Balanced Annihilation V5.8
Moderator: Moderators
Evil hit the nail on the head on scout boat vs AA boat. Exactly what i was going to say. In addition, anyone who uses gunships swarms in late game is doing it awfully, awfully wrong. Gunships are bad against entrenched AA. Their primary use is as an early rush after you tech.
On torp bombers wasting torps on shore:
Run them paralel to the shore. They wont waste. Even if you cant get torp bombers to hit, use reg bombers. Ships are big and slow, all bombs usually connect.
On sea winning the game:
On which map? A hover flood over the sea or quick tech to gunships can win, but in the longer term, land has BB, and sea has no response. Land has nuke, and sea doesnt. Snipe carrier with BB, nuke, gg.
On BB's hitting under water:
This depends on the shallowness of the water. Underwater fusions, mohos etc are always on the bottom of the ocean floor. The deeper the ocean, the less the AoE reaches it. Most oceans on most maps are too deep for BB's to effect underwater structure at all. However, subs are always -just- below the surface of the water. They're much easier to hit with surface weaponry, though most has special damages against them to prevent you force-firing and doing this. If you can see his sub with sonar from radar planes though, then you can get torp bombers in, too.
Anyawy, just snipe his facs and cons. He cant do anything about it. Sniping his econ would be ineffecual due to the small chance of the AoE even doing much damage.
On torp bombers wasting torps on shore:
Run them paralel to the shore. They wont waste. Even if you cant get torp bombers to hit, use reg bombers. Ships are big and slow, all bombs usually connect.
On sea winning the game:
On which map? A hover flood over the sea or quick tech to gunships can win, but in the longer term, land has BB, and sea has no response. Land has nuke, and sea doesnt. Snipe carrier with BB, nuke, gg.
On BB's hitting under water:
This depends on the shallowness of the water. Underwater fusions, mohos etc are always on the bottom of the ocean floor. The deeper the ocean, the less the AoE reaches it. Most oceans on most maps are too deep for BB's to effect underwater structure at all. However, subs are always -just- below the surface of the water. They're much easier to hit with surface weaponry, though most has special damages against them to prevent you force-firing and doing this. If you can see his sub with sonar from radar planes though, then you can get torp bombers in, too.
Anyawy, just snipe his facs and cons. He cant do anything about it. Sniping his econ would be ineffecual due to the small chance of the AoE even doing much damage.
Against pure cruiser, this is true. It is the correct counter and the best option if you're both t2 sea. However, they have a much harder time with torpedo launchers and cant hit land. Spamming adv sub is a reactionary , counter-strat you should do if and only if your enemy spams cruisers. Otherwise, you should spam cruisers yourself. I guess you might want to make subs if he is using air without proper sonar or something, though, but that relies on enemy stupidity.I prefer this when playing pure water maps or mostly water maps. I did some tests and mass subs win against mas crusier cost per cost. When i clear sea, i just reclaim subs to get metal andspam hover and air.
-
1v0ry_k1ng
- Posts: 4656
- Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 10:24
There is too much of a 'difference of domains' between land and sea. There are only a handful of (generally relatively ineffective) crossover options. Amphibs are prettymuch universally inferior to regular tanks, and the best amphibs are t3 (Which cant shoot underwater and so are useless land vs sea, and cant be built on sea and so are inaccesible sea vs land) hovercraft are obsolete by t2, planes, the major threat, can be porced against on both sides relatively cost-effeciently. MRPC/ship arty bombardment is only effective 1500 range into shore (which can be enough, but land can give as good as it gets). The other crossover weapons, bertha and nuke, are one-sided.
Since its so hard to make a land push from the sea or sea push from the sea, you have to rely on these 'porc options'. Even margianally even players can stalemate a long time, so either there needs to be easier crossover, or one side needs to be weighted (the end-game solution of bertha and nuke).
Truth be told though, usually a game with sea and good players will end in an air or hover rush and you wont even, really, get to this sort of situation.
