T3 AA buff

[Pavese]

Not sure if the numbers on the database are still correct but if they are:

T3 AA does 333 DPs against a single fast moving ~2500hp target that usually comes with 10-50 friends. It has the same cost as 2 ASf and does 500 DPS less then both of them, while they are stil mobile.


T3 AA should be more punishing for overextending your T3 air flock into enemy territory. Quadrupling its DPS would be sort of nice

And do the same for carriers, might be a reason to build one of those for a change....

[FunkOff]

I always thought SAMs should have lower DPS (about 120, from 333) but have a much higher max radius. The range now is 0-60, but imo should be 60-180 with 120 DPS.

This way, if you have a larger base with many SAMs, it'll be a lot more effective against units like bombers, and give AA towers and flak towers a purpose: To cover the minimum range.

[-_V_-]

Guys guys, let's be serious, did you miss the considerable energy amount to put into the t3 air ?

And if you're scared of asf blobs, use flaks, not t3 aa. The aa in game are overall VERY good.

[Softly]

I would argue strongly against powerful t3 sam launchers; it was one of the big problems afflicting the sup com xbox version.

I always thought SAMs should have lower DPS (about 120, from 333) but have a much higher max radius. The range now is 0-60, but imo should be 60-180 with 120 DPS.

180 range would be ridiculous, image if your opponent was using build drones, you'd be firing from a range greater than t2 arty into their shields. Even dismissing this example you could effectively shoot down stuff coming out your opponents factories from your own base.

T3 AA does 333 DPs against a single fast moving ~2500hp target that usually comes with 10-50 friends. It has the same cost as 2 ASf and does 500 DPS less then both of them, while they are stil mobile.


T3 AA should be more punishing for overextending your T3 air flock into enemy territory. Quadrupling its DPS would be sort of nice

In a fight between t3 asf and t3 sams, I'm pretty sure the sams would win, unless you know something I don't.
A better comparison would be sams vs t3 bombers, you can get about 2.5 sams per bomber in terms of mass, with the sams doing comparable dps (although I'm not sure how true this is given the bombers extra turning time), as well as having better range and better health.

DPS quadrupling would render air much less effective late game. I think that t3 sams are already well balanced, any buff would just make turtling less of an option and more of an inevitability in games.

[Plasma_Wolf]

Like V said, T3 air has an enormous energy cost. It's impossible to build a considerable air force without T3 Pgens. The energy cost of a SAM site is 8K, so spamming these around can be done while you still are at T2 in energy income level.

Additionally, the OP makes only one comparison: DPS. There are some other things you have to consider as well.

10500 HP. So it needs 4 strategic bomber boms (regardless of the faction) in order to die. Two ASFs have a combined 5K HP, a strategic bomber has about 4K HP and T3 gunships range from 5 to 6 K HP.
60 range. ASFs have 30 range.

Cost: 800 Mass, 8000 energy. 800 mass will get you:
1) 2 ASFs, but that costs 80K energy.
2) 0.38 of a strat bomber, but that costs 105K energy.
3) 0.48 of a T3 UEF gunship, but that costs 52.5K energy.

Just because the DPS was mentioned, here's a fun fact. The T3 gunship has exactly the same amount of DPS against the T3 sam as the other way around. The gunship only has 25 range, compared to the 60 of the sam, and the HP is 6K against 10.5K

So I'd say that the sam site is going to do very well against T3 air (no changes needed), so the only question the OP will now have is the effectiveness compared to ASFs.

Let's just assume we have more than enough energy (so it comes down to a comparison in mass cost IE in numbers).
The ASF may do far more damage and it may be mobile, but it also has to use its mobility. You can't just let the ASFs sit somewhere inside your base (or behind your base or in carriers, which is what we usually do since we don't want unnecessary units inside our base blocking movement) and then let them do the job as a squadron of bombers flies past, then you're going to give the bombers a second chance to kill whatever they're going to kill. SAMs use their superior range and placement (at the side or our bases) to deal a lot of damage to the squardon even before the first bombs are dropped.

This means that your ASFs have to be monitored and you have to actively send them to meet the bombers before they arrive. That gives a new problem, when you meet the bombers, the ASFs will fire but then have to turn around, which greatly reduces the damage they can deal (I think the damage they actually deal is cut in half just because they have to turn around). Only when they have turned around, they can just tailgate the bombers and happily shoot them.

Still, SAM just have to be placed at the right spots (some distance in front of the important buildings), then they can just start firing at whatever comes in their range.

Now, I'm not suggesting that SAMs are more capable of killing an enemy air group than ASFs, but there's far more work in it than just comparing DPS and mass cost of units and suggesting that SAMs should be buffed.

