Forged Alliance Forever

Re: Compilation of naval balance changes

2012-05-09T15:31:40+02:00

everyone who micros his ships to evade will rape you

Statistics: Posted by Jace — 09 May 2012, 15:31

Re: Compilation of naval balance changes

2012-05-09T15:05:44+02:00

Jace wrote:
You should try to play UEF a little bit more. Its actually not the easiest thing to cover your ships with a bulwark the right way if your opponent does his share of micro too and tries to get under the shield. having multiple bulwarks staying overlappet isnt as easy as you make it sound either.
they tend to leave other ships behind. and if you put them to follow you still have to micro them because if they happen to get into the first line they are toast if an enemy gets under the shield.

Select navy, attack-move where you want it to end up. Perfect shield coverage over your fleet. If your enemy can get under the shields, then you are going too far out and/or are at a severe disadvantage to begin with.

Statistics: Posted by uberge3k — 09 May 2012, 15:05

Re: Compilation of naval balance changes

2012-05-09T14:46:36+02:00

You should try to play UEF a little bit more. Its actually not the easiest thing to cover your ships with a bulwark the right way if your opponent does his share of micro too and tries to get under the shield. having multiple bulwarks staying overlappet isnt as easy as you make it sound either.
they tend to leave other ships behind. and if you put them to follow you still have to micro them because if they happen to get into the first line they are toast if an enemy gets under the shield.

as for Aeon shields: its much harder to break a group of aeon shields by driving into them, than it is with bulwarks

the biggest problem of the bulwark shield is that it is too big. a few missile ships and the bulwark isnt a question anymore.

Statistics: Posted by Jace — 09 May 2012, 14:46

Re: Compilation of naval balance changes

2012-05-09T20:26:46+02:00

Bulwaks are very fast and HUGE bubble so they can all cover each oher so well. Aeon shields cover about 4 others max and sera about the same but bulwaks will cover 20 others. Also they need so much less micro. For a little more mass you get a lot.

Statistics: Posted by noobymcnoobcake — 09 May 2012, 14:29

Re: Compilation of naval balance changes

2012-05-08T19:20:10+02:00

What's wrong there ?

Statistics: Posted by -_V_- — 08 May 2012, 19:20

Re: Compilation of naval balance changes

2012-05-08T16:59:49+02:00

Do something else: I want you to give UEF and Cybran a chance to counter that:

Statistics: Posted by Jace — 08 May 2012, 16:59

Re: Compilation of naval balance changes

2012-05-08T15:08:31+02:00

About submarine balance.
Ive moded for years TA, and Ive done the TA-BattleFleet, naval oriented mod, that only turned to light in RTS Spring.
In that, the solution I made for subs was.
Double the hitting points of the torpedoes X Double time to reload.The idea of the subs off sonar when stopped is fantastic!

Statistics: Posted by vongratz — 08 May 2012, 15:08

Re: Compilation of naval balance changes

2012-05-08T08:22:40+02:00

Well aeon are not to good at sea. The aeon T3 battleship is more like the UEF battlecruiser as an anti ship unit. Fast (3.6 speed instead of summits 2.5), Low range(100 instead of 128 or 150), high DPS and low trajectory. The missile ship is the anti base unit. It is the worst battleship and I would like to make it cheaper than the other battleships as it does not fill the same role.

Statistics: Posted by noobymcnoobcake — 08 May 2012, 08:22

Re: Compilation of naval balance changes

2012-05-06T11:34:28+02:00

-_V_- wrote:
I meant battlecruisers, uef battleships and t3 subs. The other ones are quite irrelevant in my opinion (since they really matter when you have lost already) anyway.

I absolutely don't feel threatened by missile ships or the other race battleships. I Actually love it when my enemy builds those

Too true, as UEF I'm pretty comfortable in the sea - especially against Aeon (despite their supposed hover advantage).

Statistics: Posted by Veta — 06 May 2012, 11:34

Re: Compilation of naval balance changes

2012-05-06T10:24:54+02:00

I meant battlecruisers, uef battleships and t3 subs. The other ones are quite irrelevant in my opinion (since they really matter when you have lost already) anyway.

