Absolute Annihilation: Spring 1.46

BigSteve · Post by **BigSteve** » 07 Mar 2006, 21:46

sounds a-ok to monsieur Grande etienne

Zenka · Post by **Zenka** » 07 Mar 2006, 21:46

aye, half loading range would be a good solution.
Here is a game as example (this time I felt for it).
http://lassie.student.utwente.nl/vliet/ ... 0.70b2.sdf

ginekolog · Post by **ginekolog** » 07 Mar 2006, 22:14

i agree just reduce hover transports load radius and its fine.

Belmakor · Post by **Belmakor** » 07 Mar 2006, 23:35

I haven't been following the thread, so excuse me if this has already been discussed, but...

Caydr wrote:
Code: Select all
metal generators
  removed

Noooooo! If you are referring to those buildings that produce "free" metal (1.5 per tick) with no energy usage - they are very useful on those maps that have little to no metal, as they provide a good bridge as a lvl 2 economy is being built up. I use them all the time!

Andreask · Post by **Andreask** » 07 Mar 2006, 23:49

Option B would be awesome.

Also, why would you want to perk AA-Ships? Last time i heard there was a consensual agreement that ships are overpowered or at least powerful enough.

Why should subs be hindered when killing AA-ships? Just send a few cruisers to cover the AA.

Archangel of Death · Post by **Archangel of Death** » 08 Mar 2006, 00:09

Andreask wrote:...

Also, why would you want to perk AA-Ships? Last time i heard there was a consensual agreement that ships are overpowered or at least powerful enough.

Why should subs be hindered when killing AA-ships? Just send a few cruisers to cover the AA.

The change is bigger than just that. Cruisers are being changed to a purely primary taskforce attack unit, the staple ship to ship combatant. AA ships are being changed into general fleet support ships, providing protection from AA and subs. Before, the depthcharge on Cruisers was virtually useless, and they weren't all that great in any other way either. With the other changes, they now will be useful in the ship to ship role. But rather than give them a useful depthcharge as well, which would make them touchable only by air if a light AA screen is neglected, the depth charge was given to the AA ship, making bringing them in your balanced fleet much more desirable (rather than a dozen lvl 1 fighters). Also, those little AA ships are much more maneuverable than the cruisers, so they can be out actually killing the subs instead of spinning in circles try to work their way past the battleships while the torpedos pour in, yes?

Belmakor · Post by **Belmakor** » 08 Mar 2006, 00:15

Ok, I went back and read the thread, especially the stuff re metal generators. In light of all the comments, I'm wondering why the changelog still reflects the plan to remove them?

1.5 metal per tick (IIRC) and they take a while to build, and to get a decent metal production from them you have to build LOTS, which takes up a large amount of space, etc.

do

not

remove

metal

generators

(please)

FizWizz · Post by **FizWizz** » 08 Mar 2006, 01:08

Belmakor wrote:Ok, I went back and read the thread, especially the stuff re metal generators. In light of all the comments, I'm wondering why the changelog still reflects the plan to remove them?. . . . .

Perhaps you missed Ginekelog's quote:

ginekolog wrote:i made some calculations abaut MM vs MG using combined costs(e+m)

. . . . .

We see that MG is allmost 1.5 times (or 50%) better than MM.

MG is atm great unit for economy, its only ~30% worse than moho mine.

Remove MG or increase its cost for 30%.

It's on the very bottom of page 10

Dragon45 · Post by **Dragon45** » 08 Mar 2006, 01:12

Caydr, saying that just using air trans with group-uonload will be sufficient for *all* situations is not right at all. What if they have AA? What if they have heavy air-to-air cover? It's times like this when hover tr5ansports come in useful for transporting things over.

I think that halving range would be a better solution that removing them entirely.

PS, have you thought about incorporating those two Aftermath Design underwater amphibious transports, the Mantis and the Scorpion, into AA's UW/adv veh factories? ^_^ More option sfor more situations...

FizWizz · Post by **FizWizz** » 08 Mar 2006, 01:15

Dragon45 wrote:....
PS, have you thought about incorporating those two Aftermath Design underwater amphibious transports, the Mantis and the Scorpion, into AA's UW/adv veh factories? ^_^ More option sfor more situations...

umm, I think Caydr is trying his best not to be superfluous about the units added.

Andreask · Post by **Andreask** » 08 Mar 2006, 03:41

Archangel of Death wrote:
Andreask wrote:[...]
The change is bigger than just that. Cruisers are being changed to a purely primary taskforce attack unit, the staple ship to ship combatant. AA ships are being changed into general fleet support ships, providing protection from AA and subs.

What i read there is:

Cruiser will WTFPWN any surface vessel from now on, cost for cost.
AA-ships will continue to WTFPWN all Air AND additionally be able to fill the role of the nimble sub-killers (sharks and their equivalents).

So, from then on, my fleet of Cruisers and AA-Ships will first WTFPWN your slow Subs , then your air, then any ships you might have, and right after that i get your shipyard. After that, ill eat the piece of cake thats left.

I played a few hundred games until now, many of them on water-maps, and i have yet to see a battle where there is a longer ship-tp-ship fight.

