Balanced Annihilation V5.8
Moderator: Moderators
Now thats a real issue- the blade/rapier rockets. They have become much less effective since 0.75b. The rapier is already a pretty badass unit (as is demonstrated by how devestating the Cutlass, essentially just an accurate rapier, is), but a little more turnrate on the rockets of the blade and rapier might help to compensate for this latest spring craziness.
They are guided. They weapon doesnt have the 'guidance' tag, but this is auto-detected anyway (probably due to the turnrate) so they behave as if they had it. The problem is the new gunship behaviour. Gunships with missiles were broken a while ago (behaving kinda like fighters) and when they were fixed, their behaviour was changed. I suspect its the tolerance, that gunships with missiles used to treat tolerance as a 'fudge turret' (Like everything else does) but now treat it as 'cone of viable targets' the way a fighter will. IE, even though the gunship believes it can fire at the target (as the target is within the weapons tolerance), the missile is still emitted forward and relies entirely on its turnrate in order to hit. You can see the hawks in CA doing this, shooting at targets running parallel to them and relying entirely on the missiles guidance to hit. So, the problem with rapiers is that they just have a poor turnrate (and also a high wobble but that shouldnt be too bad).
-
- Posts: 1176
- Joined: 23 Aug 2007, 19:46
Please read on - I mention that point...LordMatt wrote:Bomb them.
It's just that I don't like being forced to attack and just destory the LRPCs is the only option you have. There should be more than just one counter possibility. And as said now even one LRPC can stop you from buidling an air force which in most cases is the only force you can use on them to get a fast effect (and here again you see that the one counter "Smash the building with your units" also gets limited as you can only use air against them)...
If you want to keep it that way - keep it. It's just that to my mind this one solution situation isn't ideal. It takes away some flexibility and lets you deal with the situation in only one way and I think this is something special about TA in general: You always have multiple options to react and each way you play has such possibilities (of course with different effectiveness). To exaggerate it: Imagine having no AA on the Vehicle Tree. The argument: Use K-Bots or planes for that. As I said this is exaggerated but it shows what I want to say. By cutting down the counter options you somehow limit the gameplay and take away some of TA's numerous varieties of playing what makes it so special...
Oops you just said exactly the wrong thing. Que Matt saying 'Thats the whole point of a BB- to break a stalemate and force you to attack!'[Krogoth86] wrote: It's just that I don't like being forced to attack and just destory the LRPCs is the only option you have.
But they dont. BB's can slow the game down a lot. Firstly, they slow down a land attack a lot as now they are accurate enough to hit armies with precision. They also allow the team with the BB to sit back and not make any aggressive moves, confident in the knowledge that he can shell the enemy into submission. IMO berthas should have a hard counter in shields, so that you need to still be aggressive in order to use BB's (IE, you need to take down his shields in a precision assault, and after that you can shell him to kingdom come). This somewhat mirrors the nuke/antinuke relationship, only shields provide a lot less coverage (and have to be placed on the front line to prevent it being hit) and wasting bertha shots costs a lot less than wasting a nuke.
-
- Posts: 1176
- Joined: 23 Aug 2007, 19:46
Well Saktoth I think I can re-use your posting...
First of all I agree with you on Shields/BBs having a relationship similar to Nuke/Antinuke (i.e. they should have). At the same time I can use that on what you said first about what I replied to Matt: If you want to have something that breaks a stalemate and forces you to attack why don't you just remove the Antinukes or give them a 50% miss chance or something? Because don't tell me two BBs (which should be around the same costs as a Nuke Launcher + missile) can't do the same damage as a nuke RIGHT NOW...

First of all I agree with you on Shields/BBs having a relationship similar to Nuke/Antinuke (i.e. they should have). At the same time I can use that on what you said first about what I replied to Matt: If you want to have something that breaks a stalemate and forces you to attack why don't you just remove the Antinukes or give them a 50% miss chance or something? Because don't tell me two BBs (which should be around the same costs as a Nuke Launcher + missile) can't do the same damage as a nuke RIGHT NOW...

