Let's Talk About RA's Navy Part 2!

Y'all still use these forums?!

Discussion about the game and its default mods.
Post Reply
User avatar
Blackened
Posts: 347
Joined: Sat May 21, 2016 6:27 pm

Let's Talk About RA's Navy Part 2!

Post by Blackened »

Recent additions will be added in blue

For those unfamiliar once upon a time I tried to re balance navy to make it more worthwhile. Alas while some testing was done and some things were learned, the game grew and life got in the way. This post is gonna be long so if you just don't want the context your can TL;DR at the bottom where the changelog will be.

Nowadays, RA balance is nearly solidified. While there are little bits of change here and there, there are no significant changes like opportunity fire or stance changes that dramatically reshape the game. What this means is now is the perfect time to look towards the last frontier. Balancing Navy.

I'm sure people are going to have plenty of opinions on the matter and I would like to hear them. That said, I think there needs to be some ground rules and mutual understandings that I'd like to get out of the way. Foremost, this game is based on a game from 1995. Even with modernity injected into it, there are quite large limitations on things that are feasible. There are 3 things I want people to keep in mind: How significant are the changes you're suggesting, How likely is this to be added to/fit the base game, and how much work do these changes require? I ask this because a very obvious answer to the naval dilemma is to vastly expand that part of the game. Be that doing like RA3 with building/eco on water, or just making a bunch more naval units to expand the role, or even adding units that go on water and land. All of those changes could feasibly make naval game play something fun and worthwhile. But the reality is those don't fit into the questions I posed. All of those changes are insanely significant. None of those changes fit into what the base game is. And lastly, all of those changes require new sprites, and coding, and rules which is incredibly difficult.

It may very well be that there is no good way to balance navy that makes it fun without those changes. The point is to work our way up to that rather than jump straight there. I think there is a fair amount of stuff we can try before we get there.


I also think it'd be very helpful to address the problems of navy. Of that I think there's 4 big problems: heavy asymmetry between the two factions, limited units, overall game mechanics, and usefulness. The first two are pretty self explanatory. Overall game mechanics and usefulness are a bit more nuanced. By overall game mechanics I mean ships are limited to water and more than 80% of the game is centered on land. Additionally, ship vs ground, ship vs ship, and ship vs air interactions often leave a lot to be desired. In RA95 cruisers were dangerous. They obliterated everything on the ground. In ORA they're anything but. Ship vs ship was never that exciting in the original and ORA did little to improve that. Ship vs air at least has some fun out of the micro with migs/longbows killing ships but that's it.
To be blunt, ships are not useful and most definitely not worth it. There is very little that any naval unit does, that another unit doesn't do better. More often than not ground unit equivalency is cheaper too. 3 Artillery have more punch than a single cruiser does with the exception of armor differences.

I believe maps like duel (water main maps) won't ever work with what we have. They may be fun for the occasional one off play. But in a competitive sense their certainly don't work. They only work in the most casual of senses where players don't want anything too complicated. I also believe that not every map needs a naval component. I do think there is an in between. Navy could be something that shows up every now and then and makes a difference, or impacts the game play by removing one or a few ground options and replacing it with naval options.
I think sullied valleys is a decent example. The map itself wasn't great with the general layout, but it did offer up a limited use for naval that did make it fun to watch sometimes.

My philosophy on how navy should work: Navy is at best going to be in a supporting role like Radar jammers, medics, yaks, longsbows, etc. These types of units can make an impact when built in small numbers and in rare cases huge impacts in large numbers, but they'll never be something like a e1/e3. They alone won't win the game for you. Furthermore, support units shouldn't be necessary every game. In the same vein that not every game reaches higher tech or not every game includes dogs and medics, not every game should include navy, even if it is an option. With that in mind maps have to be designed in way that allows navy to act in a support role.

For a map to be designed in a way that encourages navy, land has to lose something. There has to be a bit of give and take. I think this is possible so long as what you take away can be done via the water it has a shot. Especially if it can be done better by navy. This is what my DT map are going to experiment with.

