RA Current Balance Discussion
Give your thoughts and feedback!
Your idea of "help" is incredibly abrasive. It's actually defined in the knowledge base as being an "arrogant bastard," this is just another example. I appreciate the constructive part of your comments, not the part where you start belittling members of the community.
That link does however remind how even tanks in RA2 were slowed down by crushing. But I guess they are alot faster than in RA
That link does however remind how even tanks in RA2 were slowed down by crushing. But I guess they are alot faster than in RA

- Graion Dilach
- Posts: 277
- Joined: Fri May 15, 2015 5:57 pm
- Graion Dilach
- Posts: 277
- Joined: Fri May 15, 2015 5:57 pm
There's another option that's been brought up recently. Instead of buffing the properties to make them late-game monster units, rather lower the cost to make them more accessible.r34ch wrote: Proposal to buff / fix Mig and Longbow AG weapons
https://github.com/OpenRA/OpenRA/pull/11337
I wanted to test out cheaper Longbow/MiGs, costing 1800 down from 2000.
Btw does lowering cost still reduce production time?
- Murto the Ray
- Posts: 487
- Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2014 4:34 pm
Would you mind explaining your rationale SoScared, as to why you prefer cheaper unchanged late game air units? I have brought up what I perceive to be 3 issues with these units - which can be reliably tested - and offer some solutions to address them.SoScared wrote:Instead of buffing the properties to make them late-game monster unitsr34ch wrote: Proposal to buff / fix Mig and Longbow AG weapons
https://github.com/OpenRA/OpenRA/pull/11337
I fail to understand how making these units slightly cheaper would address any of these issues I have highlighted.
The issues and proposals you've made are valid and certainly a step in the right direction.
The reason why we haven't seen much of the MiG's and Longbows I believe is because of the cost-inefficiency. Massing up Yaks and Hinds throughout a match takes precedence and spending time, APM and money on MiGs and Longbows is a problem if you need to invest into expansions, tech and ground armies as well. It's just way more convenient swarming the map with Hinds/Yaks which also you feel you can afford loosing some now and then.
If we'd skip making the Longbow/MiG stronger vs buildings I'd love to see a slight price and production time reduction (e.g. 1800, down from 2000) together with the other changes you proposed. Longbows and MiGs do massive damage to defensive structures. I'd like the Yaks and Hinds to still be the damage dealers vs buildings considering they're slower and give the opponent a fair chance to react.
r34ch's solution seems alright but doesn't go far enough, even adding SoScared's $200 price decrease isn't all that extreme, I still envision myself making mostly hinds even after all those changes.
The 4 shot volley might have some negative consequences as well - ie you accidentally target infantry and you've wasted a ton of ammo.
I wouldn't mind seeing an ammo increase in addition to the above.
The 4 shot volley might have some negative consequences as well - ie you accidentally target infantry and you've wasted a ton of ammo.
I wouldn't mind seeing an ammo increase in addition to the above.


