2018 naval RA balance

[Blackened]

A too-common theme I have seen across these are that people like OpenRA in general but feel let down by what they see as arbitrary and unnecessary changes in the RA mod.

Then a greater effort needs to be made to explain why these changes are not arbitrary. And if they are arbitrary we need to ask ourselves why the change was made in the first place. IN either case, the point of this thread is to figure out if adding a new unit is necessary. Additionally if it is necessary, the sea scorpion does fit naturally into the cnc world as it follows the same line the flak truck did. Those against the change because it breaks away from the classic game more than likely just want the old game running on new computers. I agree with sircake and law that those people should be directed to cncnet OR a classic RA mod should be released. Without splitting into a "classic" and a "modern" mod the
best option would be to have a checkbox called classic that uses only the classic rules and let the modern rule set be the balanced rule set. This way if someone wants to have their tank spam, no fog, hind on soviets, apc on allies, imbalanced but original game they can. The only advantage to splitting the mods would be to allow the modern version its own campaign (Which would be quite fun FWIW)

The way I see it the stakeholders lie on a spectrum where offline is one end and online is the other. Those offline are the ones more generally interested in the campaign and the nostalgic feel of this old, but great game. Further towards the center are those still offline but might play skirmishes against the bots/ fiddle around the the map maker for their own desires. In the middle of the spectrum are the people you mentioned who play openra with coworkers after work. These people go online solely for the purpose to play with friends. After them are the casual players, the players who play big team games, gods divide, etc. And finally at the end you get the competitive players.

If the majority of openra players are from the first 2 examples on the curve than openra is a sin. Coincidentally, those are the people most likely not involved in the community and either drop the project when changes are made that they don't like or move over on the spectrum when they do voice their opinion (and its explained why the changes are made.) The other side only benefits from balancing done by the competitive community.

That people are "disappointed" because you did not comply 100% with the original while expecting improvements is insanity.

[SirCake]

@Sleipnir I would suggest starting an in-release playtest map series where all the undesired changes are hard-reset (like hind to allies) and start balancing from there.
Sounds a bit goofy since you are a major owner of this project but maybe that would be a start?^^

[Sleipnir]

Smitty is already on the case, and will open up his ideas for feedback and testing when the time is right.

[lawANDorder]

This is not about wanting a 100% true gameplay experience. It is about the folk who like most of what OpenRA has to offer, but then feel that this is let down by a few specific gameplay issues (most mentioned above).

Thanks for clarifying, back to navy balance then.

[zinc]

From what I remember of the original, engineers were internal capture but you couldn't just use one against a building with full health. I think you had to send in multiple engineers to first damage a building and then finally capture it?

If I remember that correctly, why wouldn't that work in OpenRA? You can't just go capture something without spending quite a bit of money and taking a big risk that all, or most, of the engis will be killed.

[avalach21]

Adding the sea scorpion may be the logical conclusion after we've tried everything else. I doubt pchote would be against that. After all the flak truck was added for the same reason.

Changes like the flak truck, multi-use engineers, bounties, allied hinds were mostly done 5+ years ago, when the game play, game balance, and technical options for solutions were very different to what they are today. I consider these to be good examples of why adding new units or fundamentally different game mechanics are a bad idea.

These changes may indeed have made OpenRA’s RA mod a better game in an isolated sense, but they have made it a bad C&C game. The RA mod has swung too far towards competitive gameplay at the expense of being a good RA remake. I remain very much opposed to any new changes that would take RA even further down this path because history has shown time and again that the community is unwilling (and in some cases extremely hostile) towards any discussion about removing them again in the future. This is a cultural issue, not a balance one. If the community was willing to compromise on undoing some of these old ideas then I would be more willing to compromise on new ones.

I very much agree with Sleipnir. A lot of people are making a lot of assumptions and generalizations about people and assuming that "if they like the original RA theyll go play RA95." I love the original RA and I love the benefits OpenRA has brought to the original game, but I am definitely a purist and would prefer the game to resemble its original source material as much as possible.

