Halve the Magpie reload

Honestly, the magpie isn't a bad plane. It can quickly arrive anywhere to kill a raiding raider, resists weak AA with hp and long attack range, can gang up on medium units and micro-tilt battles, but it has one HUGE flaw:

It clogs up airfields. Having 4 magpies is a logistical disaster, and I assume the relod costs a lot of energy too. Why not reduce the relod from 15s to 8s?

I have thought a bit more and I want to say this:

The purpose of magpies is, seemingly:
1) destroy raiders that get into friendly country
2) tilt small battles
3) gang up on vulnerable units like impalers/lances.

Magpies have a noticeable impact in early game, e.g. hitting a kodashi will halve its hp and send it running home, or they can tilt battles. However, magpies won't tilt all battles, i.e. vs swarmers they are a waste. Wouldn't it have been better to spend that metal on an extra kodachi of your own?

The answer then is, "well a plane can appear anywhere, anytime". A phoenix deals about as much damage of the magpie, with the bonus of killing swarmers. In fact, the range of targets for which to use a magpie against is limited. The argument then is, "a magpie can survive what a phoenix can't", and while true, the types of targets with AA escorting them are exactly those which magpie is useless against - i.e (shield)balls.

Very often, the temptation is to buy one more magpie. You just had a target you couldve killed with 1 more magpie. Blindly following this reasonable temptation - as it promises you the chance to kill impalers or lances, will lead to a rushed airfield. This is bad, as these resources could have been spent on 2 kodachis, and the builder someplace more urgent at this stage of the battle. Here is the weird situation where the unit best in the early game - magpie - gets as expensive as a phoenix. This is only the metal cost, though - remember that those 15s reloads cost a lot of energy - those 180 damage rockets are very cost ineffective. It would have been better to build 2 phoenixes and focus on econ instead of building that extra airfield to field more mags. Without an airfield you can have at most 2 magpies (each rotate in attack and reload), at which point you ask yourself "did I really go air just to micro 2 magpies?".

Debunking "surviveability" again: In the mid-late game, units get a lot more hp, and there are a lot more of them. Even a full magpie squadron (4 mags+1 airfield, 220*4 + 350 = 1230 cost) cannot deal enough chip-damage to justify their cost, the question then become "have the magpies killed enough to justify their cost?".

It seems then, that magpies were not made to kill raiders after all. We were all wrong. They exist for purpose 3). They are not for the early game, but for the early-mid game to punish unprotected lances (1000 metal, needs 3 magpies) and artilleries (700 metal, 2 mags), and exist exclusively for that role. But I want my magpies stronger! I demand MORE magpies!

.

TL;DR Scaling up magpies causes logistics issue and is micro intensive. To alleviate the logistics issue, you build airfields which could have been spent on building better units or eco. There is nothing that can help you against the energy-hungry reload.

.

What is the solution? Reducing reload is a good idea imo, it gives them more time for action and cheapens their energy usage, but airfields are still necessary unless the mags have a ludicriously low reload speed like 3 seconds.

1 unit for 1 singular purpose is kinda dumb, ""as stated in the cold takes"" magpie has more uses then only that but they are few and situational, but it can still have a place doing that + a little bit more. A lot of games hang in the balance of if ur enemy can make a singe razor or not, but magpies dont even need AA because u just can just make normal units and go forward like they dont exist

At the time of magpie's introduction lance was spammed pretty hard in teams, so a dedicated counter unit was considered and implemented. While other fragile but expensive units are valid magpie targets too, the main reason for its existence in its current state was to deal with lance. Magpie was first implemented back in November of last year (check the zkdev discord channel for more details) as a "light Likho attrition bomber" (though it was called penguin at first), and from the outset was more or less an anti-lance bomber (or more broadly, anything that had a hp:cost ratio close to 1:1) that was meant to fit the space between raven and likho.

Did you read anything in the last few post before yours? TheFlyingFortress

I didn't finish the post, i will do soon.

Magpies don't have to get as close as Ravens do.

I'm not sure if I agree with "post fusion reactor" midgame, at that point the enemy does often does have enough AA to kill 2 magpies. I think it's more like early-mid game, just when raider phase ends and some people rush lance.

I have tried magpies vs lances and arties; and yes they are very good. A raven needs to get much closer and is also much slower, so those ALWAYS end up killed. I estimate a raven stays 3x as long within the range of AA as a magpie. This extra time also gives response time for enemy swifts to chase after them. Ravens should be buffed a bit imo