Forged Alliance Forever

Re: t2 sub navy

2014-05-30T01:06:31+02:00

I think you guys need to hold on to this thought and post it in the next balance discussion.... You have a complete idea here, but it is not a testing period. Don't forget about it, think through your numbers, and have them ready.

Post is now locked because it is not a balance season. We may possibly move this thread into the balance forum when it is time and re-open it.

Statistics: Posted by BRNKoINSANITY — 30 May 2014, 01:06

Re: t2 sub navy

2014-05-30T00:54:26+02:00

Mycen wrote:
Spoiler: show
Consider your ten Blazes plus one Destroyer example - rather than build ten Blazes and two T2 subs of my own to counter, I could build two T2 PD and three T2 subs. With my ACU supporting, the Blazes won't be able to touch my base, while three sub hunters can totally bypass the hover units to beat one destroyer, eliminating the hover units' fire support. Then I can build frigates or my own destroyers to counter hover units and take the fight to his base, while still having the subs against any navy he sends out as backup. If I build two destroyers instead, they would likely not do enough damage to stop the hover units from getting to my base, and if I let them get boxed in it would be curtains - ten blazes and one Destroyer would easily beat two Destroyers if they can get in range.

You're right that subs can't compare to Destroyers for supporting land attacks and general naval combat. But, again, they're a support unit, not a primary combatant. They're not always (or even normally) going to be better than Destroyers, nor should they be. But they have their uses.

Aeon destroyer is extremely efficient to kill subs. In 2v1 sub vs destroyer fight it loses only ~55% HP. Im' sure it's damadge 3d sub good enough so it wouldn't do anything(if not kill). It also leaves ~4k mass right under blazes, which your opponent will get by hover engineers(and may be reclaim sub) and after that 2 destroyers will eventually kill your t2 sub and those PDs.

Ithilis_Quo wrote:
Spoiler: show
And whats a reason for aeons bigger range? It would be big diferences with cybran and special serafins.

50 range might not be enough because sub might be "5 range" long, so it would confuse sub to get closer than it should be. When sub attacks t1 torp launcher, they launch torps almost at hte same time, while they have 5 range difference. If destroyer would have sub in range, that's more than enough to launch torpedoes and with 50 ranga, that would be really easy to do. Cybran sub should have 50 range because of stealth; so aeon sub would kite from destroyer's weapon range and cybran sub would kite from destroyer's vision range. That needs testing. Also if cybran sub would have 55 range, it might be able to fight with t3 subs very efficiently and shoot them from range because of stealth(needs testing).

I was also thinking about seraphim destroyer. It needs a range buff to 50, since it's slow to compete with subs and sera don't have other options on t2 to counter subs. It would also nice to spread it's torp range: to make 2/3 damadge with 50 range and other 1/3 with 40(may be 45) range. Everything here needs testing and discussing.

Statistics: Posted by Apofenas — 30 May 2014, 00:54

Re: t2 sub navy

2014-05-29T17:37:14+02:00

Apofenas wrote:
We had a discussion with CrayzyNath in faf chat. We solved our misunderstanding and came to next idea: adjusting torp range to 50 for cybran sub killer, to 55 for aeon sub hunter and to 55 for cooper. So they would be effective versus destroyers if they are microed; They would be able to take out t1 torp launcher; They still wouldn't be able to compete with seraphim t3 sub hunters and coopers.

I think that's a good idea, but if you're going to do that I think you should also increase the range of the T1 torp launcher to 55. That way T2 subs can still defeat them fairly easily (they have torp defenses and greater HP) but you can't destroy an infinite number of them with a single sub. Destroyers are the supporting fire T2 naval unit. Having T2 subs outrange T1 torp launchers would be like having T2 tanks outrange T1 PD.

Apofenas wrote:
I didn't say that destroyers are a counter to hover spam, but when you have to counter it, you usually want units that do damadge to it... which subs don't. Why would you build expensive unit that does nothing?
Submarines won't attack enemy from range, subs won't kill PDs or take out shields and they still lose mass by mass to destroyers in torp fight. That's why they are far better complement to hover spam than sub hunters.

I said subs can be a good complement to hover units, not a counter. Obviously they're a bad counter if they can't even damage hover units. My point (one of them) was that you often don't need to counter hover units with naval, because T2 PD + walls stop hover units dead in their tracks, leaving your base safe and you free to do other things with your naval. (Assuming you can cover your own naval stuff with PD, a la White Fire - which isn't always the case.)

