T3 Mobile Artillery

[Gowerly]

From the cybran thread:

I think there is a rational argument that T3 mobile arty are very bad. Discounting the fact that they are T3, and should be better than tech 2 destroyers, they are still far worse. Compare Cybran T3 mob arty and T2 destroyer:
1 Destroyer vs 3 T3 mob arty
2250 mass vs 2400 mass
80 range vs 90 range
230 DPS vs 201 DPS
5 speed vs 2.5 speed
6050 health vs 2550 health
0 firing randomness vs 2 firing randomness

In every way, destroyers are better (except max range) but a large margin, 15% more DPS/mass, FAR more accurate, more than double health and double speed, and they are amphibious and have AA anti torpedoes to kill subs with.

Of course, this is hardly a Cybran exclusive weakness. But then again, if T3 mob artillery was better, turtling with shields would be such a powerful strategy, and Cybran wouldn't seem so bad for being poor at it.

T3 arty is very low DPS for its cost.
However the splash is much larger than it is on the destroyer. Also, you can back up your arty with your land army, which is difficult to do (with most factions) with a destroyer.

I am wary of any drastic changes to them because it could change the way the game is played completely into a much slower pushing/leapfrogging style of play. However, as most maps are so open I can't imagine that being too much of an issue.

What to do? Give them more damaging shots? Add special abilities similar to T1 arty?

I would suggest possibly a small RoF increase or give them 2 modes, similar to the sera sniper bot. Currently with the slow reload times shields can completely recharge.

[FunkOff]

More damage more health less firing randomness... Most oeople dont understand how usless randomness makes weapons

[pip]

Honestly, I don't think these units are so bad as you make them appear.

As Gowerly stated, they have a huge AOE and range. You can't just look at their DPS and say : whoa it sucks. Big splash is like multiplying DPS by 2, 3 or even 4 considering the number of units they can hit at once, and long range is also a big factor to take into account to precisely limit their DPS.

These are siege weapons, that's why their firing randomness is high. They are more meant to weaken, to wear off and not to one shot one kill like a sniper bot.

I think they are fine as they are, much more useful than their static t3 counterparts. If changes are made for artilleries, it's certainly not them that need attention first.

On the other hand, special abilities / or enhancing specific factional aspect like t1 arties can be good to fine tune them, if deemed necessary.

[wetlettuce]

Honestly, I don't think these units are so bad as you make them appear.

T3 artillery does 75 DPS and has more initial cost than a t2 shield.
A t2 shield regenerates at an effective 600 DPS. Factoring in multiple shields, t3 artillery simply is NOT cost effective at killing t2 shields in any scenario.

One idea being thrown around, and my personal favorite is the one of giving all t2 stationary artillery, t3 mobile and static artillery a toggle switch between it's current firemode, and a special one that only does shield damage but at a multiplied DPS rate.

It can be further balanced, to prevent that leapfrog consequence you speak of by adding a toggle delay between allowing it to swap between shield and normal killing modes.

Thing is, if you have a t2 forward firebase, t3 mobile artillery will die to t2 stationary artillery, so if you want to turtle, you still have the option - but obviously you must be forced to go to the expense of making t2 stationary artillery ahead of the timing of the enemy sending in t3 mobile artillery. Isn't this what strategy is?

Unlike the t2 forward firebases that have shield protection and can take alot of initial damage before vulnerability presents itself, the t3 mobile artillery typically is very vulnerable at all times and cost effectively killed by TML's, counter t3 mobile artillery, t2/t3 air and general attacking units, if the player turtling has all but a t2 shielded forward firebase with no ability to counter t3 artillery when they come along then they deserve to lose.

Everything in a strategy game should have a counter, at least a more efficient counter. I feel shields have no real counter, while it can be argued they don't do DPS themselves, there cheap and incredibly cost effective ability to keep the units/structures alive that do DPS for far too long is what creates the issue.

The idea is to keep shields cost effective like they are, but then create a new way of cost effectively killing shields.

Thus;

Shields beat Armies
Artillery beats Shields
Armies beat Artillery

When I say shields beat armies, I generally refer to static shields and the cost effective nature of mobile shields within armies rather than an entire army of attacking units. Before you argue that shields are not cost effective at protecting armies see my explanation in a previous post on this thread that does the maths proving they do.

Thus we enter the basic realm of strategy, horseman > infantry > pikeman > horseman. It sounds simple, but to be fair, some things need to be simple given the complexities elsewhere in FA.

[wetlettuce]

Also talking about t1 artillerys, they are already cost effective for killing even early game t2 shielded+pd firebases. As i said the "early game" - which fits in where t1 strength lies. As the game goes in, it becomes impossible to stream enough t1 artillery in fast enough - which is the biggest limitation of lower tech units to higher tech counterparts.

Typical units cost vs. point of damage per second
T1 = 2.1 mass per DPS
T2 = 3.4 mass per DPS
T3 = 3.4 mass per DPS
T4 = 6.6 mass per DPS

Problem is, as the game goes on, there becomes no cost effective solution vs. shields. Plus, as the game goes on, factoring in shield regen and overlapping, shields become disproportionally effective.

