Naval balance in BA - and Seaplanes

[DemO]

Alright, after having a discussion with NoiZe earlier this morning about the position and viability of Seaplanes in the tech tree, and having read the recent discussion over it in the forums, i was inspired to go get some raw data for comparison. Here's what I established:

Construction:



Comparison: L1 Construction ship has the same worker time as an Adv vehicle whilst being less than half the total cost (in energy and metal). L1 con ships thus can be used throughout the game as a builder with comparably large worker time relative to land based units. L1 con ship could be used to assist a Seaplane platform like a Nano turret would guard a T2 air lab. Also has more worker time than a nano turret, and less energy cost of production.



Comparison: The T2 Con Sub is a costly unit for all intensive purposes. Best course of action cost wise is to make as few of these as needed and assist with L1 Con Ships (nearly as much worker time at a much lower cost). The T2 Con Seaplane is as I remember, very bad in terms of build time. These should also be used sparingly, with L1 ships to assist builds. From this data, clearly the only viable unit to guard and assist a seaplane platform, T2 Shipyard, or any tech 2 structures build by sea based T2 constructors, is the T1 Con Ship.

Structures:



Comparison: The floating HLT has better stats cost for cost than the Ground HLT in terms of damage, range, sight distance, reload time, and crucially health. This is required to take on ships which generally have more range, more health and more damage than ground based units. The range and sight distance is higher than a Destroyer so no issue with being out ranged by T1 ships. Floating HLT will easily cover its cost in a 1v1 battle versus a destroyer. This structure is definately viable in moderation, at strategic points. Due to the nature of sea based battles (loads of space) its not advised to make many of these - you will no doubt need the metal for other things, including your own ships to defend over your expansive area. Remember Floating HLT's can not move to intercept enemy vessels.

Labs:



Comparison: From this we can see that the Seaplane Platform costs (considering metal cost, energy cost, build time) around 60% of an Adv Aircraft Plant. It's costs would suggest it fits in around Tech 1.5-1.8 although it's position in the build tree does not tie in with this. Having spoken to N0iZe about the position of the Seaplane Platform in the build tree and its viability, then having checked these figures, I agree with him that it should be brought further down the tree, i.e. can be made by T1 unit of some sort (not only T2 sub or T2 air con). This would tie in with the cost of the Lab, and its relative non-viability in games due to T2 air being an obvious substitute. Seaplanes are currently not a naturally progression on the tech tree, and are usually only seen used late game by a dominant player that essentially has extra metal to spend. Currently its position in the tech tree puts it at T3 - You need to have T1 and T2 of either ships or planes to have the ability to make this lab.

Units:



Comparison: Seaplane Gunships and Bombers appear to be better cost for cost than their Adv. Airplant based counterparts. They have very similar, and in some cases exact same statistics but the seaplanes cost less, fly faster, and have better sight distance. Seaplane Swarmers also have higher max velocity than Stealth Fighters, a considerably lower build cost metal, although damage per shot on stealth fighters is considerably higher. I havnt included the DPS of the weapons in any of these as you can see, but I dont think that's a fool proof statistic for comparison.

Summary:

From the data on construction units it's clear that the Tech 1 construction ship is by far and away the most viable assist unit for sea based construction of units and structures. The construction ship could be used pretty well with the seaplane platform to assist the build of seaplanes, as a substitute for nano turrets for the player that goes air from land.

Seaplanes are currently placed in a position where they are effectively a Tech 3 build in the tech tree - You need to go T1 then T2 ships or air before you can build the seaplane platform. Clearly, they are actually closer to Tech 2. N0iZe suggested earlier this morning in our discussion that Seaplane platform is moved further down the tech tree, i.e. can be built by T1 construction ships, and despite being sceptical at first, having checked out and compared the data, I have to agree. This would be a smart move in my opinion, and would greatly increase the viability of seaplanes.

From the data comparing Seaplanes and Advanced Aircraft, it's clear that they fit in around Tech 1.8. They are largely similar to Adv. Air units but have lower build costs, higher max velocity and a larger sight distance. The DPS of Adv Air units is for the most part higher, however.

Personally I would like to see Seaplanes more differentiated from Tech 2 Air, both in figures and roles, but moving the Seaplanes down the tech tree is a smart, obvious starting point in my opinion to make them more viable and more useful. This research/post took a long time to muster, so I hope the feedback is positive and for the most part in agreement, lets get this discussion on the go!

Thanks to Trademark for his modinfo site, and N0iZe for influencing me to go on this crazy "mission".

