Forged Alliance Forever

Re: Gunships and bombers.

2013-08-19T13:14:06+02:00

What you are describing is a non issue and you are arguing in circles. First you say that static AA is useless, then you say that the only reason that a person died is because he built none. Also, there is no clear theme in this thread at all, as the topic being argued keeps going from "how does a bomber compare to a gunship" to "balance" to "useless static AA" to various other points.

Add to this the fact that not four days ago you declared the t1 gunship a "useless noob trap" and asked to have it removed from the game, then today you declare it more powerful compared to the bomber, both times ignoring the cost of the two units.

Then there is the replay that sheppard posted, which shows exactly what he says it shows, and yet you somehow misinterpret and turn into another argument for your case.

In short, I am looking at your responses and topics posted and I really think that this is simply trolling around for arguments.

If anyone really thinks this is a worthwhile discussion that can be kept on topic, message me and I will unlock this thread. If any of the other moderators disagree feel free to unlock it as well.

Statistics: Posted by BRNKoINSANITY — 19 Aug 2013, 13:14

Re: Gunships and bombers.

2013-08-19T10:46:38+02:00

gunships dont have more DPS than bombers for cost they have more HP.they can survive some AA but not for long.They would be good in instances where they need to pass a bit of AA to get to an AA free area, thus they are balanced(even now) in terms of stats and in the way they fly to be god against static AA spam since they can easily go around it or fly through a bit of it into an AA free zone and if the enemy has no fighters the gunships will wreckage havoc.
bombers cant do that cause of how they move and them being flimsy.
The problem is Static AA spam is not viable and thus this in built advantage and difference they have over the bomber is mostly blurred out.
Also when bombers attack a moving group of units where you say gunships are better they do not necessarily need to be accurate since the yare bombing a group of units...Not to mention some bombers drop AOE bombs so they are in fact better than gunships at doing dmg to groups for cost.

Statistics: Posted by CopyyyCattt — 19 Aug 2013, 10:46

Re: Gunships and bombers.

2013-08-19T10:28:46+02:00

Bombers can be used for suicide runs and are not hard countered by AA. Hover they are ineffective agianst groups of mobile units.

Gunships are largely ineffective agianst air defences, and have a lower mobility, however they do constant damage and are ideal for attacks agianst mobile units.

Statistics: Posted by Nombringer — 19 Aug 2013, 10:28

Re: Gunships and bombers.

2013-08-19T10:13:04+02:00

DonFusili wrote:
Perhaps someone should mention that for bombers to be actually better, you need the skill to time the drop correctly and approach from a good enough angle etc etc (unless you're sera... sera bombers have a better map reach than mavors) whilst for gunships you have to just click attack and you know it'll attack the unit for as long as it lives. I suck at bomber control but don't mind them being better (whilst I do agree that correctly handled bombers are better than gunships).

The point is not what is better for cost but if gunships and bombers are actually useful at different enough circumstances.
You can take a t1 gunship make it cost 1 mass and it will always be better than a bomber because they both fill almost the exact same role and the gunships is more effective for cost or you can do the same for bombers.
The problem is that they are competing for the same task.
the one that does this task better for cost makes the other useless.
bombers need micro particularity at start of games(but later as well of course) to get engies but gunships also need micro to avoid a big group of mobile AA or sneak in while the enemy's fighters are busy somewhere else.

since both units are air ground attack units they will always share some part of their role with each other much like a t1 tank shares some of its role with a t2 tank.
there is a fine line to walk between the cost effectiveness of bombers and gunships and making sure they are both ideal at different circumstances during an average game.
I'm saying that the obvious features from which we need to extract their separated roles is from how they work.
One being conservative about space and needing AA free environment to be maximally cost effective, making it best against an enemy who is making a lot of static AA and not many fighters or no fighters at all, whiel bombers are good if the enemy goes all out fighters since they can still deal damage even with enemy fighter coverage but since bombers are flimsier and are much less conservative about space usage thye would be bad agains a lot of static AA spam if it was stronger and actually viable.

This separates the two into two distinct roles with some overlap of course while making the game more varied by allowing sometimes to play with only static AA spam , sometimes ot have both static and mobile and sometimes have only mobile AA or only fighters.

