Well, isn't Soviet using submarines in general would be against their mantra? Being stealthy and all. It almost doesn't fit them at all. Epsilon got the most submarines as they are a stealthy faction, Allies got the most diverse and specialized, "easy to understand", just like the Allies. And Foehn got the most generic "feels like an afterthought" navy. While Soviet is just... kinda weird, like a bit of everything.
I don't think it's a huge deal. Seawolves already feel like a "powerhouse"-type unit since it can deal with air, has reasonable armor, and has an anti-ship weapon.
Foehn isn't so bad, but they feel overdesigned compared to the other navies. Almost all the ships have spinboost, Whipray has SODAR boost, there's confusion for both land and air, and Leviathan has nanocharge. It's like all of the technologies of Foehn were crammed into the four units of Foehn navy.
If the other navies were designed like Foehn, then Allies boats would all be chronoshifting, all Dreadnought can be boosted using Overcharge to create Tesla missiles, and Epsilon can mind control naval and air units.
I believe the Levi needs serious nerfs and possibly a rework while the Soviet navy is most deserving of another ship to ship unit. Possibly a stingray of some sort would be great.
A ship version of the mastermind would be cool for Epsilon, actually, just couldn't mind control air units. :V
But yeah, I wonder if the Foehn navy should be "separated out" even more. That's how the Whipray was created, because the Swordfish was too much of a jack of all trades, and maybe their ships still are.
I still wonder if driller logic can be used with naval units to create a sort of "deep water submarine" unit.
Note: I just realized this first paragraph is just pointless gushing not sure it belongs here so feel free to skip the first paragraph if you want.
Hello, good people. I was about to register a new account here only to discover that I've actually done so 4 years ago and completely and utterly forgotten about it. Anyway, point is I just returned to the game and honestly all the improvements since 3.0 have blown me away. The game overall seems to have become quite finely balanced, I assume thanks to endless community feedback and the developers' willingness to consider said feedback, which is just awesome; major respect and thanks to everyone involved. I'm halfway through the Act 1 campaign and it's honestly top quality, including the storyline that is more complex, has a more serious, sinister tone, and feels truly epic and wider in scope than the vanilla story which was pretty boring (and where only the allied campaign was canon). And most importantly the save/load function, the absence of which was the reason I stopped playing 4 years ago and the main reason I came back, so special thanks to AlexB! Okay, enough gushing, I'll get to my point
So, my specific feedback is about the US Abrams tank. In short, it feels too strong and versatile for its low cost (at least as of the 3.3.4 buff). From my tests and experience, it cost-effectively dominates most ground forces including other T3 "monster tanks", while still being cheaper, faster, and having more range and/or versatility against other targets. I tested one-on-one:
Wins against Tesla Cruiser (+costs 100 less, +has more range +much better vs buildings -no emp -slightly worse vs infantry),
Tie against empty Catastrophe (+costs 200 less +has more range +faster +effective vs infantry without shelling out 950$ +rarely misses its shots, unlike catastrophe which occasionally does -no anti-air -slightly less versatile)
Tie against Colossus (+costs 200 less +range +speed +anti-infantry +much better vs buildings -no anti-air)
It holds up suprisingly well vs Nuwas and GGI - Battle Torts, dishing out significant damage before going down (+more range than BTs +can fire on the move unlike nuwas +much faster than both units). It's probably an even matchup in cost-equal numbers, depends on micro (such as avoiding Nuwa AOE).
Obviously Charon wins any 1 on 1 and Mastermind uses MC. Tyrant isn't meant for brute force anyway. I haven't played foehn yet (I want to discover them in the campaign).