[Peekaboom]

Here is a host of observations:

I guess the big question is whether or not seaplanes should be a substitute/alternative for the adv. air plant or their own thing.

Overall, my observation is that the the seaplane factory gets built later than the adv air plant. Stat wise, the two unit groups are fairly comprable.

If you move seaplanes down in the tech tree, you'll need to reduce the effectiveness of all these units. This will make them decicdly LESS useful at fighting naval units that are generally tougher than land units. If that's the case, I think people will want to tech up to the adv. air plant.

Moving them down in tech without reducing their effectiveness means that there is a good advantage to the seaplanes over normal planes.

Keep in mind that that if sea planes are moved down you build a SHIPYARD and then the SEAPLANE factory (2 factories get built). If you use conventional air, you'll more likely need THREE factories (LAND/NAVAL plant, AIRPLANT, ADV. AIRPLANT). This suggests that if you do move seaplanes down the tech tree, you'll likely need to increase the factory cost to be more in line with tier2 costs, even if the units themselves are a little cheaper.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Honestly, I think that intended role of seaplanes needs to be determined first, and that will inform where in the tree they should fit.

I feel that seaplanes should be a good counter against the advanced navy, but of limited usefulness against ground targets. For that reason, I think they should stay where they are in the tech tree, but the units should be rebalanced substantially so that they are differentiated from the adv. air plant.

The seaplane torpedo bomber should be MUCH better at killing ships than the normal torpedo bomber. Similarly, the normal adv. bombers should be better at killing static/land targets than the sea plane bombers. The stealth fighters should be THE air-superiority fighters, and be more cost-effective han seaplane equivolents.

One advantage of moving seaplanes DOWN in the tech tree is that it will require players to invest more in anti-air. The problem is that tier 1.5 torpedo bombers might be able to push players out of the water too quickly. But playtesting would have to determine that.

In conclusion:

Keep the sea planes where they are with heavy rebalancing. If that DOES NOT seem to work, then consider moving them down the tech tree.

[DemO]

I'm more in favour of move them down the tech tree first (increase viability) then rebalance them to fit in line with the shift. Currently, people dont make seaplanes because by the time they're able to build them they dont NEED them anymore. Like you say their stats are very similar to those of Adv air units - people will just make Adv Air instead.

I completely agree about making it so seaplanes have a particular role. I refrained from making my own suggestions in the last post in order to keep it as trimmed as possible. I agree with Peekaboom about making the seaplane torpedo bomber better than the Adv Air one. Some sort of balance needs to be found in my opinion where Seaplanes are more effective (like peekaboom suggested) against Naval units. This is a touchy subject though, I mean what do you do: make it so Adv Air units are worse against Naval units, or make it so Seaplanes have better resistance to Naval anti air - or a bit of both?

I can't help but stress that even if Seaplanes were completely rebalanced and left in their current place in the tech tree, I still doubt they'd be used much, because they are somewhat Tech 3 in terms of the build tree. You'd have to make them like Tech 3 planes to make them viable, and Tech 3 planes is something I personally wouldnt like to experience:)

Keep in mind that that if sea planes are moved down you build a SHIPYARD and then the SEAPLANE factory (2 factories get built). If you use conventional air, you'll more likely need THREE factories (LAND/NAVAL plant, AIRPLANT, ADV. AIRPLANT). This suggests that if you do move seaplanes down the tech tree, you'll likely need to increase the factory cost to be more in line with tier2 costs, even if the units themselves are a little cheaper.

True, and good point, but also keep in mind that going ships is a slower start, and ships are very unforgiving on the economy. Also, normally in team games the person who tech's air is working exclusively to do so, and normally guarded by his teammates porcing up while they fight it out. Going ships is a different story. There is normally only enough for at most a couple of players on each team to go naval, which brings with it the responsibility of defending the waters. Thus someone who makes T1 shipyard has a responsibility to invest in naval warfare with the enemy, leaving far less resources to make a seaplane platform and units than the guy sitting at the back of the base, who can porc up with relative safety and doesnt have to invest in any other units besides cons.

We'd have to try things to see how it will all tie in and if it is unbalanced or not. This topic is not so much to discuss the final details of balance for seaplanes so much as the VIABILITY of them. We can leave the job of balance to N0iZe and Day, just think about how often you see seaplanes used in games, and when you see them used - always late game - always by a dominating player with plenty of metal. Bringing them to a place where they are viable, and will be seen earlier in games will add a new dynamic to BA.

