Forged Alliance Forever

Re: Tech 2 Amphibious Tanks

2013-06-29T21:45:43+02:00

The problem with making the projectiles bounce is that you will completly change the unit, I thought this was pretty obvious, I would prefer a direct buff before any real change to the unit (change it from non hover to hover, or change the projectile to a bouncing one), It may sound conservative but a huge change like that will mess up the balance for both land and naval.
Its like the asf change which really didnt do anything than buff resto and SAMs.

Statistics: Posted by ggstack — 29 Jun 2013, 21:45

Re: Tech 2 Amphibious Tanks

2013-06-25T12:29:04+02:00

By bouncing i thing that projectil go on another units near (3range) long dime dont play starcraft, dont know how mutalisk work. Or maybe richochet like Astrofoo say. I dont know that engine allows do that, but its not so big buff, its more for effect like real help when it would be one bounce with 20%dmg on bounce then its +10%dmg for another units. so when 2 blase hit 2 strikers then the striker near take down by this bounce on 30seconds, first will be down by 3second. When it will be richocher, (with maybe 3 bounce) then it will be 15%->12,5%->10% then it will be loking uber cool, and take litle more dmg on battle field, but its nothing OP blaze would be still shit units but would be build many timemore often beacse it will look coool!

Statistics: Posted by Ithilis_Quo — 25 Jun 2013, 12:29

Re: Tech 2 Amphibious Tanks

2013-06-25T03:33:26+02:00

Ithilis_Quo wrote:
Yesterday i has crazy idea about aeon hover T2. Blaze is sux like hell what we all know when obsidian is more for T2 units then blaze whould take anti-T1 position, but for that price and low hp its realy bad.
My crazy idea, was taking blaze bounce attack (with +- 20% of dmg, and +- 3range of bounce) when is some units attacking by more like 1 blaze. That would look pretty cool! and little bit help.

Yes that is a pretty crazy idea. Bouncing projectiles are not so well supported within the Supreme Commander engine. It of course depends what you mean by "bounce". If you mean a projectile that hits target 1, 2, and 3, Like the Zerg Mutalisk. This would be inconsistent with the simulated projectile. However, if you meant an exploding ordinance with multiple warheads. Like a bouncing artillery shot. That might have some merit... Like a "carpet bombing" tank.

However, need is the mother of invention. I don't see the need. The mechanics and utility of the Blaze are already satisfactory. It performs it's current role satisfactorily. If anything, it needs it's HP/Cost and DPS/Cost ratios brought inline with what one might expect for a second rate amphibious tank. (It needs a bit more DPS. With all other statistics remaining unchaged).

FYI: I play Aeon a lot, and I do find the blaze quite functional. The main attraction of this unit is it has the same firing range as the T1 Aurora, which is the staple tank for Aeon. It is therefore "Doctrinally consistent" and has the added benefit of HP, which the Aurora does not. The Blaze is essentially a damage sponge, which helps to keep Aurora alive. By contrast the Obsidian is a short range "Assault Tank". They are best employed as a discrete force. The Blaze also has the advantage of not requiring power for upkeep - because it has no shield. The blaze is an early T2 unit, for the T1/T2 phase. If could use a buff. But not as much as you might think. It's main advantage is in its armour.

Statistics: Posted by Hawkei — 25 Jun 2013, 03:33

Re: Tech 2 Amphibious Tanks

2013-06-24T08:40:56+02:00

Mycen wrote:
Regarding the weak amphibious unit torpedoes - I was always under the impression that these secondary weapons were meant primarily only to raise the effectiveness of escorting naval vessels. Their large numbers of torpedoes will help overwhelm the enemies' torpedo defenses, allowing more of your naval ships' 'real' torpedoes to get through. Is this not something that ever actually happens?

I thought that would work too, but when I tried it, it just slowed my whole navy down or the ships left the Wagners in the dust. Maybe as an escort for the mega that would work, will have to try that again.

