Haihead is seriously bad at turtling apparently... I guess they are the types which go frontal attacks.
Their Shadray seems the weakest (since it only effective against air infantries it seems, and enemy most of the time only sending air units) of any anti-airs.
The Shadray deals good damage at good range. It's the GDI Disruptor Tank 2.0. Level any building and kill anything in between as well. Air units are going to hate this thing as well, so it's only good that it's made of paper.
I mean their damage, not their armor/health bar. They deal good damage against air infantries, but against air units (like Kirovs and Quetzal) I need 8 to destroy 1 in 2 waves of their rays. Whilst other anti-air units like Aeroblaze or Sentinel can easily destroy both air units and air infantries. Or is that intended..? I start seeing Shadray like the cousin of Blizzard tank. They have their main purpose but the anti-air feature is just a weak addition to their main feature.
If that's the case then I'm sorry.
EDIT: Oh also it's quite weird how Shadray deal good amount of damage to land units and great damage to land/air infantries, but negligible to air units like Kirovs. So far I thought the armor type of both land units like tanks and air units like Kirovs share the same type of armor (weak to anti-armor weaponry, strong to anti-infantry).
I thought there are 2 kinds of "Anti-Air" weaponry, Anti-Air[Armor] and Anti-Air[Infantry].
The biggest point of a dual-purpose unit is that it can't be as good as the equivalent single-purpose units. Otherwise it would be really really OP. So that's why it makes sense that the Shadray isn't as good against Kirovs as the Sentinel or Aeroblaze.
However, the heavy air units are also slow, so you can outrun them with your Shadrays. Heavy Air and Shadrays are simply not each others counter.
I've been a bit too happy with the Shadrays in the last games I played. If you're not careful you'll lose them all way too quickly. So that's a good thing I think. High risk, high reward.
One guy on Moddb was complaining about Kirovs being too powerful:
He said that they had too much health for how much they cost, their advanced anti-air counters cost more than the kirov and they do too much damage with their bombs and when they are falling down.
Also, he suggested that this was too much worry for something that can destroy your base very easily and only MIGHT be sent to your base.
Personally, I disagree but if you have differing views, discuss.
I did notice the Kirovs were faster. The problem with Kirovs is that they're high risk, high reward in a different way. These are strong but slow. If you're prepared for them, they'll never arrive and be a waste. If you're not prepared for them, it's game over. With their speed improvement, you simply have less time to prepare for them.
I'm thinking buzzards in the case of Foehn, because a good group of those can deal with any sort of infantry, smaller tank groups and their AA is good enough. Plus, they fire while on the move and they're faster than Kirovs. In the case of the Allies, the Thor is quite good but you need more than one (obviously) and the Wolfhound for the Soviets is fun too. For Epsilon, I don't know.
In the original RA2, I found that the patriot missile was quite bad against Kirovs, but that doesn't seem to be the case in MO.