Fixing ASF lag/swarm.

[Badsearcher]

I don't deny that it's a buff, make the SAMS target in a rational manner and nerf them in some other way if you have to.

[Badsearcher]

Just remember one thing about giving SAM's rational targetting. It's only a buff against multiple units. It will not increase the effectiveness of SAM's against high hitpoint flying T4 units. If you nerf the SAM's in some way, you are diminishing the usefulness of fixed assets against T4 units.

Also, it might be too much to ask for (because I'm guessing a script doesn't exist for this), but it would be really great if there was an option for AA on what units to prioritize. Too often I see people fly their ASF over a base ahead of bombers or t4's in order to waste the AA's time on units which aren't a direct ground threat while distracting AA from the bombers or T4.

In the case of T4, it's relatively easy to micro against, cause you have fewer targets to pick from, but in the case of 15 or more fast moving strat bombers, flying through a crowded sky, it's a lot more cumbersome to micro.

[Sunny]

Well, I don't even know what surprise me more.

That people defende some completely random balance as The Given By God, or that I even post on these forums, seeing it.

The situation with SAMs being this ineffective was never supposed to be, the gameplay was just unintendedly broken during air units HP rebalance (alot of people was defending low air HP as Given By God too).

Now we need to rebalance T3 SAMs so that they would kill T3 bombers and ASFs as they used to do. That's all.
Currently, T2 flaks do better in big numbers for mass, which is ridiculous.

Once again, current balance was never specifically designed and is completely random.

[Badsearcher]

Personally, I don't think it's unreasonable to be able to, with enough investment, create a de facto no fly zone of t3 units with fixed assets. An in depth strategy game should be about observing your opponent's weaknesses and then figuring out what combination of combined arms is best for defeating your opponent all the while making sure that you don't get your weaknesses exploited as well.

Is that so much to ask for?

A game that is more than just one type of spam but combined arms, is that so much to ask for?

[uberge3k]

ubergeek, do you have any line for what might constitute something being overpowered?

Or is there no such thing as overpowered in your book?

http://www.sirlin.net/ptw-book/how-far- ... o-win.html

If you are truly interested in playing any game at a high level, reading the entire book is well worth the 30 minutes. It opened my eyes to quite a few concepts that I hadn't fully realized when I first did so.

So I ask you again, is there such a thing as overpowered?

Of course there is. But I am speaking of FA, not DoW, and thus would prefer to compare apples with apples in the interest of scientifically plausible, fruitful debate.

Personally, I don't think it's unreasonable to be able to, with enough investment, create a de facto no fly zone of t3 units with fixed assets. An in depth strategy game should be about observing your opponent's weaknesses and then figuring out what combination of combined arms is best for defeating your opponent all the while making sure that you don't get your weaknesses exploited as well.

Is that so much to ask for?

A game that is more than just one type of spam but combined arms, is that so much to ask for?

You just described pretty much every game of FA that I've played.

There is no one single type of unit that can be spammed in order to win the game. In fact, following your logic, ASF are no different than T3 tanks: once you reach the highest tier, there is only one unit in each role to choose from.

Does anyone complain that you cannot create a de facto "no drive" zone of T3 land units? PDs are horribly inefficient, and their inefficiency is integral to the balance of the game. Turtling must always be less efficient than attacking.

[AwarE]

I like the idea of a fuel neft for aircraft something like ...T1 stay the same, T2 twice as much and T3 gets three times fuel...by this I mean something easy that you can judge in game. While air staging is being built players will have more time to counter an air threat.
At the same time someone needs to come up with a calc that takes into account the amount of fuel you are carrying and the type of weapon you carry[bombs] and give a proportional death explosion effecting adjacent friendly units.
This may solve both the asf spam/lag and T3 grouped strat bomber snipes.

roj

[Sunny]

Turtling must always be less efficient than attacking.

This is supposed to be implemented through map control, and it is. Turtling IS supposed to be more effective locally.
Attacking is never supposed to beat turtling mass for mass, or you can say goodbye to any tactics. Well, that's what we have now.

[Badsearcher]

"Attacking is never supposed to beat turtling mass for mass"

Exactly right.

When you buy a t2 pd, as long as their target is within range, it should be able to destroy more than its own worth in energy and mass because the opportunity cost is in its total immobility.

[Eukanuba]

Would there be a case for taking the T3 mobile AA from BlackOps and making them official units?

[ColonelSheppard]

Would there be a case for taking the T3 mobile AA from BlackOps and making them official units?

Nomads have T3 Mobile AA, and it's already proven effective vs. T3 Air, but it's their specific factional advantage, it should not be ported fo other factions, thats like giving Cybran mobile shields and Aeon mobile stealth