FAF Balance Patch Test Mod v2 (now with gunship nerf!)

[Batmansrueckkehr]

em... sea fight:
when u r talking about destroyers u must say about which one.

cybran:
if you go in with 5 destroyers u would need 10 vespers/barras to counter them. not easy to coordinate 10 units compared to 5. even a small amount of torp bombers can bring the subs player into trouble. further more the destroyer player will go into cruiser/destroyer torp bomber spam. subs player's cruisers will die fast because of the destroyers (if he even has cruisers). so going further torp bomber r cheap and the cruisers can deal with enemy fighters easily. sooner or later the destroyer player will win vs the sub player.
so the sub player will switch to destroyer as well.

uef
uef destroyers r shitty vs subs - cooper is here to help out. no need to change that.

aoen
exodus is best sub killer in the game. duno the amount of t2 subs u need to kill 5 exodus. i always run with my subs when i see the exodus coming.

sera
well.. bad torp defence, bad dps to subs. if you achive to stay alive til t3 stage u have a chance. but during hardcore combate in t2 stage it is very hard to compete vs bara spam. only help is hover t2 flak and torp bombers (which r shitty too).

i have fougth many times with sera on setons on navy sides. what i tried is a combination of t1 subs + dived destroyers which overlapping torp defence.
resumee, if u have better micro u win. if ur micro is as good/bad as the opponent u lose. but main problem for sera is the beam bug. different story..

but if u see such a battle coming - run for t3


imo no need for better subkiller. if u buff destroyer to kill subs, subs are no longer build - or just in early game.

[Mr Pinguin]

Exactly. Destroyers are not a counter to subs, they are, at best, a 1-to-1 match. If I take away battleships being able to kill subs, then something else on the water (a surface ship) needs to be able to kill them efficiently. The destroyer (or for UEF, the cooper) is the best candidate for this. Then, it will be frigate > destroyer > sub > frigate

Hmmm? Did you see my tests above?

The Exodus and (in most cases) the Salem are far better than a 1:1 match vs subs.

Moreover, and I'm sorry to beat a dead horse but this is critical to point out:
Destroyers can do a lot of things that subs can't.
Destros can raid land targets. This is far from trivial. A 10k mass investment in subs may win you naval superiority, but if your opponent puts their own 10k mass into air or hover tanks then you could still (easily) lose the game. In contrast, a 10k mass investment into Destros (or more commonly, a Destro/Cruiser mix) can win you naval superiority, counter enemy air (with a few cruisers), counter enemy hover tanks, and lay waste to enemy structures and units along the shore.

Destros (the Exodus and Salem) can also defeat T2 torp launchers, which is again important for those situations when you've won naval superiority and you're trying to press your advantage. If a fleet of subs beats a fleet of surface ships in an early T2 battle, the subs may still be unable to destroy the enemy naval yard because of a few T2 torp launchers.

Don't get me wrong, I agree with you guys that asymmetric balance between subs (as raiders) and Destros (as slower, anti-sub fleet defenders) may make for good balance and good gameplay, but we can't forget that two of the four Destros *are* good sub counters and they're also much more useful for other reasons. That's why every T2 naval battle with Aeon and Cybran includes lots of Exodus and Salems, and far fewer of those battles feature Vespers and Barracudas (from what I've seen..)

If you want to really redefine and expand the raider role for subs, then I think an intel change is needed. Rather than giving them stealth/cloak, I think we could just re-evaluate the sonar (and underwater vision) ranges on most units. Surface ships can all be seen by radar (right?), so it's not clear to me why so many naval units need good sonar. If we shrink sonar and underwater vision down to 45 or less, and then we increase sub water vision to >45, then subs can sneak around the ocean as both recon and raiders, while avoiding targets they can't beat. That could be interesting, but I think it might take a fair bit of work to balance. (Subs would also need an HP nerf to compensate imo).

I also think the Uashavoh needs an anti-torp buff, and I've considered giving the Valiant some sort of (modest) anti-sub buff too. The Valiant doesn't necessarily need to be cost-effective vs subs since it's a strong anti-surface ship (and the Cooper is excellent), but it might be nice if we removed its torp defense and buffed torp DPS or something..

