Some Balance Suggestions

[JoonasTo]

Seraphim economic/factory building specialty
I'm not quite sure what we could do to justify Seraphim not getting the same hitpoints as UEF. Regen, Extra HP and Vision are all defensive boons with no upkeep. As such I am hesitant to give them anything that isn't defensive and upkeep free.

The extra mass storage was just one idea and since only factories and mass storages store mass, it's not really all that good of an idea either. Not to mention it's an economic boon, not defensive.

Radar, stealth, cloak, omni, sonar, etc. all have upkeep on buildings with those abilities. Having one of those free would break the uniformity. If we're not concerned about that the Seraphim did have jamming crystals in the campaigns so jamming would be a fitting defensive boon lore wise.

Aeon Commander Shield
Currently Aeon Gun+Shield Commander ties with a cheaper UEF Gun+Nano Commander and loses to the more expensive Seraphim Gun+Nano Commander. As long as we keep that situation as is I don't think there should be any issues with it.

However, if we want to change it's role from a combat shield to a hit'n'run shield, that could be achieved with giving it a high regen rate(as shields don't regen in combat) while reducing it's hitpoints. Cut down the hitpoints to 3-5k from 8 and increase the regen from 30 to 50-80. This way the commander getting caught in a prolonged fight suffers a heavy penalty but a commander kiting away from the enemy army benefits greatly compared to the current situation. Then the recharge time(which does reload in combat) could be adjusted depending on how badly we want the aeon player to be punished for getting caught in that melee.

Regarding T1 Bombers and Interceptors
They're just way too expensive right now to fit their tier slot, not weak. While it seems quite the same thing it's not. A single T1 bomber left alone can eradicate whole expansions without AA or multiple T1 factories. Three to four of them can wipe out bases with static T1 AA in the time it takes for inties to arrive there. But while their middle/late game potential is there, an early bomber is almost always a death wish because of the costs associated with it. This needs to be changed but I don't yet know how it would best be done without returning the first bomber opening to it's former glory(as that seems to be taboo.)
This shouldn't stop us from making the interceptors capable of doing their job properly. When the bomber physics were changed nothing was done to the interceptor to match the improved capabilities of the bomber and now without micro, an interceptor flying to defend against a bomber will not kill it before two(sometimes three) more bombs have been dropped(after the first shot from the interceptor has been fired.) An undefended and nonmicroed bomber in enemy airspace shouldn't be allowed to continue to stay effective to such an extent, regardless of it's cost.

Regarding T2 Tech
Currently T2 Air factory/T2 commander is the only real tech route(as it's almost half as cheap as T2 land and over half as cheap as T2 naval) to T2 power which is the stepping stone to a whole lot of other things. T2 commander suit is hardlocked for Cybran behind gun and for aeon behind gun range. Quite a lot of maps also soft lock the T2 power from commander's suit due to commander placement at the front line. Naturally this leads to T2 air factory being the choice on most maps and in most situations.

Considering the costs associated with producing T2 navy it's never going to be a viable route to T2 tech but T2 land should be. It should also go without saying that having T2 Flak be much more inaccessible compared to T2 bombers(and gunships) is bad for balance.

Decreasing the cost difference between air and land T2 HQ can be done in at least three ways. First, we simply decrease the cost of T2 Land HQ, this has the problem of buffing all T2 land rushes so it should only be done in moderation. Second, we increase the cost of T2 Air HQ, this can be separated into direct cost increase and indirect cost increase. Direct cost increase is simple, we just increase the mass, energy and buildtime X%. Indirect cost increase we increase the amount of energy required independently of the mass cost(and build time,) this way the upgrade will require more infrastructure to support it and rushing it with engineers without adjacency bonuses becomes more difficult as well.
I'd recommend we drop the T2 Land HQ price a little, to around 1300 mass and increase the energy cost of the T2 Air HQ to match the T3 Air HQ relative energy cost, that would make it 20,4k energy instead of the 14,4k energy we currently have.