Statistics: Posted by Ato0theJ — 24 Jun 2013, 08:40

Re: Tech 2 Amphibious Tanks

2013-06-24T06:23:54+02:00

Astrofoo wrote:
I haven't been keeping up with this thread but we shouldn't be abritrarily shooting down people's ideas just because we think they are "dumb". Just my two cents. And he is right, this mechanic does already exist with the Nomads. Whether or not we can have bouncing shots I dunno but it would be interesting. A better word for it would be "richochet". I imagine a couple blazes zooming out blasting tanks creating a chain lightning effect. It might help them, is it extravagant and needlessly complex? Probably, but that's what forums are for. Ideas and constructive feedback.

Echoing my opinion, constructive criticism for ideas please, not matter how dumb you think it is.

Statistics: Posted by Nombringer — 24 Jun 2013, 06:23

Re: Tech 2 Amphibious Tanks

2013-06-23T19:38:30+02:00

Astrofoo: thank you

Statistics: Posted by Ithilis_Quo — 23 Jun 2013, 19:38

Re: Tech 2 Amphibious Tanks

2013-06-23T19:09:59+02:00

I haven't been keeping up with this thread but we shouldn't be abritrarily shooting down people's ideas just because we think they are "dumb". Just my two cents. And he is right, this mechanic does already exist with the Nomads. Whether or not we can have bouncing shots I dunno but it would be interesting. A better word for it would be "richochet". I imagine a couple blazes zooming out blasting tanks creating a chain lightning effect. It might help them, is it extravagant and needlessly complex? Probably, but that's what forums are for. Ideas and constructive feedback.

Statistics: Posted by Astrofoo — 23 Jun 2013, 19:09

Re: Tech 2 Amphibious Tanks

2013-06-23T18:13:13+02:00

You are quite impolite. This is forum, forum serve to spread idea. I called it "crazy idea" because know that someone would has problem with that idea, because its not in conservative style but bring something new.
When you write that thankfully no more of my idea would be never implemented, that you can know that some of my idea already implemented are. And before it was same "Ohh no, never!" And for now you can found ladder game only without score, or obsidian with AOE dmg, or aeon acu with cheaper sensor system, what i suggest before like it was implemented (i dont know how big impact i has on that implementation but all that say in chat and discussed about it with comunity) So what i want to say is dont be idiot and dont someone say that shut up, in forum where is spreading ideas, whitout it game wouldnt be better, im not idiot. I know what suggest and why, of course that it can be mistake and someone (or all) would has problem with it, that's legitim a part of ideas.

on that blaze + yenzie feature i railed on (origin is) from mod for Nomads, where T2 PD can pierce unit when is owerfired, blaze shot but dont look like can somthing pierce, becase bounce, but mechanics are same.

Statistics: Posted by Ithilis_Quo — 23 Jun 2013, 18:13

Re: Tech 2 Amphibious Tanks

2013-06-19T16:39:44+02:00

Not more of your "Crazy" ideas, which thankfully will never be implemented.

Statistics: Posted by ggstack — 19 Jun 2013, 16:39

Re: Tech 2 Amphibious Tanks

2013-06-19T16:20:46+02:00

I Agree that Wagner would has poor torp def rather like has poor torpedo. Torpedo is useless and because he go underwater he has advantage that is possible another sneak T2 raid from water. Or can be store underwater in stealth, in small map with lakes it will be useful advantage.

But when the Rhino become strong tank, then wagner would take him position like lighter T2 tank. The 2T2 strong tank imho isnt the best idea.

Yesterday i has crazy idea about aeon hover T2. Blaze is sux like hell what we all know when obsidian is more for T2 units then blaze whould take anti-T1 position, but for that price and low hp its realy bad.
My crazy idea, was taking blaze bounce attack (with +- 20% of dmg, and +- 3range of bounce) when is some units attacking by more like 1 blaze. That would look pretty cool! and little bit help.

The similar system would be applied on sera hover Yenzi, hes sux too, maybe more like blaze and blaze is sux as hell , when chicken is better on T1 (rof) then hover would has position on better anti T2, => take ROF from 4 -> 5sec equal dmg 175->220 by hit +when owerfire units then one hit bounce on another with T2 preferency (With 25% dmg +-5range[has only 18range and T2 are more uncomon]

Imagine how cool it could look!

