| 1 |
[q]Air should be, following the theme of the game:
|
1 |
[q]Air should be, following the theme of the game:
|
| 2 |
1. Ground factories fight air units with tactics of maneuver and fire control not preparation of hard counter units[/q]
|
2 |
1. Ground factories fight air units with tactics of maneuver and fire control not preparation of hard counter units[/q]
|
| 3 |
* Maneuvering is already important for ground units against air units. If you can control your Glaives such that one dies per Likho shot, then you're dealing massive efficiency damage to the Likho.
|
3 |
* Maneuvering is already important for ground units against air units. If you can control your Glaives such that one dies per Likho shot, then you're dealing massive efficiency damage to the Likho.
|
| 4 |
* What do you mean by fire control? Hold fire, targeting? As I said above, I don't see requiring players to click on enemy air units as leading anywhere good - at their current speeds.
|
4 |
* What do you mean by fire control? Hold fire, targeting? As I said above, I don't see requiring players to click on enemy air units as leading anywhere good - at their current speeds.
|
| 5 |
* To bring about firing at air units universally you would need to make half the air units much lower and slower. The other half are already plenty vulnerable to shots from the ground.
|
5 |
* To bring about firing at air units universally you would need to make half the air units much lower and slower. The other half are already plenty vulnerable to shots from the ground.
|
| 6 |
* The hard counter units seem justified at the current unit speeds and are part of a wider web of interesting unit interactions, so what we've got at the moment seems ok to me.
|
6 |
* The hard counter units seem justified at the current unit speeds and are part of a wider web of interesting unit interactions, so what we've got at the moment seems ok to me.
|
| 7 |
\n
|
7 |
\n
|
| 8 |
[q]2. Air factories should have full tactics-filled game play against each other and ground factories[/q]
|
8 |
[q]2. Air factories should have full tactics-filled game play against each other and ground factories[/q]
|
| 9 |
For air vs. ground, I'm not sure what you mean beyond what is covered by Point 1. Are you saying gunships should have a skirmisher, raider and riot that fit in the standard land factory counter structure? I don't see how this can apply to planes.
|
9 |
For air vs. ground, I'm not sure what you mean beyond what is covered by Point 1. Are you saying gunships should have a skirmisher, raider and riot that fit in the standard land factory counter structure? I don't see how this can apply to planes.
|
| 10 |
\n
|
10 |
\n
|
| 11 |
[q]3. Ground factories fight air units with normal units generally, not exclusively using AA units. [/q]
|
11 |
[q]3. Ground factories fight air units with normal units generally, not exclusively using AA units. [/q]
|
| 12 |
This seems to be covered by Point 1 as well. Ground factories tend to have some flex-AA but most units don't have the weapon characteristics required to broaden this system. This seems infeasible.
|
12 |
This seems to be covered by Point 1 as well. Ground factories tend to have some flex-AA but most units don't have the weapon characteristics required to broaden this system. This seems infeasible.
|
| 13 |
\n
|
13 |
\n
|
| 14 |
[q]4. Gunships should have full start to end game life cycle[/q]
|
14 |
[q]4. Gunships should have full start to end game life cycle[/q]
|
| 15 |
Yes, sounds good.
|
15 |
Yes, sounds good.
|
| 16 |
\n
|
16 |
\n
|
| 17 |
[q]5. Airplanes, as a support factory should scale mid to end game[/q]
|
17 |
[q]5. Airplanes, as a support factory should scale mid to end game[/q]
|
| 18 |
As in be viable in the mid to end game? I'm not quite sure what you mean otherwise. In any case, they could use some tweaks, but I think they already exist lategame.
|
18 |
As in be viable in the mid to end game? I'm not quite sure what you mean otherwise. In any case, they could use some tweaks, but I think they already exist lategame.
|
| 19 |
\n
|
19 |
\n
|
| 20 |
[q]6. Degenerate air deathball does not happen, or have reasonable counters[/q]
|
20 |
[q]6. Degenerate air deathball does not happen, or have reasonable counters[/q]
|
| 21 |
Agreed, sounds good.
|
21 |
Agreed, sounds good.
|
| 22 |
\n
|
22 |
\n
|
| 23 |
[q]7. One does not have to go air to not suffer a very large disadvantage in most game-type/map combos[/q]
|
23 |
[q]7. One does not have to go air to not suffer a very large disadvantage in most game-type/map combos[/q]
|
| 24 |
I think this is already the case. The diadvantage does not seem to be huge, and with plates it is easy enough for a team to pick up a little bit of air.
|
24 |
I think this is already the case. The diadvantage does not seem to be huge, and with plates it is easy enough for a team to pick up a little bit of air.
