Absolute Annihilation 2.11

BigSteve · Post by **BigSteve** » 27 Jul 2006, 18:59

Reducing the flare frequency a little should the trick

Neddie · Post by **Neddie** » 27 Jul 2006, 21:31

BigSteve wrote:Reducing the flare frequency a little should the trick

I'm personally against that, and though I've never beaten you ingame, I'm not a shoddy player. This type of plane is only viable for the cost because of the relative difficulty of shooting it down. I generally use them with the core of a large air attack while Peepers run down the Anti-Air, OR I run them on patrol into areas that seem empty at the moment. The former the frequency doesn't matter for, and the latter would be just about useless if you lowered it.

The amount of times I've been able to watch a large "secret" base on a huge map...

Min3mat · Post by **Min3mat** » 27 Jul 2006, 21:43

Reducing the flare frequency a little should the trick

maybe just a .5-1 sec change?

Soulless1 · Post by **Soulless1** » 27 Jul 2006, 22:07

BigSteve wrote: No it doesnt, not it groups anyway, test it, youll find it avoids missiles very easily

funny that

Min3mat wrote:maybe just a .5-1 sec change?

um...you're suggesting we 'just' double its vulnerability to missiles?

Maybe we could 'only' give nukes to one side, while we're at it

Min3mat · Post by **Min3mat** » 27 Jul 2006, 23:37

it fires flares every .9 secs
its a radar plane
its fairly cheap
information should be deniable to a extent. this thing can scout almost anything, by the time you start hitting it with flak then your fusions or w/e are targetted and locked on

increase flare firing to 1.4 secs instead of .9
when the t1 scout plane has a 3 sec reload
isn't asking a lot and should fix it...

esteroth12 · Post by **esteroth12** » 28 Jul 2006, 00:16

Min3mat wrote:isn't asking a lot and should fix it...

QFT

it already has more health, being twice as resiliant to missiles is good enough too...

right now, before health differences, its 3 times as resilient to missiles...

1.5 sec flare rate would be fine...

KlavoHunter · Post by **KlavoHunter** » 28 Jul 2006, 08:22

Egarwaen wrote:They're supposed to be used against fighter swarms.

But now that fighters are properly nerfed versus ground units, who the hell uses them in swarms anymore to attack a base?

Pxtl · Post by **Pxtl** » 28 Jul 2006, 08:37

KlavoHunter wrote:
Egarwaen wrote:They're supposed to be used against fighter swarms.
But now that fighters are properly nerfed versus ground units, who the hell uses them in swarms anymore to attack a base?

I often must use fighters offensively to bring down a player who uses brawler swarms for defense. Also the anti-swarm batteries are good against peepers, and I like my privacy.

LordMatt · Post by **LordMatt** » 28 Jul 2006, 18:06

Maybe the cost could be increased a touch, but if you are going to use your adv air to build 5 radar planes, you're not making offensive units during that time, which is a cost in itself as someone said. 5 radar planes ought to be able to scout a whole base IMO.

Cabbage · Post by **Cabbage** » 29 Jul 2006, 03:33

not really, radar planes should be alot better than peepers imo, but atm missiles are just too ineffective against small swarms of radar planes. I was with steve when he tested how well they evade missiles and i entirely agree with him, they just flew through groupes of missile towers, antiswarm and antibomber turrets several times before they got taken out. The only problem are the flares, they just fire a little too often. Admittidly, if its a single radar plane it isnt really a problem, as even mediocre AA fires alot faster tha it's flares, but with a small group of them, the amount of AA you need to take them out swifty increases dramatically, and really dosent scale to the cot of the aircraft you're trying to destroy.

Reducing the flare frequency would really help to slove this problem, i just dont think its right that you can spen 300 or so metal to get a good detailed look at a (well defended) enemy base with such ease.

I#'m a litytle bit pissed but i've tried my best to stay coherant

KDR_11k · Post by **KDR_11k** » 29 Jul 2006, 06:59

And flak doesn't work?

Dragon45 · Post by **Dragon45** » 29 Jul 2006, 08:03

It does, but it has crap range. It's too easy to manuver around.

Pxtl · Post by **Pxtl** » 29 Jul 2006, 08:44

Could just reduce their health to a low level - that way even the slightest missile to make it through or the first flak shot will bring it down - hell, LLTs do a _little_ damage to air. After all, I love the fact that radar planes are pretty much Screamer-proof - it means they can be used to support a ground army without it getting blown to bits like all other aircraft do.

Of course, that would probably have all kinds of nasty unintended side-effects.

KDR_11k · Post by **KDR_11k** » 29 Jul 2006, 09:48

Well, if you really don't want the enemy to peek into your base you'll have to use tons of flak. I suppose a missile can't be tagged as ignoring flares otherwise I'd say fighters should ignore them.

MR.D · Post by **MR.D** » 29 Jul 2006, 14:06

So Uh.. where is Caydr??

you still alive there buddy? :D

j5mello · Post by **j5mello** » 29 Jul 2006, 20:53

he hasn't been around his main comp for a while but as soon as he gets back he'll get to spitting out some new versions.

MrGray · Post by **MrGray** » 31 Jul 2006, 11:54

After playing some water maps, I must say that the ├óÔé¼┼¥Big Berta├óÔé¼┼ô ship, (Plasma ship ?) is totally out of balance.
Besides the fact that a mobile ├óÔé¼┼ôBig Berta├óÔé¼┬Ø is in it self a very bad idea, the amount of damage this ship can withstand is ridicules.

Last game it has survived a direct hit from a nuke (!).

The T III ├óÔé¼┼ôwalking Big Berta├óÔé¼┬Ø Bot equivalent can be killed in close combat pretty fast, which is ok but this ship? Even a swarm of sub need 30 sec up to 1 min tu sink this ship.

So if this ship should be kept, it is in my opinion absolute necessary to reduce the HP dramatically. It also very logical, that a ship with a enormous gun (very unstable) and full packed with explosives should die very fast. If 1-2 sub get to this ship it should die very fast.

I also do not understand the idea behind this kind of unit? A floating Berta, ok but a moving berta?
On water maps with islands the occupation and holding of island to put up a Berta there leads to very nice stratieges and fight. But a moving Berta dont require such strategies and removes them most time from the game.

ginekolog · Post by **ginekolog** » 31 Jul 2006, 12:18

yep, atlantis and zulu are very good.

They also cost A LOT:

atlantis
BuildCostEnergy=71827;
BuildCostMetal=11010;
BuildTime=117460;
MaxDamage=11500;

Thats 2 times more than normal BB, but i agree that its a bit too hard to kill, cause it moving and i allways have 5+ flakships around.

I would agree on health reduction. Atm 15 torpedo planes are needed to kill it in one pass.

But caydar said he would rebalance water anyway. (torpedo planes need boost imo)

Post by **det** » 31 Jul 2006, 12:45

You know what counters radar planes? Fighter patrols. I think if you manage to get T2 air up without the other guy getting T1 air up, then you _deserve_ to scout the guy's base.

espylaub · Post by **espylaub** » 31 Jul 2006, 14:08

det wrote:You know what counters radar planes? Fighter patrols. I think if you manage to get T2 air up without the other guy getting T1 air up, then you _deserve_ to scout the guy's base.

Good point, well made.

Spring RTS Engine

Absolute Annihilation 2.11

Concerns about the "big berta" ship