Classic game design, maintained to please you...

Moderator: Content Developer

Post Reply
Posts: 21
Joined: 30 Sep 2017, 00:11


Post by gyanbasic »

some issues that I think need correction in how we think about sea balance:

1)BA should not focus or take into consideration water maps where your commander starts underwater.
Its nice if they exist and someone wants to play on them but the balance should not try to make sure the gameplay on them is good in terms of how the commander is.
A land commander simply does not fit the demands of starting underwater.
It doesnt feel right and you just keep feeling like it should be a submarine or a floating boat but definitely not an underwater amphibious commander.
This is TA's legacy and I think its fine. commanders can walk underwater and that is enough. If we want Comet Catcher like maps for water we simply need to make them with land at the starting positions.

2)There cant be too many ships in T1.
Subs should be at least 50% of sea gameplay. Why? Because they can shoot at anything with a single elegant weapon, the torpedo.
any ships that exist in t1 should be able to shoot subs or should be very niche like a janus or leveler on land.

balance proposition:

I propose 3 subs. 1 early scout sub with good sonar. 1 medium equivalent of the flash on land and another a niche sub. Maybe an arty sub or a janus like sub that shoots a slow aoe weapon with a long reload.
the main two subs should definately shoot 360 degrees torpedoes and should be fast and agile.
torpedoes should not home or home as little as possible.

The main two ships should be:
1)a medium speed missile ship renamed to a destroyer, firing missiles and depthcharges that are good against subs for cost. the missiles would not be homing but would fire against air as well.
2)a slow expensive resilient artillery ship with weaker depthcharge.
All depthcharges should shoot ONLY underwater and should not be homing or shoudl home very little so they can be avoided.

Now Im not excluding extra ships, like a minelayer for example or some support ships but the above should be the main ones, meaning that they would almost always be on the battlefield(mostly the missile ships and some times later in the game a few arty ships).

As far as defenses go, since we start the game with subs the lightest defense would be a short range torpedo launcher that can shoot at anything and its torpedoes would be fast so it can hit scout subs unless they are very well microed.
The current floating plasma tower should be replaced with a missile tower that can shoot missiles(or something between a missile and a torpedo in its appearance) that can both go underwater to attack surface and underwater units and can also shoot at air.

Once the battlefield has a good spread of torpedo launchers and subs, missile/depthcharge ships start coming into play. They out-range the lighter torpeo launchers but have the same range as the missile towers.
As missile ships amass, artillery plasma ships come into play.

As far as mexes go the regular ones are underwater, raided by the early subs. Surface mexes would be hardened front line ones. Ideas:
1) anti missile hardened mex that shoots down incoming projectiles in a radius around itself.
2)a hardened front line mex that submerges when enemies are in range and shoots torpedoes when under water but generates no metal when submerged.
3)a front line mex that can build certain things like dragon teeth.

Now what all this achieves is a stop to all hard counters including when it comes to defenses versus subs and ships.
Everything can shoot everything and damage everything.
It also spreads sub use and makes sure most of the sub usage is early game on small maps or stretched into the mid game on open big sea maps but is then replaced with mostly surface sea gameplay.

There might be additions but the subs ships and defenses described should form the core of the gameplay.
Last edited by gyanbasic on 21 May 2018, 16:16, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Posts: 3695
Joined: 25 Oct 2008, 00:23


Post by Silentwings »

I find these sea balance suggstion posts (of which you've now made several) too long to get interested in, and think it would be great if the titles were not additionally written in capitals.

I could read a more succinct set of suggestions.
Posts: 21
Joined: 30 Sep 2017, 00:11


Post by gyanbasic »

Silentwings wrote:I find these sea balance suggstion posts (of which you've now made several) too long to get interested in, and think it would be great if the titles were not additionally written in capitals.

I could read a more succinct set of suggestions.
Well i dont know how to make a shorter post covering the complete remaking of sea gameplay and balance while also giving at least a bit of a background as to why i think the solution im proposing is good.
The first and second part can be read separately if that would make it easier for you.
Balanced Annihilation Developer
Posts: 441
Joined: 19 Mar 2011, 13:43


Post by Ares »

disagree with changes
User avatar
Posts: 347
Joined: 11 Apr 2016, 12:03


Post by MasterBel2 »

BasiC, I feel you're repeating yourself.

I've stated my reasons for not liking your suggestions, but I'll repeat them and add a couple for you to debate against:
Commander is O.K. underwater, it's a different way of working. BA is commander-centric and I'd hate for that to change. If commanders can't walk underwater,

T1 doesn't have too many ships. It's not the number that's the problem; it's the individual unit, or the mechanics of how the full compliment works together. I see you're arguing against how the compliment fits together, so I feel that this point adds no weight to your argument.

Subs shouldn't be at least 50% of gameplay. Why? Because it's so much harder for land and sea to interact that way. Subs are also a more stealthy unit and therefore it makes sense that they fit a niche-ish role. And when sea and land interact, I don't like how each of their main contingencies can't fire a shot at eachother (tanks v.s. subs, if you will, as an example)

Coming to the suggestions themselves:
The missile ship won't work. Unless it's sufficiently cost effective to take over completely. If you want sub focus, and subs are great at killing subs, don't add a special ship into the mix? Because it's so much more vulnerable to air/land also.

Artillery ship could work. But I think we kind of have that in the destroyer at the moment? Esp. If you take off the depthcharge and nerf its dmges a little. As suggested the arti ship seems a counter to missile ships, which in turn seems like a sub (soft) counter, And then the arti is hard countered by subs. Hence a new type of rock-paper-scissors gameplay? Changes to your idea are needed.

And … uh… a mex that can build things?

P.S. I can't comment on defences because I don't use them anyway. ;P
Posts: 21
Joined: 30 Sep 2017, 00:11


Post by gyanbasic »

1)I dont want to stop commander from walking underwater.
2)all ships and subs will be able to fire at each other so surface ships wont be worse. Yes they can be shot at from land but they can also shoot at land.
You have to also examine the game in stages just like on land. These units are not meant to be all used at the same time. Rather, subs are to be early game like land scouts and flash while missiles ships are mid game like stumpy with arty/destroyers added in.

I have a revised and created a more conservative unit list:

(Gameplay is based on underwater mexes)

1)submarine scouts shooting fast low damage torpedoes.
These will be shallow sea subs, meaning they will be right under the sea, allowing them to hide from torpedoes behind stuff like tidal generators.
They will also not be able to pass under the sea dragon teeth.

2)deep water subs. Flash like fast subs shooting fast torpedoes 360 degrees.
These will be able to pass under sea structures and sea dragon teeth.

3)missile ships that shoot non homing medium ranged missiles and non homing or minimally homing depthcharges(only shoot underwater).
Potentially these can be replaced with an equivalent medium plasma ship(with the added depthcharge) and another AA specific ship.

4)artillery, destroyer ship. Slow low visibility plasma artillery ship with weak depthcharges(only shoot underwater).

5)very light torpedo launcher that outranges subs.

6)medium missile(non homing) launcher with higher range that outranges missile ships and shoots both underwater and at air.

7)Floating HLT, has the same range as the arty/destroyer.

Further modifications:

1)make tidal gens cheaper and produce less energy to make the player build more of them to help sea deal with how open it is.

2)add two hardened surface mexes. 1 that shoots(core) and another that submerges(arm) when fired at.

3)another potential energy structure.

This does not exclude speciality additional units but the above units make up the core of the units at sea.

what it achieves:
1)no more rock paper scissors. There is some of it with the floating HLT but that is a niche structure.
2)keep interesting early game with scoutes hiding behind buildings while also fitting with the underwater shooting commander.
3)no need to give up unique sea gameplay like underwater mexes or making sub gameplay niche/almost non existent.
4)more structures at base offsetting the relative open environment of sea maps.
5)different depth levels are utilized with the two different sub depth levels, allowing scout subs to places where medium subs cannot.
User avatar
Posts: 347
Joined: 11 Apr 2016, 12:03


Post by MasterBel2 »

Thanks for the clarification on the commander, however it does feel like it would make sense to prevent it from walking underwater if there's a water alternative, now that I think about it? Never mind, I'm just thinking aloud.

But I'll continue thinking aloud about your suggestions…

1) Scouts seem to make more sense as a surface unit as you can see further above water than underwater more cheaply… as a real life thing, also would prevent breaking consistency between UW units, either they can pass water dragons teeth or not… hiding from torps/defences/units is a good point though…

2) What sort of range (short medium large) do you propose?

3) Missile ship seems to make more sense as a sub option? If it shoots underwater only no reason to make it an above water unit. AA specific ship makes sense.

4) Personally it doesn't make sense to give this a depthcharge – I'm also thinking comparison to the shellshocker in terms of defencelessness… but then when I think about it why have a sea artillery when there's no real static defences being used? Can I have a reference point in terms of what unit it'd be like? Say, a fido? (except far more expensive?)

5) that seems to kind of match the current sub/torp launcher setup, (at least in Zecrus's setup), can you possibly compare to that?

6) I don't like this – it's both UW and air? Its purpose already seems to be served

7) I'd suggest a little longer range than the destroyer?

The second set of numbers:

1) I'd like them to be more in line with solar/wind gen costs, for a start – some kind of statistical comparison is needed

2) Or possibly cloakable arm mex? Keeping in mind that sonar will pick it up… and they will be defenceless against subs. I'd rather just keep with the one mex type, personally.

3) I like the current simplicity, but a floating wind gen/solar would be nice? idk, that may be a little too far

And the last numbers:
1) I don't see it with the floating HLT, in fact I think that's fairly balanced.
2) Com can shoot at surface too currently, it seems like you're suggesting to change that? Am I understanding wrong?
3) I don't see point in adding surface mexes if you're keeping UW mexes, unless you have both options and UW is just more expensive … but few would build it because of the subs…
4) I generally don't like this? I like having simple bases. It's easier for the noobs too.
5) Yes please, that's actually cool. Maybe that could be a t2 vs t1 thing too though? T2 ships/subs require deeper water than t1?
Post Reply

Return to “Balanced Annihilation”