Aircraft carriers changes.

Re: Aircraft carriers changes.

Postby ColonelSheppard » 22 Feb 2013, 22:23

yeah but you could just kill the coopers or build like 20 coopers instead of the atlantis
User avatar
ColonelSheppard
Contributor
 
Posts: 2997
Joined: 20 Jul 2012, 12:54
Location: Germany
Has liked: 154 times
Been liked: 165 times
FAF User Name: Sheppy

Re: Aircraft carriers changes.

Postby Mycen » 23 Feb 2013, 01:12

Batmansrueckkehr wrote:stealth makes aa less important?
on setons or any other big navy map, you have such fights. stealth is only good at the start - in late game where you produce battleships and carriers and tons of frigates, it is less important BUT powerfull aa is.


"Setons or any other big navy map?" Really?

I'm sorry, but I don't consider any 20x20 to be big anything, and I certainly don't consider a 20x20 where half the map is land to be a "big navy map." Sure, you can have carriers on that map, but why? If you want planes, just use the air factory right behind your shipyards. If you want a powerful AA unit that can also soak up a lot of damage, play as UEF and build Atlantises.

While I certainly wouldn't be opposed to the Cybran Carrier at least being able to hit something with its AA, I hardly think it's supposed to act as a backup cruiser. Carriers aren't supposed to be frontline ships, and their primary function is to build and repair aircraft, not shoot down planes.



What I was talking about when I said stealth makes AA less important was maps that have large oceans for the carriers to hide in, like The Great Void, Shruiken Island, or Debris. If you think stealth is not important late game, then you need to get off your 20x20s and try a game of SupCom the way it was envisioned sometime.
Mycen
Evaluator
 
Posts: 514
Joined: 12 Feb 2013, 03:20
Has liked: 12 times
Been liked: 40 times
FAF User Name: Mycen

Re: Aircraft carriers changes.

Postby IceDreamer » 23 Feb 2013, 02:28

What about making Atlantis the unit it once was, the 'King of the Seas'. Turn it into the strongest combat sub, also give it ridiculous AA and that way the lower buildpower wont be such a burden.
IceDreamer
Councillor - Game
 
Posts: 2594
Joined: 27 Dec 2011, 07:01
Has liked: 138 times
Been liked: 462 times

Re: Aircraft carriers changes.

Postby AwarE » 23 Feb 2013, 04:07

Adding a anti-nuke silo to each faction's carrier would make them all very usefull.

roj
AwarE
Priest
 
Posts: 306
Joined: 28 Oct 2011, 15:12
Has liked: 0 time
Been liked: 14 times
FAF User Name: AwarE

Re: Aircraft carriers changes.

Postby noms » 23 Feb 2013, 04:59

AwarE wrote:Adding a anti-nuke silo to each faction's carrier would make them all very usefull.

roj


+1

good idea. but cybran would be disadvantaged b/c they have no shielding on water.
noms
Avatar-of-War
 
Posts: 118
Joined: 01 Aug 2012, 02:29
Has liked: 1 time
Been liked: 1 time
FAF User Name: noms

Re: Aircraft carriers changes.

Postby BRNKoINSANITY » 23 Feb 2013, 05:46

Anti-nuke silos would be a bad idea... In the event that you lose navy completely and your team is just barely breaking even on air, nukes and arty are your only hope. Putting anti-nuke on carriers would make navy ridiculously OP on maps that are mostly water. All you have to do is crush the navy and make sure you have antinuke and you can obliterate the shore without worrying. Even if the other team has complete air control you have no navy to kill so you can spam cruisers and win easily.
BRNKoINSANITY
Evaluator
 
Posts: 950
Joined: 09 Oct 2012, 01:14
Has liked: 43 times
Been liked: 205 times
FAF User Name: BRNKoINSANITY

Re: Aircraft carriers changes.

