TD balance thread

Discussion about the game and its default mods.
Post Reply
User avatar
Posts: 523
Joined: Sat Nov 08, 2014 4:16 am

Post by anjew » Fri Jan 15, 2016 10:44 am

It's a cheap way to expand to an ore patch you might want to put a second ref down at, avocado for example, its hard to get a perfect second ref placement unless you build another PP to expand the build radius.

Regarding Grens, i use them all the time, i often dont see much difference when putting them in with rifles but vsing buildings etc they are pretty much perfect, almost on the same level with flamethrowers but worth remembering grens are ALOT cheaper than flamers so it makes sense for them to suck

MLRS seemed a lot more useful when we tested just changes to the reload time, they seemed a lot more useful but I would like to see how they fair against defense structures getting repaired and mass inf.

I'm also still all for 5k MCV primarily because of the 2 minute build time as opposed to 1:48 or whatever it is

How will flamethrowers and grens fair against a Heavy armoured Construction Yard? I don't think the CY should be untouchable by these units.

Apaches, tough question, i'll ask around while I play and see if anyone has suggestions but the only suggestion i can pull out of my arse is maybe a bit faster or more range. Even faster turning speed if thats a real thing, would make them much more dominant against orca since apache vs orca isnt as clear cut as it should be

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

Post by PersianImmortal » Fri Jan 15, 2016 3:56 pm

Grenadiers I have no idea what to do with. I've never built them ever since I started playing TD so I know nothing about them.

As for the Apache my idea was making it more hind like. More armor and let it shred through infantry like the hind in exchange it would have to receive a build time increase and its reload would need to be slower. I'm aware that the hinds have to actually go back to their helipads to reload in between attacks so our new Apache obviously wouldn't be quite as powerful but it should be close. Buttttt if we do that GDI's orcas are going to be 10x more nimble and in fast paced game like TD that's very important.

If we go this route it's definitely something we need to test out.

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

Post by AoAGeneral1 » Sat Jan 16, 2016 1:26 am

I can see your point about Grens and flamethrowers. I will revert the construction yard to wood type for now.

MLRS I will test the damages vs structures of many kinds.

The nuke and Ion might also get some revamps due to the construction yard hp increases. Whether it will be a nerf or buff is undecided. But im leaning towards a nuke buff. Very slightly increase in damage range and a slight damage buff. It can also be compensated by having the nuke go to 6:00 with a moderate damage buff and the Ion with a 4:00 with a spread damage buff. (Though the spread on the outside to be much weaker). The nuke and ion ideas I have no plans to implement unless they are major flaws. The current ones are good changes for battle design.

The Apaches I need to test again. There are a few ideas I have for that. Increasing their damage means they will mow infantry down way to fast and with little care. (Specialy if E3 become even more useless to air). The reload on the Apache is very strange. It might even be bugged in all honestly because I dont think its supposed to instantly get full ammo right away. If the Apache is to get a buff then there is an idea I have:

Buff both the Apache and Orca in terms of HP. Increase fire rate of Apache by a few points and increase projectile speed of Orcas. This would prevent units running from orca fire easily instead of wasted shots. In response to these increases the SAM, MSAM, APC, AGT, E3, and possibly bikes would require a slight buff to AA damage. Keep in mind that if these buffs are implemented then it negates the hit and run back and forth gameplays that I used to see with Orca vs Apache. Those were quite fun with intense micro. So the above idea may not be the best of such.

Speaking of SAM, im tacking on a buff to the SAM in damage increase. Its a pure AA structure that does less damage vs the AGT and the AGT has slight AoE damage. The apache can escape a SAM even after taking 4 shots with just 10 hp left over. A SAM damage buff is needed. Perhaps more damage then the AGT.

Posts: 4
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2016 2:31 am

Post by fatjake » Sat Jan 16, 2016 8:35 am

abcdefg30 wrote:
fatjake wrote: Is there a resource describing the AI or the relevant parts of the code? I can think of some small behavior changes that would improve skirmish AI immensely.
The AI is defined in yaml, so you should be able to find it in your OpenRA install: "OpenRA/mods/cnc/rules/ai.yaml".
Thank you so much, I'll start learning about it

Edit: I also agree that MLRS should be improved in some way. They're alright in firepower IMO but not compared to their armor. I'm only playing skirmishes with AI but usually as GDI and I use the MLRS a lot, but I replace them incessantly as well. Not sure they're worth buying but hell the regular tanks are kind of lame as well. NOD flame tanks are pretty awesome though when I'm playing as NOD.

Also grenadiers should probably be improved, they don't seem very useful, while nod flame troops seem much better. Wish I could give better descriptions of why, but these are things I have noticed

NOD artillery gives me a hell of a time because I have to manually respond to them with every wave of attack, they seem useful as is

I've noticed (and I suppose this is a good thing) that the map selected has a lot to do with the difficulty at least in AI skirmishes. The one I played that took four hours (I think I mentioned in my first post) was "a river below", I was in position C as GDI and the last AI player was in position F as Nod. It was crazy! The terrain made it difficult to coordinate a real attack, mostly due to pathfinding issues. I guess that made for the challenge though. On the other hand I just got a blast playing the nukebait map for the first time, wasn't that hard but the map was a real blast. Hard for me to remember what maps are new or not, but hell I don't even remember if there were AI skirmishes in original TD, only really remember single player campaign.

I'm off-topic I suppose but damn I love this game

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

Post by AoAGeneral1 » Fri Jan 22, 2016 1:50 am

The following is implemented into the bleed version only:


Increase power of AGT from 40 to 50.

MSAM faster reload from 100 to 45.

Increase APC damage vs light target from 100 to 105.

MLRS attack speed increase from 140 to 100. (They shoot faster)

Rocket Infantry damage increase from 30 to 35.

MCV Price increase from 2000 to 4000. Build time increase to 1:36 from 0:48.

MCV unit HP increase from 750 to 950. armor type from light to heavy.

MCV now requires both Command Center and Repair Pad to produce.

Construction yard HP increase from 1400 to 2000.

Repair pad HP increase from 400 to 600.

MSAM trajectory speed reduced from 341 to 300.


The following are ideas only and not in any version of any kind:


Grenadier damage vs light increase to 80 from 75

Orca slight damage increase. -

Apache slight damage increase. -

Increase APC HP by 10.

Guard Tower damage vs heavy reduced to 30 from 35.

Guard Tower gains armor type Wood. (This will not come into affect.) (SEE NOTES BELOW)

SAM Damage increase to 35 from 30.

Light Tank movement speed reduced to 110 from 113.

Light Tank Cost increase to 700 from 600. (Build time increase to 17 seconds)

Light Tank HP decreased to 340 from 350.

Rocket Infantry damage vs none decreased to 40 from 50.



Due to issues with the armor system the armor type of the guard tower fix will not be implemented at this time. For more information see the following:
Last edited by AoAGeneral1 on Mon Feb 15, 2016 11:18 pm, edited 13 times in total.

User avatar
Posts: 193
Joined: Wed Mar 11, 2015 8:46 am

Post by kyrylo » Fri Jan 22, 2016 9:48 am

AoAGeneral1 wrote: MLRS attack speed increase from 140 to 100.
I guess this technically counts as "decrease", doesn't it?
AoAGeneral1 wrote: Orca slight damage increase.
I feel like orcas are already quite powerful. I wouldn't mind apache's damage increase so it can kill a rocket soldier in 1 burst.

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

Post by AoAGeneral1 » Fri Jan 22, 2016 8:35 pm


Speeds in the game depend on how small the number is. So it looks like a decrease but the ingame mechanic considers it an increase.

The Apaches do need some kind of damage increase I feel.

Orcas is a bit of a hard niche. Since the missiles can catch aircraft could give it a hard sting for the Orcas. The reload payload for the Apaches is much faster in comparisoned to the Orcas. However I do need to test Orca vs Apache fights more closely before I buff Orcas.

