Forged Alliance Forever Forged Alliance Forever Forums 2013-06-26T06:18:10+02:00 /feed.php?f=2&t=4281 2013-06-26T06:18:10+02:00 2013-06-26T06:18:10+02:00 /viewtopic.php?t=4281&p=46992#p46992 <![CDATA[Re: Why seraphim glaciers doesn't belong in the ranked?]]>
They do have their advantages, yes. But not only are they are lacking a naval experimental, they are lacking in any units to effectively assist naval units at T2 as well. The UEF have shield boats, very effective anti-submarine units, and powerful hovertanks. The Aeon have hover tanks that are weak but cheap, fast, and with a decent range, good hover shields, and hover flak. The Cybrans have mobile stealth (which has torpedo defenses almost as good as the cooper) and a stealth ACU with powerful torpedoes.

The Seraphim have no 'bonus' units like that available until T3, the only stuff they have to support their navy are T1 hover arty, which are almost worse than useless against a microed navy (feeding it veterancy) and hovertanks that are the same cost as the blaze, but demonstrably worse. They have hover flak, but they don't need it, because Seraphim cruisers already have flak...

The only extra that Seraphim have at T2 navy is submersible destroyers, but from what I've seen, that often serves mostly to halve their destroyers' DPS, so they usually function as tank sub hunters. Since the other factions' sub hunters are cheaper... They have a powerful navy for smaller T2 engagements, and one that's easier to field (less work creating a balanced force) but they don't have the unit synergies that really kick a navy into high gear, so they struggle in larger engagements.

The Seraphim really have to get to T3 to dominate the seas. And once they do, they need to have a properly mixed naval force ready, because Yathsous alone are - well, I wouldn't say not particularly powerful - easy enough to defeat, maybe? They also need to do it fast enough that they can assemble a fair number of Yathsou, because they have no other means of stopping an experimental that's crossing the water.

So yes, you can expect an "Ahwassa up the ass" :D if you are trying to hold off a Seraphim navy overwhelming you with Yathsous, but you should either be or getting your own experimentals into their base or gaining control of the seas before a Seraphim player can get out a good number of Yathsous and other ships at the same time. If you can't, you were likely outplayed anyway. They might still be too powerful in that role still, but I've always understood it to be that is the general idea for how the unit is supposed to work, fitting in with the Seraphim style of "fewer units that do it better."


Well, that's the impression I've always gotten, but honestly? I don't use Seraphim myself, and I don't often play against good seraphim players, and I'm not particularly good myself anyway. :P

Statistics: Posted by Mycen — 26 Jun 2013, 06:18


]]>
2013-06-25T23:35:15+02:00 2013-06-25T23:35:15+02:00 /viewtopic.php?t=4281&p=46981#p46981 <![CDATA[Re: Why seraphim glaciers doesn't belong in the ranked?]]>
Plasma_Wolf wrote:
What has the high torpedo hp to do with the fact that the cooper has decoys as an anti torpedo system?

It would matter for other units that rely on direct fire torpedo defence. The high volume fire cycle renders decoys less effective.


It's a simple fact: the cooper has the best Anti-Torpedo system of every sub hunter.


Is that why they work so well against them then?

Statistics: Posted by Anaryl — 25 Jun 2013, 23:35


]]>
2013-06-25T14:30:24+02:00 2013-06-25T14:30:24+02:00 /viewtopic.php?t=4281&p=46944#p46944 <![CDATA[Re: Why seraphim glaciers doesn't belong in the ranked?]]>
It's a simple fact: the cooper has the best Anti-Torpedo system of every sub hunter.

Statistics: Posted by Plasma_Wolf — 25 Jun 2013, 14:30


]]>
2013-06-25T13:52:21+02:00 2013-06-25T13:52:21+02:00 /viewtopic.php?t=4281&p=46941#p46941 <![CDATA[Re: Why seraphim glaciers doesn't belong in the ranked?]]>
Plasma_Wolf wrote:
Their DPS was reduced at some point.

They're not OP and have to make up for some other parts where the sera navy is lacking.

The UEF have it easiest against the sub hunters due to the excellent nature of the cooper anti-torpedo weapon.
And the shield boat.


Only briefly, the change was reverted the following patch. It was still too little.

"Easiest" heh. Cooper Torpedo defence doesn't work very well versus Yathsou, due the large number of projectiles & projectile HP.

Anyone who thinks it's not OP is mistaken. It's a single faction unit, that outclasses every other unit it's tier, mass effectively. It has the strongest weapons in class for each of it's attack vectors & it has an evasion ability. Coopers & Atlantis ? You might hold off Yathsous at twice the cost. Expect a Ythotha or Ahwassa up the ass shortly.

