Forged Alliance Forever

Re: FAF need more TA units... Let's improve FA...

2016-09-10T01:31:11+02:00

The most important thing of TA,the REAL goal, was to remain alive with a community that have olde and new members modding and improving this, despite the huge limitations. Why? The answer is easy, because since the first years, TA have strong community support ,that supplied alot of programs and tutorials ,with a good learning curve.

Supreme Commander,otherwise , I know, is much more complicated to mod.But the worse thing ,it dont have any ready to use progs, nor good step by step tutorials, so ,the few mods that survived,for example, not are more improved, because the creators gone,and not are replacements nor new creation.And only survived because heroic resistence of some guys that updated the stuff.

The same thing we can apply to FAF.Or the community that loves this masterpiece game , utilize part of his energy to create and share infomation to help newcomers,or probably will finish before TA.

One of few initiatives that I saw, and IMHO was fantastic,is the last Community fix mod V4, because they presented all in very didactic form .All very detailed,prepairing the things for newcomers.This is the main point IMHO.

Statistics: Posted by vongratz — 10 Sep 2016, 01:31

Re: FAF need more TA units... Let's improve FA...

2016-09-09T15:54:58+02:00

JMorten wrote:
Morax wrote:His "phone" is a banana. Reading this thread and listening to it in my head is about as useful as having a banana for a "phone."

I have noticed the banana. If you are not interested in comparing FAF and TA, why don't you spare us with your crap? It's not like someone asks you to comment every thread that you are not interested in so gtfo.

Lol I just remember I posted this in this thread. I can post and comment as much as I want: welcome to the internet and FAF forums where people may give you crap for focusing on such minor things.

Statistics: Posted by Morax — 09 Sep 2016, 15:54

Re: FAF need more TA units... Let's improve FA...

2016-08-31T12:38:13+02:00

I would love to see at first just this:
a plane engie and a ship engie

Statistics: Posted by rxnnxs — 31 Aug 2016, 12:38

Re: FAF need more TA units... Let's improve FA...

2016-08-28T14:08:46+02:00

I think FAF needs less units that can be ground fired all too easy and less units that cannot counter their own tech. Carry on.

Statistics: Posted by Lieutenant Lich — 28 Aug 2016, 14:08

Re: FAF need more TA units... Let's improve FA...

2016-08-26T07:19:39+02:00

Puschkin wrote:
No, torps don't hit Hovercrafts in FAF. However, if someone is forced to use hovercrafts agains navy, then he is probably already on the losing end, it isn't very effective, with the possible exception of Sera T1 mobile arty vs. naval yards.

I disagree. Using over against naval yards is a winning strategy and all hover units can be very effective in this role. Aurora, Blaze, Zuthee, Yenzine, and Riptides. They are especially effective when you consider that large quantities of highly vulnerable build power are required to spam T3 navy, and if the naval player should let their air defences down hover units can be suddenly dropped onto the build power for punishing attacks - and if the navy is away. There is no static defence which can stop this, and it requires the navy to be pulled back for defence.

However, having said this I don't like the idea of PD being built on water. I quite like dropping hover units.

Statistics: Posted by Hawkei — 26 Aug 2016, 07:19

Re: FAF need more TA units... Let's improve FA...

2016-08-25T17:05:09+02:00

No, torps don't hit Hovercrafts in FAF. However, if someone is forced to use hovercrafts agains navy, then he is probably already on the losing end, it isn't very effective, with the possible exception of Sera T1 mobile arty vs. naval yards. However, most maps were navy is an issue are big enough to assure that Zhue-Spam isn't a factor you need extra floating PDs to deal with. An early naval factory deny is typically done with mostly T1 subs and some friagtes and torps can kill both.

The second thing to consider is: Torpedos not being able to hit hovercrafts is one of the few things that sets naval battles aside from land based ones. I don't understand why one would want wash away what little differences there are. Producing Riptides in a pinch to outmaneuver an enemy flotilla that relies heavily on torpedos is one of the few things you can due in desperation when you are about to lose the sea. It can work out well if the opponent doesn't scout enough, which is a nice strategic option. However, those suggested building ships in conjunction with floating PD would put an and to this.

Statistics: Posted by Puschkin — 25 Aug 2016, 17:05

Re: FAF need more TA units... Let's improve FA...

2016-08-25T15:24:46+02:00

Hi,

Puschkin wrote:
JMorten? I think I remember you from TAUniverse

I'm not entirely sure if I ever actively took part in the forum, but I certainly spent some time reading there. I played TA at WarZone a couple of years ago, but I only was an average player at best, but it seems WarZone was the refugium for the remaining OTA players and the standard was a lot higher than on Gameranger, where I met people that weren't even aware of line bombing. Sadly I missed the times when TA was really a big thing online, because I didn't know how to set up ports until I had my own internet connection. Needless to say, it was an extremely steep learning curve from offline TA to WarZone team games and it took a while to adapt, and learn all the Gnug stuff etc.

