Fixing Allied AA Weaknesses

Discussion about the game and its default mods.
Surrealistik
Posts: 42
Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2013 6:11 am

Fixing Allied AA Weaknesses

Post by Surrealistik »

While AA guns are good at what they do, Allies have no strong and cost effective counter otherwise to aircraft attacks that can be consistently used (Destroyers are situational). Apaches are late game and extremely costly. Rocket Men can be killed almost instantly by the vast majority of aircraft.

They especially lack when it comes to mobile AA options, leaving their ground forces extremely vulnerable and, if escorted by hordes of rocket men, slow moving as they must wait for them to catch up, while a well placed arty shot or two will sink thousands of investment in infantry. This is ironic as mobility is supposed to be one of the strong points of the Allies, and the weaknesses of the Soviets.


Two things immediately come to mind to address this:

#1: Allowing Rocket Soldiers embarked on Rangers to fire from them.

#2: Allowing Rocket Soldiers to fire AA from Pillboxes.
Last edited by Surrealistik on Sat Feb 02, 2013 11:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
BaronOfStuff
Posts: 438
Joined: Sun May 22, 2011 7:25 pm

Post by BaronOfStuff »

Does make the Flak Truck seem almost to be on the wrong side when you say it like that.

Option 1 doesn't seem too unreasonable in theory, provided that this weapon is set to AA-only (and doesn't gift the Allies with a fast & cheap 'TOW Missile' for every Ranger).
Option 2 would also be workable if the weapon was balanced enough and didn't result in being both cheaper and more effective overall than the AA Gun.

Surrealistik
Posts: 42
Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2013 6:11 am

Post by Surrealistik »

Camo Pillboxes cost $900 with a Rocket Man.

AAs cost $600 $800 as of the latest patch, kill aircraft faster, take less time/micro to set up and have far more range.

Absolutely fair.

As for Rangers, even with ground rockets I don't think they're at all OP; they cost $700 together with a Rocket Man, and are still glass fragile. Either way, I'd be fine if they were AA only.
Last edited by Surrealistik on Sun Feb 03, 2013 5:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.

epice
Posts: 174
Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2012 5:39 am

Post by epice »

Here's my ideas:

1) Rocket Soldiers in a Ranger is a neat idea, would be cool if any infantry could shoot from a ranger. Not sure how balanced that would be.

2) Light Tanks have a pretty small and weak cannon, perhaps it could be used to shoot aircraft as well?

3) Make the Flak Truck buildable for both sides.

4) Gives the allies an all new unit. Quad Cannon.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M45_Quadmount
Just take a supply truck, remove the cover from the back and put an AA gun in it. Though a lot weaker then the structure.

Matt
Posts: 1038
Joined: Tue May 01, 2012 12:21 pm
Location: Germany

Post by Matt »

AA-only rocket soldiers loadable inside the jeep should be equivalent to the flak truck. I think that is a sensible balancing approach.

Surrealistik
Posts: 42
Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2013 6:11 am

Post by Surrealistik »

Fine with me. I'd still like to see Rocket Pillboxes get AA capability.

A turret + pillbox costs about the same as a camo rocketbox as another point of comparison.

epice
Posts: 174
Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2012 5:39 am

Post by epice »

Cmd. Matt wrote: AA-only rocket soldiers loadable inside the jeep should be equivalent to the flak truck. I think that is a sensible balancing approach.
Too much micromanagement to accomplish compared to soviets, just try giving both sides the flak truck? See how it works and go from there.

Matt
Posts: 1038
Joined: Tue May 01, 2012 12:21 pm
Location: Germany

Post by Matt »


Surrealistik
Posts: 42
Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2013 6:11 am

Post by Surrealistik »

epicelite wrote:
Cmd. Matt wrote: AA-only rocket soldiers loadable inside the jeep should be equivalent to the flak truck. I think that is a sensible balancing approach.
Too much micromanagement to accomplish compared to soviets, just try giving both sides the flak truck? See how it works and go from there.
Yeah, that was definitely a concern of mine. RA is a very macro intensive/leaning game.

A Rocket Jeep would be cool, and really fits the fast and flexible nature of the Allies.

Surrealistik
Posts: 42
Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2013 6:11 am

Post by Surrealistik »

Hoping to see that Rocket Ranger in the next update; it's sorely needed.

PersianImmortal
Posts: 157
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2012 3:04 am

Post by PersianImmortal »

Surrealistik wrote: Hoping to see that Rocket Ranger in the next update; it's sorely needed.
Longbows help a lot

Surrealistik
Posts: 42
Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2013 6:11 am

Post by Surrealistik »

I've already brought Longbows up. The issue with them is that they're too costly and too late tier; they're not practical, general purpose anti-air.

Scott_NZ
Posts: 94
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2012 9:09 am

Post by Scott_NZ »

The only thing holding back rocket rangers is our lack of art, at this point.

epice
Posts: 174
Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2012 5:39 am

Post by epice »

Surrealistik wrote: I've already brought Longbows up. The issue with them is that they're too costly and too late tier; they're not practical, general purpose anti-air.
Longbows need a buff, badly.

Surrealistik
Posts: 42
Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2013 6:11 am

Post by Surrealistik »

epicelite wrote:
Surrealistik wrote: I've already brought Longbows up. The issue with them is that they're too costly and too late tier; they're not practical, general purpose anti-air.
Longbows need a buff, badly.
Lol, amen to that. They either need to be cheaper or more powerful.

I'd start with decreasing the cost to $1500, and the build time a bit, _or_ making their missiles anti-everything, including infantry.

Post Reply