T2 stat arty increasing range

[Batmansrueckkehr]

Hey guys,

I just wana read some opinions on increasing the range of stationary t2 arty. some say stat t2 arty are waste of mass, because of low fire rate, low dps, awful accuracy etc. i did some test with it i think so too. well you can increase the firerate a bit by placing pgs around it but it is not that much (if u place 4 t3 pgs next to it firerate is 15s per shot instead of 20). However, there r some situations where the t2 arty is quite useful. For example to defend ur base vs ships once the sea battle is lost. Tbh t2 arty is the only option there (- u can say air can help you out, but vs shielded cruisers no air would help). So even when you manage to build some shields up and get enough arty to hold destroyers (or battlecruisers) off – there is no way to defend vs uef summit and uef cruisers. You have a chance with sera/aoen to survive because of good overlapping shields but with cybrans no way. Tmd vs uef cruisers have not much chance coz u need nearly 2 tmd for 1 cruiser (sera cruisers r easy to defend against). So over a longer period of time cybran is doomed. A chance would be t2 arty with increased range – maybe 150 (instead of 128) so same range as summit or uef/sera cruisers.

Well this change would also effect bunker games because the t2 arty would be a nice option with higher range there. Hm, it would also effect games on small maps – imagine a theta battle to shoot from one base into the other. Althogether increasing range of t2 arty would make it useful (compared to now) but not overpowered – u can still defend with shields vs it and it is still too inaccurate to snipe a com.

[Kryo]

I agree that its still not very good cost / usefulness ratio. STill some people build it very often, and it does force the enemy to build more shields and so on. A range increase would need balancing of lots of other parameters too

[FunkOff]

I agree that its still not very good cost / usefulness ratio. STill some people build it very often, and it does force the enemy to build more shields and so on. A range increase would need balancing of lots of other parameters too

128 range is good (same as cybran battleship) but far short of the TML, which is 256. The biggest problems, however, are the low DPS and low accuracy. T2 arty rarely hits anything and, when it does, there is little effect.

[Kryo]

I think t2 arty could use another cost reduction, starting with another 10%

dps and range stays the same, BUT you can actually build more.
I would prefer reducing the cost because you need more building space and more shields to protect them. Maybe increase accuracy also a little bit, or increasing rate of fire (and reducing damage per shot).

[Batmansrueckkehr]

hm, i think cost should stay the way it is. it should not be to cheap to get a big range weapon. but make it more efficient would be great.
what is the argument of not increasing the range?

[Kryo]

hm, i think cost should stay the way it is. it should not be to cheap to get a big range weapon. but make it more efficient would be great.
what is the argument of not increasing the range?

well atm you will build a firebase, and your opponent will, most time its that close to each other that t2 pd just cant hit the other side by a few "meters"

If you build t2 arty it will almost certainly be within range of the target, so increasing the range would not change much in most cases.

[thygrrr]

I think 192 or similar range would be pretty good ath the arty's current damage potential. The 128 is just too short compared to the 256 of the TML (which also deals a lot more punctual and precise damage).

Also, rate of fire improvements would help (e.g. a strong adjacency bonus for using energy storage, maybe?)

[FunkOff]

You could increase the range to 1000 and shooting from one island to another on roanoake, you wont even hit the land.

[Kryo]

I think 192 or similar range would be pretty good ath the arty's current damage potential. The 128 is just too short compared to the 256 of the TML (which also deals a lot more punctual and precise damage).

Also, rate of fire improvements would help (e.g. a strong adjacency bonus for using energy storage, maybe?)

compared to the tml the artillery really looks like shit

[Batmansrueckkehr]

well atm you will build a firebase, and your opponent will, most time its that close to each other that t2 pd just cant hit the other side by a few "meters"

If you build t2 arty it will almost certainly be within range of the target, so increasing the range would not change much in most cases.

you r right in terms of bunker battle. so if you have a tower festival it is as u described. but there are a lot of other aspects. for example on navy battles to secure ur base from battleships - especially the uef. yes, it is right that the bs of the other factions have "just" 128 range and so 128 should be right for the t2 arty too - but why can i defend with the t2 arty vs all faction's battleships besides uef? dont tell me this is faction diversity - when uef can sit back and watch 2 summits shoot a base to dust while all others have to deal with t2 artys.
an other aspect would be you engage an incoming faty earlier or each other t4.. but vs the fatboy you have the best effect because u hit the shield easier and you can engage it earlier before its longrange weapons engage ur base.

so a increase of range would be a big deal for the arty - that is why i would not decrease its costs. also the range of fire is fine - maybe a little increase of the dmg per shot. accuracy could be improved a bit but it is fine in my opinion.

so actually changing the range would change the performance of the arty in almost every case (that is why it is so hard to balance it out).