Forged Alliance Forever Forged Alliance Forever Forums 2015-02-17T18:01:50+02:00 /feed.php?f=2&t=9213 2015-02-17T18:01:50+02:00 2015-02-17T18:01:50+02:00 /viewtopic.php?t=9213&p=94122#p94122 <![CDATA[Re: General Air Balance]]>

Statistics: Posted by -_V_- — 17 Feb 2015, 18:01


]]>
2015-02-13T00:35:03+02:00 2015-02-13T00:35:03+02:00 /viewtopic.php?t=9213&p=93783#p93783 <![CDATA[Re: General Air Balance]]>
Blodir wrote:
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 :D


Don't know why you think I should be able to defend against a concentrated effort alone. But yes t2 shields + t3maa is very strong (that's why i said most of the time, since most people don't build a million shields with their t3maa). I don't really understand why you think there shouldn't be a counter to strats at all though. And well if enemy builds about 8 t3maa and 8 t2 shields with their exp then you have more than enough mass to build your own exp

The unit combination was relevant, not the fact 2 people contributed towards it, one person can do that combination too... You don't need a million shields, just like 1 or 2 lol which you know full well. And people who don't are dumb, as usual you are making arguments based on people being dumb rather than using units to maximum potential, which is how I am looking at every situation. Flak already counters strats pretty well mass for mass. But besides that you can only really make strats with air superiority, which isn't so simple to have. In a team game your allies can keep their air over that aa- how can the enemy possibly win air then, or even use strats?

If you win land you have the ability to make pretty much 100% aa without too much issue, stopping air. If you win air, you used to be able to then spam 100% strats to counter land (equivalent to the aa spam). But now thats irrelevant vs the t3 mobile aa. Also you can't be serious about comparing 8 mobile aa and 8 t2 shields to a t4 xD And that is exactly what I said in the first place, why should you have to make a land t4 given you have control of air?



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.


So what you are saying is that you should be allowed to invest in just 1 unit type and be able to deal with everything cost effectively? Why do you have a problem with land being able to deal with air cost effectively then? (which it isn't btw because of mobility)

Of course mobility is relevant, mobility makes it easy to exploit enemy weaknesses, defend against nearly any harassment, launch concentrated attacks and on top of that it forces your opponent to be prepared to defend anywhere in a moments notice.

I don't know why you think land raids are harder to intercept than air raids. Just a couple of gunships will deal with most raids - if they are raiding with flak you should have equal land forces anyway.


Pretty much although not massively cost effectively, which air never managed to achieve, and neither did land units until t3 mobile aa. Meaning that unit type has the very cost effective counter but air doesn't. "Mobility" does not nearly make up for that, only for running away from aa or from enemy air not dealing damage... I don't think I have ever managed to use it in a meaningful way to exploit that ability vs anything useful unless the enemy is dumb.

Exploit enemy weaknesses? If you lose air/have no air the only things that should be unprotected are shit you don't care about, your main armies and economy will be protected. So killing anything useful for a non-massive investment is very unlikely. They can only defend vs harassment if it is not with aa, which would be dumb if you are playing without air vs air. Land can't launch concentrated attacks?

Flak is cheaper than the air needed to kill it, and cheaper than most land units, so yes you can kill it fine if you have land player vs land player but one made the flak. But air player vs land player no... I was also saying more defending land raids using land, comparing to defending air raids using air.

Statistics: Posted by galacticfear — 13 Feb 2015, 00:35


]]>
2015-02-12T23:49:01+02:00 2015-02-12T23:49:01+02:00 /viewtopic.php?t=9213&p=93780#p93780 <![CDATA[Re: General Air Balance]]>
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 :D


Don't know why you think I should be able to defend against a concentrated effort alone. But yes t2 shields + t3maa is very strong (that's why i said most of the time, since most people don't build a million shields with their t3maa). I don't really understand why you think there shouldn't be a counter to strats at all though. And well if enemy builds about 8 t3maa and 8 t2 shields with their exp then you have more than enough mass to build your own exp


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.