Another thing I think navy has going for it as a support is while some supports counter other support s(mrj vs migs/longbow, gap gen vs arty, medics vs dog to an extent, or longbows vs other air) navy is a counter to itself. Subs/PT boats/Destroyers are all meant to counter each other. Of course right now they fall short of that, but I think there are changes we can make so that they are better equipped to support land and also better counters to themselves.

The following are any and all changes I've heard towards rebalancing navy. The list is organized in such a way as to work with my 3 main concerns (How significant are the changes you're suggesting, How likely is this to be added to/fit the base game, and how much work do these changes require?).

Best and or easy changes: These changes are generally low significance, have a good chance to be added to the game, and mostly just require yaml changes.

ships own armor type – Giving ships their own armor type (Steel) would allow them to be more effective vs other types while not reducing their ability to deal with navy. A heavy tank wouldn't beat a destroyer in a 1v1 any more, nor would subs fall victims to BH/Yak. But subs and destroyers could still deal with each other without having to change their weapons. While this change is significant and has a lower chance of being added to the base game than others, its work required isn't too bad at all.

msub bigger detection range – This would really help in soviet vs soviet matches in which msubs and subs have the same detection range. At a minimum this allows msubs to skirt around enemy subs and or spot for your own subs. Any sort of micro/positioning dynamic we can create in naval battles is good in my opinion.

pt boat bigger detection range – similar to the above this gives allies a reason to build something besides destroyers.

destroyer smaller detection range – this coupled with the above change adds further dynamics to allied naval play.

move msub to t2 – this is significant but not in the grand scheme of things. Moving msub to t2 allows soviets a golden reason to go naval early and creates a dynamic where allies would be forced to respond.

increase lst to 10 – further utility in transport.

decrease cost to build spen/nyard – one of the prohibitive things about naval is the 800$ and 1000$ price tags for sub pens and naval yards respectively. Reducing this to be in line with the rax/air would certainly help encourage navy. This coupled with cheaper ships in general may work out well.

increase msub projectile speed – perhaps a bit controversial but I think this further gives reason to go navy as soviets. Right now the Msub missiles are even slower than an arty shot.

increase msub/cruiser damage to none – as above a bit controversial.

defenses can target subs – this is one of the stranger ones but is a compromise between any damage causing subs to surface and subs being completely invisible. Its very hard to regain the control of water if one player has cut off access. This seeks to address that problem.

General stat changes to naval units- things like damage, hp, vision, cost etc. All have lots of room to be refined to in conjunction with other changes. Cheaper Msubs could be good if they don't work at t2, while at the same time maybe subs need to have bigger vision to help support land similar to how air does.

Possible and or moderate changes: These changes start to dive into more elaborate changes and while not outlandish, could have plenty of pushback.

removing torp homing – This is how they behaved in the original which is a plus. It also simplifies micro a little bit. In conjunction with some other changes I could see it working. However, this change would require extensive damage/speed rebalancing.

remove surface on firing – This is less like the original but it is a possibility.

change msub to be more like original – Msubs used to behave more like destroyers, just with more heavy weaponry. This was something I experimented with in my original naval balance but I'd be open to peoples opinion. This is certainly a buff compared to current msub behavior and I could see them being kept and t3 if this was used.

change cruiser damage – Again more like the original. Making cruisers fearsome again could be good, but it does effect team games significantly.

depth charges only – Another return to the original, especially if destroyers got 3 of them. This does add some depth (haha) to naval engagements via fancy micro, but it does cause both allied and soviets to fight subs in close proximity, which may make battles quick and oppressive for misplays.

surface on damage – This coupled with removing torp homing, and other changes to be more like the original makes subs less cloak and dagger. This significantly effects water being camped in a good way I think, but it also changes the way subs can be dealt with in open water/transit.

Spy Plane detects submarines – A simpler change, and kinda hard to explain lore wise but it does help weed out subs lurking about.