[jackalope]

just move them down so l1 ships can build them. I also don't think their stats need to be changed, they don't exactly blow away adv air.

[Pxtl]

My opinion on Seaplanes:

- They're L2. Normal, L2. Should be built by L1 boats and L1 hovercraft.
- Seaplane fighters are heavy superiority fighters - instead of stealth and flares like the L2 planes, they get raw power.
- Give them stealth bombers for the land bomber. That would differentiate them from normal L2 bombers.
- Seaplane gunships have minimal blast radius and impulse - this makes them better for attacking single, hardened targets than conventional gunships. Keep that in mind when balancing.
- normal torpedo-planes and sea-torpedo-planes should be roughly equivalent cost-effect-speaking. After all, nerfing either one would put a huge hole in the sea-game. However, if one is bigger or faster than the other (and correspondingly more expensive) that would make sense. Perhaps the land-built one should be faster and lighter, while the sea one should be heavier and more powerful?

edit: a thought, elaborating on a suggestion above - perhaps more flak-resistant hardware for seaplanes? I'd use a yellow graphical-only shield (doesn't actually protect anything) to make a nice visual representation of the flak-resistance. After all, the mainstay of aquatic anti-air is the flak guns - the missile launchers on scouts and missile-boats are minimal, and aquatic versions of the heavier missile launchers don't exist. Perhaps make the arm-torpedo-seaplane and the core-seaplane-gunship flak-resistent? Ditto the seaplane fighters?

[Quanto042]

My opinion on Seaplanes:

- They're L2. Normal, L2. Should be built by L1 boats and L1 hovercraft.
- Seaplane fighters are heavy superiority fighters - instead of stealth and flares like the L2 planes, they get raw power.
- Give them stealth bombers for the land bomber. That would differentiate them from normal L2 bombers.
- Seaplane gunships have minimal blast radius and impulse - this makes them better for attacking single, hardened targets than conventional gunships. Keep that in mind when balancing.
- normal torpedo-planes and sea-torpedo-planes should be roughly equivalent cost-effect-speaking. After all, nerfing either one would put a huge hole in the sea-game. However, if one is bigger or faster than the other (and correspondingly more expensive) that would make sense. Perhaps the land-built one should be faster and lighter, while the sea one should be heavier and more powerful?

Seconded on all points.

[DemO]

Please take care to vote in the poll on your opinion. That will influence the course of action of N0iZe with seaplanes in the next version of BA

[ginekolog]

i voted yes - but increase seaplane platform cost to be on par with adv air plat. Otherwise seplanes might be op

[Pxtl]

Please take care to vote in the poll on your opinion. That will influence the course of action of N0iZe with seaplanes in the next version of BA

Well, in my case I posted that crap (in addition to my vote) as part of "also make them available to L1 hovers" - are there any plans to follow Caydr's design of converting hovers into full-L1 units (build-able by comm, even)? In that case, the hovers wouldn't be a dead-end - so even in a high-resource game where you leap to L2 as your second factory, you could use hovers since they can get you to the L2 seaplanes.

I just like the idea of hovers + seaplanes becoming their own full tech ladder by setting them up as L1 and L2.

[Peekaboom]

I agree with Pxtl's earlier points. I think it would make a nice progression for hover cons to make the seaplane factory too. I think it could really work either way, just depends on the balancing. I'd be inclined to make the seaplane a full tier 2 alternative with different options.

[tombom]

I see seaplanes as a way of getting on land if you've gone sea, like hovers except t2.5 instead of t1.5. They're an upgrade from hovers in terms of mobility and power and far easier to use. They need a change though, as currently they're just T2 air for water. I doubt there are any maps where you could control the water only and still win, which makes them even less worth it as a gantry is far more useful.

[DemO]

Hmm, Seaplanes and Hovers combination could lay waste to Ships as viable however. As it stands hovers can do well against ships. Hovers can be made on land from a quicker progressing economy in relative safety - The ships cant attack a hover lab thats far in-land. Combine that with seaplanes which people want to be more viable against Ships, then you have a situation where ships are no longer the best option for naval warfare.

With ships its a slow start, slow progression of economy, very expensive and low number of units. Their advantages come from their domination in naval battles, and its important that they remain hard to beat and tough against other forms of units (air/hovers).

Hovers already do well enough against ships, and call me old-fashioned but I think that the naval battles should favour ships over hovers and that ships should be the first lab for naval based fighting. If they are not the best in the sea, then whats the point in making them, considering how expensive they are and how slow it is to progress naval economy.

