by TnukSmasher3000 » 22 Apr 2012, 06:26
As the worlds premier (or at least joint premier) supplier of ACU tactical missiles, I disagree with the view that it is a significantly overpowered upgrade.
There is an argument often levied that 1 tac missile defence should take down 1 tac missile. It should be noted that this isn't even the case with conventionally launched tactical missiles. The cybran tac missile will still deliver a sizeable proportion of its damage flying straight over a tactical missile defence (excl. aeon) as the tac missiles just break up into smaller bits when shot at by a tac d. Secondly, it takes 2 shots from a UEF tac missile defence to shoot down 1 tactical missile. (Often even ones fired from cruisers depending on range!) The notion that all tactical missiles are created equal is not true, even for the conventional tactical missiles and tactical missile defences.
In my experience the following describes how many tac missile defences are required to shoot down 1 ACU tac missile flying at maximum altitude within range of the tac d. (It takes 1 fewer hit for each faction while the missile ascends and descends - Excl. Aeon)
Seraphim: Takes 3 shots to bring one down. Given the rate of fire of Sera tac d, the missile must travel within range of 2 tac missile defences.
Cybran: Takes 4 shots to bring one down. Again given the rate of fire, the missile must travel within range of 2 cybran tac missile defences.
UEF: Takes 5 shots to bring one down. The missile must travel within the range of 3-4 tac missile defences. (depending on position of tac d in relation to missile trajectory)
*Aeon: Aeon tac d cannot shoot down an ACU tac missile once the missile is at its maximum altitude. However it only takes 1 tac d to distract the tac missile once it descends onto the target. However, there appears to a bug when placing the aeon tac d. The aeon tac d will not distract the tac missile close to the maximum range of the tac d. The effective range of the aeon tac d versus the ACU tac missile is about 1/3 shorter than the placing circle shows when placing the tac d. That said, 1 aeon tac d will distract 1 ACU tac missile if placed in close proximity to a target.
You might be forgiven for thinking that this is still seems like an excessive amount of tac defence for a player to have to build, but think for a moment about the maths of this. As a front player on Setons (as an example I'm familiar with), a Cybran or Seraphim player needs about 7-8 tac d's to defend absolutely everything in his/her base along a 180 degree arc towards his/her opponent. (e.g. a line of tac d accross the base, or even fewer if you think logically about the most efficient way of laying out the tac d.) A UEF player needs around 12 tac d's to defend every single mex, while Aeon also require around 8-10 well placed defenses next to important targets.
Next, put this information into context: The TML upgrade on a sera commander costs 1000 mass and 50,000 energy. It thereafter costs 1000 mass for each missile. A tac missile defence costs 280 mass. Therefore, to fully defend your base in a 180 degree arc towards your opponent on Setons, would cost Seraphim and Cybran players ~1800-2000 mass in tac defence. It costs around 2800-3000 mass in tac defence for Aeon and UEF. These figures do not lend themselves to the idea that the tac missile is overpowered. Remember that at 1000 mass for the upgrade + 1000 mass for each missile, it costs a tac missile acu 11,000 mass to fire a tac missile at every mex on the opposing front spot on setons. If a player can afford to be spending 11,000 mass to tac missile you, you deserve to be dead anyway. You should have attacked using your 11k mass (all other things being equal), or spent the comparatively smaller amount on tactical missile defence if you're teching or behind on econ.
To even cover the cost of the tac missile, the attacker needs to kill at least two t2 mexes. The attacker makes an enormous net loss in attacking tech 1 mexes with the ACU tac missile so it never makes sense to shoot at them. Given that it consumes a vast amount of energy to upgrade to the ACU tac missile in the first place, it's probably more reasonable to assume that to break even, the attacker must kill 3-4 tech 2 mexes. While this argument doesn't factor in the cost to the victim of the reduced mass income while the mex is being rebuilt/re-upgraded, nor does it factor in the 810 mass that the victim can reclaim from the destroyed t2 mex. The attacker does not get a 3/4 refund for the cost of his missile, the victim gets a refund of 3/4 for his/her lost mex. A huge psychological blow for the victim perhaps, but certainly not a transaction which is disproportionately advantageous to the attacker when viewed rationally.
There are however a couple of secondary considerations here. My argument has not thus far considered the cost of getting t2 engineering + a suitable number of t2 engineers for the defender to build tactical missile defences. Nor has my argument considered the length of time necessary for the defender to build and move engineers to the appropriate locations to build the tactical missile defences. (Particularly for aeon.) However, I think that this balances out overall because of the enormous energy cost of the tac missile upgrade to the attacker (50,000). It should also be considered that it does not make sense for an attacker to use the tac missile upgrade with anything less than a tech 2 commander. (For build speed of the missile + the ability to build shields for protection as the attacking ACU must be in forward position to reach the core tech 2 mexes.)
While I don't feel that the tac missile is significantly overpowered, there are a couple of minor changes I think which would be reasonable without ruining faction diversity. If by marginally increasing the UEF tac d's rate of fire, it could be guaranteed that 3 UEF tac d's could shoot down 1 ACU tac missile, then that would seem fairer on UEF players. (4 tac d's for 1 missile does seem excessive, although this can be reliably countered as things stand by placing 1 tac d close to core mexs as this reduces the number of hits required to shoot the missile down by 1 as it descends.) Additionally, if the range shown on the aeon placing circle when building a tac d were corrected, that would prevent the frustration aeon players feel when they think that their tac d "isn't working". It does work at close range, it just doesn't work throughout the entire range shown on the placement circle.
The reason I think that people consider the upgrade overpowered, is predominantly because it is a huge psychological blow to see ones prized mexes going up in smoke. The victim doesn't normally consider the cost to the attacker of actually making the attack. Nor do most victims usually respond to the attack in a logical manner. (They go through the grief cycle of anger/despair/bargaining etc etc) If you have no tac missile defence, the most effective response to having most of your t2 mexes tac missiled is to quickly defend 1 remaining t2 mex, then upgrade it to tech 3 using the mass reclaimed from the destroyed tech 2 mexes, whilst rebuilding the destroyed mexes to t1. Using this technique one can not only defend oneself from future tac missile attacks, but it'll probably confuse the hell out of your attacker who will presume that you have no more mass income, when in reality you've not really lost out much mass income during the transaction. If you get attacked and you already have some tac missile defence, just remember that the person attacking you needs to kill 3-4 t2 mexes before he/she will break even. Every ACU tac missile you shoot down is 1000 mass you've just made your opponent waste.
If you defend to any extent against the acu tac missile, it's almost guaranteed that you will emerge from the situation as a winner versus your attacker as you'll be able to beef up your defences before your opponent can take out 3-4 of your t2 mexes. If you fail to defend at all against the missile (i.e. no tac d at all), then you probably deserve to die because of it, but even still you will survive so long as you react to the situation rationally.
My two cents. (And by my two cents I mean the unequivocal truth.)
Smasher