christian wrote: ↑^^ MIG's got 12 vision and they can easily outfly longbows. With 120HP Longsbows already got more HP than any other air unit.
Well not that easily. On direct interception, if you babysit your migs you can turn and avoid the Longbows by a few good cells, but frequently it happens with at least one of them critically damaged. I just feel like the migs should be zoned out like this rather than be shot down immediately when in range. As for the HP increase from 120 to 150 it still would be too low to cost-effectively engage around AA, as it should off course. I want to give them a better chance to pull out alive from AA, given their cost. As of today, players would rather just spam HINDS (100HP) instead of investing in longbows.
I'd also favor a HP increase + slight cost increase over a mere cost reduction, to keep the longbow a strong and appealing mid- to late-game unit and avoid spam.
sounds like we can all agree atleast with the hijacker ... to first only buff the speed of the unit ... i would say , we can do that without any impact on the price ...
if theres a need to have him "invisible" ... we could still add this feature later on
When I first started playing, I thought the flame troopers were overpowered. Now I don't think they are really a problem at all. There are ways to counter when you know what you are doing.
Later I thought that artillery was overpowered against soviets. Now I doubt that is really the case either. It depends on the map and the tactics that play out but I don't think you can balance for every possible situation. (Or you need to worry about that.) Broadly speaking, both sides can be enjoyed and played against each other.
When it comes to shock troopers, they can certainly appear overpowered because they can cut through base structures and base defences very fast in the right circumstances. You can just eat someone's base and end the game that way. However, the real test is 1v1 games between good players of equivalent-ish skill. I'm not sure Russia is always going to be winning because of them. I still think they should have their health lowered but whether there is a major issue here I'm not sure.
I speak of "1v1" games here because it's difficult to get proper balance in team games. There may however be potential team tactics that are relevant to whether something is overpowered or not.
I'm with zinc on this one; the more small tactical and strategical progressions you make as a player the more easily you are able to overcome tactics that you may have previously seen as OP such as flamer rushes, arty spam and eventually flak truck massing will be overcome as well. I am not against buffing and nerfing units because they are either too powerful or not powerful enough in general but when you want units nerfed just because there is a unit used a lot at the moment which doesn't make it viable then that's just not right, in fact it is called a counter.
Here are the issues i have with the balance changes put forward:
-Chrono Tanks: Im not an allies player but that seems like you are complaining about the current meta rather than actually thinking aboutthe consequences of such a change. What would counter Chrono Tanks if they were boosted to medium armour? I have no issues about reducing the cost of Chrono Tanks but reduce their health if you do, they are pretty difficult to take down otherwise, especially with their blink ability.
-Gunboats: i'd like to see them have to face their target as well so that they cant just kite subs the whole time, soviets dont have a counter to that in the early game.
-Yak: i like the height change because it allows for yaks to take down arty and inf further back than the closest AA turret.
-Missle Sub: They are damn expensive and pretty weak so why not make it so their missles cant be dodged by air.
Iron Curtain: Chrono is just as powerful, an MCV chrono'd in after a nuke or simply at a weak rearward position can be much more damaging. Perhaps regular Chronos should charge faster instead so allies can do more with kill zones etc. and it would make teching for allies more viable.
My personal change would be for SAM Sights to have a larger range with a price increase to $800.
^^ Right now Chrono tanks got light armor and 400HP compared to medium tanks that got heavy armor and 450HP. They are very vunerable to attacks from infantry, flaks, yaks and hinds. Even with medium armor they would still be a lot weaker than medium tanks. Tesla tanks need a buff too though.
If missile subs get AA then I think it´s important that their missiles can be dodged. Crusiers are just as expensive as missile subs and while they got more health they don´t have the stealth ability that missile subs got.
If Missils Sub volleys were to track air targets, this would give the Sovs total air dominance, as they already have Flaks as a super efficient ground-to-air deterrent.
This, coupled with the insane range of Missile Subs, would push Allied air builds out of viability.
Plus, think of it: They cost the same as cruisers do, have similar damage and scatter but are way faster and stealthed.
Now, combine this with uninterceptible long range AA salvos, and they would outclass cruisers in every single field.
Chrono tanks can crush infantry and have a lot of maneuverability at their disposal, medium tanks do not; lower the price but the stats should be the same. And yaks and hinds don't make much sense vs an allied army with AA turrets at their disposal and will usually end up in some awful trade-offs.
Perhaps we are missing something here; what kind of missile are we talking about? a rapid firing missile capable of real destruction vs a mass of yaks or hinds, or a single, powerful missile which fires at short range (i.e. to hinds/yaks just above it) instead of the main sea-to-land missile with the same delay which is what i am imagining. Also, cruisers have a larger spread with a few more shots than a missile sub; missile sub missiles are designed for taking down buildings as they can be easily dodged, cruisers suit an all-round role much better. Cruisers also have twice the health of missile subs despite being just as expensive.
Finally, pushing a build out of competitive viability has nothing to do with balance, for example; a ranger-based build is pushed out of viability due to the fact that there are so many units and defences that counter them, that doesn't mean other units should have to suffer nerfs just so i can go wild with rangers. Hinds/Longbows have a long range of vision and are quite slow therefore they suit control over aggression and trying to be aggressive with them wouldn't work in a competitive setting. Im all for making units usable (such as armor which is suffering badly atm) but when it comes to making builds usable it just stirs things up a bit too much for me.
