As previously mentioned, I have now released the "Pre-August 2016 balance mod EDI". The goal of this mod is to enhance game-play by fixing several key units stats, mainly by slight changes. The name of the mod is derived from the terrible errors made since August 2016 and changes made by myself relate more towards targeting the areas that needed to be fixed to enable game-play to accommodate more options rather than sit back, ecoing and doing just a little less than the opponent to stay ahead and eventually winning after 30minutes when making units after maxing out eco, which seems to have become the meta, especially from what I have seen in replays on Seton's clutch. This is driven mainly by the cost to destroy being greater than the cost to create economy, due to reclaim, HP and cost factors.
6 key areas are addressed with relatively minor changes that players will be able to easily embrace. 1) Air combat dynamics 2) Mobile shield energy drain rebalancing 3) Enhanced naval dynamics 4) RAS and mass fabs dynamics 5) Factory and eco building HP 6) Units rebalancing (Fatboy, Aoen Battleship).
The achievements of this mod summed up are as follows:
1) Hover-bombing (verticle drop) impossible with T1 bombers.
2) Fighter-bombers upped to a usable air combat unit (Notha bug fixed with air engagement issue).
3) Air speeds slightly tweaked to reflect a more balanced dynamic between attack and defense.
4) Energy drain on mobile shields tweaked slightly to reflect a more logical trail of thought between size and hp of shield.
5) Intel on navy reworked. Sera T3 sub's usability and effectiveness improved as a result.
6) Unit enhancements (Wagner, Fatboy and Aoen battleship's spectrum of usability elevated to where it needs to be, to become an actual consideration of strategic choices).
7) RAS rework putting the emphasis on energy more than mass in order to create an eco choice.
8) Mass fabs rework to make T3 mass fabs a consideration over T2 mass Fabs depending on the situation.
9) HP rework to make eco buildings and factories as a target a cost effective option depending on the circumstances.
10) Other (Seraphim restoration field and advanced restoration field showed a logical inconsistency in how it healed less on the advanced upgrade than the basic upgrade / Water depths were change to make intentional groundfiring less of an issue / UEF Nano was reworked more similar to current balance as it was almost never used effectively in pre-august 2016 FAF due to cost and benefit deterring it / Fire-beetle restored to using 1 slot on transport / cost of T2 land factory upgrade reinstated / etc)
11) AutoOvercharge is removed from ACU's.
12) Cybran aircraft carrier AA targeting fixed
13) T2 Seraphim & Aeon torpedo bombers fixed in line with UEF and cybran with a little help (99% Exotic Retard's work). The fix is they dont overshoot anymore.
14) Auto-toggle on cybran t1 maa and cruiser removed to give players a choice to target air or surface units, rather than ai coding deciding.
15) Added DifferentialUpgradeCostCalculation to Radars, Sonars, T3 Mass extractors
16) Aeon and Cybran T1 and T2 sonar can be hit by seraphim destroyer
17) Many many improvements to hitboxes that allow lazer weapons to hit units instead of firing in front of them and never hitting.
18) UEF Cruiser graphics of missile launch improved
The full and current detailed change log can be seen below:
Air combat dynamics
1.3.1. T1 Bomber
MaxSpeed = 10 -->11
BreakOffDistance = 30 --> 32-35
CombatTurnSpeed = 0.75 --> 1.5
TurnSpeed = 0,75 --> 1
BombDropThreshold = 3 --> 8
Justification:
Rework as explained in http://forums.faforever.com/viewtopic.php?f=42&t=15989&p=161680#p161680 thread. Also Cybran T1 gunship has 12 max speed.
BreakOffDistance and turnspeed adjustments will make the bomber perform the same effective DPS as originally and drop more reliably when approaching a target. Combatturnspeed was increase as the bomber when flying in from behind a group would not be able to turn with normal turnspeed in time to get back on target. Combatturnspeed seems to activate when within some range of units and then the 50% turn helps it get back pointing at the units in some cases. Bombdropthreshold was increase to 8 as the bomber was found to not be dropping reliably at all. This change improved its actual droprate very signifcantly to a point of near satisfaction.
1.2. T2 fighter bombers aa weapons
Janus: Damage = 75--> 125
Corsair: Damage = 38 --> 125
Notha: Damage = 25 --> 42
Notha: NeedPrep = true --> false (on all weapons)
Corsair: MaxRadius = 40 --> 30
Corsair: DamageFriendly = false (added)
Justification
Makes F/Bs more competitive without becoming more cost-efficient compared to aoen T2 combat planes, T1 interceptors and T3 ASF. F/B are also now balanced and perform about equal in 1v1 vs each other.
