5260 replies to this topic

[Tomeister]

Yeah it is- fair enough. Are you going to bring back spy satellite detecting stealth?

[ApOcOlYpS]

hmmm....that's something to consider. My issue with it is that it really detriments stealth general. On the other hand, superweapons general at least should be able to detect stealth at range since she has no effective ground force.

I also need to remember to give radar van scan to assault forces as he doesn't have it right now.

[Pendaelose]

It was originaly removed because it made stealth detection so easy... why even bother with stealth when everything can see it?

SupW does have a ground force... It's not great, but it is very suitable for scouting. She has radar vans, and light armor to escort a variety of artillery units. If your units come under heavy fire launch your ICBMs in the direction the fire is coming from.

On the defensive front SupW is one of the only generals with stealth detection built into the basic defenses.


edit:
The mobile defense tree unlocks the Patriot tank and Long arm launchers.. both are fantastic ground units when used right. The patriot tanks especially.

Edited by Pendaelose, 09 March 2012 - 10:23 PM.

[ApOcOlYpS]

SupW does have a ground force... It's not great, but it is very suitable for scouting. She has radar vans, and light armor to escort a variety of artillery units. If your units come under heavy fire launch your ICBMs in the direction the fire is coming from.

It's not so much that SW doesn't have a capable ground force (and I agree, patriot tanks and long arms are fantastic, especially since the long arm unit works ), but that as a general reliant on superweapons, she cannot see where to target against stealth general. Stealth general is also very capable at defending himself, if only because his defenses are so inexpensive. Heh, imagine stealth general with GPS scrambled long arm trucks.

Anyway, the trouble is that superwapons' superweapons have a very long reload time, meaning that a missed shot is rather significant. That was kind of a use of the tomahawk storm: shoot and see if you hit something.

Hmmm...it wouldn't be too hard to add the tomahawk storm back to superweapons, would it, since Robots already has access. Then again, it would need a pretty significant lowering of its power, but I think that's possible.

[Tomeister]

Is airforce gen going to get a hero unit? And is the b3 the carpet bomber?
Is the laser gen going to get a hero too?

It was in the possible additions list before Pend took his break, so I assume it will happen one day.

SupW does have a ground force... It's not great, but it is very suitable for scouting. She has radar vans, and light armor to escort a variety of artillery units. If your units come under heavy fire launch your ICBMs in the direction the fire is coming from.

It's not so much that SW doesn't have a capable ground force (and I agree, patriot tanks and long arms are fantastic, especially since the long arm unit works ), but that as a general reliant on superweapons, she cannot see where to target against stealth general. Stealth general is also very capable at defending himself, if only because his defenses are so inexpensive. Heh, imagine stealth general with GPS scrambled long arm trucks.

Anyway, the trouble is that superwapons' superweapons have a very long reload time, meaning that a missed shot is rather significant. That was kind of a use of the tomahawk storm: shoot and see if you hit something.

Hmmm...it wouldn't be too hard to add the tomahawk storm back to superweapons, would it, since Robots already has access. Then again, it would need a pretty significant lowering of its power, but I think that's possible.

.
Isn't that taking away robots super weapon?

SupW does have a ground force... It's not great, but it is very suitable for scouting. She has radar vans, and light armor to escort a variety of artillery units. If your units come under heavy fire launch your ICBMs in the direction the fire is coming from.

but if you have hydrogen bombs, wouldn't it be a waste of a sw?

[ApOcOlYpS]

Is airforce gen going to get a hero unit? And is the b3 the carpet bomber?
Is the laser gen going to get a hero too?

Airforce has the MOAB bomber, which I think can be considered a hero unit. Not very survivable, but can kill a large portion of a base in one shot.

As for laser general getting a hero, the thing is he already has a LOT of units, and I'm not sure what adding a hero would do for him. If you have any ideas for a specific hero unit feel free to shout them out (though try to be as elaborate as possible).

sn't that taking away robots super weapon?

Ehh....sorta...kinda...ish. The thing is I don't care for robots having a tomahawk storm. I don't use it all that often. It's possible he could keep a more powerful version of it. Or, superweapons could get a completely different T1 super weapon. Of course the latter is far harder to implement.

[Tomeister]

That makes sense. I think a radar should be added as a new tech building. I also don't think it makes sense that the supw general doesn't have the strongest super weapon.

Do you have any changes planne for the supw gen between now and next version?

