Absolute Annihilation 2.11

[Ishach]

Since I cannot safely boost L2 fighters very much, and L1 fighters are quite good in comparison to L2 while costing far less, who'd be in favor of nerfing L1 fighter handling back to how they were originally?

(this is really the only option so, it's pretty much happening no matter what... )

I dont know what their original state was, but if that is nerfing them I support that 100%. I hate spending the metal to tech up to Adv Air early only to be thwarted by someone getting T1 Fighters up in the air in no time at all.

[Egarwaen]

This would result in the horrifying "1-pass commkill with 5 fighters" problem... how quickly we forget.

I never actually managed to reproduce this in tests. With even a little bit of AA, even 15-20 Hawks/Vamps had a hard time killing a Comm before they were shredded.

And by "a little bit of AA", I mean about eight MTs or about four and an anti-swarm launcher between the comm and the source of the fighters.

[krogothe]

Erg you must have the wrong version (eg the current one), at some point 20 vamps could shred 10-15 MTs and the comm with few losses, ive tried it.
caydr, how about making vamps/hawks onlytargetcategory1=air? tada!

[Drone_Fragger]

And let bombers and gunships be the only ground attack?


I prefer being attacked by fighters over bomber or brawler hordes anyday :D

[2pacalypse]

T3 units are not for charging annihilators. annihilators and DDM and penetrators and snipers COUNTER T3 ffs...that is some (unnecessary immature and insulting language removed)

Annihilators and DDMs and penetrators and snipers and sumos and fatboys and bombers and gunships and goliaths and bulldogs and cans and mavs and zeus and level one swarms and berthas counter T3 too... it seems that *everything* counters T3. Metal for metal, it makes more sense to just stay T2 and build 9000 metal worth of units rather than even building a gantry and its overpriced units at all. Even if the modifier were removed completely, annihilators and static defenses would still do serious damage to T3, just like they do to everything else.

eeeemmm... No. That is balanced just fine. L3 mechs shouldn't be the every situation pwn-all units.

I didn't say that they should be, but they shouldn't die to everything under the sun, either. They especially shouldn't be less metal efficient than their T2 counterparts, considering the huge cost of the gantry. As it is right now, the only times I use T3 are if I'm really far ahead, feel like playing with huge robots at the expense of a large amount of efficiency, or decide that catapults would be handy. That's about it.

Even when you're building a krogoth or orcone, you're spending a huge amount of resources on the thing. Until it's done, none of that counts for anything -- a half-built krogoth can't help you defend your base or attack your enemy. If the enemy is competent, scouts you out, and sees that you're building a krog/orcone, if he has any intelligence at all he'll either send a bomber swarm to destroy the plant outright or attack you when he knows you have a lot of metal and energy soaked into a project that can't help you until it's completed. Even then, he can just build some plasma cannons and annihilators, which will cause your expensive investment to melt away because we can't have large, powerful units that take twenty minutes to build without having everything under the sun able to destroy them!

At any rate, I know that Caydr probably isn't going to pay attention to any of this, so here's just hoping that L3 becomes more of a realistic option in the future.

Edit: To all of the people who think that L3 is strong enough/overpowered as it is right now, I invite you to start a sandbox game in 2.1 and test L3 against L2 units that cost equivalent amounts of metal or less. I've done this myself, and it really shows that L3 is weaker than commonly thought.

[Konane]

At any rate, I know that Caydr probably isn't going to pay attention to any of this

Hope you are right. Last thing we need is boosting L3 imo.

[Egarwaen]

Erg you must have the wrong version (eg the current one), at some point 20 vamps could shred 10-15 MTs and the comm with few losses, ive tried it.

I tried it with the version where you claimed that no-one had any reason to ever build anything but those. Built eight MTs with a commander behind them, gave them to the enemy. Built 15 hawks/vamps, ordered them to attack the comm. I can't remember the exact outcome, but it was far from a one-pass kill. I think the Hawks/Vamps wound up winning, but with only a handful left. Two anti-swarm launchers (IIRC) wiped out the entire swarm before the comm hit 25% health.

That said, I think it would be great if hawks/vamps/FFs/avengers were made air-only. There's more than enough ground attack aircraft, between the Phoenix/Hurricane, Brawler/Rapier, Blade/Krow, EMP Bomber, Liche...

