Statistics: Posted by -_V_- — 17 Feb 2015, 18:01
galacticfear wrote:MMMM yes very simple to do that, even if the enemy isn't dodging or have them under t2 shields.... seem to recall you as air vs my t4+ bh t3maa not working so effective
Why should it be equal? Can't believe that is a serious question, but I don't see why X investment in one type of unit should be better than X investment in another type... For air production you have streamlined your entire economy to produce it, same for land... its not so easy to switch between the two in large scales. Mobility is not really that relevant imo- aa covers off large areas of the map and land has raiding units which to be honest can be much harder to intercept than air "raiding" units. The best thing I find air mobility allows is running away to prevent it from dying to said aa, rather than actually dealing the damage.
Statistics: Posted by galacticfear — 13 Feb 2015, 00:35
Why should it be equal? Can't believe that is a serious question, but I don't see why X investment in one type of unit should be better than X investment in another type... For air production you have streamlined your entire economy to produce it, same for land... its not so easy to switch between the two in large scales. Mobility is not really that relevant imo- aa covers off large areas of the map and land has raiding units which to be honest can be much harder to intercept than air "raiding" units. The best thing I find air mobility allows is running away to prevent it from dying to said aa, rather than actually dealing the damage.
Statistics: Posted by Blodir — 12 Feb 2015, 23:49
galacticfear wrote:Sovietpride wrote:Dont suppose you can sum up why T3MAA is a bad idea?
Yeah, a T4/T3 land force with T3MAA can only be countered by its mirror, when before you used to be able to react to a T4 with air control + strats, now you are pretty much forced to react with your own T4. Dumb. It means an investment in land takes precedent over an investment in air, when before it used to be much more equal (how it should be).
Statistics: Posted by galacticfear — 12 Feb 2015, 23:29
Sovietpride wrote:Dont suppose you can sum up why T3MAA is a bad idea?
Statistics: Posted by Blodir — 12 Feb 2015, 23:07
Statistics: Posted by galacticfear — 12 Feb 2015, 22:44
Statistics: Posted by Sheeo — 12 Feb 2015, 19:28
_VODKA_ wrote:
And how much of that was because you didn't get into your game from the get go, because the other player was always one step ahead in terms of map control, raiding, artillery drops etc.? If your eco is half to begin with, doesn't the other player deserve to wipe your air force off the map or overrun you with superior land and navy?
Statistics: Posted by QuantumProjects — 12 Feb 2015, 19:08
Statistics: Posted by Col_Walter_Kurtz — 12 Feb 2015, 11:21
RoLa wrote:Just build some sams and your base is a no go area for enemy asf.
Statistics: Posted by Sovietpride — 12 Feb 2015, 02:04
Statistics: Posted by QuantumProjects — 12 Feb 2015, 00:57
I absolutly agree with you in this point. My idea of limiting asf numbers in some way to some extent without hard cap is only based on the wish to reduce lag._VODKA_ wrote:
This discussion is also drifting from the perceived balance problem, which again, I don't see myself. T3 air is not overpowered, there are many effective counters to it, new units have been added even, and SAMs and flak are incredibly cost effective. For the last 20 pages people have basically been complaining about the fact that ASF are built in massive numbers (on some maps) which is not a balance issue but a problem related to simspeed at best.
Statistics: Posted by RoLa — 11 Feb 2015, 22:37
Statistics: Posted by QuantumProjects — 11 Feb 2015, 21:04