So what you are saying is that you should be allowed to invest in just 1 unit type and be able to deal with everything cost effectively? Why do you have a problem with land being able to deal with air cost effectively then? (which it isn't btw because of mobility)

Of course mobility is relevant, mobility makes it easy to exploit enemy weaknesses, defend against nearly any harassment, launch concentrated attacks and on top of that it forces your opponent to be prepared to defend anywhere in a moments notice.

I don't know why you think land raids are harder to intercept than air raids. Just a couple of gunships will deal with most raids - if they are raiding with flak you should have equal land forces anyway.

Statistics: Posted by Blodir — 12 Feb 2015, 23:49


]]>
2015-02-12T23:29:10+02:00 2015-02-12T23:29:10+02:00 /viewtopic.php?t=9213&p=93776#p93776 <![CDATA[Re: General Air Balance]]>
Blodir wrote:
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).

Why should it be equal? Air is much more mobile, there should be some kind of tradeoff for that mobility.

Btw you can most of the time still easily strat exp even with the t3maa if you just target the t3maa first



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 :D

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 — 12 Feb 2015, 23:29


]]>
2015-02-12T23:07:58+02:00 2015-02-12T23:07:58+02:00 /viewtopic.php?t=9213&p=93775#p93775 <![CDATA[Re: General Air Balance]]>
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).

Why should it be equal? Air is much more mobile, there should be some kind of tradeoff for that mobility.

Btw you can most of the time still easily strat exp even with the t3maa if you just target the t3maa first

Statistics: Posted by Blodir — 12 Feb 2015, 23:07


]]>
2015-02-12T22:44:34+02:00 2015-02-12T22:44:34+02:00 /viewtopic.php?t=9213&p=93772#p93772 <![CDATA[Re: General Air Balance]]>
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, 22:44


]]>
2015-02-12T19:28:50+02:00 2015-02-12T19:28:50+02:00 /viewtopic.php?t=9213&p=93755#p93755 <![CDATA[Re: General Air Balance]]>
QuantumProjects wrote:
while I've seen the T3 MAA and witnessed its brutal efficiency in taking down T3 planes. I didn't include them into my analysis because they were recently implemented, and then some patches ago they were removed (and now, they've been implemented again).


This is wrong. T3MAA was introduced in patch 3633 and hasn't been removed in subsequent patches. Changelogs here.

Statistics: Posted by Sheeo — 12 Feb 2015, 19:28


]]>
2015-02-12T19:26:14+02:00 2015-02-12T19:26:14+02:00 /viewtopic.php?t=9213&p=93754#p93754 <![CDATA[Re: General Air Balance]]> Statistics: Posted by Sovietpride — 12 Feb 2015, 19:26


]]>
2015-02-12T19:14:53+02:00 2015-02-12T19:14:53+02:00 /viewtopic.php?t=9213&p=93752#p93752 <![CDATA[Re: General Air Balance]]> Statistics: Posted by galacticfear — 12 Feb 2015, 19:14


]]>
2015-02-12T19:08:34+02:00 2015-02-12T19:08:34+02:00 /viewtopic.php?t=9213&p=93751#p93751 <![CDATA[Re: General Air Balance]]>
_VODKA_ wrote:
In GPG days SAMS didnt have AoE (and were also more expensive iir) and there was also no T3MAA. People easily lose track of the facts and focus on theoretical subjects like this ASF discussion. While I find your posts well constructed, I think you are also falling for that trap. How many times has someone actually denied your air production by patrolling over your base, given somewhat equal skill levels?


First of all, thank you for the compliment.

I confess I wasn't aware that SAM has AoE in FAF, which might change the circumstances I've briefly analysed before. Not sure if SAM has changed substantially enough to do any difference, while I've seen the T3 MAA and witnessed its brutal efficiency in taking down T3 planes. I didn't include them into my analysis because they were recently implemented, and then some patches ago they were removed (and now, they've been implemented again).

_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?