Since its so hard to make a land push from the sea or sea push from the sea, you have to rely on these 'porc options'. Even margianally even players can stalemate a long time, so either there needs to be easier crossover, or one side needs to be weighted (the end-game solution of bertha and nuke).
Truth be told though, usually a game with sea and good players will end in an air or hover rush and you wont even, really, get to this sort of situation.
If a sea player has all the sea, and also has some of the land, then he probably has more of the map than the land player right?
If you are talking about land porcers losing in that situation, then they will and should. If you have half he land and all the sea, obviously, you'll win. Being a 'land porcer' is always fail.
If you are talking about land porcers losing in that situation, then they will and should. If you have half he land and all the sea, obviously, you'll win. Being a 'land porcer' is always fail.
-
Evil4Zerggin
- Posts: 557
- Joined: 16 May 2007, 06:34
I think he has a bit of a point, though, namely that an island is more useful to a sea player than a lake is to a land player. (Seaplanes are good, but they're not that good, compared to having the option for LRPC/nukes.) It's not completely unreasonable to suppose that the sea player will have an island and/or the land player will have a lake.
I also think he's assuming (correct me if I'm wrong) that the land and sea on this hypothetical map is split 50-50 by mex spots, not by buildable area. If that's the assumption we're working on, then sea will tend to have more buildable area; ships operate on a larger scale overall (higher speeds and ranges overall), so their mexes tend to be more spread out on many maps (e.g. Small Supreme, Tropical, Tangerine), although there are some maps that don't follow this pattern (e.g. Delta Siege). Not to mention that there tend to be more hills and cliffs on land than in the sea on most maps, and those remove some of the buildable area. How much this area advantage, when it exists, translates to a game advantage is another topic.
As far as statistics go, it seems that the plane stats are calibrated as a nod to crossover attacks. Seaplanes have superior gunships (Sabre (kickass) and Cutlass (moar kickass) versus Brawler (aiight), Rapier (not great), and Blade (FAIL)) and bombers (pretty much the only advantages of the Phoenix over the Tsunami are turn rate and the fabled bomber missile, which I've never seen do a damn thing; the Tsunami is cheaper, faster, and tougher), whereas land-based torpedo bombers are better than their seaplane counterparts (lower turn rate and speed, but they are cheaper, tougher, and drop slightly more powerful torpedoes). Unfortunately, the differences are not terribly large, except for the gunships, which are the least important of the three types.
I also think he's assuming (correct me if I'm wrong) that the land and sea on this hypothetical map is split 50-50 by mex spots, not by buildable area. If that's the assumption we're working on, then sea will tend to have more buildable area; ships operate on a larger scale overall (higher speeds and ranges overall), so their mexes tend to be more spread out on many maps (e.g. Small Supreme, Tropical, Tangerine), although there are some maps that don't follow this pattern (e.g. Delta Siege). Not to mention that there tend to be more hills and cliffs on land than in the sea on most maps, and those remove some of the buildable area. How much this area advantage, when it exists, translates to a game advantage is another topic.
As far as statistics go, it seems that the plane stats are calibrated as a nod to crossover attacks. Seaplanes have superior gunships (Sabre (kickass) and Cutlass (moar kickass) versus Brawler (aiight), Rapier (not great), and Blade (FAIL)) and bombers (pretty much the only advantages of the Phoenix over the Tsunami are turn rate and the fabled bomber missile, which I've never seen do a damn thing; the Tsunami is cheaper, faster, and tougher), whereas land-based torpedo bombers are better than their seaplane counterparts (lower turn rate and speed, but they are cheaper, tougher, and drop slightly more powerful torpedoes). Unfortunately, the differences are not terribly large, except for the gunships, which are the least important of the three types.
-
Linebacker
- Posts: 128
- Joined: 25 Jul 2007, 21:30
I can't even access the setting you described. L works, but pressing ";" (semicolon) doesn't do anything. It's the right key next to the L, correct? How do I get it to work?[Krogoth86] wrote:Also, hit "L" to get the green (vision + radar) view, then hit ";" to turn off radar (the green). You'll be left with normal fog of war. It's a mystery to me why this is still so difficult to access.Linebacker wrote:Oh, and also: why is there no real Fog of War in Spring? I don't mean pressing "L" and having green particles around the units but a real and smooth (grey?) circle around the units to see, how far they can see.
Last edited by Linebacker on 13 Nov 2007, 13:09, edited 1 time in total.
I think underwater structures should have a serious resistance to damage from land-based artillery. They effectively do if the water is deep enough, but there's no way for a player to tell how deep water actually is.
By the way, a single T3 artillery kbot can kill every single underwater structure on Tangerine while hiding behind a ridge. The only sea thing that can hit him is a cruise missile ship which dies in about one shot. I'm pretty sure he could take on a flagship too.
By the way, a single T3 artillery kbot can kill every single underwater structure on Tangerine while hiding behind a ridge. The only sea thing that can hit him is a cruise missile ship which dies in about one shot. I'm pretty sure he could take on a flagship too.
-
Pressure Line
- Posts: 2283
- Joined: 21 May 2007, 02:09
-
[Krogoth86]
- Posts: 1176
- Joined: 23 Aug 2007, 19:46
Now for something else:
Don't you think the T1 / T2 fighter difference is a bit harsh? Or to say it the other way round: as T2 fighters are ok imo aren't the T1 fighters totally underpowered?
So let's have a look at Freedom Fighter vs. Hawk:
The Hawk is about 70% more expensive and has bit a more than twice as much health. That's ok so far. But now let's have a look at the Hawk's weapon (just the damage values alone):
vs. Lvl1Fighters: about 84% more damage (enough to kill with one shot)
vs. Lvl2Fighters: 220% more damage
vs. Lvl1Bombers: 46% more damage
vs. Lvl2Bombers: 450% more damage
vs. Gunships: 67% more damage
vs. HeavyGunships: 250% more damage
The very high numbers result in a severe weapon downgrade against Lvl2 Airplanes which I don't really understand but I'll comment on that later. For Level 1 one the values seem rather mediocre (although it already kills fighters with one shot). But hey wait - didn't we forget something? Yes: The Hawk has 2 missiles so double the values! Now the pretty small Lvl1Bomber damage upgrade has to be valued in a different way as every T1 Bomber is now killed with one shot anyway so having higher values here would be pointless anyway...
With just one weapon it already was enormously more powerful but with two it's just badass and it doesn't even stop yet:
- 9% higher fire rate (ups the dps even more)
- slightly higher range
- faster
- way more agile
- stealthy
I think that's a bit much for a just 70% more expensive unit (with also only about 88% higher buildtime). I think it's something that's against what you would suspect when looking at other areas. Do Stumpies stand a chance against Bulldogs for example? Yes they do - also pretty good (as it's nearly a 5v1 when investing the same amount). So with that said: Do Bulldogs cost only 70% more? Do Stumpies deal less damage vs. Level 2 units? Well of course not...
That comparison might not be very exact as there are some difference in roles and about ground/air but I think you get the idea. I think it's strange to have the lower damage against Lvl2 Planes on the one side and the incredible upgraded damage the Lvl2 Fighter has plus another weapon slot plus all the other upgrades for an incredibly small rise in price on the other...
So imo it's not a problem of the Hawk and Vamp but one of Freedom Fighter and Avenger. I think they at least need a 2nd weapon slot and maybe get rid of the lower damage against Lvl2...
Don't you think the T1 / T2 fighter difference is a bit harsh? Or to say it the other way round: as T2 fighters are ok imo aren't the T1 fighters totally underpowered?