User avatar
Graion Dilach
Posts: 272
Joined: Fri May 15, 2015 5:57 pm

Post by Graion Dilach » Sat Jan 23, 2016 12:18 am

ReloadDelay (WW called it ROF) is a lot more meaningful than attack speed in these cases though.
AS Discord server:

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

Post by AoAGeneral1 » Sun Jan 24, 2016 9:41 pm

Thinking about increasing the HP to APCs again. Only just slightly. (About 10 hp). I am thinking of increase the firing rate of the APCs just slightly also. Going to mess around a bit with these ideas and see what happens.

Also thinking of increasing the support powers timers. Currently in team games it is incredibly strong in taking out mass armies in say a 2v2/3v3 game types. Not entirely sure how this could be balanced for its damage and otherwise however. But am open for ideas on it.

Some possible ideas could be:

Airstrike left as is. Or! Airstrike 4:00
Ion 4-5:00
Nuke 6:00

Also thinking of increasing the commando price. Due to them being mass produced fairly easy and how tough targets they are would consider them as high value for takeouts and prevent some en massing.

Possible prices being either 1500 or 2000. price increase would also increase their build time.

In the seven round group B matches I was pitted against Kyrylo where mass light tanks were used. It seems going for the quick harvestor count mixed with nothing but light tanks and rocket infantry makes them extremely strong. With a three strip build and one barracks they can quickly stack up in numbers and overwhelm the opponent. This with airstrikes can help demolish numbers. This is incredibly frustrating when playing as GDI as even mammoth tanks are falling to these. A few ideas to help counter this balance:

Light tank price increase to 700 (Which would increase build time)


Reduce attack speed of Light tanks


Increase build time of light tanks only. (This of which I am not sure how to do yet)

Any feedback would be appreciated as this is pretty bad.

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

Post by PersianImmortal » Sat Jan 30, 2016 4:22 am

This is why I'm against the rocket troop buff. They're good enough as is. They rip apart tanks in numbers. Let's not turn them into red alert rocket troops where they are almost unstoppable and you're forced to bring out artys as allies or v2 as soviets.

Also against the support power nerf. Ions and nukes are fine as is. Let's not turn this into red alert in that respect either. Ion almost feels underpowered to me. I'd take the nuke over the ion any day.
Last edited by PersianImmortal on Sat Jan 30, 2016 4:27 am, edited 2 times in total.

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

Post by AoAGeneral1 » Sat Jan 30, 2016 4:24 am

The rocket troop isn't a high buff. Compared to RA its still a 15 damage difference listed. The thing with light tanks is it is very hard to use any other infantry type as they are crushed easily.

As for the ion it charges every 3 minutes which is enough to kill an army of infantry along with tanks. Right now it can kill to a maxmum of six mammoth tanks.
Last edited by AoAGeneral1 on Sat Jan 30, 2016 4:31 am, edited 1 time in total.

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

Post by PersianImmortal » Sat Jan 30, 2016 4:30 am

AoAGeneral1 wrote: The rocket troop isn't a high buff. Compared to RA its still a 15 damage difference listed. The thing with light tanks is it is very hard to use any other infantry type as they are crushed easily.
Red alert also has heavy tanks and is way slower unitnwise. As it is it is way to easy to mass rockets and turn it into a turtle fest.

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

Post by AoAGeneral1 » Sat Jan 30, 2016 4:40 am

You might want to check the replay in the 1v1 TD tourny thread. E3 aren't being massed nor the problem right now lol.

The other possible option is buffing medium tanks or mammoth tanks. Problem with that is they are already pretty strong. Might be able to get away with it with a slight HP boost of the mediums but then the problem might come in they would be hard to stop.

The E3 are counterable though. Its the problem of having so many light tanks in the front they cannot be reached.

However, their could be another option. Is the light tanks HP to high in comparison?

Hummer: 160
APC HP: 200
Flame tank HP: 270
Ltnks HP: 350
Mtnks HP: 450
Harv HP: 600
Mammoth HP: 800

The few following ideas can be done:

Reduce light tank HP to 330-340 from 350 and movement speed to 110 from 113


Increase Light Tank price to 650-700 from 600.