I absolutely don't feel threatened by missile ships or the other race battleships. I Actually love it when my enemy builds those

Statistics: Posted by -_V_- — 06 May 2012, 10:24

Re: Compilation of naval balance changes

2012-05-06T10:21:32+02:00

Some good suggestions in OP, is this any closer to being implemented?

Statistics: Posted by Veta — 06 May 2012, 10:21

Re: Compilation of naval balance changes

2012-05-06T08:17:34+02:00

T3 navy are the battleships the battlecruiser and the missile ship

t3 sera subs are not part of the discussion, or the aircraft carriers

Statistics: Posted by TA4Life — 06 May 2012, 08:17

Re: Compilation of naval balance changes

2012-05-05T17:42:16+02:00

You could really view it this way, but the t3 navy made it worse. Well at least with aeon it's not mission impossible

Statistics: Posted by -_V_- — 05 May 2012, 17:42

Re: Compilation of naval balance changes

2012-05-04T05:59:59+02:00

Well yesterday I tried again playing aeon versus seraphim against Lion. He's a rather good player but usually he get his spanking quite easily. But I wanted to experiment more with aeon against sera.
It was just just a nightmare really. Despite a much better eco and at the same time a significant advantage in terms of unit number, a better production, it was freakin hard to win the sea. Doable but have to struggle quite hard. It shouldn't be like this if the navy was balanced.

Still camping on the position that the t3 navy needs some cost increase.

Statistics: Posted by -_V_- — 04 May 2012, 05:59

Re: Compilation of naval balance changes

2012-05-03T17:44:58+02:00

Anaryl wrote:
It's a bit embarrassing to post this.

You wouldn't just have battleships, but a well rounded force of Cybran destroyers, cruisers, mermaids, barracudas and a couple of battleships thrown in, yeah they'll eat UEF alive. Sure if you let UEF get a full developed T3 navy he'll probably win, but the idea is that Cyb come out of the gate running and use that momentum to keep the UEF player [from] doing so [getting a developed T3]

I personally am intensely sceptical of the claim that you could hold back a Cybran T2 navy with just frigates & [destroyers]. You need to fully invest in a UEF t2 navy just to hold Cyb at T2, and there a cast floating around (demon_arm vs nubfriedrice) showing how badly T2 cyb navy curbstomps UEF.

Also, I actually watched a Setons game the other day, and T2 stretched all the way to 23 minute mark, with battle cruisers only really coming out in force around 25 mins. That's not a short T2 window.

[edit re read that]

On a 20x20 map, that same thing holds true for all factions, 20x20 is at the top end of the scale - no offence but it's like complaining that there's no T1 game on Betrayal. Setons is 20x20 though right? As mentioned above the T2 window on Setons is still kind of huge.

Just because people aren't playing Cybran on Setons means doesn't mean that they are weak, they just aren't in fashion right now for that map. I think one could probably play a very good Cyb game on Setons if you had the requisite skill.

The thing is it's just impossible to play against Yathsous - no matter what your race. That's a linked but separate issue. You can play against UEF as Cybran and win at T3 - but nothing can stop Sera at T3 but Sera.

Attached is a replay of me getting roflstomped at T3 by Cybran navy. It's kinda embarrassing but it is pertinent.

Well I already offered, but you can try to get me with cybran navy . We'll see who prevails .

BTW I m willing to concede that setons is not necessarily representative of the FA gameplay. That's why I tried to avoid quoting its name. But then we could try white fire (The t2 window might be a bit longer but still not significant), we could try mezmerize, island zero, well ur pick.

That being said, you may or not like setons, but we are not all dumbasses. On GPGnet you could see diverse faction on navy depending on the play style. But now even harcore cybran lovers just gave up, cause it's really too hard, close to impossible. There must be a reason somewhere. And don't say they don't know how to play cybran

Statistics: Posted by -_V_- — 03 May 2012, 17:44