Is Naval Balanced Between Soviet and Allies?

Discussion about the game and its default mods.

Is Naval Balanced?

It's balanced no problem
4
17%
It's unfair to Soviets, but can be fixed just by tinkering with original units
6
26%
It's unfair to Soviets, and probably the only way to fix is with an extra unit
10
43%
It's unfair to Allies
3
13%
 
Total votes: 23

User avatar
avalach21
Posts: 214
Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2015 8:01 pm

Post by avalach21 » Mon Nov 13, 2017 3:42 pm

netnazgul wrote:
avalach21 wrote: Allow the MIG to shoot air to air.. balance around this. problem solved.
how exactly does THIS solve any problems with naval... Do you have your nickname number divided by 20 against your usual nickname?
It's my opinion, and seems to also be the opinion of the devs, that it's preferable to try to work within the confines of the original Red Alert source material rather than adding completely new units which would pretty much be a last resort.

According to this thread, the greatest balance issue seems to be the Soviets lack of AA capabilities at sea to properly counter Allied helicopter air support..

The MiG is a unit that is already in the game.. MiGs can fly over the water and support the navy... (just as helicopters do). Give the MiG AA capabilities and it solves this issue.. The MiGs can counter the helicopters. This makes logical sense, doesn't require the introduction of an out-of place unit that wasn't in the original game, and has been something people have asked for over the years. Obviously there would be other effects it would have on balance that need to be considered, but to me it seems to be a reasonable approach to addressing this issue.

User avatar
Clockwork
Posts: 314
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2017 3:50 am
Contact:

Post by Clockwork » Mon Nov 13, 2017 4:21 pm

avalach21 wrote:
netnazgul wrote:
avalach21 wrote: Allow the MIG to shoot air to air.. balance around this. problem solved.
how exactly does THIS solve any problems with naval... Do you have your nickname number divided by 20 against your usual nickname?
It's my opinion, and seems to also be the opinion of the devs, that it's preferable to try to work within the confines of the original Red Alert source material rather than adding completely new units which would pretty much be a last resort.

According to this thread, the greatest balance issue seems to be the Soviets lack of AA capabilities at sea to properly counter Allied helicopter air support..

The MiG is a unit that is already in the game.. MiGs can fly over the water and support the navy... (just as helicopters do). Give the MiG AA capabilities and it solves this issue.. The MiGs can counter the helicopters. This makes logical sense, doesn't require the introduction of an out-of place unit that wasn't in the original game, and has been something people have asked for over the years. Obviously there would be other effects it would have on balance that need to be considered, but to me it seems to be a reasonable approach to addressing this issue.
If you do this you will hurt allies vs soviet balance. Both sides have 3 units of mobile AA, giving soviets a 4th will be imbalanced plus their speed is super fast and would be superior to longbows as the tier 3 air powerhouse. Aswell only some maps have a navy element. This change will most likely fix the navy imbalance but on land thats 3 mobile AA units to 2 for soviets. The gameplay imbalance however will be akin to maps and having derricks closer to one spawn - not that big of a deal but no one will still play the map.

But I'm not sure making migs AA will solve it personally. They're expensive glass cannons at tier 3, destroyers and hinds are already out at tier 2.

Tbh I don't see why anyone wants navy to be viable. To balance it is a chore and to makesure those changes dont affect land battles is even more of a chore. My worst experiances of this game is having to play navy only maps - they're so wank. It's a boring mechanic that usually pitches a blob of boats vs a blob of subs. Since many of you despise the "blob meta" idk why massive destroyer blobs are wanting to be made viable for more things than camping ore patches on Dual Cold Front. Navy was added in to RA to give its singleplayer campaign an extra vector. TD can survive without navy why can RA not?

User avatar
ZxGanon
Posts: 159
Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2017 4:40 pm

Post by ZxGanon » Mon Nov 13, 2017 5:53 pm

Soviets will dominate if you make their Subs heavy armored.

Does not also buff them against Air but also against the other Ships.

Allies will never have a comback mechanism if they fall behind on the Sea while Soviets can always hide in the depth.

User avatar
ZxGanon
Posts: 159
Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2017 4:40 pm

Post by ZxGanon » Mon Nov 13, 2017 5:55 pm

ZxGanon wrote: Soviets will dominate if you make their Subs heavy armored.

Does not also buff them against Air but also against the other Ships.

