Rebalancing air, logically.

[pip]

but it's actually better to pack them when facing any other kind of AA unit that has not AOE at all, because the whole flying units will protect each other and increase the survivability (?) of the whole pack.

I disagree with this statement and would like you to prove it.

I rewatched the replay where I noticed this, but it's more a problem of retargetting different units when the aircrafts move away than a problem of overlapping units protecting the others (in case of homing missiles). Still a small AOE would help deal with ASF swarms (I mean, the kind of swarms we see in Seton games).

But to be honest, not enough balance testing games have been played with nerfed ASF to check if the HP nerf is actually enough to reduce their stacking or not.

[Sunny]

1. Strategic bombers are used in game like real strategic bombers. Main purpose of such a thing - suicide missions, attacking valuable target. Dont confuse them with any sort of gunship.
2. They are already was buffed giving more HP and less damage per drop. This made them like 2x more effective in anything but killing t4. This did not make them much more effective vs ASFs. Common knowledge also is that in game HP is better, than DPS for attack units as, this make possible more micro (remember Warcraft 3 HP/dps ratios for a good example of micro-oriented game).
3. Giving more AoE makes any unit much better. This is because area is product of measures ~ square of measures and any location inside gets damage. We all know, Cybran t3 arty is good. If you'll look to units db, you'll se less dps on paper. But the splash... I think that intersections of AeOs and shields are not always properly calculated too.
4. Air is always concentrated and flies fast.
5. I discussed t3 SAMs and never menitioned navy.

Huge (for real) AeO with 1/3-1/2 hp and <= 1000 damage would do for me.

[rootbeer23]

1. Strategic bombers are used in game like real strategic bombers. Main purpose of such a thing - suicide missions, attacking valuable target. Dont confuse them with any sort of gunship.

if the way things work in reality should really matter much in supreme commander - you would still need a history
lesson.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_bombing

2. They are already was buffed giving more HP and less damage per drop. This made them like 2x more effective in anything but killing t4. This did not make them much more effective vs ASFs. Common knowledge also is that in game HP is better, than DPS for attack units as, this make possible more micro (remember Warcraft 3 HP/dps ratios for a good example of micro-oriented game).

increase HP by 1 and decrease dps by 50% and you get a unit that is 2x as effective?

3. Giving more AoE makes any unit much better. This is because area is product of measures ~ square of measures and any location inside gets damage. We all know, Cybran t3 arty is good. If you'll look to units db, you'll se less dps on paper. But the splash... I think that intersections of AeOs and shields are not always properly calculated too.

you can increase the radius by the square root of a number.

[uberge3k]

Main post updated with plans for the next phase of testing.

(I'm not bothering to post it in the thread since it has evidently been derailed once again. Protip: if you want your ideas taken seriously, test them and supply the replays.)

[Sunny]

if the way things work in reality should really matter much in supreme commander - you would still need a history
lesson.

I have no interest in continuing any discussion, including arguments ad person. For ones, who think this way is any productive, I suggest to continue it with someone with similar interests and goals on their own level.
On the point itself. T3 bombers in supcom are nuclear. Terror bombing is absolutely another concept, having the same relation to t1 bombers, t2 bombers and gunships as well. If you like the word, you might disagree.

you can increase the radius by the square root of a number.

I pointed it out, so that the others took it into account.

The main point, to improve it's chances to be actually read.

...hard counter that cannot move should be much more effective economically than some air almost teleporting mapcontrolling blob, mb you'll find interesting idea that air is not going to target AAs themselves too.
So their immence HP is no more, than decoration while they cannot kill air faster than air killz antinuke, comm, nuke, omni (under shields)...

[FunkOff]

TEST 2: T1 Bombers vs T1 AA

Seems odd to test this. T1 bombers vs T1 AA towers see fine, particularly given that T1 mobile AA is also effective. No change needed.

TEST 3: Strategic Bombers vs Cruisers.

Strat bombers lose vs cruisers, which is the expected result. I bet this result would be amplified if the cruisers had shield or stealth support. No change needed.