Notha had a huge issue not turning after engaging in air combat. It flew straight on for like 10 seconds after engaging in an airfight before turning around. This makes it useless in aircombat unless microed. Therefore NeedPrep was changed to get the desired effect.
Corsair has this feature over other fighter-bombers of diving down after, or rising up when starting to firing (depending on maxradius and set by attackelevation), this causes players to have their corsairs killed by their own corsairs when hitting the outside of shields quite often. This is why the friendly fire is turned off. The max radius was also decreased in line with the other fighter-bombers so they fire from about the same distance and the dive animation syncs up better with the firing cycle.
Effects:
Aeon Combat plane performs well on cost effectiveness when scaling their numbers. In 1v1, they perform cost-equivalently to the F/Bs' cost.
Testing the validity of this is very difficult as every airfight is never the same, so the results differ but are acceptable.
In testing, F/Bs perform well vs ASF when outnumbering them 2:1, mixed results when 3:2 and totally lose at 1:1. This I consider a desirable result and am happy with it.
Additional note: Janus bomber's bombing targeting was fixed in original release of my mod.
1.2.1 T4 Bomber
MinRadius = 65
MinRadius = 35
NeedPrep = true --> false
Justification:
I am hoping that the bomber will be less buggy than people know it to be with not droping bomber. Time will tell. No adverse negative effects were observed in testing.
Max and min radius are there to keep the bomber from outranging sams and hoverbombing.
1.3. Air units speed adjustments
General reasoning:
Rework explained in http://forums.faforever.com/viewtopic.php?f=42&t=15989&p=161680#p161680 thread.
1.3.1. T1 Bomber
MaxAirspeed = 10 --> 11
CombatTurnSpeed = 0.75/0.8 --> 0.9
TurnSpeed = 0.75/0.8 --> 0.9
Justification:
Rework as explained in http://forums.faforever.com/viewtopic.php?f=42&t=15989&p=161680#p161680 thread. Also Cybran T1 gunship has 12 max speed.
It was necessary to make turn speed 0.1 faster to make sure the bomber can turn and drop the same target again. The speed increase resulted in the bomber missing on one pass at the old setting. No difference in effective dps was observed as the bomber still took roughly 13 seconds to turn around and strike again when circling over with the new settings.
1.3.2. T1 Scouts
MaxAirspeed = 20 --> 19
Justification:
In line with new T3 ASF - T3 Air scout dynamic (referenced below) as compared to T1 interceptor.
1.3.3. T2 Fighterbombers
MaxAirspeed = 15 --> 16
Justification:
Rework as explained in http://forums.faforever.com/viewtopic.php?f=42&t=15989&p=161680#p161680 thread.
1.3.4. T3 Air scouts
MaxAirspeed = 30 --> 25
MinAirspeed = 25 --> 20
Justification:
Rework as explained in http://forums.faforever.com/viewtopic.php?f=42&t=15989&p=161680#p161680 thread.
1.3.5. T3 ASF
MaxAirspeed = 25 --> 22
Justification:
Rework as explained in http://forums.faforever.com/viewtopic.php?f=42&t=15989&p=161680#p161680 thread.
1.3.6. T3 Torpedo bomber
MaxAirspeed = 20 --> 18.5
MinAirspeed = 18 --> 16
Justification:
In line with changes reflecting Swiftwind - T2 torpedo bomber dynamic.
1.3.7. T4 Bomber
MaxAirspeed = 20 --> 19
MinAirspeed = 18 --> 17
Justification:
In line with changes other changes.
1.4. Aircraft fuel
Fuelusetime
Swiftwind & T2 F/B 500 --> 600
T3 Scouts & ASF & Strategic bombers & T3 torpedo bomber 1500/1000 --> 720
Justification:
Rework as explained in http://forums.faforever.com/viewtopic.php?f=42&t=15989&p=161680#p161680 thread. The air units are not be impacted in a significant way, but reward long term good positioning and resting vs constant patrol.
2. Mobile shield rebalancing
2.1. Aoen mobile T2 land shield
Shield maintenance cost increased from -75 to -150
MaintenanceConsumptionPerSecondEnergy = 150
Aoen mobile shield cost less to run and had more hp on the shield and could hover with no drawbacks, this has been changed to better balance out the differential between mobile shield of the factions.
