Forged Alliance Forever

Re: An Observation on T3/T4 Air

2015-11-24T22:35:34+02:00

In my balance mod awhile ago, I went with option 2 and made the CZAR focus on anti-air.

HP --> +100%
Speed --> 30%
Cost --> 75%
Crash damage --> 30%
Ground beam DPS --> -90%
Anti-air missile range--> 150
Anti-air flak range --> 100

Noting the range, this basically turns it into an anti-air battleship. The best way to kill it is with land/sea, which I think suits aeon best. Also, having something that flies but can also kill ASF would be interesting, I think.

Statistics: Posted by FunkOff — 24 Nov 2015, 22:35

Re: An Observation on T3/T4 Air

2015-11-15T19:45:10+02:00

As people have said, to balance CZAR, you have to determine its role.

1.It's mainly a ground dmg experimental. Then you triple its HP, halve its beam DPS and maybe nerf the speed a bit. Sort of like "kill it before it gets into position".

2.It's a safe haven for ASF's. Then you buff its HP, maybe double it, nerf the speed significantly (or nerf the ground beam DPS by 70% or more), but you make it have like 20 flaks and 10 SAM's, so flying near it would be=flying over heavily SAM'ed base.

Statistics: Posted by LegatusDivinae — 15 Nov 2015, 19:45

Re: An Observation on T3/T4 Air

2015-10-21T15:33:07+02:00

yeager wrote:
Wow, the czar is more controversial than Donald Trump

Don't open YET ANOTHER can of worms please.

Last thing i want is people getting banned because they didn't hold the "correct" political belief.

Statistics: Posted by zeroAPM — 21 Oct 2015, 15:33

Re: An Observation on T3/T4 Air

2015-10-21T15:22:26+02:00

I suggested this also once for other carriers.

Landing pads and carriers with the ability to give veterancy over time, when refueling. So landing pads give max Vet1, t3 carriers max vet3 and t4 carriers max vet4.
Maybe the planes could begin with vet1 if build with exp carriers(Atlantis, CZAR)

Theese carriers should be seen as training facilities.

Statistics: Posted by RoLa — 21 Oct 2015, 15:22

Re: An Observation on T3/T4 Air

2015-10-21T15:10:35+02:00

Blodir wrote:
Hey I think you should all decide on what use-case scenario you want the CZAR to fill before suggesting any changes or throwing any numbers. What is the role of CZAR? How well does it currently fill that role? What general direction needs to be taken to push CZAR toward that role?

Good point. I'll give it a shot.

1. Making the CZAR a capable attack weapon is just not possible I think. Same as with any air to ground you are going on suicide missions. It's in no small part due the way FAF has evolved since supcom vanilla.

2. We know it's a carrier. But like any mobile factory, that functionality is a total gimmick. Perhaps the CZAR offers a chance to improve this, finally! It has only marginally better build rate than a T3 factory. Giving it twice or triple the build rate is a start. With the insane assist possibilities on regular factories and engy mod this isn't enough however. Furthermore the build rate buff would be useless if you need to scale your eco like normal. It may be tough to balance this concept, but an efficiency boost compared to regular factories would be a possible solution. Ultimately, all the extra air can be released when attacking. Indirectly increasing it's damage potential and/or survivability.

3. Personally, I think making it compete with asf in a direct fight is BS, and was never intended. But I'm admittedly going off assumptions and I also accept that the vulnerability is so high that something has to change to the unit itself.

p.s. I'm not going to create a mod, simply because I can't. Doesn't mean I can't throw ideas around, we are in a forum after all.

Statistics: Posted by Col_Walter_Kurtz — 21 Oct 2015, 15:10

Re: An Observation on T3/T4 Air

2015-10-21T15:03:27+02:00

Wow, the czar is more controversial than Donald Trump

Statistics: Posted by yeager — 21 Oct 2015, 15:03

Re: An Observation on T3/T4 Air

2015-10-21T14:18:53+02:00

Blodir wrote:
Hey I think you should all decide on what use-case scenario you want the CZAR to fill before suggesting any changes or throwing any numbers. What is the role of CZAR? How well does it currently fill that role? What general direction needs to be taken to push CZAR toward that role?