TEST 4: Cruisers vs T2 Gunships.

The result here is expected. It's not unreasonable for gunships to kill unsupported cruisers. Cruisers can still with with stealth, shields, or micro. And then there's also T1 interceptors and hover flak. No change needed.

TEST 5: T3 Gunships vs Cruisers.

The primary advantage of T3 gunships vs T2 is the increased resistance to flak. In scenarios without flak, T2 gunships perform better. No change needed.

Test 6: Cruisers vs Torpedo Bombers.

Cruisers without shield or stealth again? Of course they lose without support. No change needed.

- There's no way to kill the torps before they drop their payload.

Have you tried Interceptors/ASFs?

Phase One unveiled a few small flaws with the current air balance, primarily with gunships being slightly too effective at killing navy and strats being slightly too ineffective in their role.

I don't believe your results support either of those statements, nor the existence of any air balance flaw.

That said, keep testing. This is good stuff.

[pip]

I think any game you will play where a team notices a side is not building any serious air force or navy, etc will not prove anything because the team that notices this will, and should, abuse that intel to win the game. One team will have to counter air and land for instance, when the other will figure out they have nothing to fear from air, thus saving a lot of ressources.

It's not realistic testing, it's artificial testing.

What you should do is emphasize strategies, without any build restrictions, but with a plan "focus on land" without excluding the use of t3 air units for instance, at least just to mimick a normal game. And the other team should not know the strat in advance, and should not be able to figure it out easily. For instance, you can build a few ASF to make believe the other team you will use them normally (= mass production), and actually mostly use spy planes, t3 engies and build SAMs instead,or actually focusing production on something else.
In short, radically planning to not use a part of the units cannot prove anything convincingly if the other team is not stupid and scouts.

[Sunny]

In short, radically planning to not use a part of the units cannot prove anything convincingly if the other team is not stupid and scouts.

Artificial testing is the only way to actually go, no matter has it flaws or not.

[JaguarX57]

Does anyone else feel that Cybran ASF are an ineffective blob against any other factions ASF blob of an equal number? Say 50 vs 50.
I feel that their missile velocity doesn't allow them to be as effective as the other factions when in combat.
(It takes the missiles too long to hit when chasing their targets.)

The other ASFs deal nearly instant damage, Cybran ASFs do not. the long run they are killed before shooting again and once the numbers are unbalanced, the disadvantaged ASF Blob's numbers decrease exponentially

I feel this is also true of the Cybran cruiser as well. Seems like its missiles have to "rev up" before pursuing their targets.

> I think increasing the missile velocity alone would be effective in solving this issue.

> And on a second note, How does adding flak to Carrier AA sound? At least for those factions without the luxury of floating AA OR shields..

[ZLO_RD]

i have never tried to calculate such things, because i am not using tanks against pd's, or bombers against aa turrets, i am trying to play methodicaly taking advantage on enemy (usually by taking map control or massing usefull imba units like t3 artys)
Using t1 bombers is harder cause you will suffer from t1 mobile and stationary antiair that can be build very fast on enemy base, so it is not worth to kill antiair on enemy base, but as far away from enemy ingineers as better it goes for bombers and it looks fine balanced in that situaion (excluding when t1 bomber from "second air build" kills 10 ingineers in one pass and able to fly away)
T3 bombers can be shot down only by t3 antiair or asf and that means you cannot protect a ground army outside of your base, but in real game both players are making t1 air and then if one of then see that other is going t3 he can make an all-in or start make t3 air by himself, and in that case one of them cannot make ton of strats...
Well, some games are going completly out of controll and strats can be very effective in this situations... So overall it looks like you cannot attack by ground without t3 air... And i actually do not like that, but it should lead to turtleling, making sam creep with sacu, t3 long range artys and nukes to be effective, to lead game in new part, but even after 2 hours of playing you probably still can use t1 ingeners to expand and t1 labs to deny expanding, thats why i like SC:FA