see a fortification improvement that makes it easier for units to defend themselves on, or at least a trenching command would be nice for units.

I know it would change the dynamic a lot, but I think it would make things a whole lot of fun too.