Fair defender. Awesome presence out in the field against units, including experimentals. Should die to ASF and heavy static defense, but not to anything but a silly amount of T3 MAA. Ability to penetrate a defended base should be dependent on gaining sufficient veterancy to make the assault. Ability to reach enemy air space to gain that veterancy from their units out of the base once you have air control (If you don't have air control, don't build this thing. Duh) should not be dependent on having veterancy.

Current role is what I just described, but it just dies too easily to ASFs even when you have won air, relegating it to suicide donut.

Direction needed: More survivability against ASF. Balance VS static and mobile AA is, IMO, about right currently. Could use a slight buff there, but not too much. Consider nerfing crash damage.

Statistics: Posted by IceDreamer — 21 Oct 2015, 14:18

Re: An Observation on T3/T4 Air

2015-10-21T12:46:37+02:00

Hey I think you should all decide on what use-case scenario you want the CZAR to fill before suggesting any changes or throwing any numbers. What is the role of CZAR? How well does it currently fill that role? What general direction needs to be taken to push CZAR toward that role?

Statistics: Posted by Blodir — 21 Oct 2015, 12:46

Re: An Observation on T3/T4 Air

2015-10-21T03:05:17+02:00

IceDreamer wrote:
Mycen wrote:I'm not arguing that the Czar is where it should be right now, I agree with you on that. But I don't agree that it should be reworked in order to be better than it is at attacking heavily defended enemy bases or to be able to engage large amounts (60+) of asf on its own. I also think that a simple cost reduction would improve things a lot. It costs 11k more mass than a Soul Ripper, why? As we've established, it's not that much better. Why not just move its cost in line with other similar units before we go nuts?

I mean, come on, we're throwing out ideas about shields that only cover certain sides, rebalancing T3 AA around a single unit, giving Czars more HP than a megalith and more damage than a ML... Icedreamer is definitely right to go one small step at a time, yeah?

Yes, Yes, No?... Yes.

So yes, it shouldn't be able to attack a heavily defended base, and yes, it shouldn't be able to engage large amounts of ASF on its own. What I keep trying to emphasize is that a HP boost is not intended to boost Czar ability to engage ASF. The trouble we have is that, even with Air control, you physically cannot shoot down an inferior ASF force coming to intercept fast enough to stop them either outright killing, or putting it so low that a pair of SAMs will finish it. We want a bulk boost sufficient that it can survive such moves, but not so much it can engage any meaningful ASFs without friendly ASF support.

Boosting HP vs lowering cost is (mostly) an argument of aesthetic preference (The argument could be made that lower cost encourages more frequent use of suicide tactics, effectively increasing their efficiency) as both would achieve much the same result. As I've said, I'd prefer the HP boost because I like Experimentals to feel EPIC. The Czar is massive, fat, and has a freakin' great LASER. It should be allowed to use it.

The final 'Yes'? Definitely one step at a time :p

Pretty much what this guy said.

Statistics: Posted by angus000 — 21 Oct 2015, 03:05

Re: An Observation on T3/T4 Air

2015-10-21T01:50:48+02:00

Mycen wrote:
I'm not arguing that the Czar is where it should be right now, I agree with you on that. But I don't agree that it should be reworked in order to be better than it is at attacking heavily defended enemy bases or to be able to engage large amounts (60+) of asf on its own. I also think that a simple cost reduction would improve things a lot. It costs 11k more mass than a Soul Ripper, why? As we've established, it's not that much better. Why not just move its cost in line with other similar units before we go nuts?

I mean, come on, we're throwing out ideas about shields that only cover certain sides, rebalancing T3 AA around a single unit, giving Czars more HP than a megalith and more damage than a ML... Icedreamer is definitely right to go one small step at a time, yeah?

Yes, Yes, No?... Yes.

So yes, it shouldn't be able to attack a heavily defended base, and yes, it shouldn't be able to engage large amounts of ASF on its own. What I keep trying to emphasize is that a HP boost is not intended to boost Czar ability to engage ASF. The trouble we have is that, even with Air control, you physically cannot shoot down an inferior ASF force coming to intercept fast enough to stop them either outright killing, or putting it so low that a pair of SAMs will finish it. We want a bulk boost sufficient that it can survive such moves, but not so much it can engage any meaningful ASFs without friendly ASF support.

Boosting HP vs lowering cost is (mostly) an argument of aesthetic preference (The argument could be made that lower cost encourages more frequent use of suicide tactics, effectively increasing their efficiency) as both would achieve much the same result. As I've said, I'd prefer the HP boost because I like Experimentals to feel EPIC. The Czar is massive, fat, and has a freakin' great LASER. It should be allowed to use it.

