ASF Balance

[KD7BCH]

ASF BALANCE DISCUSSION/CHANGES

Since we are going to do a balance patch and air is part of balance I wanted to discuss ASF balance since this unit is sort of a fulcrum for all of the other air units in the game.

ASF Balance or Rebalance Goals

1. Maintain Primary counter as the Air Dominance Fighter against all other air threats or targets, to include T1/T2 and other T3 units, and Air EXPs, if it flys the ASF should be the best unit to shoot it out of the sky with.

2. Reduce ASF swarming which effectively creates a no fly zone over an area, and which should only be effectively possible with a combination of SAMs/AAA and shields.

3. Reduce ASF effectiveness against slower moving air by buffing those air units or re-tiering them.

4. Combine these changes with the T2 FB changes under balance testing currently.

Problems in the air game.
At present we see swarms of ASFs in most games that make it to T3 era on the maps sized typically 10x10 and larger. While the swarms themselves are not really a problem, trying to fly anything into this swarm, even other ASFs is deadly.

After about 3-4 minutes of building ASFs in early T3 you have enough of an ASF swarm to do the following.

T2 FBs intercepted by the ASF before making their first pass and will be wiped out.

T2 gunships are completely wiped out by ASFs.

T2 Transports are completely wiped out by ASFs

ASF presence in the skies Immediately make T3 Strats more effective than T2 FBs, since they fly faster and are more durable. Assuming the same radar coverage and response time of the player directing ASFs for interception, T3 STRATS will take fewer hits from ASFs than T2 FBs on their way to the target, as they move faster, T3 Strats are more durable as well requiring 10 hits to kill a STRAT and only 4 hits to kill a T2FB. It is necessary to maintain ASFs as a dominant air fighting force. Note: We have largely solved the problem of ineffective T2 FBs by increasing their speed in the other balance thread

ASF Changes

Increase ASF Mass cost per unit from 350 by 150 = 500 This is a 30% increase which should mean a 30% reduction in the swarm of ASFs.
Note: In the other thread we are also adding additional A<>A Damage buffs to the T2 FBs, assuming sides of the air game build T2 FBs they will have a credible DPS rate to offset the majority of the 30% loss in ASF fighter strength.

ASF speed reduction by 1-2, this will provide slightly more time for other air units to get to a target and inflict damage. ASFs are substantially faster than any other air unit, except for T3 scouts, of which they are lethal against when scouts enter the ASF swarms. ASF speed does not keep them more survivable against SAMs and will have minimal if any effect on their survivability inside enemy SAM ranges.

Additional Suggested Changes

T2 FBs changes covered in detail in other thread

T3 Gunships no changes at this time. T3 gunships continue to be a decent alternative for local defense or fulcrum utility uses like against navy or a drop. An hp buff is being considered since AAA is still massively deadly to these and swarms of ASFs are pretty effective against T3 Gunships which are perhaps one of the better counters to SACUs.

T2 Gunships No Changes at this time. They continue to be a credible DPS inflicting unit for use against EXPs or against enemy ground incursions. They are not nor will they ever be a strike bomber type unit or a replacement for strike bombers. They are also a poor ACU assassination strike unit and will continue to be poor in that role.

T1/T2 Transports Move SERA/AEON/CYBRANT1 and T2 Transports to T2 and T3. Keep UEF T1 Transports in T1, and UEF T2 and T3 Transports where they are. We also want to buff transports hp to provide for a substantially better survival rate on the first landing. Right now ASFs completely wipe out transports in mid to late t3. The only Transports you can really get with much success are UEF T3 Transports and even those have a less than 25% survival rate when there are ASF swarms. If you give 75% of all of the mass of the transport and cargo and land 25% of the fighting force, and you lose, you effectively hand off 100% of the mass to the enemy, so they aren't viable. Making them even a bit more survivable so more get to the target and more drop, will make them double effective and that will either double the length of time they are effective or at the very least make them an option that they are not right now.

