Forged Alliance Forever

Re: Proposal: Make Submarines stronger, but slower underwate

2015-10-22T12:23:07+02:00

Give T2 Subs a siege missile while unsubmerged fires --

Fire a Volley of Missile at range 80 - Dealing dmg 50*12=600 at a reload time of 8 = 75 dps [edit dmg of each missile/reload time as suited]

Statistics: Posted by Tremarl — 22 Oct 2015, 12:23

Re: Proposal: Make Submarines stronger, but slower underwate

2015-10-22T08:33:21+02:00

Why not give submerged subs cloaking and stealth like the selen? So they have a first strike advantage. But when they fire (or maybe even when they move) they loose their invisiblity.

And why do all people think there are only diesel-eclectric or nuclear boats. Germany has one of the most advanced subs:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_212_submarine

this boat can stay 3 weeks underwater without snorkeling.

Statistics: Posted by RoLa — 22 Oct 2015, 08:33

Re: Proposal: Make Submarines stronger, but slower underwate

2015-10-10T19:52:42+02:00

zeroAPM wrote:
I thought that (IRL) nuclear subs where much stealthier than diesel powered ones since turbines are in general that much quieter.

Diesel-electric need to surface to recharge their batteries with a "loud" diesel engine, but once underwater in electric mode they are extremely quiet. For one, electric motors are quiet and batteries make no sound at all, but more importantly the electric motor can be turned off. A nuclear sub must always keep the reactors coolant pumps running which is noisy.

Statistics: Posted by Valki — 10 Oct 2015, 19:52

Re: Proposal: Make Submarines stronger, but slower underwate

2015-10-10T19:27:11+02:00

The only change to subs that could be useful is reducing their cost.

Make them cost 200 mass

Statistics: Posted by Tremarl — 10 Oct 2015, 19:27

Re: Proposal: Make Submarines stronger, but slower underwate

2015-10-09T21:58:41+02:00

Kopia wrote:
Adding range to the sera destroyer would not make it "difficult to deal with" but literally impossible. The beams never miss. Making it have same range as Cybran/Aeon would have dire consequences.

They are talking about Torps

Statistics: Posted by yeager — 09 Oct 2015, 21:58

Re: Proposal: Make Submarines stronger, but slower underwate

2015-10-09T19:20:39+02:00

Adding range to the sera destroyer would not make it "difficult to deal with" but literally impossible. The beams never miss. Making it have same range as Cybran/Aeon would have dire consequences.

Statistics: Posted by TheKoopa — 09 Oct 2015, 19:20

Re: Proposal: Make Submarines stronger, but slower underwate

2015-10-09T19:09:28+02:00

i should have add "even in few number" in my previous post.
with 2 barracuda you can beat (or at least draw) a cybran destro. But it require micro, and none from the player having the destro.

Statistics: Posted by keyser — 09 Oct 2015, 19:09

Re: Proposal: Make Submarines stronger, but slower underwate

2015-10-09T17:54:17+02:00

submarines already beat destryers, but only in big numbers. you need about 10+ for beat same mass in destroyers, and yes they beat destroyers. (its because they better use torp defens, are smaler and closer, so better stack defense)

Problem is what next? one player invest all mass into submarines and win only when have them a lot -> what is very big risk. And when win, then dont do any damage to non navy stuff. Where player who dont take risk because build destroers will anihilate navy, and then base and win game.

Statistics: Posted by Ithilis_Quo — 09 Oct 2015, 17:54

Re: Proposal: Make Submarines stronger, but slower underwate

2015-10-09T15:50:12+02:00

Actually it's possible to win barracuda vs cybran destro.
but it require micro from the player using sub, and none from the destro one.

with a little dps buff, it would make T2 subs able to beat destro only with good micro. that is the best solution imo. (if destro player micro well, it would end into a draw)

Statistics: Posted by keyser — 09 Oct 2015, 15:50

Re: Proposal: Make Submarines stronger, but slower underwate

2015-10-09T14:21:37+02:00

Valki wrote:
mirroredwang wrote:Requires more micro for higher payoff, may lead to different strategies.

I would hate for subs to be slower, right now I build a few into my naval force and often use them for 'combat scouting'.
I think keyser is right, if we had more maps with underwater mex they would be in a much better place.

Also just like in real life.

In real life, a T1 'diesel-electric' submarine is invisible to sonar 80% of the time, and can sink any ship with 1 torpedo.
With T2 'nuclear-powered' submarines being underpowered because they are not invisible to sonar.

I don't think real life can give us any guidance on how ships should function in this game.