Statistics: Posted by Ithilis_Quo — 19 Jun 2013, 16:20

Re: Tech 2 Amphibious Tanks

2013-06-19T15:48:41+02:00

Regarding the weak amphibious unit torpedoes - I was always under the impression that these secondary weapons were meant primarily only to raise the effectiveness of escorting naval vessels. Their large numbers of torpedoes will help overwhelm the enemies' torpedo defenses, allowing more of your naval ships' 'real' torpedoes to get through. Is this not something that ever actually happens?

Statistics: Posted by Mycen — 19 Jun 2013, 15:48

Re: Tech 2 Amphibious Tanks

2013-06-19T02:53:05+02:00

I guess so. My train of thought was that hover units like Yenzine, Blaze and Riptide can operate within the naval battlespace, as well as on land. The Wagner only uses the water for transit from A to B... Of course, the advantage is that it is detectable only by sonar or omni. So I suppose there is your balance right there.

I don't think there really needs to be a great deal of change in wagner torps tho. It shouldn't be enough to compete with subs. But it should be enought to stop an entire battalion from getting taken out by a stray sub. Anyway, if I recall, this was out of scope for the patch. I don't see too much of a problem with the current stats. Except that Rhino needs more HP and Wagner less. FA has been like that from the first day it came out.

Statistics: Posted by Hawkei — 19 Jun 2013, 02:53

Re: Tech 2 Amphibious Tanks

2013-06-18T18:09:41+02:00

Firewall, the wagner being underwater is an advantage because few weapons shoot it there. Also, it must lose vs suns because subs cannot go on land.

Statistics: Posted by FunkOff — 18 Jun 2013, 18:09

Re: Tech 2 Amphibious Tanks

2013-06-18T06:24:41+02:00

Ato0theJ wrote:
There lies the issue- they shouldn't be able to kill subs- even if there are 100 of them (which is pretty much how many you need to do anything)

If they had torp defense instead of crap torpedoes you would be able to mix them with t1 cybran subs so you would get torps+defense or to help escort a megalith. All they can be used for now is helping overwhelm torp defense due to their higher health for tanking and relatively short reload time on a torp. They serve little purpose underwater and and are at a disadvantage vs the other amphibious tanks because they have no anti navy defense- IE hover.

If you play the campaign missions you see how powerful the wagner torps are, they were able to take out naval bases with ease, nerfing damage wasn't a fix but rather a bandaid on the problem which was the wagner's role not being implemented correctly.

Who's to say what the role of a unit is? The role of a unit is defined by what it can do. I.e. The stats. In some respects a sea-bed crawler would make the perfect underwater combat unit. As it cannot be sunk, it is concievable that future technology, like the Wagner, could have an anti-naval role.

If indeed the philosophy of this unit is to be an amphibious raider. I believe that it's current direct fire DPS should be maintained, but, its HP should be reduced. As a sea bed amphibious unit it has a disadvantage compared to hover, in that it is only really effective on land. So there are 2 solutions. Make it effective underwater. Make it more effective than hover on land.

I think that a lighter HP combined with a high damage front loaded weapon would make for a good raiding unit. In keeping with Cybran philosophy. The lower HP would make it less attractive as a frontline battletank.

Statistics: Posted by Hawkei — 18 Jun 2013, 06:24

Re: Tech 2 Amphibious Tanks

2013-06-18T01:00:17+02:00

There lies the issue- they shouldn't be able to kill subs- even if there are 100 of them (which is pretty much how many you need to do anything)

If they had torp defense instead of crap torpedoes you would be able to mix them with t1 cybran subs so you would get torps+defense or to help escort a megalith. All they can be used for now is helping overwhelm torp defense due to their higher health for tanking and relatively short reload time on a torp. They serve little purpose underwater and and are at a disadvantage vs the other amphibious tanks because they have no anti navy defense- IE hover.

If you play the campaign missions you see how powerful the wagner torps are, they were able to take out naval bases with ease, nerfing damage wasn't a fix but rather a bandaid on the problem which was the wagner's role not being implemented correctly.

Statistics: Posted by Ato0theJ — 18 Jun 2013, 01:00