Forged Alliance Forever

Re: Submarine Balance

2016-06-15T19:26:14+02:00

mirroredwang wrote:
we can also nerf underwater vision which is something different from normal vision

If you read the change notes for the mod that's exactly what I did. I gave underwater vision to Submarines, Destroyers, Frigates, and Sonar Platforms. I took vision off most other surface vessels. So this now means that submarines can attack those ships without even being detected.

The original intent was for submarines (with the exception of the barracuda) to have sonar stealth (but not radar stealth) and only when not moving. However, I was unable to implement this in the mod, because, it requires coding skills beyond my current knowledge. I tried copying the Selen code but couldn't get it to work. The sonar stealth is particularly important for Strat. Missile Subs. Because the non-Cybran ones are far too easily eliminated.

The other major change was to switch the sonar ranges between Destroyers and Cruisers - as this better suits their roles. The Cruiser is supposed to be an AA vessel, and naturally be vulnerable to submarines. It doesn't make sense that it would have good sonar capabilities. The Destroyer however, is an ASW vessel. So I gave it better sonar and underwater vision.

The essential change in balance means that against most surface targets, the Submarines can attack without being detected. But, against units designed to hunt them down they still lose. It accentuates the scissor-paper-rock dynamic and integrates submarines into the naval balance as a viable force element.

Statistics: Posted by Hawkei — 15 Jun 2016, 19:26

Re: Submarine Balance

2016-06-15T18:55:13+02:00

we can also nerf underwater vision which is something different from normal vision

Statistics: Posted by mirroredwang — 15 Jun 2016, 18:55

Re: Submarine Balance

2016-06-14T17:55:26+02:00

Apofenas wrote:
Hawkei wrote:As for stealth on a non-Cybran sub. I should add that the Cybran T3 Gunship has Jamming - and this has always been a UEF tech. So why not have stealth on all subs? Stealth is a basic characteristic of submarine warfare. There were however other suggestions such as making the other subs only stealthed when stationary. Or not have stealth on subs - but instead nerf sonar to give the same effect. Thus giving the T2 and T3 sonar a radar for above water, and a smaller sonar range (but this solution would make air and land targets detectable by the platform).

Just because UEF have 3 units with jammer doesn't mean it's UEF tech specificly. Aeon/Seraphim also used it judging by FA campaing. So why the faction that is designed to use intel tricks wouldn't use some different tool apart from stealth? The jamming mechanic is more of a cosmetic in this game rather than anything really usefull.

The suggested jamming concept is practicly same stealth with the exeption that you see the area where unit could be, but you would have to shoot blindly untill you have a direct vision on it.

I say this because it is stated in the Game Handbook. In which it defines massed attacks in concert with radar jamming as a UEF tactic. Also, jammers are usually less effective than stealth - and useless once scouted. The jammers on Sparkies are often nice. They can sometimes completely negate enemy fire - allowing the Sparky to get some extra reclaim where other engineers would not succeed. On other units the jammers can waste those critical opening shots before a battle.

With the sole exception of the Wailer, and the Blue Sky Crystals in the campaign, Jamming is UEF tech.

Statistics: Posted by Hawkei — 14 Jun 2016, 17:55

Re: Submarine Balance

2016-06-14T17:41:38+02:00

Hawkei wrote:
As for stealth on a non-Cybran sub. I should add that the Cybran T3 Gunship has Jamming - and this has always been a UEF tech. So why not have stealth on all subs? Stealth is a basic characteristic of submarine warfare. There were however other suggestions such as making the other subs only stealthed when stationary. Or not have stealth on subs - but instead nerf sonar to give the same effect. Thus giving the T2 and T3 sonar a radar for above water, and a smaller sonar range (but this solution would make air and land targets detectable by the platform).

Just because UEF have 3 units with jammer doesn't mean it's UEF tech specificly. Aeon/Seraphim also used it judging by FA campaing. So why the faction that is designed to use intel tricks wouldn't use some different tool apart from stealth? The jamming mechanic is more of a cosmetic in this game rather than anything really usefull.

The suggested jamming concept is practicly same stealth with the exeption that you see the area where unit could be, but you would have to shoot blindly untill you have a direct vision on it.

Statistics: Posted by Apofenas — 14 Jun 2016, 17:41

Re: Submarine Balance

2016-06-14T17:07:52+02:00

Apofenas wrote:
...
I wish game had a concept of underwater eco apart from underwater mexes without storages and hydro which highly depend on map and RAS SCUs.