Sonar Pulse added to the Naval Yard – similar to the above and also has the advantage of granting a seldom used and seen ability more utility. Perhaps with spy infiltration of radar or tech or something this could be made.

increase cruiser projectile speed
– one of the few stat changes I think would be rare to see, I wanted to highlight this on in particular because while both mbsub and cruisers suck against moving targets and this could fix that. However, its also may be fine as is.

Subs can "deploy" and surface to vastly increase their vision - this was something I remembered from Sircake. He had it with a speed nerf too while deployed but I'm not sure that's needed. It was nice that subs could act as decent scouts while submerged and even better scouts, but with the risk of being spotted/killed while surfaced.

Give subs an armor bonus while submerged except against torpedoes/depth charges.- the intent here is to be used in conjunction of subs surfacing on any damage. If that is the case than it's entirely possible that subs are too easy to pick off. Therefore if subs gain armor while underwater (which has a certain logic to it) then it could make them less prone to dying while still making them susceptible to torpedoes/depth charges as well as sustained attacks that keep them surfaced.


Significant changes: This is the last resort I think. These are the changes that heavily change the game, are not likely to make it into the base game, and or require extensive work.

give both sides access to all ships – While this makes everything balanced via removing asymmetry, its also a boring solution and not likely to make into base game.

add sea scorpion – This solves soviets lack of AA on sea but requires new sprites and doesn't “fit” the aspect of a sub pen.

implement passable bridges – This in theory would help naval make inwards to the middle of the map without severely choking land paths. But this requires new bridge work and new code.

add helicarrier, acts like pillbox for vehicles. – This change isn't likely but just one of those far out ideas. What if Vehicles had a VFS? A Vehicle fighting Ship? It does solve some things and I think its interesting but does not fit any of the 3 concerns in the slightest.

add more naval units- This is the second to last resort. We tried conservative stat changes, we tried fancy reworks of existing units. We even tried adding just 1 or two new naval units but none of them panned out. Navy still sucks. Perhaps it just needs a more robust navy to make it better? 6 different units to play with is not enough. We need diversity...

Completely rework the game- The last resort. Hell maybe RA3 did have the perfect balance of navy and land. Maybe all ORA is missing is ore mines dredging up minerals from the ocean floor and floating construction yards. Who knows. At least we can rule out all of the previous attempts.

Give nyard/spen defensive capabilities - this from orb as a way to get defenses on water

TL;DR here are the changes I'm currently experimenting with
Ships own armor type: steel
what this means on weapons vs steel (comparison vs heavy):
Tank damage: 2/3rds (77 from 115)
LT damage: 40 from 48
Artillery/cruiser: 40 from 25
ships: unchanged
gren: unchanged
depth: 75(unchanged)
e3: 90 from 100
mig/longbow unchanged
v2: 55 from 40
telsa tech unchanged
turret: unchanged
yak/BH/pillbox/etc: same as heavy damage

Takeway: Because subs now have armor similar to heavy, rifle damage is ineffective against them. This does however mean things that do more damage to armor now do more damage to subs. Turrets right now kills subs in 1 less shot than before. Ground units dealing with ships in particular are nerfed with the exception of arty/v2 which are buffed.


msub detection range: same as vision 8co from 4co

gunboat detection range: 6co from 4c0
destroyer detection range: 3c0 from 4c0

msub to t2

lst to 10

spen/nyard 500 from 800 and 1000 respectively

spy plane detects submarines

spy infiltrating radar or spen/nyard gives sonar pulse

torp spread slightly less 320 from 426
torp damage to wood less 50 from 75

*** These last changes I intend to add but I need to work out kinks.
destroyers have 3 depth charges.
depth charge Spread increased 256 from 128.
Reload 100 from 60.
Range 6c0 from 5c0
Inaccuracy: 1c0 from 0c128


Gunboat/Destoyer/Cruiser/Msub cannot auto target subs with their primary weapon. depthcharges/torpedos only auto target.

Remove torpedo homing.

Subs surface on any damage. aka how Stanks work in TD

sonar pulse: gives gps icons through fog/shroud like gps for 10 seconds.
Last edited by Blackened on Mon Mar 27, 2023 3:49 am, edited 3 times in total.

