Spring RTS Engine

Wombat wrote:u just make torp which repaired by com is epic rape at the beginning of the game and can be killed usually just with destroyer. simple as that. my opinion is that sea is op but i think its the matter of maps, not navy itself

Oh noes, sea is overpowered on sea maps...

Starting torp is suicide. You'll be safe in your little shipyard zone, but your adversary will own the ocean, and will obliterate your little torpedo launcher with a destroyer at their leisure.

Skeeter rush is GOOD, you assert? Well, all my reasoned argument is nothing in the face of bald assertations. I concede. Skeeter rush must be OP. You are the pros at this clearly, i bow to your superior skills. I would love to play some of you some time so i can learn your strategies and get good at sea.

Saktoth wrote:Skeeter rush is GOOD, you assert? Well, all my reasoned argument is nothing in the face of bald assertations. I concede. Skeeter rush must be OP. You are the pros at this clearly, i bow to your superior skills. I would love to play some of you some time so i can learn your strategies and get good at sea.

I'm not saying that skeeter rush is the winning strat - obviously it fails as a continued strategy. I just mean that every player cranks out a couple of skeeters as their starting unit, and if those skeeters defeat the enemy skeeters and start chewing up the tidals... well, that kind of sucks for a newbie. On land, this problem doesn't exist because you can plonk down an LLT if you're not sure you can handle your jeffies well enough, not to mention the laser on your comm.

Remember that skeeter costs about as much as a flash... So spamming many does put you behind very fast, even if you bring down a tidal or 2.

Yeah getting raped as a newbie right on the start sucks, but that can happen on land as well. Even if you put down that llt chances are a newbie wont know a good placement.

sea is balanced pretty well in BA, at least for 1v1 at a tier 1 level

BA tier 2 is not balanced for competitive play at all,sea included.

Wombat wrote:

YokoZar wrote:Sea eco is just about as efficient as land eco, and that's not even counting the advanced fusion

definitely underwater fus, best mms, and tidals which are best t1 e source on probably all maps with water is not advantage... not at all. also i have never seen t2 water eco chain. leave sea alone already, try to beat water guy in ffa, then say sea is weak...

http://modinfo.adune.nl/index.php?act=e ... &MOD=ba685
http://modinfo.adune.nl/index.php?act=e ... &MOD=ba685

Arm fusion e production: 1000
Arm underwater fusion e production: 1200

Arm fusion m cost: 4004 (4 metal per energy)
Arm underwater fusion m cost:4668 (3.89 metal per energy)

Arm fusion e cost: 19846 (19.8 energy per energy)
Arm underwater fusion e cost: 31429 (26.19 energy per energy)

Using 1m = 60 energy, they both have an efficiency of about 260 cost per energy produced. The advanced fusion, by comarison, has about 200, and moho geo gets down below 130. It's a similar story for the moho metal makers - they have better ratios in the sea, but substantially higher initial cost in metal.


The real sea econ advantage comes from the t1 floating metal maker, con ship, and tidal generator. When the tide is 21 or higher it's more efficient to build tidals then fusion plants (although this occurs for arm windmills at 9 wind too, which is also common).


Weird bit of trivia: spamming idle construction ships gives you a more efficient economy than building basic solars.

My new theory is that sea eco is better precisely because people don't overbuild nanos and instead build construction ships. They cost about 40 more, but for that price you get +25 energy, +.3 metal, 50 extra build power, and mobility.

YokoZar wrote:Weird bit of trivia: spamming idle construction ships gives you a more efficient economy than building basic solars.

My new theory is that sea eco is better precisely because people don't overbuild nanos and instead build construction ships. They cost about 40 more, but for that price you get +25 energy, +.3 metal, 50 extra build power, and mobility.

Didn't realize that. That's insane.

efficiency doesnt always equal m efficiency.

This is why BA needs _thorough_ unit descriptions in-game. And not just "metal output is X and energy is Y" but qualitative explanations "This unit is the best nanolathe in the game, and is a more efficient energy-generator than a basic solar-panel".