Besically its juast a "who takes out the enemy shipyards first?" contest, and the winner sets up patrols around the coasts, denying his foe any water units, and thus crippling him, as AA-ships WTFPWN Air and will comtinue to do so.

Dragon45 · Post by **Dragon45** » 08 Mar 2006, 04:09

So basically subs will be useless

Sonar jamming is nonfunctional in Spring (and Core doesnt have a sonar jamming sub anyway). As it is, a single L1/L0 sonar station can basically render sub sneak attacks useless, and a 600 metal L1 torpedo launcher can annihlate 1500 metal worth of subs... By giving everybody and their brother uber anti-sub capabilities, you're not only eliminating any hope of subs actually being used, not to mention rendering the amphibious complex basically useless if subs cant cover shit coming out of it anymore.

Caydr · Post by **Caydr** » 08 Mar 2006, 04:24

Don't Panic.

Journier · Post by **Journier** » 08 Mar 2006, 05:17

hi caydr and everyone.

I got a few suggestions on the proposed mod changes.

Caydr first off great mod so far, I really liked 1.44 but heres some of my suggestions

#1 For the Metal Mine, i believe a .35 metal rate would be perfect for this next coming release, to see how it feels. 4 might screw it up and bring us back to the tech 2 rushing asap.

#2 pitbulls are worse then the HLT in almost everyway, price is more, hp is less, dps I think is slightly higher, range is slightly higher.

Can you please give the pitbulls a DPS increase and a hitpoints increase?

I think something like 500 hitpoints over an HLT's hitpoints then a slight DPS increase. Right now they are worthless compared to hlt :/ they die quickly to anything that gets in range.

#3 nwhy did you just nerf the tac nuke? the tac nuke "after testing vs the cruise missile building" Costs more, has less range and doesnt even do that much more dmg or area of effect when it hits. Its almost identical to the cruise missile.

The things speed was at a crawl actually already. But i dont really care about its speed I care about its useful ness, and speed wasnt one of its big issues.

After bitching about catapults i checked out how the tac nuke actually did, and it actually sucks :/ it costs more than the Cruise Missile building etc.

My whole thing is, the tac nuke launcher has almost no bonus compared to building a cruise missile building but costs more :/ quite a bit more i think, like 3,000 metal i forget now its around 3k metal. the cruise missile building is 1900 metal. I dont think it really needs an increase in anything but needs a decrease in cost

fair difference in cost there i believe. Let me know. I think thats all i got arguements with right now :)

thanks for the great mod caydr.

Zenka · Post by **Zenka** » 08 Mar 2006, 07:59

Isn't the damage an tactical nuke provided far greater then a cruize missle?

I agree on the pitbull point. HLT are is most ways better and cheaper (and tech 1). Compared to the core viper, pit bulls are eating dust. (I stand by arm glory)

.funkymp · Post by **.funkymp** » 08 Mar 2006, 08:45

why the hover transport nerf? just leave them as they are, no 1 actually gave a crap about them till about 2 weeks back.
they emp pretty easy, so just freeze the bugger then pummel it - problem solved

removing the ability to transport commanders wont work, as some people atlas there comms around the map to save them walking on larger maps, if that ability goes it'll annoy a few people

Forboding Angel · Post by **Forboding Angel** » 08 Mar 2006, 09:34

I have a proposed change to the decoy comm...

Give him the commanders build unit list. No sense why the decoy comm costs so much and can't build what the comm can.

Unless I'm totally mistaken.

BTW I am FIRMLY AGAINST THE MOHO MEX CHANGE!. I love it now because I don't have to worry about going lv 2 so soon. It is perfect imo as it is. Please no. maybe the 3.5 that journier suggested? I really don't wanna rush for level 2 ever again. I really love it the way it is.

MG's should be removed imo.

NOiZE · Post by **NOiZE** » 08 Mar 2006, 09:58

Forboding Angel wrote:I have a proposed change to the decoy comm...

Give him the commanders build unit list. No sense why the decoy comm costs so much and can't build what the comm can.

Unless I'm totally mistaken.

BTW I am FIRMLY AGAINST THE MOHO MEX CHANGE!. I love it now because I don't have to worry about going lv 2 so soon. It is perfect imo as it is. Please no. maybe the 3.5 that journier suggested? I really don't wanna rush for level 2 ever again. I really love it the way it is.

MG's should be removed imo.

i agree here

.funkymp · Post by **.funkymp** » 08 Mar 2006, 11:03

Forboding Angel wrote:I have a proposed change to the decoy comm...

Give him the commanders build unit list. No sense why the decoy comm costs so much and can't build what the comm can.

Unless I'm totally mistaken.

the decoy comm sucks so much at building, spec'd a game on metal heck where zenka had a decoy build some solars - he build about 6 solars in 5mins or something crazy

in all honesty, i dont see why the decoy comm should actually have a build menu at all - unless his nano is sped up a bit, he's just there so that the enemy thinks its your main commander.

Torrasque · Post by **Torrasque** » 08 Mar 2006, 11:38

What do you think about having the commander leave 2 piece of 7500 metal instead of one of 15000?
It would help to come back after a com bombing/rush.
Though, it perhpas raise other problem.

Spring RTS Engine

Absolute Annihilation: Spring 1.46