Personally i dislike giving stealth to non-cybran faction, but i wonder how it would work if stealth was replaced with jammer. You would know there is sub, but don't know where it is and how many of them exactly. Although currently jammer would hide you only untill unit was spotted first time, so it could need some special mode where sub jammer works 10 seconds, turns off, personal stealth blinks for a second and jammer turns again so sub is hidden when out of combat.

You make some valid points. The first thing is with regard to naval economy - and this is something which is reflected in combat throughout time. The land has always been the important strategic resource worth controlling, and the sea generally is devoid of resources to be captured. However, the sea has always been important because it has allowed for the ease of transport. Materials necessary for the waging of war have until very recently been much more efficiently conveyed by sea - and this is by far more efficient than doing so over land. Also, the weights can calibre of weaponry on the sea simply cannot be transported by any other means. So controlling the sea has always been a means to an end. Naval combat has always been about power projection onto land - and this is something the game designer got right.

As for stealth on a non-Cybran sub. I should add that the Cybran T3 Gunship has Jamming - and this has always been a UEF tech. So why not have stealth on all subs? Stealth is a basic characteristic of submarine warfare. There were however other suggestions such as making the other subs only stealthed when stationary. Or not have stealth on subs - but instead nerf sonar to give the same effect. Thus giving the T2 and T3 sonar a radar for above water, and a smaller sonar range (but this solution would make air and land targets detectable by the platform).

Statistics: Posted by Hawkei — 14 Jun 2016, 17:07

Re: Submarine Balance

2016-06-14T11:38:52+02:00

Even if destroyer is less efficient at torp fight, it will still be far more viable due to direct fire (and AA) weapons so it can deal damage to enemy eco or finish amphibious unit.

Changing front loading doesn't look a good idea to me. Basicly you will need to increace reload time and increace amount of damage of each torp or amount of torps in fire circle. In both cases UEF/Cybran torp defence become awfully stronger than Aeon/Sera due to their concept.

Balancing subs around destroyers is also funny thing when Valiant has rubbish torps, Exodus is OP agaisnt subs and Uashavoh replaces t2 sub itself.

It's not only the range which makes t1 subs bad. Subs are generally a paper, but t2 and t3 have good torp defence(+stealth) and that boosts their survivability so they can match destroyers...exept aeon which is known to ignore td.

I wish game had a concept of underwater eco apart from underwater mexes without storages and hydro which highly depend on map and RAS SCUs.

Personally i dislike giving stealth to non-cybran faction, but i wonder how it would work if stealth was replaced with jammer. You would know there is sub, but don't know where it is and how many of them exactly. Although currently jammer would hide you only untill unit was spotted first time, so it could need some special mode where sub jammer works 10 seconds, turns off, personal stealth blinks for a second and jammer turns again so sub is hidden when out of combat.

Statistics: Posted by Apofenas — 14 Jun 2016, 11:38

Re: Submarine Balance

2016-06-14T08:39:28+02:00

Astrofoo wrote:
I think the easiest and best solution to this "problem" is just to buff t1 sub damage slightly,

Submarine DPS is a very carefully balanced equation. Too much and you end up with the T1 sub spam which was Vanilla SC. To little and you have Destroyer dominance which we see in the current FAF. You probably don't recall, but T1 subs in the vanilla game were lethal against ACU's underwater.

Now, one approach for submarines which benefits their role as a raiding unit is not to change DPS but change frontloading instead. If you give submarines the same DPS, but increase the torpedo damage and reload time you get a very interesting hit and run style unit. It would however make the unit worse for killing T1 engineers - which is it's primary purpose ATM.

Another thing you will notice about the T1 sub is that it's DPS is far superior to higher tech levels - and it only looses because of it's inferior range. A viable tactic is mixing T1 and T2 subs, to get the combination of DPS and anti-torp protection. In large numbers, and up close, T1 subs can do a lot of damage.

Now, the purpose of the original mod was to experiment with the intel landscape. In my mod, Destroyers still win vs. Submarines, but, the Submarines can hide a lot better. While at the same time, other ships are made less capable of detecting the submarine. In my mod, the Destroyer is a vital Sub denial tool, but it's role is now fleet protection. It is no longer single handedly capable of chasing down and killing submarines.