At the end of the day Red Alert is a big game of chess, certain openings are far better than others but can sometimes be countered by unintuitive openings which can thwart conventional openings and so the game evolves. The meta at the moment isnt how things will always be, if it were left for a year the tactics and strategies would have changed from what they are now as people would have had time to get good at the game before large balance changes like the ones you two are putting forwards come in to place to stir things up again.
Phoenix wrote: ↑Chrono tanks can crush infantry and have a lot of maneuverability at their disposal, medium tanks do not; lower the price but the stats should be the same. And yaks and hinds don't make much sense vs an allied army with AA turrets at their disposal and will usually end up in some awful trade-offs.
Yes you can crush infantry with them but usually you need like 4-5 of them for it to work efficiently and still then it can be hard to stay out of danager as they are quite easy to kill because of their weak armor and since their chronoshift has just been used you can´t move them away fast again and that makes them really vunerable to attacks. In most cases it's better to use their chronoshift defensively than offensively. Still they are almost 60% more expensive than medium tanks and with much weaker armor and lower HP too, 1350 is a lot for what they can do.
If they are inside your own base protected by AA´s then you shouldn´t attack them with yaks or hinds but if they are out on an open battlefield you can kill them in no time with them. But sure they can cause some trouble to other players especially since most players are simply not used to see them so they don´t really know what to do against them. A lot of non-meta playstyles can be hard to play against for other players because they are used to play a certain way.
Ok, fair enough; i'd like to see how medium armor works out and also a price reduction would be in order. Then, if its a bit OP it can be reduced until perfection.
I still think incremental changes would be easier to test and feedback on (although I do agree with many of the balance suggestions). Personally I think the factions should be balanced out before we change other units.
Shocktroopers are probably going to be nerfed in some fashion next release. With Russia getting nerfed I think England and France should be buffed.
Englands phase transport could be buffed to become hit and run units - like NOD stealth tanks but not as ridiculous. Their DPM is far too low at the moment to be anything but an invisible spy / tanya / engi transport.
Frances fake structures could take damage at the normal rate of its real version, but die at a much lower percentage of the real versions health. This would stop a single rifle burst discerning your real silo and your fake.
It doesn't have to be those changes, but something to buff England and France in respect to Germany now that Russia will be a little more equal to Ukraine.
r34ch wrote: ↑I still think incremental changes would be easier to test and feedback on (although I do agree with many of the balance suggestions). Personally I think the factions should be balanced out before we change other units.
Shocktroopers are probably going to be nerfed in some fashion next release. With Russia getting nerfed I think England and France should be buffed.
Englands phase transport could be buffed to become hit and run units - like NOD stealth tanks but not as ridiculous. Their DPM is far too low at the moment to be anything but an invisible spy / tanya / engi transport.
Frances fake structures could take damage at the normal rate of its real version, but die at a much lower percentage of the real versions health. This would stop a single rifle burst discerning your real silo and your fake.
It doesn't have to be those changes, but something to buff England and France in respect to Germany now that Russia will be a little more equal to Ukraine.
The problem with fake buildings being almost as strong as the real one is twofold, the first is fake buildings of Weapons Factory / Construction Yard will make a very efficient wall / blocker, and the second is fake buildings are actually more useful when used strategically than in real combat.
But yeah, add capabilities to build more than one fake silo will be good.
OpenRA Nicks :
- Everything with "Blueblood" inside
- Yuelang (when I speak Chinese, literally)
My Ping might be Red... blame distance and my shitty connection due to which country I lived in...
I agree with Zinc as well when it comes to balance testing. Although the few times ive played RA its difficult for me to understand it because im used to using units vs other unit compositions. (As Yellow promptly destroys me in RA regardless)
But thats the real test is 1v1. I do think shockies is to strong though. Looking through the values of the units I find the following:
Shock Troopers: 100 hp at 400 costing. Range 5c0 shroud reveal.
Armament: PortaTesla. damage 45. Range 6c0
------
Tanya: 100hp at 1200 costing. Range 6c0 reveal shroud.
Armament: Colt45. damage 50. Range 7c0.
-----
Essentially a dedicated anti infantry unit such as Tanya would take 3 zaps and dead. (<<< Not true read edit) Currently because of their large hp pool they would require to be shot 3+ times to kill one. (3+ shots because of the bullet mechanic travel and proning increases armor).
I also agree with FiveAces in adding in a 1-2 cell travel of them getting up. But I would also prefer a double click mechanic that existed in CNC95 and RA98 which essentially was a bug. But double clicking rapidly forced the infantry out of prone and made them run. This worked greatly when running from other infantry or base charging with infantry. IE: Flame infantry.
EDIT: Interesting to note as well infantry have no armor. which leaves me confused as the vs modifiers is left blank so it should only do 45 damage to infantry and not an instant kill. Yes they instantly kill Tanya's as well. E1, Medics, and E2 (Grenadiers) should all survive at least the shot. Could this be the problem with shockies maybe that they just kill certian units ignoring modifiers?
EDIT2: Just did some tests vs vehicles and the damages come out correct. Its only the infantry they ignore and are instantly killing for some reason. Am I missing something maybe?
EDIT3: Just knocked shockies damage to 1 and fired at a Tanya. It took a shockie 19 shots to kill Tanya. From the Tesla Tanks it took 17 shots to kill Tanya at damage of 1.
