Spring RTS Engine

That seems a bit low, a L1 bomber can do about 1000 damage in a single run.

Caydr wrote:That seems a bit low, a L1 bomber can do about 1000 damage in a single run.

after testing, when attacking fusions and adv fusions L1 bombers do about 600-700 per run and L2 bombers do about 1200-300. To be honest, I think a Fusion should be protected by plenty of AA, and hopefully hidden in a spot so the enemy can bomb it at his leisure. Therefore if you let 3 or 4 bombers get far enough to drop bombs on it, it should blow up.

jackalope wrote:

neddiedrow wrote:I'd still build them at half the hit points.

well you should still want to build them, but they should go down easily to bombers. Build something that huge a boost towards your economy should be risky, they should blow up easily and big IMO. Maybe something like 1000-2000 health for regular fusions and 4000 for advanced.

+1 I agree bombing these is a pain. In OTA they died pretty quick.

I haven't been on the forums much lately, but I checked out the new AA version. I have some comments on the new naval balance:

In general, I like the changes (removing some units, no sonar jamming, reverting AA-ship to AA-ship only, etc.) However:

1) The range and height of attack on the missile ship is too much. This unit is REALLY aggravating to deal with in a ship vs. ship battle, they may not cause a lot of damage to a mobile force, but it is very irritating. Since the missiles are so slow, they are most effective vs. static defense/shore bombardment. In a shore assault, these shoot so lar inland it negates the point of making amphibious units (in most sea maps anyway). Basically, I'm not sure what the "role" of this unit is.

My suggestion is to drop the range to be comparable with a battleship. Make the missile velocity/travel time much faster so it is better for ship-2-ship fights. To make it a bit more exciting, you could make it shoot much faster, but do less damage. I think this ship worked well when it was closer to OTA.

If you wan't to KEEP the bombardment capacity in AA, I would suggest making a new unit as follows: a very expensive "sub" that surfaces to fire ICBM missiles inland. It would be vulnerable to surface firing when shooting. Basically, it should work like the tactical nuke launcher (cue up missiles) but be in a sub.

2) The core cruiser (executioner) was my favorite TA unit. Can you please take the laser off of this and give it a proper cannon back? I also think the range for all cruisers needs a boost (maybe around 900/950) so its closer to a BS ship type range. The difference b/w the destoryer and cruiser is not significant enough to really make cruisers that useful of a unit.

Think of the cruisers having a longer range, firing faster (do less damage) but better vs. medium speed ships, while the battleship cannon does much more damage, but the velocity is lower, making it better as a bombardment unit and for taking down slower ships.

3) subs need to be better vs. ships and take less depth change damage "from ships" (not from static launchers). In an all ship fight, the DC equiped ships seem to beat the subs back witout too many losses. The DC's should be a backup to needing your own contingent of subs. Basically, pushing sub tactics doesn't work b/c what they are supposed to kill, kills the subs too easily instead.

Peekaboom wrote: 1) [/b]The range and height of attack on the missile ship is too much. This unit is REALLY aggravating to deal with in a ship vs. ship battle, they may not cause a lot of damage to a mobile force, but it is very irritating. Since the missiles are so slow, they are most effective vs. static defense/shore bombardment. In a shore assault, these shoot so lar inland it negates the point of making amphibious units (in most sea maps anyway). Basically, I'm not sure what the "role" of this unit is.

My suggestion is to drop the range to be comparable with a battleship. Make the missile velocity/travel time much faster so it is better for ship-2-ship fights. To make it a bit more exciting, you could make it shoot much faster, but do less damage. I think this ship worked well when it was closer to OTA.

If you wan't to KEEP the bombardment capacity in AA, I would suggest making a new unit as follows: a very expensive "sub" that surfaces to fire ICBM missiles inland. It would be vulnerable to surface firing when shooting. Basically, it should work like the tactical nuke launcher (cue up missiles) but be in a sub.

-1 The missle ship is fine as is if used properly.

-1 The missle ship is fine as is if used properly.

What does that mean? As someone USING the missile ship, I'm saying its too good.

I do agree, the missile ship has always been an issue in my opinion... it's not horribly expensive, and on mixed maps is fairly easy to abuse.

neddiedrow wrote:I do agree, the missile ship has always been an issue in my opinion... it's not horribly expensive, and on mixed maps is fairly easy to abuse.

Agree in a way. The missile ship is very powerful, but it can be taken down easily with some hovertanks. If enough support has been bought to defeat hovertanks, it's like the missing LRPC ship with shorter range and the owner probably deserves to be bombarding the base. However, it is too cheap/too fast to build currently that means that even with a not amazing economy, it isn't too hard to spam them. Stats: CORE and ARM. For comparison ARM Battleship. It's cost doesn't fit what it does really.

But take whatever I say with a pinch of salt as I am not a good player.

BTW, its not an engine thing, its a selectkeys.txt thing. raneti, if you want you can manually go to selectkeys.txt and add the nanotowers to an "exclude" category for the ctrl-b command.

i moved to help section

do not forget that battleship does more than 600 damage per sec and misslie ship only 130.

