Forged Alliance Forever

Re: Naval Anti-Air Performance Testing

2013-01-03T19:43:01+02:00

faction diversity.

Statistics: Posted by Bhaal — 03 Jan 2013, 19:43

Re: Naval Anti-Air Performance Testing

2012-12-31T16:31:03+02:00

laPPen wrote:
But a battle ship and 10 t2 ships shooting his factories vs 0 ships is not decisive for u ? ok.

if you look at the ships alone then 10 destroyers+cruisers and 1 battleship against 1 battleship, 1 or so destroyers and a few harms just being constructed is decisive of course. but not overwhelmingly enough so as to withstand a counterattack from the air.

Statistics: Posted by rootbeer23 — 31 Dec 2012, 16:31

Re: Naval Anti-Air Performance Testing

2012-12-31T16:20:44+02:00

Nice we are back on topic.

Indeed the question is what kind of navy-air resistance is the right one. I think we can all agree that there is a huge gap between cybran and the other factions. There have been many patches so far and cybran navy is competative against other navys again, thats nice.
Cybran is mutch too weak while the other factions are a little to strong in terms of lategame antiair. It would be perfect if all navys would be close to each other concerning anti air. this level should be a bit under the actual level of the other 3 factions in my opinion.

laPPen wrote:
again the question do you think u would have won the game against
another factions navy?

not that game. i cannot prove that obviously, but since you ask for my opinion.
i come to the conclusion based on the observation that:
1) i had local superiority in bombers versus cruisers.
2) your naval superiority was not decisive.
3) you didnt even destroy your enemies' naval factories or engineers.
4) in the same game a seraphim lost because of air support as well under circumstances 2) and 3)
5) the air superiority was decisive

In general i have to agree that 2 players combined forces should be able to deal with one players force.
But a battle ship and 10 t2 ships shooting his factories vs 0 ships is not decisive for u ? ok.

laPPen wrote:
but no worrys, ... mumbo jumbo ... diddely ... please show me the replay

since u seem to have comprehension problems here let me translate that for u into your native language ro(b)ot:

10010011101011011000111011010010110 root:="false"

Statistics: Posted by laPPen — 31 Dec 2012, 16:20

Re: Naval Anti-Air Performance Testing

2012-12-31T14:33:30+02:00

OK i finally understand (well I think) why root is trolling this topic from the beginning.

Even if what lappen said is true in the "mumbo jumbo", I think root also has a point in the end.

I COMPLETELY agree with you Lappen that cybran just can't survive on cruisers to counter air effectively (and the aircraft carriers are even worse from what I've seen). I also agree that in that perspective they need a major buff somehow.
This buff could already be there with the SACU spamming t2 AA combined with T3 AA , just an idea. We don't know how viable it is right now , need more games clearly.

But the point root is making also has some merit. Maybe the other navies should be as vulnerable to air as the cybran is after all. It's debatable, but I think that's root's reason for trolling here.

If it's not that, what he implies could be that considering the massive and continuous torping you guys got on your navies whole game, it made sense that you and kang didn't get to finish both your jobs. That, too makes a lot of sense. No navy should be able to survive taking overall 100+ torps whether it's t2/t3.

So the question IMHO could also be : "How impervious to air should the navy be" ? What's the desired level of resistance ? Is it the cybran one, or the aeon/uef ?

If we decide the aon/uef is the right level, then for sure cybran needs a powerful AA thing, and the cyb aircraft carrier is not that from the games I've seen so far. I didn't even care to look at the numbers of the dps, the AA miss the targets (t2 bombers/torps) quite a lot and aren't really effective in this field.

Statistics: Posted by -_V_- — 31 Dec 2012, 14:33

Re: Naval Anti-Air Performance Testing

2012-12-31T13:33:08+02:00

laPPen wrote:
this thread is about the aa performance of different factions navy.

at least we agree on something.

laPPen wrote:
but no worrys, ... mumbo jumbo ... diddely ... please show me the replay

whut?

laPPen wrote:
again the question do you think u would have won the game against
another factions navy?

not that game. i cannot prove that obviously, but since you ask for my opinion.
i come to the conclusion based on the observation that:
1) i had local superiority in bombers versus cruisers.
2) your naval superiority was not decisive.
3) you didnt even destroy your enemies' naval factories or engineers.
4) in the same game a seraphim lost because of air support as well under circumstances 2) and 3)
5) the air superiority was decisive

but if you had (we will never know), that would mean either
a) cybran navy is too weak
b) other faction's navies are too strong
c) cybran navy is just right and should set the standard for air<->naval balance
d) other factions are just right and should set the standard for air<->naval balance
e) the air<->naval balance is not right for any faction

generally speaking: the expected outcome of a combined attack from 2 players against 1 player is that the 2 combined forces win.
i am just saying that your proposition of a weakness coming from such a situation is not a very strong case.

