bomber first replay

[Jace]

Incorrect. Watch closely and you'll see that the bomber "circles the map uselessly for two minutes" because I moved the engie it was targeting out of the way, even while Isen was controlling the bomber trying to line up a shot on it.

Isen just had to fly one bigger circle. and slow his bomber with hold to use the radar properly! even so, he could haved even bombed your pgens or flew off anywhere else, instead he trys to micro off an engineer instead killing something else and coming back for it.

The bomber paid off only because it was not countered correctly, as I wrote in my original post. If it had been, he would have had the advantage, even with a less efficient BO.

at that point the bomber could have been even shot down it wouldnt have made no difference. the raidgroup he got after that could have been deffed by commander or tanks too. and we just concluded that at that point he had lost the advantage cause there where no engineers and from that point on for the rest of the game he was 1 or 2 mex behind.

[uberge3k]

Isen just had to fly one bigger circle. and slow his bomber with hold to use the radar properly! even so, he could haved even bombed your pgens or flew off anywhere else, instead he trys to micro off an engineer instead killing something else and coming back for it.

He did slow the bomber. It was ineffective as I saw it coming on the radar and had time to move my engie out of the way. It only takes a moment to counter his micro in this way, and to be honest, at that stage of the game there's little else to do anyway.

at that point the bomber could have been even shot down it wouldnt have made no difference. the raidgroup he got after that could have been deffed by commander or tanks too. and we just concluded that at that point he had lost the advantage cause there where no engineers and from that point on for the rest of the game he was 1 or 2 mex behind.

Wait... First you say that the bomber turned the tip of the game, but now you're saying that it made no difference? If so, I think we actually agree.

I already mentioned that to go bomber first on a land heavy map such as that, you are putting yourself at least 290 mass behind. You would need to kill at least that with the bomber for it to be cost effective.

[Jace]

Wait... First you say that the bomber turned the tip of the game, but now you're saying that it made no difference? If so, I think we actually agree.

you complained about the direction the AA was sent to take out the bomber! that was on the bombers second flyby. Dont you even remember your last post?
It had already taken out all engis. at that second flyby, it could have been shot. it didnt anything gamechanging anymore. it just got one raid group, that could have been countered in other ways at that point. read and comprehend!

[uberge3k]

you complained about the direction the AA was sent to take out the bomber! that was on the bombers second flyby. Dont you even remember your last post?
It had already taken out all engis. at that second flyby, it could have been shot. it didnt anything gamechanging anymore. it just got one raid group, that could have been countered in other ways at that point. read and comprehend!

On its first pass, the bomber killed one T1 engineer and one T1 mobile AA, doing a total mass damage of 80 (52 + 28).

On its second pass, the bomber killed another T1 engineer, for another 52 mass damage (total of 132 now). It escaped with 10 HP; one more shot by the AA would have killed it.

Proper micro of the engineers (ie, just as much micro as the attacker used to line up his shots) would have ensured their survival, reducing the bomber's mass damage to zero.

If you count the mass it takes to make AA instead of tanks or engineers, then we could increase the net "mass damage" in that scenario to 56 (28 * 2). As it stands, in that replay, the bomber was indeed cost effective because it was allowed to live. It did a grand total of 258 mass damage (132 (aforementioned engie kills) + 52 (another engie kill) + 20 (scout kill) + 54 (tank kill)), plus the 52 mass invested in the two failed AAs (310). You could probably make a case that MadStork's air fac, 3 ints and scout could be added to the total as well, since it seems that he panicked because of the bomber and overinvested in a counter for it.

In summary, had the bomber been shot down on its second pass, even if it had killed both engineers, it would not have been mass effective, doing only 156 mass damage at that point; far below what the factory and bomber cost. Naturally you would need to adjust for the intangible benefit of momentarily having radar coverage of the enemy's base, and using the air fac later on in game, and the temporary disruption of the target's building, but the game was over long before those benefits could have been seen. Just as you would need to adjust on the bomber firster's side the intangible losses of the bomber delaying your normal expansions and the cost of needing an extra pgen; hence why I simplified things in the above example.

It should be noted that a change planned to mobile AAs will ensure that in a scenario such as this game, the bomber would have died on its second pass regardless of micro.

[Jace]

you are very good at ignoring the point that madstork was behind in mexcount from that point on for the rest of the game. for over 4minutes. thats much mass too you know?

[uberge3k]

That doesn't mean that we shouldn't examine the rest of the numbers, as I did in my last post. I also answered this in my very first post in this thread:

To be honest, it didn't look like you [MadStork] had a BO for that map, while Rams did.

[Jace]

That doesn't mean that we shouldn't examine the rest of the numbers, as I did in my last post. I also answered this in my very first post in this thread:

To be honest, it didn't look like you [MadStork] had a BO for that map, while Rams did.

2 engineers less right at the start, how much less mass do you have because you can't reclaim? how much less mass do you have because the mexes go up slower?
i told you he was 1-2mexes behind from the bomber on for 4 to 5min what do you get if you add that to your little calculation?

[uberge3k]

Why would you wait 4-5 minutes before rebuilding your engineers to reclaim and capture mex?

Furthermore, how far behind are *you* in eco if you chose to go bomber first? You delayed your expansion by at least a minute while the bomber builds, which in my experience is much more painful than possibly losing one or two expanding engies.

[Yaotzin]

What's wrong with just having bomber first be the standard FA opener? It's normal for an RTS to have a standard opener, because the options are so limited at that point in the game, that an optimum BO will eventually be discovered. Making land openings and air openings equally balanced is virtually impossible - they're so different.

(I have no clue is bomber first > land fac first, that's beside the point)

[Jace]

they would be equal if the commander could shoot down the bomber!