It is also interesting to get back to TA after playing FAF once in a while. Ofc the strategic zoom is missing, and units don't fire at radar blimps unless you have a targeting facility (which is late game) or tell them to do so manually, which is really annoying. But in essence the game mechanics are the same, and it is just a pleasure to set up a couple of vehicle labs, have a con. veh. dragon teeth itself to assist the lab, and then pump out Sams and go to war. The sound of 30 Sams firing on first contact....

TA is a lot more about expanding, unlike FAF, because you can't upgrade mexes easily, and most of the time the major reclaim is from wrecks after battles. I think these two facts make TA a bit more fast paced in general, but it depends a lot on your play style and skill level. In FAF the pros are expanding like crazy too, and rather build new mex instead of upgrading safe ones and building mass storage around and so on.

Puschkin wrote:
I agree with your assessments about TA and FAF which is why I am hesitant to approve the OP's suggestions. Just because something was good for TA doesn't automatically mean it translates well to FAF. I also don't think that navy isn't broken in FAF.

I agree.

Puschkin wrote:
For example a typical Phantom game on BunnyRoanoke - if you manage to evict someone from his island, he is almost out of the game. If you were able to spread all over the place, games would never end.
IF you hardset to hide energy parks in the sea you could always build SACUs with RAS and submerge them somewhere.

I happen to play phantom every once in a while, and I think you're absolutely on the right track there.

Puschkin wrote:
PD:
What's wrong with the Torpedo launchers? Those are the PDs for the sea. You make Aeon T1 PD floating - it's in theme with Aeon and they have allegedly the weakest navy.

I think he is talking about the floating heavy laser towers in TA. Those were nice to counter Skeeter or Pelican spam, especially when surrounded by tidal pgens. From the outset they might have been added to defend vs hovercraft, but as hovercraft weren't an option in an online game, other roles were found. I can't test this atm, but do torp launchers hit hovercraft in FAF? If not, there might be some justification for a floating pd.

Statistics: Posted by JMorten — 25 Aug 2016, 15:24

Re: FAF need more TA units... Let's improve FA...

2016-08-25T00:25:40+02:00

JMorten? I think I remember you from TAUniverse

I agree with your assessments about TA and FAF which is why I am hesitant to approve the OP's suggestions. Just because something was good for TA doesn't automatically mean it translates well to FAF. I also don't think that navy isn't broken in FAF.

Seawalls:
I don't think they add anything to the game except pathfinding problems. Mines sound great, then again, if that means I have to constantly groundfire the path that I want my fleet to approach just because there could be mines, then this becomes a tedious feature.

Engineering Boats:
Don't think they are needed, we do have floating engies that can be airliftet and we do have aircraft carriers, the Atlantis and Tempest.

Seabased Energy Production:
Why? I think it's ok that energy prod is limited to land. If you can spread all over sea as well and add all the other things you named, effectively building complete bases in the sea ... then you'd just have 2 sets of units that are almost identical. Also, team games on larger maps might be unnecessairly prolonged. For example a typical Phantom game on BunnyRoanoke - if you manage to evict someone from his island, he is almost out of the game. If you were able to spread all over the place, games would never end.
IF you hardset to hide energy parks in the sea you could always build SACUs with RAS and submerge them somewhere.

PD:
What's wrong with the Torpedo launchers? Those are the PDs for the sea. You make Aeon T1 PD floating - it's in theme with Aeon and they have allegedly the weakest navy.

Naval Repair Stations:
This is an interesting idea, however, it's hard to add this without turning larger naval battles into a war of attrition that never ends.

Naval anti-navy TMLs:
Sounds interesting- better than naval PD. But too few ships are currently equipped with TMD, I think it's a bit unfair?

T3 Naval Chrono Damper Boat:
Ok, this is awesome But also possibly broken ... I suppose that it would be Aeon only? Aeon already has a unique T3 ship (that Missile Boat), UEF has the Neptune, Sera that darn T3 subhunter ... so this should be Cybran !?

Statistics: Posted by Puschkin — 25 Aug 2016, 00:25

Re: FAF need more TA units... Let's improve FA...

2016-08-23T12:51:54+02:00

Dude, are u high or something?

I only wanted to discuss the two games and see if there is anything we can learn from TA. I also stated that I don't see any options for adding TA units and I personally wouldn't go for it.

