MiG with Air-Air Missiles

make airunits great!

Discussion about the game and its default mods.

MiG with Air-Air missiles?

YES!!
25
83%
NO!!
5
17%
 
Total votes: 30

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

MiG with Air-Air Missiles

Post by Norman_ »

i think migs with aa missiles can be a great addition to ras current gameplay.
atm migs and longbows are just not worth building them, we all know that.
Image
sure longbows need a buff too - the longbow aa and ag missile changes on soscareds playtest maps are interesting. decreasing prices of both units is a good thing too imo. but only to improve migs ag missile tracking from 10 to 14 isnt enough to make them the late game tech unit they should/could be. i already had several testgames and realised that migs also need (a bit) more hp and faster missiles with less damage and less range limit compared to normal mavericks for nice mig-mig, mig-longbow etc air-air fights. maybe the mig itself even needs + shroud view range but that and everything else just needs more testgames. balancing is never easy but damn, its worth it. :)
another thing are the op aa structures in ra but i think its better to focus on the airunits first.
if you think mig with aa missiles would make them op vs longbows, then you just havent tested this before; everything is possible with playtesting and yaml tweaking.
i want to know if and why you love or hate this idea.
here is a map to play around with: http://resource.openra.net/maps/14376
please playtest, vote and share your ideas and arguments here. hi5 ;)
Last edited by Norman_ on Wed Jun 01, 2016 5:06 am, edited 4 times in total.
Image

noobmapmaker
Posts: 1086
Joined: Wed Dec 10, 2014 11:59 am

Post by noobmapmaker »

My only fear, and I guess it has been adressed by you guys while testing, is that the Mig and Longbow become so good that the hind and yak become sort of pointless to build - or only superior in rare situations.

At this time we don't see Migs and Longbows very often - but we do see them! Lets not over-buff them so all of a sudden we see hordes of them. In my opionion small buffs are fine as an incentive to use them more. So why not start with giving them an extra capability (=a buff) and keep the price the same.

I think I am in favor of giving them that ability because it would diversify the airunits for Soviet. Need to counter a group of hinds? Build Migs, need to bombard a base? Build yaks and some Migs, etc.

I havent watched the playtesting and didnt play the map so I cannot base my thoughts on experience, but these are just my thoughts on the matter.
Playlist with ALL games of the Dark Tournament Youtube.com/CorrodeCasts
Consider supporting OpenRA by setting a bounty or by donating for a server

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

Post by Norman_ »

make them great, not op - worth its costs, that should be the result. nobody builds them with a good reason. when it comes to neccessary improvements, its just about playtesting and playtesting. :)
the problem atm is that hinds are just more effective and useful than longbows if you take a look at their costs, availability and damage vs structures - same with yak and migs. people only spam hinds and yaks and mostly send them to their suicide missions because its not even worth to "waste" the time and reload them or even build a single hpad, airfield for each of these tier1 units.
the current ideas for longbow and mig are not so radical than you might imagine.
Last edited by Norman_ on Wed Jun 01, 2016 12:26 am, edited 1 time in total.
Image

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

Post by Murto the Ray »

I don't think Migs should be given anti-air until their current problems are dealt with. They, along with longbows, are awful units. The $2000 as well as the time and resources invested in getting to them isn't worth it for a unit that fails to fill it's roles of anti-armor and anti-structure. So i suggest one of two things are done:

1. Make them cheaper.
At a cost of $2000, Migs build in a time of 48 seconds with a single airfield and still only build in 24 seconds with 7 airfields. (Build times) That is an insanely long time and significant investment for a unit that has the stats of a unitn half the price. So the Mig could be made cheaper just $100 or $200 at a time until they are found to be viable without any other change to their stats.

2. Make them stronger.
The RTS counter triangle (Teching beats aggression, Expansion beats teching, Aggression beats expansion) is used commonly to balance RTS games. Making Migs 2 or 3 times better at what they do currently would make them a viable unit that players could tech up to in order to defend, especially in RA where there isn't really a good hard counter for tanks mixed with infantry. A fast moving aircraft with long range anti-armor could fill this role and help players stay alive for as long as needed as well as provide a good unit when used aggressively to take the initiative in battles.

Anti-air Migs bring their own problems too. If you micro well then an enemy longbow can never take down your Mig. Migs are just too fast and the Longbow cannot react fast enough to hit it when the Mig is close and the missile shot after it will not be able to catch up.

Another thing that is always brought up when AA Migs are talked about is whether Soviets really need another AA unit. The soviets have 3 AA units already (rocket trooper, flak truck, Mammoth tank) and Ukraine has 4 if you count the demo truck. Whilst Allies have 3 as well (Rocket trooper, Destroyer, Longbow) they don't all come into play since destroyers require bodies of water close enough to the enemy to be effective (which a lot of maps don't have) and longbows aren't worth building for the same reasons as Migs.