2.2. UEF Shieldboat
Shield maintenance cost increased from -150 to -300
MaintenanceConsumptionPerSecondEnergy = 300
Justification:
The Seraphim T3 mobile land shield drains 300 energy for 10,000 hp with a much smaller bubble, the UEF and Aoen T2 mobile land shield drain 110/150 energy for a small bubble with 3,500/3,800 hp
Naval Rework
(The main goal is to increase the utility of units that exist but are underused because of their low effectiveness. The changes aim to make gameplay more versatile by enabling making the available choices to players, that due to discouraging settings, are never used/under-used.
3. Unit effectiveness
3.1. Wagner
Weapon damage of torpedos changed:
Damage = 6 --> 60
Torpedo related dps 3-->30
Justification:
Everyone knows the dps of wagners torps is laughable and completely inapplicable to any real game situation. It is my belief that the damage was a typo, as were the 4,000 HP on the Czar in the original SupCom.
The Wagner is now superior to T1 subs in close combat due to their around 3x higher HP but has the disadvantage of vision/firing range/speed, meaning the outcome is not a given. This change also reflects the hover tank - frigate dynamic.
Wagners are also outclassed by T2 navy due to range and vision disadvantage, but due to some their torpedo improvements, they cannot be simply totally ignored.
Potential drawbacks: Wagners are as effective against frigates as subs as their dps is similar. However with only 1/3 DPS of a Riptide.
3.2. Seraphim T3 sub:
SonarRadius = 90 --> 65
WaterVisionRadius = 45 --> 60
Justification:
T3 subs are vastly inferior to the cost-effectiveness of T2 subs. This is mainly because T2 subs have 45 range and are not spotted until they get in reach. A cruiser or sonar may help vs aoen subs but not vs cybran subs.
With a watervisionradius of 60, T3 subs will be able to spot and attack them earlier improving their effectiveness versus than T2 but not making them outright stronger.
T2 subs still have the speed advantage and in pursuit of T3 subs are still stronger, so by the time you see them coming and run, you will lose vs a compact formation but still win if they come in a single file formation. In the official balance, good or bad formation does not affect the outcome.
T3 subs though have compensation in form of the range advantage in stale positions and AA when emerged to defend versus torpedo bombers.
T3 subs still are vastly inferior to salems but can win overwhelmingly when they run due to their range advantage.
3.3. Aoen AA boat
Added radar of 80
Justification:
I don't see why should it not have a radar. If it is alone without frigate or scouting, its AA does not have a target until the air unit comes into vision range.
Effect:
This will make the AA boat more effective in this one situation but not affect its effectiveness in any other normal situations.
3.4. Aoen Battleship
BuildCostMass = 9000 --> 8000
BuildTime = 28800 --> 25200
Justification:
In testing the Aoen battleship performed more like a UEF battlecruiser. Its cost was decreased due to its range disadvantage and performance vs battleships. More details about the test are in the http://forums.faforever.com/viewtopic.php?f=67&t=15987
3.5. Fatboy
Maxradius on 4x Gauss Cannon, 100-->125
Health = 12500 --> 45000
BuildCostEnergy = 350000 --> 475000
BuildCostMass = 28000 --> 38000
Justification:
The fatoby is very versatile but not particularly good at anything it does making it one of the least built units for good reasons, despite it looking so cool.
It is a bad counter vs T3 navy due to the range, therefore it has been upped to 125. 125 is also adapted to T2 artillery's 128, making artillery still the most useful counter. It still did poorly so it needed to have more HP. Quite franckly a unit that looks so massive having the HP of a T3 land unit plus tax is ridiculous when its size is closer to the Megalith which has 110k HP. Also in testing vs T2 artillery, at the new range settings alone, the Fatboy lost to 14 T2 artillery and 3 T2 shields (approximately a little less than the fatboy's original cost of 28k mass) leaving 1 T2 shield and 9 artillery standing. Therefore it got 45k HP making its effectiveness vs navy units & T2 artillery better. However despite the changes, a well set up artillery position will still win hands down on a cost basis whereas a poorly designed position with equal number of artilleries/shields was destroyed.
In order to justify these changes the cost was also increase to reflect the improvements to the utility, as going the opposite way of trying to find a lower cost to justify what the fatboy was did not address its fundamental weaknesses.
