Redalet Mig with air to air capability

Discussion about the game and its default mods.
dzine
Posts: 73
Joined: Fri Nov 13, 2015 2:13 am

Post by dzine »

ref That said, Anti-Air capable Migs would only make sense, im my view, if a similar air-unit would be available to the allied faction as well.

umAllied Longbow anyone !

Which is one in game balancing reason ( apart from its natural role as an interceptor) that Mig's should have air to air capability

Couple of obvious points there...just in case anyone missed it forst time round



General principle for aircraft in RTS games

Slow speed for easy micro

High armour for durability, ie backing out of an aa guns range after intial damage

Low attack power to compensate for the above


Currently speed is still to high for micro and armour is to low for survuvability

Ingame result...planes are used as kamikazi missiles because its almost not worth the effort flying back to base and healing up a badly damaged plane....AKA current statline = way of beam

When the statline is correct people will use planes correctly...that is the goal !



If a unit is NOT being used as 'one would expect' then the staline of that unit ( or other relevant factors) is out of wack

....it realy is as simple as that !!!

Murto the Ray
Posts: 486
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2014 4:34 pm

Post by Murto the Ray »

dzine wrote: Currently speed is still to high for micro
They are pretty easy to micro when you have experience with them, you just need to play more.

dzine
Posts: 73
Joined: Fri Nov 13, 2015 2:13 am

Post by dzine »

wot another 20 years ? :-p

KEY POINT if planes end up being used as kamikazis , or half treated like them then the statline is wrong...no other argument is required

slightly slower but better armoured planes work VERY well ...its also more fun and more realistic in terms of 'ingame combat' ....watching the ole aa give it some big time aka aka as your planes slip in and out of range



Q why do helis get used a lot !

they are slow moving and they hover (stay still MID AIR) and thus dont need excessive micro especially when close to static aa



Fact.

Planes are allready 10 times slower than they are in real life becuase of micro issues.

Dropping the speed a tiny bit is continuing in the direction of less micro issues

A Mig can exceed mach one at sea level, and can easly make attack passes at 300 or 500mph



Possible statline for Air to air Mig Handy for taking out pesky allied choppers on artillery spottign duty

Cost 2500
Speed -10%
Armour+20%
Armed with long range but slowish moving heatseeking missile ...this gives other air units a chance to dodge it, adds alot to the game fun wise



*Hind helicopter is soviet...no idea why soviets lost that and allies gained it...someone not thinking ? ...yet another for making the Mig statline worthwhile and 'true to life'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mil_Mi-24

Devastator
Posts: 22
Joined: Sun Jun 29, 2014 12:12 pm

Post by Devastator »

dzine wrote:

*Hind helicopter is soviet...no idea why soviets lost that and allies gained it...someone not thinking ? ...yet another for making the Mig statline worthwhile and 'true to life'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mil_Mi-24
How about just renaming the Hind? Then it isn't soviet anymore :P

User avatar
Norman_
Posts: 141
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2013 1:39 pm
Location: TD Server

Post by Norman_ »

migs with balanced aa missiles would be great. we have to discuss and playtest the weapon and maybe even the mig in general. for example: should migs (and longbows) aa weapon use its own ammopool? i really like this idea but during playtests, i found a problem using 2 ammopools: for example the ag ammopool has some missiles left and the aa missiles are already gone, the mig still trys to follow air targets in that case. hope you can fix this via yaml, not sure about that yet.
the other problem i had: since the mig is a fast jet and it flys around the target, its possible that the migs, trying to hunt each other, are flying in small circles not able to fire rockets, even without minimal range setting. need to find a way to avoid this behaviour and sure, the weapon also has to work vs longbows and all other airunits too. (i only tested ra migs vs migs so far on a td modmap)

(much) faster long range missile/s with low damage and faster firerate compared to normal mavericks? missile/s a bit slower than the previous, less range but more firepower? range limits? 8 aa missile ammopool? how many missiles req to destroy a mig/longbow? etc. what do you think?
i already tried some different mig aa missiles but havent found a 100% solution im happy with yet. there are a lot of important parameter to create the weapon:
ReloadDelay, Range, MinRange, Burst, BurstDelay, Projectile MaximumLaunchSpeed, Arm, Inaccuracy, HorizontalRateOfTurn, RangeLimit and the Warhead with its damage settings and it would be great to test several settings with some player to have different opinions to be able to find fair and balanced values for everything and everyone. its a 2 mins tweak? i dont think so lol

[align=center]THINK - TWEAK - TEST - THINK AGAIN - TWEAK AGAIN - TEST AGAIN[/align]

so if somebody is interested in playtesting migs with aa, just tell me, you can find me ingame @ irc or on td server most of the time. i could upload a modmap with different migs using different weapons for a start and we could discuss everything while testing them ingame and try to develop some new ideas and solutions.
Last edited by Norman_ on Wed Jan 27, 2016 2:52 am, edited 8 times in total.
Image

scorp
Posts: 96
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 9:35 pm

Post by scorp »

I started to dislike Air-to-Air rockets both from helis and planes recently. I feel autocannons are less annoying because draw line to target. They are tricky Business however :lol:

User avatar
SoScared
Posts: 1116
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2012 6:16 pm
Location: Oslo
Contact:

Post by SoScared »

I enjoy the thought of AA MiG's but those will for certain offset quite a few balance changes made the in the past.

