NOTA 1.82

[goduranus]

is there any way of getting the NOTA missions to work in the current version of the spring? I've tried extracting the mission files into the nota folder, and used notepad to change GetModName() to "NOTA160.sd7", but I don't see the missions when I start spring.exe

[Thor]

The current spring doesn't support those anymore. However 123v repackaged them a while ago with an older version of spring as well as the maps and missions.

[sgnl05]

is there a new version in the works? Not that I think we urgently need one, I'm just wondering

[Thor]

Not really at the moment. I haven't heard back from umrug about the new buildpictures. We're working on some missions though.

[thelawenforcer]

seems to be a sea balance issue. Arm Cruisers take too long to build. Im not sure what the situation is on core side, but it seems that going BC (provided u have the metal) is very viable after ur first few destroyers.

The time it takes for your cruiser to get down to the enemy port, his BC will be out.

[Gone]

seems to be a sea balance issue. Arm Cruisers take too long to build. Im not sure what the situation is on core side, but it seems that going BC (provided u have the metal) is very viable after ur first few destroyers.

The time it takes for your cruiser to get down to the enemy port, his BC will be out.

1.) The reason ARM cruisers take a while is the weapons put in... hence the name RAIL-GUN CRUISER and if you pay attention to the firing the shots are faster than the standard plasma put in from the CORE cruiser. I believe the ARM cruiser has 4 turrets compared to 3 on a CORE cruiser.
2.) While going BC is useful, it can easily fall to smaller, more agile ships due to a giant spread (well at least from what i see from the ARM BC) and heck... cruisers have torpedo ports. BC doesn't. For the time it would take a BC to attack the other port it could be down.
3.) ARM cruisers are slow but it doesn't take 7 minutes to reach the other guys base (depends on the map) And if it does play a smaller map. I think (note this is me thinking. I am commonly wrong) BCs are in fact slower.

[thelawenforcer]

ARM cruiser BuildTime = 56620
ARM BC BuildTime = 63289


doesnt that seem awfully close?

its not just me that thinks this, but it seems to be a general feeling among nota players, that cruisers are too slow to build.

i think they should be more in line with things like the missile boat or carriers.

[Gone]

A differance of 7000 build time is a HUGE one not exactly close. Take a close look at what carriers and missle ships are armed with. Not necessarily a very good offensive power put in. Again it comes to armanent. Oh yeah... compare the sizes of the Cruiser to a BC it somewhat looks the same size.

[Thor]

ARM cruiser BuildTime = 56620
ARM BC BuildTime = 63289


doesnt that seem awfully close?

its not just me that thinks this, but it seems to be a general feeling among nota players, that cruisers are too slow to build.

i think they should be more in line with things like the missile boat or carriers.

Thanks for bringing this up. I didn't realize they were that close.

[Tribulex]

copy chiligui into it

[Thor]

what's chiligui? I don't see it on jobjol.

[Neddie]

It is part of CA.

[Tribulex]

the only acceptable part. but only because its a beast. Its not optimized at all

[Thor]

NOTA 1.61 released. http://www.springfiles.com/show_file.php?id=2436

Changelog:

v1.61

-Added new buildpics. Credits to Umrug and mTm for all resource buildings, factories, and Core air.
-Changed the order of buildlists to be more consistent
-Sub turnrate and speed dramatically improved
-Sub torpedo guidance decreased; they can be dodged by faster, smaller ships like destroyers
-Sub torpedo range decreased from 700 to 550
-Sub anti-sub torpedo velocity and guidance improved
-Sub icon distance decreased
-Destroyer torpedoes no longer launch in volleys, but reload twice as fast, have slightly higher velocity, and do 28% more damage to most units(except subs)
-Destroyer sonar range decreased from 630 to 580
-Core destroyer hitpoints increased 3%
-Arm destroyer main cannon accuracy decreased
-Arm battlecruiser buildtime increased 25%
-Core battlecruiser buildtime increased 15%
-Core cruiser buildtime decreased 5%
-Core battleship speed increased slightly
-Ship wreckage metal values decreased from 50% to 30% of initial cost
-Anti-sub hover torpedo range, velocity slightly increased
-Flying wing laser range decreased from 800 to 650
-T2 AA truck metal and energy cost decreased 10%; reload time decreased 5%
-Mobile artillery no longer shoots at air
-Lowered the distance behind a unit where giving a move order will activate reverse

[123vtemp]

BC build plenty fast enough with current balancing.
500 sea games have proved it.