Perhaps it would be better to divide the threads, and move the discussion (sadly a monlogue) somewhere else where it fits better, so people don't get confused over who said what. (if a mod is reading this thank you in advance)

Statistics: Posted by JMorten — 23 Aug 2016, 12:51

Re: FAF need more TA units... Let's improve FA...

2016-08-23T12:24:57+02:00

snuffles wrote:
Great idea.

Make it a mod, manage it actively and you'll definitely know it's easier said than done! I'd like to see it myself

this is basically the answer you'll get

other wise most new units put into the game come with massive controversy
i say this to you as one of the people who can create new units (other people can do it far better, but)

Statistics: Posted by biass — 23 Aug 2016, 12:24

Re: FAF need more TA units... Let's improve FA...

2016-08-23T11:39:14+02:00

biass wrote:
so you rather everyone tell you its a great idea and noone tell you it's not?

I have no idea what you are talking about. I was just comparing FAF and OTA and had the hope someone is also interested in discussing this topic.

If you have anything of substance to add to the topic of this thread pls do so.

biass wrote:
!google echochamber

In news media an echo chamber is a metaphorical description of a situation in which information, ideas, or beliefs are amplified or reinforced by transmission and repetition inside an "enclosed" system, where different or competing views are censored, disallowed, or otherwise underrepresented. The term is by analogy with an acoustic echo chamber, where sounds reverberate. [...]Participants in online communities may find their own opinions constantly echoed back to them, which reinforces their individual belief systems. This can create significant barriers to critical discourse within an online medium.

Ok so now I know what this phenomenon means. It doesn't add anything to the topic of the thread though so I don't really see why you mention the term.

I have to say I'm kind of disappointed, FAF (or at least SC) is often referred to as the spiritual successor of TA, and I had the assumption there would be some common ground here to exchange opinions about the two games.

Statistics: Posted by JMorten — 23 Aug 2016, 11:39

Re: FAF need more TA units... Let's improve FA...

2016-08-23T11:16:32+02:00

so you rather everyone tell you its a great idea and noone tell you it's not?

!google echochamber

Statistics: Posted by biass — 23 Aug 2016, 11:16

Re: FAF need more TA units... Let's improve FA...

2016-08-23T11:01:07+02:00

Morax wrote:
His "phone" is a banana. Reading this thread and listening to it in my head is about as useful as having a banana for a "phone."

I have noticed the banana. If you are not interested in comparing FAF and TA, why don't you spare us with your crap? It's not like someone asks you to comment every thread that you are not interested in so gtfo.

Statistics: Posted by JMorten — 23 Aug 2016, 11:01

Re: FAF need more TA units... Let's improve FA...

2016-08-22T22:36:43+02:00

JMorten wrote:
Honestly I have no idea what this meme is supposed to mean regarding the course of this discussion. I don't get it in what way is this contributing to the topic?

His "phone" is a banana. Reading this thread and listening to it in my head is about as useful as having a banana for a "phone."

Statistics: Posted by Morax — 22 Aug 2016, 22:36

Re: FAF need more TA units... Let's improve FA...

2016-08-22T10:55:02+02:00

Another thing to take a closer look at, is balance of the factions in OTA. Arm and Core are far more different from each other than factions in FAF.

Apart from a very few maps like The Pass, Arm is the superior faction, and in 1vs1 players of the same skill level would always go Arm. Core could still be good in teamgames, as they have the best bomber(s) for example, or a superior player could go Core to limit himself versus a player who is weaker in terms of skill.

Probably the most important reason for the superiority of Arm is the slow movement of their commander and their construction units in general (con. veh./adv. con veh). This does place them at an enormous disadvantage, as they need more time to cap mex. In parts this disadvantage can be reduced by building your base close to your commander, so he doesn't have to walk, very much as in FAF.

Another reason why Core lags behind are the Fark and the Flash. The Fark is a very effective construction unit, and maybe you can compare it to engineering stations in FAF, because it can be grouped around factories easily and help pump out units by reducing their buildtime to mere seconds. Core doesn't have an equivalent to the Fark, and has to rely on other strategies which are more micro-intensive (e.g. have con veh assist kbot lab or 4 adv veh assist air fac) and not as mass effective.

Then there is the Flash, an excellent raiding unit. It is very cost effective, fast and deals a lot of damage. It can be used throughout all game stages and is just a superb unit overall. Core has only the Instigator which isn't too bad, but can't live up to its faction counterpart. Then take the slow moving builders into account, and you have the result that expansion for Core is cumbersome against an equal skilled Arm opponent.

So regarding these obvious balance issues in OTA, I think you can say that FAF does a lot of things right in terms of balanced factions and it could be much worse.

Statistics: Posted by JMorten — 22 Aug 2016, 10:55