Balanced Annihilation V5.8

[Pxtl]

I think what happened was that Caydr made the Cruiser into a pure-raid/assault unit, with no depthcharge - really, nice floating tank that mixed in nicely with the L2 boats - the support-boat handled AA and AS, the Battleship provided anti-naval artillery/fire support, and the missile boat provided anti-land bombardment. The catch was that the support-boats were easy to spam made preventing air and sub attacks trivial.

Then, after the depthcharge was put back, the Cruiser became overpowered. You don't need long-ranged fire-support when you can just brawl right in with Cruisers, and you don't have to worry about subs either.

[SLizer]

Thank god people dont use banishers.
Playing against someone who uses Banishers good is just >_<
Id like to see a round with two good banisher spammers.

[Saktoth]

Krogoth, while cost is certainly an issue (Cruiser is just plain old OP), even if it was more reasonably costed its still too versatile, its a destroyer and a corvette in 1. There are more ships at t2, so they should have more narrow roles, not broader ones.

A new, separate depthcharge ship would solve that problem of 'where to put the depthcharges'. It also means you can still target it aggressively, take it out, then do a sub attack on his undefended fleet. Ive said as much to Noize but i know its against BA's policy of 'Feature complete, tweaks only', which is reasonable (Even if that philosophy isnt apt for super-broken t2 sea).

[[Krogoth86]]

@Saktoth:
Another option would be to remove the decklaser. Here also the "no changes in BA rule" is not applicable as the laser also was removed from the destroyers when creating BA so also taking it away from the cruisers is a viable options. Together with a decent cost increase it might be fair then...

Concerning the role I think the cruisers are principally right - imo it's more or less a "support ship" for your forces aiming at anti-ground / anti-sea (with no subs) and pretty much being the shield against some underwater force that might be there whatsoever but is believed to be not very strong (because you would have to use sub hunters then). That might also be the reason as to why its depthcharges got better in BA...

I also wouldn't like the idea of a "depthcharge ship" - I'd even prefer nothing then and just staying with subs. It's just a too specific role which the subs are already taking care of. So imo the cruisers should keep their depthcharges as a pretty much limited sub defense...

[Saktoth]

Removing the decklaser makes it essentially a t2 destroyer. That is frightfully unineresting, makes the destroyer irrelevant, and just duplicates the gameplay of t1 with a 'bigger t2 counterpart'. Bad design. It also leaves you without a t2 Corvette equivalent to take on hovercraft (Though since hovercraft dont have t2 options, perhaps they dont need a t2 counter).

Its depthcharges didnt get better, it hasnt changed from AA 2.2 when the deptcharge was given back to the Cruiser. Unless you mean since OTA...

As for a 'Depthcharge ship' the Archer used to be exactly that, nothing but depthcharges and AA. Which would explain why the cruiser is OP but the archer is UP, as the weapons were just transferred across to the cruiser from the archer with no other changes.

Thats right folks. Since AA 2.11, the only thing thats changed between the Archer and the Cruiser up until this very day is that the archer lost its Depthcharge, and the Cruiser acquired it. Not a single other stat has changed. Gogo caydr. >_>

Subs do not fill the role of anti sub any more than flash fill the role of anti-flash (or bulldogs anti-bulldog or stumpy anti-stumpy etc). In fact, less so. Subs (Yes, even the 'advanced subs'- OTA's 'sub killers') actually do dramatically less damage to other subs compared to what they do to ships. The damage on a torp from an adv sub is 750, but only 184 to other subs. On the t1 sub its the same, 600 to 150 vs subs.

This means that in a firefight between, say, an adv sub and a cruiser on each side, you'd be better off making your sub hit his cruiser and your cruiser hit his sub, because your subs only doing 1/4th of its damage when its attacking the other sub.

Either way, an anti-sub-sub isnt the best idea. It requires a lot of special damages to be used and when the counter to subs is sub-countering subs, how do you counter sub-countering subs? More subs? Not-subs (Then the adv sub would have to be useless vs ships by design)?

[[Krogoth86]]

Removing the decklaser makes it essentially a t2 destroyer. That is frightfully unineresting, makes the destroyer irrelevant, and just duplicates the gameplay of t1 with a 'bigger t2 counterpart'. Bad design.

Well why is an upgraded counterpart bad design? Also it doesn't duplicate T1 gameplay as you have much more other ships on T2 to combine with and so gives the Cruiser a role of a supporter rather than the T1 allrounder role. So in fact gameplay would be different than on T1 and away from the current T2 gameplay as now things like a Millenium make more sense but need protection (ok they need that now too but you know what I mean )...

Its depthcharges didnt get better, it hasnt changed from AA 2.2 when the deptcharge was given back to the Cruiser. Unless you mean since OTA...

Well I was looking at the 2.3 Beta as there the depthcharges deal only half the damage against ships which might not be such a bad idea in the end...