Pxtl wrote:This is why BA needs _thorough_ unit descriptions in-game. And not just "metal output is X and energy is Y" but qualitative explanations "This unit is the best nanolathe in the game, and is a more efficient energy-generator than a basic solar-panel".

Another bit of trivia: if the tide is less than or equal to 12 it's more efficient to make construction ships.

define efficiency maybe

flop wrote:sea is balanced pretty well in BA, at least for 1v1 at a tier 1 level

i think you mean sands of war

Sea sucks, for cost. Then again, sea sucked for cost in OTA, too. When you figure in how much less firepower-per-square you get from Sea units, it's obvious just how much they suck, given their low range. Probably the best real way to fix it is to double most of the weapon ranges for Sea, but leave them the same otherwise. Then they would usually win vs. hovers, given some radar support, be less vulnerable vs. air, and could give real support to attempts to land ground forces, without radically altering their economy, etc.

Oh, and subs? Sub balance sucks, because they're basically cloakers who are Stealth, a combination that has always been perilous. My feeling is... use Lua to build a better sonar system that behaves more like real sonar (i.e., you don't have entirely accurate knowledge of where subs are until they get close enough or open fire), so that they finally make some sense, and sub-hunting isn't so simplistic. And/or get serious about the RPS of sub --> destroyer --> warship, so that at least it's something like balanced and makes sense, and everything has a good strong counter. Having subs > all is dumb, but having them < all really removes a lot from the potential of the Sea game, imo.

JohannesH wrote:define efficiency maybe

Econ production (energy + metal*60) gained per cost (energy + metal*60) spent, in this case.

So a unit that costs the same but produced double would be twice as efficient. You can use a different metal/energy equivalence ratio to get different answers, and indeed on some maps this is reasonable (eg on metal maps energy is relatively much more valuable.)

You can also get fancy and factor in build time as well, all though in this case that obviously favors building the construction ships.

YokoZar wrote: Another bit of trivia: if the tide is less than or equal to 12 it's more efficient to make construction ships.

I recently did this on dworld, where tidal is 13. And while waiting for more cons to build, the calculations showed that they are even better up to 13 tidal, and are mobile and can build fast and can even reclaim each other quick.

I actually won a game with conboat spam after I got forced into the sea at 12 minutes.

YokoZar wrote:

Wombat wrote:

YokoZar wrote:Sea eco is just about as efficient as land eco, and that's not even counting the advanced fusion

definitely underwater fus, best mms, and tidals which are best t1 e source on probably all maps with water is not advantage... not at all. also i have never seen t2 water eco chain. leave sea alone already, try to beat water guy in ffa, then say sea is weak...

http://modinfo.adune.nl/index.php?act=e ... &MOD=ba685
http://modinfo.adune.nl/index.php?act=e ... &MOD=ba685

Arm fusion e production: 1000
Arm underwater fusion e production: 1200

Arm fusion m cost: 4004 (4 metal per energy)
Arm underwater fusion m cost:4668 (3.89 metal per energy)

Arm fusion e cost: 19846 (19.8 energy per energy)
Arm underwater fusion e cost: 31429 (26.19 energy per energy)

thx for confirming what i say...

and auswachbar u didnt rly understand... naval in ba is ok, but when u lose seas on lets say ssb and tangerine u got no right to win the game without them. its much harder to take sea back than vice versa (against t2 sea and good eco its almost impossible)

Wombat wrote: thx for confirming what i say...

and auswachbar u didnt rly understand... naval in ba is ok, but when u lose seas on lets say ssb and tangerine u got no right to win the game without them. its much harder to take sea back than vice versa (against t2 sea and good eco its almost impossible)

The underwater fusion is a strategic advantage, not an econ one. Land has nicer econ with the moho geo and adv fusion, however as you point out these can be huge liabilities when they go boom.

Personally I think the geo should be an amphib structure so mapmakers can put geo spots in the water.

thats the point - comparing m to e cost etc etc is totally, extremely stupid and doesnt matter in game, maybe thats why i wont agree with anything u say as long as u dont use any other argument than '923 m per energy bla bla bla'