Forged Alliance Forever

Re: Rebalancing subs

2013-07-31T00:15:02+02:00

The Mod that changed all navy is the Fourth Dimension.The ships movements, scales and other things are very real physics.

Statistics: Posted by vongratz — 31 Jul 2013, 00:15

Re: Rebalancing subs

2013-07-30T04:52:09+02:00

abcabcabc339 wrote:
gnatinator wrote:Want to complain about naval homing weapons? You forgot the biggest offender of them all.

Godlike protip ONLY for Seraphim players:

The Seraphim T2 Destroyer. Your enemies cannot evade the Uashavoh's beam weapons. Just keep issuing random move orders and hit them every time while evading their shots. This advantage allows Seraphim players to lazily win naval battles even when outnumbered 3:1.

Play Sera? Have fun exploiting that.

Yeah...no
That is not really a problem. Moving in circles is A SKILL. Not all players can move in circles. This is not an exploit, it is an integral gameplay and balance mechanic. Moving in circles is MICRO. MICRO IS A SKILL. JEEZ micro is even STRATEGY. When you ARE microing you cant MACRO, and MACRO IS STRATEGY. I HATE U PEOPLE HUE TRY2REMOVE MICRO FROM MY PERFECT FORGED ALLIANCE.

5 APM for a few random movement orders every 20 seconds does not take any skill unless you're noob-level. I am all for more Micro in FA, but this is an enormous advantage for basically zero APM cost if you're any good at all.

Statistics: Posted by gnatinator — 30 Jul 2013, 04:52

Re: Rebalancing subs

2013-07-30T04:30:41+02:00

CopyyyCattt wrote:
Fire wall that is because there are little maps with water mass and the most played naval map is setons.
Smaller naval maps or maps with water mass would be different.

Water Maps could be put into a few categories:

Small = Four Corners, Open Waters, Canis River, Finn's Revenge, Haven Reef, High Noon
Large = Roanoke Abyss, Seraphim Glaciers, Seatons Clutch
Frigging Huge = Shards, Debris, Betrayal Ocean

Each of these will see a slightly different naval gameplay. In small maps, the water posses little more than an obstacle that is to be negotiated. Ship weapons will threaten only outlying mexes close to the water. Often a reason for going naval here is to deny hovercraft access. So T1 frigate spam for passage denial is sometimes seen on these maps. As such the T1 sub becomes the "counter to the counter". T1 subs are balanced here, because more submarines means less frigates to shoot hovercraft. T2 navy will be devastaing on these maps. So you are likely to see a cruiser and a couple of destroyers before very long. Which, if not countered, usually signifies the end of the game. The purpose of T2 navy here is shore bombardment.

Large maps are the most commonly played. In these maps, T1 navy will be used for initial raiding and scouting missions. T1 navy is not used for denial of access, but rather, for reconnisance and the early harrasment and destruction of naval construction. The main game on these maps will be the T2 vessels, which will populate the main battle fleets. There will be a progression to T3 units. However, a fully developed battlefleet will consist of all tech levels. But with a strong bias toward T2. Because having too many battleships leaves the fleet vunerable to submarine and air attacks.

On frigging huge maps, distance is a critical factor. Because by the time a ship has transitied the ocean. It will already be out teched and out numbered. So fleets, if ever used on these maps would consist of large expeditionary forces, with a good number of T3 ships. It is more likely that players will simply transport engineers and build forward naval bases. In which case, the dynamics would play out similar to Large sized maps. Only that one of the players bases is under direct threat and the other's is not. On these maps. Naval has more of a defensive role. Because players are more likely to eco, and then use a combination of teleporting, air attacks, drops and experiementals. Battlefleets are simply too slow. But when they do arrive, they work well... Often a better choice for navies on this map is to build aircraft carriers instead of battleships. Because they can spam aircraft close the the action, and act as a forward air base. An aircraft carrier loaded with bombers can take out many battleships.

Oddly enough, naval actually has more of a supporting role on these huge maps. The main focus is on supporting the aircraft, the dropships, the land units which will actually contest land control. Or the development of strategic weapons which will deny it. Because there is so much water, total naval control is impractical. The resources are on the land, so it is land control which is really important.

Statistics: Posted by Hawkei — 30 Jul 2013, 04:30

Re: Rebalancing subs

2013-07-30T03:51:24+02:00

Firewall hit the nail on the head.... this should be made into a mod if someone feels that it needs done. Changing these mechanics would mean a total rebalancing of t1 and t2 navy, and would carry implications over to t3. There is a mod in the forums..... can't remember which one, but in the scheduled updates (which did not carry over into FAF unfortunately as the developer never got the updates to ZeP). This mod completely overhauls navy, adding about as many units as there are land units that fill all rolls for all factions. Escort ships, main AA, new animations for everything, tons of stuff. Might go search around and look into his work and go download the latest version of his mod and try it.