Consider your ten Blazes plus one Destroyer example - rather than build ten Blazes and two T2 subs of my own to counter, I could build two T2 PD and three T2 subs. With my ACU supporting, the Blazes won't be able to touch my base, while three sub hunters can totally bypass the hover units to beat one destroyer, eliminating the hover units' fire support. Then I can build frigates or my own destroyers to counter hover units and take the fight to his base, while still having the subs against any navy he sends out as backup. If I build two destroyers instead, they would likely not do enough damage to stop the hover units from getting to my base, and if I let them get boxed in it would be curtains - ten blazes and one Destroyer would easily beat two Destroyers if they can get in range.

You're right that subs can't compare to Destroyers for supporting land attacks and general naval combat. But, again, they're a support unit, not a primary combatant. They're not always (or even normally) going to be better than Destroyers, nor should they be. But they have their uses.

Apofenas wrote:
LOL, why would you build battle ships, torrents or such non-torpedo stuff if you know that enemy is massing t2 subs?

Obviously you don't. You build T3 navy to defeat T2 surface navy or if you've already won the naval engagement. If your opponent is going mostly destroyers, (which they will be, since subs are useless, right? ) you build battleships and battlecruisers to defeat them. When your opponent sees you doing this shift, they spam out T2 subs, which produce very quickly. Then you have to either spend time rebuilding your own destroyer fleet, build your own subs, or build a lot of cruisers and torp bombers.

But any way you slice it, the subs' presence forces you to divert your resources from bombarding their base to defending your navy, since you can't use the same units for both tasks as you could to defeat a T2 surface navy.

Statistics: Posted by Mycen — 29 May 2014, 17:37

Re: t2 sub navy

2014-05-29T17:00:14+02:00

And whats a reason for aeons bigger range? It would be big diferences with cybran and special serafins.
....

we need somone who can make it as a mod first, otherwise this stay only as idea and nothing else happend.

Statistics: Posted by Ithilis_Quo — 29 May 2014, 17:00

Re: t2 sub navy

2014-05-29T16:43:07+02:00

Ithilis_Quo wrote:
Guys do you even read my sugestion from 3 side, what i say?

Now I did (sorry for not doing it before posting my stuff)
I did read the first and the last page to get what the actual discussion was about

Your suggestion with range is basically the same
Only the aeon numbers are different (50 - you, 55 - Apofenas/me)

So I guess the idea is not that bad, but ppl dont discuss it.
Lets see, if they do now

Statistics: Posted by CrayzyNath — 29 May 2014, 16:43

Re: t2 sub navy

2014-05-29T15:59:58+02:00

Apofenas wrote:
adjusting torp range to 50 for cybran sub killer, to 55 for aeon sub hunter and to 55 for cooper. So they would be effective versus destroyers if they are microed;

Guys do you even read my sugestion from 3 side, what i say?

Statistics: Posted by Ithilis_Quo — 29 May 2014, 15:59

Re: t2 sub navy

2014-05-29T15:34:17+02:00

We had a discussion with CrayzyNath in faf chat. We solved our misunderstanding and came to next idea: adjusting torp range to 50 for cybran sub killer, to 55 for aeon sub hunter and to 55 for cooper. So they would be effective versus destroyers if they are microed; They would be able to take out t1 torp launcher; They still wouldn't be able to compete with seraphim t3 sub hunters and coopers.

Statistics: Posted by Apofenas — 29 May 2014, 15:34

Re: t2 sub navy

2014-05-29T14:36:51+02:00

CrayzyNath wrote:
Spoiler: show
Apofenas wrote:
CrayzyNath wrote:So in conclusion: You either rush subs to harrass your opponents early game navy or your opponent is stupid because he makes no destros.

Pretty much useless to build thos at early game, because you invest ~2.7k mass to get a t2 naval fac and first t2 sub; that also requiers time and build power; you also won't get a lot of with t2 subs, because only units, which can be destroyed by sub are naval production and fleet, which can be covered even by a single t1 torp launcher(450 mass). That will give enough time to get a destroyer, kill a couple subs, and harras opponent a lot better, than subbs could ever do. T2 air is actually the main threat for early sub hunters. Even if you lose 3 of them defending your fleet from sub, you do it cost effectively. Or it might be done by a single torp bomber in 2-3 passes, which is insanely efficient.

