Making the game more aggressive and varied.

[CopyyyCattt]

1)Artillery does not handle fight commands(ant+click) properly.
Ideally the way artillery should function when given a fight command is to move towards a spot and when encountering an enemy unit in range they should stop moving and attack it until it is dead.
ATM they act as if they were given a move command..They just keep moving, entering the line of fire of tanks and defenses.

2)wreckage values are extremely high.
It should be important to fight and control wreckage(and it is interesting) but wreckage should not be around 85%.
Such a high value means that unless you are to completely overtake a position and get the wreckage, harassment that is in the range of the opponent's weapons is out of the question.
you cannot poke and outplay by killing more and more of the opponent's forces while taking less casualties cause even if you do really well but he gets the wreckage you have failed.
I suggest decreasing the wreckage values to 60% or less of the initial cost.
This will give a bit more room for trading blows and trying to out maneuver your opponent.

3)T1 gunships are noob traps.When are they useful? I mean really...Everyone spams t1 interceptors that eat the gunships up.
What is the role of the gunships...When are they the best air unit to build?
If they can't be balanced they should just be removed, instead of remaining as noob traps for noobs to stumble on before they later learn to not make them..

4)T2 T3 mass fabs.
Need to be either balanced in or removed.
One of them needs to be removed.If the T2 fabs are to stay they should still be removed out of T2 since they should never be made in the T2 stage.
fabs should stay in the game but if they are just sort of rarely used super late eco buildings they should only be in T3 build menus and the game does not need two models and two separate buildings(per faction) for this.

5)Anti Air.
Land T2 AA is total trash.
Essentially you must even on smaller maps go air.
AA land units are total waste of mass.
They are very slow compared to air units, they cannot hit air units well, their range is pathetic and of course they are land units hence are limited by terrain obstacles and water.
The fact there is no counter to t3 air narrows the possibilities in the game down, everyone has to go T3 air.
If T2 land AA was buffed it would mean that a team or player can under certain conditions lose or give away the air superiority, make AA(that will be more cost effective compared to Air units) and spend the cost gap between the more effective Land AA he made and the more costly Air the opponent made on something else and win.
ATM T3 air is a must and can go and do anything, the only counter is more T3 air..
This limits the game possibilities and IMO should be tweaked.

6)adding long range artillery back into the game.
The uber expensive super amazing Experimental artillery pieces.
ATM they are more like joke units.
They are super rare and when made, game ending.
I suggest making the much cheaper and much less powerful so they are included in more games.

[RoundTabler]

@ Arty I agree.
@ Wreckage: No. Wreckage is fine. It adds strategy - will this attack do damage, or will it just leave reclaim.
@ T1 Gunships: They are fine. They are like first bomber - useful till there is AA/inties. Same as t2 and t3 air - air superiority kills gunships.
@Mass fabs - agreed
@aa - aa is not as weak as you think. 5-10 aa smash 2-3 restorers - 5-10 asfs die to 2-3 restorers.
@experimental arty - agree. 200,000 mass for a mavor should result in enemy bases dying. If you have shields though, the reload on the mavor is long enough for the shields to recharge. Scathis, at 83,000 mass destroys bases in seconds. Since it has a short range, I would suggest making the mavor wreak the same damage at longer ranges. Its EXPERIMENTAL ARTY - its supposed to be OP.

[CopyyyCattt]

2) with 60% wreckage value ull sitll have to do all that thinking but it will be more viable to harass and engage the enemy more often instead of having long idle periods in the game where the two players compete at amassing a better mix of units(or making defense without engaging).
The idea is to encourage more harassment and more engaging in battle as oppose to being too afraid to engage cause unless you're gonna absolutely own your opponent, you will probably lose overall cause hell have the reclaim.
In short these high wreckage values stop people from being more aggressive.It discourages back and forth fighting and encourages all-ins and only engaging when you're sure you're gonna win.

@experiemtnal artilley
My point is to make it none experimental stage. make it viable earlier by making it much cheaper and of course reducing its power.
To reintroduce it as a viable structure in many games as oppose to vanity unit or for making cool looking videos...

@T1 gunships.
Yes, T1 bombers are useful but what is the point of t1 gunships?
Since interceptors are comparatively better than ground AA and everyone spams them, the advantage of the gunship over the bomber, the fact it does not make huge circles making it harder for ground AA to hit it(it doesnt get into it's range), disappears.
Either land AA/interceptor balance is sorted to allow the gunship to be advantageous sometimes, or it should just be removed to not be a noob trap.

