it's sure that begin air is risked but on a team map (4v4, 5v5 or more) you can easily begin with them.
The only thing is to use nano and com more than with others plants and have confidence about your allies ... but if u do so, u can easily destroy some of the defense with 15 banshees (1 time because after they have make AA) and help your ally to advance ... when your T2 is done, if opponents havent got a T2 plant it's finish for them with 10 bombers ... destroy all com and plant with 10 is easily...
Balanced Annihilation v4.7 !!
Moderator: Moderators
Huh, you are right, they are also as strong, so mobile should have 50% less HP, and maybe static one should have more HP?Saktoth wrote:A lot of mobile anti-air is actually better than static anti-air. Totally crazy. The mobile flakker is prettymuch exactly the same as the static flakker (30% less damage is the only real difference), but its half the price. Which makes it, just on damage, 40% better (2x as good on everything else).
-
1v0ry_k1ng
- Posts: 4656
- Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 10:24
what you are saying is : if someone start air ... u have to start air too ? because if u do a factory after him ... he can have already AA to kill your fighters and nano to construct without lot of planes ... only noobs make 20 planes construct ... 5 and nanos is sufficient ^^1v0ry_k1ng wrote:if someone starts air, make an air factory early game and spam out fighters.
Nein. Someone goes air early, you build an MT or two and then you find his base and beat him into the stone-age. Someone goes air later on, you've got some scattered MTs to handle that. At the very least you should have a scattered field of MTs before you go L2, but if there is any worry about a brawley swarm, you should have L1 fighters.1v0ry_k1ng wrote:if someone starts air, make an air factory early game and spam out fighters.
what is really need is a patch that allows u to define this unit as not counting towards global unit limit.NOiZE wrote:could, but it also make use of the unitlimit then.LBPB wrote:Strategia wrote:DTs are features, not buildings.
I know nothing about the mod programming.
But could this classification not be changed ?
Maybe we need a spring patch so that features are being remembered as well.
Combine that with the per unit limit and minefields actually aren't so stupid.
Myself, Noize and Day just did a test on mobile flak vs gunships to determine some figures. Here's what we established:
For these tests, the mobile flak was moving and micro'd as opposed to being stationary. Flakkers were kept a bit apart so as not to be right next to each other and incur extra damage from AoE on gunships (rapiers in particular).
Metal cost - Mobile Flak: 443
Metal cost - Rapier: 345
Metal cost - Brawler: 294
First test: 5 rapiers vs 1 mobile flak
Metal cost: 5 Rapiers: (345x5) = 1725
Metal cost: 1 Flakkers: 443
Rapiers kill flakker, 1 Rapier survives with less than half HP.
Cost ratio: (1725-345)/443 = 3.1 - flakker is over 3x more effective per cost metal in this test.
Second test: 8 rapiers vs 2 mobile flak
Metal cost: 8 Rapiers: (345x8) = 2760
Metal cost: 2 Flakkers: (443x2) = 886
All rapiers die, 1 flakker dies, 2nd flakker has around half HP.
Cost ratio: 2760/(886-443) = 6.2 - Flakkers pay off their cost over 6x in this test as one flakker survives and all rapiers are killed.
Third test: 10 rapiers vs 2 mobile flak
Metal cost: 10 Rapiers: (345x10) = 3450
Metal cost: 2 Flakkers: (443x2) = 886
Both flakkers die, 2 rapiers are left with minimal HP (so we'll interpret this as 1 rapier left with half HP)
Cost ratio: (3450-345)/886 = 3.5 - Flakkers pay off 3.5x their cost in metal here, all flakkers die however.
Note: We did this test with 10 brawlers and 3 brawlers survived - they do better against moving flak because their weapon type is more accurate at hitting moving targets, where rapiers tend to miss more often.
Fourth test: 15 Rapiers/Brawlers vs 3 Mobile Flak
Cost metal: 15 Rapiers (15x345) = 5175
Cost metal: 15 Brawlers (15x294) = 4410
Cost metal: 3 Flakkers (443x3) = 1329
With Rapiers:
First time: All rapiers die, 1 flakker survives with low HP
Second time: All flakkers die, 2 rapiers survive with minimal HP (consider this as 1 rapier with low hp)
With Brawlers:
Both times: All flakkers die, 1 brawlers left with medium hp
Cost ratio(1st): 5175/(1329-443) = 5.8 - almost 6x payoff for flakkers per metal cost.
Cost ratio(2nd): (5175-345)/1329 = 3.6
Cost ratio(Brawlers): (4410-294)/1329 = 3.1
In an actual game the flakkers would be used to support units, thus units would surround the flakkers, causing gunships to hit less on flakkers and the flakkers have a better performance against gunships. From these results its obvious that flakkers have a very good payoff against gunships cost for cost in metal.
