Forged Alliance Forever

Re: ASF fly higher than Ahwassa

2015-07-07T20:33:39+02:00

briang wrote:
Well anyone who knows how to micro an Ahwassa knows that ground fire is the way to go... if you click something across the map it will drop 100%, that is clearly an exaggeration... now if it is closer to it then there could be problems

Ive been told you have to know how to pilot it and so I guess I assumed that meant angles and vectors but targeting modes, why does it need to be in a different mode than every other unit in the game to bomb on target? Just cuz?

Statistics: Posted by KD7BCH — 07 Jul 2015, 20:33

Re: ASF fly higher than Yolona

2015-07-07T20:24:50+02:00

speed2 wrote:
first fix that bomber so it drops when you simply click on target that is across whole map THEN we can have any further discussion about nerfing it, thanks

No shit, does that thing ever drop on the first target on the first pass EVER?

Statistics: Posted by KD7BCH — 07 Jul 2015, 20:24

Re: ASF fly higher than Yolona

2015-07-05T18:58:37+02:00

IceDreamer wrote:
I like it. It's hard to pull off and will rarely happen or be effective. This is one of those quirks of a simulated engine which sets SupCom apart without totally destroying gameplay.

I got 3 or 4 star vet off of one group of restorers doing this in a particular game once, killed his entire group, ruined him.

It is a little bit OP XD

Statistics: Posted by Nyx — 05 Jul 2015, 18:58

Re: ASF fly higher than Ahwassa

2015-06-03T21:59:54+02:00

SC-Account wrote:
zeroAPM wrote:
SC-Account wrote:When it comes to Ahwassa.. well one could argue it either has strong Armour against anything that comes from below to give it some protection against its own weapon and incoming flak, also it could use some energy shield that effectively weakens the effect of an explosion if its exact timing and vector is known, which would be the case if it has been triggered by the Ahwassa itself...

There are two issues with this though:

1) surface-to-air weapons (flack, SAM, AA of all kinds really) does not get it's damage diminished. If it does 1000 damage then it will be always 1000 damage whether the target it's a Ahwassa, a ASF, a gunship or a t1 intie

2) the timing and vector is not known though, one second it has a clear target, it drop the bomb and instead of the ground it get a ASF, if the Ahwassa has such powerful computers to react to a premature (and unpredictable) detonation of it's bomb to erect a shield then why wouldn't it be capable of doing so for all surface based AA since the interval of time between "leave the barrel" and "explode" is much, much larger than "drop the bomb" and "ASF flies into it"?

Ah.. hm.. weeeeell. Its bomb could give some kind of impact warning before explosion. All one needs is the presumed time of detonation in advance, everything else attacking has some randomized flight path, randomized detonation timer or stealth - that's why the shield is ineffective. Also the shield doesn't recharge any faster than the bomb and it would be wise to keep it ready in case the bomber gets to close to the death zone..

And last but not least:

Seraphim Engineer 1 wrote:
Hey you know that big bomber thing that uses a souped up version of the same energy-bomb-generator-thing we use in our other bombers?

Seraphim Engineer 2 wrote:
Yes, what of it?

Seraphim Engineer 1 wrote:
Why don't we cut some of the power to it and install a big shield generator so that if the bomb explode too close to the bomber it can block the shot?

Seraphim Engineer 2 wrote:
But why would that happen?

Seraphim Engineer 1 wrote:
In case a enemy plane flies right into the path of the bomb after it's dropped, duh!

Seraphim Engineer 2 wrote:
So let me get this straight: you want to cut the bomb's power by half

Seraphim Engineer 1 wrote:
Yes

Seraphim Engineer 2 wrote:
To install a shield generator

Seraphim Engineer 1 wrote:
Yup

Seraphim Engineer 2 wrote:
That activates only for a very specific situation

Seraphim Engineer 1 wrote:
Right, right

Seraphim Engineer 2 wrote:
And that situation as such a low chance of happening that it's almost a non issue

Seraphim Engineer 1 wrote:
Hm-Hmm

Seraphim Engineer 2 wrote:
YOU ARE A GENIUS! LET'S PUT IT INTO PRODUCTION IMMEDIATELY!

Statistics: Posted by zeroAPM — 03 Jun 2015, 21:59

Re: ASF fly higher than Ahwassa

2015-06-03T19:48:24+02:00

zeroAPM wrote:
SC-Account wrote:When it comes to Ahwassa.. well one could argue it either has strong Armour against anything that comes from below to give it some protection against its own weapon and incoming flak, also it could use some energy shield that effectively weakens the effect of an explosion if its exact timing and vector is known, which would be the case if it has been triggered by the Ahwassa itself...