Statistics: Posted by CopyyyCattt — 19 Aug 2013, 10:13

Re: Gunships and bombers.

2013-08-19T10:13:55+02:00

ColonelSheppard wrote:
CopyyyCattt wrote:I suggested making it viable to spam Static AA if one does not want to go air for exmaple.

I suggest making it viable to spam pointdefences if someone doesnt want to go land for example.

You got land, navy, air.
Air Ground
Air Navy
Ground Air
that stops working at some point, you cannot effectivly fight a flak - shield - GC combo with air, as well as you cant fight cruiser + shields after they reached critical mass
but at the same moment you cant fight air with ground at some point, because you get a mass attempt to snipe your commander or you get mexes killed with gunships all over the map

you need everything land and air (and navy) at some point, if you want to play landonly, then there is a toogleable option in the lobby

The thing is you are making my point yet again.
Navy is obviously useless on Land only maps and on many maps with little water it is either useless or rarely useful.
Land is the same only the other way around but since there are little maps with water mass there is little chance for land to be completely useless but none the lass in many cases land tanks are very limited int their use or only hover tanks or amphibious units are useful.

Like you yourself explained air is always a must have.Why? Because the best counter for air is more air.
Sure if the other player has same amount of air and some mobile AA then he is gonna have an advatage but this does not negate the fact that mobile AA and especially fighters are over powered.
either fighters are too powerful or static AA is not powerful enough(does not have enough range for cost for most map sizes/does not have enough dps for cost or both).

This actually limits the variety in the game because you cannot for example on certain maps pull off a static AA spam while going land only.
A unit or unit type is accepted as over powered when it must be almost always built to win and if it restricts the building of other units and variety of play in general.This is what mobile AA and especially fighters are.
The game would be more varied if you could and should go on some maps naval land and air, on some naval and air, on some land and air, on some static AA and land and on some Static AA and sea.
Atm the last two are not viable which not only makes the game less varied but also blurs the lines between gunships and bombers.

Statistics: Posted by CopyyyCattt — 19 Aug 2013, 10:02

Re: Gunships and bombers.

2013-08-19T09:54:20+02:00

ColonelSheppard wrote:
CopyyyCattt wrote:This means the main attribute of gunships over bombers becomes irrelevant since nobody is spamming static AA in his territory.
gunships loose their place in the balance and their roles starts blurring with the role of bombers.

sorry bro but thats a simplyfied, and mostly wrong statement, i expected to see flame about hovering bomber in this thread after i read the title (to which i would agree) but your statements and arguments dont fit into reality
1100662.fafreplay
As you can clearly see in the replay, mobile AA takes a long time to get to certain positions on bigger maps, building engys to access fast static AA is nessesary and usefull, the power of gunsips can be seen very good, also you cannot always build fighters because once you lost a big airbattle you are massivly behind in air for a long time, especially if you dont have enough aa in your base and your enemy flies around above your airfactory

I watched this replay Till the end.
How does this not prove my point?It's exactly what it does.
Nobody made any static AA.
why? cause they know its shit.
What did both players make? mobile AA, specifically fighters.
Who lost the game? The one who had least mobile AA and got sniped cause he did not have the fighters to defend himself.

Statistics: Posted by CopyyyCattt — 19 Aug 2013, 09:54

Re: Gunships and bombers.

2013-08-18T18:47:11+02:00

Perhaps someone should mention that for bombers to be actually better, you need the skill to time the drop correctly and approach from a good enough angle etc etc (unless you're sera... sera bombers have a better map reach than mavors) whilst for gunships you have to just click attack and you know it'll attack the unit for as long as it lives. I suck at bomber control but don't mind them being better (whilst I do agree that correctly handled bombers are better than gunships).

Statistics: Posted by DonFusili — 18 Aug 2013, 18:47

Re: Gunships and bombers.

2013-08-18T18:38:50+02:00

CopyyyCattt wrote:
I suggested making it viable to spam Static AA if one does not want to go air for exmaple.

I suggest making it viable to spam pointdefences if someone doesnt want to go land for example.

