Idea to balance planes - Airbases

Discussion in 'Planetary Annihilation General Discussion' started by coreta, August 31, 2012.

?

Airbases to limit range and attacks

  1. I prefer TA system

    18 vote(s)
    19.6%
  2. Another solution could be nice to balance air

    37 vote(s)
    40.2%
  3. Air platform solution seems to be nice

    27 vote(s)
    29.3%
  4. I prefer SupCom and the fuel system

    10 vote(s)
    10.9%
  1. coreta

    coreta Member

    Messages:
    58
    Likes Received:
    1
    We used to know that it is very difficult to balance plane stuff.
    In Total Annihilation, bombers and hunters were able to attack ground.
    In SupCom, we had the useless fuel system. On all maps, you need to have air superiority if you want to win.

    I propose a new idea (and a poll) to balance the aircraft:
    - Have Airbases (ground and naval versions)
    - Aircrafts can fly around a perimeter (range from Airbases)
    - Limited count of attacks before reload on Airbases

    So you will have to build advanced base to support your aircraft attacks. That is strategy. Isn't it?

    What do you think of that?
    Last edited: September 1, 2012
  2. neophyt3

    neophyt3 Member

    Messages:
    346
    Likes Received:
    1
    Re: Idea to balance planes - Aircraft warfare

    I voted "no", but I have to say, TA and SupCom air where very different from each other. Putting them in the same group is silly.
  3. corhen

    corhen Member

    Messages:
    66
    Likes Received:
    4
    Re: Idea to balance planes - Aircraft warfare

    stupid poll is stupid

    next poll "should cheating in ranked matches be allowed? Yes or no!?"

    Will go more into detail when i see a reasonable post
  4. ghargoil

    ghargoil New Member

    Messages:
    312
    Likes Received:
    8
    Re: Idea to balance planes - Aircraft warfare

    Agreed.
  5. coreta

    coreta Member

    Messages:
    58
    Likes Received:
    1
    Re: Idea to balance planes - Aircraft warfare

    Sorry guys, I have just modify the poll. I hope it is more explicite for you.
  6. michael773

    michael773 New Member

    Messages:
    34
    Likes Received:
    0
    Re: Idea to balance planes - Aircraft warfare

    Your idea would just make aircraft completely useless...

    What do you actually think is wrong with ta/supcoms air balance?
  7. jurgenvonjurgensen

    jurgenvonjurgensen Active Member

    Messages:
    573
    Likes Received:
    65
    Re: Idea to balance planes - Aircraft warfare

    This is hardly a new idea, several people have suggested it before on this forum. But they came up with better names than "air platforms". And a better implementation than the one you describe, which has planes having infinite loiter time as long as they don't stray beyond their maximum range, defeating the point of limiting planes like that in the first place.
  8. coreta

    coreta Member

    Messages:
    58
    Likes Received:
    1
    Re: Idea to balance planes - Aircraft warfare

    Why useless? You must have a platform to send aicraft. I do not see why this is useless.
    In TA/SupCom, I think aircraft are too powerful. On Setons for example, you cannot win a game without air superiority. The back guy have to rush ASF (T3 Air hunter) and that's all. It is not very strategic. It is boring. What is the interet to play if you do always the same thing?

    I thought that Airbase add strategy because you have to control the map with several Airbases to allow your aicraft to strike everywhere. You have to maintain and defend your Airbases.
    Last edited: September 1, 2012
  9. michael773

    michael773 New Member

    Messages:
    34
    Likes Received:
    0
    Re: Idea to balance planes - Aircraft warfare

    how is the fact that the back guy has to rush air in setons any different that the fact that the front guy has to rush land, and the side guys getting boats?

    If you had a platform to send air from it would either mean that your air can never attack the enemy base because the radius is too small, or the radius would be big enoguh that it doesn't actually change the current system at all.
    Either way it still does nothing to solve the "problem" of asf spam.
  10. jurgenvonjurgensen

    jurgenvonjurgensen Active Member

    Messages:
    573
    Likes Received:
    65
    Re: Idea to balance planes - Aircraft warfare

    While I'd hate to defend coreta because other people already had this idea and explained it better than he did (and he can't spell "powerful"), the point is that you'd have to build forward airbases (or "air platforms" if you hate good names) in order to attack on large maps, meaning map control remains important, even for an all-air start.
    Last edited: September 1, 2012
  11. coreta

    coreta Member

    Messages:
    58
    Likes Received:
    1
    Sorry jurgenvonjurgensen, I have to improve my English;
    But I want to learn! I edited my posts thanks to your nice comments :oops:

    Where is the other poll to vote about airbases? I see lot of debates but I don't think that Uber Ent. can read our debate. Poll is a easy synthesis.
  12. michael773

    michael773 New Member

    Messages:
    34
    Likes Received:
    0
    That seems reasonable at first but I don't like it.