There are two issues with this though:

1) surface-to-air weapons (flack, SAM, AA of all kinds really) does not get it's damage diminished. If it does 1000 damage then it will be always 1000 damage whether the target it's a Ahwassa, a ASF, a gunship or a t1 intie

2) the timing and vector is not known though, one second it has a clear target, it drop the bomb and instead of the ground it get a ASF, if the Ahwassa has such powerful computers to react to a premature (and unpredictable) detonation of it's bomb to erect a shield then why wouldn't it be capable of doing so for all surface based AA since the interval of time between "leave the barrel" and "explode" is much, much larger than "drop the bomb" and "ASF flies into it"?

Ah.. hm.. weeeeell. Its bomb could give some kind of impact warning before explosion. All one needs is the presumed time of detonation in advance, everything else attacking has some randomized flight path, randomized detonation timer or stealth - that's why the shield is ineffective. Also the shield doesn't recharge any faster than the bomb and it would be wise to keep it ready in case the bomber gets to close to the death zone..

Statistics: Posted by SC-Account — 03 Jun 2015, 19:48

Re: ASF fly higher than Ahwassa

2015-06-03T15:47:48+02:00

SC-Account wrote:
When it comes to Ahwassa.. well one could argue it either has strong Armour against anything that comes from below to give it some protection against its own weapon and incoming flak, also it could use some energy shield that effectively weakens the effect of an explosion if its exact timing and vector is known, which would be the case if it has been triggered by the Ahwassa itself...

There are two issues with this though:

1) surface-to-air weapons (flack, SAM, AA of all kinds really) does not get it's damage diminished. If it does 1000 damage then it will be always 1000 damage whether the target it's a Ahwassa, a ASF, a gunship or a t1 intie

2) the timing and vector is not known though, one second it has a clear target, it drop the bomb and instead of the ground it get a ASF, if the Ahwassa has such powerful computers to react to a premature (and unpredictable) detonation of it's bomb to erect a shield then why wouldn't it be capable of doing so for all surface based AA since the interval of time between "leave the barrel" and "explode" is much, much larger than "drop the bomb" and "ASF flies into it"?

Statistics: Posted by zeroAPM — 03 Jun 2015, 15:47

Re: ASF fly higher than Ahwassa

2015-06-03T01:03:47+02:00

zeroAPM wrote:
SC-Account wrote: As of today there are even vehicles and spaceship designs that use high explosives and even hydrogen bombs to propel themselves (don't think anything chasing them in close proximity would look too good after a few detonations).

Ah yes, the Orion Battleship, the only realistic space battleship ever devised.
Could be built with Cold War era tech, go from Earth to Jupiter and back in a few months and completely annihilate civilizations.

Seriously, look it up, that thing was so terrifying that scared the beejezus out of Kennedy so much that he cut all founding to the project.

However the shaped nuclear warheads were purposefully made so that they were only useful as a propulsion system by using tungsten to create a nice, wide spreat to impact the plate.

The weapon-grade ones (called "Casaba Howitzer") were another story though since they used lighter materials to make a focused spear of nuclear fury directed at whatever you wanted to blow up into molten slag.

Tl;dr: Awhassa doesn't propel itself by nuclear explosions so the special armor makes little sense

Well, sure they use shaped charges for better efficiency, but that would still annihilate any foolish ASF chasing it XD (not that they could keep up with the acceleration for long anyway).
When it comes to Ahwassa.. well one could argue it either has strong Armour against anything that comes from below to give it some protection against its own weapon and incoming flak, also it could use some energy shield that effectively weakens the effect of an explosion if its exact timing and vector is known, which would be the case if it has been triggered by the Ahwassa itself...

Statistics: Posted by SC-Account — 03 Jun 2015, 01:03

Re: ASF fly higher than Ahwassa

2015-06-02T12:05:21+02:00

Ionic wrote:
Ironic story, one day my grandpa and I were talking and he said you can't tell anyone this, but when I was an engineer we designed a rocket that was powered by nuclear explosions. He want on to explain some of the design aspects.

If it is powered by nuclear explosions then is a Orion drive.
If it is a flying, unshielded nuclear reactor flying at mach 3+ at treetop level spewing fallout everywhere and dropping nukes all over the Soviet Union then it's a Pluto SLAM (supersonic low altitude missile).
Yet another doomsday device courtesy of the Cold War.