I'm referring to:
CrayzyNath wrote:
Early game, when you want to prevent your opponents navy (small maps and t1 subs here) or against some early frigates. Your opponent will be able to deal with the subs later on most likely or throw up some torpedo defense, but it slows him down and he has to spend ressources and be more defensive for the time you have sub-control.

I'm not talking about t2 subs only. I'm talking about subs in general
Of course, rushing t2 naval just to make t2 subs is not very good

I don't really understand, what player would do, if he would be THAT late to navy, to be prevented by t2 subs. I only think about hard air play or hover unit play. And investing 2.7k mass to do a unit which is absolutely useless against those strategies isn't a wise choice...

Statistics: Posted by Apofenas — 29 May 2014, 14:36

Re: t2 sub navy

2014-05-29T14:20:54+02:00

Apofenas wrote:
CrayzyNath wrote:So in conclusion: You either rush subs to harrass your opponents early game navy or your opponent is stupid because he makes no destros.

Pretty much useless to build thos at early game, because you invest ~2.7k mass to get a t2 naval fac and first t2 sub; that also requiers time and build power; you also won't get a lot of with t2 subs, because only units, which can be destroyed by sub are naval production and fleet, which can be covered even by a single t1 torp launcher(450 mass). That will give enough time to get a destroyer, kill a couple subs, and harras opponent a lot better, than subbs could ever do. T2 air is actually the main threat for early sub hunters. Even if you lose 3 of them defending your fleet from sub, you do it cost effectively. Or it might be done by a single torp bomber in 2-3 passes, which is insanely efficient.

I'm referring to:

CrayzyNath wrote:
Early game, when you want to prevent your opponents navy (small maps and t1 subs here) or against some early frigates. Your opponent will be able to deal with the subs later on most likely or throw up some torpedo defense, but it slows him down and he has to spend ressources and be more defensive for the time you have sub-control.

I'm not talking about t2 subs only. I'm talking about subs in general
Of course, rushing t2 naval just to make t2 subs is not very good

Statistics: Posted by CrayzyNath — 29 May 2014, 14:20

Re: t2 sub navy

2014-05-29T14:07:33+02:00

CrayzyNath wrote:
So in conclusion: You either rush subs to harrass your opponents early game navy or your opponent is stupid because he makes no destros.

Pretty much useless to build thos at early game, because you invest ~2.7k mass to get a t2 naval fac and first t2 sub; that also requiers time and build power; you also won't get a lot of with t2 subs, because only units, which can be destroyed by sub are naval production and fleet, which can be covered even by a single t1 torp launcher(450 mass). That will give enough time to get a destroyer, kill a couple subs, and harras opponent a lot better, than subbs could ever do. T2 air is actually the main threat for early sub hunters. Even if you lose 3 of them defending your fleet from sub, you do it cost effectively. Or it might be done by a single torp bomber in 2-3 passes, which is insanely efficient.

Statistics: Posted by Apofenas — 29 May 2014, 14:07

Re: t2 sub navy

2014-05-29T14:22:24+02:00

In what situations you build subs?
Early game, when you want to prevent your opponents navy (small maps and t1 subs here) or against some early frigates. Your opponent will be able to deal with the subs later on most likely or throw up some torpedo defense, but it slows him down and he has to spend ressources and be more defensive for the time you have sub-control.
When t2 navy emerges, subs are most likely useless. Unless your opponent has only cruisers or no coopers as UEF, what usually should never happen, because destroyers are the main naval force and coopers are uef only naval counter to subs.
IF your opponent has lets say only cruisers, you can easily counter them with subs. But you could also counter with some frigates (except cybran cruiser, there subs should be better) or make a destro if you have enough time.
Later in the game, there will most likely be no more room for subs. Just because they get countered by destro or torp-bombers.
This goes for all subs but sera t3... why? because they have 65 range and great AA. But they are also expensive and you need t3.

So in conclusion: You either rush subs to harrass your opponents early game navy or your opponent is stupid because he makes no destros.

I think the problem is destroyers great anti-sub.
Make that subs have more torpedo-range than destros and they would get their place, i think

Edit: I'm talking about subs in general, not only t2

Statistics: Posted by CrayzyNath — 29 May 2014, 13:46

Re: t2 sub navy

2014-05-29T12:39:43+02:00

BRNKoINSANITY wrote:
Now see, this is a sign of a balanced unit.... you have one group of people saying it is useless because you can build a counter, and the other group...