User avatar
Punsho
Posts: 143
Joined: Wed Jul 18, 2018 2:56 pm
Location: Lithuania

Re: Let's Talk About RA's Navy Part 2!

Post by Punsho »

This is a great initiative, I like the direction of these changes but I'd like to clarify a few things as well as provide a few suggestions.

The current naval status is: Naval is useless, but destroyers are op. This in turn forces map makers to nerf destroyers via map design, in turn nerfing naval.

Regarding destroyer, as far as game design goes, it's really bad design to have the primary harass unit also be the primary anti-air unit, let alone primary anti-everything unit. Though without the introduction of new units or weapons I don't think this can be properly solved. But I can think of a solution that improves the situation quite drastically: I suggest making gunboat be the primary anti-naval unit, in the same way submarine is the soviet anti-naval unit. Currently gun boats are absolute trash. There is 0 reason to build them apart from the fact that its the only ship before radar, and that you can outmicro a submarine in a 1 on 1. Doing this would also increase naval variety as instead of allies using 3 naval units, they will be able to use 4.

I'm not done complaining about destroyers. I also want to nerf naval ship health, allied units are just way too tanky compared to ground. Ground defences do basically 0 damage to naval and because destroyers have such high anti-heavy damage they basically insta-kill all defences. This just makes it so defences are basically defenceless vs a harass unit. A RTS game design blasphemy. On top of that Destroyer outranges Turret by half a cell.

And there's more: Destroyers also counter aircraft way too hard. It's not that destroyers trade well vs aircraft, its that they absolutely massacre them. Both the damage and the tankyness make it a massive problem.

Now some commentary about the proposed changes:
  • I agree with yard/subpen cost reduction, but I wish the yard/subpen cost was also unified. I really don't think that this piece should play a role in balancing differences between allies and soviets.
  • I don't agree on increasing missile sub detection radius. If anything their detection should be removed and vision nerfed. Instead I'd slightly increase regular submarine detection radius.
  • I don't agree with making destroyer depth charges limited. I'd rather try out a more creative and robust solution. Here's a few ideas:
    • Make every unit's detection radius be 1.5 - 2.5 cells (and remove the visual), only let submarines and gunboats have higher radius.
    • Nerf depth change damage, and compensate by making gunboat throw 2 charges.
That's all, I can't wait for the first test maps to be out! GLHF

User avatar
Blackened
Posts: 347
Joined: Sat May 21, 2016 6:27 pm

Re: Let's Talk About RA's Navy Part 2!

Post by Blackened »

It's time to get this project rolling now that (mostly) all the coding kinks are worked out. Below are the current balance changes.

Overall changes:


Subs reveal on any damage


Ships own armor type: steel
*what this means on weapons vs steel (comparison vs heavy):
Tank damage: 2/3rds (77 from 115)
LT damage: 40 from 48
Artillery/cruiser: 40 from 25
ships: unchanged except Destroyer
Destroyer: 100 from 120
msub: 48 from 30
gren: unchanged
depth: 75(unchanged)
e3: 90 from 100
mig unchanged
longbow 105 from 90
v2: 64 from 40
telsa tech unchanged
turret: unchanged
yak/BH/pillbox/etc: same as heavy damage

spen/nyard now both cost 500.
fake nyard costs 50

defenses now detect subs (except AA)

spy infiltrating Allied tech center, soviet tech center, or spen/nyard now grants sonar pulse support power.

Sonar pulse now acts like a slightly better spy plane+reveals subs, but can only be used on water (2:10 charge timer, 10 sec revealshroud duration at 10c0)

Spy plane now also reveals subs

infantry detect subs at 1c0

Unit specific changes:

Depthcharges:
reload delay 100 from 60
inaccuracy 1c0 from 128
spread 256 from 128
range 6co from 5co

Destroyer Depth charges:
burst 3
burstdelay 5
reload delay 150

Torpedos:
removed torp homing
torp spread 320 from 426
torp wood damage 50 from 75
torp speed 120 from 77


PT:
revealshroud 8c0 from 7c0
detection range 6c0 from 4c0
30% more damage 3500 from 2500
depth charge only vs subs (cannon can be forced fired to reveal subs.)

