Absolute Annihilation 1.5
Moderator: Moderators
Current 1.5
[ARMSMART_TORPEDO]
{
ID=12;
name=SubKillerTorpedo;
reloadtime=2.3;
default=600; = 260 DPS
L1SUBS=300;
L2SUBS=300;
L3SUBS=300; = 130 DPS
Levitan has this stats:
reloadtime=8;
default=1000; = 125 DPS
L1SUBS=500;
L2SUBS=450;
L3SUBS=450; = 56 DPS
I think with new changes (eg making levi slow as hell) balance could work, although i would still increase damage from 300 to maybe 450 against lvl3 subs. Smart player will protect levis with antisub ships and might be very hard to break levi/archer/destroyer combo.
[ARMSMART_TORPEDO]
{
ID=12;
name=SubKillerTorpedo;
reloadtime=2.3;
default=600; = 260 DPS
L1SUBS=300;
L2SUBS=300;
L3SUBS=300; = 130 DPS
Levitan has this stats:
reloadtime=8;
default=1000; = 125 DPS
L1SUBS=500;
L2SUBS=450;
L3SUBS=450; = 56 DPS
I think with new changes (eg making levi slow as hell) balance could work, although i would still increase damage from 300 to maybe 450 against lvl3 subs. Smart player will protect levis with antisub ships and might be very hard to break levi/archer/destroyer combo.
That's nice to see - subkillers devastate Levis in DPS, and I assume L1 subs are even more extreme once you normalize against their low cost. The Levi advantage is range.ginekolog wrote:Current 1.5
[ARMSMART_TORPEDO]
{
ID=12;
name=SubKillerTorpedo;
reloadtime=2.3;
default=600; = 260 DPS
L1SUBS=300;
L2SUBS=300;
L3SUBS=300; = 130 DPS
Levitan has this stats:
reloadtime=8;
default=1000; = 125 DPS
L1SUBS=500;
L2SUBS=450;
L3SUBS=450; = 56 DPS
I think with new changes (eg making levi slow as hell) balance could work, although i would still increase damage from 300 to maybe 450 against lvl3 subs. Smart player will protect levis with antisub ships and might be very hard to break levi/archer/destroyer combo.
Konane wrote:I agree, leave cruisers alone, they were fine IMO.FireCrack wrote:If cruisers dont have their ASW opttion, what on earth are thy good for?
Yup cruisers were just fine, once you had just 1 at a fraction of the cost of other lvl2 ships with that kind of range that meant that you could nearly obliterate any defences short of a Land based Annihilator and probably even that as well and never take a scratch, and btw it has antiair rockets to boot.
What do you think the Archers are for?
AA ships are fine and well used as they are now. Cruisers may be unbalanced, but cutting its depthcharge completely and attaching it to AA ship is just stupid IMO. Cruiser has always been some kind of all-purpouse ship. If it needs a nerf fine, but dont change its role completely.
So if you get attacked by a mixed force of subs/ships(especially now wih that long range L3 subs) you will now have to rush aa ships in front to deal with subs and get obliterated by any surface fire?
So if you get attacked by a mixed force of subs/ships(especially now wih that long range L3 subs) you will now have to rush aa ships in front to deal with subs and get obliterated by any surface fire?
Cruiser should be beefier Destroyers. Thtas why they need the ASW weapon.
The range of their guns shouldnt be on par with a missile or bombardment ship.
I think their cost would be fine if they cost half as much as a l2 submarine, or only one third.
ASW on AA ships is not advisable.
Personally, the best solution of the surface vs submerged vessels problem would e to turn the sub-killer-sub into a real threat for subs, and perhaps make the lvl 1 sub into that role too, so it will fare bad agianst shipyard and surface vessels.
The lvl 2 and 3 std subs would then be the counter to large forces of surface vessels, and the surface vessels would kill the su killers of lvl 1 and 2.
The range of their guns shouldnt be on par with a missile or bombardment ship.
I think their cost would be fine if they cost half as much as a l2 submarine, or only one third.
ASW on AA ships is not advisable.
Personally, the best solution of the surface vs submerged vessels problem would e to turn the sub-killer-sub into a real threat for subs, and perhaps make the lvl 1 sub into that role too, so it will fare bad agianst shipyard and surface vessels.
The lvl 2 and 3 std subs would then be the counter to large forces of surface vessels, and the surface vessels would kill the su killers of lvl 1 and 2.