This does not take into account build times - takes much longer to make 10 rapiers than it does to make 2 mobile flak, keep this in mind.
These tests are not exact - the results depend on the micro of both the rapiers and the flakkers, but it's clear that its possible to gain extra performance against rapiers from good micro (the missiles have a high miss rate when the flakker is moving/changing direction frequently, and rapiers almost always miss on their first shot against each flakker)
The average is around a 4 to 1 payoff for flakkers against gunships through the tests, which is quite rediculous in my opinion and needs to be looked into.
Because of the nature of gunships to cluster more as you make more, and that flak has a decent AoE damage, its a good assumption that flakkers become more and more effective as you increase the numbers whereas gunships will inversely become less and less effective cost for cost if you increase number of gunships.
This means that once there is a reasonably amount of mobile flak in the game, gunships become extremely costly to use and are not worth the investment.
I'll leave you to discuss this, i'm off out to a mates party so I gotta get ready now. Later
For these tests, the mobile flak was moving and micro'd as opposed to being stationary. Flakkers were kept a bit apart so as not to be right next to each other and incur extra damage from AoE on gunships (rapiers in particular).
Metal cost - Mobile Flak: 443
Metal cost - Rapier: 345
Metal cost - Brawler: 294
First test: 5 rapiers vs 1 mobile flak
Metal cost: 5 Rapiers: (345x5) = 1725
Metal cost: 1 Flakkers: 443
Rapiers kill flakker, 1 Rapier survives with less than half HP.
Cost ratio: (1725-345)/443 = 3.1 - flakker is over 3x more effective per cost metal in this test.
Second test: 8 rapiers vs 2 mobile flak
Metal cost: 8 Rapiers: (345x8) = 2760
Metal cost: 2 Flakkers: (443x2) = 886
All rapiers die, 1 flakker dies, 2nd flakker has around half HP.
Cost ratio: 2760/(886-443) = 6.2 - Flakkers pay off their cost over 6x in this test as one flakker survives and all rapiers are killed.
Third test: 10 rapiers vs 2 mobile flak
Metal cost: 10 Rapiers: (345x10) = 3450
Metal cost: 2 Flakkers: (443x2) = 886
Both flakkers die, 2 rapiers are left with minimal HP (so we'll interpret this as 1 rapier left with half HP)
Cost ratio: (3450-345)/886 = 3.5 - Flakkers pay off 3.5x their cost in metal here, all flakkers die however.
Note: We did this test with 10 brawlers and 3 brawlers survived - they do better against moving flak because their weapon type is more accurate at hitting moving targets, where rapiers tend to miss more often.
Fourth test: 15 Rapiers/Brawlers vs 3 Mobile Flak
Cost metal: 15 Rapiers (15x345) = 5175
Cost metal: 15 Brawlers (15x294) = 4410
Cost metal: 3 Flakkers (443x3) = 1329
With Rapiers:
First time: All rapiers die, 1 flakker survives with low HP
Second time: All flakkers die, 2 rapiers survive with minimal HP (consider this as 1 rapier with low hp)
With Brawlers:
Both times: All flakkers die, 1 brawlers left with medium hp
Cost ratio(1st): 5175/(1329-443) = 5.8 - almost 6x payoff for flakkers per metal cost.
Cost ratio(2nd): (5175-345)/1329 = 3.6
Cost ratio(Brawlers): (4410-294)/1329 = 3.1
In an actual game the flakkers would be used to support units, thus units would surround the flakkers, causing gunships to hit less on flakkers and the flakkers have a better performance against gunships. From these results its obvious that flakkers have a very good payoff against gunships cost for cost in metal.
This does not take into account build times - takes much longer to make 10 rapiers than it does to make 2 mobile flak, keep this in mind.
These tests are not exact - the results depend on the micro of both the rapiers and the flakkers, but it's clear that its possible to gain extra performance against rapiers from good micro (the missiles have a high miss rate when the flakker is moving/changing direction frequently, and rapiers almost always miss on their first shot against each flakker)
The average is around a 4 to 1 payoff for flakkers against gunships through the tests, which is quite rediculous in my opinion and needs to be looked into.
Because of the nature of gunships to cluster more as you make more, and that flak has a decent AoE damage, its a good assumption that flakkers become more and more effective as you increase the numbers whereas gunships will inversely become less and less effective cost for cost if you increase number of gunships.
This means that once there is a reasonably amount of mobile flak in the game, gunships become extremely costly to use and are not worth the investment.