DD:
Revealshroud 5c0 from 6c0
detection range 3c0 from 5c0
destroyer now has 3 depth charges with a 33% slower reload
stinger damage reduced by roughly 25% AA reduced by 43%
None: 36 no change
Wood: 66 from 88
Light: 66 from 88
Heavy: 100 from 120
Steel: 100
AA: 50

depth charge only vs subs (missiles can be forced fired to reveal subs.)

SS:
reduced cloak delay to 20 from 50
turn speed 18 from 16


MSub:
moved to t2
reduced cloak delay to 20 from 100
turn speed 16 from 12
detection range 7co from 4co

will not target subs unless force fired

CA:
will not target subs unless force fired

LST:
carry count 10 to 5 (no vehicle weight currently)

Key takeaways:

Subs are now vulnerable to everything. You can force fire on suspected sub positions to briefly reveal them. While cruisers/msub don't auto target subs they can absolutely wreck them if they clump up. I can see some push back from this since it breaks the current targeting logic of the game. If so I think I would adjust the minimum firing distance so that subs can get inside their range and or reduce CA vision. Otherwise engaging CA would be especially difficult. (I think msubs would be fine) Additionally, since detection was changed spen/nyard actually help with their detection range. Arty/v2 can be used to clear the water of idle subs.

To help subs their cloak delay has been standardized and reduced. They'll stay surfaced just long enough to draw fire but recloak quick enough that there is room for escape. additionally their turn speed has been upped slightly to try and help.

PT got a decent buff. Their damage vs heavy still isn't great, a little better than a LT however, they have a much bigger role in dealing with soviet subs with a huge detection range. Additionally their upped damage makes them a bit better at light harass for early game. It will remain to be seen how they interact in AvA but I suspect they will be used less and less as tech goes on. At t2 they might have some use with cheap vision for DD but air is still going to be more effective. at t3 air/cruisers will probably supplant them.

DD also got a pretty significant nerf. Their rockets do less vs armor and their AA was heavily nerfed. This was the only ship that over performed. Before they could kill a harvester 2 shots faster than a medium tank. Now they do it 1 shot slower. Additionally a longbow vs destroyer will straight up win the fight. This could also be a be controversial considering how fragile air is in ORA however at double the price of a destroyer the longbow should win in my opinion. 2 destroyers will still easily beat a longbow. This also means migs beat destroyers too allowing a little more room for mistakes.

Speaking of longbows, they recieved a slight buff vs navy. They can now kill 2 subs/pt boats per load and will kill 1 destroyer with 1 missile being overkill.

Lastly, Destroyers really have taken over for the anti sub role with 3 depth charges. I think there's a lot of room for fancy micro with them vs subs. While PT boats aren't needed perse, they will greatly help with identifying subs lurking about. Otherwise a destroyer will only be 3 cells away before they stumble on a sub, making their depth charges deadly, but at the cost of being directly in front of a sub.

Which brings us to the navy vs navy dynamic. Subs still absolutely destroy all navy en masse. Without homing the torpedos are very likely to hit targets behind. So careful concaves should be considered in naval battles. However, subs are still easily kited by allied boats since they are turreted while subs are not.

last thing I want to talk about is sonar pulse/spy plane. The former is a seldom seen ability that I want to make OP or at the very least very powerful. in this iteration is currently a better spy plane but can only be used on water. This has the interesting interaction of helping land vs land engagements if they happen near water. Spy plane received a slight buff in the ability to reveal subs too. Why? well let's just say the spy plane has a sonar detector too. This will help clear water in soviet vs soviet matchups.

Things to work on
While subs lost homing I haven't quite worked out how to properly remove it. Right now their turnspeed is just set to 0. This means MRJ still effect torpedos. This is now fixed properly. Thanks Pinkthoth!