Hovers are already very effective in my opinion, and can be used throughout the game to large effect, particularly when combined with other units in strategy. Giving T1 ships the ability to make seaplanes is an added advantage that would make starting with ships more favourable.

[Pxtl]

Well, the hover lab is expensive (900 metal) so, even if it was used as a starting lab then it would have a slow start similar to the naval start. Either way, I agree that the first step is getting the seaplanes into L2. Giving seaplanes a boost against naval units should only be considered if they're found to be ineffective.

[Neddie]

DemO, please don't start these without me! Bah, several hours of work down the drain - you could have warned before proposing.

I voted no, because I have a solution which after some consideration I consider a better move. It makes Hovercraft T1, Seaplanes T2 and everything a little clearer.

Seaplanes as a continuation of Hovercraft is a concept I've played with a few times. T2 planes would need a special structure to build as an alternative, and my best solution is to move the Juno to an air-constructor only structure and take the Seaplane platform out of their buildtree.

Your concerns about the obsolence of Ships and Sea units are not unfounded. However, I believe we can put forth a solution.

1. Recalibrate the costs of individual hovercraft. Really, some are far too expensive for their roles - and others may need to cost a little more.
2. Reduce the efficency of the hovercraft constructor. For reference, it is one of the most efficent constructors for overall cost.
3. Differentiate the Seaplane tech tree to some extent. Try some coastal solution planes, a weaker plane or two for cost, and floating tags so they land on water.
4. Add a hovercraft with depthcharges.
5. Give the Seaplane factory only to the Hover, Seaplane and T2 Sea constructors.
6. Weaken the Hovercraft scout, particularly in comparison to the Ship scout.
7. Drop the Hovercraft factory down to the Commander, but in return take the Depth Charge Launcher out of his buildtree.
8. Play with the Carrier. Make it cheaper to encourage the use of aircraft with Ships.

Previously I've done a lot of work on a proposed T2 Hovercraft tree, but this is more logical and makes Seaplanes and T1 Hovercraft more viable while still a somewhat unconventional choice.

[LordMatt]

Demo you're not the first to suggest this ^^ but I probably wasn't either and you put more effort into the idea. If/when this change is made, some significant re balancing of seaplane stats will be needed, so that they are not OP. The fact that hovers are OP vs sea is a separate issue, but one that also needs to be addressed.

- They're L2. Normal, L2. Should be built by L1 boats and L1 hovercraft.
- Seaplane fighters are heavy superiority fighters - instead of stealth and flares like the L2 planes, they get raw power.
- Give them stealth bombers for the land bomber. That would differentiate them from normal L2 bombers.
- Seaplane gunships have minimal blast radius and impulse - this makes them better for attacking single, hardened targets than conventional gunships. Keep that in mind when balancing.
- normal torpedo-planes and sea-torpedo-planes should be roughly equivalent cost-effect-speaking. After all, nerfing either one would put a huge hole in the sea-game. However, if one is bigger or faster than the other (and correspondingly more expensive) that would make sense. Perhaps the land-built one should be faster and lighter, while the sea one should be heavier and more powerful?

These are some interesting ideas that should be considered to differentiate seaplanes from regular advanced aircrafts.

@Neddie: Unpublished work is unknown work. This has been a glaring problem in BA/AA for a long time and you can't expect that others have not been working on it too.

Finally, the imbalance in cost between the construction sub and the construction ship is a problem in its own right, that should be fixed. ~400Metal and ~4000Energy should be a balanced cost for the construction sub.

The good news is even if some mistakes are made balancewise in this change, the current dev team will correct them quickly.

[Neddie]

If you think my first lines were serious, Matt, then you are losing your touch. I'm just prodding DemO a little - and I have been working on some alternative plans since AA 1.44!

[Saktoth]

I am so glad this is being tackled! Sea balanced in AA/BA needs quite some consideration.

The very first thing that should be done to seaplanes is to actually make them seaplanes. Either make them land on water, or if that isnt possible make them not land at all (Airhoverfactor=0).

On their place in the tech tree, remember that as tech 1.5 or 2 on air would offer a way for an air player to get sea metal spots, something which they lack (Handy). As tech2 on ships, they would be an alternative way to get mohomexes and advanced defenses for a ship player (Needs careful balance).

I feel that hovers should not be made tech1. It would bring in the whole new issue of balancing them vs kbots, vehicles and ships as first factory. Ships are a much slower start than hovers. As tech1, an early hover rush would stop any ship player getting of the mark (Actually, even as tech 1.5 they often do this).

Whatever choice you make, sea balance would need to be carefully considered as a whole.