The server propably sees your gigantic monster post and thinks "WTF? No, I will not work so hard at this time, try again tomorrow "

Yeah, sorry.
Believe it or not, I'm holding back. That huge post on the last page was actually draft #2. First I wrote a giant reply to FunkOff, analying the various roles and counters for Destros and subs, but then I decided to delete it because posting my tests seemed more constructive.

[Batmansrueckkehr]

vailant is not designed as sub killer. i wouldnt change that. if you buff the vailant the cooper will get less important. cooper is only good vs subs - even frigates can win vs cooper easily. so dont nerf its sub killer role.

to make subs more undedected is a great idea. to get them all cloaked is maybe too much but the idea with the decreased water vision of the other ships is good imo. this way the subs can still be dedected by t1/t2/t3 sonar - so the sonar will get a more important target to get rid off.

buff sera t2 destroyers's torp def. hm... i am not so sure what is better compared to buff the torp def or increase the dps of its torps. the problem of the sera/aoen anti torps is that they create a "overkill" (by all anti torps aim at the same target) - so a high amount of the effective torp def is lost. buff the torp def wouldnt change this issue or just a bit. increasing the fire rate or dmg of its torps would increase the chances to survive more.

btw, are there any ideas or thought to increase the beam weapon of the sera t2 destroyer to 65 or 70?

[Karottenrambo]

btw, are there any ideas or thought to increase the beam weapon of the sera t2 destroyer to 65 or 70?

Yes, I tried to convince people that the sera destroyer should get a buff. Well... the answer was more or less, "that is faction diversity" and that I only try to make sera like every faction else.

But feel free to try it, I will support you.

[noobymcnoobcake]

Sera destoyer DOES need a buff. I think torpedo damage up a bit would be good idea.

[microwavelazer]

If we were to buff the sera destroyer I think the only thing it should receive is a slight increase in hp. This would allow them to tank damage for the rest of the fleet while it actually killed things. Not to mention since the sera don’t have a support ship improving the survivability of some of the T2 vessels my help them deal with that shortcoming

This is because mass for mass, T1 subs are generally going to provide more torpedo defense then massed destroyers. Not to mention the issue with massed torpedo defense that Batmansrueckkehr pointed out. Subs (both T1 and T3) will also be a more efficient source of torpedo DPS for there as with the destroyer you also have to pay for the deck guns.

On the flip side Sera do not have any other high HP ships in their arsenal until T3. So a tank may do them some good especially when supporting lighter ships like frigates so they can survive long enough to kill something.

[Mr Pinguin]

The Sera Destroyer does have some nice advantages though. The beams benefit from pinpoint accuracy on the open sea, and the ability to submerge has some nice potential and it can give the Uashavoh the edge in some engagements (e.g., vs UEF Valiants).

I definitely agree that the Ushavoh has been underpowered in 3599, but even then it could stand up fairly well to the other Destros with the right micro, so I think it makes some sense to focus on buffing/fixing other parts of the Seraphim arsenal first. (It does need to be able to T1 subs for cost though..)

I've also experimented with giving the Ushavoh one close-in beam that paired higher DPS with shorter range (45-50). The idea was to emphasize the Ushavoh's submersible advantage and turn it into more of an 'ambush' predator that has to approach other ships submerged, then surface in close range to unleash its superior DPS.

This was tricky to balance though. I didn't want to give it too much of a DPS buff at range 60 because I was worried about making it OP'd, but my idea to give it the close-in advantage was tough too because the Exodus and Salem have such a big advantage in torpedo DPS and torp defense (respectively).

[Batmansrueckkehr]

u can go the other way around - increase range, decrease dps. i think a destroyer with just 50 range is a no go. he has to fear even hover units like auroas or fobos.

[Karottenrambo]

Surprisingly not, thats propably the only thing where the sera destroyer does not suck beyond believe. Through its beam weapons, it does nearly none overkill and hits almost always (unless beam bug or the the turret turns while shoting and the beam goes all over the place...). The smaller range is not really a problem against hovers, since its still much faster and you dont need a micro like Isen to handle it.

Against a full hover army I would prefer the sera destroyer above all else.

[Batmansrueckkehr]

with short range u need even more micro than with a large because u have to move away to be out of range but not too far to be close enough to still hit the targets. with shorter range this gap is even more narrow which means more micro. and u miss the advantage to attack those hover forces sooner.