Lol, no, thats jast Mycen, mycen is a from goup of people who say on EVERYTHING that is nice as is, when ACU would had 10 HP and 89522000 DPS and somone say "Hello guys how about litle bit balance this?" He answer, "are you serious, ACU is percetly balance loook we had this so long time, yeah he had litle HP, but 10 is enoght but on other had you can use acu as perfetly glass canon who destroey everything on one shot" Really, ready him post, hes most rigid discuter what i ever see Hes not a group of people, who is against. he is all time against. and against everything.

BRNKoINSANITY wrote:
I think we can all readily admit that the cybran sub's stealth makes it extremely useful as a counter to all 3 tiers

When he would go only with T3 naval, then definitly yes. But this probably never happend. destroers are today so importatnt on all stage that are scelet of all naval army. And against destroers you had no chance.

BRNKoINSANITY wrote:
First off, your math is WAY WAY WAY off..... you get 5 blazes to one t2 sub. not 15 or 10 or 20 or whatever you are trying to say

My math is corect, when you make Hover spam you probably dont build T2 naval factory, becasu thats a reson why you build hover spam.. So when you want to build hover spam with T2 subs you need build T2 naval factory, what cost 1700+300 mass. What is exaktly 15 hover tanks. So for one T2 subs you need factory + price of subs what is 20 hover tank for first T2 subs.

your calculation are very hipotetical, about what happend when somone build army about price of GC.. of course it ruine another T2 army who will cost half.. Maybe GC would w8 on coast and destroey them all. price would be similar, Or build 5 destroers and 40 frigate, what easy deal with 100 hover tanks.

Why is a problem say that something is a wrong and let make it better? Try found one replay/cast where is naval battle and T2 submarine do some significant dmg, and destroer can make is better. I was realy try found it but that one doesnt exist. If yes put it here

Statistics: Posted by Ithilis_Quo — 29 May 2014, 12:39

Re: t2 sub navy

2014-05-29T07:39:02+02:00

BRNKoINSANITY wrote:
Spoiler: show
Now see, this is a sign of a balanced unit.... you have one group of people saying it is useless because you can build a counter, and the other group says it is VERY useful in it's role because it forces your opponent to deal with something that compliments an alternate form of attack. When you can have two sides logically debate pros and cons and each side prefers a unit suited for a different play style, then things are pretty balanced.

Lets deal with Aeon specifically, as I think we can all readily admit that the cybran sub's stealth makes it extremely useful as a counter to all 3 tiers of subs and as a good way to strike critical blows that are entirely unexpected.

First off, your math is WAY WAY WAY off..... you get 5 blazes to one t2 sub. not 15 or 10 or 20 or whatever you are trying to say. Lets assume that you have a nice mix of say ~5 blaze~1 shield~1 flak totaling about 100 units, and about 10 subs underneath. This is a reasonable amount for mid-t2 stage navy.
------The blazes and shields will easily kill the handful of destroyers that your enemy has if he gets too close....
------The shields absorb torp damage from both air and destroyers while your t2 subs eliminate those annoying frigates...
------If he builds torp bombers to try and kill the subs, then they die to flak and that is essentially wasted mass.....
------If he goes torp defense and subs/destroyers himself to defend against subs, then the hover spam will roll him over and kill all his build power....
------If he goes frigates to stop the hoverspam then the subs will shred him.....

I am by no means saying that hoverspam+subs is the answer to all naval problems, but I am saying that unless you are on shards or something with insanely large distances to be traveled, then hoverspam and subs IS a viable and decently balanced alternative to dedicated t2 navy.

One other aspect of this to look at is that you can force an enemy off your own shore with hoverspam, and then subs are very fast to build once you have a little breathing room. With a little careful micro, you can use them to re-establish yourself in the water and push outward.

Also, as stated above, a lot of t2 navy works very well in supporting roles to t3 navy, and the sub is incredibly effective at sweeping a t3 navy off its feet if your enemy has not taken the proper precautions with either destroyers or coopers in the late game. Cybran subs are especially nasty in this role as they can sneak around to the rear of the navy to the support vessels and kill them unopposed.

You wanted numbers? 10 blazes+destroyer win 10 blazes+2 sub hunters, because destroyer fires with main cannon, tanks damadge and, particulary aeon destroyer, wins hardly mass by mass. Even if destroyer will die, blazes will cause much more damadge, than subs(if there is alive subs).

