Spring RTS Engine

Apologies, the unit is actually called Firestorm.

Caydr wrote:No objections then to removing abel/caine/Firestorm?

None here.

Kixxe: Cruise Missiles in AA are also referred to as "Tactical Nukes". This means that they, like the "strategic" nukes, are also nuclear weapons. The EMP bombs are also presumably nuclear, as are the Liche's atomic bombs. Thus, a unit hit by a CM strike, Liche, or EMP missile has been "nuked".

There is also the colloquial use of "nuked", as in "a large explosion", which would also encompass L2 crawling bombs, strategic bomber strikes, and Commander explosions.

Caydr wrote: And finally, what will an Annihilator do when faced with artillery behind a hill?

You will build the guardian that should have been there ages ago or deploy your dominators/merls/lvl1 swarms or your bombers.


Erg, if you are such a good player and im such a noob that deserves patronizing like ive never played this game before then please post me a replay of you effectively using ambusers and getting them cruise missiled (which arent nukes btw) and surviving and such, you seem to be extremely skilled to be bold like that.

oh and:

Egarwaen wrote:I looked at it and decided I don't know enough about AA to even try to make one. Sorry.

its in the AI forum, stfu pwned

btw
I find that theres definitely enough anti-swarm defenses in AA, so they can safely go (lvl2 flame turretthingy).

lastly:
i had 6hs of exams today, im not in the mood

Caydr wrote:No objections then to removing abel/caine/inferno?

The main purpose of the closing units is to protect them from LRPC fire and aircraft. They can also be set to hold fire (and therefore, close) and last indefinitely if there's a lot of artillery targetting one. And finally, what will an Annihilator do when faced with artillery behind a hill?

Not from me. Perhaps one day you could split the L2 ship lab into 2 labs, one for smaller ships and one for bigger ships (thus allowing "l2 river action" and "giant OMFG battleship ocean action" that so many players want) so that the Capital ships can be scaled up to true battleship size. Then having more variety in the bombardment boats would make sense - but right now there doesn't seem to be much point to the MRB boats.

when you say getting nuked everyone will always think of regular nukes

btw ambushers are used to kill annis in combination with jammers and lvl2 walls alot

I don't mean to be patronizing. I'm just giving examples of ways they are useful.

For perspective: supposing it took 5 bombers to destroy an ambusher, when closed it would require 50. For many other units, their attack is null since it repairs itself faster than they can deal it damage when closed.

krogothe wrote:Erg, if you are such a good player and im such a noob that deserves patronizing like ive never played this game before then please post me a replay of you effectively using ambusers and getting them cruise missiled (which arent nukes btw) and surviving and such, you seem to be extremely skilled to be bold like that.

Ahem:

krogothe wrote:No i dont you lazy sod, go play some games and see for yourself?

Ahem Mk 2:

1.46 to 1.48 changelog wrote:Core "Catalyst" reverted to tactical nuke weapon

cortron.fbi wrote:Description=Tactical Nuke Launcher ;

And yes, I don't know enough about AA to make an optimal buildtree for AI play. I freely admit this - I'm nowhere near aware enough of what I do when I play to do this. There are a lot of players better than I am. That doesn't mean I'm not right. Pop-up guns will survive enough nuke strikes (including all nuclear weapons - full nukes, Catalyst tactical nukes, EMP bombs, and Liche atomic bombs) to kill an Annihilator. They're also immune to bomber raids, LRPC fire, and bombardment by any artillery that happens to exceed their range.

Machiosabre points out another good use of them.

Now, that's not to say that they couldn't be changed to work better in this role. But they're far from useless.

Caydr wrote:I don't mean to be patronizing. I'm just giving examples of ways they are useful.

For perspective: supposing it took 5 bombers to destroy an ambusher, when closed it would require 50. For many other units, their attack is null since it repairs itself faster than they can deal it damage when closed.

Erg was patronizing me, not you...


I stand my ground and think ambushers dont fill any role in special, its like making a nuke-proof llt, con ship or lvl2 kbot lab, superfluous as can be. Vipers are pop-up yes, but theyre great long rangish anti swarm. ambushers on the other hand, I only see them on metal maps and even then rarely, but keep them if you want, i came here to state that more units = harder to balance not start a flamewar, although i was close to it.

