Navy Balance, Ground Fire, and Intel

[Spy_Emanciator]

Ok so yesterday I ninja built 3x t4 UEF subs and went up to 2 T4 aeon BS. Guess who won?

Mass cost: 22k per BS and 12k per t4 sub/carrier

so the field was 44k vs 36 k mass.

At the end one t4 bs was full health and the other was around 50% health.

Ground fire is ruining navy game. Its doing too much damage and should even be possible at all. Win sub game with subs, win surface with surface. I think a major overhaul is needed. Also it rewards ground firers for losing intel. They are prevented from setting up shots with intel, then are allowed to do crippling damage to submerged units (realistically he shots would bounce or explode on water contact). This is totally fucked, why prevent a shot at all based on increased awareness. Thats extremely stupid.

Please nerf the damage or remove vulnerability entirely. (add depth charges?)

[Ithilis_Quo]

Yes it is stupid..
Its same as deny tml by land AA, or wining air by t1 artilery...

so how to fix this -> copypast equilibrium code, that remove groundfire damage deeper as -1

https://github.com/Ithilis/Equilibrium/ ... 2d106e915e


After that tempest maybe will be good as sub as well...

[UnorthodoxBox]

The atlantis isnt meant to be a brawling unit that can go toe-to-toe with battleships. It is a support unit.

[Sprouto]

There is a method that could deal with this to some extent.

Submarines have an elevation value in their blueprint that controls their depth - generally this should be set to a value at least as great as the larger AOE range values on the surface ships. This method should work well, provided the water depth is generally reasonable (that's more a map thing).

Another issue should also be WaterVisionRadius, another blueprint value that controls just how well units can see underwater. It's not set in very many blueprints, which means it defaults to the normal surface vision radius, allowing ships on the surface to see underwater units just as clearly as if they were on land. While this doesn't affect sonar range, it does have a great negative impact on those submarines that have Sonar stealth, and would otherwise be able to close the range on targets without being detected.

[Little Miss Murder]

Traditionally the counter to subs is air and boats, not other subs - unless you're talking Tom Clancy style cat and mouse stuff, which doesn't feature in this game.

Your real problem is that you aren't microing your subs.

[Blodir]

The atlantis isnt meant to be a brawling unit that can go toe-to-toe with battleships. It is a support unit.

What exactly is the purpose of the atlantis?

[ZLO_RD]

ground fire should not damage subs? where does the line go? should cybran strats damage subs? static t2 t3 arty? ahwassa? Billy? nukes?
putting things deeper into the ocean sounds like an ideal solution.

[Plasma_Wolf]

So your subs, which are not designed for head-on naval combat, lost to two battleships that are designed for naval combat? No surprise there. Out of curiosity, how much did you move the atlantis during the battle? The tempest shot isn't that fast, but atlantis are slow as well. I wonder how many shots could've been avoided.

Now, for possible solutions: you had spent 36k mass, the opponent had 44k mass on the field. The difference is a little more than 6 shield boats. Those should make a massive difference, especially with basic micro so that not all shield boats lose their shields right after the first tempest shot.

As for the atlantis: it's 12k mass, the cheapest experimental in the game, in there is more AA DPS than that of 2 cruisers (which cost 4k mass total), at a range of 25 more than that of the cruiser. There is a torpedo weapon in it that has 20% more DPS than that of a Sera subhunter (3k mass), at 25 more range. Then comes the build power, which is 2x that of a T3 air factory (3000 mass if they're not HQ, which you don't have to build if you have an atlantis). Finally it has such a sonar range that only the Nuke Sub tactical missiles outrange them (i.e. unless stealth is involved you can always see the blips before they attack, even if your T3 sonar gets sniped).

Treat it as a utility unit, not as a combat unit. UEF has battleships and shield boats, at the developed T3 stage they eat everything for breakfast and then some.

Yes it is stupid..
Its same as deny tml by land AA, or wining air by t1 artilery...

so how to fix this -> copypast equilibrium code, that remove groundfire damage deeper as -1

https://github.com/Ithilis/Equilibrium/ ... 2d106e915e


After that tempest maybe will be good as sub as well...

Absolutely not. The lowering of the harms has made them already difficult to kill with high APM and precision on battleship ground fire. Removing ground fire altogether would make the deeper units and structures OP.

[Hildegard]

The atlantis isnt meant to be a brawling unit that can go toe-to-toe with battleships. It is a support unit.

What exactly is the purpose of the atlantis?

The purpose of the Atlanis, clearly, is to be built by a Setons front player who rolled UEF from random faction, and ended up in a situation where either or both of his naval side players needed help; and this front player, being short on notice, couldn't wait to accumulate sufficient BP to progress to relevant tech levels through a naval factory (or that opportunity was already denied by harrowing enemy frigates), and opportunely discerned the attacking enemy navy was a Seraphim navy locked yet in T2 stage, or a UEF navy without coopers, and quickly built an Atlantis off the cliff-side to provide, although a mass-inefficient solution, as competent an assistance as could be conceived of against a low-torpedo DPS&defense enemy navy.

Simple!

Besides this realistic setting, in which I have, in a real game, with great success utilized the Atlantis as an offensive navy combat unit (in precisely 1 game in 1009 Seton's games) it's purpose is to cause grievous mental confusion to the FAF public trying to figure out what is its purpose.

[Spy_Emanciator]

SpY: current balance is wrong
others: here is what the balance is

I understand current system, i'm asserting that its wrong. If you can lead, then shooting into packs of subs is easy because its doing massive splash damage to submerged units. no consideration of the effect of shells landing on surface? no consideration of the surface reducing the effects of splash? this is novice sim work at best, and a troll to naval simulation at worst.

Please reconsider the balances of submerged harms and sub units so they are not op, not make them vulnerable to some archaic system of gaining view, losing view then ground firing, or in moving cases just leading. Chances of shells maintaining the same course after impact is almost zero, so model this if your doing kinetic modeling, but if its HE That baby is lighting up on surface. Subs can shoot torps easy from depth and have no reason to surface around destroyers with deck guns.

if someone masses subs, match them, or torp them from planes. Subs should be able to walk all the way across the water while providing zero support to land or air like they used to be. Someone got killjoy wiping the floor with t3 and t2 packs of subs with that t4 bs and the game got modeled around it. Not realistic, not fun, not fair per mass effectiveness. FIx.