Statistics: Posted by Apofenas — 29 May 2014, 07:39

Re: t2 sub navy

2014-05-29T07:10:40+02:00

Mycen wrote:
You have a lot to say about hover spam, but remember, the best counter to hover spam isn't destroyers at all, it's frigates. Aeon destroyers are not good against hover spam because of their low rate of fire and easy to avoid shots. Cybran destroyers have a good rate of fire, but since they cannot shoot backwards, they will spend a lot of time not doing any damage to hover spam while they run away from it. UEF destroyers are decent in this role, but they're already extremely vulnerable to submarines. And of course Seraphim are great with their lazors, but they don't even have T2 subs. When compared to frigates, which can be produced quickly and cheaply to counter an emerging hover threat, all destroyers are expensive and slow to build.

T2 subs are great for supporting hoverspam because not only do they effectively deal with any frigates your opponent uses to counter your hover units, but they can't be dealt with using the same units your opponent is going to be using against the hover spam itself. This forces your opponent to split their resources in response to your attack. (Do I build gunships and bombers to attack the hover units, or do I build torpedo bombers to get rid of the submarines so I can use my navy?) Hover units quite effectively destroy torpedo launchers, so even if the hoverspam is defeated, ignoring the submarines to do so leaves your opponent exposed to naval interdiction, allowing you to follow up with more hoverspam or higher level navy.

I didn't say that destroyers are a counter to hover spam, but when you have to counter it, you usually want units that do damadge to it... which subs don't. Why would you build expensive unit that does nothing?
Submarines won't attack enemy from range, subs won't kill PDs or take out shields and they still lose mass by mass to destroyers in torp fight. That's why they are far better complement to hover spam than sub hunters.

Mycen wrote:
This brings me to a third situation where T2 subs are useful: When you're in a late-game naval battle with lots of T3. Destroyers are totally outmatched by T3 navy - they get shredded by battlecruisers and battleships. These high-level surface ships cannot combat submarines, however, so a large fleet of T2 subs can quite easily defeat an improperly composed T3 navy.

LOL, why would you build battle ships, torrents or such non-torpedo stuff if you know that enemy is massing t2 subs?

Statistics: Posted by Apofenas — 29 May 2014, 07:10

Re: t2 sub navy

2014-05-29T06:19:31+02:00

Now see, this is a sign of a balanced unit.... you have one group of people saying it is useless because you can build a counter, and the other group says it is VERY useful in it's role because it forces your opponent to deal with something that compliments an alternate form of attack. When you can have two sides logically debate pros and cons and each side prefers a unit suited for a different play style, then things are pretty balanced.

Lets deal with Aeon specifically, as I think we can all readily admit that the cybran sub's stealth makes it extremely useful as a counter to all 3 tiers of subs and as a good way to strike critical blows that are entirely unexpected.

First off, your math is WAY WAY WAY off..... you get 5 blazes to one t2 sub. not 15 or 10 or 20 or whatever you are trying to say. Lets assume that you have a nice mix of say ~5 blaze~1 shield~1 flak totaling about 100 units, and about 10 subs underneath. This is a reasonable amount for mid-t2 stage navy.
------The blazes and shields will easily kill the handful of destroyers that your enemy has if he gets too close....
------The shields absorb torp damage from both air and destroyers while your t2 subs eliminate those annoying frigates...
------If he builds torp bombers to try and kill the subs, then they die to flak and that is essentially wasted mass.....
------If he goes torp defense and subs/destroyers himself to defend against subs, then the hover spam will roll him over and kill all his build power....
------If he goes frigates to stop the hoverspam then the subs will shred him.....

I am by no means saying that hoverspam+subs is the answer to all naval problems, but I am saying that unless you are on shards or something with insanely large distances to be traveled, then hoverspam and subs IS a viable and decently balanced alternative to dedicated t2 navy.

One other aspect of this to look at is that you can force an enemy off your own shore with hoverspam, and then subs are very fast to build once you have a little breathing room. With a little careful micro, you can use them to re-establish yourself in the water and push outward.

Also, as stated above, a lot of t2 navy works very well in supporting roles to t3 navy, and the sub is incredibly effective at sweeping a t3 navy off its feet if your enemy has not taken the proper precautions with either destroyers or coopers in the late game. Cybran subs are especially nasty in this role as they can sneak around to the rear of the navy to the support vessels and kill them unopposed.

Statistics: Posted by BRNKoINSANITY — 29 May 2014, 06:19