NOTA 1.82

[Edible]

The advantage of taking sea is you usually get the metal from reclaim to push their base or get a massive eco advantage, you dont really even need the mexes to win off sea. Imo defending against sea needs to be fixed.

[JohannesH]

what about a sea moho mex builder? sometimes when your enemy has lost sea and is porcing heavily, the normal mexes dont confer enough of an advantage in terms of metal.

Maybe a ship that can only be built once u have a t2 tower that can only build moho mexes?

Make maps with more sea mexes then, obviously

You can make some of them lower income too, some higher, where you only make the low mexes when youre not pressured as much, works like mohos kinda

Or on current maps dont invest into winning sea as hard if thats not worthwhile ~

[nightcold]

I'm personally against law's proposition of underwater moho's..... ship fights/water conflicts are very slippery sloped....i personally don't think it is fair(or fun) , also people have plenty of the motivation to take sea as is(sea 2 shore bombardment is a game winner)...imagine you lose sea, and then your opponent get 5x the economy because of that(all of the mexes in the sea + mohos), imo we should find more ways 2 let the person who loses sea counter, 2 make the game more dynamic

also, I personally hate how the economy just keeps on multiplying in BA.... I want to keep NOTA as far away from that(thu I personally love how there is like a level 2, creates some tension)


also, I think we need a wider range of subs.....it would be cool if there was a sub that could surface and shoot aa....or like a big sub that could compete with big ships....

[thelawenforcer]

fair enough nc

[Edible]

Me and 123v spent a while discussing the idea of multiple sub and destroyer types (and other ship sizes for that matter) as sea is a bit bland (IE. ASW dessie, AA dessie, combat dessie, ECW / Radar dessie etc). Variety would be good for subs but I am not sure how much I like the idea of a massive sub, doesnt quite fit the feel of nota IMO.

As far as land VS sea goes, I cant see many ways to fix it at all other than maybe some better hovers or something.

[hoijui]

sub idea:
instead of small and huge, make the size differences marginal. maybe yo ucna use the same modesl, with small adjsutments even. make some have no sonar, or some have small and others big sonar. some shoot only out at front, some at front and back, some more stealthy the nothers, some faster, some have nuke-silo ability ...
basically, what we see in reality.
i neither like the idea of giant sub, like eg in sup-com. as you said, would least fit with NOTA.

[Edible]

@hoijui I agree totally

Would be cool to have a bunch of subs of a similar size.
Attack, missile, subhunter, scout etc

[==Troy==]

It would be nice to see different versions of the ships, but I personally do not want to see such a huge difference, i.e. sub hunter / etc.

Even if different, ships should still be of the same class and have similar role, its just commander's choice how to tune them better.

A few suggestions :

Subs :
I) Exactly same sub as we have now, but with only unguided torpedoes
II) Sub with slightly bigger range (20%) with a single (not high power) guided torpedo

Both subs have similar roles, but the 1st one is brute-force anti-ship approach, whether the 2nd sub can also double as a sub-killer (will take 1 reload to kill a sub too, which compensates for longer range and guided)

Additionally the guided sub will be out of dest sonar range on maximum torp range, hence making it also a bit "stealthy" while not being able to effectively kill destroyer (1 torp vs 3 tors of conventional subs)



Destroyers :

Here I would agree on differentiating them as much as was proposed. Since its mainly bit pain in the ass to have to build AA cruiser to defend your BC, where instead you could build AA-oriented dessie.

say something along these lines :

I) Conventional multi-role dessie
II) AA dessie - front gun is reduced to the same power as gun at the back, torp rate halved, flaks doubled, AA missiles doubled.
III) AS dessie - flaks/AA missiles removed, torp rof increased 50%, sonar range increased 20% (can see class II subs)

I do not really like my proposal for the dessies, but imo, something along these lines would make sea more interesting to play in the beginning.

I do not think it would be necessary to split any higher classes (with the exception of cruiser maybe)

[nightcold]

we actually already have a variation to the destroyer...it's called electronic warfare ship.....

i personaly don't see the point in tiny variations.....makes gameplay pointlessly more complex/trips up noobs...... and feel very un-nota....thu if anyone want 2 recreat sup-com 4 spring, this is a greeat idea

subs are already good at killing other subs... i dont see how 1 guided torp is better than 3-4 un-guided ones....maybe give the hunter a much better range, it can even snipe ships from a far...u can harass fleets from the comfort of you own waters :D

if u want to see how destroyer variations workout, see E&E(i rlly like this mod, i dont know why n0 one want 2 play this)

thu i do think NOTA lacks a selection of subs

this maybe a bit other the top/a rip off of sup-com....i want ships that can walk(this is something very core-y).....and a trasport that takes ships to diffrent lakes, this can be a great counter if u lose sea....make ships in your own sea...then move them

[Edible]

if anyone want 2 recreat sup-com 4 spring, this is a greeat idea

Howso? Supcom only has 1-2 ships for each weightclass?

The main issue is really sea is too make or break, in a pros game its over by the first capital ship, often beforehand. Its also near impossible to recover from lost sea, or even a slight setback in sea. This is a lot because destroyers counter everything bar ships, so you end up with a "Spam destroyers then a capital" game. I think more variety within sea would help alleviate that issue (force them to pick what they counter with dessies, thus allowing a counter even if slightly behind).

[nightcold]

if anyone want 2 recreat sup-com 4 spring, this is a greeat idea

Howso? Supcom only has 1-2 ships for each weightclass?