[pip]

The problem is shields, not arties DPS. If you tweak all arties DPS to defeat overlapping shields, you will make them totally overpowered. So only damages against shields are what should be looked at.

IMO, there is no need to have to toggle arties into anti-shield weapons wit ha special mode. It's much easier to just add special damages to shields on top of their current damages.This would actually make sense, since the splash damage could be seen as impacting the shields much more than no splash weapons. I wonder if splash could be applied on shields surface, because if if could, Cybran would have no problem facing overlapping shields with a huge 7 splash damage t3 artillery. The problem is that shields completely nullify this splash damage. That sucks.

In my opinion, Cybran is the one faction which should benefit most from this anti-shield kind of damages, because precisely they don't have mobile shields (and also they already have big or even huge splash on their artilleries, so that would "make sense").

[FunkOff]

Honestly, I don't think these units are so bad as you make them appear.

As Gowerly stated, they have a huge AOE and range. You can't just look at their DPS and say : whoa it sucks. Big splash is like multiplying DPS by 2, 3 or even 4 considering the number of units they can hit at once, and long range is also a big factor to take into account to precisely limit their DPS.

You are exactly correct. HOWEVER, the trade of raw damage for damage radius makes artillery utterly useless against shields.

Shields beat Armies
Artillery beats Shields
Armies beat Artillery

This is a good base, but we should probably differentiate it a bit. And let's call it "siege" rather than "arty" , because siege includes stuff like TMLs and MMLs too. Also, let's call it Direct Fire because "Armies" is an FA concept that means all the armies (all the players + AI and etc) in the game.

Also, it's questionable whether shields beat direct fire or should... in the present case, PD beat direct fire (this is good) and lose to siege (also good) BUT shields beat siege, so shields + PD beat direct + siege.

This begs the question though, what will happen if we change it so siege beats shields? Siege will beat shields and PD, direct fire will match direct fire, so direct fire + siege will pretty much beat all equal mass contributions of all other elements (not including air).

Besides, and this is a prediction I''m making, if we make siege better (through more DPS, etc) , it would make turtling stronger, because then using siege as counter-siege would sbuff turtling as a strategy.

This is why I like the idea that TMLs go through shields. It buffs MMLs, which need it, by giving them a role as ant-shield. It buffs TMD, which need it, because it gives them a role (people will now use MMLs, so TMDs will be required). It buffs artillery, because you can now beat shields + PD with combine siege (MML + artillery), it nerfs shieds, which is good, by giving them a prominent weakness, it buffs cybran, which is good, by buffing one of their strengths (MMLs/TMLs), and it buffs artillery again, by giving them the role of counter-siege (now that combined siege is good vs shields, you will need counter-siege to kill the enemy's siege of your shields/PD).

[wetlettuce]

This is why I like the idea that TMLs go through shields.

Pretty simple reason this wont work. MML's will totally and utterly roll UEF firebases for instance. To the point you'll get nasty screams from many members of the community who like to make pretty forward bases who now cannot.

If you then go and balance TMD's to cater for this, you'll adversely effect TML spam (i.e. 4 missile launchers), more importantly it'll take t2 cruisers/aeon missile ships to the point of near uselessness.

[FunkOff]

This is why I like the idea that TMLs go through shields.

Pretty simple reason this wont work. MML's will totally and utterly roll UEF firebases for instance. To the point you'll get nasty screams from many members of the community who like to make pretty forward bases who now cannot.

If you then go and balance TMD's to cater for this, you'll adversely effect TML spam (i.e. 4 missile launchers), more importantly it'll take t2 cruisers/aeon missile ships to the point of near uselessness.

You may be right, but I've yet to hear a better idea (except for shield interference)

[wetlettuce]

This is why I like the idea that TMLs go through shields.

Pretty simple reason this wont work. MML's will totally and utterly roll UEF firebases for instance. To the point you'll get nasty screams from many members of the community who like to make pretty forward bases who now cannot.

If you then go and balance TMD's to cater for this, you'll adversely effect TML spam (i.e. 4 missile launchers), more importantly it'll take t2 cruisers/aeon missile ships to the point of near uselessness.

You may be right, but I've yet to hear a better idea (except for shield interference)

I've failed to see anyone validly argue that the idea that giving all artillery (except t1 tech) the ability to toggle between an additional DPS shield killing mode and its current damage dealing mode.

If your going to turtle under shields, as I said, you still can counter enemy t3 artillery by going to the lengthy cost of making t2 stationary artillery under your turtle paradise -- it'll even allow you to crawl forward given stationary artillerys further range -- then you must factor in the numerous ways to kill attacking t3 mobile artillery such as tmls, air, t2 cruisers, direct attacking land, i truly consider it a fair solution.

Obviously the disadvantage we've created for the defender goes along with what FA does already. You cannot move T2 pds, but you can move armies, and armies will always have the advantage over a turtler ultimately because they can just go around - or even team an opponent 2v1 (your pds can't go and assist an ally)

All of the above ideas give a new use for t2 stationary artillery and t3 mobile artillery as they become the new counter for shields.