[Pxtl]

At any rate, I know that Caydr probably isn't going to pay attention to any of this

Hope you are right. Last thing we need is boosting L3 imo.

Actually, the bigger "specific damage" thing I'd like to see reduced is the fact that gunships are pretty much unfightable unless you've got flakkers/screamers or fighters - and even with fighters they'll destroy everything they came to destroy before the fighters take them down. They shrug off most of the L1 missile weapons, and beamweapons/plasma do reduced damage vs. gunships, the gunships deal out a tonne of damage. In too many games I've seen a solid game go south when one guy brings in a handful of gunships and chews up the MTs, then eats the whole base. They also double as nasty defense, because the only way to get some anti-air in a kbot army is to bring a swarm of nigh-useless L1 missile bots with you.

The things are already able to circumvent the front line - they can fly and are tough enough to shrug off most lesser defenses, so they can just go around. All I'm asking is that laser weapons do substantial damage to them. I mean - it makes sense that cannons are ineffective against gunships, but lasers? Otherwise, many games I've seen end when one guy goes gunships. I'ts boring for both the attacker and the defender.

It's not that I think they're overpowered or anything - I just think that it's dull when there's basically _one_ weapon that's useful against them.

edit: wow, I just looked over the 1.46 unit guide stats for anti-air weapons. It's just a complete inscrutable mess of unit-specific damages. Nearly every weapon in the game - including AA missiles - does reduced damage to gunships.... why not just raise the gunship armour and eliminate the special damage?

[Day]

mobile flaks

and it would be great if vamps and hawks would shoot air only that would solve the entire thing

[Arco]

mobile flaks

and it would be great if vamps and hawks would shoot air only that would solve the entire thing

As it is, I already think of L1 fighters as "multirole fighters" and L2 fighters as "air superiority fighters". That's how they're usable right now, so there's nothing wrong with constraining them to those roles a bit more. Honestly I'd like it if the L2 fighters were stronger anti-air--as it is, an L1 fighter can take an L2 fighter down easily if it approaches it from the right aspect angle. But this is more of an engine issue than an AA issue.

[2k4]

I got two requests:

1. when you do ctrl-a ctrl-d Id like to see that nano turrets dont explode like mexes straight away

2. Make mexes such, that if you build a moho mex on it the bot automatically knows he must reclaim the mex

[Cabbage]

Pxtl you are a fool, ofc gunships pwn if they are unexpected. If you get pwned by gunships then it is entirely your own fault, big patched of lvl 1 missile towers own gunships. flakkers own gunships. lvl 1 fighters own gunships. If you know the enemy has air power, its very very easy to counter them. If not, you should still have a limited amount of AA up anyway, and then proc up a bit after the first wave.....

Gunships arnt a probelm, please don't change anything to do with them.

[Pxtl]

Pxtl you are a fool, ofc gunships pwn if they are unexpected. If you get pwned by gunships then it is entirely your own fault, big patched of lvl 1 missile towers own gunships. flakkers own gunships. lvl 1 fighters own gunships. If you know the enemy has air power, its very very easy to counter them. If not, you should still have a limited amount of AA up anyway, and then proc up a bit after the first wave.....

Gunships arnt a probelm, please don't change anything to do with them.

To get enough L1 missile towers to handle a moderate gunship swarm you'd have to pave half your whole base in the damn things. And as for flakkers, that's just my point - we have a unit that basically has _one_ thing to use against it. Everything else (such as anti-swarm missiles, etc.) does reduced damage.

My complaint isn't that gunships are overpowered - it's that the gunship gameplay is DULL. It's nuke-antinuke stuff. Flakkers is just about it, and flakkers aren't long enough ranged so it's hard to defend a spread-out base with flakkers. I'm not saying "gunships need to be nerfed" - I'm saying that they should be _buffed_ and that more weapons should harm them to get rid of this boring gameplay.

[Drone_Fragger]

Flakkers are useless tbh, Too long to build, And they die too quickly to gunships, And don't kill them fast enough.

[Pxtl]

Flakkers are useless tbh, Too long to build, And they die too quickly to gunships, And don't kill them fast enough.

