It is currently Sun Nov 18, 2018 1:26 am

All times are UTC + 9:30 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 40 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: AntiAirCraft
PostPosted: Sun Jun 24, 2007 9:52 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2006 2:34 pm
Posts: 3761
Location: Tennessee
In my game with Vimes I discovered the worth of hovercrafts. They dramatically change the metagame when there are rivers and ocean areas, and especially ocean areas that aren't huge.

However, I also noticed a huge gap which is exacerbated by Zeppelins...there's no way for them to attack aircraft at all. Vimes assaulted my shoreline with Zeppelins and my land units were virtually powerless to stop it until he had already landed his main force...at which point I was doomed. However, if I had some sort of hover AA, then I could have fought back.

Consider that the current two hovercraft can take on any unit except aircraft. Why the gap? It means that hovercraft must stick with naval or land forces if there are any airports on the map. This seriously cuts down on their flexibility, which is their main strength. The obvious solution is to make a unit analogous to the AA, except as a hovercraft.

Here's a possibility:
Quote:
Name: AntiAirCraft
Cost: 10000
Movement: 6 (5?)
Move type: Hover
Vision: 2
Fuel: 99
Defense: Same as a BattleCraft

Weapon 1: Vulcan (9 ammo)
Weapon 2: none

Damage done is the same as the AntiAir or maybe marginally higher


Last edited by urusan on Mon Jun 25, 2007 4:11 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jun 24, 2007 10:08 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jun 27, 2006 10:06 am
Posts: 3061
Where were your cruisers/missiles/fighters?

_________________
Image
<morner> Q: What is the physicist's definition of a vector space?
<morner> A: A set V such that for any x in V, x has a little arrow drawn over it.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jun 24, 2007 10:26 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2006 2:34 pm
Posts: 3761
Location: Tennessee
My airport was on the other side of the map and he could have built fighters and responded right away

My cruisers were being pounded by his zeppelins and blocked by his bboats and hovercraft, and later he captured my port

My missiles were stuck in-land due to rough terrain and whenever I got one near enough he killed it

This may sound somewhat situational...but hovercraft seriously shouldn't have to rely on other units with totally different types for such a critical role.

Also keep in mind that not all maps have airports for each player, or ports for every body of water accessible to hovercrafts and zeppelins.

Missiles are great at getting Zeppelins off of mountains, but near oceans and rivers hovercraft can strike at them quite easily


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jun 24, 2007 10:57 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jun 27, 2006 10:06 am
Posts: 3061
Maps that don't have airports/ports for each player are called War Room maps.

_________________
Image
<morner> Q: What is the physicist's definition of a vector space?
<morner> A: A set V such that for any x in V, x has a little arrow drawn over it.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jun 24, 2007 8:13 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2006 12:02 am
Posts: 4868
Location: Ireland
don't the other crafts have 5 movement?

_________________
Image
AWDC FC: 390966 506669 (PM me and I'll add you)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jun 25, 2007 12:52 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 07, 2007 12:42 am
Posts: 623
Location: WV
urusan wrote:
...but hovercraft seriously shouldn't have to rely on other units


It seems to me like you're the one relying on one type of unit. There are cruisers for direct attacks at sea and AA for direct attacks on land. Honestly, this sounds unnecessary.

_________________
Jesus Christ was a secret agent from the future! Double O Savior!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jun 25, 2007 1:13 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 22, 2006 11:25 pm
Posts: 3903
Location: United Kingdom
The reason I didn't see a need for any AAir hovercraft is because there're AAir on land and cruisers at sea, the indirect equivelents of missiles and carriers complete the cycle for any possible land unit to defend against air units. Zeppelins do very little to cruisers, like 25% or something I think, so that would mean it would take 4 zeppelins to take out a cruiser. In the mean time you can buy 2 cruisers and rape them all. If hovercraft were a problem then destroyers are there to blast them. Even cruisers fair well.

Also, if there were a lot of zeppelins on your coatsline and you couldn't reach, I'd assume a carrier would have been the easiest option, the zepps don't stand a chance against its 8 range and it can simply pick them off.

Although I don't know, I wasn't playing the game or have seen it so I don't know exactly what the possibilities were on a map.

However an argument against this is that if hoard of zeppelins were a problem, a carrier would have dealt with them just fine. I'm sure you've seen the critisisms against Bcrafts and they do need a lot of revisions, the main problem being there's such a small niche they fill. For an AAir hovercraft there's little to no niche there to fill.

