Forged Alliance Forever

Re: Aircraft afterburners

2016-04-30T14:31:53+02:00

quark036 wrote:
Yeah, I think we should stick to the OP's proposal, where the default speed is a bit slower than it is now, and afterburners is equal to current speed. Double speed would be ridiculous

I still like my proposal. That Afterburner be a manually activated ability, which works on a cool down timer. Once it is activated you get X seconds of afterburner flight, you then must fly for Y seconds before you can activate it again. Afterburner can only be activated while the aircraft has fuel. Afterburner would have the following properties:

1. Increase maximum speed
2. Drastically increase fuel consumption rate
3. Reduce turn rate and manoeuvrability

With the combination of increased speed and reduced turn rate it would make it suitable for running, but not suitable for a turning dogfight. A non-afterburner ASF would win. Suggest that non-afterburner speed be 0.6 of current, and afterburner speed be 1.2 of current.

Statistics: Posted by Hawkei — 30 Apr 2016, 14:31

Re: Aircraft afterburners

2015-10-21T21:00:31+02:00

Zeldafanboy wrote:
When your opponent has no aa around, T1 bombers with no fuel become absolute base wreckers, especially when attacking power grids

well i can plan a route that takes as long as the fuel goes out and then this happens too.
and with this speed one AA has no problems killing this threat

Statistics: Posted by rxnnxs — 21 Oct 2015, 21:00

Re: Aircraft afterburners

2015-10-21T12:37:52+02:00

rxnnxs wrote:
An Idea came to my mind, lets say it's another Option/added button:

Just let us decide when they use the fuel and when not.
A button that lets the planes fly like they have no fuel.

there would be no problem with balance, it would be just us who decide when to use the fuel.

When your opponent has no aa around, T1 bombers with no fuel become absolute base wreckers, especially when attacking power grids

Statistics: Posted by Zeldafanboy — 21 Oct 2015, 12:37

Re: Aircraft afterburners

2015-10-21T12:27:52+02:00

An Idea came to my mind, lets say it's another Option/added button:

Just let us decide when they use the fuel and when not.
A button that lets the planes fly like they have no fuel.

there would be no problem with balance, it would be just us who decide when to use the fuel.

Statistics: Posted by rxnnxs — 21 Oct 2015, 12:27

Re: Aircraft afterburners

2015-10-03T05:51:21+02:00

I love the idea of afterburn, but I don't know if the more micro is better.
Did anybody suggest automatic afterburn?

Option1
Planes are faster for x seconds if you start them from an aircraft carrier (or Atlantis).

Option2
Landed planes get y seconds afterburn if they start.

Option3
Planes get z seconds afterburn if started from air pad

Option 4
Planes get w seconds afterburn if started from factory

Option 5
Afterburn is only available if you have x energy in storage (+it consume this)

I like only Option 1 (maybe 5)

Statistics: Posted by Dragonfire — 03 Oct 2015, 05:51

Re: Aircraft afterburners

2015-10-03T05:42:26+02:00

true this ^

Statistics: Posted by yeager — 03 Oct 2015, 05:42

Re: Aircraft afterburners

2015-10-03T05:40:55+02:00

Yeah, I think we should stick to the OP's proposal, where the default speed is a bit slower than it is now, and afterburners is equal to current speed. Double speed would be ridiculous

Statistics: Posted by quark036 — 03 Oct 2015, 05:40

Re: Aircraft afterburners

2015-10-03T05:36:41+02:00

Afterburners would be great if they doubled the speed of the aircraft and made the agility weaker. ASFs have a huge agility advantage over FBs, T2 FBs have a huge speed disadvantage under ASFs, if you could double their speed with a 5 second afterburner you could blow past an ASF screen flying at normal speed or force them to use afterburner and potentially overshoot or negate their agility during the brief afterburner time.

Contrast that with a 15% increase in speed using afterburners that won't even allow FBs to match the speed of the cheaper, more effective ASF.

