Spring RTS Engine

IMO, beef up the SAM/Packo, and move the Chainsaw to T2 and beef it up for T2 as well.

yeah remove sam packo and buff chainsaw should be ok.

T2 fighters are very overpowered IMO, need nerfing a little.

Anybody know how important the flares on the stealth fighters are? They have a "flareefficiency" of 0.2, with a reload-time of 1ish - does that mean they'll only dissuade one missile in five, once per second? Or is it more complex than that? If that's it, then it seems to be a barely-effective screen. Is it more powerful than that? Can a single flare confuse multiple missiles? Or is it one-missile-per-flare?

Also, remember the Screamer tweak that made them fire upwards so they could shoot over buildings? Maybe that should be done with the SAM/Pack0.

does anybody knows what the 'Intrusion Countermeasure System' does?

Detects cloaked mobile units within a short range - for spotting spies, primarily, since sharpshooters stay far away and skuttles are only rarely used.

gremlins ftw.

Most people dont know they exist.

It just makes flashy marks to get your attention, but doesnt target your units.

YHCIR wrote:T2 fighters are very overpowered IMO, need nerfing a little.

IMO, Fighter / Turret AA needs to be rebalanced.

I would say figters and whole air balance is fine, its just that Defender is best turret for cost. Bith sam and chainsaw are lacking firepower while screamer is ok for his role - keeping figter patrols back.

Figters die very fast to any type of ground AA. Just bring some AA under fig patrol and watch :)

On the other hand, seaplane figters are very bad, allmost useless. (in comarison to vamp). They still fight gunships and bombers in a decent manner.

REVENGE wrote:

YHCIR wrote:T2 fighters are very overpowered IMO, need nerfing a little.

IMO, Fighter / Turret AA needs to be rebalanced.

Or you can play a mod where that has already been done and where packos are worth their cost.

<look at this cutsie wootsy little kitten.

Screamers are anti-liche/bomber.

Hi,

I play often BA. Don't like CA (well, it's more dislike than simply not liking, but...).
Played some other mods, but Spring still lack players for find other mods players.

1° Cruise missile ship lack of range.
The range of this ship is simply ridiculous. Why invest in missile ship for nearly no advantage at all ?

2°Siege mech
I'm not a big lover of mechs. Too much unbalanced. Why build level 2 units when you have a mech factory ?
And the difference between the two "little" mechs and the two "bigs" is enormous.

3° Lack of difference between the two "little" arty defense.
When you can build the level 2, you forgot the level 1.
I suggest to give bigger firepower to the level 2 and bigger rate of fire to the level 1 (hey, what theses TWO barrels are for, then ?).

4° Lack of arty defense of "middle-long" range.
After the "ambusher", you go immediately to the bertha/buzzsaw. Some intermediate gun can be nice.
Something as that :
http://www.unituniverse.com/?p=u&v=647
of that :
http://www.unituniverse.com/?p=u&v=584

5° Submarine torpedo launcher.
If you can build nuclear plant under the sea, you can probably build torpedo launcher under the sea !
Actually, torpedo launcher are nothing more than dead meat. Or at least make the actual floating building sneaky or something.

6° AA defense problem : Level 1
As other already said, AA have a problem in BA.
Level 1 AA quad missile-launcher : Ok, whe have a missile-launcher with no range, high reaction time, missile with LONG turn rate and little speed. I mean, what the use ?
Worse : The CORE version is a quad-launcher. The unit graphic is no used at all since BA use it as a solo-launcher. The graphic ask for a four-salvo with recharge time. And that mean with that it's complementary with a chainsaw, and not a "chainsaw for the poor"

7° AA defense problem : ChainSaw.
The Chainsaw was, without problem, the most praised defense building in third party TA. MAke it a pure AA system is strange but, eh, it's the way mod goes.
Just a question : Why make the other level 1 defense building since the ChainSaw, in BA, is just the same thing with more range and higher rate of fire (and higher defense, as cherry on top) ?
If you can spare the metal, you have no reason to switch for the other...

8° AA defense problem : Flak.
Ok. I suggest BA authors read some military books. What they do (and Cavedog do the same error before them) is not a Flak. I don't know what is it, maybe just a newly discovered III reich superweapon ?
The flak we have here has NO RANGE ! If you want to use it, you need to put it really in number and way before the buildings you intend to protect.
That mean you can't defend a line against planes (ok, you can destroy the planes WHEN they attack, but you lost the line and then, in BA, more or less the game 8/10).
I suggest the changes :
- More range against air units.
- Real splash damage (it's how AA work. Only the machine-guns hava not splash damages).
- Can attack ground units. Just use less range and let the scary explosive heavy bullets do they job
As in reality : The difference between missiles and gun is the gun can take on AA AND ground units. 88 german flak was, in WW2, well know for one-shoot tanks and ravage entire infantry groups. Another history is the fight between the Bismark and the Hood : They used theirs AA machine-gun against each other !

9° Lack of mortar/ballistic defense :
BA lack of mortar style defense. Only two are ballistic : Punisher/guardian in level one, and ambusher/toaster (?) in level 2 (if you don't count bertha & co).
Using theses buildings in "high trajectory" is a desperate mesure.
When you have to defend high ground, nearly all your defenses have to be in plain sigh of your opponent, and you have to rely to unit artillery.

I suggest to add some mortar-like buildings that change an assault against elevated position what it's still is today : Something more dangerous.
NOTA has, by example, the Immolator (who is so-so in flat ground, but really is a killer when defending high position due to the ballistic trajectory of his bullets), and a mini-missile launcher that launch volley of ballistic rockets.

