Navy fine tuning

[noobymcnoobcake]

T1 sera sub needs a little more HP and UEF battleship needs a bit of a cost tweak from 9000 mass to 1500 mass as it does not give anything else on the sea a chance. The UEF battleship is a base killer. The neptune class battle cruiser is more comparable to the omen class battleship and the summit class battleship is more comparable to the aeon torrent class missile cruiser.

[Plasma_Wolf]

T1 sera sub needs a little more HP and UEF battleship needs a bit of a cost tweak from 9000 mass to 1500 mass as it does not give anything else on the sea a chance.

UEF battleship needs a bit of a cost tweak from 9000 mass to 1500 mass

1500 mass for a battleship? Brilliant idea. I support this

[noobymcnoobcake]

sorry, 11500.

[pip]

T1 sera sub needs a little more HP and UEF battleship needs a bit of a cost tweak from 9000 mass to 1500 mass as it does not give anything else on the sea a chance. The UEF battleship is a base killer. The neptune class battle cruiser is more comparable to the omen class battleship and the summit class battleship is more comparable to the aeon torrent class missile cruiser.

Why does it need more HP?

Simply looking at the stats, and thinking "Hey this is a good idea" isn't productive. In this case the T1 sera Sub and Uef T1 sub are pretty much even, despite the HP disparity.

Code: Select all

Ajellu Anti-Torpedo Defense (Defense, Normal): 0.1 dps, range: 0 - 32projectile: 2 damagemuzzle velocity: 80, lifetime: 7fire cycle: 1 projectile every 20 seconds, 2 damage totalturret pitch: 0° ±180° (180°/s), turret yaw: 0° ±180° (180°/s)

Looking at the unit blueprint before blindly advocating changes can prove useful.

Go ahead and test a 1v1 battle between a Sera sub and a UEF sub.
Then 10v10. Then tell us the results please.

[Ghoti]

Out of curiosity I just tried that.
Sera subs do seem to get completely owned.

actually that is a bit odd. Is the torpedo defense just not working?

edit4: Ah, no. It is just silly. 1v1 will result in a draw if all things go well, but in a sustained engagement seraphim will lose.

It DOES present the possibility for the seraphim to come out ahead, by keeping the subs in a tight ball, you can move in, fire off your top defense, then run off again and wait about 15 or so seconds for it to reload, then move in again. Horribly micro intensive, and not even that possible, because the sub isn't faster than the opposition.

I wonder what happens if I change the fire speed of the torp defense to 7 seconds reload...

Edit4: That causes 3 UEF subs to remain, rather than 6. Interestingly, it causes the serphim to nearly mutually annihilate VS aeon, the spammy cybran are pretty effective against them still.

It would also make the subs more useful later as support.

one last thing I feel I should go out on, is that comparing the navy in this way is misleading. In general UEF tend to be the most vulnerable to submarines, so having the most powerful T1 sub isn't that big of a deal.

[pip]

IMO, 10 seconds reload instead of 20 for the torpeod defense would be enough of a small buff, and would make it a real defense rather than a cosmetic one. Sera has other advantages on sea, so the sub can be slightly sub par (but not as it is currently, I think).

[Ghoti]

IMO, 10 seconds reload instead of 20 for the torpeod defense would be enough of a small buff, and would make it a real defense rather than a cosmetic one. Sera has other advantages on sea, so the sub can be slightly sub par (but not as it is currently, I think).

Ah. Yah I just picked 7 because that was approximately how long a 1 on 1 engagement lasted. Test it yourself, they still get their hineys handed to them by every race... except aeon.

[pip]

IMO, 10 seconds reload instead of 20 for the torpeod defense would be enough of a small buff, and would make it a real defense rather than a cosmetic one. Sera has other advantages on sea, so the sub can be slightly sub par (but not as it is currently, I think).

Ah. Yah I just picked 7 because that was approximately how long a 1 on 1 engagement lasted. Test it yourself, they still get their hineys handed to them by every race... except aeon.

7 seconds is probably a better value, more fair, for t1 Sera subs. They do need some buff, in anycase.

But to be honest, I am much more concerned about the Sera t3 sub nerf. They seem a shadow of their former glory after losing 110 DPS (the third of their firepower). 50 less DPS, more or less, would have been enough in my opinion. I would like to hear what heavy naval players would have to say about this change (like Seton's players).

EDIT: they also have a significantly higher buildtime now (14400, before, they were 12000), making them harder to spam already.

[noobymcnoobcake]

Sera subs are not used nearly as much as they were in phantom before the change to them. Its all aeon now. A nice fleet of tempests, missile ships, sub hunters, destroyers, flack and cruisers with 100 shields, hover tanks and a few flack eats all alive. Any subs are dealt with by the fleets mass shields that soak up all sub DPS, subs of your own, destroyers and tempest ground fire that can take out 10 at a time. UEF is next to useless in phantom due to its limited offensive ability and cybrans dont need much navy when they can just spam soul rippers and kill everything but ASF cost effectively .