Allies will never have a comback mechanism if they fall behind on the Sea while Soviets can always hide in the depth.
Btw my main faction is soviet but reducing their weakness to zero is unfun and leaves no counterplays anymore.

User avatar
avalach21
Posts: 214
Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2015 8:01 pm

Post by avalach21 » Mon Nov 13, 2017 6:09 pm

Happy wrote:
avalach21 wrote:
netnazgul wrote:
avalach21 wrote: Allow the MIG to shoot air to air.. balance around this. problem solved.
how exactly does THIS solve any problems with naval... Do you have your nickname number divided by 20 against your usual nickname?
It's my opinion, and seems to also be the opinion of the devs, that it's preferable to try to work within the confines of the original Red Alert source material rather than adding completely new units which would pretty much be a last resort.

According to this thread, the greatest balance issue seems to be the Soviets lack of AA capabilities at sea to properly counter Allied helicopter air support..

The MiG is a unit that is already in the game.. MiGs can fly over the water and support the navy... (just as helicopters do). Give the MiG AA capabilities and it solves this issue.. The MiGs can counter the helicopters. This makes logical sense, doesn't require the introduction of an out-of place unit that wasn't in the original game, and has been something people have asked for over the years. Obviously there would be other effects it would have on balance that need to be considered, but to me it seems to be a reasonable approach to addressing this issue.
If you do this you will hurt allies vs soviet balance. Both sides have 3 units of mobile AA, giving soviets a 4th will be imbalanced plus their speed is super fast and would be superior to longbows as the tier 3 air powerhouse. Aswell only some maps have a navy element. This change will most likely fix the navy imbalance but on land thats 3 mobile AA units to 2 for soviets. The gameplay imbalance however will be akin to maps and having derricks closer to one spawn - not that big of a deal but no one will still play the map.

But I'm not sure making migs AA will solve it personally. They're expensive glass cannons at tier 3, destroyers and hinds are already out at tier 2.
These are all good points, and I agree (as mentioned), it's not a make MiGs shoot air fix and call it a day.. it would have some other repercussions obviously.. Maybe the MiG s should be slowed down a bit with some added armor.. or maybe the Yak should do AA? As you mention the Soviets would have too many AA units.. but in original Red Alert they dont have Rocket Inf or Flak trucks.. Maybe they should have one or the other? I wouldn't mind seeing Soviets lose Rocket Infantry and make grenadiers more viable as anti tank solution. but I'm kind of derailing the topic..

Back on topic and in response to your comments
Happy wrote: Tbh I don't see why anyone wants navy to be viable. To balance it is a chore and to makesure those changes dont affect land battles is even more of a chore. My worst experiances of this game is having to play navy only maps - they're so wank. It's a boring mechanic that usually pitches a blob of boats vs a blob of subs. Since many of you despise the "blob meta" idk why massive destroyer blobs are wanting to be made viable for more things than camping ore patches on Dual Cold Front. Navy was added in to RA to give its singleplayer campaign an extra vector. TD can survive without navy why can RA not?
Navy is an iconic part of the Red Alert series - both RA1 and RA2 incorporate navy into their identity so much that when EA looked at them for inspiration when making RA3 they went totally overboard and made nearly everything in that game have a naval function (which sucked in my opinion). I think it is a critical component of Red Alert's identity, but if tournaments/pro players think it ruins balance, they can just stick to no water maps or maybe have special tournament versions of the maps that disable naval yard/sub pen (the same way certain levels or stages are banned from tournament in smash bros or something like that etc.) Having navy vs no navy was one of the key differences in the Red Alert experience vs the Tiberian series experience.

Now I do agree that alot of naval battles tend to be blob vs blob.. and IMO soviets do just fine in these encounters.. I don't think there's a balance issue at all. Subs are annoying to fight in blobs as they keep submerging and their torpedoes do sooo much damage to clumped up blobs of destroyers.. their torpedoes will still hit other targets if the original target is moved or destroyed. In small engagements (1 dest vs 1 sub ~ 3 dest vs 3 sub) it's easy to micro a destroyer to avoid torpedos but in big blob battles it's almost impossible. Yes you can bring in helicopters to play whack a mole on the subs as they pop up but again this isnt the easiest thing to execute while you are microing your destroyers like crazy dodging all the torpedoes... maybe I just suck but this is my experience with big blob naval battles.. I agree that maybe we should try to figure out a way to change up naval battle dynamcs..