The medium cruiser weapon ranges reduction made a long time ago was suppose to make cruisers a little less devastating to destroyers, which they still are. It created a gap between BCs and cruisers that seems a little big for combat to be very hopeful for the medium cruisers.

Dealing with ship wreck reclaim problems, if the wreck breaks into chunks there could be a hope for even resource distribution. If the reclaim times are not reduced much even tho the metal amounts may be it can prevent wrecks from being stolen too fast.

Oh btw Thor,
You may want to leave a link to the NOTA wiki page in the NOTA description for down load next release :D

[momfreeek]

BC build plenty fast enough with current balancing.
500 sea games have proved it.

It sounds like you read it that build times decreased (they increased).

[thelawenforcer]

the changelog seems pretty good.

A couple of pages back, someone suggested a high altitude missile to counter bombers ( maybe centurions too? ) This seems to me like a really neat idea. An expensive, relatively high ranging but slow firing missile system that can only target high altitude planes would be awesome. Flak is decent once you reach a critical mass but its not exactly amazing, its relatively easy to counter (split your units up in a line before the bombing run). Also, the missile launcher would be able to counter spy planes or attempt to at least. Either way, it seemed a rather cool addition and would add a nice dimension to air defense in general.

What do you think?

[123vtemp]

Air combat is not as common as it use to be. Before air combat was really neat. Massive amounts of flack were hurled into the sky and Huge bomber fleets flew deep into enemy territory. With fighters knocking out what they could.

Flack was not a bombing prevention, it caused bomber repairs to take ages and reduced hp allowing fighters to take the bombers down with more ease. fighters also had to be used in packs and attacked bombers where they were thinnest. Still, after enough flack was build all bombers just got shredded.

After land got tied up, players took to the skies for combat. Game play has changed and so has balancing, but bombings was one of the exciting parts of the game for me. If flack and aa can do it all with ease it will remove an element of the game. As with fighters and fighter types, NOTA has done a really good job of making a niche for many units in combat so that the warfare enables the practical use of divers unit types. Divers unit uses have made for an incredibly interesting game.

Ship combat may want to be rethought. Though that is no small task.
Ship combat is almost more like I have a bigger ship or sub spam.
Atm there is not a lot to it and 4 units or less per player decide the game in sea. Verry different from land. Tho it is not land but air and sea that bring every one to NOTA.

Text wall! xD
<3 NOTA

[thelawenforcer]

I still think theres a hole in the air defense gameplay. Even concentrated flak isnt really that effective at taking out bombers, they can still saunter their way in and drop their bombs.

NOTA has always had the best in terms of tactical gameplay. It has realistic style of play, when it comes to land and sea combat at least. The air gameplay should really play in the same way. It feels to me that fighters should only be one part of the air defense play. Flak is another, but one is really missing imo. Besides, it doesnt really make sense that NOTA factions can launch an orbital laser, but rely on flak to down bombers. a long range missile thing like i proposed above (similar to the BA mercury missile i guess) would be a great addition imo.

[smartie]

There actually is a mercury missile launcher unit in nota, just not in the build tree

its just called the mercury stolen from the one in BA, so /give mercury if you want to play around with it. It was going to be a lvl2 land based version super AA missile from the core AA cruiser, and just for the core, but we decided against putting it in.

Making it too good would have been a mistake, cause only the core have them, and making it another mediocre lvl2 defense building seemed like adding another unit for the sake of adding another unit