Actually just checked and it is the Total Mayhem mod. I know of several guys around here that have it on their PCs and host total mayhem games. You guys should definitely check it out and perhaps kickstart a discussion on the total mayhem forum. It has been dead for quite a while

Statistics: Posted by BRNKoINSANITY — 30 Jul 2013, 03:51

Re: Rebalancing subs

2013-07-30T03:36:40+02:00

rootbeer23 wrote:
is it possible to have ships shoot a projectile that behaves like a land artillery shell but that explodes underwater?
that would make a better looking depth charge.

I agree. I think that it ought to be possible. But the animation would really need to be implemented as a 2 phase projectile. There is the artillery shell through the air, which "plops" the depthcharge into the water. Then there is the depthcharge phase. Which is non-tracking, but would slowly sink to the required depth and detonate. It would take some blueprint skills, but I'm sure it could be done. IMO that is how depthcharges should be moddeled. The blast animation could even include surface effects on the water. Seeing the concussion effects and water spout would be cool

Actually I've been thinking about what CopyyyCattt was suggesting earlier. With torpeedos. I think the best solution would be to have:
1. A projectile lifetime for all torpeedos
2. Tracking torpeedos
3. Significantly reduced turn rates

This means you would get the useful benefits of that tracking behaviour. But there is the likelyhood that a torpeedo could miss a turning ship. The torpeedo would then come around for another pass in a very large circle. If the projectile lifetime was correcty applied, the torpeedo might only be able to make 1 or 2 passes.

But, with all this. This is well beyond the scope of any balance patch. We are talking about completely new gameplay. It would be a Naval Combat Mod.

Statistics: Posted by Hawkei — 30 Jul 2013, 03:36

Re: Rebalancing subs

2013-07-29T14:03:11+02:00

Fire wall that is because there are little maps with water mass and the most played naval map is setons.
Smaller naval maps or maps with water mass would be different.

Statistics: Posted by CopyyyCattt — 29 Jul 2013, 14:03

Re: Rebalancing subs

2013-07-29T10:26:43+02:00

is it possible to have ships shoot a projectile that behaves like a land artillery shell but that explodes underwater?
that would make a better looking depth charge.

Statistics: Posted by rootbeer23 — 29 Jul 2013, 10:26

Re: Rebalancing subs

2013-07-29T09:31:10+02:00

I'd be suggesting the movement dynamics be similar to Vanilla SupCom. It would actually make the ships more predictable. Ships spinning on the spot is un-natural. It is cause by the vessel being slaved to the turret. So that when stationary all the guns could fire. Cause some idiots just didn't know how to control their ships.

In the old SupCom, positioning your big ships was part of proper control, it is an expected and natural aspect of the game which was removed, because people couldn't handle it... But if you are talking about making manouver a critial aspect of torpeedo avoidance, then the sluggishness of the vessels should be appropriately simulated. Futhermore, the spinning could even be detremental. Because as the ship spins, it may turn broadside and accidentally clip a passing torpeedo. The expected behaviour would be that if you give a move order, the ship would move forwards and turn towards to point you indicated.

Subs being OP in T1 is a non-issue. Most naval players know that a fast progression to T2 is required. Which is why T1 subs are rarely useful. This is because of the vunerability of T1 navy to both submarines and air. But it is also because the primary objective of a navy is to get map control. More specifically, map control on land. Which requires T2 and T3 naval units. There is no economic benefit in building a navy which does not have T2 or T3 units.

A normal naval formation should consist of T1, T2 (and even T3) ships working alongside eachother. Naval tech levels should not be balanced in isolation.

Statistics: Posted by Hawkei — 29 Jul 2013, 09:31

Re: Rebalancing subs

2013-07-29T09:22:14+02:00

You dont want to do anything that would cause movement to be less predictable and tedious..ships should spin on the spot.
Subs are not op because of t2 but at t1 they are since there is absolutely no counter to them except for launches and more subs..
Imagine you try to evade some shot with your ship and it starts turning to a direction you did not anticipate cause it cant turn on place..It is horrible.I'v seen it implemented.
Some people dont want any micro but they dont realize that than the game turns into who can out eco the other while just throwing same types of units at each other and winning simply cause you got more.

Statistics: Posted by CopyyyCattt — 29 Jul 2013, 09:22

Re: Rebalancing subs

2013-07-29T09:23:42+02:00

CopyyyCattt,

Your problem with rebalancing subs is that you have not yet understood the manner in which they ought to be balanced. Sub are not over powered, they are underpowered to the point of almost being completely usless. They also do not capture the true spirit of naval warfare.

A submarine, in essence, is not a slugging DPS kind of unit. It is a sneak in and critical strike weapon. So IMO its torpeedos ought to do much more damage, but the rate of fire should be slower. They should also have some form of stealth capability. With fixed sonar installations able to detect them at enormous range they have no chance of sneaking up on anything. I would recommend that all subs be stealthed while stationary. Their fire cycle should consist of two volleys of two torpeedos. About 3 seconds apart. With a further reload time of 9 seconds. Two torpeedos should be enough to sink a frigate.