User avatar
Clockwork
Posts: 314
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2017 3:50 am
Contact:

Post by Clockwork » Mon Nov 13, 2017 6:23 pm

avalach21 wrote:
Happy wrote:
avalach21 wrote:
netnazgul wrote:
avalach21 wrote: Allow the MIG to shoot air to air.. balance around this. problem solved.
how exactly does THIS solve any problems with naval... Do you have your nickname number divided by 20 against your usual nickname?
It's my opinion, and seems to also be the opinion of the devs, that it's preferable to try to work within the confines of the original Red Alert source material rather than adding completely new units which would pretty much be a last resort.

According to this thread, the greatest balance issue seems to be the Soviets lack of AA capabilities at sea to properly counter Allied helicopter air support..

The MiG is a unit that is already in the game.. MiGs can fly over the water and support the navy... (just as helicopters do). Give the MiG AA capabilities and it solves this issue.. The MiGs can counter the helicopters. This makes logical sense, doesn't require the introduction of an out-of place unit that wasn't in the original game, and has been something people have asked for over the years. Obviously there would be other effects it would have on balance that need to be considered, but to me it seems to be a reasonable approach to addressing this issue.
If you do this you will hurt allies vs soviet balance. Both sides have 3 units of mobile AA, giving soviets a 4th will be imbalanced plus their speed is super fast and would be superior to longbows as the tier 3 air powerhouse. Aswell only some maps have a navy element. This change will most likely fix the navy imbalance but on land thats 3 mobile AA units to 2 for soviets. The gameplay imbalance however will be akin to maps and having derricks closer to one spawn - not that big of a deal but no one will still play the map.

But I'm not sure making migs AA will solve it personally. They're expensive glass cannons at tier 3, destroyers and hinds are already out at tier 2.
These are all good points, and I agree (as mentioned), it's not a make MiGs shoot air fix and call it a day.. it would have some other repercussions obviously.. Maybe the MiG s should be slowed down a bit with some added armor.. or maybe the Yak should do AA? As you mention the Soviets would have too many AA units.. but in original Red Alert they dont have Rocket Inf or Flak trucks.. Maybe they should have one or the other? I wouldn't mind seeing Soviets lose Rocket Infantry and make grenadiers more viable as anti tank solution. but I'm kind of derailing the topic..

Back on topic and in response to your comments
Happy wrote: Tbh I don't see why anyone wants navy to be viable. To balance it is a chore and to makesure those changes dont affect land battles is even more of a chore. My worst experiances of this game is having to play navy only maps - they're so wank. It's a boring mechanic that usually pitches a blob of boats vs a blob of subs. Since many of you despise the "blob meta" idk why massive destroyer blobs are wanting to be made viable for more things than camping ore patches on Dual Cold Front. Navy was added in to RA to give its singleplayer campaign an extra vector. TD can survive without navy why can RA not?
Navy is an iconic part of the Red Alert series - both RA1 and RA2 incorporate navy into their identity so much that when EA looked at them for inspiration when making RA3 they went totally overboard and made nearly everything in that game have a naval function (which sucked in my opinion). I think it is a critical component of Red Alert's identity, but if tournaments/pro players think it ruins balance, they can just stick to no water maps or maybe have special tournament versions of the maps that disable naval yard/sub pen (the same way certain levels or stages are banned from tournament in smash bros or something like that etc.) Having navy vs no navy was one of the key differences in the Red Alert experience vs the Tiberian series experience.

Now I do agree that alot of naval battles tend to be blob vs blob.. and IMO soviets do just fine in these encounters.. I don't think there's a balance issue at all. Subs are annoying to fight in blobs as they keep submerging and their torpedoes do sooo much damage to clumped up blobs of destroyers.. their torpedoes will still hit other targets if the original target is moved or destroyed. In small engagements (1 dest vs 1 sub ~ 3 dest vs 3 sub) it's easy to micro a destroyer to avoid torpedos but in big blob battles it's almost impossible. Yes you can bring in helicopters to play whack a mole on the subs as they pop up but again this isnt the easiest thing to execute while you are microing your destroyers like crazy dodging all the torpedoes... maybe I just suck but this is my experience with big blob naval battles.. I agree that maybe we should try to figure out a way to change up naval battle dynamcs..
No reason for me to do a length reply cause I agree with everything you say :D

zinc
Posts: 657
Joined: Sun Feb 09, 2014 3:46 pm

Post by zinc » Mon Nov 13, 2017 6:43 pm

Kiraye wrote: Also adding a new unit to fix what the Missile sub should do in the first place?
The Missile Sub is designed/intended for long range ground bombardment.