This means that in a firefight between, say, an adv sub and a cruiser on each side, you'd be better off making your sub hit his cruiser and your cruiser hit his sub, because your subs only doing 1/4th of its damage when its attacking the other sub.

Which is a bit strange imo...

Either way, an anti-sub-sub isnt the best idea. It requires a lot of special damages to be used and when the counter to subs is sub-countering subs, how do you counter sub-countering subs? More subs? Not-subs (Then the adv sub would have to be useless vs ships by design)?

I was referring to Piranha / Shark as they where called Sub Hunters in OTA - so no additional sub...

[Saktoth]

Well I was looking at the 2.3 Beta as there the depthcharges deal only half the damage against ships which might not be such a bad idea in the end...

A change made after the fork.

I was referring to Piranha / Shark as they where called Sub Hunters in OTA - so no additional sub...

Yes, as i said at length, the 'sub hunter' from OTA is a 'adv sub' (just a better sub) in BA. There is no anti-sub unit. The closest you get is a torpedo launcher, and even it is outclassed by adv subs.

[LordMatt]

Well as Saktoth points out, lvl 2 sea is not well balanced (as it hasn't been changed from AA stats) and thus is a little more open for changes than other areas of BA. That being said, opinions from nubs are still not wanted. I am pushing the anti-sub sub idea (I do not think we should add another ship when OTA had a unit for this specific purpose), along with the following options for nerfing the cruiser:
1) Remove deck laser and depthcharge
2) Remove deck laser and revert depth charge to ~OTA stats, or about as good as the destroyer's depthcharge.

Even without the deck laser, the cruiser will still be good vs hovercrafts because its plasma cannon shot velocity is so high that it always hits. Besides, I think we need to balance lvl2 sea such that lvl 1 units are still useful and needed, just like land has been balanced. Thus corvettes will still be useful for countering hovers, destroyers for countering subs, and lvl 1 subs for assaulting fleets, skeets for AA... Also, the larger advanced subs should be balanced so that, with the cruiser, they are an important part of the lvl 2 fleet. That is, cruisers, sub killers, and AA ships would be best at protecting one's fleet, subs, advanced subs, and battleships would be best at destroying fleets, and battleships, missile ships, perhaps advanced subs would be best at assaulting any kind of base. This scheme has the benefit of allowing all the other units to be given specific roles. Anti-sub subs will still die to depth charges and torpedo tubes and bombers, but will simply be resistant to other sub's torpedoes. Special damages are not ideal, but in this case I think they will make for a better game (after all, we have flak resistant gunships, which serve no purpose whatsoever ).

[[Krogoth86]]

Well I'd like to see the Piranhas / Sharks be Sub Hunters again while the Adv. Subs are against ships. Though I don't think there is a need to make the hunters get less damage from torpedos. The anti-sub-torpedos should do the extra damage on all subs - otherwise a fight Anti-Sub-Sub vs. Anti-Sub-Sub would be kinda strange...

[LordMatt]

Well I'd like to see the Piranhas / Sharks be Sub Hunters again while the Adv. Subs are against ships. Though I don't think there is a need to make the hunters get less damage from torpedos. The anti-sub-torpedos should do the extra damage on all subs - otherwise a fight Anti-Sub-Sub vs. Anti-Sub-Sub would be kinda strange...

Or they could do normal damage because they're attacking subs. I didn't suggest that anti sub subs do more damage, but rather that they be resistant to other subs torpedos. I'm not sure which implementation would be best, whichever is simplest probably.

[[Krogoth86]]

Well if the Sub Hunters would be pretty much immune to ALL torpedoes it would be a bit lame when hunters fight hunters...
You now could make em receive damage only by depthcharges and anti-sub-torpedos but that on the one side would be more work as you would have to give the hunters a new class etc. and on the other side be somewhat "unrealistic" as to why you don't just coat the bottom side of a Millenium or Warlord with just that torpedo armor to make em immune to subs...

[LordMatt]

No one is talking about immune. Simply resistant, such that sub killers could kill several subs before themselves dying. In fleet situations, where there are many distracting targets around, giving the sub killers a target preference of subs, whereas other subs have a target preference of all water things will make them even more effective.

[ginekolog]

I agree that nerfage of cruisers and make sharks sub killers would balance things out nicely. Because ATM mass sharks + some AA+some arttilery subs >>all sea. (from my expirience)

At last discusion moved to some decent level

BTW i will ask again: WHY does BB/timy do 3x damage to ALL ships? atm even 1 BB can kill expensive ships like they are from paper. I would dich this special damage for ships.. its too much imo.

[[Krogoth86]]

No one is talking about immune. Simply resistant, such that sub killers could kill several subs before themselves dying.

Ah ok the resistance misunderstanding again...
Well to say the truth all that has to be done is another weapon-type for the sub hunters because just as you said right now subs take only little damage from other subs. Now the question is do you want to keep it that way and just give the sub hunters another torpedo weapon without that or do you want to remove that in general and just give the sub hunters extra damage...