Missile ship is fine after big nerf in ~~2.11.


What use does panther have btw? Its total crap compared to bulldog and other vehicles. How abut make its lightning cannon dealing more DPS but retain short range?

ginekolog wrote:do not forget that battleship does more than 600 damage per sec and misslie ship only 130.

Missile ship is fine after big nerf in ~~2.11.


What use does panther have btw? Its total crap compared to bulldog and other vehicles. How abut make its lightning cannon dealing more DPS but retain short range?

It has anti-air, so its a kind of support tank I spose.


I havent used them so I cant really say much else.

Its anti air is worthless. I raised this point like 20 pages ago on the old thread. It does 40 dmg per shot (a la 20 missles to kill a gunship), and lowers its usefullness sooo much, because of the cost rise this brings.

well i see them used by decent players so they can't be THAT bad.

panthers are good, mix them in with flashes and bulldogs.
if you manage to break a line they will wreack havoc,
and the AA is always good if your units are getting bombed/strafed by fighters

zomg, stumpy/raider balance is a bit off!

These stats are based on the beta 2.22

Stumpy

BuildCostEnergy=1746;
BuildCostMetal=234;
BuildTime=2904;
MaxDamage=1760;
BrakeRate=0.0198;
Acceleration=0.0187;
MaxVelocity=3.223;
MaxSlope=10;
TurnRate=484;
Weapon1=ARM_LIGHTCANNON;

Raider

BuildCostEnergy=2219;
BuildCostMetal=257;
BuildTime=3446;
MaxDamage=1625;
Acceleration=0.0143;
MaxVelocity=2.783;
MaxSlope=10;
TurnRate=459.8;
Weapon1=ARM_LIGHTCANNON;


So they both got the same weapon, but the raider costs MORE, but moves SLOWER and had LESS hitpoints....

I am fine with the raider being slower but @ least give him more hitpoints and mabye a slightly stronger weapon.....

thats the way uh huh uh huh i like it uh huh. like a gator / flash or flash gator in recent versions (actually probably LESS extreme than those lol)
besides...ARM > CORE ^^ ^-^ \o/

Peekaboom wrote:

-1 The missle ship is fine as is if used properly.

What does that mean? As someone USING the missile ship, I'm saying its too good.

The whole point of the missile ship is shore/defense bombardment. The missile ship is the ONLY high-trajectory firing system available to boats. So if you have a map with high shorelines, the missile ship is your only option - that's why it's popular. Personally, I think this ability is significant enough that Caydr could nerf it's range, up it's cost - and people would still use it.

My only request would be to slow down the missiles or increase it's firing altitude or something so that it's more specifically only to be used for bombarding static targets.... on some maps they can do a decent number on mobile units.

The battleship is low-trajectory, so while it dominates shorelines and other boats, it's useless against high-altitude assaults.

zomg, stumpy/raider balance is a bit off!

Yea, thats strange..
I think the Core Raider should be stronger as in firepower and espeically health while the Arm tank is more agile and faster.
If you look at the models, they seem to fit this style. (the Raider ist basicly a rolling square)

What use does panther have btw? Its total crap compared to bulldog and other vehicles. How abut make its lightning cannon dealing more DPS but retain short range?

I dont usually play ARM in AA but they are similiar in XTA (lighing+weak missle)
I found the missle to be quite good when you have broken through some defense and begin to march through his base. The missle can take out windfarms and other weak stuff drive-by style while the lighing kills the rest...

ok, panther vs bulldog:

bull:
~1000m (combined)
4200hp
180dps @570 range

panter:
400m
1200hp
113 dps @ 300
30 dps @ 600

lets face it, panther lacks. Even LOS buff would help, it inly has 390 los (bull 500)

With better los it would be atleast usefull as lvl2 scout. I would buff its missile a bit though.

oh and why on earth does bull have better acceleration and brake than patnher??

http://froob.iamacup.com/AAmodweb/units_armlatnk.html
http://froob.iamacup.com/AAmodweb/units_armbull.html

With just few tweaks it could become unit with use. Ergo los + acc+ brake.

Pxtl wrote:
Personally, I think this ability is significant enough that Caydr could nerf it's range, up it's cost - and people would still use it.

My only request would be to slow down the missiles or increase it's firing altitude or something so that it's more specifically only to be used for bombarding static targets.... on some maps they can do a decent number on mobile units.

The battleship is low-trajectory, so while it dominates shorelines and other boats, it's useless against high-altitude assaults.

Yes, I agree for the most part. I would like to see the build time for missile ship increased a fair bit, with maybe a slow down in the missile travel time but an increase in damage. That would make them a bit more specical purpose and less spammable.

I do think the huge ranges takes away from using hovercraft/amphibious units to establish a beach head to push inland, because as you said, its range is so huge on many maps it will cover all the land area.

Any thoughts on boosting the range for cruisers (giving the core one a cannon back please!) but maybe droping damage. Right now, they don't have a very clear/effectie role. I much prefered cruisers in OTA with a better range, with mixing in battleships to increase shorter range firepower.

Oh, why is the amphibious complex on the surface now? Shouldn't it be underwater?