If AA has to be given to something on the soviet side then make it the Missile Submarine, at least then it will only ever be able to be used when the destroyer can too.

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

Post by Norman_ »

that depends on migs and longbows aa missile range and longbows max range limit. even if you use 10 range (ag missiles have 9) for migs, take care about micro and use hit and run attacks vs longbow like it should be used, the heli is able to hit and destroy the mig with the tested settings - helis aa missiles are more powerful than migs aa missiles and its easier to destroy the attacking mig with the longbow compared to attacking the heli with the mig. the mig should fit in a air "superior" role while still giving helis a good chance to reach the mig. at that point, migs shroud view range is important, to be able to detect the heli soon enough - on the other hand it also should not be too much range together with too much missile range, since this would make migs attacking in groups op. it is possible to destroy a heli with a mig without losing the jet but that, atm, takes some time and needs very good control in order to not get into longbows range. (only tested 1v1 air fights so far) its tricky and i think thats how a mig should be like more or less. you have to fire only one rocket with the mig instead of its normal 2 missile fire and get a feeling for its max range, to find the ideal timing to fly back, use migs speed to escape a bit and attack again. if the heli is just idling and its player is busy with something else at that time, its different of course.
these settings are the most important and need some finetuning.
small changes here can have a huge effect on the whole mig vs heli story.
so opinions and feedback on that topic would be great.

the only thing what comes to my mind about the flak truk, is that i once saw the argument: the sniper unit is external content and thats the or one reason to remove it
(at the time, ras subfactions were introduced i think, and why should it then not be possible to find a place for the sniper? - another soviet faction maybe since there are only 2 so far) and i never really understood why the flak truk, after this logic then stays in the game ***but this has nothing to do with this topic
:drunk:

another thing is the fact that allies also have a way better aa structure to be able to protect their artys since they are more the, lets call it passive faction but havent tested soscareds new mig ag range setting vs aagun yet.

if you compare yaks, migs vs allies aagun and hind, longbows vs soviet sam, the fact that soviets also have mobileflak and mammoth, while allies only have the destroyer, still isnt gone make it unbalanced. just because allies have no aa vehicle doesnt mean they have weak aa. the only interesting thing here is not the amount of aa possibilities a faction has, its how effective all the given possibilities are actually able to work.

missile subs can work (at least vs idle helis) - allies have navy aa but thats no reason to add them. migs can fly and help out there too. i think its nice to have allies with the better aa defense structure and soviet the "more" mobile flak truk and its sam with less range and different behaviour.
additional mig-heli fights would just be cool and more fun compared to a missile sub trying to reach airunits. hope its possible to find decent settings everybody can agree with more or less, with more testing sooner or later.
Last edited by Norman_ on Wed Jun 01, 2016 4:40 am, edited 13 times in total.
Image

Shinnoky
Posts: 6
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2015 1:39 pm

Post by Shinnoky »

I have played the tiberian dawn version of the migs/raptors, don't know if i can compare them with the RA what you are creating now, but the tiberian dawn version there where really overpowered. Those planes had really good vision, really fast, they could escape allot, auto heal and auto reload. There was almost nothing that could counter them except for the AGT, SAM and Mobile SAM. But 2 of them are base defences.

I like the idea migs with anti air, but it shouldn't be possible that really good players can just hit and run with them and there is nothing to do about it.

But for now the yags are way better then the migs.

And the idea with missile subs with anti air is a really good idea,

Edit: I forgot to vote yes XD

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

Post by Murto the Ray »

The sniper was removed because it was a redundant unit, shock troopers were buffed to fill it's role and it was discarded.

The flak truck is a key unit to the soviets and there isn't really a unit that can be buffed to replace it unless you want to make Migs AA and remove flaks.

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

Post by Norman_ »

the td jets are too strong on that map, thats true. rocket soldier in td and stealth tanks have serious problems reaching a jet , and even mammoths have problems, if the jet has ra mig speed there. i experimented with self heal and self reload to be able to use it like an orca, that it fits into tds general faster gamespeed compared to the ra mod. the orca is already a very fragile unit and the jets on that map even have less hp and are faster. its hard to destroy them, except with sam or agt, apc or msam. with those, its the problem, you lose the jets way to fast. both really sucks.

to be able to have a balanced jet in td, i would have to adjust all the aa possibilities in td (while introducing other balance issues with current td settings), which already work in ra, like e3 vs mig etc. etc. instead of "just" the mig/longbow and their missiles.
Last edited by Norman_ on Tue May 31, 2016 6:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Image

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

Post by Norman_ »

i dont think its a good idea to remove the flak truk, no. soviets need that unit vs artys, to scout, to support sams with their lower air range- that is clear. but whats the problem of having aa mig and flak truk? allies have the better aagun together with the destroyer and longbow. thats already compensating not having an aa vehicle like the flak truk. i think this fits to both factions since soviets are the aggressive active (mobile flak truck) faction and allies are more the building walls, placing aaguns and artys faction.
Last edited by Norman_ on Wed Jun 01, 2016 3:04 am, edited 5 times in total.
Image

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

Post by Murto the Ray »

Naval units shouldn't really be considered along with land-based AA, too many maps have so little water so they hardly come into it. What is the reasoning behind Migs with AA anyways, there doesn't seem to be a logical reason for them having it.

