Air-land Balance

[Ithilis_Quo]

Air has many advantages - its fast, you can see whole map - best intel, its effective on places where you need it, but its extreme easy to destroy him, all what you need against air is 2-3 flak (320-480mass) and your army is safe against T1-T2 threat.

pillar (i all time comparing in UEF because think are first, and best balance fraction) pillar take another T2 units in 27sec, 15 pillars destroy 15 pillars cca in 27sec and cca 1-2 pillars alive. sky boxer destroy 1 gunship (gunship cost 40%more) in 6second, 15 sky boxers destroy 15 gunships in 0,5sec and 15skyboxer alive. 2 sky boxers destroy 15 gunships in 3,5sec and 1 boxer alive. 360 vs 2400mass.

Problem with flak is that its flak and has great area dmg, when air is coming in formation, then whiteout micro (what is hard in air) is losing all against flak with zero effectivity. Of course without effective anti-air units all will play only air and land will be useless, because air has many advantages.

We can compare mobile flak with static flak, what i do here viewtopic.php?f=42&t=3898 mobile is many, many and more time better.

In my opinion air would has strongest role in game and some (very bad) comparability with land anti-air units, and all it would be with less effective flak. When pillar (cheaper units) take 56dmg to another units why sky boxer take 3x this dmg, on 2x less armored units? Yes air has many another advantages but cheap units lock army against all threat and when static take lower dmg like mobile then its crappy.

I don't has any concrete suggestion, but think that would be good do something with aoe of mobile flak, and him crazy dmg.

[ColonelSheppard]

1 T2 bomber kills 1 T2 flak in 2s, 70% hp remaining

[Hawkei]

Land Air balance is fine. It is even better in FAF, with the slower T3 gunships. Air gets killed quickly, but it can also do a lot of damage. Also, if anything the balance of power depends upon the numbers, and Tech. Small numbers of AA, and Bombers will win. Larger numbers of AA and the AA will win. Higer tech Air will beat lower tech AA, and higher tech AA will kill lower tech Air with ease. Killing AA with Air is quite achievable. But is generally not economically viable, unless the result leads to the destruction of other units as well.

The balance is fine.

[dstojkov]

How can you write something like that

Killing AA with Air is quite achievable. But is generally not economically viable

and come to the conclusion

The balance is fine

??????????


Did you see a war where land supremacy can win over air supremacy ? This concept is totally unrealistic and this is what is implemented with help of the "pro" in FAF ....


P.S: and no, flak is not killed in 2 sec because first you have to aimed the flak what takes time and with the high rate of missed shoot ... can take a while ...

[Hawkei]

How can you write something like that

Killing AA with Air is quite achievable. But is generally not economically viable

and come to the conclusion

The balance is fine

?????????? ...

Well if Air COULD win over AA, then there would be no point building AA, or building any ground units for that matter. If a unit cannot economically defeat the very units it is designed to counter, that is the very definition of IMBA. Your comments make no sense at all.

Did you see a war where land supremacy can win over air supremacy ? This concept is totally unrealistic and this is what is implemented with help of the "pro" in FAF ....

Umm yes... In any war, land supremacy ALWAYS wins over air supremacy. Modern aircraft operate from airfields. You cannot use Airfields if you don't control land. In the tactical siduation however. Air dominance can be rivaled by using SAM and AA weapon systems. Even if an Air Force does achieve air dominance, it doesn't necessarily mean they can use it to effect against the ground, without sustaining losses.

Modern naval and ground AA already do pose threats to modern aircraft. SAM sites? Patriot missiles? Even modern AA Artillery and CIWS, linked into a fire control system, can destroy fixed wing and rotary wing aircraft with great efficiency. Ground AA already DOES pose threats to Air, in the modern theatre, so why not in Sup Com?

P.S: and no, flak is not killed in 2 sec because first you have to aimed the flak what takes time and with the high rate of missed shoot ... can take a while ...

Then micro better. Don't miss.

[ColonelSheppard]

i lose a lot of games because of lost air, saying that air would be underpowered compared to land is, sorry, bullshit

[Hawkei]

i lose a lot of games because of lost air, saying that air would be underpowered compared to land is, sorry, bullshit

^^ This

[/thread]

[dstojkov]

i lose a lot of games because of lost air, saying that air would be underpowered compared to land is, sorry, bullshit

Ok .. if you see that this way .. then how many games did you loose because of land ?

that is the very definition of IMBA

there is a big difference between mass/cost being viable and IMBA

[Ato0theJ]

If air units are so bad, play a few games building no air at all and post the replays of you facerolling the other guy.

There is nothing wrong with air units ATM (except for resto build time being too short )

[ColonelSheppard]

If air units are so bad, play a few games building no air at all and post the replays of you facerolling the other guy.

this