Support Commanders

Post here any idea about current FA Balance.
REMINDER : This is NOT a community balance forum. The thread ideas won't be used in a patch.
Forum rules REMINDER : This is NOT a community balance forum. The thread ideas won't be used in a patch.

Re: Support Commanders

Postby Pavese » 04 May 2012, 15:08

They Cybran sACU has Mobile SAM and a AoE EMP shot. If you really think thats not good enough for an sACU, then its yet another reason to actually introduce sACUs into t3 play. I dont care about teleport. Kill the upgrade if need be. I want sACUs with my army, supporting my army, dying with my army. And i want them before i have to think about building a mavor.

The UEF SCU already has a bubble shield upgrade. It's the upgraded version of the4 normal shield generator and given the fact that those have 32K and (bubble) 52K SP, I'd say that that upgrade is quite effective for the cost.


Yes i know and i want the first one to be a bubble as well. Sure it's a tad bit OP if you introduce this things without looking at them but thats something to verry easy fix. If the second stage had only 32k hp i would be happy as well.


The whole point of the thread is to show the "balance Team" that fixing sACU is easy because they can fill in a missing role, which is T3 utility. All of them have great upgrades or could easiyl be made into great upgrades. Like puttin the regen field onthe sera sACU or the Chrono thing Aeons have on the Aeon sACU. These things are missing in T3 land and would probably endorse more of it instead of T3AIRAIRAIRAIRAIRAIR and Exp into MOREAIRAIRAIRAIRAIR.


I mean: did you ever heard of the Cybran sACUs upgrades? If you think about it they are so good in a T3 setting its a shame they were overlooked for so long. It would benefit their land army to have a the only mobile land based SAM in the game. Not to mention EMP blast that would help alot in T3 battles.
Last edited by Pavese on 04 May 2012, 15:12, edited 1 time in total.
Pavese
Avatar-of-War
 
Posts: 186
Joined: 19 Oct 2011, 18:39
Has liked: 0 time
Been liked: 0 time

Re: Support Commanders

Postby Iszh » 04 May 2012, 15:11

you dont need a sacu with a 166 dps sam launcher. even for 4000 mass you can get enough of t2 aa for your t3 army which will clean the sky from anything that can fly even from rain clouds if needed.
sacu has a different role. regaining mass in battlefield and make front bases.
User avatar
Iszh
Evaluator
 
Posts: 827
Joined: 26 Apr 2012, 08:51
Has liked: 116 times
Been liked: 126 times
FAF User Name: Iszh

Re: Support Commanders

Postby Pavese » 04 May 2012, 15:13

Iszh wrote:you dont need a sacu with a 166 dps sma launcher. even for 4000 mass you can get enough of t2 aa for your t3 army which will clean the sky from anything that can fly even from rain clouds if needed.
sacu has a different role. regaining mass in battlefield and make front bases.


T2 AA cant hit T3 bombers. T3 bombers is the reason lategame land is impossible to play.
Pavese
Avatar-of-War
 
Posts: 186
Joined: 19 Oct 2011, 18:39
Has liked: 0 time
Been liked: 0 time

Re: Support Commanders

Postby Iszh » 04 May 2012, 15:15

yes they can hit t3 bombers i played often enough setons to see this. maybe not so effektive but even t3 bomber dont feel so comfortable over a mass of t2 aa guns! (and please stop to quote so much in this forum this is pure spam)
User avatar
Iszh
Evaluator
 
Posts: 827
Joined: 26 Apr 2012, 08:51
Has liked: 116 times
Been liked: 126 times
FAF User Name: Iszh

Re: Support Commanders

Postby noobymcnoobcake » 04 May 2012, 15:49

Can agree here. Large numbers of T2 flack and shields will shred all air units capable of attacking them with the exeption of expermentals but we all know how easy they die to ASF
User avatar
noobymcnoobcake
Evaluator
 
Posts: 672
Joined: 17 Sep 2011, 16:34
Has liked: 16 times
Been liked: 5 times

Re: Support Commanders

Postby Plasma_Wolf » 04 May 2012, 18:07

Additionally, T4 units are just as vulnerable to Strategic bombers than T3 armies (if not even more vulnerable). 21 percivals can be built with (slightly less than) the mass for a GC. They get 201600 HP in return (Seraphim Siege tank group is even higher at 32x6700, while the brick, 21x9000, and the Harbinger, 32x5900 are both at about 189K HP combined).

Now the first argument against this is that bombers have splash damage but I've seen numerous StratBomber attacks on groups that move over the battlefield. Even if unattended (or perhaps sometimes becuase they are unattended) to, bombers usually won't hit more than 2 units at the same time. This shows that you need about as much bombs to deal with a GC as with a group of T3 bots/tanks. Time is the most essential point if you're using bombers to deal with such a group.

So now my question is: why do we need support commanders with mobile sam upgrades to protect a T3 group while the T4 units are perfectly fine on their own?

Anyway, to get back to the point of Support Commanders (There's a been a discussion before, you should be able to find it in the depths of this subforum), I think the costs should be normalized with the rest of the arsenal.
User avatar
Plasma_Wolf
Supreme Commander
 
Posts: 1335
Joined: 20 Oct 2011, 11:28
Has liked: 23 times
Been liked: 91 times
FAF User Name: Plasma_Wolf

Re: Support Commanders

Postby Pavese » 04 May 2012, 18:18

So now my question is: why do we need support commanders with mobile sam upgrades to protect a T3 group while the T4 units are perfectly fine on their own?


There is no "need". It is already in the game. It's just not usuable because of buildtime and Mass costs. If you normalize the cost to what they could potentially bring to the arsenal (massive amount of utility) it will be such a great unit and fun to play with.

Only Cybran has the upgrade. Then again: cybran have no shields. It's mobile while UEF could build forwarded firebases with a good sACU that doesn't die when you hit it with a stick.
Pavese
Avatar-of-War
 
Posts: 186
Joined: 19 Oct 2011, 18:39
Has liked: 0 time
Been liked: 0 time

Re: Support Commanders

Postby Crayfish » 04 May 2012, 18:55

Guys there is already a thread about SCUs here:
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=95

Its much better to keep all debate within one thread so that people can see all the input and arent just repeating the same arguments. Is there a way to merge threads?
LIBERTE
User avatar
Crayfish
Contributor
 
Posts: 166
Joined: 18 Apr 2012, 22:55
Has liked: 0 time
Been liked: 9 times
FAF User Name: Crayfish

Re: SCU

Postby Crayfish » 04 May 2012, 18:56

Bump
LIBERTE
User avatar
Crayfish
Contributor
 
Posts: 166
Joined: 18 Apr 2012, 22:55
Has liked: 0 time
Been liked: 9 times
FAF User Name: Crayfish

Re: Support Commanders

Postby Ze_PilOt » 04 May 2012, 20:12

Topics merged.
Nossa wrote:I've never played GPG or even heard of FA until FAF started blowing up.
User avatar
Ze_PilOt
Supreme Commander
 
Posts: 8985
Joined: 24 Aug 2011, 18:41
Location: fafland
Has liked: 18 times
Been liked: 376 times
FAF User Name: Ze_PilOt

PreviousNext

Return to FA Balance Discussions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest