Red Alert: Let's make everything worth building! + ideas etc

How to make pro players use every available structure/unit?

Discussion about the game and its default mods.
User avatar
JOo
Posts: 510
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2012 8:12 pm

Post by JOo »

hey ,

checkout the 160 ideas we've already collected so far

https://github.com/OpenRA/OpenRA/issues ... bel%3AIdea

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

Post by noobmapmaker »

Wow many nice ideas. Some have been posted before and been refuted but I'd think there are some original ideas there too.
Currently on vacation so can't respond elaborately.
Playlist with ALL games of the Dark Tournament Youtube.com/CorrodeCasts
Consider supporting OpenRA by setting a bounty or by donating for a server

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

Post by zinc »

Grenadiers do get used quite a bit -- mostly for early game rushes. They can also help defend if someone moves an mcv up at the start of the game I.e. power and barracks can be taken out quite fast by them. You don't see them much later in the game but they could still be used effectively if you had 2 or 3 apc of them. Of course they aren't as good as flame but they are cheaper and can sometimes work.

I don't think any change is really needed with this unit. Slight reduction in price is maybe a good thing.

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

Post by zinc »

I think the capacity of the silos should be doubled. Maybe they could also help defend against spies stealing? So make it so they can't be attacked by spies and if you have enough then spies get little out of attacking an ore refinery.

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

Post by zinc »

Mammoths... I have suggested before having different versions buildable. There is a flame mammoth in one of the expansion pack missions. That could be a good anti-infrantry or base destruction weapon. Or you could have a troop transport mammoth that can take 10 or 12 troops. (Make them even better for naval transport invasions and sneak attacks.) Or you could have a type with its own individual iron curtain kind of like the chrono tank. Maybe lasting half the time of the normal iron curtain.

Or, if you wanted, you could just give a boost to its shields maybe 25% stronger.

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

Post by scorp »

good ideas in this thread

another rarely used unit is the Hijacker. Maybe (even when the bugs with its pathing are fixed) the Hijacker could also capture husks like the mechanic?

also there's been discussions about the MAD tank. I liked the ideas to make it a support unit or to give additional effects to its thumping.

Cool ideas about mammoths. Right now, they take long to build and are expensisve. Let's see if the speed buff works or not.

The Grenadier should somehow become a more frequently used unit. I think the main problem is that it explodes too often. The secondary problem is that it is not effective in combat.

supply truck could maybe double as a cheap, slow, weak troop transport.

User avatar
MustaphaTR
Posts: 202
Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2014 6:38 am
Location: Kastamonu, Turkey

Post by MustaphaTR »

Grenadiers can actually be used as suicide unit to put inside enemy infantry group if you can manage that damage can be worth it, maybe their explosion should be better against vehicles/structures too so they can be unitialised for that purpose. Other stuff of grenadiers are mostly done better by Flamethrower.

Maybe as disgussed long ago but rejected they should be moved to allies as a counterpart of Flamethrowers. In my modmaps it is actually like that.


For hijackers the problem is that Capturing logic doesn't work well with moving actors, if they could enter fine and not do enter-exit stuff they could be way better.

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

Post by Mo »

I quite like your solution to the silo problem and how to implement it!

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

Post by zinc »

Fortnight wrote: (unit idea) Dogs are used early game somewhat often but almost never late game. Perhaps they would be a more viable option to destroy infantry if they could be trained in 25% of the current train time? They still cost 200 credits per dog so it's an expensive but fast way to desperately defend against infantry pushes.
This is one unit that I think is maybe underestimated by players in the later stages of the game. A few dogs can kill a lot of troops if those troops are focused on something else. I'm not 100% on this issue but I'm going to start playing more with them to experiment to see how useful they are against tank/troop attacks.

Also in the early game they extend vision so giving an advantage to your infantry.

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

Post by zinc »

Fortnight wrote: What would maybe make it more worth building them for pros?

+ Self-repair up to 100% instead of current 50%.
I thought it was already 100%??

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

Post by zinc »

Fortnight wrote: (controls idea) If you can deploy a vehicle (Construction Yard), make it so that you can do it with a left double-click like in the original game (as well as the new right-click).

Same if you can mark a building as primary (Barracks/War Factory), make both left double-click and right click work.

Can't deploy something or mark it as "primary"? Then make left double-click power down or power up a building (a shortcut so you don't have to use the "lightning bolt icon"). Spares newbies from remembering keyboard shortcuts (which I believe is X? X should be restored as default for "scatter move units", as it was in the original game. The current Ctrl+X key combo doesn't feels comfortable for scattering units).

Making it more comfortable to transfer your strategic thoughts from your brain into the game is always a plus, requiring people to spend as little time as possible learning controls/interface is a sign of a great game! Giving people options to control the game they want to control it leaves more energy over for strategy decisions, right?

Left click orders have already been done.

User avatar
Fortnight
Posts: 194
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2016 7:09 pm

Post by Fortnight »

Thanks for your posts guys, here comes a blob of replies. :D
JOo wrote: hey ,

checkout the 160 ideas we've already collected so far

https://github.com/OpenRA/OpenRA/issues ... bel%3AIdea
That's a lot, I can understand how my thread might feel like a nuisance with that many ideas already around. Bear with me though, I just want a place to plop down my thoughts. (If anybody feels like it feel free to add some of them to that place as well, if anything makes sense.)
noobmapmaker wrote: Wow many nice ideas. Some have been posted before and been refuted but I'd think there are some original ideas there too.
Currently on vacation so can't respond elaborately.
Thanks for taking the time to read some of them!
zinc wrote: Grenadiers do get used quite a bit -- mostly for early game rushes. They can also help defend if someone moves an mcv up at the start of the game I.e. power and barracks can be taken out quite fast by them. You don't see them much later in the game but they could still be used effectively if you had 2 or 3 apc of them. Of course they aren't as good as flame but they are cheaper and can sometimes work.

I don't think any change is really needed with this unit. Slight reduction in price is maybe a good thing.
Yeah I've noticed they have been used sometimes after all, mostly just once as an APC rush in the start. But their use is still being "ridiculed" a bit by FiveAces/SoScared, mainly due to the fact they explode on death. Since so much has changed in OpenRA I don't think it's unreasonable to tone down the death explosion to make them usable. Hasn't the flamethrower unit death been toned down too? Or was it just in Tiberian Dawn they were almost unusable?

Dropping the price from 160 to 150 and the build time from 4 sec to 3 sec (same as rifle men) would do a lot for Grenadier. Sadly though, as long as they explode and take out all friendly units around them they will probably still never be seen late game. I still stand by my previous suggestion to make the death-on-explosion only happen if they die from an explosion and make it deal no damage - only put units around them into prone position.
zinc wrote: I think the capacity of the silos should be doubled. Maybe they could also help defend against spies stealing? So make it so they can't be attacked by spies and if you have enough then spies get little out of attacking an ore refinery.
That's true, I mean if a spy infiltrates a silo what is he going to do? There's no credits there, just ore. Maybe he can let out a bit of the ore, causing the player to lose some money, but the owner of the spy wouldn't get any credits. So it could be:
Spy+OreRefinery = -X credits for Refinery owner, +X credits for Spy owner
Spy+OreSilo = -X*2 credits for Silo owner, no stolen credits for Spy owner

Might buff fence/sandbags as well since you'd want to put them around silos if you play against England that has cheaper spies?
zinc wrote: Mammoths... I have suggested before having different versions buildable. There is a flame mammoth in one of the expansion pack missions. That could be a good anti-infrantry or base destruction weapon. Or you could have a troop transport mammoth that can take 10 or 12 troops. (Make them even better for naval transport invasions and sneak attacks.) Or you could have a type with its own individual iron curtain kind of like the chrono tank. Maybe lasting half the time of the normal iron curtain.

Or, if you wanted, you could just give a boost to its shields maybe 25% stronger.
I prefer having just one type of classic Mammoth Tank myself. Seems to get built more often since the new release that came out just recently, maybe it's in a good place right now?

Check out this clip (FiveAces vs Abcdefg30): https://youtu.be/o1d70I9Qh9g?t=1911
Loved that match, very entertaining! Mammoth anti-air is so awesome, I love long distance missiles.

As for using the Mammoth as troop transport, the thought have crossed my mind as well. Would probably make it overpowered. At first I thought maybe they could ride on the tank, being able to attack and get damaged as the tank was shot at. But it wouldn't really serve much purpose that way since the tank moves so slow.
scorp wrote: good ideas in this thread

another rarely used unit is the Hijacker. Maybe (even when the bugs with its pathing are fixed) the Hijacker could also capture husks like the mechanic?

also there's been discussions about the MAD tank. I liked the ideas to make it a support unit or to give additional effects to its thumping.

Cool ideas about mammoths. Right now, they take long to build and are expensisve. Let's see if the speed buff works or not.

The Grenadier should somehow become a more frequently used unit. I think the main problem is that it explodes too often. The secondary problem is that it is not effective in combat.

supply truck could maybe double as a cheap, slow, weak troop transport.
@Hijacker: I don't think Hijacker should be able to repair husks because it would make the two factions more similar, I celebrate the "uniqueness" between two teams where it can be found. As I figure the Hijacker<->Mechanic balance is that Mechanic can Repair+GetVehicle while Hijacker can Disable+GetVehicle. Both can help out during battle, in different ways. Both can obtain a vehicle, in different ways. Both are exposed in battle.

However, both cost 500 credits right now, I think Hijacker should be 400 since he has to rush towards the enemy attack during battle while Mechanic can stay behind his own team and help out in safety. Also, the Mechanic use his "GetVehicle" once the battle is over, which is much safer than during the battle. Hijacker mustn't be too cheap though since they can be used to raid enemy Ore Trucks on their own, something Mechanic can't do. As for why Hijacker is rarely used, I think it's just because of the pathing issues where they can't actually capture the vehicle.

@MAD tank: I've never once seen the MAD tank being used, I hopped into a skirmish just now to check it out and it seems completely worthless (no offense to its creator). I'll make a suggestion in another post about how to maybe make it more useful. Haven't read about giving it additional effects, do you remember what those were?

@supply truck: Troop transport would be nice. Right now: APC costs 850 credits with 5 transport slots, 300 HP/Heavy Armor, 142 speed. Supply Truck costs 500 credits with 0 transport slots, 110 HP/Light Armor, 128 speed. Both have the same turn speed (5).

How about instead, Supply Truck:
+ 10 transport slots.
+ Halved health, only 55 HP (still Light Armor).
+ Minus 4 speed for every unit transported. So if fully loaded the speed would be 128-40 = 88. 5 transported = 108 speed.

This would make the Supply Truck into a cheaper transport able to carry more troops, though requiring safe roads since it is extremely vulnerable - if destroyed all transported units dies.

For speed comparison, Artillery has 85 move speed and most soldiers run at 71 speed. I don't know if the engine actually supports slowing a unit depending on number of troops transported.
MustaphaTR wrote: Grenadiers can actually be used as suicide unit to put inside enemy infantry group if you can manage that damage can be worth it, maybe their explosion should be better against vehicles/structures too so they can be unitialised for that purpose. Other stuff of grenadiers are mostly done better by Flamethrower.

Maybe as disgussed long ago but rejected they should be moved to allies as a counterpart of Flamethrowers. In my modmaps it is actually like that.


For hijackers the problem is that Capturing logic doesn't work well with moving actors, if they could enter fine and not do enter-exit stuff they could be way better.
I support the idea of moving Grenadiers to Allies. Coming from Tiberian Dawn I always found it very strange that Grenadiers wasn't with the so called "good guys", was with GDI in Tiberian Dawn so why not with Allies in Red Alert? Always bothered me how Mammoth Tank moved over from the "good guys" as well, but it's not as important in my book (since Soviet has double-barrelled Heavy Tanks). Soviet has dogs as well so they have plenty of non-vehicles even without Grenadiers. Flamethrowers really do overshadow Grenadier on Soviet.

@hijackers problem: Wouldn't a simple solution be to make sure hijackers always move last every "game tick" and if they are set to move into a tile where an enemy vehicle is set to move there's a 50% chance to issue a "stop movement"-order on that vehicle? Maybe make it impossible to run over Hijackers as well, then they just capture the vehicle instead?
Mo wrote: I quite like your solution to the silo problem and how to implement it!
Glad you liked it
zinc wrote:
Fortnight wrote: (unit idea) Dogs are used early game somewhat often but almost never late game. Perhaps they would be a more viable option to destroy infantry if they could be trained in 25% of the current train time? They still cost 200 credits per dog so it's an expensive but fast way to desperately defend against infantry pushes.
This is one unit that I think is maybe underestimated by players in the later stages of the game. A few dogs can kill a lot of troops if those troops are focused on something else. I'm not 100% on this issue but I'm going to start playing more with them to experiment to see how useful they are against tank/troop attacks.

Also in the early game they extend vision so giving an advantage to your infantry.
Seems to be a problem with building dogs next to enemy riflemen, they seem to always get killed as soon as they exit the pen. At least when I tried. Perhaps they should always exit aggressively, with a possible jump out of the pen? Or get a 50% dodge chance the first second they exit or something?
zinc wrote:
Fortnight wrote: What would maybe make it more worth building them for pros?

+ Self-repair up to 100% instead of current 50%.
I thought it was already 100%??
Nope, they have "HealIfBelow: 50" so they can only heal up to 50% health.
zinc wrote: Left click orders have already been done.
Almost, but unfortunately it's not really done as I'd like it to be (how I remember it being in the original game).

You should be able to not have your Mobile Construction Vehicle or Construction Yard selected and then simply double-click it to deploy. Currently double-clicking only selects the unit, then you have to wait 0.5 sec or so, then left-click once again to finally deploy.

Same if you have the Mobile Construction Vehicle or Construction Yard already selected. If you then left-click just once it will deploy. It should only happen on a double-click. A single left-click on an already-selected unit did nothing in the original Red Alert, if I recall correctly...? I'm a little uncertain on that though. Or was it just like that in Tiberian Dawn?

If you have "Left Click Orders" unchecked you can deploy an unselected Mobile Construction Vehicle instantly by left-clicking it and then immidiately right-clicking. That 0.5 sec delay doesn't feel good with "Left Click Orders" checked.

You also can't have both these at once, which is what I really want. I like using right-click to deploy. But, having played the original game my brain sometimes switch over and I try to double-click... I can't help it, I just want to be able to use both. I can't think of a reason why supporting both at the same time would be a bad thing (imagine two checkboxes in the settings, if both are checked then both left and right mouse buttons can be used to deploy).

Edit: Whoops, just realized that "Left Click Orders" makes you move your units with the left mouse button instead of the right mouse button. This isn't what I was talking about, I was just referring to the need to right-click in order to for example deploy the MCV or unload units from an APC. In short I want to keep it like it is now (with "Left Click Orders" unchecked) but also be able to deploy my MCV using a double left-click.
Last edited by Fortnight on Tue Oct 25, 2016 6:39 am, edited 1 time in total.

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

Post by scorp »

Fortnight wrote:
I prefer having just one type of classic Mammoth Tank myself. Seems to get built more often since the new release that came out just recently, maybe it's in a good place right now?

Check out this clip (FiveAces vs Abcdefg30): https://youtu.be/o1d70I9Qh9g?t=1911
Loved that match, very entertaining! Mammoth anti-air is so awesome, I love long distance missiles.

As for using the Mammoth as troop transport, the thought have crossed my mind as well. Would probably make it overpowered. At first I thought maybe they could ride on the tank, being able to attack and get damaged as the tank was shot at. But it wouldn't really serve much purpose that way since the tank moves so slow.
scorp wrote: good ideas in this thread

another rarely used unit is the Hijacker. Maybe (even when the bugs with its pathing are fixed) the Hijacker could also capture husks like the mechanic?

also there's been discussions about the MAD tank. I liked the ideas to make it a support unit or to give additional effects to its thumping.

Cool ideas about mammoths. Right now, they take long to build and are expensisve. Let's see if the speed buff works or not.

The Grenadier should somehow become a more frequently used unit. I think the main problem is that it explodes too often. The secondary problem is that it is not effective in combat.

supply truck could maybe double as a cheap, slow, weak troop transport.
@Hijacker: I don't think Hijacker should be able to repair husks because it would make the two factions more similar, I celebrate the "uniqueness" between two teams where it can be found. As I figure the Hijacker<->Mechanic balance is that Mechanic can Repair+GetVehicle while Hijacker can Disable+GetVehicle. Both can help out during battle, in different ways. Both can obtain a vehicle, in different ways. Both are exposed in battle.

However, both cost 500 credits right now, I think Hijacker should be 400 since he has to rush towards the enemy attack during battle while Mechanic can stay behind his own team and help out in safety. Also, the Mechanic use his "GetVehicle" once the battle is over, which is much safer than during the battle. Hijacker mustn't be too cheap though since they can be used to raid enemy Ore Trucks on their own, something Mechanic can't do. As for why Hijacker is rarely used, I think it's just because of the pathing issues where they can't actually capture the vehicle.

@MAD tank: I've never once seen the MAD tank being used, I hopped into a skirmish just now to check it out and it seems completely worthless (no offense to its creator). I'll make a suggestion in another post about how to maybe make it more useful. Haven't read about giving it additional effects, do you remember what those were?

@supply truck: Troop transport would be nice. Right now: APC costs 850 credits with 5 transport slots, 300 HP/Heavy Armor, 142 speed. Supply Truck costs 500 credits with 0 transport slots, 110 HP/Light Armor, 128 speed. Both have the same turn speed (5).

How about instead, Supply Truck:
+ 10 transport slots.
+ Halved health, only 55 HP (still Light Armor).
+ Minus 4 speed for every unit transported. So if fully loaded the speed would be 128-40 = 88. 5 transported = 108 speed.

This would make the Supply Truck into a cheaper transport able to carry more troops, though requiring safe roads since it is extremely vulnerable - if destroyed all transported units dies.

For speed comparison, Artillery has 85 move speed and most soldiers run at 71 speed. I don't know if the engine actually supports slowing a unit depending on number of troops transported.
MustaphaTR wrote: Grenadiers can actually be used as suicide unit to put inside enemy infantry group if you can manage that damage can be worth it, maybe their explosion should be better against vehicles/structures too so they can be unitialised for that purpose. Other stuff of grenadiers are mostly done better by Flamethrower.

Maybe as disgussed long ago but rejected they should be moved to allies as a counterpart of Flamethrowers. In my modmaps it is actually like that.


For hijackers the problem is that Capturing logic doesn't work well with moving actors, if they could enter fine and not do enter-exit stuff they could be way better.
I support the idea of moving Grenadiers to Allies. Coming from Tiberian Dawn I always found it very strange that Grenadiers wasn't with the so called "good guys", was with GDI in Tiberian Dawn so why not with Allies in Red Alert? Always bothered me how Mammoth Tank moved over from the "good guys" as well, but it's not as important in my book (since Soviet has double-barrelled Heavy Tanks). Soviet has dogs as well so they have plenty of non-vehicles even without Grenadiers. Flamethrowers really do overshadow Grenadier on Soviet.

@hijackers problem: Wouldn't a simple solution be to make sure hijackers always move last every "game tick" and if they are set to move into a tile where an enemy vehicle is set to move there's a 50% chance to issue a "stop movement"-order on that vehicle? Maybe make it impossible to run over Hijackers as well, then they just capture the vehicle instead?
- I think Mammoths would be too slow to serve as troop transports. I've been thinking about "tank crews" in general and i tested infantry riding on tanks before and i'd say it's too micro-heavy. It seems to me the Mammoths should be using their full weapon Arsenal. Right now, they use tusk Missiles only against infantry or air Units. If they're no such targets around, they won't fire them. The TD Mammoth has this differently, but in turn won't focus on an air or infantry target with its Missiles. I gotta admit i failed getting a mammoth to work the way i'd like them to be when i tried using custom yaml's (if they're air or infatry around, use tusks againts them only, but if attacking vehicles or building, also fire tusk Missiles at them.

-Yeah Grenadier to allies is a cool thing to do. And when you played TD, it makes a lot of sense, too. I just don't like switching Units around (and for me, RA is RA, ignoring TD). Still i think the exploding business is exagerrated. Sure the Grenadier has tons of grenades with him, but rocket soldiers have tons of rockets, a flamer has a tank of highly flammable stuff on him etc. By the Grenadiers logic, all of these units should die in epic, chain-reaction-triggering explosions. Just doesn't make much sense and renders the unit nigh unusable.

- I guess even when the glitches around the Hijacker are fixed, the unit is still likely to be inferior to the mechanic and largely unused. Very micro-heavy i think is the main issue.

- the supply truck as a slow, weak, but large troop transport would make some sense i think. I dunno if it can be made slower by the number of Units it carries, but i don't even think that would matter so much for balancing if it is weak and slow, the risk associated with losing a lot of infs to a "weak" attack would likely press players to mostly use it on safe Turf. Also i think large trucks don't care much whether they're carrying 5 or 10 soldiers, Speed-wise.

- the MADTank is supposed to cause an earthquake of sorts. Earthquakes tend to not only destroy cheaply-built houses, but often also disable important infrastructure, such as energy supply or sensitive installations. I'd love to see the MADtank as a mini-EMP (while it is activated, of course) that might serve as a counter to late game tech such as GPS, Radar jamming, gap generating, IC, maybe powering down structures for a very short time, something like that.

5aces played a custom map with soscared where he implemented some effects on the MADTank that powered down vehicles. I guess the idea behind that might have been similar, but engine limitations come into play here.

User avatar
Fortnight
Posts: 194
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2016 7:09 pm

Post by Fortnight »

scorp wrote: - I think Mammoths would be too slow to serve as troop transports. I've been thinking about "tank crews" in general and i tested infantry riding on tanks before and i'd say it's too micro-heavy. It seems to me the Mammoths should be using their full weapon Arsenal. Right now, they use tusk Missiles only against infantry or air Units. If they're no such targets around, they won't fire them. The TD Mammoth has this differently, but in turn won't focus on an air or infantry target with its Missiles. I gotta admit i failed getting a mammoth to work the way i'd like them to be when i tried using custom yaml's (if they're air or infatry around, use tusks againts them only, but if attacking vehicles or building, also fire tusk Missiles at them.

-Yeah Grenadier to allies is a cool thing to do. And when you played TD, it makes a lot of sense, too. I just don't like switching Units around (and for me, RA is RA, ignoring TD). Still i think the exploding business is exagerrated. Sure the Grenadier has tons of grenades with him, but rocket soldiers have tons of rockets, a flamer has a tank of highly flammable stuff on him etc. By the Grenadiers logic, all of these units should die in epic, chain-reaction-triggering explosions. Just doesn't make much sense and renders the unit nigh unusable.

- I guess even when the glitches around the Hijacker are fixed, the unit is still likely to be inferior to the mechanic and largely unused. Very micro-heavy i think is the main issue.

- the supply truck as a slow, weak, but large troop transport would make some sense i think. I dunno if it can be made slower by the number of Units it carries, but i don't even think that would matter so much for balancing if it is weak and slow, the risk associated with losing a lot of infs to a "weak" attack would likely press players to mostly use it on safe Turf. Also i think large trucks don't care much whether they're carrying 5 or 10 soldiers, Speed-wise.

- the MADTank is supposed to cause an earthquake of sorts. Earthquakes tend to not only destroy cheaply-built houses, but often also disable important infrastructure, such as energy supply or sensitive installations. I'd love to see the MADtank as a mini-EMP (while it is activated, of course) that might serve as a counter to late game tech such as GPS, Radar jamming, gap generating, IC, maybe powering down structures for a very short time, something like that.

5aces played a custom map with soscared where he implemented some effects on the MADTank that powered down vehicles. I guess the idea behind that might have been similar, but engine limitations come into play here.
Mammoth Tank seems to be in a good place right now, they are being built more often. That small speed buff they gave it is pretty noticeable when travelling on a road.

If the Hijacker will actually enter the vehicle they are ordered to enter they shouldn't be micro-heavy, you just place the order and they walk up and capture it (assuming they keep trying automatically until they die of course).

"Also i think large trucks don't care much whether they're carrying 5 or 10 soldiers, Speed-wise." Yeah, it would be just for game balancing puposes. ;) After all 5 infantry units take the same space as 5 mammoth tanks inside a naval transport.

Something has to be done about the MAD tank, nobody is even buying it just for fun.

User avatar
Fortnight
Posts: 194
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2016 7:09 pm

Post by Fortnight »

Incoming big post about ships and subs.

----

Here's the current state of the naval units (OpenRA release-20161019):

Gunboat:
+ Cost: 500 credits
+ HP: 200 (heavy armor)
+ Vision: 7 cells
+ Cannon attack range: 5.5 cells

Destroyer:
+ Cost: 1000 credits
+ HP: 400 (heavy armor)
+ Vision: 6 cells
+ Missile (air/ground) attack range: 9 cells (max travel = 10.8 cells)

Cruiser:
+ Cost: 2400 credits
+ HP: 800 (heavy armor)
+ Vision: 7 cells
+ Attack range: 16 cells

Submarine:
+ Cost: 950 credits
+ HP: 250 (light armor)
+ Vision: 6 cells
+ Attack range: 9 cells (max travel = 10.8 cells)

Missile Submarine:
+ Cost: 2000 credits
+ HP: 400 (light armor)
+ Vision: 6 cells
+ Ground attack range: 16 cells
+ Air attack range: 8 cells (max travel = 9 cells)

Transport:
+ Cost: 700 credits
+ HP: 350 (heavy armor)
+ Vision: 6 cells
+ Able to go over beach tiles

----

Here's how I would like to change these units:

Gunboat:
+ Vision: 7 cells -> 8 cells

Destroyer:
+ Vision: 6 cells -> 5 cells
+ Halved damage against all buildings.

Cruiser:
+ Cost: 2400 credits -> 2500 credits
+ HP: 800 (heavy armor) -> 1200 (heavy armor)
+ Vision: 7 cells -> 8 cells
+ Should be able to self-repair to 360 HP (30% of 1200 HP).

Submarine:
+ Cost: 950 credits -> 900 credits
+ Vision: 6 cells -> 7 cells
+ Attack range: 9 cells (max travel = 10.8 cells) -> 9 cells (max travel = 18 cells)

Missile Submarine:
+ Vision: 6 cells -> 5 cells
+ Ground attack range: 16 cells -> 12 cells
+ Air attack range: 8 cells (max travel = 9 cells) -> 12 cells (max travel = 12 cells)
+ Instead of using the current two non-targeted missiles for ground targets I'd like to see a single targeted missile.
+ Instead of using the current SubMissileAA for air targets it would use the same missile as for ground targets.
+ (In short the missile sub would have just one type of attack for all targets with the exact same range.)
+ The missile it fires would deal 61 HP damage against light aircraft. Here's the current HP for relevant air units: Jak=60, Mig=70, Hind=100, Longbow=120, TransportHeli=120.
+ The missile would deal X amount of damage against buildings and heavy-armored vehicles, where X is the average damage a Cruiser can deal to an Advanced Power Plant if three of its 8Inch shells scores a direct hit.
+ It would deal almost no damage against infantry.
+ The missile submarine fire rate would be so slow that it submerges between shots fired.

Transport:
+ Also able to go over bridge tiles, as well as those indestructible sand paths that vehicles can cross over water on.

----

Here's my motivation to these suggested changes:

In the current patch it seems like a situation with Destroyers dominating the waters is fairly common. Problem is they also dominate the shoreline. Halving the damage they do against buildings would give more time for the attacked player to gather a counter measure before it's too late, as well as being able to deploy base defenses capable of pushing back the ships (as long as they aren't out of range, note that I don't want to nerf the Destroyer missile range which I know is a lot of people's go-to solution but that would destroy the Destroyers uniqueness in my opinion and make it less of a force to be reckoned with).

Nerfing the vision of the Destroyer is one way of kinda nerfing their missile range a little bit though. Now they need assistance by, for example, the Gunboat with its buffed vision. That adds purpose of building a Gunboat even late game. The reduced Destroyer vision also helps against them denying the enemy's shoreline since they need boots on the ground to provide them with vision (or a well-placed Gunboat, but that removes space that could be occupied by another Destroyer).

The Cruiser was buffed to make it more attractive compared to the Destroyer. The increased vision and big HP jump is to make the player feel a bit more safe in his purchase, it's a big investment after all. The self-repair also gives some comfort in knowing it won't be picked off too easily.

You can buy 1 Cruiser or 2.5 Destroyers for the same amount of credits, right now I think many players will see more value in having 2.5 Destroyers so the Cruiser needs a buff. Especially since it takes a little while longer to build a Cruiser as well. It still needs support due to not being able to detect subs or defend against air units.

For some unit comparison the Mammoth Tank cost 2000 credits and has 900 HP (also heavy armor). But it is strong vs enemies in the air as well. I do believe the 2500 credits merits the large amount of HP for the Cruiser that I'm suggesting. Mammoth speed is 50, Cruiser speed is 42. Perhaps lower the reload speed between shots of the Cruiser if it feels too strong, make it a threat that must be dealt with and give enough time to provide opportunity to actually deal with it.