650 cost is at 16 seconds build time from 15 seconds.
700 cost is at 17 seconds build time from 15 seconds.


Leaning towards the cost increase. More to 700 but its a possible for 650.

The other thing ive takened note on is light tanks make great crushers due to movement speed. The same effects happen from the light tanks and APCs in RA.


Going with the 700 cost increase at 17 seconds build. Further discussion required and scenario ideas. I need some testers for this (Anjew I am looking at you =P) but if PersianImmortal is around would be happy to have you involved as well.

The mechanic of the 700 cost in my opinion matches for how the tanks can crush infantry quickly and have decent armor (Besides the medium). The price helps to reflect this more closely as a "Damnit lost a few tanks" compared to the 600 at 15 seconds of "Lost a few. More waiting at base". This presents the strategy idea of "Should I crush those E3? Or should I hold back?" debate at the risk of losing units.

Further more with 17 seconds and mediums at 20 allows for the tanks to almost equalize in production compared to easy mass. Few scenarios:

1 airstrip and 1 factory. These two units will come out at nearly the same speed.

2 airstrip and 1 factory. Light tanks will come out faster compared to mediums. However, mixing e3 with mediums will help stop light tanks compared to an overwhelming numbering force. Currently at 3 airstrips with 15 seconds there is a 5 second difference with mediums in which they fall behind quickly.

The negative worry of this nerf I have is the tanks being built possibly to slow in comparison to unit categories. While the light tanks make effective base raiders and hit and run tactics its possible GDI could get themselves an overwhelming force. This has yet to be tested however due to the buff and new missile mechanics currently in the bleed. GDI tanks are to slow to be effective crushers and results in economic loss of the units.

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

Post by AoAGeneral1 » Tue Feb 09, 2016 10:24 am

From further testing I have speculated the following in medium vs light tank battles:

Medium tanks vs light tanks almost comes out on even. This is due to their rate of fire vs the medium tanks and their build speed. While nerfing the rate of fire on the light tanks could be essential it would dampen their over all use vs lighter units poorly (IE: Hummers, APCs, etc).

The solution seems to be the cost and time for the light tanks. A ratio at 6M vs 8L came out to a steady even of 2M vs 0L (Which 1 light tank barely just came off the strip as the last died.) Increasing their cost and time will help in keeping these units alive and picking combinations more seriously rather then suicide mobs. With the E3 buff mixed with mediums this will do well.

As of this moment their HP will not be messed with. A cost of 700 is in worth for their rate of fire and movement speed. (Even though it is a slight nerf from 113 to 110 it still moves rather quickly.)

If there are any questions or ideas post them when you can. Otherwise I will be seeing to implement the further changes into the bleed. (With the help of the devs and their ideas)

Posts: 84
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2012 4:49 am

Post by psydev » Tue Feb 09, 2016 10:34 am

Please, please don't reduce the frequency of the support powers. They're what make the game really dynamic, fun and unpredictable. They're also good counter-spam if you're getting out-macro'd but still have a lot of micro skill to defend yourself with.

Anyway, about tanks:
A possible solution to the tank rush issue would be to require factories to get an upgrade before they can produce tanks. The upgrade would delay the facility's queue for a time, or could cost money as well. This gives a boost to other opening strategies (like using infantry/artillery, or maybe even air) by making tank construction start later or cost a little more, without altering the stats of the tank.

With that said, the LTNK could still probably use a nerf. In the games we played testing a lower-DPS LTNK, it didn't seem as broken. One thing to consider is slowing the bullet down to the same speed as the medium tank, because a faster bullet gives the LTNK better accuracy vs. moving targets, while the LTNK itself is harder to hit because it's so fast. It also shoots smaller shots more often, which results in less wastage of DPS from overkill. All these things, plus advantage of higher numbers due to low cost, probably add up to make the LTNK an efficient killer, even if it does the same DPS/$ as medium tank.

Edit: I take it back. I tried killing a light tank rush with tons of rocket soldiers, and they got run over. This might be the main problem, they're too fast/good at running things over. Lower HP might help reduce their effectiveness?

Post Reply