A good TA third party unit was also the Roman Candle. Don't really good on screen, but boy i don't know ONE people that dislike the little bugger...

Fighters on patrol won't auto-attack ground units, would it be possible to have an option to auto attack ground only or auto attack air only? or auto attack both?

1° Cruise missile ship lack of range.
The range of this ship is simply ridiculous. Why invest in missile ship for nearly no advantage at all ?

You must use it wrong then. I for many times thought it had too much range - especially when it ate up my defenses...
It may suck in combat vs. mobile units and also sucks when being attacked by torpedo bombers (although nearly all ships do) but it's just great for cleansing an enemies ground defense for you allies as it even outranges an Annihilator and the rockets penetrate shields. Learn to use them right...

2°Siege mech
I'm not a big lover of mechs. Too much unbalanced. Why build level 2 units when you have a mech factory ?
And the difference between the two "little" mechs and the two "bigs" is enormous.

Well that's one of BA's problems imo:
The T3 Mechs have a rather random balance. Just compare the Arm Razorback with the Core Karganeth - it's ridiculous how much stronger the Karganeth is while being the All-Terrain version (sure - it's supposed to be magically balanced towards the Arm Vanguard but still Razorbacks are just a plain waste)...

5° Submarine torpedo launcher.
If you can build nuclear plant under the sea, you can probably build torpedo launcher under the sea !
Actually, torpedo launcher are nothing more than dead meat. Or at least make the actual floating building sneaky or something.

Afaik the T2 torpedo launcher actually is submerged...

Just a question : Why make the other level 1 defense building since the ChainSaw, in BA, is just the same thing with more range and higher rate of fire (and higher defense, as cherry on top) ?
If you can spare the metal, you have no reason to switch for the other...

Yes you have a reason to switch: The Defenders / Pulverizers are just better per cost. It's true though that those SAMs suck...

8° AA defense problem : Flak.

Flak's primary purpose is to kill gunship swarms and it does a damn good job at it. Just as ground AA in general in BA it sucks against fighters and bombers...

vampi2 wrote:Another history is the fight between the Bismark and the Hood : They used theirs AA machine-gun against each other !

horseshit.

the Bismark and the Hood were MILES away from each other when the Hood sank. nowhere near close enough for machinegun fire

Pressure Line wrote:

vampi2 wrote:Another history is the fight between the Bismark and the Hood : They used theirs AA machine-gun against each other !

horseshit.

the Bismark and the Hood were MILES away from each other when the Hood sank. nowhere near close enough for machinegun fire

Let's say 105 mm AA (ok, not exactly little machine-guns, because they where flak with a ROF of 1 shoot each 3 seconds, but still) on the Prinz Eugen at least fired on the Prince of Wales. Distance : Around 14 kilometers...
But even the little flak has more than 9 km range, 37 mm has 8.5 km, 20mm 5 km... And theses gun don't shoot only because the Hood was sunk on an approching trajectory (they wanted to close the Bismark road) and make the PoW flee.

vampi2 wrote:

Pressure Line wrote:

vampi2 wrote:Another history is the fight between the Bismark and the Hood : They used theirs AA machine-gun against each other !

horseshit.

the Bismark and the Hood were MILES away from each other when the Hood sank. nowhere near close enough for machinegun fire

Let's say 105 mm AA (ok, not exactly little machine-guns, because they where flak with a ROF of 1 shoot each 3 seconds, but still) on the Prinz Eugen at least fired on the Prince of Wales. Distance : Around 14 kilometers...
But even the little flak has more than 9 km range, 37 mm has 8.5 km, 20mm 5 km... And theses gun don't shoot only because the Hood was sunk on an approching trajectory (they wanted to close the Bismark road) and make the PoW flee.

you said MACHINE GUN. that usually means man-portable, firing up to .50 cal bullets (thats half an inch or about 12mm) 105mm flak is NOT A MACHINE GUN. i dont care WHAT you try to rationalise with, were no machineguns capable of firing halfway to the horizon.

Yeah, those aren't called machine guns, they're called cannons dude.

Also, NOiZE you need to remove the seismic ping from Stumpies.

i wish you could fix the fighters on patrol bug (im assuming its a bug it never happened before)

what does seismic ping do

Try to be honnest, Revenge : Just replace "AA machine-gun" by "rapid-fire AA heavy flak" and you understand it's exactly what i wanted to say... in a text where i write about flak !

But AA machine-guns where used between big ships. Look for german raiders, fights at Guadalcanal, etc. and of course lot of engagements between big a tiny ships.

you said MACHINE GUN. that usually means man-portable, firing up to .50 cal bullets (thats half an inch or about 12mm) 105mm flak is NOT A MACHINE GUN. i dont care WHAT you try to rationalise with, were no machineguns capable of firing halfway to the horizon.

Same answer than for Revenge, plus :

Machine-gun mean what it mean, not what you feel it need to mean.
Just from the ships i mentionned, the 20mm AA machine-gun on the Bismark, with a (theorical) rate of fire of 480 rounds by minute, had a range of 4900 metres (less in AA position, i grant you that, but other warships rarely fly).

4900 meters is a LOT more than "halfway to the horizon and fight distance in some well know battles (say, Guadalcanal, just for one), and generaly battles around isles.
The .50 caliber MGs shoot already at around 2000 meters in effective range, and that's already halfway the horizon (well, near). For targets as big as a big warship, effective range is a way bigger than that (around 7-8 km for modern MG).





Well, yes there is.