The seaplane torpedo bomber should be MUCH better at killing ships than the normal torpedo bomber.

The torpedo bomber as it is is already absurdly excellent at killing ships and naval structures. Ive given a comparison of costs and power in the BA thread. If you dont believe me try it yourself. Seaplane platforms at tech 1.5/1.8 would offer a way to get torpedo bombers faster and more cheaply for an air player or a way for ship players to get torpedo seaplanes without building tech1 air at all.

- Seaplane gunships have minimal blast radius and impulse - this makes them better for attacking single, hardened targets than conventional gunships. Keep that in mind when balancing.

Not true, you are thinking of the Arm Saber. The Core Cutlass has a plasma weapon. It has a much larger blast than any other gunship, and is slightly more powerful than the Arm Saber.

Add a hovercraft with depthcharges.

Personally i feel that ships should always beat hovers, otherwise there are is no point building ships. Thus, hovers should not have a dedicated ship-hunting unit. Remember that hovers cannot be targeted at all by depth charges or torpedoes. This gives them a significant advantage over ships already (Especially vs torpedo platforms). A comment on sea balance in general: Torpedo platforms incredible firepower and rate of fire make sea battles much more porcy than land unless you use hovers.

[Neddie]

It is downright illogical, as I have argued before, for there to be not only no hovercraft without Sonar, but no hovercraft that can attack submarines. If they go on the water, they should have, somewhere in their vast arsenal, something that can attack underwater. I don't care if the damage is piss-poor against ships and buildings, they need a weapon, especially given the possibility of tying Hovercraft to Seaplanes.

It is alright if you disagree with the ideas I propose, but when you disagree, you should first look at all the steps required to implement them and the game logic behind them. Just afford me the same respect I afford you.

This does need careful consideration. Seaplanes need a place. Hovercraft need a place. Sea balance issues which have plagued this mod since before I started playing need to be addressed further. There are a number of proposals on the table, and I am quite sure we haven't heard all of them.

I too am glad this is being tackled.

[DemO]

Have to say i'm with Saktoth on this one ¬_¬

I feel that hovers should not be made tech1. It would bring in the whole new issue of balancing them vs kbots, vehicles and ships as first factory. Ships are a much slower start than hovers. As tech1, an early hover rush would stop any ship player getting of the mark (Actually, even as tech 1.5 they often do this).

Agreed, Hovers already have their place in the tech tree and work effectively where they are. The only reason to move them to T1 in my opinion is for hover fanboys that want to be able to make them sooner and spam them quicker.

Hovers already have very advantageous qualities. High speed, high turn rate, high acceleration compared to ships fairly easily decides the course of things with anyone that can micro. They can easily evade, harass and flank the player that goes ships so he can't get off the mark. Making them T1 would make ships non-viable IMO as I said earlier.

It is downright illogical, as I have argued before, for there to be not only no hovercraft without Sonar, but no hovercraft that can attack submarines. If they go on the water, they should have, somewhere in their vast arsenal, something that can attack underwater.

Why is it illogical that they don't have depthcharges? Hovers are completely safe to under water based attacks from other units, so why would you want to give them the ability to attack with depthcharges when nothing can attack back with them? Personally I think giving hovers depthcharges is a pretty unfounded idea and I dont see the logic behind it, or why its needed.

[Pxtl]

The L2 consub is expensive for a good reason - the consub is extremely useful as a combat support unit, where conboats die really fast. That's why it is a bad bargain. I use consubs to support my bombarding navy and conboats to support the home front.

I tend to avoid full-out naval maps because they were so badly balanced for so long, so I haven't seen this "hovers pwns L1 navy" - I tend to prefer maps with heavily mixed land-water gameplay (I abuse amphibs on centerrock, for example)... but wouldn't L1 'vettes make short work of them? If they're too manoeverable, why not just get them closer back to their original design? I don't mean to go all the way back to TA's useless hovers - why not cut back their rotation rate to a slower level so that they're less useful as hit-and-run?

edit: as for hovers with depthcharges, the argument against that is the same as the argument against Torpedo bombers. The only diff between a depthcharge hover and a torp-bomber is that the bomber is an L2 unit - either way they can't be attacked by submersed hardware. I'd just give the hovers a sonar-unit, and give it a minimal, weak depthcharge launcher as a side-benefit. Thus, you can use them to damage submersed hardware that is undefended, but destroying anything would take long enough for the cavalry to arrive.

Obviously hovers need to be rebalanced if they're going to be made into L1 units.