In testing the Megalith did take a lot of damage but due to its higher DPS, once it gets in range of the fatboy, the fatboy did not survive long as with pretty all the other experimentals, also vision for the weapon's range still remains the key thing to utilize it.
Going by the testing results, the fatboy still is dominated by Battleships on a cost basis, but in a 3v1 it will at least manage to take 2 with it and in 4v1 take one battleship down with it. In a 2v1 it actually wins slightly losing its 20k shield and 25k HP. Test were done vs Cybran Battleship.
Other observations:
The GC having its weapon in its face makes the fatboy overshoot it more than the Ytotha, meaning that the fatboy does better in temrs of accuracy vs the seraphim land experimental, than the Aoen experimental, but that it not directly due to the changes made.
I am interested to see this unit used in a real game to see if the changes actually do make it viable, OP, or other. Replays where it features are welcome.
3.6 RAS & Mass fabs
3.6.1 RAS rework
Cybran
ProductionPerSecondEnergy = 3500--> 3300
ProductionPerSecondMass = 12 --> 8
UEF
ProductionPerSecondEnergy = 3300--> 3000
ProductionPerSecondMass = 14 --> 10
Seraphim
ProductionPerSecondEnergy = 3000--> 2700
ProductionPerSecondMass = 16 --> 12
Aoen
ProductionPerSecondEnergy = 2700--> 2400
ProductionPerSecondMass = 18 --> 14
Justification:
Well, RAS is one of those topics, it was rebalanced and no longer is a real thing, mainly in my opinion because the energy yield is so poor.
I have taken the opposite route taken by official balance team as they quite often as shown miss the point on some things and ended up with their changes making the game more eco heavy and stale.
My settings make RAS a more energy focused upgrade with the mass side still playing a role but not such a critical one. The reasoning behind this is that mass fabs exist offering to exchange energy into mass but no such option exists for energy to be obtained from mass. The options are too mass foucsed and my philosophical thoughts of mass being the key ingredient to grow a base and energy being the key ingredient to making units lead me to make it more energy focused to allow the fast T3 air rushing and thereby to offer the game a choice between unit focus and eco focus for an air player at the 10 minute mark. The settings reflect a more balanced T3 power generator - RAS dynamic than the pre-augest 2016 settings which defined RAS as the unquestionable more efficent eco choice.
This thought of mine with some more details is also mentioned in the mod's suggestions.
3.6.2 T2 & T3 Mass Fabricators
T2:
Health = 360 --> 200
BuildCostEnergy = 4000 --> 6000
BuildCostMass = 100 --> 200
T3:
Health = 6000 --> 4000
BuildCostEnergy = 65000 --> 75000
BuildCostMass = 3000 --> 2500
Justification:
T2 Mass fabs convert 150 energy into 1 mass, which is the mass-energy equivalence at T3. They thereby achieve income neutrality by simply converting energy into mass. Their rate of return increases with adjacency but as a trade off they make the adjacents buildings more vunerable by the damage they do when exploding.
T3 Mass fabs on the other side at the settings of +12 mass -3500 energy achieved a negative rate of return of -0.33%. At +16 mass -1500 energy, they achieve a return of +0.17%. The values have been changed to +12 mass -1800 energy to achieve income neutrality as with T2 mass fabs.
The new costs and HP reflect a slightly better rate of return for T2 mass fabs, however the T3 mass fab has more HP making it less vulnerable as such to bombers.
Exploiting full adjacency, the return using factories on T3 mass fabs puts them far ahead of T2 mass fabs for retrun on investment, making them diverse and still worthy in their own right as part of an overall risk/return strategy
The new HP mainly reflects the cost of destroying them with bombers on a risk reward basis and is in line with HP reductions on other eco buildings listed below.
3.7. T1 & T2 & T3 Mass extractors
T1:
Health = 600 --> 500
T2:
Health = 3000 --> 2200
T3:
Health = 8400 --> 6000
Justification:
The reasoning behind these changes is mainly due to the bombers it takes to take out an eco building. It takes 3 at the old values, now it takes essentially 2, leaving the cybran stealth strategic bomber out of course.
As usually with equally performing players, the bombers will be taken out rather quickly leaving the wrecks of both the eco building and the bombers to be reclaimed by the defending player which on a whole usually gives that player more resources as a result and puts that player ahead in eco as well as in air units.
