Navy fine tuning

[pip]

Here are the battleships buildtimes equivalent in minutes, by an unassisted t3 naval yard:
- 5 minutes = 18000
- 6 minutes = 21600
- 7 minutes = 25200
- 8 minutes = 28800
- 9 minutes = 32400
- 10 minutes = 36000

(for reference, a destroyer, at 10000 buildtime, by a t2 factory = 4 minutes 10, and 2 minutes 46 by a t3 factory).

I guess it's possible to leave destroyers as they are and increase further the battleships buildtimes to 7 or 8 minutes, but I think after these values, engy spam assisting (30-40 engies) would be mandatory to build battleships at a good pace, and mass destroyers production would probably become the best strat.

No matter which values are chosen, I think it's a good idea to keep the Cybran battleship with a lower builtime of 1 minute compared to the battleships of other factions.
Last thing : don't forget that Aeon has a tremendous battleship now with the Tempest, that's another reason why I think it's not a good idea to increase buildtimes of battleships too much compared to experimental values. If the Tempest has 12000 buildtime and a normal battleship 36000, Aeon will rule the seas, plain and simple.

[Myrdral]

We are talking mostly about balancing the build time to mass ratio of naval units correct? T3 cybran battleship costs 3.6 times more mass than a T2 cybran destroyer so we want it to cost 3.6 times more build time?

If we keep destroyers the same 10,000 build time and the cybran battleship is changed to 36,000 build time, then what would the Tempest build time have to be to equal the build time to mass ratio?

Using the Cybran T2 destroyer's build time per mass(~4.4444 build time per mass) as the baseline and adjusting T3 battleship T4 battleship build times:

Cybran destroyer Siren takes 2250 mass and and current 10,000 build time
Cybran battleship Galaxy takes 8,000 mass and new build time 35,555 build time

*****Noob question: In FAF do engineers build experimentals at A) full build rate or b) 1/4 build rate like they do for factory assist built units?

Aeon T4 battleship Tempest takes 13,000 mass and if answer to noob question is B) new build time 57,777(new build time needs to be multiplied by 4 if the answer to noob question is A so 231,111 built time and other experimentals would need to be changed as well)

[Myrdral]

This entire post is derived from the FAF unit database. The math shows just how much more build power is needed for T1 and T2 naval units than T3 and T4.

Naval build time per mass(T/M) and build time per energy(T/E) for all cybran naval units in FAF from http://www.faforever.com/faf/unitsDB/ :

Cybran
T1
Trident Frigate 5 T/M 0.5 T/E
Sliver Submarine 4 T/M 0.5 T/E
T2
Salem Destroyer 4.444 T/M 0.667 T/E
Siren Cruiser 4 T/M 0.444 T/E
Barracuda Sub-Killer 4 T/M 0.5 T/E
Mermaid C-Intel 5 T/M 0.5 T/E
T3
Galaxy Battleship 1.5 T/M 0.222 T/E
Command Carrier 3 T/M 0.3 T/E
Plan B Strat Sub 1.818 T/M 0.025 T/E

and since it was mentioned in previous post
Aeon
T4
Tempest E=Battleship 0.923 T/M 0.0343 T/E

Focusing on T/M not T/E(T3 sub and Tempest obv require much more energy eco than all the other ships which have similar T/E):

All T1 and T2 Cybran ships turn your resources into ships at very similar rates.
Cybran T3 battleship and sub are built around 2.25x-3x faster than T1 and T2
Tempest is build around 5x faster than T1 and T2 and around 1.5x-2x faster than T3

To bring build times of T3/T4 naval in line with T1/T2 build time adjustments would multiply T3 sub build time by 2.5, battleship build time by 3 and Tempest build time by 5.

[Ze_PilOt]

To bring build times of T3/T4 naval in line with T1/T2 build time adjustments would multiply T3 sub build time by 2.5, battleship build time by 3 and Tempest build time by 5.

And you just made the T3 naval build even slower than 3599, where it was not used at all.

[Myrdral]

What was the battleship build time in 3599? I cannot find a database for 3599. We do agree that T3 naval is build too low right now, correct? Current build time is 12,000 and my math from the FAF database put the highest reasonable build time for battleships at 36,000(guess I should have said this is the upper limit). Somewhere in the middle may be best, around 24,000 or slightly more?

I use this one for 3596-3598

http://supcomdb.com/db/unit_list/2/3

And your FAF database

http://www.faforever.com/faf/unitsDB/

No one built T3 navy in 3599 even if the game was longer than 20-30 minutes?

[Myrdral]

T3 navy doesn't belong on 99% of the maps that people play, the solution is to have people play other maps and not to force T3 navy on top of T2.

I missed this earlier. I was thinking that T3 navy is not really meant for 1v1 or setons. Were previous changes to T3 navy build times made by players trying to force it into those maps? I see T3 battleships with nearly 36,000 build time(other stats unchanged) being very desirable on some of the larger 40-81k maps that are full of islands. T3 navy units have less dps per mass and energy than things like a T2 destroyer. Battleships have advantage in health and range. They are meant to survive long enough to engage distant targets on large water maps. T3 subs and carriers are similar in that they are designed to project power at great distances over water.

Naval build times and the units themselves are more similar to the air and land units of nearly one tier higher than the naval unit. Battleships are somewhere between a T3 mobile artillery in terms of dps and range and an experimental in terms of health.

[Ze_PilOt]

battleship build time by 3

For the seraphim/uef/aeon ones : 18.000 * 3 = 54.000. Was 45000 in 3599.

omewhere in the middle may be best, around 24,000 or slightly more?

Tha'ts half the values you wanted to set

I do not agree or disagree with any value you want to put, but check your numbers before posting them, it's misleading.

(In fact I agree, I was about to try to set them around 30.000 in 3616. with the cybran one still lower).

By the way, almost nobody play larger maps than 20. And on these maps, the T3 navy is so slow that it's not usable.

[Myrdral]

Oh I was talking about the Cybran Galaxy when I said multiply by 3 to get 36,000. 36,000 is the number I want for the other battleships as well so 2x for the others you mentioned. My fault, I did not word it correctly to express what I wanted. They would all be 80% of their 3599 build time. Was the Galaxy 45,000 in 3599 also or less. If it is indeed strictly worse than the other battleships, then having less build time as well as mass/energy is probably appropriate? Would you please link me to your 3599 database?

(In fact I agree, I was about to try to set them around 30.000 in 3616. with the cybran one still lower).

Awesome, The range I liked was 24,000-36,000 and you are exactly in the middle of that.

[Ze_PilOt]

There is no 3599 database. The only balance change between 3598 and 3599 was the t1 and t2 transport health values.

[Myrdral]

I am curious why the cybran battleship is considered so much worse than the UEF one. UEF has 8.5% more health 17% more range but at the expense of 16.67% mobility and not having the minor torpedo system. Does the mobility and small torpedo not make up for the health and range? *edit* I also just noticed that the cybran is less prone to overkill with its main guns and that they have a lot more pitch but only 5% less yaw. These differences result in the cybran needing to be built for 2/3 the build time to make up for it? The 2 ships seem very similar to me considering all of their advantages and disadvantages over each other.

There is no 3599 database. The only balance change between 3598 and 3599 was the t1 and t2 transport health values.

Thanks, I was not sure if there were other changes to unit stats.