So let's have a look at Freedom Fighter vs. Hawk:
The Hawk is about 70% more expensive and has bit a more than twice as much health. That's ok so far. But now let's have a look at the Hawk's weapon (just the damage values alone):
vs. Lvl1Fighters: about 84% more damage (enough to kill with one shot)
vs. Lvl2Fighters: 220% more damage
vs. Lvl1Bombers: 46% more damage
vs. Lvl2Bombers: 450% more damage
vs. Gunships: 67% more damage
vs. HeavyGunships: 250% more damage
The very high numbers result in a severe weapon downgrade against Lvl2 Airplanes which I don't really understand but I'll comment on that later. For Level 1 one the values seem rather mediocre (although it already kills fighters with one shot). But hey wait - didn't we forget something? Yes: The Hawk has 2 missiles so double the values! Now the pretty small Lvl1Bomber damage upgrade has to be valued in a different way as every T1 Bomber is now killed with one shot anyway so having higher values here would be pointless anyway...
With just one weapon it already was enormously more powerful but with two it's just badass and it doesn't even stop yet:
- 9% higher fire rate (ups the dps even more)
- slightly higher range
- faster
- way more agile
- stealthy
I think that's a bit much for a just 70% more expensive unit (with also only about 88% higher buildtime). I think it's something that's against what you would suspect when looking at other areas. Do Stumpies stand a chance against Bulldogs for example? Yes they do - also pretty good (as it's nearly a 5v1 when investing the same amount). So with that said: Do Bulldogs cost only 70% more? Do Stumpies deal less damage vs. Level 2 units? Well of course not...
That comparison might not be very exact as there are some difference in roles and about ground/air but I think you get the idea. I think it's strange to have the lower damage against Lvl2 Planes on the one side and the incredible upgraded damage the Lvl2 Fighter has plus another weapon slot plus all the other upgrades for an incredibly small rise in price on the other...
So imo it's not a problem of the Hawk and Vamp but one of Freedom Fighter and Avenger. I think they at least need a 2nd weapon slot and maybe get rid of the lower damage against Lvl2...
-
[Krogoth86]
- Posts: 1176
- Joined: 23 Aug 2007, 19:46
I remember playing a lulz game against [Warrior]White 1v1 in comet where i tried to win using fighters only. Ended up I had about 85 to 90% map coverage, around +150m per sec with about 15 t1 air labs all assisted heavily by nanos, so I had constant waves of around 150-200 avengers (enough that on patrol they actually killed themselves by colliding repeatedly).
This was not enough t1 fighter spam to counter White who had about +25m per sec and a single t2 air lab, comm assisted, building T2 fighters. Several times around 15 t2 fighters managed to counter entire waves of around 150+ t1 fighters. Granted, I hadn't been targetting the hawks because I was going for the comm kill with all fighters. Even with this many fighters, Comm at lowest HP still had over 1000 hitpoints remaining.
This was around the time when avengers got a massive ground damage nerf in BA and hawks had just been nerfed from being so OP you could kill any ground army with nothing but t2 fighters.
Not much has changed since then in terms of avenger vs hawk combat and it's always been a gripe I've had but never bothered to complain about because the easy way around it is simply to make your own T2 fighters...
This was not enough t1 fighter spam to counter White who had about +25m per sec and a single t2 air lab, comm assisted, building T2 fighters. Several times around 15 t2 fighters managed to counter entire waves of around 150+ t1 fighters. Granted, I hadn't been targetting the hawks because I was going for the comm kill with all fighters. Even with this many fighters, Comm at lowest HP still had over 1000 hitpoints remaining.
This was around the time when avengers got a massive ground damage nerf in BA and hawks had just been nerfed from being so OP you could kill any ground army with nothing but t2 fighters.
Not much has changed since then in terms of avenger vs hawk combat and it's always been a gripe I've had but never bothered to complain about because the easy way around it is simply to make your own T2 fighters...
-
Linebacker
- Posts: 128
- Joined: 25 Jul 2007, 21:30