Postby monty » 23 Feb 2013, 07:05

jabwd wrote:What about the czar, related to the atlantis shouldn't the production speed be about the same or is this totally disproportional since we're talking about different battlegrounds and the czar is used more as a taliban than a builder anyways? :P


mmm... i suggest the rate of fire for CZAR should change from 0.2 to 1. its long pause after killing each enemy irritates me
monty
Crusader
 
Posts: 47
Joined: 10 Oct 2011, 18:18
Has liked: 0 time
Been liked: 0 time

Re: Aircraft carriers changes.

Postby AwarE » 24 Feb 2013, 06:06

Let me come back from the 'BRNKoINSANITY' for a sec,

Your case is extreme ...you paint a picture of a poor player in big trouble that has lost all navy, doesn't know to use strat bombers against cruisers, has no shore battery of T2 arty under shields and has only a LRC option to save him from certain destruction ...because he would not be able to nuke the fleet standing off-shore, if carriers had anti-nukes.

Wow that is a mouthfull ...of BS

A more normal scenario would be when both guys go navy and they are well matched, they both build carriers for AA protection. Then one guy does nuke and destroys all the navy of his opponent with one hit, then charges through the gap to strat snipe a commy.

At present it is almost impossible to have land based anti-nuke protect your shipyards, even if built adjacent your shore, on most maps. Naval expansions away from shore are sitting ducks, even if you give carriers massive AA and HP.

If asfs are to need more support at a distance from main base because their fuel is nerfed, having anti-nukes on carriers will be vital.
roj
AwarE
Priest
 
Posts: 306
Joined: 28 Oct 2011, 15:12
Has liked: 0 time
Been liked: 14 times
FAF User Name: AwarE

Re: Aircraft carriers changes.

Postby BRNKoINSANITY » 24 Feb 2013, 06:24

To me your situation of having a substantial amount of t2 arty and shields AND having equal navies is the more unlikely scenario... T2 arty is ridiculously expensive (not to mention stationary) and is not a match for a well micro'd navy. In addition, the act of building the arty would take a lot of resources out of your naval build, pretty much guaranteeing your loss, unless you are facing someone well under your own abilities.

Common sense says that you should--- A. Have a nuke defense in range of your highest tech naval factory (know where ou should build your fac in order to be able to cover it, not build it wherever and then try to build nuke def). B. Be aware enough of what is going on to know when a nuke is launched and so move your navy out of the way. C. Have either nukes of your own on land or be building 2-3 strategic subs.

Mass for mass it is REALLY hard if not impossible to beat navy with air unless you have an overwhelming air superiority. Nukes are a really good leg up in a draw game, or a means by which to deny navy that is on your doorstep.

In addition, this will introduce some balance issues with the nukes as there would then be so much anti-nuke inherent to the battlefield on large and/or sea maps that you would have to build 5-6 nuke silos just to try and hit something. Instead of maybe 2-3 nuke defense sitting in a base, where you can hope to get in a quick nuke or snipe off the defense, you would then have to kill/overwhelm not only stationary defense but avoid/kill every aircraft carrier as well.

TL;DR, this is not going to work unless some other things are rebalanced, which will somewhat defeat the purpose.
BRNKoINSANITY
Evaluator
 
Posts: 950
Joined: 09 Oct 2012, 01:14
Has liked: 43 times
Been liked: 205 times
FAF User Name: BRNKoINSANITY

Re: Aircraft carriers changes.

Postby Pathogenic » 24 Feb 2013, 17:48

Would it be technically possible to change carriers, Atlantis, and Czar so that they were able to produce units while moving, and so that the build order would not be canceled every time you gave it a move command? I know that proposals for the patch are over, but this is something I've thought would be nice for a long time, and might be a consideration for a future patch. I mean, nuke subs can build nukes while they are moving. Why not an Atlantis build planes while it is moving? I'd be willing to accept a slight cost increase in these units in order to have this feature. Would it be a popular change though?
Pathogenic
Avatar-of-War
 
Posts: 144
Joined: 06 Sep 2011, 05:23
Has liked: 0 time
Been liked: 0 time

PreviousNext

Return to Patch 3622

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest