Soulreaper veterancy nerf & HARMS hp nerf.

[Wakke]

I agree that the steps to tackle this in a clean way are:

1) remove buggy/unintended behaviour (ground fire able to hit HARMS)
2) reassess balance
3) tweak stats as necessary

[noms]

Ive read the last few pages of the HARMS discussions and agree with Skilzat99X. Its not just about mass costs, its about timing and the hassle of micro using ground fire.

HARMS

- should be targetable by surface fire while/after it is built without using ground fire
- should have fewer HP eg. 9000 (from 11000)

- should not be submerged and invulnerable to surface fire as it would far too hard to counter (UNLESS its health is reduced drastically)

[CocoaMoko]

you are talking about buffing them why everybody else wants to nerf them, did you notice that?

I'm talking about having them suit their role.

See, if we're going to have them maintain the role they have, then the proposed HP cut is the simplest nerf.

If we're goign to have them fulfill the actual role they should, only being hit by torps, then they should be modified to be A) targetable while being built, B) afterwards only be hit by torps (or like nukes etc), and C) have drastically lower HP.
As I brought out, since torps are so weak and they should be the only direct counter to HARMS, then it should have honestly only as much or less health than a surface T2 torp. Maybe like 5500.

Roles roles roles gentlemen!

[Wakke]

I agree with the above and additionally, all submerged units should be unaffected by splash of surface fire imo.

[MushrooMars]

That, or surface fire should do drastically smaller amounts of damage to units underwater. I can understand how heavy artillery or a Nuke could maim or destroy even a heavy unit underwater, but being able to surface-fire on Submarines with a Tempest or T2 Arty/TML is kinda lame.

[CocoaMoko]

I don't mind surface fire hitting subs, since subs go just below the surface of the water, and can move. Well, except maybe the slow Atlantis which gets absolutely owned by surface fire.

As was suggested, underwater subs should take damage proportional to how far they are from the surface, with ones a certain depth (proposed HARMS depth, and seabed, etc) taking no damage of course.

[Firestarter]

I agree that the steps to tackle this in a clean way are:

1) remove buggy/unintended behaviour (ground fire able to hit HARMS)
2) reassess balance
3) tweak stats as necessary

100% seconded - this is absolutely the right way to do it. I imagine that after the fix is implemented an HP nerf might be needed since then only torps could hurt them. Counters - spy planes (omni) + torpbombers, or failing that destroyer rush?

[pip]

Imo, HARMS should be targettable by surface weapons but have more HP (not less), around 13500 (that's twice a Destroyer HP, it's fair enough for 3000 mass and the inability to move). It'll be much more vulnerable, because stealth won't work (it's a structure, once seen, it's on radar)and any naval unit would be able to damage it without having to use the ground attack trick.

Thus you can counter HARMS more easily with battleships and Cruisers (even some destroyers) but it will take time to kill them and meanwhile they can protect underwater space (repel t3 sub spam for instance). If you give less HP AND make it targettable by surface weapons, it'll be a total waste of mass.

Also, the Cybran player will need Battleships of his own to counter the enemy fleet and can't just make pd creep underwater in impunity, so it's a good way to add diversity to late gazme sea battles.

[noms]

^^ good points by pip. should be tested.

[Firestarter]

Imo, HARMS should be targettable by surface weapons but have more HP (not less), around 13500 (that's twice a Destroyer HP, it's fair enough for 3000 mass and the inability to move). It'll be much more vulnerable, because stealth won't work (it's a structure, once seen, it's on radar)and any naval unit would be able to damage it without having to use the ground attack trick.

Thus you can counter HARMS more easily with battleships and Cruisers (even some destroyers) but it will take time to kill them and meanwhile they can protect underwater space (repel t3 sub spam for instance). If you give less HP AND make it targettable by surface weapons, it'll be a total waste of mass.

Also, the Cybran player will need Battleships of his own to counter the enemy fleet and can't just make pd creep underwater in impunity, so it's a good way to add diversity to late gazme sea battles.

Yarg, nothing personal here but that particular suggestion sounds horrible. It's a torpedo 'ambusher' and Cybrans are not UEF. A little faction diversity is nice. I'd much prefer eliminating the groundfire tactic and reducing (even by a lot) their HP as it preserves their rather interesting role.

Besides, cybran battleships are already very good and well worth building due to their multirole and versatile nature. Must their only be one counter to any one situation?