I thought that (IRL) nuclear subs where much stealthier than diesel powered ones since turbines are in general that much quieter.

Statistics: Posted by zeroAPM — 09 Oct 2015, 14:21

Re: Proposal: Make Submarines stronger, but slower underwate

2015-10-09T11:41:50+02:00

I noticed the Barracuda's water vision is listed as 32 on the unitdb, whereas all of the other sub hunters and destroyers are listed at 45. What's up with that?

Apofenas wrote:
but what's up with seraphim? 50-60 range is optimal for seraphim destroyer to fight with other destroyers. Add more water vision and torps with 55 range and this unit will be extremely hard to deal with other destroyers.

So how about, rather a range increase by 5 instead of 10? If sub hunters and sera destoyer had only a little bit more range than destroyers, they could attack at range, but given how the units maneuver and how the ranges overlap, you shouldn't be able to kite effectively with more than a few at a time. Maybe that would hopefully prevent sera destroyers from being too powerful against other factions' destroyers? It also might require other factions to include a broader mix of units to counter the sera's one unit? 55 range also means torp defences are not suddenly totally useless.

I don't see why you would need to alter their water vision range at all?

Apofenas wrote:
I thought about nomad t3 sub feature so sera destroyer would get bigger torp range and water vision only when submerged.

That would work too, I guess? Although it seems a little arbitrary.

Apofenas wrote:
What i mean is It's not that simple as it looks.

Maybe not, but it's a lot simpler than a lot of the other ideas I see being tossed around. You're right though, I feel like I typed out pretty much this same conversation a while ago...

Statistics: Posted by Mycen — 09 Oct 2015, 11:41

Re: Proposal: Make Submarines stronger, but slower underwate

2015-10-09T07:23:33+02:00

I'd like to see subs have stealth when stationary and not attacking. Would fit in rather well I think and would be balanced by the fact that this would be the default feature for all subs. I'd also remove water-vision from all units but aircraft as only aircraft have the correct vantage-point to have such an Intel type. For units losing water-vision, I'd give them sonar instead. This would still allow units to detect subs in motion but not see what class / faction or tech level. Hence back what subs are really good at... Stealth.

Resin

Statistics: Posted by Resin_Smoker — 09 Oct 2015, 07:23

Re: Proposal: Make Submarines stronger, but slower underwate

2015-10-09T05:51:31+02:00

Mycen wrote:
Why not increase the range on subs so that they can kite destroyers? That seems simple enough. Like, 55 range instead of 45?

I had this idea long ago. Cooper, vesper and barrakuda would get same range and vision, but what's up with seraphim? 50-60 range is optimal for seraphim destroyer to fight with other destroyers. Add more water vision and torps with 55 range and this unit will be extremely hard to deal with other destroyers. I thought about nomad t3 sub feature so sera destroyer would get bigger torp range and water vision only when submerged.
It's not the only problem for seraphim. T3 sub is already weak against t2 subs and stealth on cybran makes it even worse. This unit will need water vision buff, range and/or hp buff. Destroyer torp range nerf instead of sub range buff could avoid problem with subhunter.
What i mean is It's not that simple as it looks.

Statistics: Posted by Apofenas — 09 Oct 2015, 05:51

Re: Proposal: Make Submarines stronger, but slower underwate

2015-10-09T01:35:49+02:00

sera t1 sub is fine, it would be nice if how to micro was known more, but it is fine, t1 is also a tricky buff, the go from up to op very, VERY fast. t2 subs are eh, they are not as good as destroyers, but there are times when they steam role. sera t3 is NOT fine, fire rate makes coopers very good against them, they are killed by t3 torp 1 pass quicker now, which is a little dumb, and cybran subs basicly have same range because of stealth, and win mass for mass, scouts help, but not that much. they dont need a huge buff tho, just 500 hp back or a better torp defence, you shouldnt have to wait for t3 only to get a unit that sucks 85% of the time -.- and in large scale t2 sera already loses cause you cant micro in large numbers, dont get dps help from cruiser, lack a special unit, and cant chase subs (although in small numbers they are the best) by any stech the t3 sub deserves a small buff, people need to get over their gpg nightmares of super op t3 sub. and dont buff range, buff hp or something, or better yet decrease range and buff damage (and speed for t1) so you have to rush them in and micro them but they are good.

Statistics: Posted by yeager — 09 Oct 2015, 01:35

Re: Proposal: Make Submarines stronger, but slower underwate

2015-10-09T01:05:35+02:00

Why not increase the range on subs so that they can kite destroyers? That seems simple enough. Like, 55 range instead of 45?

Statistics: Posted by Mycen — 09 Oct 2015, 01:05