Additionally, I'm currently toying with giving subs a 50% armor bonus while submerged (only for non torpedo/depth charges) I worry that since subs can be targeted freely, they might be too easy to kill. Especially since defenses can shoot at subs but they can't shoot back.

Lastly, Ideally I'd like to make sonar even more OP but haven't worked out the technical aspects of it yet. My idea is to make it similar to the current RAGL GPS where it would only reveal all naval units (and spen/nyard) for 30 seconds every 2 minutes (+ the 30 sec up time). I'm even considering revealing the shroud of the units instead of the icon to encourage auto targeting wrecking subs. However, that might be a bit too much.
Last edited by Blackened on Fri Mar 24, 2023 7:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Blackened
Posts: 347
Joined: Sat May 21, 2016 6:27 pm

Re: Let's Talk About RA's Navy Part 2!

Post by Blackened »

Regarding destroyer, as far as game design goes, it's really bad design to have the primary harass unit also be the primary anti-air unit, let alone primary anti-everything unit.
I hope with the changes I've made above make you feel that destroyers are less of a jack of all trades unit.
I suggest making gunboat be the primary anti-naval unit
I completely disagree with this however. If gunboats shut down subs then soviets have no way to deal with allied navy without going to air. Even with the pathetic damage that gunboats do (though I have buffed it a little) they would be more than enough to heavily disrupt soviet land via eco or building harass. And if there is nothing close to the land to harass then why would either player ever go naval?
m not done complaining about destroyers. I also want to nerf naval ship health, allied units are just way too tanky compared to ground.
I've actually gone the opposite. Ships are more tanky now. But I've also dropped dd damage. The combined effect means that defenses are actually stronger than they were before. It's also important to note that with vision a DD will outrange all defenses regardless. Additonally, ground units are now weaker to DD.
And there's more: Destroyers also counter aircraft way too hard
Agreed here and why I've heavily nerfed their AA. Their AA is still good especially considering the expected numbers of dd vs air but now at least air does have some survivability vs dd
I agree with yard/subpen cost reduction, but I wish the yard/subpen cost was also unified
Think this was misunderstood. They both cost 500 now. Before the subpen was 200$ cheaper than the nyard.
I don't agree on increasing missile sub detection radius.
Again hard disagree. msubs cannot run from subs at all. They suck enough as it is, nerfing them even further would be bad. I do think that potentially raising sub detection range could be interesting though. Subs currently still mutually annihilate each other upon contact. More range could open it up to potential for dodging but I remain unsure. With the lack of homing right now perhaps subs can dodge better than before. Especially if they are moving more perpendicular to the attacker.

User avatar
Punsho
Posts: 143
Joined: Wed Jul 18, 2018 2:56 pm
Location: Lithuania

Re: Let's Talk About RA's Navy Part 2!

Post by Punsho »

Again, I'm grateful for the initiative. I think the changes are moving in the right direction, but I do sense some more issues. Since I'm only mentioning the problems my posts can seem overly negative. I'd just like to clear up that that's not my stance. I'm just trying to make sure the balance & design are as best as they can be. I'll comment more in detail once I have am able to get the changes into my hands.
Blackened wrote:
Fri Mar 24, 2023 4:59 pm
I suggest making gunboat be the primary anti-naval unit
I completely disagree with this however. If gunboats shut down subs then soviets have no way to deal with allied navy without going to air. Even with the pathetic damage that gunboats do (though I have buffed it a little) they would be more than enough to heavily disrupt soviet land via eco or building harass. And if there is nothing close to the land to harass then why would either player ever go naval?
I'm not suggesting that gunboats should shutdown subs. But rather that they should be the main way to fight subs. Subs trading up against everything else. Also not forgetting AvA, something needs to beat destroyers.
Blackened wrote:
Fri Mar 24, 2023 4:59 pm
It's also important to note that with vision a DD will outrange all defenses regardless
Destroyer isn't an artillery unit. It should never be allowed to have longer range than defences.
Blackened wrote:
Fri Mar 24, 2023 4:59 pm
Think this was misunderstood. They both cost 500 now. Before the subpen was 200$ cheaper than the nyard.
Being as cheep as barracks, their health should see a significant nerf. I'd also suggest changing the cost to 600 or 650. These buildings are bigger than a war factory and it just feels wrong to have them at 500. I'm also thinking of reducing their production scaling from 7 max to 4 max, though I'm wary that it might make the initial structure to expensive.
Blackened wrote:
Fri Mar 24, 2023 4:59 pm
spy infiltrating Allied tech center, soviet tech center, or spen/nyard now grants sonar pulse support power.
I think this is wrong, tech centres shouldn't provide naval support powers. I'd rather go with my initial proposal of just making naval yard provide sonar pulse. It could be extended to sub pen.
Blackened wrote:
Fri Mar 24, 2023 4:59 pm
I don't agree on increasing missile sub detection radius.
Again hard disagree. msubs cannot run from subs at all. They suck enough as it is, nerfing them even further would be bad.
I don't think of it as a nerf. Rather I just don't like overloading units with random shit just because they aren't the strongest unit. I'm thinking role wise and thematically it doesn't really make sense for an artillery / anti-air unit to poses better sonar abilities than dedicated anti-naval units.