The new dynamic will still have the same result in some cases but not in others. I am not a fan of simcity games where players are ecoing for 20mins and then easily translate their eco advantage into a unit advantage at minute 30 versus an active player who is trying to create an advantage for his team by his decisions in game.
3.8. T1 & T2 & T3 Power generators
T1:
Health = 600 --> 500
T2:
Health = 2160 --> 2160
T3:
Health = 9720 --> 6000
Justification:
As above in 3.7.
3.9. Mass Storages
Health = 1600 --> 1200
Justification:
In line with HP nerfs on Mass extractors.
3.10. Factories
3.10.1. T2 Air factory HQ
Cybran Health --> 6400
Aoen Health --> 6600
Seraphim Health --> 6800
UEF Health --> 7000
Justification:
Making them a more targetable strategic option not only for TML but also for bombers.
3.10.2. T2 Land factory HQ
Cybran Health --> 6400
Aoen Health --> 6600
Seraphim Health --> 6800
UEF Health --> 7000
Justification:
Making them a more targetable strategic option not only for TML but also for bombers.
3.10.3. T2 Navy factory HQ
Cybran Health --> 12500
Aoen Health --> 13000
Seraphim Health --> 13500
UEF Health --> 14000
BuildRate = 60 --> 90 (also for support factories)
Justification:
Making them a more targetable strategic option not only for TML but also for bombers. More buildpower to lessen engineer crowding.
Support factories have the benefit for land and air of adjacency and thus as navy does not have this option, buildrate was increased on support factories as well to make them more cost effective than engineer crowding. The HP reduction can be seen as trade off for the buildpower increase.
3.10.4. T3 Air factory HQ
Cybran Health --> 15500
Aoen Health --> 16000
Seraphim Health --> 16500
UEF Health --> 17000
Justification:
Making them a more targetable strategic option not only for TML but also for bombers.
3.10.5. T3 Land factory HQ
Cybran Health --> 15500
Aoen Health --> 16000
Seraphim Health --> 16500
UEF Health --> 17000
Justification:
Making them a more targetable strategic option not only for TML but also for bombers.
3.10.3. T2 Navy factory HQ / Support factory
Cybran Health --> 21000 / 12500
Aoen Health --> 21500 / 13000
Seraphim Health --> 22000 / 13500
UEF Health --> 22500 / 14000
BuildRate = 120 --> 180 (also for support factories)
Justification:
Making them a more targetable strategic option not only for TML but also for bombers. More buildpower to lessen engineer crowding.
Support factories have the benefit for land and air of adjacency and thus as navy does not have this option, buildrate was increased on support factories as well to make them more cost effective than engineer crowding. The HP reduction can be seen as trade off for the buildpower increase.
3.11. Seraphim restoration fields correction
AdvancedRegenAura RegenPerSecond = 0.01111111111 --> 0.02
RegenAura RegenPerSecond = 0.02 --> 0.01111111111
Justification:
While looking at the stats, I noticed that the 1st restoration field gave more regeneration than the second (advanced restoration). Advanced restoration is listed as upgrade before simple restoration field so it is possible that the person putting in the stats got this mixed up when the game was being mage. Anyway I thought this logic of advanced giving less regen was odd and corrected it.
3.11. Aoen 2nd shield cost (ShieldHeavy)
BuildCostEnergy = 1000000 --> 500000
Justification:
The cost is more in line with 2nd Nano and 2nd Shield was never really built in the past, so a cost nerf might make it be an option.
3.12. Targeting of Fire-beetles improved
SizeX = 0.4 --> 0.5
SizeY = 0.35 --> 0.4
SizeZ = 0.55 --> 0.9
Justification:
During testing it transpired that the hitbox of beetles was too small to be hit by some weapons, so it was increased and any improvements from path-finding sacrificed.
3.13. T3 Cybran sonar
SonarStealthFieldRadius = 90 --> 45
Justification:
More in line with T2 stealth boat. Also bug fixed of intel radius disparities between selected T3 sonar before building and competed T3 sonar.
3.14. Cybran aircraft carrier AA weapon targeting
TurretPitch = 45 --> 15
Justification:
At 45 Turretpitch, the cybran aircraft carrier aims higher than the air units and at long range the angle translates into it overshooting,i.e. missing, the target consistently.
While 35 solves the problem for almost all aircraft, it still overshoots transports at max range, but only transports, which is a significant improvement to the current official balance where it misses everything at an elevation of 18 and under because of too high turret pitch.
