Spring RTS Engine

Posted: **26 Jul 2006, 21:00**

Radarplanes are ridiculously hard to shoot down.

Posted: **26 Jul 2006, 21:07**

My guess? Their HP lets them survive long enough for the flares to recharge. Peepers die fast because the second shot after the one the flares lure away is guaranteed to kill them. Radar planes can soak up three or four shots, which is probably enough for the flares to reload two or three times.

Posted: **26 Jul 2006, 21:09**

Egarwaen wrote:My guess? Their HP lets them survive long enough for the flares to recharge. Peepers die fast because the second shot after the one the flares lure away is guaranteed to kill them. Radar planes can soak up three or four shots, which is probably enough for the flares to reload two or three times.

Yeah im pretty sure this is the case, alot of the first misslies miss, a couple hit and the flares must recharge as you can see the missiles missing again only for a couple more to eventually hit

Posted: **26 Jul 2006, 21:11**

BigSteve wrote:Just did a little test 1 radar plane seems to be taken out fairly easily with moderate aa, but send a group of 5 and they will avoid 2 LR towers, 2 chainsaws and 2 anti swarm long enough to encircle a base 3 times before dying, they are too hard to kill I think, they cost 165 metal each, thats 700 metal to see your opponents base 3 times over, and thats when he has good aa.
Try a little test anyone find anything different?

They can't dodge flak though, can they? So you can't stop them getting as far as your flak turrets but they shouldn't get any further than that. It might help if flak turrets reacted quicker to incoming enemies though.

Posted: **26 Jul 2006, 21:38**

Yeah, peepers ahve 3 seconds on their flare recharge, radar planes shoot one out ev erery 0.9 seconds, 0.8 for the sea versions...

1.5 seconds reload for the arm stilleto...

Recently i've noticed flares have become invisible, is anyone else experiencing this?

Posted: **26 Jul 2006, 21:42**

I've never seen an actual flare dropping from my planes.

Also, maybe the Anti-Bomber and Anti-Swarm turrets should be amalgamated? As it stands you have to build both types to be able to shoot down enemy planes worth a crap. Maybe they should be turned into a single T1.5 defense structure?

Posted: **26 Jul 2006, 21:48**

KlavoHunter wrote:I've never seen an actual flare dropping from my planes.

Also, maybe the Anti-Bomber and Anti-Swarm turrets should be amalgamated? As it stands you have to build both types to be able to shoot down enemy planes worth a crap. Maybe they should be turned into a single T1.5 defense structure?

I prefer them as separate structures, because, to be honest - I've never had an issue with either separately, and I rarely have both in my base at the same point.

Posted: **26 Jul 2006, 22:55**

Scikar wrote:They can't dodge flak though, can they? So you can't stop them getting as far as your flak turrets but they shouldn't get any further than that. It might help if flak turrets reacted quicker to incoming enemies though.

Problem is that flak's short range and not very accurate. It works wonders against fighters (which have little HP), Gunships (which swarm, chain-explode, and hover in range), and bombers (when they do those big, slow turns after a run). Against scout planes, which fly in a straight line at high speed? Nigh-useless.

Though if the recharge really does go from 3 to 0.9, that might need a nerf.

Posted: **27 Jul 2006, 00:04**

TBH I think it's fine the way it is - the planes fly over most AA missiles (of course, a whole baseworth is still gonna overload the flares so you can't just fly right over a main base) but even a little flak takes big lumps out of them

Posted: **27 Jul 2006, 00:49**

what is anti-swarm good at taking down anyway? I have found it to be highly innefective against swarms (because it targets one at a time and has no AOE) and very effective against fighters. So maybe it should be named "anti-fighter"? unless I'm missing somethign.

Posted: **27 Jul 2006, 01:22**

In numbers they are effective anti fighters and gunships. They will also take out bombers as long as the bombers hang around over them. I find they're very effective early-mid game when they're cheap enough to build in mopderate numbers, whereas anti-bomber turrets are too expensive at that stage. I think the anti-swarm / anti-bomber turrets are fine.

Posted: **27 Jul 2006, 01:30**

Theotherguy wrote:what is anti-swarm good at taking down anyway? I have found it to be highly innefective against swarms (because it targets one at a time and has no AOE) and very effective against fighters. So maybe it should be named "anti-fighter"? unless I'm missing somethign.

They're supposed to be used against fighter swarms.

Posted: **27 Jul 2006, 01:58**

Egarwaen wrote:
Theotherguy wrote:what is anti-swarm good at taking down anyway? I have found it to be highly innefective against swarms (because it targets one at a time and has no AOE) and very effective against fighters. So maybe it should be named "anti-fighter"? unless I'm missing somethign.
They're supposed to be used against fighter swarms.

I agree with the OP - "anti-swarm" is a useless name, given how many players use brawler swarms, bomber swarms, etc. Anti-fighter would be a much more useful term.

Posted: **27 Jul 2006, 02:10**

Well its the fact its a radar and sonar plane not a level2 scout, I suppose spending the same on peepers might produce the same result if what you say is true. It just seems silly that they can take so much fire before going down, has 10 times the peepers hp and costs 165 metal peeper is 40, its cost about 5 times as much e as the peeper.

Its not a massive issue but no one has posted anything for a while so I was wracking my brains for anything that might need tweaked. This was all I could come up with.

keep them as they are tbh, they are useful but not OP. remember thats a fair bit of factory time you waste (inc exit), and its a T2 fac so every second counts!
whereas a t1 fac pumping out scouts now and then is almost costless!
radar planes are better mid-late game and thats how it should be IMO (never used them like this, but hell my AA game could do with a lot of work so why not try it)

Posted: **27 Jul 2006, 02:18**

By the way I just noticed that Action AA wasn't working. Someone forgot a bracket in the sidedata.tdf in line 429 apparently...

[ARMMLV]
{
canbuild1=armmine1;
canbuild2=armmine3;
canbuild3=armdrag;
canbuild4=armeyes;
}

http://rattle.from-hell.net/AASA211.zip

And the H variant still misses it's sidedata

Posted: **27 Jul 2006, 11:48**

nice catch

Posted: **27 Jul 2006, 11:50**

I wish cadyr would post some new information, then we'd have something to argue about in this thread.

Posted: **27 Jul 2006, 11:55**

i would leave radar plane, it dies very quickly if player has some MT's in addition to other defencese (overloads flares fast). Its lvl2 scout after all , it should be better than couple of llvl1.

Posted: **27 Jul 2006, 18:52**

ginekolog wrote:i would leave radar plane, it dies very quickly if player has some MT's in addition to other defencese (overloads flares fast). Its lvl2 scout after all , it should be better than couple of llvl1.

No it doesnt, not it groups anyway, test it, youll find it avoids missiles very easily

Posted: **27 Jul 2006, 18:53**

I agree that the radar plane is fine - but maybe change its description to "T2 scout/radar/sonar" plane or something similar.

Spring RTS Engine

Absolute Annihilation 2.11