I'll leave you to discuss this, i'm off out to a mates party so I gotta get ready now. Later
-
TheFatController
- Balanced Annihilation Developer
- Posts: 1177
- Joined: 10 Dec 2006, 18:46
-
MasterChiefRulZ
- Posts: 15
- Joined: 07 Dec 2005, 02:52
Mobile factories?
Though I believe the original TA engine could not support such a feat, can Spring do so?
If possible, a friend of mine suggested having a mobile navalship aircraft factory. Much like how an aircraft carrier in RL carries and dispenses aircraft, a Navy Aircraft factory in BA that builds aircraft could be a viable option/idea (to simulate RL counterparts, with the added 'build' idea).
Sup Com also features mobile factories, which should prove interesting to try in that game. Helps lend to the idea of strategies and gameplay ideas, and that such an idea might be workable in BA as well.
If possible, a friend of mine suggested having a mobile navalship aircraft factory. Much like how an aircraft carrier in RL carries and dispenses aircraft, a Navy Aircraft factory in BA that builds aircraft could be a viable option/idea (to simulate RL counterparts, with the added 'build' idea).
Sup Com also features mobile factories, which should prove interesting to try in that game. Helps lend to the idea of strategies and gameplay ideas, and that such an idea might be workable in BA as well.
-
1v0ry_k1ng
- Posts: 4656
- Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 10:24
supcoms mobile factories are a useless gimick, as a factory is only effective when surrounded my engineers assisting which it cant do on the move or out to sea or behind enemy lines.
similar case here, a mobile air factory is only useful if lotsa stuff can assist it, and if its safe enough to assist why not just use a static version instead? the only case for a mobile factory being useful is if it has 3-4x the buildpower of a static factory. Also, I recall someone saying springs mobile factories cant build and move at the same time.
gunships shouldnt chain explode. that was done for the noobs and i think its round about time it was removed. "LOZL BRAWLLERZ" can be countered by fighters pretty effectively. people say "havin to make air to counter air? thats haxx!!" but in real war situations, you tend to have combined arms, and fighters are the most effective anti air. 800 metal for a l1 air factory and then you have l1 fighters. ground based anti air shouldnt be a fire and forget solution imo..
similar case here, a mobile air factory is only useful if lotsa stuff can assist it, and if its safe enough to assist why not just use a static version instead? the only case for a mobile factory being useful is if it has 3-4x the buildpower of a static factory. Also, I recall someone saying springs mobile factories cant build and move at the same time.
gunships shouldnt chain explode. that was done for the noobs and i think its round about time it was removed. "LOZL BRAWLLERZ" can be countered by fighters pretty effectively. people say "havin to make air to counter air? thats haxx!!" but in real war situations, you tend to have combined arms, and fighters are the most effective anti air. 800 metal for a l1 air factory and then you have l1 fighters. ground based anti air shouldnt be a fire and forget solution imo..
+1 to removing the chain exploding. Air should never chain explode- since they can fly on top of eachother, rather than land units which automatically space themselves. Flak gets enough of an advantage vs massed gunships due to its AoE. Sounds like rapiers could do with a slight buff also, maybe some tracking, especially if they are no good against moving targets (Arent gunships anti-unit?).
Thats at least 2x more effective than the AA ship! AA ships are actually grossly underpowered. If not for scout ships (Which are imba compared to other sea AA, really) torpedo planes would dominate the sea (And always do, when the other player doesnt know to spam scouts).
Im sorry but this is just absolute rubbish. What are you using, gunships? Use Torpedo planes against sea targets! 2 torpedos from a torpedo plane kill an AA ship. A torpedo plane has enough HP to survive a pass over, which means a single torpedo plane, at 416 cost, can kill a 1642 AA ship. 2 torpedo planes (cost 832) can do it, with only half HP off one of the planes!I'd also like you to look at tech 2 anti-air boats, even having one in your fleet will mean absolute rape against the largest groups of aircraft, its one of the factors that means its very very rare for someone who's lost the sea to ever get a foothold in it again
Thats at least 2x more effective than the AA ship! AA ships are actually grossly underpowered. If not for scout ships (Which are imba compared to other sea AA, really) torpedo planes would dominate the sea (And always do, when the other player doesnt know to spam scouts).