You got land, navy, air.
Air Ground
Air Navy
Ground Air
that stops working at some point, you cannot effectivly fight a flak - shield - GC combo with air, as well as you cant fight cruiser + shields after they reached critical mass
but at the same moment you cant fight air with ground at some point, because you get a mass attempt to snipe your commander or you get mexes killed with gunships all over the map

you need everything land and air (and navy) at some point, if you want to play landonly, then there is a toogleable option in the lobby

Statistics: Posted by ColonelSheppard — 18 Aug 2013, 18:38

Re: Gunships and bombers.

2013-08-18T17:53:21+02:00

It never suggested making gunships better for cost. I suggested making it viable to spam Static AA if one does not want ot go air for exmaple.

Statistics: Posted by CopyyyCattt — 18 Aug 2013, 17:53

Re: Gunships and bombers.

2013-08-18T16:50:18+02:00

"when the enemy has no AA why not just use bombers in this case as well?"
Simple, because you cannot dodge gunships. On the other hand you can dodge bombers, long enough(or indefinately ) till you come in range of newly built mobile or static aa.
Additionaly when you have to defend across long distances, you can better be harassed with gunships, which can pinpoint their target, and not take happy strolls in your area defended by various aa(Imagine my rage in older times when they were not firing in the first pass, taking their time to be exterminated; my bias and disdain is truly ingrained from long ago against bombers and though I may be easily surprised by a suicide attack, I can't but feel embarassed about it.)

"The point is that if spamming STATIC AA is almost never viable".
Imho, it is, so viable in fact, that it becomes absurd. I generally am of the opinion that static defenses are op, but this is another theme. The point is to see a couple of bombers or gunships and not go crazy and build a forest of pds.

"When the enemy has fighters that can move around and get to the gunships no matter where they are, bombers have the advantage because they only need to do one successful surprise run and it does not matter if they are killed afterwards."
Bombers can easily be cleaned in fact easier when they sit idle. The only exception to this is when they attack en masse.
You can erase them too in this case just by clicking 2 or 3 more times at your asfs, which can't be said for the gunships in general(have you tried to stop restorers that attack en mass with your asfs?)
It does matter "if they are killed afterwards", because they cost a shitload of mass and energy and can really be effective for a very tiny window of time. It is a very risky investment even if it is successfull, that can leave your army and economy in a wretched condition afterwards. They may seem good when your opponent is taken by surprise,but obviously this is an invalid proposition.

The point of the whole rant being that if you make gunships more effective, you will only needlessly strengthen an already powerful unit.

Statistics: Posted by prodromos — 18 Aug 2013, 16:50

Re: Gunships and bombers.

2013-08-18T13:46:30+02:00

CopyyyCattt wrote:
This means the main attribute of gunships over bombers becomes irrelevant since nobody is spamming static AA in his territory.
gunships loose their place in the balance and their roles starts blurring with the role of bombers.

sorry bro but thats a simplyfied, and mostly wrong statement, i expected to see flame about hovering bomber in this thread after i read the title (to which i would agree) but your statements and arguments dont fit into reality
1100662.fafreplay
As you can clearly see in the replay, mobile AA takes a long time to get to certain positions on bigger maps, building engys to access fast static AA is nessesary and usefull, the power of gunsips can be seen very good, also you cannot always build fighters because once you lost a big airbattle you are massivly behind in air for a long time, especially if you dont have enough aa in your base and your enemy flies around above your airfactory

Statistics: Posted by ColonelSheppard — 18 Aug 2013, 13:46

Re: Gunships and bombers.

2013-08-18T13:30:17+02:00

Gorton wrote:
Gunships for under defended, usually outlying targets without flak etc and when you have air
Bombers are more used for sniping (not nec an acu, sniping anything)
I'm not sure why you have a problem with this

If the enemy has fighters gunships are useless cause they get demolished as do bombers but bombers can manage to drop their load once.
If there are no fighters bombers and gunships are viable as attacking methods since nothing is gonna stop them anyway.
while bombers have a clear niche, attacking and suiciing when the enemy has fighters, gunships do not since they are good if the enemy has no ifhgters and instead spamms static AA.
If spamming of static AA never happens the gunship's role blurrs with the bomber.

Allowing spamming of static AA to be viable will add variety and give gunships a clearer role and use.

As in, you use them when the enemy made no air and only spammed static AA.

Statistics: Posted by CopyyyCattt — 18 Aug 2013, 13:30

Re: Gunships and bombers.