|
| 25 |
\n
|
25 |
\n
|
| 26 |
[q]8. Air units should have good dynamics, feel good to control[/q]
|
26 |
[q]8. Air units should have good dynamics, feel good to control[/q]
|
| 27 |
Yes, PRs welcome. Planes shouldn't turn on a dime, but they have quirks that could be worked on.
|
27 |
Yes, PRs welcome. Planes shouldn't turn on a dime, but they have quirks that could be worked on.
|
| 28 |
\n
|
28 |
\n
|
| 29 |
[q]Some ideas on how to do this:
|
29 |
[q]Some ideas on how to do this:
|
| 30 |
\n
|
30 |
\n
|
| 31 |
Smaller Things:
|
31 |
Smaller Things:
|
| 32 |
1. Locust gets a short range AA that allows it to brawl down Trident.[/q]
|
32 |
1. Locust gets a short range AA that allows it to brawl down Trident.[/q]
|
| 33 |
This was the intended counter triangle for Trident at one point. With GS no longer being ploppable it became less important. I'm not keen on arbitrary AA sidearms, but there is probably a balance point that makes this triangle happen regardless.
|
33 |
This was the intended counter triangle for Trident at one point. With GS no longer being ploppable it became less important. I'm not keen on arbitrary AA sidearms, but there is probably a balance point that makes this triangle happen regardless.
|
| 34 |
\n
|
34 |
\n
|
| 35 |
[q]2. Revenant gets sonar and underwater targeting.[/q]
|
35 |
[q]2. Revenant gets sonar and underwater targeting.[/q]
|
| 36 |
I'm pretty happy with gunships not shooting underwater. They're very different domains. Revenant should just be given a role some other way.
|
36 |
I'm pretty happy with gunships not shooting underwater. They're very different domains. Revenant should just be given a role some other way.
|
| 37 |
\n
|
37 |
\n
|
| 38 |
[q]3. Lower flying transport, either specifically or option select. [/q]
|
38 |
[q]3. Lower flying transport, either specifically or option select. [/q]
|
| 39 |
Faster transport transitions sounds fine. They already fly pretty low. I think specific suggestsions in this area require the suggester to fiddle around with the mechanics. PRs welcome.
|
39 |
Faster transport transitions sounds fine. They already fly pretty low. I think specific suggestsions in this area require the suggester to fiddle around with the mechanics. PRs welcome.
|
| 40 |
\n
|
40 |
\n
|
| 41 |
[q]4. Add a low, avoidable damage for cost, high survivability airplane to scale to late game.[/q]
|
41 |
[q]4. Add a low, avoidable damage for cost, high survivability airplane to scale to late game.[/q]
|
| 42 |
Sure could work, someone has to make one then make it work.
|
42 |
Sure could work, someone has to make one then make it work.
|
| 43 |
\n
|
43 |
\n
|
| 44 |
[q]5. Buff sparrow so airplanes is not so critical in non-tactical sense[/q]
|
44 |
[q]5. Buff sparrow so airplanes is not so critical in non-tactical sense[/q]
|
| 45 |
This was the intention of Sparrow and I think it is near the upper limit of its power, at least at its cost. Here is why:
|
45 |
This was the intention of Sparrow and I think it is near the upper limit of its power, at least at its cost. Here is why:
|
| 46 |
* The amount of knowledge you can gather about your opponent is another form of complexity escalation.
|
46 |
* The amount of knowledge you can gather about your opponent is another form of complexity escalation.
|
| 47 |
* Some players complained about the game becoming too complex too early, that the pacing was broken when Sparrow was added. I could see where they were coming from so made it a bit more expensive.
|
47 |
* Some players complained about the game becoming too complex too early, that the pacing was broken when Sparrow was added. I could see where they were coming from so made it a bit more expensive.
|
| 48 |
* I don't want Sparrow to significantly step on the toes of Owl. Scouting is one of the big support roles of air.
|
48 |
* I don't want Sparrow to significantly step on the toes of Owl. Scouting is one of the big support roles of air.
|
| 49 |
\n
|
49 |
\n
|
| 50 |
[q]6. Minelayer plane: drops persistent mine that costs low metal (relative to moving bombs). Should enable some creative play.[/q]
|
50 |
[q]6. Minelayer plane: drops persistent mine that costs low metal (relative to moving bombs). Should enable some creative play.[/q]
|
| 51 |
We had this about 15 years ago. It wasn't super interesting but I'm sure something could be made to work in this area. I don't think the mines would have to cost metal, perhaps they could just have claw-timeout.
|
51 |
We had this about 15 years ago. It wasn't super interesting but I'm sure something could be made to work in this area. I don't think the mines would have to cost metal, perhaps they could just have claw-timeout.
|
| 52 |
\n
|
52 |
\n
|
| 53 |
[q]7. Blastwing gets self range radar jammer. Should allow it to be used to screen after long range AA is built up.[/q]
|
53 |
[q]7. Blastwing gets self range radar jammer. Should allow it to be used to screen after long range AA is built up.[/q]
|
| 54 |
I'm not so sure. We experimented with radar stealth quite a bit and eventually removed it all because it ends up being annoying and sort of ruins long range positioning interactions.