The UEF have always has a transport for all tiers, and a ghetto gunship, while the Cybran have also had a ghetto they have a T1 gunship, so the only races which lose strategic flexibility are the SERA and AEON if they using T1 transports as ghetto gunships. If this is an acceptable trade-off for more effective landings in T2 and T3 the community will have to decide.

[KD7BCH]

So you don't think the fact that nobody builds T2 FBs instead of Strats for more than 5 minutes is a problem, or that their flying speed is so much slower than ASFs that this is an issue,
Or the fact that only ASFs can only effectively be countered by ASFs,
Or that players rush single strats early instead of FBs because a handful of FBs are wasted by even a single, double or triple ASF.
Or that players don't do drops in T3 because they have about a 10% rate of getting to a landing zone and you can spend 20k mass and loose 18k of it with only 2k of it making it to a target because of ASF superiority?

I disagree with your assessment that these are not problems and these above reasons are why. I also can't point to any other unit in the game which can't be countered by at least one or two other units, ASFS are at the top of the chain but there is no reason for that.


T2 FBs in stock are easy to kill with 2 or 3 ASFS before they get a pass at anything when you have an OMNI. Should not be so.

Transports should not be a complete waste of mass ever, they should be effective, they are effective before ASF show up and they should continue to be effective just not as effective. If it costs you more than it costs the enemy in lost assets then you should not use the method, however it should be viable. With enough transports you can get a survival rate which makes sense. However it should not be 2-5X the cost of the same number of ASFs. Please note we are talking about sending air fighters with ASFs with transports not just transports on their own, they still die in much greater quantity with ASFs as powerful as they are without ever making a drop.

[KD7BCH]

If you have spent the Mass to get T3 air and the T3 bomber is more effective than the T2 version (hmmm makes sense) why the hell wouldn't you build the T3 bomber.

Saying that ASF should be less effective against transports is like saying that Bricks shouldn't massacre T1 land scouts.

If you invest 20,000 mass into drops when you don't have air superiority you might just be the biggest dumbass on FAF xD
To put this into perspective, you are essentially saying that if North Korea loaded up all of its troops into big, slow transport helicopters and tried to land them all in China and some natural law should say that Chinese fighters should only shoot down X% when in reality (and as it should be) every single North Korean would die horribly.

Can you please explain why you think that drops should be a good idea when the enemy team has air control? What is the point of building air if you know transports will get through anyways. Your suggestion makes no sense.

Let me ask you this, when can you use transports effectively? What conditions need to exist to get a 50% or better, survival rate , to first drop on transports?

[KD7BCH]

If you have spent the Mass to get T3 air and the T3 bomber is more effective than the T2 version (hmmm makes sense) why the hell wouldn't you build the T3 bomber.

T2 FBs are effective for about 5 minutes in the game because prior to this time you can't afford to build them, and after this time ASFs show up to counter other ASFs, and T3 STRATs which is the unit which is equally effective against T2 MEXEs but both faster and more durable against AFSs which are coming into play at about the say time.

If your option is T3 ASFs, T3 Strat rush, or T2 FBs, without ASFs, nobody takes the T2 FB route because they are can't defend ground against Strats, can't defend in the air against ASFs and they can't complete their mission of ground pound against ASFs. If your opponent picks either T3 Strats, or T3 ASFs then you are screwed either way if you go T2 FBs in stock. Which is why nobody does in stock. It has nothing to do with Mass.

We have largely solved this problem by making FBs more viable, flying faster.

[Ionic]

Lets sum this thread up, map control will be decided with only T2 air. Here is the logic:

T3 Strats are a problem, let's make T2 bombers a problem too. But they will be able to kill T3 Strats so it will be fine.

ASF are so fast that transports don't land, let's make transports superfast with more HP and they can't be shot while landed.

[KD7BCH]

Lets sum this thread up, map control will be decided with only T2 air. Here is the logic:

T3 Strats are a problem, let's make T2 bombers a problem too. But they will be able to kill T3 Strats so it will be fine.

ASF are so fast that transports don't land, let's make transports superfast with more HP and they can't be shot while landed.