[BaNa]

Would putting the Depthcharge back onto the Archer be an option? Now the archers are kinda UP, and that way they would be an allround naval support unit, something like what the banisher is for land.

[LordMatt]

Would putting the Depthcharge back onto the Archer be an option? Now the archers are kinda UP, and that way they would be an allround naval support unit, something like what the banisher is for land.

No that was a stupid caydr idea.

BTW i will ask again: WHY does BB/timy do 3x damage to ALL ships? atm even 1 BB can kill expensive ships like they are from paper. I would dich this special damage for ships.. its too much imo.

Dunno, Noize and I were having a discussion about how to counter flagships (in a sillier moment) and that's all he came up with. Perhaps because of the improvement in BB/timy accuracies this special damage should be removed, as they are much more likely to actually hit the ships now.

[Pxtl]

Well, the question is whether you're goint to rebalance L2 sea, or restructure it. Personally, I don't think L2 sea is salveagable as a stand-alone force. There is no corvette, which fills a key role at L1 for example.

Personally, I can see two ways to restructure L2:
1) Make it into a pantomime of L1. By that logic, the cruiser becomes the corvette (speed boost, no DC), and the battleship(??) gets the depthcharge filling the role as a larger Destroyer. Weird, but it's a layout that worked for L1.

2) Revamp into accommodating L1. Personally, here's how I would go: in short, buff L1 ships, make the Cruiser into an anti-L1-swarm unit.

Keep L1 relevant in ships the way it is with land-units by nerfing a few L2 ships. The destroyer, scout, L1 sub, and corvette are good units. Keep them in.

Instead, you make the Cruiser into an "Anti-L1-swarm unit" like the Maverick used to be. Longer ranged (including a long-ranged DC), longer sight, and large blast-radius on it's DC and cannon... but otherwise inefficient against L2 units because of low DPS.

Likewise, I'd set it up such that groups of L1 subs beat groups of L2 subs. They've similar range, but the L1 subs are slower. However, a faster, more concentrated unit (the L2 sub) is still useful, since it can be used to assault long-ranged or retreating targets, like the Corvette and the LR-sub. So the L2 sub becomes the "fast attack" sub.

Thus, you get a nice rock-paper-scissors balance in subs. L1 subs beat L2 subs, and LR subs beat L1 subs, and L2 subs beat LR subs. The destroyer, and cruiser fill similar niches in sub-world to the L1 and LR subs, respectively, but with their added cannons in the place of their sub-ness.

[LordMatt]

Well, the question is whether you're goint to rebalance L2 sea, or restructure it. Personally, I don't think L2 sea is salveagable as a stand-alone force. There is no corvette, which fills a key role at L1 for example.

Personally, I can see two ways to restructure L2:
1) Make it into a pantomime of L1. By that logic, the cruiser becomes the corvette (speed boost, no DC), and the battleship(??) gets the depthcharge filling the role as a larger Destroyer. Weird, but it's a layout that worked for L1.

2) Revamp into accommodating L1. Personally, here's how I would go: in short, buff L1 ships, make the Cruiser into an anti-L1-swarm unit.

Keep L1 relevant in ships the way it is with land-units by nerfing a few L2 ships. The destroyer, scout, L1 sub, and corvette are good units. Keep them in.

Instead, you make the Cruiser into an "Anti-L1-swarm unit" like the Maverick used to be. Longer ranged (including a long-ranged DC), longer sight, and large blast-radius on it's DC and cannon... but otherwise inefficient against L2 units because of low DPS.

Likewise, I'd set it up such that groups of L1 subs beat groups of L2 subs. They've similar range, but the L1 subs are slower. However, a faster, more concentrated unit (the L2 sub) is still useful, since it can be used to assault long-ranged or retreating targets, like the Corvette and the LR-sub. So the L2 sub becomes the "fast attack" sub.

Thus, you get a nice rock-paper-scissors balance in subs. L1 subs beat L2 subs, and LR subs beat L1 subs, and L2 subs beat LR subs. The destroyer, and cruiser fill similar niches in sub-world to the L1 and LR subs, respectively, but with their added cannons in the place of their sub-ness.

noe

[1v0ry_k1ng]

the l2 sub is meant to counter l1 subs by being fast and capable of dodging torps easy, whilst having torps that are impossible for other subs to avoid

[Evil4Zerggin]

ginekolog:

Regarding your strategy:
a) What do you do against hovers? (IMO hovers are the main reason Cruisers > Advanced Subs at the moment, but that's a problem with Cruisers, not hovers.)
b) Do arty subs really work very well? I mean, they cost as much as 3 Cruisers or about 3.5 Advanced Subs. They don't seem to do enough damage for their cost to be viable fire-support, and they aren't particularly good against static defense either (it seems they wouldn't be able to outrange Advanced Torpedo Launchers easily, not that ATLs are very efficient anyhow, and both Cruisers and Advanced Subs outrange all T1 statics already).

I do agree that LRPC damage to ships is ridiculous at the moment.