Now there you're crazy. The number of gunships it takes to overwhelm flakkers is insane, and horrendously expensive. Flakkers are just fine - I just don't think they should be the end-all and be-all of gunship gameplay.

[Egarwaen]

To get enough L1 missile towers to handle a moderate gunship swarm you'd have to pave half your whole base in the damn things. And as for flakkers, that's just my point - we have a unit that basically has _one_ thing to use against it. Everything else (such as anti-swarm missiles, etc.) does reduced damage.

Uh-huh. And think about it for a half-second. It does reduced damage because the damage is balanced for normal aircraft, which are within range of the tower for one, maybe two, shots. Gunships hover in range for a much longer time, allowing the towers to land more missiles on them, doing much more damage over time. Also note that Gunships chain-explode - as of 1.46, a Brawler does 150 damage to nearby gunships when it gets shot down. That's almost 20% of a Brawler's HP.

How much is a moderate gunship swarm? You can handle 5-10 with a load of missile towers. You can handle them easily if you've got an anti-bomber turret plus missile towers. You can handle them really easily with about 10 level 1 fighters. (Seriously. L1 fighters are disgusting against Gunships.)

Flakkers is just about it, and flakkers aren't long enough ranged so it's hard to defend a spread-out base with flakkers.

1-3 flakkers per area of the base + 2-4 LRMTs in strategic positions. Or 1-3 flakkers per area + 1-3 LRMTs + 10 fighters on patrol = GG Gunships, fighters, scouts, and pretty much everything that flies but Blades/Krows and Adv. Bombers.

Flakkers are useless tbh, Too long to build, And they die too quickly to gunships, And don't kill them fast enough.

ROFLROFL. Are you even playing the same mod as the rest of us? First you claim Guardians are severely OP, then that Vanguards are uberpwnallsuperBulldogsofdoom. Now you claim Flakkers are useless? It's like you're trying to destroy the balance or something.

[Pxtl]

1-3 flakkers per area of the base + 2-4 LRMTs in strategic positions. Or 1-3 flakkers per area + 1-3 LRMTs + 10 fighters on patrol = GG Gunships.

Good god, the game should've already ended before you get that amount of hardware up. That's like saying "oh, just take out his berthas by attacking them with 3 Orcones".

And yes, they hover hin range for a long time, but they also deal out enough damage to blow up the MTs quite quickly.

[Neddie]

I got two requests: 2. Make mexes such, that if you build a moho mex on it the bot automatically knows he must reclaim the mex

I support this to the fullest, especially with the newer maps with tiny extraction radii.

As for fighters, I would like them to remain effective against land and air, but simply make the L2 fighters perhaps 25% more effective against air to make the cost worth it.

Now, Gunships, since we happen to be on a roll.

L2 Gunships are generally not hurt by L1 Anti-Air very much. Don't try to advance the point that they are, it is blatantly false. The anti-bomber turret is the only really effective way to deal with them at L1, and we all know how long those take to build. However, I see nothing wrong with Gunships as they are. The chain-explosions and hovering dynamics pretty much make up for value imbalances.

Flakkers are highly effective against gunships, as long as you don't just have one out there trying to handle seven. Do the math of buildtime + metal cost, and come back to me.

[Egarwaen]

1-3 flakkers per area of the base + 2-4 LRMTs in strategic positions. Or 1-3 flakkers per area + 1-3 LRMTs + 10 fighters on patrol = GG Gunships.

Good god, the game should've already ended before you get that amount of hardware up. That's like saying "oh, just take out his berthas by attacking them with 3 Orcones".

I think we must be using different definitions. I can cover the vital bits of what I consider a "normal-sized" base on a 16x16 map with six-eight Flakkers and a handful of LRMTs. It doesn't seem to tie up my con units particularly long. Of course, fighters are still among your best choices - cheap, mobile, and hideously effective.

How big is your "sprawling base"? And if it's that large, why don't you have an economy to support enough cons to build defences faster?

[Rayden]

Normally if build up your air defense step by step and know by scouting that air will come you have enough time to start building a decent air defense. Gunships are pretty expensive.

And if you have no good air defense when game goes to end level 2 stage it's your fault.