Bonus: I fortunately found a video elegantly demonstrating some of these matchups (and vs foehn ones, presumably):
(if "Toveena Frezat" is on this board they have my thanks)
So all in all Abrams feels too stronk for its cost. They dominate all kinds of ground units (even T3 tanks) while also being fast and good vs buildings. And US has the best ground-based AA to cover them. It really makes the US feel like its specialty isn't "precision strikes and laser weaponry" so much as "spamming Abrams". Hell even when I play soviets I use a more diverse army. Stormchildren harassment is still good, as is Tanya IFV, but it seems like making as many Abrams as you can is both easier and more effective than the alternatives. Why make warhawks or high-tier infantry (ok, infantry has a different queue) when that money could go into more abrams? I also often forgo athena cannons because abrams are so good against buildings and their decent speed and range makes them good at taking out defenses too, that I'd rather have extra abrams than artillery. I first noticed these things when one match I had an easier time clearing out two AI bases with 9 abrams than with 9 Catastrophes + desolator garrison (which costs about 60-70% more). I assume in actual pvp matches there are counters to this kind of strategy, but I was just comparing similar T3 units, and Abrams steamroll seemed to be the best steamroll.
I propose either keeping their awesomeness but increasing their price to 1600-1700 to prevent too much spam, or cutting their stats a bit. Their speed or range could be decreased but I like the speed and range as a unique advantage compared to other T3 tanks, so I suggest maybe increase the ROF for the main cannon instead? Or revert them to their old attack behavior (no lasers vs tanks and buildings).
Disclaimer: I fully admit I have no experience in pvp so I may be entirely wrong. But I do like watching matches when I can find them and I understand the basics of competitive play somewhat. Actually I'm curious how these things actually play out, if anyone has any experiences to share I'd love to hear them.
I will say that you could’ve probably just say “Abrams tank needs a nerf” and a lot of people would agree, although since you went through the trouble of writing that brick I guess I’ll do some work in breaking this down so Abrams tank isn’t viewed as god, starting from the statement after the first paragraph.
In 3.3.3 Abrams was alright, the buff was mostly to make America’s laser beams more consistent from Tanya’s rifle to the robot tank’s cannon, which clearly overbuffed them with a 7x-10x damage multiplier to the lasers.
Tesla Cruisers are meant to crush armies, and when dealing with pvp Tesla cruisers can be a convenient way to cancel out someone’s microing with the emp effect, in turn for being weak against buildings Russia has one of the best siege units in the game, not to mention most people with have a few wolfhounds to deal with Abrams.
Remember that Catastrophe tanks are open topped and can have an infantry shoot from the inside, inflating their overall cost, but making them much more threatening.
HQ will have an Aerial Fortress Irkalla for you to deal with and you might want to spend a lot of funds on aeroblazes, giving HA a chance to counter the Abrams you make with more flexibility to create tanks, not to mention most HQ players will use stalkers, which, when paired with cloning pods, can amass easily and generally crush infantry and vehicle alike.
In most matches China will have the centurion, rendering most vehicles useless due to Yunru’s EMP, so while it’s not so serious, Nuwa could probably stand a better chance.
If you’re just throwing GGIs in a BT, sure, but just 1 suppressor in there is all you need to turn the tables, Pacific Front is naturally a ranged faction, so Abrams can particularly crush their targets if your opponent isn’t paying attention.
Although you won’t be able to build as many Charons as your opponent has Abrams so their reload will be a huge hinderance.
Just wait until your opponent uses shadow eye on their mastermind....
Obviously Abrams need some nerfs, but as far as I’ve been seeing there’s more of a need to throw some durability to defensive structures out the window, I think speeder just forgot to rebalance the Abrams after rebalancing all the lasers or something anyway.
Hey, thanks for your perspective, that's what I was looking for. I guess I wrote that wall of text because I wanted to convey more precisely what I felt was off about the Abrams balance. Just calling it OP seemed unhelpful. I'm glad to see others probably get what I'm saying: it's not too overpowered, just needs to be toned down a bit or made more expensive so it's not so spammable. Again, part of the problem is that for me it defines the central strategy of the US, which is kind of strange. Like other allied factions, they have a wide variety of tools at their disposal but one particular strategy (Abrams + Aeroblaze) strikes me as the most effective while at the same time being the simplest to pull off. They're as good at steamrolling as the soviets while having the flexibility and utility of allies. In fact, if given the choice I'd rather go with the Abrams over any other soviet T3 as part of my soviet strategy. So thematically it also feels off; even if US is meant to be more "soviet-like" than its counterparts, they shouldn't out-soviet the soviets!
