T3 AA buff

[Myrdral]

I thought it was something like that, Pavese. I usually do not micro all of my ASF in one large blob for fear of aoe, but I was uncertain how effective the flak really was. I also try not to stick around and dog fight if there is AA on the surface.

[Icy]

Flak, especially mobile flak because of the higher rate of fire, absolutely murders blobs of t3 air when they fly over. When a group of ASF slow down during micro, a single mobile flak can do more dps than several SAMS because of how tight they bunch up when they slow down.

The opposite is also true. Flak is very weak against fast moving t3 air that is spread out. A good static air defense should have plenty of both. If you spread out SAMS and clump up flak, both become much more effective.

AA feels pretty balanced the way it is now. If its still not working for you, try changing the way you use it and how you position it.

[-_V_-]

I suppose the thing is, whoever has the most ASF wins. Why? Because their counter is ASF. If one player loses an air battle, the only way for them to gain air again is to somehow attain more ASF then the enemy.

This is wrong, completely wrong. Of course, it's risky to base a win on ground and naval aa, but you can counter a ASF superiority with combination of those AA and some ASF. Of course you still need some asf to avoid the snipes and shit, but no big deal. You could argue I can't play air ( ), but I've lost several games despite a big asf domination.

But when I see those so called "air specialists" being traumatized by t3 air themselves when their team mate lost it, I can't expect the other less experimented with it to have a real analysis of the situation.


That being said, in a situation where someone has air superiority, if he wants to put that advantage to good use, he will do bombers and shit. And that is a big investment of TIME, and eco. Those strats/t3 gunships are so expensive and long to build. This is the perfect opportunity for the opponent to catch up on asf numbers. How many times have I seen or even experienced myself reverted air superiority because of that...

Flak, especially mobile flak because of the higher rate of fire, absolutely murders blobs of t3 air when they fly over. When a group of ASF slow down during micro, a single mobile flak can do more dps than several SAMS because of how tight they bunch up when they slow down.

The opposite is also true. Flak is very weak against fast moving t3 air that is spread out. A good static air defense should have plenty of both. If you spread out SAMS and clump up flak, both become much more effective.

AA feels pretty balanced the way it is now. If its still not working for you, try changing the way you use it and how you position it.

Ah finally some good sense. TY

[Myrdral]

[quote="-_V
That being said, in a situation where someone has air superiority, if he wants to put that advantage to good use, he will do bombers and shit. And that is a big investment of TIME, and eco. Those strats/t3 gunships are so expensive and long to build. This is the perfect opportunity for the opponent to catch up on asf numbers. How many times have I seen or even experienced myself reverted air superiority because of that...
[/quote]

I agree, this is exactly the reason why it is easier to defend against air when the opponent starts building non-ASF to attack your mexes, ACU etc. Depending on how far behind you are in ASF numbers, the more you may have to rely on the opponent producing too many non-ASF. SAM can also be a counter to an overextending opponent with air dominance. If he tries to keep his air too close to your air factory and main base mexes and their defenses, then he will eventually lose his advantage. Once your opponent has enough of an advantage to start destroying your outlying mexes, especially the ones you have upgraded to t2/storage or t3, the more you need them to make mistakes. SAM creates a situation where they are more likely to make those mistakes by overextending near your bases. If you can predict where that opponent will strike next, you can build a bunch of flak and Sam at that location in between their gathering of intel. Cybran could build an AA fire base under stealth. Next time your opponent comes around, try to bait them over the AA with a few ASF or small pack engineers then strike back with whatever other ASF you may have. Do you agree that the more desperate your ASF situation becomes, the more you need to employ unusual tactics and hope for opponents to make mistakes due to unfamiliarity with what you are doing?

In trying to keep this topic mostly focused on t3 AA balance, I think a good rule for determining if a unit is use ful or balanced is whether it can be deployed both offensively and defensively(meaning on their side of the map or yours). SAM does seem to be viable as an offensive tool to place near their 'air logisitics' factories or to cover a push in neutral territory or onto their side of the map. Defensively, it can slow down an opponent, create more situations for them to make mistakes and help you to catch up if they get impatient and throw away units.

[Karottenrambo]

AA feels pretty balanced the way it is now. If its still not working for you, try changing the way you use it and how you position it.

Ah finally some good sense. TY

[theZJ]

AA feels pretty balanced the way it is now. If its still not working for you, try changing the way you use it and how you position it.

Ah finally some good sense. TY

[Iszh]

The Problem with Air defense is only that the air defense is no defense ... the first thing mentioned in this thread is correct, range is a problem. because no matter how many sams or air defense you have --> bombs are falling and nothing will save the target, not even shields. This means if there is no water for your acu the game is ended with maximum 60k mass in bombers. no air defense or any other ground facility has the slightest chance to stop this.

this problem does not exist for 1v1. it only exists for seton games and/or other big map games with planes. increased range would help to cover the map more easy and avoid kilometers of uncovered area.

you should never forget. planes are a fast and effektive weapon which should be weak when enemy has a defense to strike unprotected targets. but they should not turn into a 100% game ender. somehow at the moment at least on setons they are the 90% reason of winning.

[Icy]

A shielded UEF ACU surrounded by a a couple SCUS and T3 shields can easily survive a pass from 30 something stratbombers, just make sure they dont get to come around for another run.

[-_V_-]

somehow at the moment at least on setons they are the 90% reason of winning.

just plain wrong.

[Cerberus]

Wow, T3 AA needs no such buff.

Last I know, A T3 SAM cost 600 mass. T3 gunships and bombers cost about 2000. T3 SAM are incredibly cost effective vs all sorts of air. And for you few who think it sucks because it cant effectively kill off strat bombers before a snipe, you're doing something wrong then.

If you A) let your opponent invest between 10,000 mass (5 bombers) and 30,000 mass (15 bombers) and B) don't have 25 ASF (10,000 mass) on the field for the easiest counter in the world OR C) Have not already won when your opponent starting dumping all his mass into the easily countered strat bombers, you need to re-evaluate your game play.

Now, In my opinion, T3 strat bombers are a great way to kill some player who has long since lost all semblance of map control, and is now sitting in his base behind a wall of shields and PD.

And if none of this sunk in, maybe try hiding your commander behind the AA, not on it. Maybe even build your AA far enough away it can shoot the bombers down before they reach your com.

AA is already a super hard counter for air, it doesn't need to get any better.