Statistics: Posted by Hawkei — 14 Jun 2016, 08:39

Re: Submarine Balance

2016-06-09T18:24:09+02:00

Astrofoo wrote:
I think the easiest and best solution to this "problem" is just to buff t1 sub damage slightly, and remove torpedoes from all Destroyers except for Seraphim.(Since they have no t2 sub equivalent.) However, keep the torpedo defense on Destroyers, maybe even buffing it just slightly. We can take UEF Navy balance as example of this already working. The Valiant Destroyer's torpedoes suck so you have to mix in Coopers. Now imagine if every faction had to do that. We could even see a situation where players make mostly frigates but mix in some t1 subs and use those to slowly counter destros until they get their t2 up. Obviously other destroyers are the best way to go, but it seems odd and unintuitive for newer players that submarines, which are supposed to have good torpedoes otherwise what's the point, are terrible at killing things with their torpedoes. This will create a situation where a more well rounded mix in navy is required. However, destroyers should still be better than subs overall which is why I think they should keep their torpedo defense. So basically navy balance looks like this:

Frigates: Meat shields/extra close range brawl damage; remain mostly unaffected
T1 Subs: Slightly better at killing frigs and destroyers because neither can shoot back(if we buff their damage this effect is magnified as much or as little as we want)
Destroyers: Still king of the sea, good at killing frigs and other destroyers/crusiers/main melee unit of big naval battles/slightly worse against subs(Can't shoot back but still have torp def)
Cruisers: Unaffected
T2 Subs: Large buff/now effective against groups of destroyers in groups themselves but will still lose mass to mass due to torp def and higher health on destroyers. HOWEVER, you are forced to make some kind of anti submarine unit. I.E. T2 subs of your own, or torpedo bombers if you have air

In summary:
Any addition to variety of unit compositions is a good change in my humble opinion. This prevents a player from just spamming Destroyers all day err day. If a player does that, I'll make about 5 t2 subs and watch as his destroyer fleet slowly disappears to a foe he can't attack unless he makes subs of his own.

I have to say, any buff to a sub's dps is going to dramatically change the game play where comms can walk in and out of water like on Saltrock Colony, Eye of the Storm, Roanoake, etc. I'm not in favor of doing this at all.

As for the navy composition portion, you can still effectively toss in t1 subs with frigates to attack destroyers. If you take out the destroyers in the group and only frigates are left for your enemy, you can withdraw your own frigates and let the subs kill them (ace move, really). This is something you'd see in VERY large naval engagements, but it's not useless to add t1 subs to the mix just because destroyers are out there.

Statistics: Posted by Morax — 09 Jun 2016, 18:24

Re: Submarine Balance

2016-06-09T16:04:23+02:00

Swol wrote:
Naval balance is by far my favourite part of FAF. I'm therefore all in favour of completely changing it.

Now, what else can we wreck?

I'm not wrecking anything ... You don't seem to understand that it's me who's making the change here. You can easily examine the changes by downloading and playing with the mod.

Statistics: Posted by Hawkei — 09 Jun 2016, 16:04

Re: Submarine Balance

2016-06-09T15:26:48+02:00

I think the easiest and best solution to this "problem" is just to buff t1 sub damage slightly, and remove torpedoes from all Destroyers except for Seraphim.(Since they have no t2 sub equivalent.) However, keep the torpedo defense on Destroyers, maybe even buffing it just slightly. We can take UEF Navy balance as example of this already working. The Valiant Destroyer's torpedoes suck so you have to mix in Coopers. Now imagine if every faction had to do that. We could even see a situation where players make mostly frigates but mix in some t1 subs and use those to slowly counter destros until they get their t2 up. Obviously other destroyers are the best way to go, but it seems odd and unintuitive for newer players that submarines, which are supposed to have good torpedoes otherwise what's the point, are terrible at killing things with their torpedoes. This will create a situation where a more well rounded mix in navy is required. However, destroyers should still be better than subs overall which is why I think they should keep their torpedo defense. So basically navy balance looks like this:

Frigates: Meat shields/extra close range brawl damage; remain mostly unaffected
T1 Subs: Slightly better at killing frigs and destroyers because neither can shoot back(if we buff their damage this effect is magnified as much or as little as we want)
Destroyers: Still king of the sea, good at killing frigs and other destroyers/crusiers/main melee unit of big naval battles/slightly worse against subs(Can't shoot back but still have torp def)
Cruisers: Unaffected
T2 Subs: Large buff/now effective against groups of destroyers in groups themselves but will still lose mass to mass due to torp def and higher health on destroyers. HOWEVER, you are forced to make some kind of anti submarine unit. I.E. T2 subs of your own, or torpedo bombers if you have air

In summary:
Any addition to variety of unit compositions is a good change in my humble opinion. This prevents a player from just spamming Destroyers all day err day. If a player does that, I'll make about 5 t2 subs and watch as his destroyer fleet slowly disappears to a foe he can't attack unless he makes subs of his own.

