Balanced Annihilation v4.7 !!
Moderator: Moderators
Hooray for public suggestions, as long as they are appropriately responded to. I do dislike the tendency for flamewars to erupt over suggestions, and have thought of a possible method of raising suggestions that may reduce flames:
Don't post that unit XX is overpowered or underpowered. Post that you are unsure of how to counter unit XX, or unsure of how to effectively use unit XX. State what you have tried. Allow others to respond. Then you may learn more about how to use or counter unit XX. Or we may decide that there is no good way to counter or use unit XX, in which case there is a balance issue to be addressed. What do people think of that idea?
Don't post that unit XX is overpowered or underpowered. Post that you are unsure of how to counter unit XX, or unsure of how to effectively use unit XX. State what you have tried. Allow others to respond. Then you may learn more about how to use or counter unit XX. Or we may decide that there is no good way to counter or use unit XX, in which case there is a balance issue to be addressed. What do people think of that idea?
RE: solar e cost.
I dont play AA/BA but in XTA solars cost no e to build. Wind gens cost a lot of e to build, but very little m. You can chain build solars till you run out of metal, but if you try and rush out 4 or so wind gens you will probably e stall (obviously depending on the map).
Both are viable on all maps with min wind 10+
While people may disagree with its impact, metal-free solars dont break the mod.
Just thought i would share...
I dont play AA/BA but in XTA solars cost no e to build. Wind gens cost a lot of e to build, but very little m. You can chain build solars till you run out of metal, but if you try and rush out 4 or so wind gens you will probably e stall (obviously depending on the map).
Both are viable on all maps with min wind 10+
While people may disagree with its impact, metal-free solars dont break the mod.
Just thought i would share...
-
EXit_W0und
- Posts: 164
- Joined: 22 Dec 2005, 01:33
The 5 shots would be all well and fine except that the 5 shots took well over a minute to execute because of dodgy flight behaviour on the part of the fighter.
Also atlases at 1239 e and 3850 bt are much cheaper to mass than fighters at 2687 e and 4077 bt.
Say we have a mass of fighters defending a base, and a mass of equal build time worth atlases complete with preferred payload. (9 fighters v 10 atlas roughly) The fighters are defending in a ring around the base since we dont know the direction of attack.
Bearing in mind you wont be able to know where a drop is coming from till its made half of the way towards your base due to low radar coverage. Then the time you need to take to send your fighter swarm to meet the atlases will allow the atlases to be nearly at their target by the time you actually engage them.
The mass of fighters will get maybe 2-3 shots off each at most before that mass has landed its payload. This will kill maybe a small fraction of the mass making the drop successful despite you spending the same amount on fighters.
Here is a replay indicating my point:
http://www.filelodge.com/files/room47/1 ... 0atlas.sdf
Also atlases at 1239 e and 3850 bt are much cheaper to mass than fighters at 2687 e and 4077 bt.
Say we have a mass of fighters defending a base, and a mass of equal build time worth atlases complete with preferred payload. (9 fighters v 10 atlas roughly) The fighters are defending in a ring around the base since we dont know the direction of attack.
Bearing in mind you wont be able to know where a drop is coming from till its made half of the way towards your base due to low radar coverage. Then the time you need to take to send your fighter swarm to meet the atlases will allow the atlases to be nearly at their target by the time you actually engage them.
The mass of fighters will get maybe 2-3 shots off each at most before that mass has landed its payload. This will kill maybe a small fraction of the mass making the drop successful despite you spending the same amount on fighters.
Here is a replay indicating my point:
http://www.filelodge.com/files/room47/1 ... 0atlas.sdf
-
EXit_W0und
- Posts: 164
- Joined: 22 Dec 2005, 01:33
They shouldn't be perfect, they should be a bit better than they are now, If they took 4 shots instead of 5 to kill it would be better. Air drops would still be viable but fighters would have a chance to actually take down about a third or a quarter of them before they landed. Fighters should be the main defence against air assaults in general rather than relying on aa turrets. In the same way that you don't rely on llts alone to stop a mass of flash tanks, you build your own ground units to defend with.
What should fighters be good for? The few choices that come to mind -
Com assassination - I guess opinion will vary but I think fighters should be reasonably good at this if an enemy neglects AA. But shouldn't gunships be a better choice? Unless you are core with a level 1 air lab.
Attacking ground units - Again shouldn't gun ships be better at this? Perhaps fighters could have the advantage against ground units over brawlers in certain situations. Not sure what they would be though
Defending against air units - I'd expect this to be their obvious role. They have a disadvantage in often requiring micro to respond to an attack - which being air comes in quite quickly with little warning. Currently ground AA is effective enough that there it doesn't seem worth the effort to rely on fighters for counter air.
Scouting - isn't that what scouts are for?
Jack of all trades - Probably why I build fighters. I'll build an air lab primarily for scouting, and then decide that I might as well have scouts that have guns, as have scouts that don't have guns. That way they can double as defense against air or ground, or perform raiding duties as required.
Any uses I have missed? I would probably vote for Jack of all trades, as I'm not keen on needing to build an air lab to defend against air.
Com assassination - I guess opinion will vary but I think fighters should be reasonably good at this if an enemy neglects AA. But shouldn't gunships be a better choice? Unless you are core with a level 1 air lab.
Attacking ground units - Again shouldn't gun ships be better at this? Perhaps fighters could have the advantage against ground units over brawlers in certain situations. Not sure what they would be though
Defending against air units - I'd expect this to be their obvious role. They have a disadvantage in often requiring micro to respond to an attack - which being air comes in quite quickly with little warning. Currently ground AA is effective enough that there it doesn't seem worth the effort to rely on fighters for counter air.
Scouting - isn't that what scouts are for?
Jack of all trades - Probably why I build fighters. I'll build an air lab primarily for scouting, and then decide that I might as well have scouts that have guns, as have scouts that don't have guns. That way they can double as defense against air or ground, or perform raiding duties as required.
Any uses I have missed? I would probably vote for Jack of all trades, as I'm not keen on needing to build an air lab to defend against air.
I thought spring has a target priority for units so that they always auto target the most expensive unit? Correct me if i'm wrong but wouldnt that mean mixing atlas with scouts wouldnt make a difference (except for if they were in front to divert the initial rocket from an MT) because other fighters and ground based anti air would automatically target the atlas first (considering it will be worth over 150 metal once its carrying a flash or something similar)?Well IMO if you only have transports vs enemy fighters, those transports should get rape so people would be force to mix them with fighters/scouts.
<_<
Why would I build fighters if they can't defend >.<.
Thats why sending a huge mass of air with a comm in an atlas behind to comm bomb a huge porc never works because the anti air always targets the single atlas instead of any mass of air that is around it.
Anyway, if you make it so fighters can just own a mass of atlas then air drops will be rendered completely ineffective as soon as the enemy makes even l1 fighters, thus air drops will only be viable early game as a surprise attack when there are no fighters to guard them off. And we all know as soon as enemy has T2 anti air in the immediate range of his main base trying to air drop there is history.
I'd like to keep it so air drops can still be used more than once without being shot to hell...and anyway, they can be well countered, i tried to air drop slek in a 2v2 a week or so ago on comm ends and he had maybe 15 MT's spread out which would have raped them, so instead i tried sending them straight up the side, thinking they would fly over his 10-15 lightning tanks with limited deaths (I horribly under estimated the anti air capability of lightning tanks in mass) and lost about 40 atlas in space of 5-10 seconds.
Keep in mind that once someone air drops units he has to send his atlas back to where he came in order to use them again - this gives fighters/ground based anti air 2 runs at taking them out, firstly when they're carrying extra metal in form of units, then again when they go to return.
Air drops are expensive once you consider how many atlas are needed and how many units get killed before being dropped. One has to sacrafice in other areas in order to have enough resources to make an effective air drop early game - in the case i just mentioned sleksa teched where i went l1 air instead - its a risky business and you have to make it pay off or you are basically screwed. Thus making fighters so they can easily take out more atlas will discourage people from trying air drops as a tactic, because it is already risky as it is.
OK, so I did just get pwned by some sammies in a CC game... =P
But anyway, why are they the only aa unit which can still attack ground? we already have lvl1 arty to outrange LLTs, so their only purpose now is to piss me off early game because they keep retreating behind the LLT line.
It just seems that there isn't a reasonable counter to sammies early game when you've got LLT lines up, apart from also building them. Arty doesn't work because they can move they get hit most of the time.
EDIT: aa doesn't target ground units, so it won't target a transport carrying a unit over an empty transport. Scouts are still cheaper than transports though...
But anyway, why are they the only aa unit which can still attack ground? we already have lvl1 arty to outrange LLTs, so their only purpose now is to piss me off early game because they keep retreating behind the LLT line.
It just seems that there isn't a reasonable counter to sammies early game when you've got LLT lines up, apart from also building them. Arty doesn't work because they can move they get hit most of the time.
EDIT: aa doesn't target ground units, so it won't target a transport carrying a unit over an empty transport. Scouts are still cheaper than transports though...