@AA power.
When judging the cost effectiveness of AA versus Air units you must consider all the unit's stats, not just the way it performs against the unit you are comparing it with.
for example maybe unit A completely annihilates unit B but is shit against all other types of units while unit B is amazing against all else.
You have to examine all the properties of a unit. Not just how it does in a head ot head fight versus another unit.
Air units have massive advantages.
they are all terrain, they are very fast, they depends mainly on energy, not Mass, which can be spammed in your base and does not require map control to defend.
As can be seen in games Air is extremley good, so good you must have it and it can only be properly countered by more Air.
That is caleld over powered.It is so strong it can only be countered by itself and it takes away game variety by forcing itself to be built in all games whether land maps, sea maps, high mass maps, low mass maps, doesn't matter.

[Mycen]

As far as T1 gunships, of course if you have lost air control they are not useful. This is also true of T1 bombers, but I don't see you suggesting they be removed. Why? If you have several gunships and an equal amount of interceptors (or you micro them better), you can destroy the enemy interceptors while they are shooting your gunships and win the engagement. Then, assuming you aren't getting out-ecoed and are building new interceptors at the same rate as your opponent, you will have more interceptors than the enemy in the next engagement with your next wave of gunships. It's called winning air superiority.

Also, one way that gunships are more useful than bombers in T1 is that they are more flexible in attack/defense. You cannot effectively defend your base with T1 bombers, their rate of fire is too slow and their damage radius too high. But gunships put out much more precise and effective damage, perfect for helping to fend off incursions into your territory before quickly moving back to offense. Since you will be sacrificing your own ground units to build a number of air units, this is useful in the early stage of the game.


As far as mass fabricators, I don't see why you think that. There are advantages and disadvantages to each of the fabricator types, they are hardly equivalent units. As such, there is no reason to remove one of them. Also, your claim that they should be moved to the T3 build menu because you wouldn't normally see them before the T3 stage is fairly ludicrous. They are not T3 units, they are simple and cheap. Why should they be moved up a Tech level just because that's when they're most commonly used? Support Commanders or T3 heavy artillery aren't normally used before you get to the point where you're building T4s, but that's no reason to move them to the T4 stage, now is it?


About experimental artillery, are you kidding? To begin with, only the UEF has T4 arty, so making it T3 and much cheaper would be very unfair to the other factions. Also, of course it's game-ending, that's why it's called a game-ender. You might as well complain that ASFs are good at destroying other aircraft! I'm very curious how giving every faction a (relatively) cheap weapon with unlimited range that becomes impossible to defend against is supposed to "[Make] the game more aggressive and varied," by the way, it seems like it would just give each player an incentive to turtle and eco.


Making wrecks less valuable only gives players less incentive to go out and control the field to reclaim wrecks, as well as making suicide air runs that much more powerful (because you donate less mass). Tell me again how that makes the game more aggressive and varied? You do know that unless you go for an all-in attack right on your enemy's doorstep, you can get the reclaim too, right? Just follow up your attack with some engineers and followup units to fight with the enemy's remaining forces while you reclaim.

[prodromos]

1)Artillery does not handle fight commands(ant+click) properly.
Ideally the way artillery should function when given a fight command is to move towards a spot and when encountering an enemy unit in range they should stop moving and attack it until it is dead.
ATM they act as if they were given a move command..They just keep moving, entering the line of fire of tanks and defenses.

2)wreckage values are extremely high.
It should be important to fight and control wreckage(and it is interesting) but wreckage should not be around 85%.
Such a high value means that unless you are to completely overtake a position and get the wreckage, harassment that is in the range of the opponent's weapons is out of the question.
you cannot poke and outplay by killing more and more of the opponent's forces while taking less casualties cause even if you do really well but he gets the wreckage you have failed.
I suggest decreasing the wreckage values to 60% or less of the initial cost.
This will give a bit more room for trading blows and trying to out maneuver your opponent.

3)T1 gunships are noob traps.When are they useful? I mean really...Everyone spams t1 interceptors that eat the gunships up.
What is the role of the gunships...When are they the best air unit to build?
If they can't be balanced they should just be removed, instead of remaining as noob traps for noobs to stumble on before they later learn to not make them..

4)T2 T3 mass fabs.
Need to be either balanced in or removed.
One of them needs to be removed.If the T2 fabs are to stay they should still be removed out of T2 since they should never be made in the T2 stage.
fabs should stay in the game but if they are just sort of rarely used super late eco buildings they should only be in T3 build menus and the game does not need two models and two separate buildings(per faction) for this.

5)Anti Air.
Land T2 AA is total trash.
Essentially you must even on smaller maps go air.
AA land units are total waste of mass.
They are very slow compared to air units, they cannot hit air units well, their range is pathetic and of course they are land units hence are limited by terrain obstacles and water.
The fact there is no counter to t3 air narrows the possibilities in the game down, everyone has to go T3 air.
If T2 land AA was buffed it would mean that a team or player can under certain conditions lose or give away the air superiority, make AA(that will be more cost effective compared to Air units) and spend the cost gap between the more effective Land AA he made and the more costly Air the opponent made on something else and win.
ATM T3 air is a must and can go and do anything, the only counter is more T3 air..
This limits the game possibilities and IMO should be tweaked.

