The land-based siege weapons

[FunkOff]

Here is a list of data in terms of DPS, health and range and the same per mass cost for a selection of units:

Cybran: Worst arty and worst shields
DPS/Cost for Select Cybran Units:
-T1 heavy assault bot: 0.513
-T1 mobile arty: 0.812
-T2 MML: 0.303
-T2 stationary Arty: 0.052
-T3 mobile arty: 0.084
-T3 stationary arty: 0.005

Regen/cost for Select Cybran shields:
-ED1: 0.281 to 1.3875
-ED5: 0.078 to 0.378

Aeon: Best arty and second-best shields:
DPS/Cost for Select Aeon Units:
-T1 light tank: 0.512
-T1 mobile arty: 2.78
-T2 MML: 0.3
-T2 stationary arty: 0.069
-T3 mobile arty: 0.089
-T3 stationary arty: 0.0066

Regen/cost for select Aeon shields:
-T2 shield: 0.2875 to 1.431
-T3 shield: 0.0625 to 0.3125

As you can see from these numbers, T1 mobile artillery is rediculously effective per cost, exceeding 5x the DPS/cost of tech 1
tanks for aeon and even still being 50% better for Cybran, which has the worst artillery.
Further, MMLs are substancialls worse than tanks, with a little over half the dps/mass.
T2 and T3 arty of all kinds are simply awful and the DPS of each of them should be greatly improved, particularly in regards to shields.
Tech 2 shields, which are supposed to, in a way, "counter" arty, do so perhaps too effectively, with the regen/mass cost
efficiency being currently 3x t2/t3 arty dps/mass cost at a minimum and up 4x as effective as MMLs.

I think a few good changes would be, therefore, as follows:
-Increase all mass costs, energy costs and build times for T1 mobile arty to equal their factions' basic tank costs.
-Increase all MML damage by 200%, to 3x what it is now.
-Increase all T2 Arty rates of fire by 100%, to 2x what it is now.
-Increase all T3 mobile arty damage by 50%, to 1.5x what it is now.
-Reduce the cost of T3 stationary arty by about 30%.

The first change will help increase the usefulness of T1 PD at the T1 stage: Instead of being nearly free, T1 mobile arty
will be as expensive as tanks, and bringing them along will necessarily reduce total anti-tank efficiency
of your attack group but still allow you to beat PDs.

The second change is needed to make MMLs worthwhile. In Supcom 2, MMLs have double the DPS as tanks. This
is balanced because, due to other firing characteristics, they cannot hit moving units and are ONLY effective
against structures. However, they are much more effective against structures than tanks, rather than less effective,
and this is what we need.

The other changes are needed to improve T2/T3 arty effectiveness. The increases are smaller than with mmls for a couple of reasons:
First, arty leads its target and has a wide AOE upon impact, so it does a great deal more damage than MMLs do. MMLs
will not damage anything if they miss, whereas arty generally will, so the increase is still necessary, but should be less.

[noobymcnoobcake]

I agree with this completely. T3 arty is used so rarely it is not even worth being a unit.

T2 arty should be more accurate than T3 arty and have better tracking. A sort of counter to destroyers but not nearly as effective as your own navy. A ROF buff would be good too.

And/or you could have your shield stacking script. Arty will get through the same number of shields with fewer numbers and you cant keep on stacking more shields. the dangers or buffing arty too much is that you can have two pieces that can hit half the map and cannot be easily defended with shields. With the shield script however arty would be effective at taking out heavily defended positions but you could not use only one or two pieces to shell whole map.

[FunkOff]

I agree with this completely. T3 arty is used so rarely it is not even worth being a unit.

Indeed. Part of the problem is just low health, too. What happens is, if you try to set up a siege against a fortified position, counter-siege will just kill you. A buff to MMLs will be helpful because MMLs can shoot and move at the same time which will make them effective against forms of arty that cannot.

[noobymcnoobcake]

Being Aeon helps because you can just put it on patrol. But then they dont target the stuff you want... or you can use mobile shields. This works well unless they got quite a bit of counter arty and if they have they are neglecting PDs and you can charge

Cybran got stealth but again there is only extent this can be helpful. scout, find, select arty and destroy. not hard and only cost about 50 mass.

UEF. Well UEF got spearhead and that thing just owns in 3603. They also got shields so they can do as stated above.

A speed (unpacking and moving) and slight health buff wont hurt them and they do need something done.

[IceDreamer]

Interesting. I agree with all but the T2 Mobile Missile Launcher being nerfed. If you combine the current version ingame with your proposed shield-neighbour-recharge-checking thing, which I have done in-game a few times, they are actually really good.

No, the only change I would support for T2 MMLs is making the missile track the target for, say, 70% of the journey. Near the target, the tracker stops targeting so we don't end up with them being OP.

They have less DPS/Mass because their range is SO much longer than that of T2 Tanks. If the missiles were accurate, they could kite like bosses.

[FunkOff]

They have less DPS/Mass because their range is SO much longer than that of T2 Tanks.

That shouldn't matter much, however, on the basis that MMLs cannot hit mobile units.

Also, I was not recommending a nerf, but a buff.

[pip]

I mostly don't agree.
1) Leave t1 units alone . It's all good. You forgot one big thing : t1 arties suck at killing moving targets, wasting all their DPS. They are only good against stationary targets (except "drunken kungfu Cybran arty" which is actually better against blobs of t1-t2 units, especially Aeon units).
2) MML are fine, they are not expensive and have long range. They can force a player to invest a big amount of mass / energy for protection, and to constantly keep its units on the move. Do you want them to make coffe for free also ?

3) True, t3 fixed arty is a bad deal currently. If shields remain the same, they need the same cost reduction t2 arties recieved (25% cheaper). But if shields become less effective, then they are alright.

[Kryo]

you also have to count range in!

Artillery isnot only dps/cost.

You should maybe compare dps*range/cost first.

I think the only one which needs a buff is t3 stationary (that the dps/mass term is about 0.02)

[Lu_Xun_17]

I think a few good changes would be, therefore, as follows:
-Increase all mass costs, energy costs and build times for T1 mobile arty to equal their factions' basic tank costs.
-Increase all MML damage by 200%, to 3x what it is now.
-Increase all T2 Arty rates of fire by 100%, to 2x what it is now.
-Increase all T3 mobile arty damage by 50%, to 1.5x what it is now.
-Reduce the cost of T3 stationary arty by about 30%.

NNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

omg this would make the gameplay so static! I remember those ugly arty fights in sup com 2!
Funk do you realise the changes you give here?!! Did you write this post drunk?
Imagine a +200% on the MML! the T2 one would be even more stronger than the uef T3 MML!
And it's not so hard to produce 10 MML! which makes a definitly good dps as it is now. Same for T3 arties!

Concerning the shilds, there's no "best order" imo. Let's just say they have some different uses... In a lot of situations, the cybran shild is far way more interesting than the seraphim one.

I only agree for reducing the cost of T3 stationary arty, but not by 30%. -15% would be already enough i think.

[Plasma_Wolf]

I don't think the T1 artillery needs a change in cost. I agree with Lu_Xun on the fact that they're not too powerful. In T1, they do a good job but they're not doing a too good job.

At the later levels, they're not going to do a better job.

So don't change them for the sake of relatively improving the static siege units.

Also, if you're going to improve the T3 artillery, also improve the Mavor and Scathis (or reduce their cost).