Gunships and bombers.

[CopyyyCattt]

I suggested making it viable to spam Static AA if one does not want to go air for exmaple.

I suggest making it viable to spam pointdefences if someone doesnt want to go land for example.

You got land, navy, air.
Air Ground
Air Navy
Ground Air
that stops working at some point, you cannot effectivly fight a flak - shield - GC combo with air, as well as you cant fight cruiser + shields after they reached critical mass
but at the same moment you cant fight air with ground at some point, because you get a mass attempt to snipe your commander or you get mexes killed with gunships all over the map

you need everything land and air (and navy) at some point, if you want to play landonly, then there is a toogleable option in the lobby

The thing is you are making my point yet again.
Navy is obviously useless on Land only maps and on many maps with little water it is either useless or rarely useful.
Land is the same only the other way around but since there are little maps with water mass there is little chance for land to be completely useless but none the lass in many cases land tanks are very limited int their use or only hover tanks or amphibious units are useful.

Like you yourself explained air is always a must have.Why? Because the best counter for air is more air.
Sure if the other player has same amount of air and some mobile AA then he is gonna have an advatage but this does not negate the fact that mobile AA and especially fighters are over powered.
either fighters are too powerful or static AA is not powerful enough(does not have enough range for cost for most map sizes/does not have enough dps for cost or both).

This actually limits the variety in the game because you cannot for example on certain maps pull off a static AA spam while going land only.
A unit or unit type is accepted as over powered when it must be almost always built to win and if it restricts the building of other units and variety of play in general.This is what mobile AA and especially fighters are.
The game would be more varied if you could and should go on some maps naval land and air, on some naval and air, on some land and air, on some static AA and land and on some Static AA and sea.
Atm the last two are not viable which not only makes the game less varied but also blurs the lines between gunships and bombers.

[CopyyyCattt]

Perhaps someone should mention that for bombers to be actually better, you need the skill to time the drop correctly and approach from a good enough angle etc etc (unless you're sera... sera bombers have a better map reach than mavors) whilst for gunships you have to just click attack and you know it'll attack the unit for as long as it lives. I suck at bomber control but don't mind them being better (whilst I do agree that correctly handled bombers are better than gunships).

The point is not what is better for cost but if gunships and bombers are actually useful at different enough circumstances.
You can take a t1 gunship make it cost 1 mass and it will always be better than a bomber because they both fill almost the exact same role and the gunships is more effective for cost or you can do the same for bombers.
The problem is that they are competing for the same task.
the one that does this task better for cost makes the other useless.
bombers need micro particularity at start of games(but later as well of course) to get engies but gunships also need micro to avoid a big group of mobile AA or sneak in while the enemy's fighters are busy somewhere else.

since both units are air ground attack units they will always share some part of their role with each other much like a t1 tank shares some of its role with a t2 tank.
there is a fine line to walk between the cost effectiveness of bombers and gunships and making sure they are both ideal at different circumstances during an average game.
I'm saying that the obvious features from which we need to extract their separated roles is from how they work.
One being conservative about space and needing AA free environment to be maximally cost effective, making it best against an enemy who is making a lot of static AA and not many fighters or no fighters at all, whiel bombers are good if the enemy goes all out fighters since they can still deal damage even with enemy fighter coverage but since bombers are flimsier and are much less conservative about space usage thye would be bad agains a lot of static AA spam if it was stronger and actually viable.

This separates the two into two distinct roles with some overlap of course while making the game more varied by allowing sometimes to play with only static AA spam , sometimes ot have both static and mobile and sometimes have only mobile AA or only fighters.

[Nombringer]

Bombers can be used for suicide runs and are not hard countered by AA. Hover they are ineffective agianst groups of mobile units.

Gunships are largely ineffective agianst air defences, and have a lower mobility, however they do constant damage and are ideal for attacks agianst mobile units.

[CopyyyCattt]

gunships dont have more DPS than bombers for cost they have more HP.they can survive some AA but not for long.They would be good in instances where they need to pass a bit of AA to get to an AA free area, thus they are balanced(even now) in terms of stats and in the way they fly to be god against static AA spam since they can easily go around it or fly through a bit of it into an AA free zone and if the enemy has no fighters the gunships will wreckage havoc.
bombers cant do that cause of how they move and them being flimsy.
The problem is Static AA spam is not viable and thus this in built advantage and difference they have over the bomber is mostly blurred out.
Also when bombers attack a moving group of units where you say gunships are better they do not necessarily need to be accurate since the yare bombing a group of units...Not to mention some bombers drop AOE bombs so they are in fact better than gunships at doing dmg to groups for cost.

[BRNKoINSANITY]

What you are describing is a non issue and you are arguing in circles. First you say that static AA is useless, then you say that the only reason that a person died is because he built none. Also, there is no clear theme in this thread at all, as the topic being argued keeps going from "how does a bomber compare to a gunship" to "balance" to "useless static AA" to various other points.

Add to this the fact that not four days ago you declared the t1 gunship a "useless noob trap" and asked to have it removed from the game, then today you declare it more powerful compared to the bomber, both times ignoring the cost of the two units.

Then there is the replay that sheppard posted, which shows exactly what he says it shows, and yet you somehow misinterpret and turn into another argument for your case.

In short, I am looking at your responses and topics posted and I really think that this is simply trolling around for arguments.

If anyone really thinks this is a worthwhile discussion that can be kept on topic, message me and I will unlock this thread. If any of the other moderators disagree feel free to unlock it as well.