6)adding long range artillery back into the game.
The uber expensive super amazing Experimental artillery pieces.
ATM they are more like joke units.
They are super rare and when made, game ending.
I suggest making the much cheaper and much less powerful so they are included in more games.

I also agree about mobile arty.(The thing is, can it be corrected?)

I am more interested to comment on your wreckage proposal.If i understand it correctly, you propose a decrease in its value, so that you the attacker have more incentives to attack the static defenses of a defensive player and the latter to be unable to profit from your dead units, am I right?

If this is the reason for such a proposal, I have to say, that the tiny advantage you would gain from this change would be lost by the fact, that you ,as a non-static player, would lose from the reclaim everywhere else. I think your wishes would be met mostly by making static defenses a little less viable(a little more expensive). The way they are now, our trees(a.k.a. point defenses), seduce everyone of us to become gardeners(where fences, put shields and walls). As a result you see such obscene tactics(as well as hilarious) as pd creeps. And I confess, I have "sinned" sometimes, though I find it strange that I haven't encountered nerd rage, doing this. On the contrary, when executing a proper rush I have seen a lot of discomfort. Am I the only one who thinks, that using defensive structures for attack is a perversion?

To be clear, I don't think it is necessary to change the wreckage value. It is not necessary to violate our beloved trees too.(because gardening can be countered with a number of ways already). If we were to address, attacking firebases though, the trees would have to pay the price.
For clarity I won't comnent on your other proposals.

[CopyyyCattt]

Its not just about attacking a firebase.
Its about group vs group fighting. u cant harass a line of units unless ur sure ull get the reclaim cause the wreckage they all leave is huge so even if you outmaneuver your opponent and kill much more than he with ur harass u wont get ahead cause he gets the reclaim.
Reducing wreckage amounts will still leave wreckage as relevant o the game but will make it more beneficial to harass and out maneuver.
high wreckage values are always good for defensive playing...The higher it is the better it is to play defensively and only attack when you are sure you're gonna overtake the opponent and get the wreckage.

[prodromos]

"If you outmaneuver your opponent" and you are not near a firebase, I don't see what would hinder you from reclaiming the wreckage. In this case a more skilled player who earns fairly his score, takes profit of the wreckage and it gives him a good advantage , as it should be.
"u cant harass a line of units unless ur sure ull get the reclaim cause the wreckage they all leave is huge"
When you harass a line of units you generally try to sustain as little damage as possible. Sustaining big damage during harrassment means either that you have to work on your micro skills, or that your intel wasn't good enough.(always speaking for cases when you are away from pds.)
Besides, you don't harass for harassment's sake, but do this having a strategic goal. If such a goal is a diversion, it doesn't even matter if you harass well or not, but if you are believable. If you make a wrong judgement and you lose your units you should fairly lose the reclaimable mass. I hope I 've spoken clearly.

[errorblankfield]

Why don't you harass for harassment sake? Within the name/action alone, you achieve numerous strategic elements. Namely free/cheap damage, chip some units and/or, bother the guy to disrupt concentration on something else.

You can't harass and not do these things.

You could further use a 'harass' as a feign but at that point, I wouldn't call it harassment, rather a feign. Alas, that's semantics.

To the point, he's (attempting) to say that harassment in such a matter (getting a few fringe kills) ultimately does more harm than good. Sure you can pick off a few units, but then unless you follow up with a full attack and claim ground -the enemy will reclaim them and use that new mass against you.

In my opinion, he's half right. But the enemy com could have always just reclaimed them for giggles at any point for the same affect (unless the values change which I'm not aware they do). Though it is annoying how much territory matters at times. Simply because a major battled ended in a draw near your base could me you win since you get the uncontested reclaim. Combined with general 'defenders advantage' makes for some cases where you can do 'everything right', but still lose.
Course the solution is to start thinking 'meta' and avoid those situations in the first place.

[CopyyyCattt]

My poitn was that The wreck values were set too high..85% is just the default GPG. They made many mistakes that the FA community is correcting to improve gameplay and balance. I'm saying wreck valeus were set too high and decreasing them a bit will improve gameplay. It's nothing radical just instead of 85% go down to 50%-60%.
Wreckage will still be as importatn.You will still have ot fight for it etc..Just more idke play with your units and just sitting amassing units witohut doing anything will be less effective comapred to someone who is more active with his forces.

[ZaphodX]

Current reclaim has worked fine. Where are your replays showing how it needs to be nerfed?