OpenRA

It would make sense for sam site to have longer range than AA gun because of slow projectile speed and disjointable projectiles / timeout.

Sam site also has larger footprint and I see that as another bad feature about it.

Can add an secondary weapon to the Sam site so functions like Missile Bunker of TI, but only against airplanes.
Multiple low damage, high speed missiles get launched againts Yak and Migs, current weapon remains in use against helicopters.

Sam should have a longer range than AA gun, end of story.

Whether the AA range gets shortened or the Sam extended I don't think will matter much.

How about "easy to spam and easy to destroy"? Also long tracking missiles might be a little buff.

anjew wrote: ↑Its worth remembering that Soviets have the flak truck, the only effective anti-air ground unit in the game, even Allies doesnt have a mobile anti-air ground unit available before Tech. Im pretty sure this is why the Soviets have the flak truck. If you make the AA gun and the SAM equal then Soviets will have an advantage against air units

I totally agree to anjew's post here the sams have to be weaker than the aa guns flak trucks doing a good job against airunits.

By the way some people here seem to overact, sams are not so much weak.

Longbows can shoot air cough cough
Can fly and shoot air cough cough intensives

No seriously there is not a discuission point between the balance of 2 necessary immobile AA defenses and the comparrision which factions has more AA options?

Both shall be equal or at least good. The soviet one is clearly underwhelming in its current state due to the lack of development and there should be no excuse that soviets have the Mobile Flak since allies clearly have a flying AA mchine.

You have to keep in mind that there is one tech centre in about 50 1v1 games so longbows aren't a common sight compared to flak trucks.

Happy wrote: ↑You have to keep in mind that there is one tech centre in about 50 1v1 games so longbows aren't a common sight compared to flak trucks.

I agree on that one. Still making comparrisions by AA answers is not the right direction to focus on a certain facts such as the clear imbalance between both defense structures.

You can either make both good or the other spammable but worse.

Dont forget the new aa for submissiles and the mammoth if you say things like these
"Both shall be equal or at least good. The soviet one is clearly underwhelming in its current state due to the lack of development"

Also we all should wait for the next release imo when the allied defenses are more expensive.

This should also be included in the calculation, so before this date resistance is required if you dont playtest.

I still like Lorry's suggestion the most. Rather than immensely buffing sams, nerfing AA guns and if any a slight buff to sams is the best course. Aircraft are already glass cannons enough as it is. Turning static AA into complete lockdown zones is not a good idea.

either nerf aa or give sam a 1 cell range and vision buff , and lets go from there