rxnnxs wrote:So they come through, you second that. And you say also, that there is no way to hide something in your base.
one pass is enough to find the ACU if its there. Nothing more is needed
Now I am astonished that you do not give also the hint to hide the ACU in the water, way off the base.
GTG, BB
I didn't suggest hiding your ACU in the water because it's such an astonishingly obvious idea that I didn't feel it needed pointing out.
Also, your first point is incorrect. Because the ACU will be protected by a stealth field, you will have to maintain vision coverage in order to go for a snipe. If your opponent doesn't have a stealth field near his ACU, he deserves to be sniped. If your opponent doesn't have enough planes/AA that he can shoot down circling spy planes that are trying to maintain vision coverage, he deserves to be sniped. If your opponent has totally lost air superiority so that you can simply swarm your ASFs over his base to maintain vision coverage then his ACU shouldn't be in the base, so, again, he deserves to be sniped.
Saying that "Nothing more is needed" for a strat bomber kill than a single pass by spy planes to simply uncover the location of the ACU is a gross oversimplification.
I often see players that totally neglect buiding static AA or PD. Lets say in Setons the Air Rolers. Is that maybe for the reason that PD and AA are totally useless?
Much more likely it is because they want to devote the entirety of their resources and attention to offense.
AA may not be stronger than air, but it is FAR from useless. If you have several AA towers your opponent will be forced to micro very well to ensure a first strike kill. If he does not kill you the first time, enough of his bombers will get shot down during/after his first pass that, considering he'll have fewer and fewer bombers for each subsequent passes, he will be unlikely to be able to finish off your ACU after the first one.
If you've neglected your AA and shields (not to mention your own air force) to the point that your opponent can bomb you with impunity, then he's clearly better than you and you deserve to lose. If he's managed to construct so many bombers that you have no hope of thinning their numbers then he's also probably better than you, and again, it's proper that you lose.
And, seriously? You use Restorers as your example, not strat bombers? Restorers? If he can snipe your ACU in your base with Restorers then, I'm sorry, but you're clearly outclassed. It's called T2 mobile flak.
P.S.: And to stay at setons for this example:
So the game should be designed around Setons, you second that. 
how will you hide your bombers in an.. lets say atlantis or carrier? You assume the mass, the energy, the time, the micro, the t3 shipyard
Your naval teammate builds the shipyard and/or starts the Atlantis, you just shuttle some engineers over there so as not to drain his resources. He gives it to you upon completion. I'm sorry if you aren't familiar with teamwork, try getting some people who will play with you regularly. Also, I'm sorry if you aren't good at micro, but your lack of skill is hardly a sign of game imbalance. If you don't have the mass and energy to build a carrier I would love to know how you plan on building those bombers in the first place.
and a nice submarine that builds an atomic bomb.. surprise! it has not the range, come a but closer to the enemy. urgh! some T2 bombers ruined my attempt..
It "has not the range"? Surely you jest. Strategic Missile subs can reach almost the whole map on Setons, and if your opponent is ready to pounce with torpedo bombers the instant you inch up even a little to hit the back corner, then someone is doing something wrong. Where is your naval player? Where are your planes?
meanwhile you have an enemy that has made with the same investment more than one a-bomb that hits right between the eyes of your commander. you did not "waste" resources in a Strategic Missile Defense System..
This makes absolutely no sense. If you choose not to build SMD it hardly matters whether you built your nuke in a sub or ground silo, you're still an idiot. Or if you're intimating that I suggested SMD are a waste, I would love you to point out where I even suggested such a ludicrous idea. If your ACU gets killed by a nuke your sound must be broken, because once that launch warning goes off, your commander needs to be taking a walk...
And when you, as the Air-Roler, build Land units, you build also transporters with a new for this task designated T2 air fac, and let those units run in patrol.. where..? at the front line? in your base?? and then you collect them in a moment where you have the time?
hmm..
This is a fair point, it is hard to hide the fact that you're doing a large drop. Where you seem to be confused is that you think massive air drops are/should be a sneaky plan. It makes little sense to me to think that massing hundreds of T1 land units and dozens of transports should be something you can expect to sneak by even a semi-competent player.
But even the plainest plan is forgotten in the heat of the battle..
I want to say this nicely, but there's really no other way to put it: If you forget even the plainest plan in the heat of battle, the problem is you, not the game.
There should be a rule, that if you have twice the amount of units, they are not twice as deadly.
First of all, I would love to know why you think twice as many units should not be twice as deadly, because that makes perfect sense to me. Second of all, such a rule already exists, it's called range. The more units you have, the less likely that they'll all be in range at the same time.
I like to play on many fronts, do small battlegroups, attack from more than one side.
By trying this, i always lose
The enemy is concentrating only on one task, and is taking the lead with this.
...
Well, it would be nice if it were possible!! But i guess/know it isn't.
Allow me to disabuse you of a common misconception that many people who play SupCom seem to have around here. Consider the following: You are playing on a 5x5 map and your opponent has an army of sixty T1 tanks and thirty T1 artillery in his base. You have three groups of twenty T1 tanks and ten T1 artillery. You attack your opponent with one of your groups, and it gets driven off and destroyed, pulling your opponent's army out of his base. You use this opportunity to raid his base with your second group, doing some damage before his army returns and destroys your second group. Now he brings his whole army toward your base and, of course, rolls through your third group for the win.
In the above scenario you clearly cannot win by attacking with smaller groups from different directions at different times. But what if you tried the same thing on a 20x20? Now your opponent has to spend five minutes driving his big army around to chase down your smaller groups, and in the meantime you can do some game-winning damage in his lightly defended base.
The problem that you are describing IS NOT due to the fact that SupCom air units are broken. It is, quite simply, due to the fact that most players are ALWAYS PLAYING ON SETONS. T3 air moves at such a speed that you can treat a 20x20 with T3 air in much the same way that you would treat a 5x5 with T1 land. There isn't room to maneuver. From just behind the front player's spot ASFs and Strat bombers can reach any point on the map in under a minute, so of course your opponent is going to win by massing his air fleet.
If you play on a 40x40 or other map that is actually large, you will find that the tactics you so seem to desire are actually useful. Have you ever played the map Hanna Oasis? It has exactly the kind of action you're describing. Try that, and don't come crying to me about lag, just set your unit limit at 600. Or if you're really opposed to playing on a map properly sized for T3 air, then at least play something besides setons. Burial Mounds is a great example of a map like this. The mass is not concentrated is easily defensible spots, and no player is totally protected from any early action. This alone prevents the kind of outrageous buildups that we see in Setons, because there is no "air player" who can afford to do naught but race to T3 air at the exclusion of all else.
Firestarter wrote:The rebalanced ASFs seem about right to me - but I am not a pro player
I second this - both points!
rxnnxs wrote:
Yes, I would also like to see bases that are so well defended, no direct attack would work out. Not even when the attacker has three times the firepower.
I pray that you are joking...Statistics: Posted by Mycen — 20 Mar 2013, 20:48
]]>