Statistics: Posted by rootbeer23 — 31 Dec 2012, 13:33

Re: Naval Anti-Air Performance Testing

2012-12-31T11:09:50+02:00

this thread is about the aa performance of different factions navy.
but no worrys, since u only play the top airspot i understand that u do not qualify to contribute on this topic.
seriosly did u ever build a cruiser of any faction root? pls show me the replay.
again the question do you think u would have won the game against
another factions navy?

Statistics: Posted by laPPen — 31 Dec 2012, 11:09

Re: Naval Anti-Air Performance Testing

2012-12-31T03:26:43+02:00

you deservedly lost that game.

Statistics: Posted by rootbeer23 — 31 Dec 2012, 03:26

Re: Naval Anti-Air Performance Testing

2012-12-30T18:10:14+02:00

because its no problem with any other faction. or what do you think how
this battle would have ended yesterday if i was not cybran?
i mean i had 4 t2 factorys spamming cruisers only and it didnt provide enough
aa to kill those t3 torps. i had like 25 cruisers in between and they performed incredible poor.
so did the carriers. only the sams provided the aa dps needed to hold my ground.

Statistics: Posted by laPPen — 30 Dec 2012, 18:10

Re: Naval Anti-Air Performance Testing

2012-12-30T17:30:13+02:00

laPPen wrote:
my expirience from that is its close to impossible to bring enough aa
ships as cybran and not loose to the enemy navy in the same time.

why should it be possible?

Statistics: Posted by rootbeer23 — 30 Dec 2012, 17:30

Re: Naval Anti-Air Performance Testing

2012-12-30T17:21:48+02:00

if i read this numbers correctly they show that cybran ships
have the worst aa capacity by far. thats exactly what i experienced from in game
situations. lately i did quite a few games where i played cybran navy facing a good navy enemy
backed up by a superior air player. my expirience from that is its close to impossible to bring enough aa
ships as cybran and not loose to the enemy navy in the same time. your best option at the moment is to bring
a scu with that navy building sams. not a very elegant solution and very static. but at least we have that option since
the patch.
considering that cybran dont have any shields on water nor a floating flak it really is a pitty that
their ships fail so epic in terms of killing air.
i can provide loads of replays proving this when i am at home and if those are requested.
thanks for the test and the numbers

Statistics: Posted by laPPen — 30 Dec 2012, 17:21

Naval Anti-Air Performance Testing

2012-12-30T16:28:59+02:00

Hello!

I had the Theory that Carriers might have overpowered Anti-Air now, compared to cruisers. I was thinking about spamming Carriers for Fleet Anti-Air instead of cruisers, not using the factory. Here i am posting the results of the testing, for everybody's info.

Conclusion:
I did not confirm my Theory, nor was it really falsified. Carriers do in many cases a better job then cruisers as an Anti-Air asset, but lack essential Features (Cybran Cruisers have strong direct damage guns, Aeon carriers lack TMD..).

Many Tests were declared invalid due to improvements in our testing as we progressed, for example, we tried Torpedo Bombers and Wailers, but they proved not to work for our testing scenario. What's left follows:

Anti-Air Performance Test Results:
____________________________
13 restorer with micro (15600 Mass, lot more energy then the ships)

VS.
(ships without micro)

1. 9 Cybran Cruiser (18k Mass)
a) 2 survive (22%)
b) 2 survive (22%)

22%
- Direct Damage 184 Dps!
- TMD

2. 5 Cybran Carrier (18k Mass)
a) 2 survive (40%)
b) 2 survive (40%)
40%
- TMD

_________________________

3. 10 Aeon Cruiser (20k Mass)
a) 7 survive (70%)
b) 7 survive (70%)

70%
- Direct Damage 70 Dps
- TMD

4. 5 Aeon Carrier (20k Mass)
a) 4 survive (80%)
b) 4 survive (80%)

80%
- no TMD !

_________________________

5. 11 Seraphim Cruiser (22k Mass)
a) 9 survive (82%)
b) 8 survive (73%)

(78%)
- TMD
- TML 150 Dps (=1650)

6. 5 Seraphim Carrier (22k Mass)
a) 4 survive (80%)
b) 4 survive (80%)

80%
- no TMD !
- TML 150 Dps (=750)

_________________________

7. 10 UEF Cruiser (20k Mass)
a) 5 survive (50%)
b) 5 survive (50%)

Cruiser Intel: vision radius: 65, radar radius: 150, sonar radius: 120, water vision radius: 60
Carrier Intel: vision radius: 85, radar radius: 200, sonar radius: 40, water vision radius: 36
= for..
Sonar & Land Vision: Cruiser
Radar & Water Vision: Carrier

Build time Carrier: 10800-13200
Build time two Cruisers: 16000

Statistics: Posted by L3mmy — 30 Dec 2012, 16:28