3.15. Seraphim and Aeon T2 Torpedo bombers
Exotic retard fixed the script that was broken eons ago, this was adapted into the mod. No idea how to explain. Other values of the torpedo bombers were also realigned to perform like UEF/Cybran.
Justification:
It's better, much better.
4. Sonar Changes
4.1. Torpedo bombers
Sonar range changed from 90-->30 on T2 / Radar added --> 50
Sonar range changed from 90-->45 on T3 / Radar added --> 65
Justification:
T1 scouts have 30 sonar range. This change keeps the T1 scouts relevant in the navy play at the T2 stage due to their cost. At 90 sonar range, single torpedo bombers simply cover too much ground too fast, even on 20x20 maps such as Setons.
Subs become almost irrelevant when they are easily spotted given that torpedo bombers are OP vs them with no drawbacks. Having air dominance and projecting it is the only way to protect subs and no possible at all times.
Radar was added to make up for some loss of intel but only shows surfaced units, keeping the benefit give to submerged units by the intel rework.
Effect: Torpedo bombers on patrol will spot the sub as they fly over it, make a turn and attack it. When a submerged unit is spotted however by another unit with sonar, f.ex. by a scout, the torpedo bomber still attacks normally as if it had more sonar.
4.2. T3 sonar plaforms
SonarRadius = 450 --> 200
Justification:
Sonar is mobile, with 450, there isnt no need to move it out of base, even on 20x20 maps like Setons. A range of 200 makes leaves it out of range of battleships but makes players have to move it a little to use its intel abilities.
4.3. T2 Sonar platforms
SonarRadius = 230 --> 150 (exception Seraphim (175)
Justification:
In line with T3 but as they are stationary, the range on the T3 sonar is greater than the naked number may make one believe.
4.4. Frigates sonar ranges:
SonarRadius = 82 --> 40
WaterVisionRadius = 32 --> 16
Justification:
Sonar and radar were the same, however sonar should be less to make subs more usefull. T1 sonar also becomes more relevant.
WaterVisionRadius is what makes your unit see the submerged unit. It is reduced so that it is not obvious immediately where it is a T1 or T2 subs, a wagner or ACU, etc.
4.5. T1 subs sonar
SonarRadius = 60 --> 45
VisionRadius = 32 --> 24
WaterVisionRadius = 32 --> 24
Justification:
In line with reductions. They previously had less than frigates and it still is more than their attack range.
Vision radiuses; Why should a submerged sub see further with its peliscope than a sailor on the mast of a frigate with his bynoculars!?
4.6. Crusiers:
RadarRadius = 150 --> 120
SonarRadius = 120 --> 75
VisionRadius = 65 --> 55
WaterVisionRadius = 60 --> 45
Justification:
In line with navy intel reductions. It is my belief that the excessive ranges units have are due to the original developers ideas of having 80x80 navy focused maps be a thing
Vision radius was reduced to 55 as seraphim and UEF destroyers weapon's ranges put them in vision range but aoen and cybran are not when firing at the cruiser.
4.7. Aircraftcarrier:
RadarRadius = 200 --> 150
SonarRadius = 40 --> 90
Justification:
Its sonar is still less than the T2 & T3 Sonar platform so this makes the sonar platform stay relevant and gives the AC some additional value over a cruiser.
Radar was simply too large for no energy drain in my opinion.
4.8. Atlantis:
RadarRadius = 250 --> 150
SonarRadius = 252 --> 150
WaterVisionRadius = 100 --> 80
Justification:
In line with navy intel adjustments.
4.9. Tempest:
SonarRadius = 252 --> 150
WaterVisionRadius = 100 --> 80
Justification:
In line with navy intel adjustments.
4.10. Omni range on T3 Radar:
Omnivision = 200 -->100
Justification:
With T3 sonar at 200, Omni seems to dwarf it in detecting submerged units nearby lessening the value of sonar. This has been changed to be in line with the intel rework.
5. Ground firing submerged units
5.1. Cybran Harms
Sink depth set to -3.5
Health = 11000 --> 6250
Justification:
No ground-firing it with battleships at -3.2 possible. Health was reduce to make them less durable as they outperform any unit on a cost basis with limited counters. 6250 health may seem an arbitrary value, but in-game scenarios will reveal whether it is good or bad at some point. Since it has personal stealth added, no ground-firing, lowering hp seems reasonable. 6250 is close to the T2 torp launchers HP but since it has more range and is mainly only targetable by torpedoes, this should work out fine without harms creep being excessively OP.
