Dear DEVS, DEF needs to be less Random, let us assign units to each sandbag.

[Delusion*PC]

I really wish we could assign units to specific positions/sandbags, it would still be proactive strategy and not active realtime interaction (which devs obviously are avoiding in Def).

So much could change like this, a whole new level of strategy could arise, helping us enjoy the game in more ways.

I really hope Devs think about this option!

[SOUZA-ZICA-11]

Mais uma boa ideia para que os desenvolvedores façam do Guns Up um dos melhores games de estratégia do mercado do gênero. Parabéns amigo.

[mendoza0206]

It is NOT random, just pay attention to the game and you'll understand

[Delusion*PC]

I know it's not actually random, but why not make it more simple to put starting engineers at desired spots without trouble? For example it would be awesome if you can assign a tent to specific sandbags even after some are destroyed. Now the plan you have for your base gets destroyed by each different attacker's path, making the initial strategy disappear in an uncontrolled way. It also makes the units seem too stupid when ie an engineer goes to fight instead of serving his #1 purpose (repairing particular structures).

[SOUZA-ZICA-11]

Mais ai seria criado super bases, e o jogo perderia seu sentido.

[CrazyPenguin*PC]

I agree with this, I already figured out how the placement works by Vets going to be placed in front line with some basic units but my 1 Vet Flamethrower always gets placed in a location he is the most useless and gets killed fast. No matter what formation of sandbags I use I always get 1 Vet missplaced where I don't want. We should be able to place Vet where we wan't as they at least them.

It is NOT random, just pay attention to the game and you'll understand

There is a way game generates where will who get placed depending on your placement but still its difficult to manage and get Vets placed in right locations

[mendoza0206]

This option would only make nightmares even harder to beat. You should try leveling up first, attack some of the top 50 PvP bases then make educated observations. The game is good as it is as far as unit placing goes.

[Delusion*PC]

I undestand how you see this topic, I ve seen many videos and comments of experienced players, whose bases are too hard. Obviously improving the ways one can defend makes attack harder. But buffing attack is already necessary and should happen anyway. In others words, I think not improving the game isn't a proper solution to keep balance. Balance should keep being on focus even after every change. How to buff attack though is another topic that I hope it gets discussed further in another thread.

[SOUZA-ZICA-11]

Tá com medo de bases mais difíceis, fica não colega é só um jogo.

[SOUZA-ZICA-11]

Resumindo, colocar seus soldados em sacos específico de areia é um recurso que seria melhor aproveitado, se tivéssemos o controle.

[col1162]

I have suggested this same idea with vet placement on numerous occasions but the it never gets any traction. I agree it can be a pain moving bags around trying to get your vets where we want them. Yes, and so what if it makes attacking harder? Isn't that part of the fun of the game? If everyone gets to place their vets (and only vets) isn't that making it more fair? Maybe we as players would like to have other infantry up front with half a dozen sandbags or so for the brunt of the attack but keep the vets closer to the fort but spread around a little and not clumped up for a single or double decoy massacre. But as it stands now after we place the first 2 or 3 bags of infantry then the vets place in either bunched up or in a super crazy placement where they usually are waiting to die without ever firing a shot. For all of the forever complaining of "being fair", it seems the stasis quo will be as good as it gets.

Life isn't fair, players didn't like it when a sniper tower could shoot them from behind rocks, "it wasn't fair" they complained. Isn't a sniper tower supposed to be tall or higher up, and that's why it has TOWER in it's name? Players didn't like it when a sniper tower fired on their truck, "it isn't fair" they complained. Shouldn't everything be able to shoot the truck? Personally, I think that we should be able to place a wall directly in front of a tower after a certain LVL of tower so it can fire over it simply because of the towers height. Players complain the want to control their truck but truly don't care about making veteran placement easier.