Sounds like correct behaviour, turret=0 means the weapon is mounted in a fixed direction and of course the projectile can't be fired at any angle except the one the unit is facing. To have the missile fire aimed at the target use WeaponMainDirX and MaxAngleDifX instead of turret=0.Saktoth wrote:They are guided. They weapon doesnt have the 'guidance' tag, but this is auto-detected anyway (probably due to the turnrate) so they behave as if they had it. The problem is the new gunship behaviour. Gunships with missiles were broken a while ago (behaving kinda like fighters) and when they were fixed, their behaviour was changed. I suspect its the tolerance, that gunships with missiles used to treat tolerance as a 'fudge turret' (Like everything else does) but now treat it as 'cone of viable targets' the way a fighter will. IE, even though the gunship believes it can fire at the target (as the target is within the weapons tolerance), the missile is still emitted forward and relies entirely on its turnrate in order to hit. You can see the hawks in CA doing this, shooting at targets running parallel to them and relying entirely on the missiles guidance to hit. So, the problem with rapiers is that they just have a poor turnrate (and also a high wobble but that shouldnt be too bad).
-
- Posts: 81
- Joined: 18 Jul 2007, 07:06
So perhaps someone on your team should be anticipating the possibility of a BB and have some bombers ready. Or you could put the factory behind a hill.MR.D wrote:A Bertha could knock out a factory in 2 hits, so as long as there is active scouting going on for the Bertha, just guarantee that you won't be building anything to bomb them with.
Thats the whole point of a BB- to break a stalemate and force you to attack! That's also the whole point of the mod, to force players to play aggressively and well, not just sit in their base for an hour building defences. If you have let your opponent build a BB, without taking precautions (scouting it first, making bomber, attacking him) he should be able to use it effectively to beat you, just as if you fail to make llt or jeffy guards your opponent should be able to raid the shit out of you.[Krogoth86] wrote:It's just that I don't like being forced to attack and just destory the LRPCs is the only option you have.

That would be dumb. As I have said before, I have no problem with shields being made a better counter for BBs. However BBs that can't hit a scouted target might as well be removed from the mod, as they're useless.[Krogoth86] wrote: If you want to have something that breaks a stalemate and forces you to attack why don't you just remove the Antinukes or give them a 50% miss chance or something?
You could, in which case perhaps you should try a land attack or scout the AA and find a route with less AA that lets you bomb the bertha.REVENGE wrote: On a map like Tabula, you could have an AA line setup way out in front of your BBs. Good luck trying to bomb that stuff...
I would add that in the 10-15 games I've played since this change I've not seen a bertha or made one anyways (even on stuff like 5v5 tabula), it's typically gg before that.

please tell me the reasoning behind this since the only thing i can see is a noob with 2 minute experience talking hereMake deflectors:
1. Cheaper
2. Such that they block bertha shots entirely instead of pushing them away. (A large salvo of bertha shots should be able to overload the deflector.)
i cant even reply to this, you are a pure fucking genious.If you want to have something that breaks a stalemate and forces you to attack why don't you just remove the Antinukes or give them a 50% miss chance or something?
krogoth86 ill try to be nice here.... Because don't tell me two BBs (which should be around the same costs as a Nuke Launcher + missile) can't do the same damage as a nuke RIGHT NOW... Smile
you've been told like 6 times now and you still dont get it
if you still want to have your own invicible fortresses go play simcity or do your own fork but please refrain from posting idiocy in this thread anymore.
You have no power regarding the changelog of balanced annihilation, everything you are saying hear regarding balancing is utterly ignored or laughed at, if you want to help, find bugs and report them. nothing else is needed or wanted from you
You can destroy/disable LRCP by:[Krogoth86] wrote:Please read on - I mention that point...LordMatt wrote:Bomb them.
It's just that I don't like being forced to attack and just destory the LRPCs is the only option you have. There should be more than just one counter possibility. And as said now even one LRPC can stop you from buidling an air force which in most cases is the only force you can use on them to get a fast effect (and here again you see that the one counter "Smash the building with your units" also gets limited as you can only use air against them)...
1.) land rushing it
2.) bombing it
3.) nuking it
4.) missling it
5.) Killing it with your LRCP
6.) Killing enemy energy economy
7.) Emping it
If you don't have air force by the time he has LRPC, you are doing something wrong.
LRPC with decent AA defence, costs pretty much. This is exactly why scouting is important. You need to know what your enemy is planning.
-
- Posts: 1176
- Joined: 23 Aug 2007, 19:46
Ok - so we agree on that...LordMatt wrote:That would be dumb. As I have said before, I have no problem with shields being made a better counter for BBs.