Statistics: Posted by KD7BCH — 03 Oct 2015, 05:35

Re: Aircraft afterburners

2015-10-03T03:22:55+02:00

This is sad

Statistics: Posted by yeager — 03 Oct 2015, 03:22

Re: Aircraft afterburners

2015-10-03T01:18:45+02:00

KD7BCH wrote:
zeroAPM wrote:
briang wrote:KD I think 5+ people have explained to you that FB are more expensive mass wise than ASF because they can fire at ground targets, mass is irrelevant anyways. ASF cost nearly 5x the power. It utterly confounds me that you even look at the mass cost. Do you know how many Team Games end with T2 Corsair snipes from X air player while Y air player is trying to rush T3?

I also am confused that you even have an opinion regarding anything to do with air. Your last Rohan game at air slot you managed 4 ASF at minute 20...

Your "what happens" is actually spot on, because that is what's supposed to happen! T2 units designed for attacking ground targets aren't supposed to be able to stand up to a T3 unit specially designed to kill them. What T2 and T3 land/navy units stand up to their T3 counterparts? None.

And before you ask: Mercies are another story

Neither mass or power are irrelevant. If you go T3 you have a faster more durable superior bomber which is essentially impervious to T2 and T1 except en mass concentration and the option to use ASFs, If you stay in T2 and use FBs they are quickly shot down by the ASF if your opponent goes T3. They are talking about adding a buff to the FB. So I looked at the proposed change with the current air build and it doesn't work around the fundamental dilemma of T2FB vs ASF vs using T3 strats instead.

Fighter Bombers wont kill ASFs effectively, they wont run from ASFs effectively either. ASFs also are much more agile. The power cost is higher but so what, you had to build T2 Pgens to get RAS anyway and then you RAS, once you RAS you have T3 air no sweat. Unless you can't do that because you suck.

Yeah they do cost more power, in 1v1 this is a thing, I agree, however in teamgames it isn't because of RAS, everybody does RAS and ARAS ASAP and power is plentiful in most situations.

If you are talking about a recent game where I am UEF, oh well. I am brand new to UEF, and focusing on learning the satellite. I am also working on making the templates for it. Also I don't play my best fucking game every time unlike you godly posters.

Mass is only irrelevant in your eyes if you want to dumb a good 10k of it off to your enemy for minimal probable damage. Or an equal trade, maybe you kill the target and maybe you dont, but if you do you still give them enough mass to rebuild it if they have ASFS. Moral of the story build ASFs and that is what most players do in team games. Initial ASFs are expected by 15 min in and by 20 min as you say, swarming.

If you need some replays showing dozens of T2 FBs at 20-25 mins being wiped out by a handful of ASFs I'll be happy to show you that too because it is no contest.

The hell i said about januses or satellites?
And "godly poster of perfect games"? Dude, i stopped playing 2 years ago (no time and can't git gud), the only two wins in my life were by dumb luck.

Statistics: Posted by zeroAPM — 03 Oct 2015, 01:18

Re: Aircraft afterburners

2015-10-03T00:18:19+02:00

zeroAPM wrote:
briang wrote:KD I think 5+ people have explained to you that FB are more expensive mass wise than ASF because they can fire at ground targets, mass is irrelevant anyways. ASF cost nearly 5x the power. It utterly confounds me that you even look at the mass cost. Do you know how many Team Games end with T2 Corsair snipes from X air player while Y air player is trying to rush T3?

I also am confused that you even have an opinion regarding anything to do with air. Your last Rohan game at air slot you managed 4 ASF at minute 20...

Your "what happens" is actually spot on, because that is what's supposed to happen! T2 units designed for attacking ground targets aren't supposed to be able to stand up to a T3 unit specially designed to kill them. What T2 and T3 land/navy units stand up to their T3 counterparts? None.

And before you ask: Mercies are another story

Neither mass or power are irrelevant. If you go T3 you have a faster more durable superior bomber which is essentially impervious to T2 and T1 except en mass concentration and the option to use ASFs, If you stay in T2 and use FBs they are quickly shot down by the ASF if your opponent goes T3. They are talking about adding a buff to the FB. So I looked at the proposed change with the current air build and it doesn't work around the fundamental dilemma of T2FB vs ASF vs using T3 strats instead.

