if tech 1 anti air worked...

b4t3m4n · 03-27-2007, 05:28 AM

Would you even bother with air factories in 1v1? I find myself only building air factories for anti air purposes. I normally don't build bombers because they never seem to live up to their value invested.

Upgrading is sort of pointless because gunships are easy to shoot down with t1 inteceptors, and t3 doesn't really yield anything of value, mostly because strategic bombers are way too fragile. And in a one vs one, t3 land bots > all.

I almost think that t1 AA is broken for this very reason.

SexE · 03-27-2007, 12:49 PM

you a cybran player?

I know where ur coming from the air in all factions needs looking at, all the air -air(interceptors) do their job but their is nothing real speacial about air and easy defended from.
altho! saying that i have been sniped with Strat bomber's as have many.. bundled in with interceptors.

But T1 anti air structures are poo, I say make them better and make all gunships a fraction better as they are T2.

(UEF are best for air IMO with the Broadswords & they are good) but this is no good for ranked in most cases.

SexE · 03-27-2007, 01:31 PM

I undersdtand and agree to most of what you said, about not improving them so ppl dont bother with air, but at current the Cybran T1 turret is CRAP and dont hit T1 Planes hardly, and the T1 AA mobile does a good job(yes i know use them) but just a slight improvement would be good IMO, as the Aeon T1 AA Turret I know hits planes can't speak for UEF.

And after thinking I actually agree and like what you said about Gunships, and as the UEF suck In most areas they geta nice T3 Gunship

Good

......

WTF I replied to LEAF's response below!

SexE · 03-27-2007, 01:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by b4t3m4n

Would you even bother with air factories in 1v1? I find myself only building air factories for anti air purposes. I normally don't build bombers because they never seem to live up to their value invested.

Always have air at some point.

Leaf · 03-27-2007, 02:06 PM

Cybran players have absolutely no grounds to whine about sub-standard anti air. UEF & Aeon on the other hand...

I think T1 Anti Air shouldn't be improved much, if it is at all as I don't think it should allow you to not bother fighting for the air.

Personally, I love the fact that if your opponent goes for Air you MUST respond in kind or face a slow economic death (bombing your mexes/gens to pieces, if not your ACU).

T1 anti ait turrets do work, but only en masse, you need about a dozen of em in a small-ish area to shoot anything down (critical mass in T1 AA?), but once planes start dropping it seems very effective.

Quote:

Upgrading is sort of pointless because gunships are easy to shoot down with t1 inteceptors, and t3 doesn't really yield anything of value, mostly because strategic bombers are way too fragile. And in a one vs one, t3 land bots > all.

ATM Gunships are relegated to harassing duty & ACU hunting, which to be fair they're rather good at. I disagree that strat bombers are too fragile on the grounds that bombers are not meant for heavy combat, they're value is in damage output not durability. Sadly though you are correct that T3

Graushwein · 03-27-2007, 06:42 PM

I think air is actually balance well. It sounds like your talking about ground AA as a "Hard Counter" to Air, which I am totally against.

I think one thing that frustrates most players is the speed of air on small maps, even open palms. If there are bombers then they die quickly, unless. . . you control the air. This takes skill and will bear enormous rewards!

Albeit you have to make occasional passes over the opponent's air base to flush out the intercepters they are building up, but it is worth it. When you control air it makes bombers and gunships worth their mass and more. Ive seen a lot of opponents lose air and if done right you can keep it and cause them to waste mass on stationary emplacements and intercepters that do little to gain the air back.

It is something I am working on.

b4t3m4n · 03-28-2007, 02:11 AM

I think thats the real problem. Air is so fast passed it can be a pain to micro. One misclick and you can lose your bombers carelessly to air def or a horde of ceptors. This is what I was getting at. It is so hit or miss whether or not I can get the value out of them for what I paid for them.