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

Post by Norman_ »

i see the destroyer more like a bonus if you play maps they could be useful on. i dont think soviets must have navy aa too just because allies have the destroyer. never had the feeling that this ever was an issue and i even like those more or less small differences between the factions.

migs are just cool and should be more useful/attractive.
mig with aa fits to soviets because soviets whole setting is based on attacking and it would give them a nice counter vs mass hinds.
air-air fights between longbow and mig can be very interesting too, with a setting i may not have found yet since its not easy to find people who are interested in really playtesting new stuff.
sure, ra can work without aa migs too, it works without missile aa sub - both are not 100% neccessary.
the one thing is the theoretical concept and first ideas how it could be added to current balance, the other thing is actually trying these ideas and see how it works. if theres a nice idea, what arguments are there to not even try it?
Last edited by Norman_ on Tue May 31, 2016 8:52 pm, edited 3 times in total.
Image

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

Post by Murto the Ray »

The main argument opposing this is that its not a feature that has a place in RA. Its cool and would be fun to play and i encourage people to make maps and mods with it because OpenRA has those capabilities and you should exploit them as much as possible.

Mig AA just doesn't make sense from a balance perspective at the moment when the Mig and Longbow's main stats are so bad and they should be altered and worked on for a release or two before considering something like this.

The difference between AA Missile Subs and Migs is that AA Migs don't solve any kind of issue whereas AA Missile Subs solve the issue of people idling aircraft above bodies of water to kill off subs.

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

Post by Norman_ »

migs can be used to take out idling helis (and other migs, what aa missile sub isnt able to) over water too and people would build an improved mig + aa missiles more often then without aa missiles i guess. it makes it a more complete unit. the issue is, migs are (almost) not used and i think the improved ag missiles only arent enough of a buff. another idea could be to have such a mig still with its 2000,- costs and testing that together with the improved longbow for 1800,-.
the missile sub for 2000,- with almost useless aa missiles and a vs aa targets way more effective destroyer for 1000,- is worth to think about too.
a mig with aa is in same pricerange like the missile sub, but more similar to destroyers aa possibilities. the missile sub is a sub what gives it an advantage, but the unit cant use this vs aircraft because the sub itself and its missiles are just slow.
Last edited by Norman_ on Wed Jun 01, 2016 12:47 am, edited 3 times in total.
Image

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

Post by scorp »

AA Migs are one of many issues with higher tier units. They're not just an issue of a single unit being underpowered, i think it's more about the question what is it worth teching up for?

Many higher tier units such as Mammoths, Migs, MAD Tanks, Chrono Tanks and possibly other units i'm forgetting were apparently nerfed in OpenRA because, i guess, they were OP in original RA? Either way, when i see the replays, Players often don't tech up and if they do, the tech centers are weak and thus, easily sniped.

The high costs, time to build, risk of losing tech buildings (waste of money and time) should offer rewards for those who succesfully do it. I think that's reason enough to make Migs, mammoths, longbows etc. useful and cool because it gives more options to players. if teching up is rarely an Option, than the game has a serious flaw.



Now i tested air-to-air combat on a large scale in the past, and even when using longbow-like units, it's a mess. Using units flying at the speed of Migs, it will be even more of a mess once you involve more than 2-3 units (try it, use AA weapons on Migs, build large squadrons, play). Especially when these units all use rockets or bursts thereof.

At the same time, it makes no sense that there is just one airborne AA-capable unit.

This is a tricky thing to get right and i hope the OpenRA guys find a good solution.

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

Post by Norman_ »

if migs would have too much aa range and damage, its op to be able to use lets say 4 of these migs together, destroying single helis. but i hope its possible to find a way avoiding this possible issue with playtesting and adjusting the yaml parameter or maybe somebody has ideas how to adjust migs aa missiles to make it as balanced as possible without being op in large groups with the advantage to fire the first missiles.

its not possible to use a bunch of migs and micro them the same way it would be possible with a single mig vs air targets but a nice attack possibility would be something like attacking
with 2-3 migs from one side and with 2-3 from another side or similar, grouping them to different hotkeys before. a single mig or yak could be used to scout and get enemy aa units attention first and then trying to escape, while the small mig groups attack in that time.
Last edited by Norman_ on Wed Jun 01, 2016 3:13 am, edited 1 time in total.
Image

Post Reply