Fighter Bombers wont kill ASFs effectively, they wont run from ASFs effectively either. ASFs also are much more agile. The power cost is higher but so what, you had to build T2 Pgens to get RAS anyway and then you RAS, once you RAS you have T3 air no sweat. Unless you can't do that because you suck.

Yeah they do cost more power, in 1v1 this is a thing, I agree, however in teamgames it isn't because of RAS, everybody does RAS and ARAS ASAP and power is plentiful in most situations.

If you are talking about a recent game where I am UEF, oh well. I am brand new to UEF, and focusing on learning the satellite. I am also working on making the templates for it. Also I don't play my best fucking game every time unlike you godly posters.

Mass is only irrelevant in your eyes if you want to dumb a good 10k of it off to your enemy for minimal probable damage. Or an equal trade, maybe you kill the target and maybe you dont, but if you do you still give them enough mass to rebuild it if they have ASFS. Moral of the story build ASFs and that is what most players do in team games. Initial ASFs are expected by 15 min in and by 20 min as you say, swarming.

If you need some replays showing dozens of T2 FBs at 20-25 mins being wiped out by a handful of ASFs I'll be happy to show you that too because it is no contest.

Statistics: Posted by KD7BCH — 03 Oct 2015, 00:18

Re: Aircraft afterburners

2015-10-02T13:02:21+02:00

T2 vs t3 subs...

You guys are pretty much right here, and I'm not trying to argue against you, but just sayin

Statistics: Posted by yeager — 02 Oct 2015, 13:02

Re: Aircraft afterburners

2015-10-02T09:42:41+02:00

briang wrote:
KD I think 5+ people have explained to you that FB are more expensive mass wise than ASF because they can fire at ground targets, mass is irrelevant anyways. ASF cost nearly 5x the power. It utterly confounds me that you even look at the mass cost. Do you know how many Team Games end with T2 Corsair snipes from X air player while Y air player is trying to rush T3?

I also am confused that you even have an opinion regarding anything to do with air. Your last Rohan game at air slot you managed 4 ASF at minute 20...

Your "what happens" is actually spot on, because that is what's supposed to happen! T2 units designed for attacking ground targets aren't supposed to be able to stand up to a T3 unit specially designed to kill them. What T2 and T3 land/navy units stand up to their T3 counterparts? None.

And before you ask: Mercies are another story

Statistics: Posted by zeroAPM — 02 Oct 2015, 09:42

Re: Aircraft afterburners

2015-10-01T21:49:02+02:00

Some of you guys are missing the point about my point that you have a chance to escape. It means if you click the afterburner button while you are facing in the opposite direction you can get a head start, however the opponent can turn and also use afterburners to chase and the number of ASF that get shot down may be less but it also means that if you decide to bail and the opponent doesnt notice your afterburners light up he might be to slow too react and not be able to chase you down.

I see a lot of what I think must be some UI mod to target every single ASF instantly by some players in replays and if this is the case and you have that on, without afterburners as dominating air player you can leave your ASF to finish his troops off and no matter whether he fights or tries to flee, the weaker air player will be crushed.

If this is not some UI mod but something ingame I just dont know about please enlighten me

Statistics: Posted by Evildrew — 01 Oct 2015, 21:49

Re: Aircraft afterburners

2015-10-01T20:02:11+02:00

I made a mod AirMaintainanceMod where refueling costs a reasonable amount of mass and energy. Together with the idea of training up to vet1 on landing pads and up to vet3 on aircraft carriers and adjusting all build cost for air units and sorting selected air units by vet level it would be much more strategic. You must and can play much more agressivly with your air units. Just keep your high vetted air units safe and throw the rest at the enemy is much better than keeping a large air force sitting and waiting on the field. The carriers would become much more important because docked planes dont consume fuel so no resources are wasted for maintainance.

The Afterburner is a nice idea but it's just another tactic / micro tool which add depth to air play but has really nothing to do with strategy.

Statistics: Posted by RoLa — 01 Oct 2015, 20:02