The final 'Yes'? Definitely one step at a time :p

Statistics: Posted by IceDreamer — 21 Oct 2015, 01:50

Re: An Observation on T3/T4 Air

2015-10-21T01:35:25+02:00

Mycen wrote:
I'm skeptical that it's as easy as suiciding a bunch of asf ...

When you are sceptical becasue theorycrafting then on that time i do at least 50, but probably more testing with czar. Where you are guessing, there im testing. And i recommend it for everyone in balance discusion. Test what you are talking about..

loock on that replay that i post on 2 pages. That czar have:
150 000hp
4500beam dmg against building 1250beam against moving target
missile with 100r, 30% better reload time and more muzzle
flak with 50r 20% more dmg 5aoe (from 3) 75!! muzzle

and still horibly lose against ASF, and even worst against static AA that czar is X time better as is actual czar, and still horible lose. Bloodir say on it that its piece of crap and he will not build it (so i was buffed it on actual stats)

And you are argue with me taht acctual czar what is X time worse as this is not so bad and i dont think about posible usage? Cmooon. I dont even know where it was last time in ranked game where i see builded czar.

Statistics: Posted by Ithilis_Quo — 21 Oct 2015, 01:35

Re: An Observation on T3/T4 Air

2015-10-21T01:17:42+02:00

TheKoopa wrote:
The problem is not the CZAR, the problem is the ASF's. That they would kill your incoming CZAR even when you outnumber your enemy in ASF's and have air control because they will still kill it in one pass.

Congratz, you just won air completely and have free reign to make another czar or strategy bombers or restorers even

But I already had air. This shitty CZAR died way too easily, I should have made strats from the start. CZAR is supposed to be more durable than strats, but since strats are way faster, the are actually more likely to reach their target; even if some of them die in the process, I still have a fairly high probability of success in my snipe.

Statistics: Posted by angus000 — 21 Oct 2015, 01:17

Re: An Observation on T3/T4 Air

2015-10-21T00:25:33+02:00

The problem is not the CZAR, the problem is the ASF's. That they would kill your incoming CZAR even when you outnumber your enemy in ASF's and have air control because they will still kill it in one pass.

Congratz, you just won air completely and have free reign to make another czar or strategy bombers or restorers even

Statistics: Posted by TheKoopa — 21 Oct 2015, 00:25

Re: An Observation on T3/T4 Air

2015-10-20T23:32:18+02:00

The problem is not the CZAR, the problem is the ASF's. That they would kill your incoming CZAR even when you outnumber your enemy in ASF's and have air control because they will still kill it in one pass.

Statistics: Posted by angus000 — 20 Oct 2015, 23:32

Re: An Observation on T3/T4 Air

2015-10-20T22:14:07+02:00

I'm not arguing that the Czar is where it should be right now, I agree with you on that. But I don't agree that it should be reworked in order to be better than it is at attacking heavily defended enemy bases or to be able to engage large amounts (60+) of asf on its own. I also think that a simple cost reduction would improve things a lot. It costs 11k more mass than a Soul Ripper, why? As we've established, it's not that much better. Why not just move its cost in line with other similar units before we go nuts?

I mean, come on, we're throwing out ideas about shields that only cover certain sides, rebalancing T3 AA around a single unit, giving Czars more HP than a megalith and more damage than a ML... Icedreamer is definitely right to go one small step at a time, yeah?

D4E_Omit wrote:
Giving it better AA so it'd have a chance against asf
Giving it more health and a higher dps beam so it could do something to stationary AA
Lowering mass cost would just end up with it being used as a huge bomb really often

These aren't bad ideas. If you're going to buff its AA, I'd say to look at the flak cannons - at least make their range match the missiles, and you could increase their muzzle velocity so they can hit at that range. If the problem is swarming asfs, make it better able to deal with swarms...

I would say that HP buffs should primarily come through veterancy though. If you want it to be able to smash its way through a bunch of defenses you should have to work to be able to do that.

A lower mass cost would allow you to build it exchange for building another T4, instead of it being prohibitively expensive in addition to being fragile. Making them tougher and faster is more likely to make them used as bombs more than making them a little cheaper.