|
54 |
I'm not so sure. We experimented with radar stealth quite a bit and eventually removed it all because it ends up being annoying and sort of ruins long range positioning interactions.
|
| 55 |
\n
|
55 |
\n
|
| 56 |
[q]8. Strafing airplane as flying Halberd: high hp needed for multiple passes, low effective dps for tough and fast vehicle to balance.[/q]
|
56 |
[q]8. Strafing airplane as flying Halberd: high hp needed for multiple passes, low effective dps for tough and fast vehicle to balance.[/q]
|
| 57 |
Sure, there is space for planes. Someone just has to design something, get a model, and work at it until it doesn't seem like it would break the game.
|
57 |
Sure, there is space for planes. Someone just has to design something, get a model, and work at it until it doesn't seem like it would break the game.
|
| 58 |
\n
|
58 |
\n
|
| 59 |
[q]1. Shift AA to slow, emp and gravity in general, outside of anti-stack splash AA. This way AA can not complete the kill chain just by being placed, and instead normal ground armies have to move to fight it. This enable fast air strategically, but slow for tactical time frame interactions and to interact meaningfully with both ground armies.[/q]
|
59 |
[q]1. Shift AA to slow, emp and gravity in general, outside of anti-stack splash AA. This way AA can not complete the kill chain just by being placed, and instead normal ground armies have to move to fight it. This enable fast air strategically, but slow for tactical time frame interactions and to interact meaningfully with both ground armies.[/q]
|
| 60 |
I'm not a big fan of giving more things slow but maybe some works. The elephant in the room here is that ground armies aren't catching and killing air in a meaningful way. They just don't have the weapon types.
|
60 |
I'm not a big fan of giving more things slow but maybe some works. The elephant in the room here is that ground armies aren't catching and killing air in a meaningful way. They just don't have the weapon types.
|
| 61 |
\n
|
61 |
\n
|
| 62 |
[q]2. Reduce ranges of air units and some AA to be more in line with normal units to reduce dependency of dedicated AA. This also adds ground force density constraints to AA, which interacts with terrain and ground force requirements to produce unique tactical situations. At common 800+ range with high cost/power density, existing AA is not surface area constrained much.[/q]
|
62 |
[q]2. Reduce ranges of air units and some AA to be more in line with normal units to reduce dependency of dedicated AA. This also adds ground force density constraints to AA, which interacts with terrain and ground force requirements to produce unique tactical situations. At common 800+ range with high cost/power density, existing AA is not surface area constrained much.[/q]
|
| 63 |
Which air units? Likho might want less range mostly as a matter of balance. The ranges on AA area already noticeably short with current air speeds and I don't see range changing much. Raven already has very short range and needs AA to really counter it. I disagree that ground AA is currently not impacted by ground force density constraints. A dense bunch is easy to snipe and blow up, and covers less area. The existing tension of wanting to place AA as far forward as possible to be effective, but far back enough for safety, seems fine. I even often see Artemis which are safe, but too far back to help the front.
|
63 |
Which air units? Likho might want less range mostly as a matter of balance. The ranges on AA area already noticeably short with current air speeds and I don't see range changing much. Raven already has very short range and needs AA to really counter it. I disagree that ground AA is currently not impacted by ground force density constraints. A dense bunch is easy to snipe and blow up, and covers less area. The existing tension of wanting to place AA as far forward as possible to be effective, but far back enough for safety, seems fine. I even often see Artemis which are safe, but too far back to help the front.
|
| 64 |
\n
|
64 |
\n
|
| 65 |
[q]3. Bombers as anti-artillery/anti-force multiplier, not effective against line forces of assaults/riots. This will demand tactical scale flanking to avoid front line army units (and opponent counter micro), not focused on strategically flanking roles or computing long range aa density.[/q]
|
65 |
[q]3. Bombers as anti-artillery/anti-force multiplier, not effective against line forces of assaults/riots. This will demand tactical scale flanking to avoid front line army units (and opponent counter micro), not focused on strategically flanking roles or computing long range aa density.[/q]
|
| 66 |
Is this "Reduce Likho AoE"? I think Likho is pretty counterable by spreading a bit, and otherwise bombers seem to mostly be used as anti-artillery. I'm not sure what the required change here is.
|
66 |
Is this "Reduce Likho AoE"? I think Likho is pretty counterable by spreading a bit, and otherwise bombers seem to mostly be used as anti-artillery. I'm not sure what the required change here is.
|
| 67 |
\n
|
|
|
| 68 |
\n
|
|
|
| 69 |
\n
|
|
|
| 70 |
\n
|
|
|
Air v. AA v. Ground balance