Allies have no mobile AA except rockets so the current slow Hind will be obsolete in the open field quick once Soviet tech up, forcing Allies to move on to the Longbows if they want to avoid being contained. In turn it will reward base-pushing/turtling for Allies as that will be more cost effective than competing for air superiority with the Soviets mid/late game. This will likely affect team games and will polarize tight maps further in this regard. Soviet can also back up the MiG's dog-fighting with Flak trucks, zoning out the slower Longbows.

On the other hand, I might be exaggerating the effects. In my preferred way of playing, MiG's and Longbows are very expensive so building a ground army will beat a player going for high tech air. AA MiGs will give both MiGs and Longbows more to do. AA MiGs also just makes sense - it's a fighter Jet.

Norman brings up a cruical point. Making AA MiGs work well could take a good while.

A buff to the Longbow has been discussed a lot in the past. I still favor a slight increase in HP (e.g. +20%-40%) over weapons upgrade, to make it able to soak more damage and give it a better chance moving out of AA range alive. As of now, I approve of it's role but it's not worth the $ risk building it.

Murto the Ray
Posts: 486
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2014 4:34 pm

Post by Murto the Ray »

SoScared wrote: *Snip*
+ if you are building Migs then you are sacrificing the ability to trade mass yaks for missle silos

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

Post by PersianImmortal »

MIGs have no reason to be built over yaks. Absolutely none. If an ally is arty crawling I sacrifice build time for one mig that isn't even guaranteed to kill an arty before it dies. Those two missles don't always kill the arty and when I go in for the second shot at it I guarantee my mig will die and MAYBE kill the arty. Where as with yaks I know I'll be able to get at least one arty and I get them in half the time. Yaks are also better against important base structures.

The only things migs are good for is going after armored targets and base defenses.. A smart allies player will just build longbows if I go migs and well now my migs are useless again. Usually base defenses are protected by some form of AA so I'm risking an expensive group of migs to maybe get a tesla coil and again I'm giving up the option to yak swarm.

AA migs give migs a much needed breathe of life. They let the Soviet player compete with the allied player in the end game. All things being equal in an end game situation allies are vastly superior to soviets. Gaps, satellite, chrono, and even fake nukes versus an iron curtain. AA migs lets me snipe hinds and eliminate allied vision for Arties.

Lastly I agree that longbows need a buff. I only use them in to snipe enemy air units. They suck against ground. They need a damage buff.
Image

Murto the Ray
Posts: 486
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2014 4:34 pm

Post by Murto the Ray »

On a side note migs do impressive damage vs allied navy

Mo
Posts: 118
Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2015 1:40 pm

Post by Mo »

PersianImmortal wrote: x
MIGs are better in scouting however, so if you're into map information late game they can be quite useful having 1 or 2 to scout the edge of the enemy's line more safely.

WIth a yak, you're guaranteed to lose it soon if the enemy pushes that line.

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

Post by PersianImmortal »

Mo wrote:
PersianImmortal wrote: x
MIGs are better in scouting however, so if you're into map information late game they can be quite useful having 1 or 2 to scout the edge of the enemy's line more safely.

WIth a yak, you're guaranteed to lose it soon if the enemy pushes that line.
Until they get longbows
Image

Mo
Posts: 118
Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2015 1:40 pm

Post by Mo »

PersianImmortal wrote:
Mo wrote:
PersianImmortal wrote: x
MIGs are better in scouting however, so if you're into map information late game they can be quite useful having 1 or 2 to scout the edge of the enemy's line more safely.

WIth a yak, you're guaranteed to lose it soon if the enemy pushes that line.
Until they get longbows
Either protect with flaks or micro your scouting.

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

Post by AoAGeneral1 »

dzine wrote:
KEY POINT if planes end up being used as kamikazis , or half treated like them then the statline is wrong...no other argument is required
This is a debate not an argument. Saying no other argument required is a bad way to shut someone else down and to make your points valid. Always allow room for debate.

Murto the Ray
Posts: 486
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2014 4:34 pm

Post by Murto the Ray »

Heres an idea in a different direction:

Make migs have a longer range so that they can hit aa guns without being hit themselves if microd correctly.

Post Reply