Ato0theJ wrote:
If the UEF want options for engineer arm, move the gun to that space and have the current gun arm be RAS and Nano like current cybran.
Eeeeh, no way. The UEF gun and engineer option are on seperate arms for a reason: Combat engineering (mainly PD creep) with the ACU in the early/mid game. Leave it as it is.
Kurbain wrote:
For the price of one T3 artillery, you could build 3 monkeylords/fatboys or 105 to 450 T2 shields, depending on your faction.
This sounds good on paper, but is not realistic. Yes, you CAN build 3 combat experimentals for one T3 arty. But you know what? When you attack your opponent with those three experimentals and lose, your opponent can now build a T3 arty! And guess what? They won't be donating ANY mass when they attack you with it! Since you can't possibly pack those 450 T2 shields into a small enough area to defend against a T3 arty that's surrounded by pgens and supported by airstrikes, the fact that you can build that many for the same cost is irrelevant.
If you're not seeing T3 arties, maybe that's because you're not playing on big enough maps and/or your games never end up as late game stalemates.
Gorton wrote:
As Sheppard says, the UEF nano is never used at all.
It should probably get replaced for something that is actually a contender for t2/t3 engie suite.
Wasn't the fix that was discussed before giving nano all of the regen and HP bonuses of the T3 engi suite plus the regen bonus it has now? That way you're trading off building ability for improved survival. Right now the engi suite doubles as a building and survivability buff, making nano a redundant and inferor choice.
It wouldn't be unusual, the seraphim regen also boosts HP. This change would also emphasize the armored nature of the ACU, in keeping with the UEF's style of durability. Appropriate for late game, where you're more concerned with protecting the ACU and its build power isn't necessary to run your economy. Or on smaller maps you could go for an early combat ACU if you can manage the eco. (Do people do this with the Sera ACU? I don't often see double regen on that until very late.)
Crayfish wrote:
Strat Missile Subs: This was supposed to be the ultimate weapon in the game when Supcom was first announced (anyone remember that awesome beta pic of one multi-launching nukes?), but it remains a why bother type unit. Is there any point building these?
I don't understand people's problem with these. They are hardly useful on a 20x20, that is certainly true. But it is on maps larger than that where they really do shine. There are many obvious reasons why they are superior to regular launchers in such a situation, but I'll just name one: When you're going up against sera or aeon in a nuke war you are very likely to lose much of the time. Why? Because they can take out enough of your nuke defenses with teleSCU that you can't rebuild anti-nukes in time. Nuke subs negate this problem. (Along with all the other problems of your nuclear arsenal being in one easy-to-scout place in T3/4 battles.) They're not supposed to be a clear-cut better choice, they're supposed to be nuke launchers that trade survivability and sneakiness for power and efficiency.
One thing I think would be appropriate though, is that their missiles be reduced in cost in some way. As it is now, the regular silos not only have a lower per second cost than subs, but they can benefit from adjacency, which subs cannot - all for a more powerful missile! That makes little sense to me.
Crayfish wrote:
Carriers: The 'no building while moving' engine limitation has perhaps rendered this unit un-fixable?
I still would like to know if the 'no building while moving' issue could be fixed in the way I imagine. I asked about it a while back but never got an answer from anyone. I was told that submarines and Command units can build on the move because they are using one of those toggle switches, and that people have implemented carrier build-on-the-move using the same process, but it would only do one type of plane.
I wanted to know if you could set up carriers to construct different types of planes with this method similarly to how the UEF ACU builds different types of missiles - each type of plane you can build would be an 'upgrade' that costs nothing to install. I would imagine this would allow the carrier to build planes on the move without being stuck with only one choice of plane, although it would mean you couldn't do build queues. Is this at all realistic?
Crayfish wrote:
SCUs: The top one for me must be SCUs. These got a huge amount of debate and substantial changes, but still don't seem to be worth the trouble to build. Maybe they just need a really creative player to show their true potential, or maybe they still need more work?
You think so? I think that SCUs are so common that they ruin any large or late game. It is so easy to build them now that, as far as I have seen, anyone who is in a stalemate is a fool not to build them in mass numbers. Forget fabricators and pgens, for only 50% more mass than 12 T2 fabs and one T3 pgen you get what amounts to double the HP in something like 1/28th the space, and it can move, build, and fight! The real reason no one every builds fabs is because it's way better to just build loads of SCUs instead. I played a game where I had decimated my opponent's base and he was still getting +350M from SCUs alone. That's just ridiculous if you ask me.
Kurbain wrote:
For the sACU, I would recommend reducing the cost of the quantum-gateway or the production time of the sACU.
Le gods, no! The primary purpose of SCUs was supposed to be to manage your base and economy in the late game so you could focus on fighting. I think some change to make them more useful in this regard would be good, (for example, having to specifically click on every building you want rebuilt is really annoying and time consuming) but they certainly don't need to be made more numerous. Ugh. If anything, I think that it should not be possible to assist SCU construction. For starters, that doesn't even make sense, since they're not being built there, and it would require a real investment in terms of construction resources to do the aforementioned mass SCU farming.Statistics: Posted by Mycen — 02 Jun 2013, 08:56
]]>