Regarding your comments on other units, I understand the differences between units and factions and actually find them really balanced. The Abrams seemed to be the outlier, being better against all ground targets while also being cheaper and faster. Edit: A nerf would also further encourage US players to explore more cost-effective options for specific roles, like air harassment vs armor, athena cannon vs buildings, riot troopers/seals vs infantry, etc...
I think speeder just forgot to rebalance the Abrams after rebalancing all the lasers or something anyway.
I felt that way too. I haven't played 3.3.3 but I saw the 3.3.4 changelog with Abrams change and I could tell it was done for thematic reasons, but I failed to see the nerf that would compensate. And surely enough, the tests proved it. I liked it better when Abrams used only its cannon vs units and buildings anyway. It was less noisy and allowed the main cannon shots to sound more powerful. I just assumed the lasers were low-intensity or something like the robot tank and only good vs infantry, given that they're smaller and rapid-fire.
Athena’s are actually fairly useful in dealing with infantry blobs in groups, that aoe effect is great, Abrams should stay spammable though, it’s part of America’s mantra to build units quickly.
In this patch, the Harbinger gunship no longer shoot aerial units. No longer I get my aerial units destroyed. Nice.
If so, I'm afraid it's more like a bug
I always thought it is supposed to target only ground units and building. So, it may be bug then. Anyway, I had check that the Foxtrot missiles are now longer targeting aerial units. Usually when I saw the Foxtrot attacking a target, some of its missiles targeting aerial units like rocketeer. However, it do not dealing any damage to the rocketeer thus wasting some of the Foxtrot firepower.
Projects:Command and Conquer 5:Tiberian Destiny(In incubation stage at present)
PsiCorps Proselyte.A mind is a terrible thing to waste. I like Epsilon Headquarters also.
Posted 02 November 2018 - 05:46 AM
A ship version of the mastermind would be cool for Epsilon, actually, just couldn't mind control air units. :V
But yeah, I wonder if the Foehn navy should be "separated out" even more. That's how the Whipray was created, because the Swordfish was too much of a jack of all trades, and maybe their ships still are.
I still wonder if driller logic can be used with naval units to create a sort of "deep water submarine" unit.
Naval Mastermind-hmmmmm.....PsiCorps could definitely use something of the sort.There's some food for thought.
I have an idea regarding thinning out the Foehn navy.
A new unit could be introduced-let's call it the Cachalot.It will be an ANSV(Autonomous Naval Support Vessel).It will be immune to mind control and use nanites for repairing friendly vessels.The Nanocharge power could be tweaked to ensure it stops affecting naval units.
Naval Mastermind-hmmmmm.....PsiCorps could definitely use something of the sort.There's some food for thought.
No, they don't. They already have elites for naval mind control. It's annoying enough already with how controlling they are of battlefield situations, with magnets, amphibiousness and all.
When world domination haven't cured the emptiness inside
Members
870 posts
Location:Russia
Projects:Translation of various cool C&C mods.
Mental Omega Russian Translator
Posted 02 November 2018 - 09:04 AM
Actually Ares added a possibility to make cluster weapons (Harbinger, Foxtrot and some others use that) not target air units randomly unless it's intended, so in case of these two units I'd say it's a feature.
Actually Ares added a possibility to make cluster weapons (Harbinger, Foxtrot and some others use that) not target air units randomly unless it's intended, so in case of these two units I'd say it's a feature.
IIRC the code is unchanged from 3.3.3 to 3.3.4
In-game speed vs real life speed? →
Malver in Obisidian Sands? →
Strength-Agility-Intellect subfactions? →
NGL, I was kinda drunk when I registered with this name.
Members
1,182 posts
Location:Hungary
Posted 02 November 2018 - 02:03 PM
Naval Mastermind-hmmmmm.....PsiCorps could definitely use something of the sort.There's some food for thought.
No, they don't. They already have elites for naval mind control. It's annoying enough already with how controlling they are of battlefield situations, with magnets, amphibiousness and all.
Suddenly Foehn Revolt. Especially Haihead. PsiCorps is and has always been broken, extremely strong against some factions, laughably weak against some others. Faction is in the desperate need of a complete overhaul tbh.
not sure it belongs here so feel free to skip the first paragraph if you want.