5.2. Submersible units elevation lowered to:
T1: -3
T2: -4
T3: -5
T4: -9
Justification:
T1,2 & 3 cannot be hit by T3 battleships using splash damage beyond -3, so they were placed deeper to take ground-firing submerged naval units out of the equation.
-9, Yes! -9 is the level at which splash damage of the tempest doesnt hit submerged units.
Unfortunately there are 3 drawbacks:
1) Submerged units will rise as they move into shallower water and stay at the elevation they move to and not go back down again.
2) The height on missiles launched from T3 strategic subs is about 3 lower, meaning they possibly wont fly over some mountains unless emerged.
3) A lot of maps do not have a layout that reflects the depth required for the change of the Atlantis and tempest to work.
6.Other bug fixes and reworks
6.1. Seraphim wall section
SizeY = 0.4 --> 0.45
Justification:
At 0.4 Rhinos are able to shoot "over" / through the wall section and hit the pd, at 0.5 ACUs shoot into the wall, but 0.45 worked out ok for both and matches the description of what the wall section claims to be able to do.
6.2. Aoen and Cybran T1 & T2 Sonar
Sizex,y,z were adjusted
Justification:
Seraphim destroyer can actually hit them now which I consider an improvement.
6.3. DifferentialUpgradeCostCalculation added to
UEF/Seraphim T3 shields
T2&T3 Sonar
T2&T3 Radar
T3 Mass extractors
Justification:
Some say you are pro to ctrl K T2 mexes and rebuild T3 mexes and while it was know by myself as far back as early 2015 and by others too, and much early I presume, it wasnt used much. Yet now it is all over the place and makes the return on ecoing mexes instead of playing the game with units too favorable turning FAF further into SimCity by wide spread discovery of an illogical but yet powerful exploit of the game. This applies to other units too such as radar and sonar too, the upgrade from T1 to T2 costs the full price of T2, and would be the replacement cost. Support factories dont use replacement cost pricing to upgrade from T1 to T2 so why should others.
This is why along with the new cost structure I developed, you dont have this benefit anymore with mexes, but you do get the benefit of not having to pay full price for every tech level of sonar/radar you upgrade.
Just to explain how it works in practice, the differentialUpgradeCostCalculation function means that f.ex. a T3 UEF sonar costing 1200 mass will cost 1200 to build from scratch and 900 to upgrade a T2 sonar to T3.
6.3.1. T1 Sonar
Mass = 64 --> 60
Energy = 544 --> 600
Build Time = 80 --> 75
EnergyConsumption = 10 --> 20
Sonarradius = 115 --> 75
6.3.2. T2 Sonar (UEF&Cybran&Aoen / Seraphim)
Mass = 150 --> 300/360
Energy = 3600 --> 3000/3600
Build Time = 845 --> 600/720
EnergyConsumption = 100 --> 100/125
Sonarradius = 200 --> 150/175
6.3.3. T3 Sonar (UEF&Aoen / Cybran)
Mass = 1000 --> 1200/1500
Energy = 12000 --> 18000/24000
Build Time = 750 --> 1800
EnergyConsumption = 250 --> 400/600
Sonarradius = 450 --> 200
6.3.4 UEF / Seraphim / Aoen T3 Shield
Aoen:
Mass = 2400 --> 3000
Energy = 44000 --> 55000
EnergyMaintenance --> 400
UEF:
Mass = 3000 --> 3600
Energy = 50000 --> 54000
Seraphim:
Mass = 3600 --> 4200
Energy = 60000 --> 63000
6.3.5. T3 Mexes
Mass = 4600 --> 5500
Energy = 31625 --> 37025
6.3.6. T1 Radars
Mass = 80 --> 75
Energy = 720 --> 750
Build Time = 80 --> 75
EnergyConsumption = 20--> 20
Radarradius = 115 --> 100
6.3.7. T2 Radars
Mass = 180 --> 300
Energy = 3600 --> 3000
Build Time = 845 --> 675
EnergyConsumption = 250--> 200
Radarradius = 200 --> 200
6.3.8. T3 Radars
Mass = 2400 --> 2700
Energy = 30000 --> 33000
Build Time = 2575 --> 1800
EnergyConsumption = 2000--> 2000
Radarradius = 600 --> 600
Follow on changes might follow once I find some solutions and depending on how welcome my work is of course