Egarwaen wrote:Forboding, you really must understand... AA is not EE. Trying to make it EE is counterproductive.

Toasters/Ambushers do have a role - they're there to support other L2 defences. Like Pitbulls/Vipers, they'll survive a nuke strike, and can then support your other surviving defences.

You are misunderstanding me. I in now way am thinking that AA/TA should be EE, not even close. What bugs me is that it has gone away imo from what originally made TA great. EE is a completely seperate game from TA, however, I think that both can learn from each other, and other great RTS games, yes, even starcrap had some good things in it, not many, but some...

Caydr, honestly I'm kinda afraid to post them considering the hostility I might get met with. I am serious when I mention bringing TA back a step and going from there.

However, here is a short list from bottom t top and hopefully congruent in structure.

Units:
Lv1 units have seems kinda thrown together for some time. In the interest of working around what people consider to be core features of the game...

How about first of all, all the basic lv1 units being set to the same speed. This would alleviate some annoyances. Obviously the ak and peewee would remain faster, but how about lower damage and much greater LOS For them, they are scouts after all, but they don't do their job as well as they should.

The warrior as it is right now is rather useless. If it is truly to be a lv 1.5 unit built by the lv1 factory, give it moderately greater health (say 600-800 for example), slightly slower speed than the main lv1 units and about twice the damage dealing capability with an appropriate cost increase/deduction.

Lv 1 Structures:
There are a great many so I will list the ones that bother the heck outta me.

Metal makers, bad idea and a band aid in and of itself. I suggest taking them out and making energy buildings cheaper, also gives the ability to maybe raise the mex multiplier to something a bit higher, so that metal on low metal maps isn't really an issue.

Guardians/punishers, way too expensive and way too effective. Hell they are a lv1 structure that is effective to a decent if not excessive degree vs lv2 units. I don't think that that is a good idea. I would reason for a decently faster projectile at low trajectory with a high impulse on high trajectory.

Hlt's, probably ok, but I think the range should be reduced. It's killing power at it;s max range is a bit much, possibly shorter range, higher damage?

Lv2 Units:

Lv2 is a mess. Everything moves at a different speed and serves a marginally useful purpose all things considered. Part of this is to blame on the original game, which had some things that "it was a good idea at the time!".

For core (because I know them much better than arm... Hated arm ever since ta came out ):

Pyro, slightly faster than lv2 regulars, short range of course, high damage, to be used in specific situations.

Speeds for lv2 regulars standardized as a bit slower than lv1's but not cumbersomely slow.

I would suggest that Cans and morties be front line assualt forces, and dominators be used for arty purposes as backline units. Morties can fire over cans and cans are there to soak up the damage/chump blockers, and Elevating the sumo(and fatboy) to lv 2.5 status.

I am not even close to finished and havn't even gone into health/cost standardizations (even though some of that is assumed), but I'm curious to see the response to this as it is. I can't see this being accepted by many people because it's radically different, however in the later stages it becomes abundantly clear how the sides match what was originally intended for them by the creators.

Is anyone willing to indulge me and allow me to go further? It's not like any of this would actually happen and keep in mind that I am trying to outline a basis for which others could expand and improve upon.

I'm also at work and a little leery of making a X page document concering possibilities. Also, I forgot to mention, that later on it becomes clear as well how many of the changes bend things to how many of you gys have stated you would like things to be.

Forboding Angel wrote:
Metal makers, bad idea and a band aid in and of itself. I suggest taking them out and making energy buildings cheaper, also gives the ability to maybe raise the mex multiplier to something a bit higher, so that metal on low metal maps isn't really an issue.

Ewhm No?

Metal Makers are a good thing about TA, they make it so that you have to keep growing ALL game long...

Egarwaen wrote: Kixxe: Cruise Missiles in AA are also referred to as "Tactical Nukes". This means that they, like the "strategic" nukes, are also nuclear weapons. The EMP bombs are also presumably nuclear, as are the Liche's atomic bombs. Thus, a unit hit by a CM strike, Liche, or EMP missile has been "nuked".

There is also the colloquial use of "nuked", as in "a large explosion", which would also encompass L2 crawling bombs, strategic bomber strikes, and Commander explosions.