I appreciate OpenRA's flexibility and customization. I appreciate the HD resolutions, the extra effects, the active community, the updated UI, the added capturable civilian "tech" structures, the general under the hood improvements, etc.etc. so obviously I don't want to play RA95. I definitely appreciate the added attention to balancing the game, but at the same time I wish the game would resemble the original as much as it can and only deviate when truly necessary.

I would prefer there not be bounties in the game (I'm glad they can be turned off, but I think they should be off by default). I am ok with the flak truck and totally understand its role so it's tolerable, but the hind being on the allies really is a bit off-puting, Hell to be honest, I'm not even a big fan of the massive change in the way shroud/fog of war functions but I will refrain from pushing that topic.

From what I remember of the original, engineers were internal capture but you couldn't just use one against a building with full health. I think you had to send in multiple engineers to first damage a building and then finally capture it?

If I remember that correctly, why wouldn't that work in OpenRA? You can't just go capture something without spending quite a bit of money and taking a big risk that all, or most, of the engis will be killed.

I also don't mind the way engineers currently work, I was always a bit puzzled why RA1 required the building to be in the red damage level to be captured, and how engineers would just damage the building if it had green or yellow health... just seemed like a weird mechanic vs every other classic C&C. I wouldn't mind if the engineers functioned like TD,TS and RA2

Also In Tiberian Sun there was a checkbox on the lobby screen for "Multi-Engineer." I wonder if this would be a good option to add something similar to pick between classic and OpenRA engineer rules.

In doing this allied tier 2 becomes less of a problem for soviets but tier 2 is still a solid allied hold. If we buffed the missile sub a little bit we could see a swing where soviet tier 3 became the better compared to allied tier 3/2 and then we get to see that faction imperfectness that makes the game fun!

And in an attempt to get back on topic, an idea for Navy balance is why not make the missle sub a tier 2 unit? and balance it more as an under water destroyer.. have its aa function a little more similar to destoryer, could possibly be unlocked with just a radar dome instead of a tech center. have it able to hit land (& air) targets, but do so more similar to a destroyer.. which is actually more similar to the way it felt in RA 1.. def give it (much?) more limited range than the cruiser.. it never had quite the range of the cruiser, The soviets don't really need a tier 3 navy.. that's not their strength. This would not drastically change from the original game (except for the tech tree change if that was to be implemented) and I think do a decent job of balancing out the issues with navy while simultaneously making the missle sub function a bit more like it originally did.

[Blackened]

And in an attempt to get back on topic, an idea for Navy balance is why not make the missle sub a tier 2 unit? and balance it more as an under water destroyer.. have its aa function a little more similar to destoryer, could possibly be unlocked with just a radar dome instead of a tech center. have it able to hit land (& air) targets, but do so more similar to a destroyer.. which is actually more similar to the way it felt in RA 1.. def give it (much?) more limited range than the cruiser.. it never had quite the range of the cruiser, The soviets don't really need a tier 3 navy.. that's not their strength. This would not drastically change from the original game (except for the tech tree change if that was to be implemented) and I think do a decent job of balancing out the issues with navy while simultaneously making the missle sub function a bit more like it originally did.

I actually did something similar when I ran a short series of naval playtesting last year. Missile subs in essence became a "super destroyer" They stayed at tier 3, their price went up to 2400, and they took 20% longer to recloak.. However, their missiles now acted like destroyers with a bit more damage but slower, they got a speed and turnrate increase, 15.5 cell missile limit, and heavy armor. The result was.... interesting. Personally I liked them and felt they were closer to the source material (Naturally) but in the few times i used them people had a very hard time countering them. Though, that may be related to other changes I made in that play test run and people generally countering them poorly

If you want to look more into the changes they were cataloged here

[ZxGanon]

By the way if people are interested into testing the Sea Scorpion I think my moded maps and models+icon for the Sea Scorpion are still available.

I just have to search them.

[netnazgul]

Your maps however won't work on the latest release correctly because of x100 damage/HP change

[eskimo]

Given that the game is pretty well balanced currently despite factions being quite different, do we need to add new units to naval? Though i'm not against adding other things.