The main issue is really sea is too make or break, in a pros game its over by the first capital ship, often beforehand. Its also near impossible to recover from lost sea, or even a slight setback in sea. This is a lot because destroyers counter everything bar ships, so you end up with a "Spam destroyers then a capital" game. I think more variety within sea would help alleviate that issue (force them to pick what they counter with dessies, thus allowing a counter even if slightly behind).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6kB_2Ay-kg8

i personaly never got 2 play supcom1.....thu the Destroyer, Cruiser & Frigate seem alot alike

also...i would like 2 note that costal guns have a huge role and are able 2 help fend off fleets & let the player that lost sea have controle over some of the water....airplanes play a role...and so do hovers....

and even if u do have variations of destroyers....in the end with bigger numbers, the variation in fire power would balance out....

[Edible]

The point is, to axe vanilla ones. So if you dont bring ASW destroyers your battlecruiser gets sunk by subs, forget the AA its planes? Only one of each? Gank it and repeat. If destroyers dont counter everything, then capital ship rushes will be far less effective, requiring more balanced fleets.

Currently destroyers fill every role bar fighting ships and thats imo a bad thing.

As far as coastals go, either you tech to BBs or spam torps ASAP, or they get a BC or missile boats and reap coastals, the best they ever do is delay (Unless you have a massive mountain, then you can hold). Sea player gets all the reclaim due to consubs, and can plaster defenses, and mess up any attempts to make a yard with subs.

[nightcold]

The point is, to axe vanilla ones. So if you dont bring ASW destroyers your battlecruiser gets sunk by subs, forget the AA its planes? Only one of each? Gank it and repeat. If destroyers dont counter everything, then capital ship rushes will be far less effective, requiring more balanced fleets.

Currently destroyers fill every role bar fighting ships and thats imo a bad thing.

As far as coastals go, either you tech to BBs or spam torps ASAP, or they get a BC or missile boats and reap coastals, the best they ever do is delay (Unless you have a massive mountain, then you can hold). Sea player gets all the reclaim due to consubs, and can plaster defenses, and mess up any attempts to make a yard with subs.

u actaully have a good point here....

so you want early game destoyers & late game destroyers will be different?????

i counter con subs with anti-sub hovers.....costal hold back thier ships...& hover kill off the subs....then i start rebuilding my fleet.....

it is always nice to have a swarm of hovers ready in case you have to rush a capital ships that gets 2 close.....

thu players that get sea win alot of metal due to sunk ships...so they will always be ahead

[==Troy==]

Night, you argument is a bit silly tbh, what Edible proposes is a change to current gameplay, which is, at the moment, nearly linear, and very-very predictable.

Most of the time you can tell who is going to get sea even before the actual game loaded. And imo, its good to at least change the sea a bit, so that the vets try and discover new strategies, rather than repeating the same over and over again.

As of coastals, they die nearlly instantly to an air player. And, although it does delay the luckier player, he has all of the wrecks, all of the metal, and you having to spend 1-1.5k metal on the coastal. All coastal does is delay the end of the game.

There is no way to turn it around, if the other player has at least half a clue of what he is doing.

Edit : Hoverlab will set you back even more.

[thelawenforcer]

personally, i find that there are enough options in sea already.

there are lots of different things u can do and i can feel the meta game changing quite a bit. as people do different things to counter these shifts. with arm especially there are lots of viable options and variation (at least from decent players).

I think that adding these specialisations are needlessly complicating things.

I think the biggest issue in NOTA is the faction balance. Core is better for land, and arm is better for sea. id like to see it more even.

[Edible]

What variations? Dessie spam, Cruiser jammer rush, BC rush and...?

Land faction balance is a bit funky yeah, arm have a few advantages in things, but overall core have a general advantage.

[==Troy==]

During my whole NOTA play I am yet to see a new persistent strategy. I agree, sometimes other starts work, but most of the time they either require help from another player (i.e. huge amount of resources), or they simply happened because the other player failed to take advantage of his position (i.e. lucky noob).

This is especially obvious in 1on1 sea, you build dests, maybe 1 sub, then go either cruiser, hoping you can slaughter him before he gets BC, or go BC, hoping you can D against his cruiser. Add in a few variations, such as a correctly planned coastal, and you have seen it all.

[Thor]

good points. We're making progress on adding an early game ship to each faction.

[thelawenforcer]

a very popular starcraft commentator once said ' you will see the same units almost every game, but its the order in which they get those units that matters'

if you start including too much specialisation, there will be too many hard counters imo. whilst there are counters to different strategies, having a 10 option rock paper scissors kind of game isnt that good an alternative to what we have now.

[nightcold]

i totaly agree with law,

nota is less about unit choices and more about tactics/macro/troop positioning

land gameplay is more or less just as "linear" as sea is

what most people don't realize is that nota has found a solution to the rps gameplay that people playing other mods nag about all the time.....

it is common 4 a group of destroyers to kill of a cruiser....happens alot when a cruiser shows up in a mist of the destroyer stage..... there is also a whole mental aspect in sea fights in nota(imo at least) ......all we have to do is make the gap between each ship class/weight smaller to make this sort of thing more common....most sea matchs i played have all 3 stages of ship class/weight happening for both sides (forgive my "silly" arguments)

nich gameplay makes things more complex then it already is..... if you want to have a rps gamplay play BA