The regular Submarine was made cheaper because once attacked they really go down fast. Cloaking is valuable but 950 is a little too close to the price of a Destroyer, which I think has more over-all value than a single sub. The vision was increased to 7 cells so they are able to spot Destroyers easier and can attack them while knowing they are out of their 5 cell vision range. Increased vision also adds value to "scout submarines" that idle hidden along the coastline just to provide vision.

As you can see the max travel distance of the torpedoes have received a ridiculous increase from 9 to 18. Keep in mind this is only the chase-range, the range when they can fire is still the same as the current patch. I've seen many games where people are being attacked by subs but all they do is move their ships a little further away, no big deal. Since a torpedo moves slowly and has a very stiff turning curve it's easy to dodge them this way. I think it would make for more skill-based positioning if you were chased by torpedoes longer; you'd have to move your ships more to the side, not just move them back a little. It would reward players able to calculate where the enemy torpedo is.

On to the Missile Submarine. I understand that it was added in order to balance against the Allied Destroyer, which can reliably attack everything (air, subs, other ships and buildings far from shore). Being able to deny air space over water was something Soviet was missing.

I however feel like the Missile Submarine's current slow-moving two-shot burst against buildings is too similar to what makes the Cruiser unique. I've always thought doing stuff like mirroring a map is a cheap way to obtain balance, the same goes with units. The more variation between units while still keeping the factions balanced the more fun it is to play and watch (it's more admirable from a game-building perspective as well). My first thought on hearing about the Missile Submarine was that it was a mobile Nuke Silo, haha.

Having missiles that aren't capable of setting a somewhat accurate target destination doesn't make much sense lore-wise either, it would be cheaper to use ballistics (for anybody wondering the projectiles are of type "Bullet" in the missiles.yaml game file, just with "MISSILE" as image). Missiles aren't thrown after all, they travel in a calculated path (be it curved or straight). I'd be fine with having missiles that aren't homing/seeking (that will miss if the mobile target moves) but missiles that just pick a random spot somewhere before launch seems a little off.

Firing a single long-range seeking missile from the Missile Sub would not only be more unique, it'd balance heavily against the Destroyer and the (new 1200 HP) Cruiser. The 12 cell range of the missile sub's missile would be able to assault both base defences and take down ill-placed key buildings, like a water-based artillery. It's pin-point accurate, but won't damage infantry much. Meanwhile a Cruiser's 4 shell burst is inaccurate but will damage whatever it hits.

These kind of Missile Subs could snipe air units from afar as well, as long as they have another submarine scouting ahead. Only Mig and Longbow have the needed 12 cells of vision to see the missile subs surface for their launch. Quick-reacting players can still dodge outside the 12 cell range of the sub missile with their aircraft as long as the missile don't get too fast speed.

I think the Missile Sub needs homing/seeking missiles against moving aircraft. Otherwise they won't deny air space effectively, unless the OpenRA engine implements target leading (aiming for where the target is going to be after the projectile has travelled for a bit). Having them be seeking would buff the Mobile Radar Jammer of the Allies as well, I'd love to see them be built more.

As you can see my suggestion for the Missile Submarine is still a sort-of merge of the roles of the Cruiser and the Destroyer, just like the current version of the Missile Submarine. But giving it accurate long-range single shot missiles makes it overlap less with the uniqueness of the Cruiser as well as being able to protect air space better from helicopters or planes that are passing by.

The Transport change would allow for more varation in maps that allow for both naval and non-naval units. Actually this could be true for all ships. Why not make them able to travel in river tiles as well, even if it doesn't look so good graphics-wise?

Right now we have maps that 1) emphasize naval units by putting players on different islands, 2) that have a puddle of water in the middle or 3) that have water surrounding the middle ground. Wouldn't it be neat with maps involving several islands where you can have bridges between them and still be able to reach everywhere from the sea? I realize it won't look the best having a Transport going over a bridge but hey, we know that it's actually going under it in our head. The important part is that it would improve gameplay.

Edit: Maybe Destroyers should be increased in price from 1000 to 1250 credits? I'm not too sure but it feels like they bring more value than 1k's worth. Perhaps the vision changes are enough to make 1 Destroyer worth as much as 2 Gunboats. 1100 credits? Hm.

Post Reply