Gunships and bombers.

[CopyyyCattt]

Sorry for the long post, I just wanted to make the meaning(what they mean to me) of all the terms i use clear so there is no confusion about what im trying to say.

This is a general observation about gunships,bombers and balance in FA.
First thing, some terms i wanna define and use:
1)The cost effectiveness of units - how good a unit's stats are for its mass energy and build time costs.
2)the role of a unit - when is a specific unit the best unit to build under given circumstances.
Those circumstances define the unit's role in the overall balance.
If a unit is never the best unit to build, under any circumstances, than it is under powered and useless.
there is no point in a unit that always does what needs to be done worse than some other unit.
These two terms are sometimes interchangeable and are connected.

Let's say in a cybran T1 land factory we have two units, Mantis and Mantis 2.
They both have the same exact stats, operate in the same exact way and cost the same amount of all three resources(mass,energy and build time).
These two units fill the exact same role of a t1 main tank, because of how they handle, their range of fire etc... and do it at the same cost efficiency since they cost the same.

Now I wanna get to gunships and bombers.
Both are flying units, both are mainly ground attack units so what makes them different? under what circumstances is a gunship better than a bomber and under what circumstances is a bomber a better use of resources than a gunship?
Except the usual stats about dps, damage per hit, speed, health points, there is major difference between the two units.
They behave and move in two completely different ways.
Gunships hover over the target and bombers fly in big arches around the target.
What is this relevant to? How do these two different behaviors change the roles of both units and separate them?
Both units are countered by AA units, like fighters or AA structures.
So when is a bomber the ideal weapon of choice? when you want to surprise your enemy that either has not enough fighters or they are located in the wrong place or your opponents simply does not have any fighters.
The advantage of the bombers is that they come fast, deal a lot of immediate damage for their cost and can even be sent on suicide missions since if they just unload their bombs once they are already worth it even if they die afterwards to AA.

So is the gunships the same? No, the gunship does not deal a lot of immediate damage for it's cost so it is ideal when the enemy has very little AA or none at all, allowing the gunships to deal accurate damage for an extended period of time.
the question than is, when the enemy has no AA why not just use bombers in this case as well?

Because there are two different types of AA.
1)Mobile ground AA and mobile air AA.
2)Static AA, turrets.
Does this have any effect on the roles of bombers and gunships?
I think it does.
As mentioned before gunships hover above their target while bombers are much less conservative about the space they use when attacking and fly in large archs.

What does this mean? It means that if a player has been spamming STATIC ground AA if a bombers comes in with his big flying archs it has a big chance of getting inside the radius of static AA and getting hit.
Gunships on the other hand can attack areas with static AA in the vicinity without fear of flying into their radius because of the fact gunships do not use up much space when attacking.

When the enemy has fighters that can move around and get to the gunships no matter where they are, bombers have the advantage because they only need to do one successful surprise run and it does not matter if they are killed afterwards.

The problem in the roles of a gunships versus the bomber arises if an RTS has no viable spammable static AA for cost.
As in, the static AA, for its cost, is usually worse than just using fighters.
This means the main attribute of gunships over bombers becomes irrelevant since nobody is spamming static AA in his territory.
gunships loose their place in the balance and their roles starts blurring with the role of bombers.

The point is that if spamming STATIC AA is almost never viable, and mobile AA is almost always the better choice, gunships loose their role and then devs must balance them to fit into roughly the same role of bombers.

[Gorton]

Gunships for under defended, usually outlying targets without flak etc and when you have air
Bombers are more used for sniping (not nec an acu, sniping anything)
I'm not sure why you have a problem with this

[CopyyyCattt]

Wanna add that gunships are and should be tougher so getting a bit of AA fire is ok as long as they get to their destination that is free of AA while bombers are and should be flimsy so flying under aa or flying and attacking near aa is not beneficial with them since once they are exposed to a bit of it they go down fast.

[CopyyyCattt]

Gunships for under defended, usually outlying targets without flak etc and when you have air
Bombers are more used for sniping (not nec an acu, sniping anything)
I'm not sure why you have a problem with this

If the enemy has fighters gunships are useless cause they get demolished as do bombers but bombers can manage to drop their load once.
If there are no fighters bombers and gunships are viable as attacking methods since nothing is gonna stop them anyway.
while bombers have a clear niche, attacking and suiciing when the enemy has fighters, gunships do not since they are good if the enemy has no ifhgters and instead spamms static AA.
If spamming of static AA never happens the gunship's role blurrs with the bomber.

Allowing spamming of static AA to be viable will add variety and give gunships a clearer role and use.

As in, you use them when the enemy made no air and only spammed static AA.

[ColonelSheppard]

This means the main attribute of gunships over bombers becomes irrelevant since nobody is spamming static AA in his territory.
gunships loose their place in the balance and their roles starts blurring with the role of bombers.

sorry bro but thats a simplyfied, and mostly wrong statement, i expected to see flame about hovering bomber in this thread after i read the title (to which i would agree) but your statements and arguments dont fit into reality

1100662.fafreplay

(161.5 KiB) Downloaded 127 times

As you can clearly see in the replay, mobile AA takes a long time to get to certain positions on bigger maps, building engys to access fast static AA is nessesary and usefull, the power of gunsips can be seen very good, also you cannot always build fighters because once you lost a big airbattle you are massivly behind in air for a long time, especially if you dont have enough aa in your base and your enemy flies around above your airfactory

[prodromos]

"when the enemy has no AA why not just use bombers in this case as well?"
Simple, because you cannot dodge gunships. On the other hand you can dodge bombers, long enough(or indefinately ) till you come in range of newly built mobile or static aa.
Additionaly when you have to defend across long distances, you can better be harassed with gunships, which can pinpoint their target, and not take happy strolls in your area defended by various aa(Imagine my rage in older times when they were not firing in the first pass, taking their time to be exterminated; my bias and disdain is truly ingrained from long ago against bombers and though I may be easily surprised by a suicide attack, I can't but feel embarassed about it.)

"The point is that if spamming STATIC AA is almost never viable".
Imho, it is, so viable in fact, that it becomes absurd. I generally am of the opinion that static defenses are op, but this is another theme. The point is to see a couple of bombers or gunships and not go crazy and build a forest of pds.

"When the enemy has fighters that can move around and get to the gunships no matter where they are, bombers have the advantage because they only need to do one successful surprise run and it does not matter if they are killed afterwards."
Bombers can easily be cleaned in fact easier when they sit idle. The only exception to this is when they attack en masse.
You can erase them too in this case just by clicking 2 or 3 more times at your asfs, which can't be said for the gunships in general(have you tried to stop restorers that attack en mass with your asfs?)
It does matter "if they are killed afterwards", because they cost a shitload of mass and energy and can really be effective for a very tiny window of time. It is a very risky investment even if it is successfull, that can leave your army and economy in a wretched condition afterwards. They may seem good when your opponent is taken by surprise,but obviously this is an invalid proposition.

The point of the whole rant being that if you make gunships more effective, you will only needlessly strengthen an already powerful unit.

[CopyyyCattt]

It never suggested making gunships better for cost. I suggested making it viable to spam Static AA if one does not want ot go air for exmaple.

[ColonelSheppard]

I suggested making it viable to spam Static AA if one does not want to go air for exmaple.

I suggest making it viable to spam pointdefences if someone doesnt want to go land for example.

You got land, navy, air.
Air Ground
Air Navy
Ground Air
that stops working at some point, you cannot effectivly fight a flak - shield - GC combo with air, as well as you cant fight cruiser + shields after they reached critical mass
but at the same moment you cant fight air with ground at some point, because you get a mass attempt to snipe your commander or you get mexes killed with gunships all over the map

you need everything land and air (and navy) at some point, if you want to play landonly, then there is a toogleable option in the lobby

[DonFusili]

Perhaps someone should mention that for bombers to be actually better, you need the skill to time the drop correctly and approach from a good enough angle etc etc (unless you're sera... sera bombers have a better map reach than mavors) whilst for gunships you have to just click attack and you know it'll attack the unit for as long as it lives. I suck at bomber control but don't mind them being better (whilst I do agree that correctly handled bombers are better than gunships).

[CopyyyCattt]

This means the main attribute of gunships over bombers becomes irrelevant since nobody is spamming static AA in his territory.
gunships loose their place in the balance and their roles starts blurring with the role of bombers.

sorry bro but thats a simplyfied, and mostly wrong statement, i expected to see flame about hovering bomber in this thread after i read the title (to which i would agree) but your statements and arguments dont fit into reality

1100662.fafreplay

As you can clearly see in the replay, mobile AA takes a long time to get to certain positions on bigger maps, building engys to access fast static AA is nessesary and usefull, the power of gunsips can be seen very good, also you cannot always build fighters because once you lost a big airbattle you are massivly behind in air for a long time, especially if you dont have enough aa in your base and your enemy flies around above your airfactory

I watched this replay Till the end.
How does this not prove my point?It's exactly what it does.
Nobody made any static AA.
why? cause they know its shit.
What did both players make? mobile AA, specifically fighters.
Who lost the game? The one who had least mobile AA and got sniped cause he did not have the fighters to defend himself.