User avatar
Blackened
Posts: 347
Joined: Sat May 21, 2016 6:27 pm

Re: Let's Talk About RA's Navy Part 2!

Post by Blackened »

I'm not suggesting that gunboats should shutdown subs. But rather that they should be the main way to fight subs. Subs trading up against everything else. Also not forgetting AvA, something needs to beat destroyers.
I think like many of the natural balance intricacies in this game allies seem to need a combined unit approach vs a soviet 1 size fits all type deal. I'd worry that any buff to PT (which definitely need a buff) would just make them too strong against subs.

by reducing dd vision/converting their sub damage to depth charges it (in theory) makes allies need a vision unit to deal with subs. Which is a little different than the armor+vision dynamic that tanks have with rifles but fits in a similar fashion. I think the same is still true with AvA as a visionless DD army would definitely lose to an army with vision. At t3 cruisers would be pretty vital in naval battles with vision support not unlike how arty is in cnc3.
Destroyer isn't an artillery unit. It should never be allowed to have longer range than defences.
I'm not opposed to lowering their range to inside a turret. I just know that that does effect some mission stuff. And this type of thing is an indirect nerf to them.
Being as cheep as barracks, their health should see a significant nerf. I'd also suggest changing the cost to 600 or 650. These buildings are bigger than a war factory and it just feels wrong to have them at 500. I'm also thinking of reducing their production scaling from 7 max to 4 max, though I'm wary that it might make the initial structure to expensive.
Not opposed to adjusting the HP as well. Or having them a tad more expensive. The biggest reason I want them cheap is to open up possible alternatives in tech paths. 12 seconds in divergent build orders isn't so bad. but 24 starts to make a difference. Even the 800@20 seconds seems a bit steep when you factor in building the ships themselves. Could maybe be worth it. 4 max definitely would not work so cheap.

I think this is wrong, tech centres shouldn't provide naval support powers. I'd rather go with my initial proposal of just making naval yard provide sonar pulse. It could be extended to sub pen.
This is fair but I don't like just having sonar pulse be a granted support power. I think at the minimum the balance proposal I'm using makes it somewhat interesting and even worth going for as free vision when near water can be used outside of naval. Could also encourage map makers to leave more ponds in the middle of the map (but again you'd have to have t2+spy+your opponent would need either t3 or a nyard/spen on the shore to even get it.
I don't think of it as a nerf. Rather I just don't like overloading units with random shit just because they aren't the strongest unit. I'm thinking role wise and thematically it doesn't really make sense for an artillery / anti-air unit to poses better sonar abilities than dedicated anti-naval units.
I mean it's a more advanced sub lorewise. I would assume that that would come with more advanced sensors. I think the bigger vision/detection range makes them more like stanks than artillery. Extremely weak when spotted but dangerous and able to sneak around.

Post Reply