The anti-air ability was only tacked on because of a balance problem in the original game. There is no reason you can't say, "actually, this isn't the best way to fix the problem", or "this can only be a partial solution to the problem".

And it may well be problematic trying to balance a tier 2 unit (Destroyers) by using a tier 3 unit-- either Missile Subs or MiGs. I mean, what if you don't tech to that tier in the game? Or if you really want to tech up and have that ability, your opponent can be investing in other things and yet still have naval anti-air with the Destroyers.

User avatar
avalach21
Posts: 214
Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2015 8:01 pm

Post by avalach21 » Mon Nov 13, 2017 7:11 pm

zinc wrote:
Kiraye wrote: Also adding a new unit to fix what the Missile sub should do in the first place?
The Missile Sub is designed/intended for long range ground bombardment.

The anti-air ability was only tacked on because of a balance problem in the original game. There is no reason you can't say, "actually, this isn't the best way to fix the problem", or "this can only be a partial solution to the problem".

And it may well be problematic trying to balance a tier 2 unit (Destroyers) by using a tier 3 unit-- either Missile Subs or MiGs. I mean, what if you don't tech to that tier in the game? Or if you really want to tech up and have that ability, your opponent can be investing in other things and yet still have naval anti-air with the Destroyers.
There's no reason you can't say "there's nothing inherently wrong with this".. Red Alert & C&C's claim to fame was asymmetrical factions with varying strengths and weakness.. Soviets have strength in other areas.. if they want to stay toe to toe at sea in the long run then they need to tech up to tier 3.. Their subs can stay submerged (protecting themselves) via tier 2 and the sub pen can be protected by land defense (Teslas, SAMS, flak tracks and V2s) . It's all part of the Soviet's playstyle.. you need to account for their strengths and weaknesses..

User avatar
AoAGeneral1
Posts: 597
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2015 6:11 pm

Post by AoAGeneral1 » Mon Nov 13, 2017 11:45 pm

There is a way to balance it. Everything can be balanced very well in any RTS game. It just needs games and tests.

I don't think adding a flak navy unit for Soviet will fix the problem because it becomes the ONLY unit that can perform with only this method. Compare it to the Flak truck on ground. It kills infantry, light vehicles, and air. A flak navy unit would kill only air and just barely maybe a gunboat. Not a good trade off. On the other hand, it might kill submarines much to easily and become an even bigger balance problem.

I agree with Happy that adjusting the Hind HP would be a huge mistake because AA guns kills everything as it is let alone the flak trucks. Which would in the long run have them die quicker. I think the Hind does enough damage as it is true but reducing the HP is a grand mistake.

Increasing the damage of MSUB AA might be a possible. You could infact make them a dangerous AA device but have an extremely slow fire rate. (IE: Fire rate of their actual missile barrages for ground.) Which would make them extremely lethal and risky to move aircraft over the water. The MSUB is already a bad choice vs other naval units unless they sit still long enough for them to take hits. You would then need to have a look at SUBs vs other naval units. (And soviet vs soviet games).

zinc
Posts: 657
Joined: Sun Feb 09, 2014 3:46 pm

Post by zinc » Tue Nov 14, 2017 12:05 am

avalach21 wrote:
zinc wrote:
Kiraye wrote: Also adding a new unit to fix what the Missile sub should do in the first place?
The Missile Sub is designed/intended for long range ground bombardment.

The anti-air ability was only tacked on because of a balance problem in the original game. There is no reason you can't say, "actually, this isn't the best way to fix the problem", or "this can only be a partial solution to the problem".

