"The base design is awful": explain why.

A good base design would look like this.

1. Take a biolab.
2. Make the roof a forcefield tied to a generator.
3. Make the walls a forcefield tied to a generator.
4. These generators replace two cap flags.
5. Remove the middle "strut" completely. The middle should be almost completely empty.

What has been achieved:
- you cannot take the base with 90% vehicles and 10% infantry
- tank hill spam or aircraft spam are impossible unless the generator(s) are out, which is done by infantry
- the buildings/"garden" at the outskirts of the base provide an ample amount of CQC-short range combat
- the empty middle allows for mid-long range combat and sniping

Depends.

It was a viable strategy in PS1 to "spawncamp" to delay defenders' reinforcements by holding enemies inside the spawn room as long as you could before dying; you didn't have tanks but you basically shot through a door or a corridor, like fish in a barrel.


Tanks being able to shoot at spawnroom would not be much of an issue IF:
-The tank is in a very vulnerable position; like sitting in the middle of a courtyard
-Has little to no place to maneuveur
-Can only allow one vehicle at a time

This way, you make sure the tank will get overwhelmed by rockets as time goes on, and eventually die.
It then becomes a matter of how long you can hold defenders back.

This is the exact problem I was talking about.

Making defensible bases force people to zerg more, not less. People joked that the faction who won the Crown lost the continent for a reason. Defensible bases forces the attackers to zerg harder.