Edited by Tomeister, 10 March 2012 - 05:33 PM.

[ApOcOlYpS]

Not particularly other than making long arm sites work. I'm mainly trying to balance what already exists, and clean everything up rather than just keep adding new things. Once that phase is over I'll head more towards the "add new stuff" area.



Edit:
Okay I need some opinions on this: How do people feel about the T2 long range base defenses (canister cannons, smerch site, designation relay, etc)? Should they stay in or no (Superweapons would keep hers regardless because of her play style)? I'm not sure if I like them because they are VERY powerful against anything on the ground, and decently hard to remove. It in essence makes turtling easy because no artillery can outrange them. Thoughts?

Edited by ApOcOlYpS, 10 March 2012 - 07:15 PM.

[ApOcOlYpS]

But if you're going to say "tone them down" you have to say how: Health, damage, range, increase cost? There are SO many things that can be done to balance something. My issue is they favor the turtler more than he should be. Generals is far more entertaining with units fighting each other than with armies crashing against the defenses of an enemy for no real gain. For example, I tend to not attack as often as I'd like because I fear all my units will be destroyed by artillery defenses, thus promoting my opponent and costing me money, while I achieve nothing.

[Pendaelose]

I like the heavy defenses a lot, and I consider them one of the distinct elements of Remix... Every faction has unique heavies. They are included specifically to counter T1 artillery units. I'm ok with T2 and T3 artillery having superior range, but not by much.

[ApOcOlYpS]

But almost everyone has a T0-1 artillery defense that counters T0/T1 artillery. The T2 defenses counter T2-T3 artillery at the moment, and that's what I take issue with. With how easy artillery is to kill (weak armor, lowish health), it doesn't seem like there needs to be a higher tier defense. I think what I'll do is just lower the T2 artillery sites to T1 defense range except for the generals it wouldn't make sense for (specifically assault and superweapons since they both focus on defenses). This may require some tweaking for some generals who have identical defensive sites as T2 artillery units (infantry, flame). I like the high tier defense sites mainly because they provide high damage/area of effect, but I don't like that they become in essence a counter to everything with their massive range. Lowering their range allows T2 artillery to work as intended (destroy defenses), while still keeping the T2 defenses as heavy damage dealers.

Edited by ApOcOlYpS, 12 March 2012 - 03:29 PM.

[Tomeister]

But there has to be some defence against artillery. Otherwise what's to stop an army of artillery defended by a small army of tanks from destroying your base?

[ApOcOlYpS]

A larger army of tanks? Aircraft? Attacking the enemy first? Your own artillery? That was the point in original generals. Very rock-paper-scissorsy but there's a counter to everything. The counter to defenses was artillery, to artillery jets, to jets aa tanks, to those regular tanks, and a lot of criss-crossing in between. As it is, artillery feels pointless because it's so easy to counter, even with just using defense sites.

[Tomeister]

Okay, I agree with your idea.

[Jester22]

Been reading all the new posts for a while, haven't seen much that I felt needed my input... until now. I like Pends idea of defenses. I also see Apocolyps point. What if we reduced the range to EQUAL the range of the same tier of the artillary it was designed to counter. In that way the defenses would likely win out 1v1, but with a couple artillary shelling defenses and some tanks closing in the defenses would fail. In that way artillary would be able to hit the defenses, still stay fragile enough tanks would be a threat to them, but are still useful (other than their long range and heavy firepower). Sure you lose 1-2 to the defenses, but when did you ever expect to NOT lose a unit when fighting a war? The SAME range as the defenses of the same tier means artillary has a spot in your ground war, but requires you to mix up your units, like you're supposed to.

Granted some generals will have the increased ranged on their artillary defenses, but that's acceptable, is it not?

EDIT: May want to SLIGHTLY increase defense hp depending on how easy it is to abuse the "first target in range" issue. Sure they are hitting incoming artillary, but once the heavier tanks roll in untouched....

Edited by Jester22, 13 March 2012 - 12:04 PM.

[ApOcOlYpS]

But artillery is far more fragile than long range defenses, and such defenses have a rather large AOE. So you would need FAR more artillery than whatever defenses you're trying to shell. This is especially a problem against infantry general who has spectacular defenses (bunkers with tank hunters and artillery relays). Basically the relays will take out the artillery without much problem, and tank hunters are fantastic at killing any tanks that get close. Flame general is also similarly capable, especially once he's gotten the thermoberic upgrade. If the T2 defenses were just simple artillery cannons, I could go with same range. But since they have SO much firepower, I cannot see that as being balanced. It dissuades assaults all together rather than just making them harder.