Are you sure that AA doesnt measure the cost of atlas based on the units its carrying though? Comm's in an atlas will always get shot first instead of other air units, this cant just be "bad luck" or coincidence.EDIT: aa doesn't target ground units, so it won't target a transport carrying a unit over an empty transport. Scouts are still cheaper than transports though...
Not an AA option. Atlas's do have a high cost though.DemO wrote:Are you sure that AA doesnt measure the cost of atlas based on the units its carrying though? Comm's in an atlas will always get shot first instead of other air units, this cant just be "bad luck" or coincidence.EDIT: aa doesn't target ground units, so it won't target a transport carrying a unit over an empty transport. Scouts are still cheaper than transports though...
btw, the LVL-1 Arty vehicles outrange HLT's, they always outranged LLT's.
Cost for cost, there isn't much point in building any defences in that situation, since they can be completely bypassed by being outranged.
HLT's are easily killed as is, but when you can harass the only economical LVL-1 defence with a unit marginably cheaper, it makes things "unbalenced"
I also really dislike how the LVL-2 Arty vehicles Luger/Pillager are low trajectory, why even bother building them when you can just make regular tanks instead that have better combat ability?
There isn't any difference in their use other than range, and not being able to fire on the move, or at moving targets, to regular tanks now.
High Trajectory is what artillery is about, so you can hit a wider range of targets, and at varying elevations effectively, where other units that fire at flat trajectory can't.
If sombody makes a gun up on a hill, I want something that can sail a shot up to actually hit it, it also needs the ability to shoot over friendly units for support fire and thats what needs to happen with Luger/Pillager to make them usefull.
Yeah, Merl/Diplomat does a good job at it, but I need support units when I go vehicles that can hit things other than Stationary targets.
Cost for cost, there isn't much point in building any defences in that situation, since they can be completely bypassed by being outranged.
HLT's are easily killed as is, but when you can harass the only economical LVL-1 defence with a unit marginably cheaper, it makes things "unbalenced"
I also really dislike how the LVL-2 Arty vehicles Luger/Pillager are low trajectory, why even bother building them when you can just make regular tanks instead that have better combat ability?
There isn't any difference in their use other than range, and not being able to fire on the move, or at moving targets, to regular tanks now.
High Trajectory is what artillery is about, so you can hit a wider range of targets, and at varying elevations effectively, where other units that fire at flat trajectory can't.
If sombody makes a gun up on a hill, I want something that can sail a shot up to actually hit it, it also needs the ability to shoot over friendly units for support fire and thats what needs to happen with Luger/Pillager to make them usefull.
Yeah, Merl/Diplomat does a good job at it, but I need support units when I go vehicles that can hit things other than Stationary targets.
I for one prefer the artillery with low trajectoy. If they have high trajectoy they are not much different than the merl/diplomats. With a lower trajectory and big range you can use them immediately behind your wall of assault tanks. The arc is perfect for providing concentrated fire to supplement the front line tanks.
Yes, you could build 20 goliaths. Or you could build 10 goliaths and 20 artillery tanks and actually accomplish a lot more.
I might consider either raising the health of the artillery up a little (around 900-1200) or leaving them weaker but reducing their automatic innacruacy some. I think i'd prefer the later.
Yes, you could build 20 goliaths. Or you could build 10 goliaths and 20 artillery tanks and actually accomplish a lot more.
I might consider either raising the health of the artillery up a little (around 900-1200) or leaving them weaker but reducing their automatic innacruacy some. I think i'd prefer the later.
i played some games of BA now, last few on CC redux and it feels really good. All lvl1 factory units have uses now.
But:
Asolar, 75 E
BuildCostEnergy=1263; = 20M
BuildCostMetal=343;
BuildTime=7945;
Arm fus, 750E
BuildCostEnergy=28846; = 466 M
BuildCostMetal=4004;
BuildTime=70014;
As we see, fusions are utter crap with cheaper A solars.
10*360 = 3600M for 750 E
4466 for 750E
Oh jsut saw that u intended to improve fus output to 1000, but u forgot to do it?
I would say improve armfus to 1000 and corfus to 1100 (it is 500m more expanseive)
But:
Asolar, 75 E
BuildCostEnergy=1263; = 20M
BuildCostMetal=343;
BuildTime=7945;
Arm fus, 750E
BuildCostEnergy=28846; = 466 M
BuildCostMetal=4004;
BuildTime=70014;
As we see, fusions are utter crap with cheaper A solars.
10*360 = 3600M for 750 E
4466 for 750E
Oh jsut saw that u intended to improve fus output to 1000, but u forgot to do it?
I would say improve armfus to 1000 and corfus to 1100 (it is 500m more expanseive)