NexXus_ · 03-28-2007, 03:16 PM

Guys, ground based AA is supposed to suck. Or at the very least it is not supposed to be so amazing. Face it, you counter air with air. How lame would it be if the game was entirely land based? Extremely lame. I'd quit in fact if I couldn't get an air force to work because some guy "turtled up" with 2 AA turrets.

AA is supportive, not an actual solution to air. It's supposed to help you be able to get on your feet a bit and perhaps get an airforce going to legitimately defend yourself.

That's my 2 cents anyway.

SpelingChampian · 03-28-2007, 04:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xTc-NexXus__

AA is supportive

So very true. In RL we can even see this happening, as bombing is a very safe and viable strategy if the enemy has no air (or you bomb the runways first). It is all about strategy, and in my mind the AA is fine!

03-27-2007, 05:28 AM	#1 (permalink)
b4t3m4n Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: --> Here <-- Posts: 85	if tech 1 anti air worked... Would you even bother with air factories in 1v1? I find myself only building air factories for anti air purposes. I normally don't build bombers because they never seem to live up to their value invested. Upgrading is sort of pointless because gunships are easy to shoot down with t1 inteceptors, and t3 doesn't really yield anything of value, mostly because strategic bombers are way too fragile. And in a one vs one, t3 land bots > all. I almost think that t1 AA is broken for this very reason. __________________ hmm, what to put here

03-28-2007, 02:11 AM	#7 (permalink)
b4t3m4n Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: --> Here <-- Posts: 85	I think thats the real problem. Air is so fast passed it can be a pain to micro. One misclick and you can lose your bombers carelessly to air def or a horde of ceptors. This is what I was getting at. It is so hit or miss whether or not I can get the value out of them for what I paid for them. __________________ hmm, what to put here

03-28-2007, 03:16 PM	#8 (permalink)
NexXus_ Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Roseville, MN Posts: 185	Guys, ground based AA is supposed to suck. Or at the very least it is not supposed to be so amazing. Face it, you counter air with air. How lame would it be if the game was entirely land based? Extremely lame. I'd quit in fact if I couldn't get an air force to work because some guy "turtled up" with 2 AA turrets. AA is supportive, not an actual solution to air. It's supposed to help you be able to get on your feet a bit and perhaps get an airforce going to legitimately defend yourself. That's my 2 cents anyway. __________________ su -

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

03-27-2007, 12:49 PM	#2 (permalink)
SexE Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 33	you a cybran player? I know where ur coming from the air in all factions needs looking at, all the air -air(interceptors) do their job but their is nothing real speacial about air and easy defended from. altho! saying that i have been sniped with Strat bomber's as have many.. bundled in with interceptors. But T1 anti air structures are poo, I say make them better and make all gunships a fraction better as they are T2. (UEF are best for air IMO with the Broadswords & they are good) but this is no good for ranked in most cases.

03-27-2007, 01:31 PM	#3 (permalink)
SexE Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 33	I undersdtand and agree to most of what you said, about not improving them so ppl dont bother with air, but at current the Cybran T1 turret is CRAP and dont hit T1 Planes hardly, and the T1 AA mobile does a good job(yes i know use them) but just a slight improvement would be good IMO, as the Aeon T1 AA Turret I know hits planes can't speak for UEF. And after thinking I actually agree and like what you said about Gunships, and as the UEF suck In most areas they geta nice T3 Gunship Good ...... WTF I replied to LEAF's response below!

03-27-2007, 06:42 PM	#6 (permalink)
Graushwein Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: USA, Louisville Kentucky Posts: 53	I think air is actually balance well. It sounds like your talking about ground AA as a "Hard Counter" to Air, which I am totally against. I think one thing that frustrates most players is the speed of air on small maps, even open palms. If there are bombers then they die quickly, unless. . . you control the air. This takes skill and will bear enormous rewards! Albeit you have to make occasional passes over the opponent's air base to flush out the intercepters they are building up, but it is worth it. When you control air it makes bombers and gunships worth their mass and more. Ive seen a lot of opponents lose air and if done right you can keep it and cause them to waste mass on stationary emplacements and intercepters that do little to gain the air back. It is something I am working on.