With non-homing torpeedos. This would essentially mean the torpeedo would steer toward the correct bearing and then continue straight. Using a linear predicitve firing solution like any other projectile. Which means they would have a good chance of hitting their target if that target does not manouver. They would also be very likely to hit if that vessel turned broadside. Torpeedos that missed would continue on their path and could hit other ships in the formation.

The topeedos would need to travel at the correct depth to hit ships and boats, as well as submarines and this could be problematic. Some smaller units, like Shard attack boats may have too small a hit box. Which means torpeedos may go straight underneath them. Which was actually what happened in WW2, when this technology was used... It will also cause problems when trying to hit targets on the sea bed. Like ACU's, Wagners, Percies, Bricks, Experimentals, underwater Mexes and Hydrocarbon powerplants.

If it were to be implemented, you should also remove the body slaved to turrent behaviour which was added in FA, so that ships cannot spin on the spot. You should also reduce the turn rates and accelerations for ships.

You would also need to rethink the utility of torpeedos and depthcharges. Because torpeedos would likely become usless against other submarines, depthcharges would become the primary ASW weapon. Depthcharges could be reworked to operate as an artillery shell, which then sinks to the target depth and explodes with a significant blast area. The firing delay would make submarine micro useful. But the AOE could be devastating against formations of subs.

Many of the ASW units, like torpeedo boats and destroyers, would need to be reworked with both torpeedos and depthcharges. The torpeedos should only be able to target units on the surface or submerged. Depthcharges should only target submerged and seabed units.

Statistics: Posted by Hawkei — 29 Jul 2013, 09:00

Re: Rebalancing subs

2013-07-29T08:33:06+02:00

The problem here is the extremely strong rock paper scissors.
Subs hard counter t1 ships, Torp launchers hard counter subs.
These things need to be smoothened out a bit while also making subs a bit less "automated" with their always hit torps.
add torps to t1 ships, still make them bad versus subs but not completely useless and make sub torps not home in while speeding their projectile speed and its damage.
Make the t1 ship sonar low so subs can also surprise them and imo it will be much more entertaining.

Statistics: Posted by CopyyyCattt — 29 Jul 2013, 08:33

Re: Rebalancing subs

2013-07-29T07:24:51+02:00

vongratz wrote:
Add torps to t1 ships so they can harm subs.

THIS would be interesting. A weak deepbombs shipped in frigates, only capable to mantain the subs at distance, because a frigate, as a escort ship must to do something like this.
Otherwise, for the subs, more damage in torps.More range, and more reload time, to balance the first two modif things.

In olde times, Ive modded my mod, TA-Battlefleet, for TA and Spring, and Ive utilized the same modifications to create new parameters for submarines, near the real war, and without micro management.

The modern warfare definitions for frigates is not consistent with the gameplay of frigates in Supreme Cammander. In the modern navy, the frigate is used primarily for ASW. But in FA, that role is exclusively given to the Destroyer. Allowing both frigates and destroyers to kill subs would go heavily against subs. Especially considering that T1 submarines have been nerf to the point of being almost ineffective.

There are very few targets that can be sucessfully attacked with submarines. IMO Destroyers are too effective against Submarines.

Statistics: Posted by Hawkei — 29 Jul 2013, 07:24

Re: Rebalancing subs

2013-07-28T20:38:42+02:00

Add torps to t1 ships so they can harm subs.

THIS would be interesting. A weak deepbombs shipped in frigates, only capable to mantain the subs at distance, because a frigate, as a escort ship must to do something like this.
Otherwise, for the subs, more damage in torps.More range, and more reload time, to balance the first two modif things.

In olde times, Ive modded my mod, TA-Battlefleet, for TA and Spring, and Ive utilized the same modifications to create new parameters for submarines, near the real war, and without micro management.

Statistics: Posted by vongratz — 28 Jul 2013, 20:38

Re: Rebalancing subs

2013-07-28T22:51:57+02:00

Just make sub projectiles faster, not homing, perhaps semi homing.
There is more to it though.
T1 sea play can be improved by first making subs less hands off and second by allowing t1 ships to dominate mixed sea and land maps with the occasional few t1 subs here and there especially when there are targets on shore vulnerable to ship fire.
1)Subs should only dominate maps with sea mass.
2)Mass storage need to be changed to be allowed to be built underwater.
This would mean less difference between the importance of sea and land mass spots(atm obviously sea spots are worth less cause no mass storage), which would make maps with sea spots easier to balance.
2)allow t1 ships and subs to interact.
Add torps to t1 ships so they can harm subs.
They should still be worse for cost but not completely useless.

These changes would IMO improve t1 sea.
T2 matters less cause there people usually have bigger amounts of units and more types.
What is important is to tighten up the t1 play.

Statistics: Posted by CopyyyCattt — 28 Jul 2013, 19:55

Re: Rebalancing subs

2013-07-19T03:30:23+02:00

Torpedos should have a max range, that is all. It is silly that they can literally follow you around the whole map...

Statistics: Posted by Ionic — 19 Jul 2013, 03:30