All I wanted to point out is that the go destroy the BB option as single viable counter isn't enough and thus I wanted stronger shields. What I don't want is that you are able to spam shields around your base - just have the possibility to protect certain areas (which then are in great danger of air attacks and so on). I didn't say anything against Berthas shooting at scouted targets...LordMatt wrote:However BBs that can't hit a scouted target might as well be removed from the mod, as they're useless.
LordMatt wrote:You could, in which case perhaps you should try a land attack or scout the AA and find a route with less AA that lets you bomb the bertha.
Well let's face it - until your enemy isn't stupid you won't reach his LRPCs easily as they most certainly will be located on a hill or something and due to its range not at the very front line. In the given Tabula example the BBs most likely will be on those ... well you know ... penis like hills. Try to get that BB with land units -> fail. So using land units to kill will only be possible in rare situations. What remains is the air option. But as said the LRPC won't be at the very front so you will have to deal with ground AA and fighter shields. Here I also wouldn't argue with things like find a weak spot where he has no patrolling fighters or do if there would be few at all. I mean of course do that if possible but I think we're talking of advanced players and I think they most certainly won't build LRPCs with a big sign with an arrow pointing towards the BB and saying "Bombs here plz!". A good player will have a fighter shield and even if you kill it the enemy might even have a corpse to resurrect / reclaim and thus you as attacker would slowly cripple down as each attack costs you precious metal while the enemy pretty much can rest and concentrate on your land defense (while having the restored LRPCs level your base) for which you then won't have enough ressources left...Hellspawn wrote:You can destroy/disable LRCP by:
1.) land rushing it
2.) bombing it
Now again to make things clear: I don't say that this situation is a bad thing that has to be removed - all I want to say is that this as the ONLY SOLUTION isn't the way it should be. But as we all seem to agree that shields need to be better this discussion may end here as the point was made...
Seriously - when the enemy has no Antinuke you really want to nuke the BBs?Hellspawn wrote:3.) nuking it
"Missling it" really was a gain of Core's Catalyst change but as it got reverted you have to build it really close to the enemies LRPC and this this is rather dangerous as it will be a good target and thus won't live long. Besides it's a rather expensive solution. Cursing EMP on them is more realistic in terms of doing but the effect is only minor as it won't shut down for long while the rockets take ages to build. Besides you probably want to use em on the enemy's Antinukes...Hellspawn wrote:4.) missling it
7.) Emping it
If it seems you can't even reach the BB how do u want to destroy his eco which is even more behind the front line. You might want to use the EMPs and Nukes you have wasted for the BB (if you follow your suggestions) in order to do that...Hellspawn wrote:6.) Killing enemy energy economy

Ok - it's an option but do you really want to let Bertha rush be the general tactic to win a late game or let luck decide who wins (if both players get one at pretty much the same time and it depends on the random accuracy)...Hellspawn wrote:5.) Killing it with your LRCP
I think the AA will be there before the BB is built and not the other way round...Hellspawn wrote:LRPC with decent AA defence, costs pretty much. This is exactly why scouting is important. You need to know what your enemy is planning.

That way scouting won't help you mech once the LRPC protection is up...