Some long range tank-shelling will do, I guess..??

T-B-N

As a map designer, I'm perfectly okay with long-range tank shelling. That is, as long as the tank shelling isn't trivial to do from a starting position. The tank should need to be moved at least a few meters and turned to get into firing position. That's why most heavy tanks on Tuchola Forest are facing the wrong direction, behind buildings / bunkers or are inside of shelters that prevent firing towards the bases.

If I find that certain bases are extremely vulnerable to long-range fire, my plan of attack for fixing the issue will be:

a. Strengthen defensive positions around the base. Give the defenders an easier time of defending the base. This is my preferred solution. You'll be able to breach the base easily, but getting in and planting will be hellish.

b. Add a wall / building that prevents long-range fire from being used to deny access to the base by defusers. It wouldn't prevent the base from being breached long-range, but it would make it more difficult to pull a G3 on Barbarossa (where the Russians use the pak45 to deny the Germans a chance to defuse the G3 bomb).

c. Make some treewalls solid (so they block shells). Not a solution that I want to use. I'd even consider moving a base rather then using this solution.

...

All that being said. I'm not terribly worried (yet). Most bases are in slight depressions and the ridgelines in the middle of the map prevent a lot of long-range fire. I may experiment with long-range fire solutions this week now that the gross terrain is in place.

In addition, all bases in Tuchola Forest face their doorways away from the threat axis. Imagine if the G3 base on Barbarossa were turned 90 degrees counterclockwise so that the doorway faced the German spawn exit.

As always, we'll see how well my plan survives contact with the enemy (a.k.a. "those darned testers!").