Statistics: Posted by zeroAPM — 02 Jun 2015, 12:05

Re: ASF fly higher than Ahwassa

2015-06-02T04:02:55+02:00

Ironic story, one day my grandpa and I were talking and he said you can't tell anyone this, but when I was an engineer we designed a rocket that was powered by nuclear explosions. He want on to explain some of the design aspects.

Statistics: Posted by Ionic — 02 Jun 2015, 04:02

Re: ASF fly higher than Ahwassa

2015-06-02T00:39:19+02:00

SC-Account wrote:
As of today there are even vehicles and spaceship designs that use high explosives and even hydrogen bombs to propel themselves (don't think anything chasing them in close proximity would look too good after a few detonations).

Ah yes, the Orion Battleship, the only realistic space battleship ever devised.
Could be built with Cold War era tech, go from Earth to Jupiter and back in a few months and completely annihilate civilizations.

Seriously, look it up, that thing was so terrifying that scared the beejezus out of Kennedy so much that he cut all founding to the project.

However the shaped nuclear warheads were purposefully made so that they were only useful as a propulsion system by using tungsten to create a nice, wide spreat to impact the plate.

The weapon-grade ones (called "Casaba Howitzer") were another story though since they used lighter materials to make a focused spear of nuclear fury directed at whatever you wanted to blow up into molten slag.

Tl;dr: Awhassa doesn't propel itself by nuclear explosions so the special armor makes little sense

Statistics: Posted by zeroAPM — 02 Jun 2015, 00:39

Re: ASF fly higher than Ahwassa

2015-06-01T19:18:51+02:00

codepants wrote:
Ahwassa can get instant air control with stop-bombing. Not cool. If ASF flew higher than it, this wouldn't be a problem.

"But panties, why is that a problem?"
- Every unit in the game has a natural counter, and no unit can mass efficiently counter its counter. This is what makes the game so engaging -- there is no "build this and win" (excluding metagames on turtle maps like Thermo/Gap where the first team to make a t3 arty wins), nor is it rock-paper-scissors. The game is about scouting and using your mass better than your opponent.

The counter to AW is ASF. Stop-bombing kills all ASF chasing a AW. It's hard to do right, sure, but I don't think we should reward people practicing micro with instant air control. I don't have a problem with stop-bombing, actually. If you want to spend your APM that way, go ahead. But stop-bombing t1 bombers kills some engies, some power, and maybe gets a vet or two. It doesn't kill everything that could possibly kill the bomber while vetting it 3x. Stop-bombing a AW does this.

I suggest changing the height because I'm guessing making stop-bombing impossible is impossible and because I don't actually have a problem with stop-bombing, just that it can kill 150 ASF and if done properly is impossible to avoid.

Thoughts?

***Corrected from Yolona to Ahwassa. No excuses. I briefly hid in a corner.

You know it's very easy to script a weapon disable event when the bomber is attempting to stop or is below its cruising speed. After such an event is triggered, a small "delay" is introduced before the weapon is allowed to go active again. This could easily limit the usefulness of stop bombing as the micro / skill required to pull it off would be extremely difficult.

Conversely it it also be scripted so that the bomb can damage the unit dropping it if the bomber is within the area of effect at the time of detonation. Sure this wouldn't prevent stop-bombing but would definitely hasten the loss of the bomber. Knowing this, stop bombing would become a calculated risk / tactic most players would avoid unless they knew they were about to lose the bomber anyway.

Resin

Statistics: Posted by Resin_Smoker — 01 Jun 2015, 19:18

Re: ASF fly higher than Ahwassa

2015-06-01T17:00:01+02:00

SC-Account wrote:
Oh and also he claims it is impossible to avoid...

Where do I say that?

Statistics: Posted by codepants — 01 Jun 2015, 17:00

Re: ASF fly higher than Ahwassa

2015-05-30T18:36:22+02:00

Zoram wrote:
Exotic_Retard wrote:all thats wrong with his post is maybe the way he said it, but everything he said i agree with

well, that's the thing. This forum is submerged by posts like this that seem to be written by dudes trying their damn hardest to look like master dorks. Very hard to focus on the argument at this point.

When I say subjective I mean that opinions on "should" it be possible to kill 150 ASF with a T4 bomber in one sec (regardless of the difficulty of achieving it), is a subjective opinion. I personnally think that all the hovering planes are silly and require a gimmick more akin to the execution of a combo in a street fighter game than a RTS mechanic. This is quite subjective as well. Most people seem to disagree with me on that, so be it.