And it may well be problematic trying to balance a tier 2 unit (Destroyers) by using a tier 3 unit-- either Missile Subs or MiGs. I mean, what if you don't tech to that tier in the game? Or if you really want to tech up and have that ability, your opponent can be investing in other things and yet still have naval anti-air with the Destroyers.
There's no reason you can't say "there's nothing inherently wrong with this".. Red Alert & C&C's claim to fame was asymmetrical factions with varying strengths and weakness.. Soviets have strength in other areas.. if they want to stay toe to toe at sea in the long run then they need to tech up to tier 3.. Their subs can stay submerged (protecting themselves) via tier 2 and the sub pen can be protected by land defense (Teslas, SAMS, flak tracks and V2s) . It's all part of the Soviet's playstyle.. you need to account for their strengths and weaknesses..
Sure, but the argument would be that it's *too* out of balance. Subs actually have an advantage in the very early game with their ability to destroy enemy naval yards. I'm not saying that Destroyers shouldn't be an advantage for Allies, and that Soviets have to have something just as powerful that can attack both air and ground targets.

But in my experience, sub pens often can't be defended with SAM and flak trucks. They don't have the range to do the job. The only way, is to tech up and get at least a couple of Missile Subs. But (1) Missile Subs themselves are fairly vulnerable to air attacks, and (2) if you are worrying about anti-air with them, you can't actually use them for their intended purpose which is to attack ground targets.

Teslas and V2 may help to defend, but not against air of course.

User avatar
WhoCares
Posts: 290
Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2017 11:28 pm

Post by WhoCares » Tue Nov 14, 2017 2:35 am

Seems a bit odd to use ground unit/structure to protect navy wich is suppose to give support to ground forces to bring victory in the end. Feels going circle.

edit : One weakness on navy : there is no objective/purpose on water itself. Means, unless you can make some destroyer worth it or have the luck that you would have something juicy in range of a cruiser/missil sub, navy is irrelevant in multiplayer games.

maybe this should be the dirrection : economic advantage on/in water to force navy use and by extention balance it. (don't come with shitty tiny island with derrick plz)

User avatar
Kiraye
Posts: 12
Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2017 5:29 pm

Post by Kiraye » Tue Nov 14, 2017 9:51 am

ZxGanon wrote:
ZxGanon wrote: Soviets will dominate if you make their Subs heavy armored.

Does not also buff them against Air but also against the other Ships.

Allies will never have a comback mechanism if they fall behind on the Sea while Soviets can always hide in the depth.
Btw my main faction is soviet but reducing their weakness to zero is unfun and leaves no counterplays anymore.
Changing armor type from Light to Heavy will only make them durable against Hinds and Yaks. (and well some ground units maybe)

Buffs:
Yaks and hinds will deal 35% less dps.
Hinds go from (24*30 = 720 * 0.6 = 432 total damage per max payload to 720 * 0.25 = 180 )
Yaks go from (18*40 = 720 * 0.6 = 432 total damage per max payload to 720 * 0.25 = 180 )


Nerfs:
Longbows (and Migs) will do 10% MORE dps.
Longbows go from 60*8 = 480*0.9= 432 total damage per max payload to 480 * 1 = 480
MIGs go from 8*70=560*0.9 = 504 total damage per max payload to 560 * 1 = 560

Yak and MIG in 1v1 alone also cannot burst them because they will probably recloak before unleashing their full payload.

Gunboats will do
Main gun and Depth Charge will do 25% more dps
Guns 25 damage per shot, 25.*0.75= 18.75 to 25*1 = 25
Depth Charge 80 damage per shot, 80*0.75= 60 to 80*1=80

Destroyer will do
Stinger and will do 25% more dps
60 per volley (2 rockets) 60*0.75 = 45 to 60*1=60
Depth Charge 80 damage per shot, 80*0.75= 60 to 80*1=80

Submarine will do 25% more dps
360 per volley (2 torpedos) 360*0.75= 270 to 360*1=360

For the all naval units it is 25% increase in dps vs Missile Subs if we change the armor (They have 0.75 multiplier vs Light and do full damage vs Heavy armor)

And I still don't think armor change is the way to go, I just wanted to clarify this stats wise.
ZxGanon, my man, the soviet fanboy in your head just wants them to stay more durable it seems :lol: (just kidding :) ), because it would be a nerf in most cases as you can see.

SirCake
Posts: 329
Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2016 5:40 pm

Post by SirCake » Tue Nov 14, 2017 12:58 pm

Just so funny what Kiraye wrote ^^ How expectations and facts don't meet at all sometimes :D

@AoAGeneral: How is a unit with a very defined profile something bad for RTS?
I allways hated Starcraft for the marine, which is basically a rifleman who can attack air and ground, armored targets and buildings while beeing good at every role. Most boring unit ever! Can only be countered by more stuff.