The other option is to move them to T3 and have them same range (artillery defenses aren't available until T1) but I don't like that idea as much because it just prolongs the problem rather than really solving it, and assault and superweapon can't afford the defenses coming that late (and I don't want to make the differences too great). So I still maintain that decreasing T2 defense range to that of T1 artillery defenses is the best solution.

[Pendaelose]

As you can imagine, I've played a LOT of Remix... PvP and CompStomp. Any discussion about balance has to revolve around PvP, so everything mentioned from here out is PvP exclusive...

As I said, I have played a LOT of Remix, and I win at least nine out of ten rounds, especially 1vs1 rounds. I will argue now that I don't have any great skill at playing RTS games, but rather I understand the balance and counter balance of Remix units exceptionally well... it's almost like I made it myself

when in PvP I only use a small handful of T2 defenses, if any at all. I find the mobile versions far more effective. It's true they have the same, or even less range than the defense versions, and they have less health too. On occasion they are even more expensive... but they are mobile, and that makes them much more powerful. In a PvP round when I see my opponent spamming defenses I know instantly I'm going to win... It means they have given up the means to mount an offensive AND they have made themselves cripplingly power dependent. One good power or super weapon targeted on their reactor farms and those rows of T2 defenses are now my ally... I don't even destroy them as I roll past, that would relieve the power burden.

An alternative look at things... Lets say my hypothetical opponent and I are both GLA without a power dependency... We both have 4 choke points, he builds 3 artillery defenses in each... 12 total... so I build 12 mobile defenses and mass them vs a single choke point. We both built 12 artillery pieces, but the battle is 12 vs 3 and I crush him... I may lose 1 or 2, but I'm in his base and it doesn't matter any more. His other 9 guns sat unused the whole time.

There is a time and a place for defenses, and I build them, but even as powerful as they are in Remix they cannot stand against a mobile force. You could say "Yeah, but what if the map only has choke point?" but that just means the map is balanced in favor of turtles and has nothing to do with the unit balance.

If I have 2 units with identical damage and range, but one of them requires power and is stationary... why even bother building it? As it stands right now the improved health and range mean that defenses are superior in a fixed position, but they are still less versatile and thus over all less powerful than the mobile version. If the mobile version is better in a 1 vs 1 why even bother building a defense in the first place?? I can (and do already) place mobile units as defenders... they're awesome at it... when they are damaged I can retreat them back for repairs, and if the situation changes I can move my defense. If you make static defenses even less powerful they will not have any value at all.

You have to remember that your play style can influence your opinion of balance... if 2 turtles play and build up huge armies before trying to commit to battle then heavy defenses will appear over powered... but they are specifically designed to make huge over built armies worthless, that's why so many of them have so much splash damage and poor accuracy. The counter to heavy defenses is air strikes, powers, supers, and in some cases fast light units. Drop their power and go around the defenses... even a small army can cripple them when played right. Or my personal favorite... end them before they get that heavily entrenched... you have to be sitting on hour hands to let your enemy build a solid row of heavy turrets.



I gave you total freedom to do what you want with the mod, and I stand by that... I'm not going to say "No", but I do warn against nerfing defenses... it will upset the balance and make defenses futile. I also reference supreme commander(1), it had defenses with far better range and damage too, and it was a much better game (balance and content) than ZH. The original ZeroHour had piss poor balance and really shouldn't be used as an inspiration for more than trips to the toilet.

If your hell bent on making the defenses inferior to to mobile version then I recommend increasing mobile artillery range around 5-10 points. this will allow it to fire on the defenses while preventing any return fire and will have minimal balance impact on the rest of the mod. In fact, there is a detail about this worth note... when targeting a mobile unit the range is always counted from the CENTER of the unit... when targeting a building the range is counted from the edge. When a building and a tank with identical weapons target each other the tank always has a range advantage and the defense never returns fire... for that reason a great many of the defense artillery got a 25 point range increase to off set the building size. Just making the defense and mobile weapon ranges identical can risk leaving the defenses worthless if they aren't tested well enough.

Reducing the defense range will severely cripple them and make them much less effective vs other unit types. Keep in mind there are many units intentionally ranged around 350 and 375 so that they can never out range artillery (weak vs artillery), and reducing static artillery to around this range will make it weaker vs these units too.