There's one last thing: before changing the balance of SAMs, ASFs and the like by changing their damage stats, jut do something about the fuel thing (it's not been discussed for a long time). That's just too high for T3 air and we'd better deal with that, see the results and then see if air needs balancing (I think not)

[Pavese]

Well they can't move, you know. That should count for something?


But only T1 aa is actually more powerful then its mobile counter part.

And comparing how Air is scaling (t1<t2<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<t3) compared to how AA is scaling (t1<<<<<<<<<<<<t2>t3) would be sort of nice if the whole t3 air thingy could be tackeld in some way. Away from this.

[Plasma_Wolf]

Let me try again:

Advantages of ASFs:
More than double the DPS for equal mass investment.
Mobility.

Advantages of SAMs:
Considerably lower energy costs & can be spammed without a T3 Pgen.
Double the range (it means 4 times the covering surface, actually 8 times because the ASF doesn't have guns on its rear).
More than double the HP.
There is no air unit that is more (or even equally) capable of dealing with a SAM than the SAM is capable of dealing with said air unit.
As long as the unit is in range, it can fire at this unit, contrary to ASFs. I'm not able to start FA but I'd like to see how many times an ASF group has to turn around to deal with an enemy unit.

That seems more than enough to make up for the mobility and lower DPS.

[FunkOff]

actually 8 times because the ASF doesn't have guns on its rear).

1 ASF can cover the entire map. 1 SAM can only cover a small area. Which is better?

[Myrdral]

I think SAM is working as intended and is balanced. SAM is cost effective vs all air. It is better against ASF than ASF because they cannot shoot back, costs far less energy and does not require a constant occupation of a T3 factory to produce(only need a single assisted T3 engineer). Build power for creating SAM also is massively more efficient than assisting a factory. If I am not mistaken, a handful of T3 engineers building SAM will equal the build power of a T3 factory producing air and t1 engineers assisting the building of SAM will equal four times their number of t1 engineers assisting the factory.

For the most part, I only use SAM in small numbers where I am almost certain they will have an impact within the next few minutes. Assuming a currently even game state, cleverly placed SAM can give you an edge in the ASF vs ASF war. For your opponent to have any obligation to go near the SAM, they usually need to be able to shoot onto the opposing side of the map. It can be used in a similar fashion as a PD3 creep. They must be supported by ground troops more heavily than a PD3 creep. On the flip side, PD3 creep is not very good with no air cover vs strat bombers.

T3 air units having such a high amount of fuel is probably intended to make the game end more quickly. Why draw the game out by making them retreat and refuel even if victory is assured? I could not see giving them less than 15 minutes of fuel. Even then, they would have enough to secure a victory before refueling in most cases. It would just take longer for the losing team to lose.

Well they can't move, you know. That should count for something?


But only T1 aa is actually more powerful then its mobile counter part.

And comparing how Air is scaling (t1<t2<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<t3) compared to how AA is scaling (t1<<<<<<<<<<<<t2>t3) would be sort of nice if the whole t3 air thingy could be tackeld in some way. Away from this.

There is a mobile counterpart to t3 SAM?

I think that scaling example is not properly assessed. t2 Flak in small numbers is only going to damage t3 air and not destroy any. I think each stationary AA is appropriate for dealing with threats from same tech air. t2 flak scales like you said in theory but not in practice, especially on a large map. The more area you have to cover, the more lower teir flak falls behind SAM. t2 flak is still useful aagainst t3 air, assuming your opponent is foolish enough to fly over a huge t2 flak installation or if you force/trick them to fight over it somehow. t2 flak is a good choice in large team games on large maps due to the aoe effect. However, they are also more vulnerable to being killed by stratbombers than SAM

[Myrdral]

actually 8 times because the ASF doesn't have guns on its rear).

1 ASF can cover the entire map. 1 SAM can only cover a small area. Which is better?

1 ASF can be killed by 1 ASF , 1 SAM cannot be damaged by 1 ASF(unless it crashes into it after dieing) but then you can reclaim the mass and use it for repairs. 1 SAM can be placed in a critical central map location and allow strength to be projected by other units into the opposing half of the map.
SAM which only covers your own side of the map must be part of a delaying tactic to a larger gameplan. Obviously, if all you do is match the opponents variety of air units with SAM on your side of the map you will lose. However, if you both just build ASF and SAM then neither of you win, in fact I would say that you both lose.
For SAM to dictate the game on your terms, it must be placed in range of the opposing half of the map. If you do not use it's range to cover offense, then you are turtling in one spot protected by SAM. For turtling to be successful, you usually need a better economy. To win economically without entering the opposing side of the map until you are way ahead, ASF is the way to go for your AA, not SAM.