I think you are partially correct on this. What I've seen happening is the AI, for instance, rolling over me with just massive numbers and a impressive reaction time, and no amount of strategy could change the odds in my favour. But I'm not a good player, so I can't actually say that I've lost due to sheer numbers or due to a combination of numbers with cold AI strategy.

I have the impression that once you've lost air control, it doesn't matter if you have ground and naval superiority. Without T3 MMA (which the original game didn't have), air supremacy was key to victory; I'm not so certain now, because these new units are quite efficient in killing planes (probably the reason why they were implemented =D). So I concede that having a T3 MAA might have changed the circumstances.

Statistics: Posted by QuantumProjects — 12 Feb 2015, 19:08


]]>
2015-02-12T11:21:44+02:00 2015-02-12T11:21:44+02:00 /viewtopic.php?t=9213&p=93712#p93712 <![CDATA[Re: General Air Balance]]>
QuantumProjects wrote:
the enemy player can put its ASF in patrol mode over all your air factories, and you will never be able to put a single plane on the air again. Your flak will be almost useless, and so will be your SAM, as the OP has proved.


That's not accurate however, SAM, T3MAA and, in case of nearby water, cruisers are very effective against ASF swarms. Especially if they stay in one spot! The OP apparently said that flying over flak doesn't "kill" in one pass, but once ASF start patrolling over flak they will take significant damage, especially in groups of trailing units, and soon start to drop out of the sky.

I'm not saying it's easy to get out of a situation where you are being dominated by air, but that's not really the point either. It's just as deadly to be overrun by land or naval units. That's actually even worse probably. I just want to bust the myth that ASF are immune to anything but more ASF.

In GPG days SAMS didnt have AoE (and were also more expensive iir) and there was also no T3MAA. People easily lose track of the facts and focus on theoretical subjects like this ASF discussion. While I find your posts well constructed, I think you are also falling for that trap. How many times has someone actually denied your air production by patrolling over your base, given somewhat equal skill levels? 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 Col_Walter_Kurtz — 12 Feb 2015, 11:21


]]>
2015-02-12T02:04:45+02:00 2015-02-12T02:04:45+02:00 /viewtopic.php?t=9213&p=93692#p93692 <![CDATA[Re: General Air Balance]]>
QuantumProjects wrote:
RoLa wrote:Just build some sams and your base is a no go area for enemy asf.


According to the OP, who have tested this and posted the proof, SAM are really bad against ASF. I believe this is due to their speed (on Shards, a 40km x 40km map, an ASF can cross the diagonal section of the map in 30 seconds, while a interceptor takes 3 full minutes).


SAM's make an area "undesirable".

Unfortunately, a "no-go" area is a bit of a stretch. If a snipe's coming in, the sniper will happily engage enemy ASF over SAMS - because fact of the matter is you create a situation where you either air micro, or lose your ASF in an attempt to kill the incoming bombers.
Ok, it's not that simple - you can split some ASF off, etc, but in general SAM's don't really do enough late game. It might be to do with targetting - to me, they seem to target the first thing that comes into range, and there is thus overkill? I still think some AoE to it would do wonders...

Statistics: Posted by Sovietpride — 12 Feb 2015, 02:04


]]>
2015-02-12T00:57:06+02:00 2015-02-12T00:57:06+02:00 /viewtopic.php?t=9213&p=93690#p93690 <![CDATA[Re: General Air Balance]]>
RoLa wrote:
Just build some sams and your base is a no go area for enemy asf.


According to the OP, who have tested this and posted the proof, SAM are really bad against ASF. I believe this is due to their speed (on Shards, a 40km x 40km map, an ASF can cross the diagonal section of the map in 30 seconds, while a interceptor takes 3 full minutes).

Statistics: Posted by QuantumProjects — 12 Feb 2015, 00:57


]]>
2015-02-11T22:37:43+02:00 2015-02-11T22:37:43+02:00 /viewtopic.php?t=9213&p=93678#p93678 <![CDATA[Re: General Air Balance]]>
QuantumProjects wrote:
once you have lost it, the enemy player can put its ASF in patrol mode over all your air factories, and you will never be able to put a single plane on the air again.
Just build some sams and your base is a no go area for enemy asf.

_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.
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.

Some time ago crotalus found the cause of asf lag. TargetCheckInterval needs to be increased. I think it has been already a bit increased from 0.3 to 0.5.
viewtopic.php?f=58&t=5690&p=58068#p58068

I suggested using some dynamic value eg.
viewtopic.php?f=58&t=5690&start=90#p58105

Statistics: Posted by RoLa — 11 Feb 2015, 22:37


]]>
2015-02-11T21:04:24+02:00 2015-02-11T21:04:24+02:00 /viewtopic.php?t=9213&p=93664#p93664 <![CDATA[Re: General Air Balance]]>
_VODKA_ wrote:
A core element of FA is scale, growing almost exponentially. From tiny LABs to bots a hundred times their size that shoot massive laser beams out of their faces. Of course there are examples of lower tier units remaining effective into late game, at least when mixed with higher tier units, but it should not be treated as a rule or compared to economy. Economy and fighting units have different dynamics. Messing with the superiority of higher tech would defeat the purpose of teching instead of spamming, and take out a layer of the strategic thinking (timing / tech / quantity of units).

Trying to make interceptors competitive with late game units would probably upset the balance in every tier and every layer (air / land / water) to an extent that the game itself would have to be redesigned. And yeah, we have seen what Supcom 2 turned out to be. A cramped attempt at keeping all units relevant. Let's not go down that route.

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.


I concede that the suggested balance scheme is obviously too massive to be implemented, and although I would really like to see something down that line (perhaps in a FAF mod), I'm aware that it is massive, risky and may prove to be worthless. Just to clarify my point, it wouldn't be like Supcom 2, because they have failed to notice in that game, as they have in this one, that the concentration of power into a single unit has strategic benefits that would make them viable and useful regardless of the cost-effectiveness factor - it would only make T1 and, to a lesser extent, T2 units more viable in certain late-game situations, which I personally consider desirable. What we have today is that, once you reach T2, you are wasting money building T1, because they are more cost-effective due to cost compounded with the force concentration factor. I don't think it should be the case all the time, because once T2 gets into the field, all your T1 units suddenly become obsolete. But that's just an idea and not a serious proposition to change things.

On the subject at hand, though, the ASF problem is: if you lose ground superiority to a larger T3 ground force, you may be able to recover it by bunkering behind point defenses and rebuilding your force while repositioning forces and striking elsewhere on the map - with few exceptions, the enemy won't be able to reach your factories without "cracking the egg open". You may lose map control, but you at least have a chance to recover.

The same thing happens with air superiority until T3: at T2, flak truly helps with maintaing airspace control, which means that if your planes are decimated by the enemy airforce, you can rebuild it behind your own lines, since the enemy won't be able to easily reach into your airspace and kill your units as they leave the factory. Also, ground-based AA truly provide a force multiplier to your airforce, because flak will hit enemy units that fly into its range.

However, the same doesn't hold true regarding air superiority at T3: once you have lost it, the enemy player can put its ASF in patrol mode over all your air factories, and you will never be able to put a single plane on the air again. Your flak will be almost useless, and so will be your SAM, as the OP has proved. Without the ability to regain any airspace control, your ground troops and ships will be freely decimated by torpedo bombers and gunships; they won't be able to leave your ground AA defense range. You have become a sitting duck, even if you have had ground AND naval superiority by the time that you've lost your air superiority. You don't have any alternative way to regain air superiority: the only way to counter ASF is with ASF.

That's the problem I see with air superiority at T3, in my opinion. Once you have air superiority at T3, I believe you are able to gain ground and naval superiority regardless of what your enemy have built. I find that quite unbalanced, because the same truly isn't true on the other battlespaces.

Statistics: Posted by QuantumProjects — 11 Feb 2015, 21:04


]]>