Ah, but I digress. Why would any of us want to have the ability to place our own vets at specific placements? Why? To simplify a small portion of the game and make it more personal to each of our playing styles, thus making it "more fair", that's why. Some players are great tacticians while others are not, some attacking or defending better than others which is life and making the game "unfair" just like life. And for the new player who has not figured out about the weird CPU veteran placement sandbag arrangement. The only difference is by the CPU placing the vets it severely limits the endless choices of each of our different playing styles for defending our base which for some reason some players seem to find fair. Why? I have no clue but good luck my friend I for one am on your side in this discussion.

[mendoza0206]

@ SOUZA, I ain't scared of any base, I've batttled, won and lost against the best this game has. Everyone wants to built an "unbeatable" base which doesn't exist yet, and if it does changes will be made to fix it. Many changes have been made in the past because the majority of players have had a hard time against a few nightmare bases. I'm not sure what level you guys are or which nightmares you have battled yet, but sooner or later you will hit the brick wall and realize that maybe nightmares shouldn't be so hard to beat. I'm not good at building bases, or very good at attack either but I've seen many good bases and if this option would become available, well a new type of ranking would have to be made for the new types of nightmares this would create.

[preston42382]

Good idea. Let the placing choice start! Why are so much of the ideas being suggested not being brought to the game? I played the game one or two years ago, and it's almost the same exact game it was then. This game has similar problems that other free-to-play games have. Charge too much / too difficult to improve abilities / cards / units / etc. and time required to level up to where the game isn't so repetitive is too much. Customization options are too expensive too. I have to pay 50 gold to get one new color or banner shape LOL! And I have to pay $4.99 to get 300 gold. It's less costly in COD and Battlefield games for new maps and stuff, though not by a large amount.

[DKang89]

nothing you are talking about is hidden behind a paywall or impossible to gain playing f2p, all optional cosmetics.
the only pay 2 win in this game is buying extra alliance battles for gold.

[cusman]

I think 50 gold to get new color or banner is fine in this F2P game where it routinely gives you +5, +10, +30 gold just for playing or collecting daily rations.

[DKang89]

you cant bring these ideas like placing units at sandbags, controlling the truck etc because this isnt a real time strategy game.
guns up is a tower defence game and should stay that way. if you want to control your army units there are plenty of RTS games to play

[cusman]

Umm... Tower Defense originated as a sub-genre of Real-Time Strategy Games ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tower_defense ). More importantly, there is no rule in game design that says you can't do something because it isn't what is normally done. That is how new game genre and sub-genre and so on continue to be created.

[DKang89]

of course there are no 'rules' in game design, but there are generally accepted norms, features and limits for each genre. to add more rts game elements would change the game we all signed up for.

again i say if youre looking for those features and game styles there are tons of options other than guns up.

i signed up for a tower defence game.

[cusman]

I would like such an option as well.

Practically I think the way it should work is each Veteran slot you have unlocked you can specify where in your base you would like it to start when Veterans are set to Find Cover. In addition, there should be some UI where you can change the position of your veterans (like you can at end of PvP victory).

If any of your veterans slots are not filled when you are next attached, then those positions will get filled by tent troops based on current game logic.

[DKang89]

sorry i have to agree with mendoza above. adding more specific unit control options only serves to make the already overpowered base defending mode more optimized.

what we really need are more options to customize our base/army.

eg multiple types of units, interchangeable weapons per unit, more battle maps, perks for the truck etc

[cusman]

DKang89

Maybe you don't realize but it is hypocritical to say doing something that will make defense stronger should not be done (which IMHO is not a good reason), while saying more customization of base/army is needed (which would also in right hands make defense stronger).

More battle maps however should hopefully just increase variety (which ability to specify veteran troop placement would also bring).

[preston42382]

I rarely ever get gold from daily rations or playing battles in attack / defense. I get it more from missions, which is also rare. 50 gold for a color! A color! Lots of other f2p games and non-f2p games include the whole RGB range for free. I think Guns Up has COD-enza.