As for all arguments based on hard numbers, maybe they were made-up Bulshit, by all mean, point it out, but they were not the only argument being made, and it is quite a strawman argument to lable the whole opposing side of the argument as "jealous noobs".

This forum is submerged in bullshit, that is the problem. No it is not about looking like a genius. I also don't have any disrespect for noobs and I don't judge people by their rating number.
What pisses me off is people claiming random stuff they never tested and never saw happening in any game they played or watched (please prove me wrong) and want the game to be changed based on their made up "facts". Then I see plenty of people happily agreeing, again without any fact checking or based on any of their own experiences. None of them ever bothering to check numbers, let alone actually trying to bomb ASF themselves to see how feasible it is. So yes for me that looks like jealous noobs blaming the game mechanics for their own mistakes, rather than people concerned with balance.

I would even take a balance thread from a 0 rated player with 1 online game serious if he tested his stuff beforehand, used accurate numbers and rather than asking for a balance change right away would ask for counter measures etc., first determining if there even is a balance problem, but no: Instead we have a post with blatantly wrong numbers, demonstrably wrong assertions and a precise balance change suggestion that comes with it. This is what I call bullshit.

Sure, there are arrogant high rated players that dismiss peoples suggestions right away and threads like this highly contribute to such attitudes being reinforced.

I never used any figure, as this never happened to me, and probably never will. .

Well then, I don't see what you are even doing in this thread? Why do you think your opinion on something you never had anything to do with has any value to a balance discussion?

Edit:
Oh btw, Zoram: I even agree with your assertions, a more realistic air unit system would be a huge plus in my opinion. But that is gameplay, not balance and it has nothing to do with what the thread opener has been arguing about. You could open a separate thread for it. It is however not like such physic improvements have never been suggested before, the issue is that they need to be programmed properly and then fit into the game balance wise and unlike you do that on your own I don't think it is gonna happen. Ahwassa bombing ASF would still happen, though. You do not need to hover to do it, especially if Ahwassa would be less bugged. It also is not necessarily unrealistic that Ahwassa takes little damage from its bomb, it could simply be provided with armour and counter measures that would allow it to survive a non direct hit of its own main weapon, while hundreds of light armoured small units would die in an instant - don't think that is too far off. As of today there are even vehicles and spaceship designs that use high explosives and even hydrogen bombs to propel themselves (don't think anything chasing them in close proximity would look too good after a few detonations).

Statistics: Posted by SC-Account — 30 May 2015, 18:36

Re: ASF fly higher than Ahwassa

2015-05-30T17:54:15+02:00

SC-Account wrote:
it's a subjective argument on what boils down to a matter of taste. Replays have been provided by some.
You acting like an obnoxious jerk isn't pointing out anything but your liking for playground rethoric.

Yes yes 1+1+1 is 11 and your an asshole if you say that this is wrong, respect my opinion!

What replays have been provided?
The only one I saw shows 2 players that think your arguments are crap (me and Blackheart), it also shows about 30 ASF being killed, not 150.

I never used any figure, as this never happened to me, and probably never will. .

What you don't seem to get is that I am not even arguing about whether ASF should get bombed by Ahwassa or not.

Me neither really...

I am just pointing out the blatant disinformation you guys are spreading,

And I'm just pointing out that you express yourself like an high school bully throwing a tantrum. Since you have arguments, this is quite unnecessary.

Statistics: Posted by Zoram — 30 May 2015, 17:54

Re: ASF fly higher than Ahwassa

2015-05-30T17:49:46+02:00

Exotic_Retard wrote:
all thats wrong with his post is maybe the way he said it, but everything he said i agree with

well, that's the thing. This forum is submerged by posts like this that seem to be written by dudes trying their damn hardest to look like master dorks. Very hard to focus on the argument at this point.

When I say subjective I mean that opinions on "should" it be possible to kill 150 ASF with a T4 bomber in one sec (regardless of the difficulty of achieving it), is a subjective opinion. I personnally think that all the hovering planes are silly and require a gimmick more akin to the execution of a combo in a street fighter game than a RTS mechanic. This is quite subjective as well. Most people seem to disagree with me on that, so be it.

As for all arguments based on hard numbers, maybe they were made-up Bulshit, by all mean, point it out, but they were not the only argument being made, and it is quite a strawman argument to lable the whole opposing side of the argument as "jealous noobs".

Statistics: Posted by Zoram — 30 May 2015, 17:49