There's a misunderstanding here somewhere. Cruisers getting a depth charge at all in AA is a relatively recent thing.
Destroyers = multipurpose, but mainly for killing subs (I'm increasing their sonar and depth charge range to reflect this). Think of it as a Samson or Panther.
Battleships = land bombardment, and it's a freaking battleship. It kills stuff and makes it look easy. Expensive! Think of it as a Goliath.
Cruisers = anti-everything-that-floats. It's supposed to be more cost effective than a battleship if all you want to do is fight a naval battle. They also maneuver more easily, so they don't get bunched up/swarmed as easily as battleships. Essentially, this is the king of the seas, but not up to much in terms of land attack/beachhead clearing. Think of it as a Flash.
Bombardment ships - same role as land artillery. Not capable of standing to fight on their own because of low HP and inaccuracy. Like a Luger or whatever.
Support ships - designed to make up for most other boats' failings; it has good HP, reasonable cost, quick and maneuverable (not right now, but that's an oversight), and designed to effectively eliminate the threat of sub attacks in the same way and to the same extent it effectively prohibits air attacks. These CAN be overwhelmed by large numbers of subs, the same as they can with aircraft, but it'll be very costly.
Comparing current costs...
Destroyer: 4537/898/13391
Cruiser: 8608/1719/17789
Battleship:20731/5181/58730
Support Ship:17058/1358/18628
L2 Sub: 5481/1448/17767
L3 Sub: 13702/3896/49087
Cruiser's cost will, of course, come down a little bit as a result of it having this reduced firepower.
Destroyers = multipurpose, but mainly for killing subs (I'm increasing their sonar and depth charge range to reflect this). Think of it as a Samson or Panther.
Battleships = land bombardment, and it's a freaking battleship. It kills stuff and makes it look easy. Expensive! Think of it as a Goliath.
Cruisers = anti-everything-that-floats. It's supposed to be more cost effective than a battleship if all you want to do is fight a naval battle. They also maneuver more easily, so they don't get bunched up/swarmed as easily as battleships. Essentially, this is the king of the seas, but not up to much in terms of land attack/beachhead clearing. Think of it as a Flash.
Bombardment ships - same role as land artillery. Not capable of standing to fight on their own because of low HP and inaccuracy. Like a Luger or whatever.
Support ships - designed to make up for most other boats' failings; it has good HP, reasonable cost, quick and maneuverable (not right now, but that's an oversight), and designed to effectively eliminate the threat of sub attacks in the same way and to the same extent it effectively prohibits air attacks. These CAN be overwhelmed by large numbers of subs, the same as they can with aircraft, but it'll be very costly.
Comparing current costs...
Destroyer: 4537/898/13391
Cruiser: 8608/1719/17789
Battleship:20731/5181/58730
Support Ship:17058/1358/18628
L2 Sub: 5481/1448/17767
L3 Sub: 13702/3896/49087
Cruiser's cost will, of course, come down a little bit as a result of it having this reduced firepower.
Last edited by Caydr on 13 Jun 2006, 15:52, edited 2 times in total.
Odd that you should mention that, another guy said Rapiers were in trouble in TASClient. So we did a quick playtest and I'll be boosting their rocket movement speed a bit and improving their (negligible) tracking a little.
Could've sworn I wrote that down somewhere but it's nowhere in sight.
Anyway, if the cruiser/anti-air ship changes are univerally hated, there's no trouble to do a revert. But I think the idea has potential. Don't hate it just because it's not what you're used to.
Could've sworn I wrote that down somewhere but it's nowhere in sight.
Anyway, if the cruiser/anti-air ship changes are univerally hated, there's no trouble to do a revert. But I think the idea has potential. Don't hate it just because it's not what you're used to.
I'm willing to give it a try - provided the support ship is actually decent at taking down subs like you said. It could stop people from massing subs only, since they could be countered by massing support ships in the same way as you can counter massed aircraft with lots of AA. Sounds like something worth investigating to meCaydr wrote: Anyway, if the cruiser/anti-air ship changes are univerally hated, there's no trouble to do a revert. But I think the idea has potential. Don't hate it just because it's not what you're used to.
Yeah, one of the reasons nobody plays as Arm vehicles, tone down FARKs or get rid of them.Min3mat wrote:i could say the same about ARM vehicles, i'd rather have FARKs/T2 CORE veh cons than consuls/freakersI say give Freakers or the level 2 Core con kbots more building power.
its designed to be that way you know!