Check out Dune2k-Advanced on my moddb page!

Blackened
Posts: 308
Joined: Sat May 21, 2016 6:27 pm

Post by Blackened » Tue Nov 14, 2017 5:04 pm

Giving soviets a new vehicle a la sea scorpion is a much easier fix to creating a better balanced naval experience. That isn't to say it can't be balanced without adding a new unit. Trying to balance [the missile sub] to be effective requires multiple changes. I had over 30 changes in attempt to balance it. I certainly made it good, perhaps even a bit OP. In theory in order to bring it perfect balance those 30 things would need to fine tuned. Adding a sea scorpion requires a lot of changes too but the balance view can be narrowed slightly. Additionally, adding a new unit doesn't change the way that a unit interacts with the rest of the gameplay. It creates a whole new dialogue. Where as changing the missile sub like I did, giving migs AA, etc, changes balance in other parts of the game.

Missile subs roles currently are:
primarily artillery piece
2nd AA
3rd anti infantry blob
4th harassment.

I'd argue its not very good at being an artillery piece (neither is cruiser for the record), too inaccurate range too small doesn't do enough dps.
It struggles to kill aircraft unless they are completely idle.
Killing infantry blobs requires them to be next to the shore and idle
Harassment is almost impossible when it can't outrun anything but a cruiser or another missile sub. So you maybe have 1-3 bursts before it gets hunted down.

Compare that to the destroyer:
Decent ship vs ship
Decent AA
Excellent harassment, especially harvesters.
Good maneuverability.

A destroyer really doesn't have a primary role because it's good at everything it can do.


But anyways lets just theory craft here a bit and say we did add a sea scorpion or SIrCakes flak sub. What roles do we want it to fill? How should it be countered? What could maybe make it OP and how do we fix that?

AA obviously is the main role. If we just gave it the flak trucks gun that would be a good start. That could give it a secondary ability to harass infantry on the shorelines. Giving it a decent stealth detection would be good too. That way sub vs subs aren't total knife fights where everyone loses.

Countering it would be easy. give it light armor and you give most things a fighting chance against it. Even small flocks of air could pick of lone vessels (see lone flak trucks vs hinds/yak groups) Gunboats would be great, similar to how a light tank is great against a flak. Subs too, if they had heavy armor. Destroyers might actually be a soft counter if the sea scorpion could out run it. Missile subs (with heavy armor) and cruisers would laugh at a sea scorpion.

So how could it be OP? well just giving it the flak gun and the speed of the gun boat would be bad. Infantry especially engis would be too easy to pick off. Gunboats are also really fast and having mobile AA that quick would be bad. Those are the obvious ones, there might be more.

To fix that we can lower the damage to slightly better than a gunboat does to infantry. We can slow the speed down between a gunboat and a destroyer or maybe even a sub. Or we can adjust the rate of fire. Really there is multiple angles we can go through.


/2cents

zinc
Posts: 657
Joined: Sun Feb 09, 2014 3:46 pm

Post by zinc » Tue Nov 14, 2017 11:26 pm

I don't see how it could be OP against infantry? Infantry would only be at risk if they were near the shoreline. You can just move them away from the water and they are protected. It's unlikely they would come across many engis in the first place?? They could also presumably by easily destroyed with teslas or turrets, like other naval vessels. (Ignoring packs of Destroyers I guess.)

Personally I think a flak sub would be preferable, as that would keep only subs being produced by the sub pen; ignoring transporters which is just how it always worked. A flak sub probably wouldn't be especially fast anyway, so your concern about picking off infantry wouldn't even get started with that kind of vehicle. Neither could it be OP against land vehicles, as flak guns are crap against anything other than a ranger or artillery; and a ranger could just speed away from the shoreline, and artillery would have a very good chance of attacking it from a safe distance as it would have greater range. So it wouldn't be the equivalent of a Destroyer which is pretty good at mashing up tanks or even base defence in packs. Allies would still have an advantage with Destroyers, just as Soviets have the early game advantage with subs and some sneaky vision.

You could presumably counter a flak sub with a pack of air units, (assuming they aren't facing a pack of flak subs), or a regular submarine (torpedoes do a lot of damage at least as much as a flak gun) or Destroyer. Destroyers would be tougher vehicles that a flak gun wouldn't be great against, and regular submarines may have greater range with the torpedoes than the range of the flak gun.

Post Reply