D4E_Omit wrote:
Making it faster could be possible but its still gonna be fragile
Making it have higher build power for flying factory and decreasing mass cost could be a possibility

Making it faster is only going to make it used as a bomb more, since it will get over stuff more quickly and will get a better range on its air crash.

The factory isn't going to be too much of a factor, since it can't build and move at the same time it will always be a minor ability at best. If you want to look at its support abilities though, how about increasing its radar range? As a T4 carrier, and a flying one at that, it should have longer radar range than a Keefer or T2 radar. Even an Atlantis has 250, how about 300?

Ithilis_Quo wrote:
and because you dont have your own asf when you have czar. Or you have your own asf but enemy have 2x more asf so it doesnt mater. When one side invest 45K mass in czar other will invest this mass somewhere. Economical argument in strategic game is all time automatic. Othervise its not strategic game.

The problem with your analyses, though, is that they're looking strictly at costs and stats, without putting enough emphasis on range, micro, positioning, and overall battlefield context. The fact that you claim your opponent will have double asf if you have a Czar is proof enough. That's obviously not true. You're not going to be building a Czar instead of asf, you're building it instead of a GC or other ground/naval forces. If they build a GC while you build a Czar, no matter where your Czar or their GC is, they can't attack you with that GC unless they know they can win the air battle.

Ithilis_Quo wrote:
Mycen wrote:Since you can see enemy ASF coming on radar, you can just pull the Czar back over your SAMs when they approach - if your opponent wants to suicide a bunch of his ASF by flying them through your ASF and over all of the AA in your territory, what's the problem?

main problem is that when you build czar enemy for same mass have 128asf more as you have. 128 ASF destroy czar in 1,08 second and if lose all asf to destroy czar then still he have same ASF as you have and you waste big time to build czar for nothing. But i can garante taht he dont lose all asf even in sam forest.

I'm skeptical that it's as easy as suiciding a bunch of asf over your base to kill it for two reasons:

One - you can do that just as easily to destroy enemy strats that are idle, but how often do you see that happening?

Two - if they send in asfs to attack your Czar, it is NOT as simple as "128 ASF kill Czar in one second, 60 Kill Czar in 3 seconds." The asf have to fly toward the Czar to kill it, which sets them up for an easy intercept by your asf. By the time they get to the Czar they won't have the 128/60 asf they started the attack with.

If they don't break off and engage your fighters its shooting ducks in a barrel. They won't lose their whole airfoce to SAMs, but they will probably lose their whole airforce to your AA and asf. You'll still have the Czar's mass, so what have they gained, exactly? You can just build another Czar, and now they won't have the airforce to stop it.

If they do break off to engage your asf it's going to take longer to destroy the Czar, giving you time for the Czar's AA to contribute to the battle and for you to win.

Either way, as the ASF fly toward your Czar, they are automatically going to shoot at other stuff that's in range too. (Like your asf.) The actual DPS of the swarm is going to be lower than its nominal DPS. Granted, this isn't going to make a huge difference, but you often only need a few seconds to really decide the battle.

And let's not forget the Czar can be stealthed - you can make it harder for your opponent to raid it.

Ithilis_Quo wrote:
When you want it for defense, then why not build jast more sams and PD? you can build 90 T2 pd for price of czar. That do that job much better.

Putting aside that the PD take up a huge amount of space, cannot move, and in those numbers require a game of engi bumper cars, they are outranged by many of the things they'll be attacked with - fatboys, megaliths, arty, mmls, snipers, etc. It's not comparable. Also, a Czar will not provide vet to ground units.

Ithilis_Quo wrote:
you go with your czar def against gc that is on your front ally border. see asf is coming you go back with your czar, becasue asf is 2,5x faster it smash your czaz that fall over your ally base/or somewhere. (69 ASf destroy czar for 3second)

how you will play this setup?

You don't use CZARs to defend in that sort of situation. They're good for defense when you have a large area to cover. For example, if you're on Setons and your front spot has been destroyed. You can cover all three other spots against ground attack with a single Czar. Not possible with PD or other ground units.

And obviously you're going to retreat your Czar next to your base for easy reclaim, not right over your base.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

One other thing I'd like to point out, minor as it is - Czars are really really good on large (40x40 and especially 81x81) maps. They provide all of the support to an air force that a navy does, without being detectable by sonar or nukeable. When you're out of T3 radar range, the Czars' radars provide a huge positioning advantage for your airforce.

Statistics: Posted by Mycen — 20 Oct 2015, 22:14