-
zecrazyone
- Posts: 15
- Joined: 12 Dec 2006, 07:09
i agree that gunships shouldnt chain explode. gunships in general seem like they need a buff. against enemy bases, the gunships suffer much more damage than the bombers from anti-air. against armies, a mobile flak or 2 will kill the gunships that attack. bombers are able to bomb enemy clusters causing large amounts of damage, while not being too vulnerable to the mobile AA. in basically any situation, bombers are better.
heavy gunships have the advantage, though, of taking almost no damage from fighters or missle towers. but for thier cost (2k for flak resistant gunship(i think), 4k for flying fortress), they are just too expensive to be of use.
also, i reccommend a major change for crocs. what i reccommend is that it gets it dps back, gets a large health nerf(to about 1500-1750 maybe), and gets a speed increase. this would change it from being just another normal tank into a specialized unit. it would be used for fast attacks/assaults, instead of being a front line unit. the added factor of it having the ability to climb mountains would allow it to use terrain to it's advantage. due to it's health nerf, it would not be able to be a front-line unit, but, if used correctly, could be devastating to enemy forces with its very high dps and fast speed.
uses for croc after this change would be:
fast raids
surrounding slow enemy armies(such as goliaths, for example)
assaulting to/from hill positions
high speed would allow it to catch up with retreating armies
and, of course, amphibious assaults
heavy gunships have the advantage, though, of taking almost no damage from fighters or missle towers. but for thier cost (2k for flak resistant gunship(i think), 4k for flying fortress), they are just too expensive to be of use.
also, i reccommend a major change for crocs. what i reccommend is that it gets it dps back, gets a large health nerf(to about 1500-1750 maybe), and gets a speed increase. this would change it from being just another normal tank into a specialized unit. it would be used for fast attacks/assaults, instead of being a front line unit. the added factor of it having the ability to climb mountains would allow it to use terrain to it's advantage. due to it's health nerf, it would not be able to be a front-line unit, but, if used correctly, could be devastating to enemy forces with its very high dps and fast speed.
uses for croc after this change would be:
fast raids
surrounding slow enemy armies(such as goliaths, for example)
assaulting to/from hill positions
high speed would allow it to catch up with retreating armies
and, of course, amphibious assaults
I really don't understand why there are so many people who wants gunsships buffed.
This things can bypass (or break a small hole) in the emeny defence and than kill behind the emeny lines everthing they see. Ok 1 Flacker may be enough to stop 5 gunships, but its not hard in BA to build hordes of them, get them behind emeny lines and start the killing. The only way to counter them, (when they destroyed the local defence) are Long Range Missle Towers and fighers. Everything else will not get there it in time and you cannot build enough flackers in your complete base to be imune to gunships.
If they would use fuel, they could get a buff, but currently they are much superior to bombers, because they keep in a comparative small area. So you need dence local airdefence.
I agree if you build a really small base, with fussions and metall-gen's, then you will get this small area secure from gunships. But such a base is an easy target for an bomber strike. Gunships are not desigend for base assault.
If they got buffed it would get total useless to try to attack an emeny with ground units. Currently there a more than enough games, where a defence line is established, then bombers kill strategig targets and gunships rape the rest of the base. I very seldom see a good T2 groundassault. Most games I play are either won by T1 units, T2 air or if you play to long: Long range plasma.
Everything here applies to team games with average players on normal maps. 1x1 is a complete different thing and I don't have much experience with that.
Ps: Regarding mobile Flackers guarding attack forces. Mobile flackers are totaly useless for the attack. This are additionall costs, only to secure the group from air, so they have to be very cost effective.
This things can bypass (or break a small hole) in the emeny defence and than kill behind the emeny lines everthing they see. Ok 1 Flacker may be enough to stop 5 gunships, but its not hard in BA to build hordes of them, get them behind emeny lines and start the killing. The only way to counter them, (when they destroyed the local defence) are Long Range Missle Towers and fighers. Everything else will not get there it in time and you cannot build enough flackers in your complete base to be imune to gunships.
If they would use fuel, they could get a buff, but currently they are much superior to bombers, because they keep in a comparative small area. So you need dence local airdefence.
I agree if you build a really small base, with fussions and metall-gen's, then you will get this small area secure from gunships. But such a base is an easy target for an bomber strike. Gunships are not desigend for base assault.
If they got buffed it would get total useless to try to attack an emeny with ground units. Currently there a more than enough games, where a defence line is established, then bombers kill strategig targets and gunships rape the rest of the base. I very seldom see a good T2 groundassault. Most games I play are either won by T1 units, T2 air or if you play to long: Long range plasma.
Everything here applies to team games with average players on normal maps. 1x1 is a complete different thing and I don't have much experience with that.
Ps: Regarding mobile Flackers guarding attack forces. Mobile flackers are totaly useless for the attack. This are additionall costs, only to secure the group from air, so they have to be very cost effective.
-
1v0ry_k1ng
- Posts: 4656
- Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 10:24