2013-08-18T13:27:07+02:00

Wanna add that gunships are and should be tougher so getting a bit of AA fire is ok as long as they get to their destination that is free of AA while bombers are and should be flimsy so flying under aa or flying and attacking near aa is not beneficial with them since once they are exposed to a bit of it they go down fast.

Statistics: Posted by CopyyyCattt — 18 Aug 2013, 13:27

Re: Gunships and bombers.

2013-08-18T13:25:43+02:00

Gunships for under defended, usually outlying targets without flak etc and when you have air
Bombers are more used for sniping (not nec an acu, sniping anything)
I'm not sure why you have a problem with this

Statistics: Posted by Gorton — 18 Aug 2013, 13:25

Gunships and bombers.

2013-08-18T13:14:23+02:00

Sorry for the long post, I just wanted to make the meaning(what they mean to me) of all the terms i use clear so there is no confusion about what im trying to say.

This is a general observation about gunships,bombers and balance in FA.
First thing, some terms i wanna define and use:
1)The cost effectiveness of units - how good a unit's stats are for its mass energy and build time costs.
2)the role of a unit - when is a specific unit the best unit to build under given circumstances.
Those circumstances define the unit's role in the overall balance.
If a unit is never the best unit to build, under any circumstances, than it is under powered and useless.
there is no point in a unit that always does what needs to be done worse than some other unit.
These two terms are sometimes interchangeable and are connected.

Let's say in a cybran T1 land factory we have two units, Mantis and Mantis 2.
They both have the same exact stats, operate in the same exact way and cost the same amount of all three resources(mass,energy and build time).
These two units fill the exact same role of a t1 main tank, because of how they handle, their range of fire etc... and do it at the same cost efficiency since they cost the same.

Now I wanna get to gunships and bombers.
Both are flying units, both are mainly ground attack units so what makes them different? under what circumstances is a gunship better than a bomber and under what circumstances is a bomber a better use of resources than a gunship?
Except the usual stats about dps, damage per hit, speed, health points, there is major difference between the two units.
They behave and move in two completely different ways.
Gunships hover over the target and bombers fly in big arches around the target.
What is this relevant to? How do these two different behaviors change the roles of both units and separate them?
Both units are countered by AA units, like fighters or AA structures.
So when is a bomber the ideal weapon of choice? when you want to surprise your enemy that either has not enough fighters or they are located in the wrong place or your opponents simply does not have any fighters.
The advantage of the bombers is that they come fast, deal a lot of immediate damage for their cost and can even be sent on suicide missions since if they just unload their bombs once they are already worth it even if they die afterwards to AA.

So is the gunships the same? No, the gunship does not deal a lot of immediate damage for it's cost so it is ideal when the enemy has very little AA or none at all, allowing the gunships to deal accurate damage for an extended period of time.
the question than is, when the enemy has no AA why not just use bombers in this case as well?

Because there are two different types of AA.
1)Mobile ground AA and mobile air AA.
2)Static AA, turrets.
Does this have any effect on the roles of bombers and gunships?
I think it does.
As mentioned before gunships hover above their target while bombers are much less conservative about the space they use when attacking and fly in large archs.

What does this mean? It means that if a player has been spamming STATIC ground AA if a bombers comes in with his big flying archs it has a big chance of getting inside the radius of static AA and getting hit.
Gunships on the other hand can attack areas with static AA in the vicinity without fear of flying into their radius because of the fact gunships do not use up much space when attacking.

When the enemy has fighters that can move around and get to the gunships no matter where they are, bombers have the advantage because they only need to do one successful surprise run and it does not matter if they are killed afterwards.

The problem in the roles of a gunships versus the bomber arises if an RTS has no viable spammable static AA for cost.
As in, the static AA, for its cost, is usually worse than just using fighters.
This means the main attribute of gunships over bombers becomes irrelevant since nobody is spamming static AA in his territory.
gunships loose their place in the balance and their roles starts blurring with the role of bombers.

The point is that if spamming STATIC AA is almost never viable, and mobile AA is almost always the better choice, gunships loose their role and then devs must balance them to fit into roughly the same role of bombers.

Statistics: Posted by CopyyyCattt — 18 Aug 2013, 13:14