So just spitballing.

What if the destroyer lost it's anti sub attack ability along with any sub detection? So gunboats became the scout and defending role.

Regular Sub speed is boosted slightly.


Whilst there's the argument for Allies having an advantage at low tier due to Destroyer presence, could it not become slightly weaker at ground attacks?
But still, i presume you guys thought about this already and came to conclusion that adding a unit is probably better than changing the Destroyer?

[zinc]

Issues would be things like having no AA for sub pens until tier 3. And even then, you would need to build multiple units to have an effective deterrent, and each tier 3 unit takes some time to build.

And there is no defence until tier 3 against allies naval working together with hinds.

Or as I mentioned, missile subs don't have the likely protection available to cruisers.

Imagine just a Soviet vs Soviet game. You can kill a couple of missile subs, (if you get the timing right) near instantly with a pak of yaks and without really facing much threat to your yaks. Even if the defending player had another couple of missile subs just waiting to act as AA, they could maybe take down a yak or two in the process.

It's very different to the situation with cruisers, which can take quite a bit of punishment, and the destroyers you probably already have will shred any air attack.

The imbalance I think, is part the original game wasn't balanced in the first place, and part OpenRA has made big improvements to air units, which is generally a great thing for the game, but creates an issue in the case of naval.

[eskimo]

Issues would be things like having no AA for sub pens until tier 3. And even then, you would need to build multiple units to have an effective deterrent, and each tier 3 unit takes some time to build.

I see your point and am not dismissing it. However, i'd like to see if snipes from Hinds and Yaks would be common enough to back up that point if the Sub Pen was in similar health/armour to the WF. (i still don't know all the different armour things however). As when trying to snipe a WF with Hinds or Yaks for example, it's incredibly difficult and often not worth it.

And there is no defence until tier 3 against allies naval working together with hinds.

Again good point. But if the Destroyer is no longer a huge threat to coasts, then it doesn't matter so much i think. Currently the Destroyer is still a big investment for little return unless it spends its time camping an ore field.

Or as I mentioned, missile subs don't have the likely protection available to cruisers.

Imagine just a Soviet vs Soviet game. You can kill a couple of missile subs, (if you get the timing right) near instantly with a pak of yaks and without really facing much threat to your yaks. Even if the defending player had another couple of missile subs just waiting to act as AA, they could maybe take down a yak or two in the process.

It's very different to the situation with cruisers, which can take quite a bit of punishment, and the destroyers you probably already have will shred any air attack.

The imbalance I think, is part the original game wasn't balanced in the first place, and part OpenRA has made big improvements to air units, which is generally a great thing for the game, but creates an issue in the case of naval.

I'm not sure if it is possible with the armour types and health, but bringing the Sub up to level with the Destroyer in health/speed/turn/cost or adjusting to suit, Subs don't become an empty investment.




I just like to think that if a map has a fair amount of water, naval becomes and option, and isn't a requirement to defend with, or is too slow to worth investing in. As an example, heavy pressuring with Inf and Tanks with a multiple WF opener and not building a radar to late game or at all can offer good games that do last over 10mins.

[Matt]

making sonar pulse useful

... and accessible, seriously, first you have to use a spy and second you have to pray for that subpen/shipyard over a beach tile and more than that; glued to it.

Only time i had pulse was in a single player mission out of a being bored and it was totally useless i had first to get rid of all the sub before getting to this subpen.

Solar pulse should a support power available with shipyard and techcenter.

I agree, the spy infiltration mechanic works in single-player, but not really in skirmish.

I would like to see some more discussion about adding the Helicarrier from the original game as a faction-specific heli reload point for England.

Yes, please! Fits to the naval power England, adds some tactical depth and can still be countered.

[zinc]

was the Helicarrier ever actually used in a mission? Or was it just a locked thing that was never available in the game?

Anyway, should be good to give to a particular faction as a special unit, whether or not it actually helps anyone win a game.

If it's mostly rubbish anyway, then no need to worry about game balance!

[eskimo]

It looks gross, which is why it was probably dropped. You can see it on YT.