Statistics: Posted by Astrofoo — 09 Jun 2016, 15:26

Re: Submarine Balance

2016-06-09T14:13:36+02:00

Naval balance is by far my favourite part of FAF. I'm therefore all in favour of completely changing it.

Now, what else can we wreck?

Statistics: Posted by Mel_Gibson — 09 Jun 2016, 14:13

Re: Submarine Balance

2016-06-09T03:16:36+02:00

Frigate shoreline bombardment is situational and has a limited window of viability. Which can easily be foiled with T2 PD. The frigate also has a situational application as a direct fire naval combatant. As once a critical mass of destroyers is achieved they can decimate Frigates at standoff distances. As you correctly devised the most potent naval force is indeed going to consist of a combination Destroyers and Frigates - and you also correctly deduced that submarines are obsolete equipment once Destroyers on the field in force.

My opening premise was based on observation that the Destroyer is dominant as:
1. A naval direct fire combatant;
2. A naval anti-submarine combatant; and
3. A naval shore bombardment platform.

Considering that these are the three primary objectives of a naval force would it not be fair to say that this nullifies much of the asymmetry of FA's naval warfare and turns it into a one dimensional contest? Yes I do agree that there are other direct fire options in the higher and lower tech levels which can contest the Destroyers dominance. But would it not be fair to say that it faces no threat from asymmetric force compositions from it's own tech level?

Whilst the objective of the mod was not to challenge the Destroyers combat effectiveness. I did seek to recast it's ASW role as more of a defensive one. With the addition of sonar stealth it is now possible for submarines to actually reach their targets undetected. So this now means they have greater utility as raiding units, and means that some actual effort needs to be put into submarine denial.

Statistics: Posted by Hawkei — 09 Jun 2016, 03:16

Re: Submarine Balance

2016-06-08T17:50:46+02:00

Hawkei wrote:
No one has ever really attempted to address this, and the general result on gameplay is that sea can effectively be controlled by one vessel. The destroyer. Which is dominant in both naval direct fire, shore bombardment, and anti-submarine warfare. It is effectively a "Spam this to win Sea" vessel. Which generally turns naval combat into a one dimensional exercise. With it's only real weakness being air, and this is countered by the cruiser.

destro_vs_frigate .PNG

I have a huge issue with your proposed dynamic and this thread in general for this clause alone.

You stated that you should just "spam destroyers" to win navy when in actuality you are quite wrong. Let's take a look at a map like White Fire where people traditionally spam frigates early on rather destroyers in high-level play. Do you know why they do this? Because you can build 9 frigates, which not only crush a destroyer, but have the ability to take out most of the shoreline mexes for the same cost.

What you need to do is scout and react to your opponent's strategy:

1) If you see the switch to t2, stop any and all sub production and get frigates to fight destros as they are the best counter
2) If you see subs only, get destros and ruin their days
3) If you see a mix of destros and frigates, well, you better get the same or somehow win air and use torp bombers or you're going to feel the hurt

There are some other scenarios at play, too, of course:

1) Eye of the Storm 1v1: it's rather difficult to get t2 navy out with everything else at play, so subs only make sense since there is not much shore-line fire, and you can prevent ACUs taking a dip to regen health.

In my opinion you are lacking some basic tactics and understanding of gameplay to make a real move to change the t1 sub.

As far as I see it, the sub is what it is, and we shouldn't address it at this time unless some other major navy dynamic comes into play.

Statistics: Posted by Morax — 08 Jun 2016, 17:50

Re: Submarine Balance

2016-05-29T11:47:59+02:00

So if there are no further issues with the proposed dynamics. What are peoples thoughts on incorporating this into a balance patch?

Statistics: Posted by Hawkei — 29 May 2016, 11:47

Re: Submarine Balance

2016-05-20T18:18:30+02:00

LichKing2033 wrote:
Did anyone even read my suggestions?

Yes... they all seem incredibly random and don't serve to complete any objective.

Statistics: Posted by briang — 20 May 2016, 18:18