    One of your arguments is map control being important with this, but I feel map control is already hugely important anyway, so adding more doesn't change much.

    I've also always felt the the entire point of of air is that it's maneuverable so I don't really like that being reduced so much.

    On the topic of ASF spam I'd like to point out that on land you build a big land army to keep the enemy big land army from killing you in the same way you build ASF to kill enemy air armies, so I don't see why people hate ASF spam at all.

    And I still feel that adding a radius to potential flight path still has the effect of making it so that you can't attack the enemy base or the radius is big enough that you can. I mean if you're close to their base anyway you could just send your big land army instead of your air army.
  13. sal0x2328

    sal0x2328 Member

    Messages:
    227
    Likes Received:
    2
    @michael773
    People do not like ASF spam because it often can kill armies, surface navies, and bases as well as enemy air forces.

    @coreta
    I think that limited fuel and/or ammo (depending on the aircraft, with some [i.e. construction aircraft / flying engineers] possibly having neither) would work better. Also I like the idea of having big, slow refuel/rearmament/repair aircraft (which could be the construction aircraft if we want to conserve units).
  14. michael773

    michael773 New Member

    Messages:
    34
    Likes Received:
    0
    First of all ASF only attacks air so all they do is kill all the enemy air. Secondly if you lose ASF fights and have zero backup air defense you deserve to lose anyway.
    It's the same as if I made a navy and killed the enemy navy and had free reign to attack his base because of it. People just seem to hate ASF for no valid reason.
  15. exterminans

    exterminans Post Master General

    Messages:
    1,881
    Likes Received:
    986
    People have a valid reason for hating air combat.

    On large maps, air is the only unit type which allows you to crontroll an almost unlimited area with only a few units and minimum effort. If you tried the same with naval or ground units, you would have to spend a lot more resources to get the same coverage while your units always have the risk of getting ambushed from behind.

    Limiting the range of units would have not much effect on (rather) small maps like Setons Clutch, but it would force you to be present with more then just air units in an area to actually controll it. One of the most anyoing things is to raid a complete 82km map with a single gunship fleet and there is no defense except for ASF since every other AA unit lacks the mobility to keep up with the air fleet. That's not a strategie, thats exploiting a balance problem.
  16. michael773

    michael773 New Member

    Messages:
    34
    Likes Received:
    0
    I personally don't play map bigger than 20km but surely you just build a bunch of t2 aa (mobile t2 aa for your armies) and then just laugh when the enemy attacks with gunships because about 20 t2 aa can kill infinity gunships because of their massive splash damage?
    It sounds to me like just giving aircraft less fuel would fix this "problem" since it only seems to be an issue on big maps.
  17. exterminans

    exterminans Post Master General

    Messages:
    1,881
    Likes Received:
    986
    And how exactly do you plan to get the AA into place? The only mechanism capable of traveling such distances are transporters or airbridges and you still have the problem that even a single T3 bomber can take out your complete AA squad or even worse: The gunships could simply retreat as they move faster then the ground units so they just evade your defense attemps.
  18. michael773

    michael773 New Member

    Messages:
    34
    Likes Received:
    0
    After a bit of thought I think the issue is more about the fact that ASF are the only unit apart from t3 aa base defense that can kill a t3 bomber above land. And this is bad because t3 base defenses can't be told to follow your army around, thus allowing t3 bombers to kill all land based aa and gunships kill the rest.
    I think there should be another counter to air that is land based to reduce airs effectiveness rather than the severe neft that only allowing them to fly in a certain radius is. Air units only advantage should be their mobility but it seems that it's not only mobile but able to fight armies head on and win and the combination of both is obviously ridiculous.
    I remember TA had no such issues because the units that fired missiles were t1, cheap, could kill any air unit is a straight up fight cost effectively and could even attack land.
  19. exterminans

    exterminans Post Master General

    Messages:
    1,881
    Likes Received:
    986
    What if missle launchers in general could also hit aircraft...

    Though i still prefer to also have some more restrictive fuel or airbases to reduce the area covered by aircraft. I'm perfectly fine with using aircraft for a quick strike, but not with holding a position far beyond the own bases or even the frontline.
  20. michael773

    michael773 New Member

    Messages:
    34
    Likes Received:
    0
    I personally like the idea of aa lasers, there's just something cool about shooting aircraft out of the sky with lasers, but it doesn't really matter so long as something does it effectively.
    I do like the idea of fuel because it allows air to maintain it maneuverability but not allow it to camp out and own an area (not with some of the air refuel/repair things that already exist in the games (it's almost as if the supcom devs had already had this argument before they made the game)). And I do think that t3 aircraft have far too much fuel.

Share This Page