Regarding Flak
I never had a problem with my flak running into the enemy, ever. If assist command(bugged as it may be) and attack move which pauses if it's about to run into an enemy army on top of command groups are not enough then I can only suggest setting up a hotkey for selecting all army on screen without Flak and one for all Flak on screen.

What does pain me a whole lot more is inability to have anti-air with my raiding forces. My main army and/or base is almost always protected by my own air force so the most use for flak I have is for securing my commander and raiding forces. As it is now, the flak is completely incapable of defending the raiding units because it's simply too slow to keep up with them(loyas, harbs, hover tanks.) We shouldn't deny capable players possibilities because other people are incapable of not suiciding their units.

The other issue is Flak's poor reliability. If it's not on direct path of the target unit, or if the target unit is flying away from it, it can't be trusted to hit consistently. The changes with muzzle velocity are not intended to change the current balance between Flak and T1/T2 air in any way. That is why the stats have to be adjusted accordingly if it's tested to have improved the Flaks' performance too much. The aim is to have a consistent result regardless of the situation, not switch balance.
This would improve large flak formations(10+ Flak) vs ASF, Spy planes, Scout Planes, Swift Winds and Strats as they could be expected to hit most of the time. In the current balance 10 Flaks can kill a Strat formation flying over them if they're lucky and not do any damage if they're unlucky. The aim would be to have it always do considerable damage(30-50%) but never kill.

Wagners
Currently all T2 amphibious tanks are limited to raiding on any map with sufficiently large ocean for naval micro. Wagners, already being harder to kill than other faction's hovering units, and thus being better at it(not to mention stealthier,) have gained an even larger advantage as they are not slowed in the sea, unlike their counterparts. This would just bring them back into balance in that role. As Cybran already have a great frigate and a good sub I don't think there's any reason for them to have such an unmatched raiding tank too. They'd still be excellent and the best raiding tank, just not by that much of a wide margin.
And let's not forget, Wagners beat walled T1 PDs 1vs1 without any issues while the others struggle. So killing them before they get to the beach is a higher priority.

PS. Zthuue is too strong of an unique tool. Jester and Aurora(in hover concept) do not come near the strength of Zthuue.

@Strat cost:
I'll link my other post from earlier thread here in a moment

Spoiler: show

For example, the strat bomber energy cost increase.

100k to 144k energy(NEARLY SAME AS RAS!), or 44% increase was, and is, NOT an acceptable solution to the problem of rushing strat bombers on t2 power income. We don't have strat rushes on t2 power anymore, AT ALL.This is not the point of balancing and improving the game, I'm sure we can all agree that the point is to have more meaningful choices.

The problem here was that the strat rush, while still having decently high risk, had game-breaking reward. The whole enemy team's powergrid was wiped and it was over. Just from one player risking their game for it this was obviously not balanced. But like with the hover, this one was an over-reaction as well. It led to the strategy completely disappearing from the game. And that was not it's only consequence. Once again there was a ripple effect to something else.

I'd like to talk about the airlock situation now. You manage to rush t3 air before your opponent and gather an asf force large enough to wipe out any opposing inties, and the few asf your enemy possibly has out. You manage to camp his air factory and force him to build sams. Now you wish to take advantage of your well-executed, high-risk, strategy, that you either sacrificed a teammate or your eco for.

What do you gain? You gain safety to your remaining teammates from air snipes and practically unlimited scouting, barring any aeon cruisers or sera sams. What else? You wish to build strats of course. Now you go and queue up your two strats for harassing. This means sacrificing even more of your eco AND risking your air control due to allowing your enemy to catch up. In the old 100k strat balance, this meant 4 asf(roll-off time reduces the 5,0 to 4) and 3 t2 mex. But with your early advantage in ASF and the damage you expect the strats to inflict this is OK.