Statistics: Posted by Anaryl — 25 Jun 2013, 13:52


]]>
2013-06-25T12:58:25+02:00 2013-06-25T12:58:25+02:00 /viewtopic.php?t=4281&p=46934#p46934 <![CDATA[Re: Why seraphim glaciers doesn't belong in the ranked?]]>
They're not OP and have to make up for some other parts where the sera navy is lacking.

The UEF have it easiest against the sub hunters due to the excellent nature of the cooper anti-torpedo weapon.
And the shield boat.

Statistics: Posted by Plasma_Wolf — 25 Jun 2013, 12:58


]]>
2013-06-25T12:05:04+02:00 2013-06-25T12:05:04+02:00 /viewtopic.php?t=4281&p=46925#p46925 <![CDATA[Re: Why seraphim glaciers doesn't belong in the ranked?]]>
Anaryl wrote:
The Yathsou is OP...

...Now there is a phrase I never thought I would hear.

Must say I have never used them since 3599. Have they really changed that much?

Statistics: Posted by Hawkei — 25 Jun 2013, 12:05


]]>
2013-06-25T04:40:11+02:00 2013-06-25T04:40:11+02:00 /viewtopic.php?t=4281&p=46890#p46890 <![CDATA[Re: Why seraphim glaciers doesn't belong in the ranked?]]> Statistics: Posted by Anaryl — 25 Jun 2013, 04:40


]]>
2013-06-20T09:42:58+02:00 2013-06-20T09:42:58+02:00 /viewtopic.php?t=4281&p=46610#p46610 <![CDATA[Re: Why seraphim glaciers doesn't belong in the ranked?]]>
Murzy wrote:
Why seraphim glaciers doesn't belong in the ranked? (Answer: IT'S OP WHEN YOURE PLAYING AS SERAPHIM)


Seraphim are OP because they have their name written on it...
Sounds like you just got owned. Maybe, instead of declaring a unit to be OP, you should learn to use the units you have? As a general rule the sub needs two units to defeat it. Pick any of these:
Torp bomber + Bomber/Gunship
Torp bomber + Battleship/Destroyer
Torp bomber + Riptide
Torp boat + Shield boat
Adlantis + Shield boat
T1 Sub spam + Shield boat

The unit doesn't actually become hard to counter until it is mixed with other units which complement it. Like hover shields and destroyers.

Statistics: Posted by Hawkei — 20 Jun 2013, 09:42


]]>
2013-06-13T16:57:30+02:00 2013-06-13T16:57:30+02:00 /viewtopic.php?t=4281&p=46130#p46130 <![CDATA[Re: Why seraphim glaciers doesn't belong in the ranked?]]>
discoverer2k4 wrote:
the problem was lack of scouting


This is the problem. Being an aggressive player is a good attitude, but it barely helps if you don't know what you're going to be aggressive against. Blindly sending in one fleet against another will kill both and then it's the matter of who is going to recover the first. That's the person with the best economy (blue), or the person reclaiming both fleets immediately after the battle (neither did that).

The two could just as well not have bothered with big naval battles near the middle of the map, because there were no consequences. Cruisers were barely used. Red used them, but not with great results (a couple of mexes got killed). So the result of the naval battles wasn't a shore bombardment.

That while red could also have sent a couple of cruisers to the right-top island, circle it and destroy everything blue had there. That never happened. It also didn't happen when red got to T3 air, while a strategic bomber is the best way to kill those mexes. It happened 10 to 20 minutes later, which is a bad thing even if the mexes are T2 (Those seventeen at T2 would make 78 mass/s, which is over 25% of blue's economy).

Red even had the perfect place for an omni sensor: The central island. It's a dangerous place for a fragile thing like that to place, but it's more than worth it. As long as it stands, you know everything that happens. Air units can't go from one corner to the other without passing though its radar range. The same obviously applies to the naval units as well.

As for the nuke. The first blast did cover the expenses of the missile (5 minutes long at 50 mass/s: total cost is 15000 mass, 4 T3 mexes killed is more than double that), but it's not really a great achievement, you can quickly recover from that (building less units for a minute while you rebuild the mexes), but the nuke puts a constant strain of 50 mass on the attacker's eco . When I look at blue's base, I'd even say that there was no good place for a nuke. I'd have spent the mass in Air superiority, or more naval units.

Considering naval again: The UEF really needs the shield boats. They were around at some point, and not around at another point in the battles. Having them or not is the difference between winning a naval battle with few losses or losing it with few losses on the enemy's side.

Torpedo bombers: Don't bother sending them in as you did. You'll kill one T3 sub and lose all of your bombers. If you use the torpedo bombers, see to it that you can send 10 against one T3 sub, and that for multiple subs. You can afford to lose one in each party that way. If the enemy player regularly sends the subs to the surface to tear those bombers apart, lure him in. Your own destroyers should be able to fire a salvo against the subs. This is where management skills are required.

At one point, you did a lobo drop. It was not a bad idea in itself, but lack of management reduced the effectiveness to killing one eco farm. Keep them on the move. You could have killed loads of engineers as well and that's where your enemy has to spend precious time in building new ones and ordering them to assist factories or T3 engineers each time one comes out. It's a tedious job..

Long story short: Use intel better, take every opportunity you get from your opponent's weaknesses and use combinations of units to kill an enemy's brute force attack like with the T3 subs.

Statistics: Posted by Plasma_Wolf — 13 Jun 2013, 16:57


]]>
2013-06-13T14:31:39+02:00 2013-06-13T14:31:39+02:00 /viewtopic.php?t=4281&p=46110#p46110 <![CDATA[Re: Why seraphim glaciers doesn't belong in the ranked?]]> Statistics: Posted by discoverer2k4 — 13 Jun 2013, 14:31


]]>
2013-06-13T13:05:45+02:00 2013-06-13T13:05:45+02:00 /viewtopic.php?t=4281&p=46100#p46100 <![CDATA[Re: Why seraphim glaciers doesn't belong in the ranked?]]> Statistics: Posted by ZLO_RD — 13 Jun 2013, 13:05


]]>
2013-06-13T11:20:54+02:00 2013-06-13T11:20:54+02:00 /viewtopic.php?t=4281&p=46095#p46095 <![CDATA[Re: Why seraphim glaciers doesn't belong in the ranked?]]> mix for navy is normally building everything...

destroyers for the coppers,
subs for the battleships/destroyers/whatevers
and battleships for groundfiring the atlantis

Statistics: Posted by ColonelSheppard — 13 Jun 2013, 11:20


]]>
2013-06-13T10:27:05+02:00 2013-06-13T10:27:05+02:00 /viewtopic.php?t=4281&p=46094#p46094 <![CDATA[Re: Why seraphim glaciers doesn't belong in the ranked?]]> I'm at least not a complete noob :-p but I play so rarely at the moment, especially the bigger maps are hard to play if you hadn't some warmup or training. But what I can say is, I'm a big navy noob and a t4 bomber noob :)... I often use the "select all antiair fighters" hotkey of GAZUI and this is selecting the t4 bomber as well, so I miss some times the attack order in front of the target due to unit movement :-( yesterday I had this two times I guess...

second... murzka your first small attacks and little aggression was hard for me to deal with. Especially on SG I rarely find a good early strategy and I'm not a big navy gamer, so the advantage was on your side the first 30 to 40 minutes. As I saw your huge t2 and t1 navy I nearly got kicked in my ass and thought ... ok you have to go more or less full navy and go t3 as this is my last chance to come back. As YOU saw my first t3 subs you can have easily killed my T3 naval fac (or build power) by sending t2 / t3 bomber or send your nuke not to my economy as to my naval facs.
As I were producing up to 5? t4 bomber to give you mass (that never reached you as you say) and try to kill your antinuke why the hell you did not build some more nukes or novax centers or t3 arty in that time? And as you may have recognized that I'm trying to kill your antinuke, you should have definitly build more shields around it or build a second one to safe your side base.
flanking from two side my navy would have been better descision to get my t3 subs between your two navys as just sending them in front of them. I had often the opportunity to keep you in my higher range.
you killed 2 times my antinuke I think and I had only one as well as you over the whole game (I think later I gave a t3 engy the command to build one at the side island (unsupported with shields and anti air or something - hehe very nooby *g*))... again, thank you for sending your nuke to my 4 mexies and not to my t3 air and t3 naval. As I had RAS anyway and A LOT of wrecks in front of my base due to our navy battles I had never a big issue with my eco anyway. Maybe it would have been an advantage for you to fall back to your side of the map with your navy and just get the reclaims, build some nukes/t3 artys/novaxes.
The problem was not that sera is OP on this map, the problem was lack of scouting, some wrong decisions, lack of micro, lack of strategy and bad naval mixing as the others say FOR BOTH OF US...

By the way, a question to the pros: What benefits have sera t2 cruisers? I very rarely play naval maps, so sorry, I don't know it. Is it the tmd to defend against missiles of uef t2 ships?
What is a good common unit mix for sera navy?

Statistics: Posted by discoverer2k4 — 13 Jun 2013, 10:27


]]>
2013-06-13T08:25:41+02:00 2013-06-13T08:25:41+02:00 /viewtopic.php?t=4281&p=46090#p46090 <![CDATA[Re: Why seraphim glaciers doesn't belong in the ranked?]]>
Serra is not OP on it, we just suck.

Statistics: Posted by Cuddles — 13 Jun 2013, 08:25


]]>
2013-06-13T03:19:35+02:00 2013-06-13T03:19:35+02:00 /viewtopic.php?t=4281&p=46081#p46081 <![CDATA[Re: Why seraphim glaciers doesn't belong in the ranked?]]>

Also you failed badly in that game. Try to improve your game a bit more before blaming the game :)

Statistics: Posted by IceDreamer — 13 Jun 2013, 03:19


]]>