Command unit targeting Part II

From: Jarreas Underwood <jarreas_at_...>
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 15:29:26 -0400

>>I don't understand the implications of the building restriction - am I
>>missing something?
>>
>>-Yar

>The building restriction was put in place due to the rather common ploy
>of rushing HQ's into buildings or other structures placing a couple of
>units in front and firing with impunity. Buildings are obvious targets,
>it doesn't matter who's in them. This problem was further compounded by
>adding a heavy firepower unit like devastators or other such units then
>you had an unassailable position with the benefits of cover, all because
>you couldn't fire at it because of the HQ unit in it. This was not good
>and changed by the restriction.
>
>Peter

Gotcha - makes sense now. I agree that there shouldn't be a way to create
unassailable positions.

Can we add the statement that the targeting restrictions do not apply to
anything other than direct fire at the HQ unit? That would cover barrage
weapons (you have to target a valid unit, and manage to hit the HQ only as
a 'bonus'), buildings (you can still fire at other stands in the building,
and the building itself) and non-command transports carrying an HQ unit
(such as a Thunderhawk).

I'd prefer that over allowing you to recognize HQ units as soon as they
step into a building - they should be harder to identify and target.

Perhaps we can add a comment in the "Picking a Target" section to the
effect of, 'if a normally untargetable unit (such as a scout or HQ unit)
does something to attract attention and stand out, it may be fired upon.'
So if an HQ is the only unit in a building, and it fires out, you can
return fire even though there are closer infantry out on the ground. It
also means that scouts can be fired upon from beyond 25cm *after* they make
their attack.
-Yar
Received on Wed Apr 24 2002 - 19:29:26 UTC