Now with the 144k strat balance the exchange for 2 strats is 7 asf(7,2 minus roll-off time) and the same 3 t2 mex. Now early game airlock is usually 5-10 asf. It is obvious that the enemy having 7 allows him to contest your air-superiority(especially in his territory with radar!) and definitely allows him to shoot down your strats with relative ease. Suddenly the option of going strats for harassing isn't at all attractive. Unlimited scouting is very nice but teammates can be secured from airsnipes with inties, and especially swifties, as well. Sacrificing eco and going for an airlock is also less attractive as a result, especially as aeon.

So the end result was:
1. Eliminating a strategy completely, simplifying the game, reducing depth
2. Reducing the possible reward for an advanced, already risky strategy, making it less favourable, again, reducing meaningful choices and depth.
3. As a result of the two above, ecoing up and defending was once again made stronger.

This time the first was caused by the overreaction to the problem(44% increase.)
The second was also caused directly by the cost increase, but in a different situation than intended. Again, the bigger picture.
This time also the third result was unwanted, as it lead to a more static game, instead of a dynamic one.

There's also a fourth, more hidden result.
4. It buffed all land experimentals, and to lesser extent, navy

This is due to the increasing the cost of countering them with strats, the only flying normal(not experimental) unit that can deliver some form of DPS while the experimental is being guarded by masses of T2 MAA or some amount of T3 MAA.

[Lieutenant Lich]

very rarely you see attempted strat snipes on acu's because it is a very big gamble.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ztVMib1T4T4

[Farmsletje]

This entire discussion was about the early t3 air stage. Do you try to snipe people with your first strat? No, you go after eco and other important buildings.

Genius

[Lieutenant Lich]

I'd rather not touch the buildings except maybe give sera a but more HP or just revert the HP changes altogether, along with the regen.

In what universe would an aeon guncom with shield lsoe to UEF nano guncom? He just kites and the UEF has to either retreat or die!

Inties are good but they won't catch the bomber before it drops unless it flies right into them or unless you have it scouted.

Lowering HQ costs is indeed a good idea because UEF and Seraphim's best counters to Auroras are at t2 (Pillar + shield, Mongoose + radar + micro, Yenzynes, Ilshies). I wouldn't touch the t2 air HQ since in the current balance, t2 F/B will get killed by an equal mass worth of inties and a couple mobile flaks coupled with shields or an interceptor force nullify their use.

Spoiler: show

#buffFighterBomber'sAA - THEN you can talk about T2 air HQ cost increase

Why does everyone want to buff flak vs. t3? T3 is made to be fast, so fast it can avoid the slow flak shells. Also, swarms of inties have been known to kill lose ASFs or strats quite well.

Spoiler: show

If you say "well, my enemy rushed t3 air and I am still at t1 air and t2 land, bla bla bla" - well, if you have 1/2 the map, you MUST have something in return. So your enemy invests 11-12k mass into t2 air, 2 t2 pgens, t3 air, t3 pgen, scout and strat (the figure is ~8k if it's just t3 air, pgen and strat) and you have not killed his expansions and/or sniped his power?
Lol you screwed up a LOOOT earlier. If the issue arises on Setons... Well, that's a BO issue and just because it occurs on Setons doesn't mean that it occurs everywhere.

If the Seraphim lose their Zthuue's advantage, the faction might as well be removed. The fobo is their ace, one of the few REAL aces they have. It already has the cost of a t1 tank and it's not that fast, what more do you want? Want it to be as situational as Titan?

As for the strat, the buff is a good idea except I'd go as far as restoring their cost to what it was before last summer's shitty patch

[Farmsletje]

In what universe would an aeon guncom with shield lsoe to UEF nano guncom? He just kites and the UEF has to either retreat or die!

In almost every universe in which i've faced an aeon guncom with shield. So in around 50-100 universes i guess.

If the Seraphim lose their Zthuue's advantage, the faction might as well be removed. The fobo is their ace, one of the few REAL aces they have. It already has the cost of a t1 tank and it's not that fast, what more do you want? Want it to be as situational as Titan?

Yeah i agree. Lowering fobo speed on the water will make sera a useless faction. It's not like anyone ever played as them on a land map!