I will refer to the guidelines of balance here... viewtopic.php?f=67&t=10272

[KD7BCH]

I will give you a list!

-When the air player is still trying to get T3 air
-When you have stealth
-When you have air control
-When enemy air is out of position

You get the idea.

I do so as long as it isn't in T3,
as long as you have stealth,
as long as you have air control,
and as long as the enemy is out of position, then an only then do you have a chance of expecting a survival rate of 50% or better on the first drop.

I regard that as a problem for Air, I believe Korbah will back that assessment. There may be others as well. Whenever a unit becomes pointless to build because building anything else is more effective then it has lost it's utility and bringing those units back on the table is why we have a balance discussion. Please continue to make your arguments on the first page of the thread as to why I have it all wrong though so we can work through them one by one by one.

[KD7BCH]

People do take the T2 FB strategy, and it works too. I can recall at least 4 games where I have played Seton's where entire teams have died to Corsairs at minute 8... In normal team games people use T2 air for snipes ALL THE TIME, literally almost every wonder game someone dies to T2 air! Also your "5 minutes" deal is just dumb, minimum time for ASF is about 9:00, and that is on a map with tons of tree reclaim. On most teamgame maps it is slower because you can't pay for 1/3 of RAS with trees.

Five minutes is about the length of time players can expect FBs to be effective into T3 where ASFs begin to dominate. This is again why players rush right to strats. There are of course always exceptions to the general play however counting times where a player didn't have an ACU shielded or build radars or any AAA or the air player didn't build ASFs until minute 25, are hardly good examples of the general flow of the game.

[ZenTractor]

I'm no expert player by any means, but watching a lot of games gas given me a few observations.

In the tech 1 phase, it's still worthwhile building T1 bombers when your opponent has air control with T1 interceptors. You might pick off an engineer or a radar or some other valuable unit and then the bomber is worthwhile. Sure, chances are it dies immediately, but you've still gotten value. Furthermore, you can use the bomber far away from where those interceptors are parked, or send two in different directions, and your opponent has to either chase down one at a time or split his air and leave himself vulnerable to an air fight.

This doesn't seem to play out the same way at the T3 stage. I think this is primarily due to the speed which ASF fly at. You can easily cross most of the map in a moment, and their damage is so high, which makes it relatively easy to defend with ASF, even against multiple air threats. Perhaps ASF simply fly too fast?


Another difference between T1 and T3 air is that interceptors are limited by fuel, whereas ASF kinda just aren't. Interceptors have 5 minutes of fuel, and recharge in 10 minutes. ASF have 16 minutes, 40 seconds of fuel, and recharge in 11:06. This means that interceptors have a sort of 'life expectancy' that limits how long they'll remain effective combat units but ASF don't really have any such concern.

I have heard talk that fuel is simply an un-fun limitation, and hence it could be that interceptors only get away with having it because they become obsolete anyway after a few minutes once flack and ASF hit the field.


So I guess my points are:
- What would be the impact on transports/defence/gunships if ASF were globally slowed?
- Could we use fuel as a limiting factor, or is that boring?

And an off-the-wall suggestion: How about retweaking fuel so that it's more of an 'afterburners' sort of thing. Give air units a very small amount of fuel, but make the penalty for being out of fuel also pretty minor. Something like a 10%-15% slow with no penalty to turn speed. This would let them cross the map in one direction, but not get back again immediately.

[Korbah]

Asf need very little tweaks themselves :
- higher mass costs (eventual amount to be determined by testing)
- a reasonable fuel timer of say 8-10 minutes instead of 16 (thus not being irritating but making refuelling actually relevant in t3)
- possibly a small speed nerf.



The key is to change the environment around asf such that they're pressured to do more with less (lower numbers due to mass cost - currently +150 mass in my air leverage mod).

By adjusting the potency of t2 air threats and the frequency of air drops; asf blobs will have to be divided to patrol a wider area with fewer numbers (mass nerf). They'll still be excellent units, the supreme air counter, they'll just be expected to have to defend against more each game.