Oh please, now your reading in to much to things. Okay, fine, you could say that it was a "tatical nuke launcher", but if i'm saying i got nuked in a game, NO ONE is gonna belive i got think i got hit by a cruise missile. Emp missile.

NOiZE wrote:

Forboding Angel wrote:
Metal makers, bad idea and a band aid in and of itself. I suggest taking them out and making energy buildings cheaper, also gives the ability to maybe raise the mex multiplier to something a bit higher, so that metal on low metal maps isn't really an issue.

Ewhm No?

Metal Makers are a good thing about TA, they make it so that you have to keep growing ALL game long...

Actually, I was thinking that the metal generators should be left in. Metal makers cause problems in the fact that everything energy must be balanced around them. Removing them removes issues with energy costs etc.

Forboding Angel wrote:

NOiZE wrote:

Forboding Angel wrote:
...

...

Actually, I was thinking that the metal generators should be left in. Metal makers cause problems in the fact that everything energy must be balanced around them. Removing them removes issues with energy costs etc.

I still think it's a bad idea, but you can always add is as a mutator

100 energy per metal ffs
MM are really only useful to mop up any excess you have, a economy driven by MM will always be beat by a economy driven by expansion using MM to mop up excess e

No objections then to removing abel/caine/inferno?

The main purpose of the closing units is to protect them from LRPC fire and aircraft. They can also be set to hold fire (and therefore, close) and last indefinitely if there's a lot of artillery targetting one. And finally, what will an Annihilator do when faced with artillery behind a hill?

I say keep them.

And Caydr ground attacking submarines is most definitly posible. EE has one.

http://imagesocket.com/view/screen000c19.jpg

Noize I understand your point, but I'm not sure that you are understanding completely what I'm getting at.

Everything as it is now is balanced energywise with metal makers in mind. FOr example adv solars and regular solars, even wind generators as well as geo's.

If metal makers were to dissappear, then the costs for enerfy structures could be lowered and the mex multiplier be raised. THat means that every mex you have would produce more metal. It would remove a lot of headaches for caydr and allow more flexability in balancing.

That said, you would still have the metal generator. Which is a Free metal maker. Removing metal makers (NOT GENERATORS ) would in the end be an improvement. I'm not the only one that believes that metal makers ruined the core of TA's principles. At the time I was like (HELL YEAH) but now that I have analyzed the pro's and cons of having metal makers I realize that the cons far outweigh the pro's.

I agrea.

metal makers are useful. but not effecient. AA is fine. Stop trying to make every damn mod like EE (which i think is a lot worse than AA)

Forboding Angel wrote:Noize I understand your point, but I'm not sure that you are understanding completely what I'm getting at.

Everything as it is now is balanced energywise with metal makers in mind. FOr example adv solars and regular solars, even wind generators as well as geo's.

If metal makers were to dissappear, then the costs for enerfy structures could be lowered and the mex multiplier be raised. THat means that every mex you have would produce more metal. It would remove a lot of headaches for caydr and allow more flexability in balancing.

That said, you would still have the metal generator. Which is a Free metal maker. Removing metal makers (NOT GENERATORS ) would in the end be an improvement. I'm not the only one that believes that metal makers ruined the core of TA's principles. At the time I was like (HELL YEAH) but now that I have analyzed the pro's and cons of having metal makers I realize that the cons far outweigh the pro's.

....so...having players rely on free metal generators for their economies would be a good thing...how? Because they would - you wouldn't get people expending endless resources (read: units) to gain those central metal patches - you'd just get lines and lines of metal generators...woo. The only reason this doesn't happen now is that compared to metal makers, you have to build a tonne of generators and that takes a while to do.

Metal makers work fine - you can't run an economy off them, but they do mean that a skilled player can make an economical comeback if they lose an initial skirmish in the middle - that's a good thing, because it means both players have to fight their hardest ALL the way through a game. Now I'm not going to go over to the E&E thread and moan about that cos it was designed to be that way, but AA economy works great the way it is, so no radical changes please

IMO AA doesn't need drastic makeovers.... it only needs finetuning of somethings...

and Metal Makers have always been a core feature of TA