Also, hovercrafts should have to rely on other units, they're like air units - support. Air units support at land and sea and rely on land and naval units to back them up, the reverse cannot be said though, land units don't rely on air units and neither do navals. The same can be said for hovercrafts, a hoverfleet can't take on a land fleet nor a naval fleet, or an air fleet either rofl, but air units are a main weakness of theirs.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jun 25, 2007 2:30 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 01, 2007 7:02 am
Posts: 3376
Location: España
Zi Freak wrote:
urusan wrote:
...but hovercraft seriously shouldn't have to rely on other units


It seems to me like you're the one relying on one type of unit. There are cruisers for direct attacks at sea and AA for direct attacks on land. Honestly, this sounds unnecessary.


There are a great amount of tanks for direct attack in land and subs/destroyers for direct attack in sea so Battlecrafts should be as well unnecessary this way. Same for artillerycraft.

But anyway I don't think we should have more AntiAir units.

_________________
Image
Stealth CO Norvell // Freelancer Army Sprites // Tech Section - CO Project


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jun 25, 2007 2:52 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2006 2:34 am
Posts: 4700
Location: London
I wouldn't mind an AACraft, to be honest.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jun 25, 2007 4:09 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2006 2:34 pm
Posts: 3761
Location: Tennessee
Xaif wrote:
The reason I didn't see a need for any AAir hovercraft is because there're AAir on land and cruisers at sea, the indirect equivelents of missiles and carriers complete the cycle for any possible land unit to defend against air units. Zeppelins do very little to cruisers, like 25% or something I think, so that would mean it would take 4 zeppelins to take out a cruiser. In the mean time you can buy 2 cruisers and rape them all. If hovercraft were a problem then destroyers are there to blast them. Even cruisers fair well.

Also, if there were a lot of zeppelins on your coatsline and you couldn't reach, I'd assume a carrier would have been the easiest option, the zepps don't stand a chance against its 8 range and it can simply pick them off.
Well, what about sea areas without any ports at all? You can't build carriers or cruisers there at all. However, the other hovercraft and air units can take advantage of it. In such areas it is pathetically easy for an enemy to gain air superiority by using a fighter, to which the only effective counter is building more fighters than the enemy. Also in small ocean areas that happen to have ports, cruisers and carriers are often far from cost effective.

Quote:
I'm sure you've seen the critisisms against Bcrafts and they do need a lot of revisions, the main problem being there's such a small niche they fill. For an AAir hovercraft there's little to no niche there to fill.

Also, hovercrafts should have to rely on other units, they're like air units - support. Air units support at land and sea and rely on land and naval units to back them up, the reverse cannot be said though, land units don't rely on air units and neither do navals. The same can be said for hovercrafts, a hoverfleet can't take on a land fleet nor a naval fleet, or an air fleet either rofl, but air units are a main weakness of theirs.
Hovercraft are far from unique. BCraft are basically MD Tanks and ACraft are souped up artillery. Their "niche" is based totally on their movement type. There is nothing they can do that can't be done by another unit. What they do is to make certain things easier.

Air units can attack any unit...Fighters can attack air units and bombers can attack everything else, so they are theoretically self-sufficient, even if that's a bad idea because there are lots of cheap/effective counters to air units. So why shouldn't hovercrafts be able to do this as well?

Hovercraft are only support-only units if you want them to be. There would be too many hovercraft in order to fill every ground role (APCCraft, MissileCraft, ReconCraft, etc.). However, I don't think having 3-4 types of hovercraft filling just the most essential roles is a bad idea.

If it were up to me, I'd have the BCraft, the ACraft, the AACraft, and the Landing Craft. How is that much different from aircraft? BCraft->Bomber, ACraft->Zeppelin, AACraft->Fighter, Landing Craft->TCopter/Lander. It seems the Landing Craft is unpopular though due to some redundancy...but it does make transporting easier/possible in areas where there are no ships or the blockages are due to rivers...but that's a topic for another thread.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jun 25, 2007 5:07 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2006 12:02 am
Posts: 4868
Location: Ireland
see, the problem with a landing craft is that it makes accessing terrain that shouldn't be accessed (ie, a landmass separated by sea when there are no ports) accessable

_________________
Image
AWDC FC: 390966 506669 (PM me and I'll add you)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jun 25, 2007 5:16 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2006 2:34 pm
Posts: 3761
Location: Tennessee
Well, only if the mapper puts shoals...though this does apply to rivers like the ones in Lost River...but that's what unit bans are for...

In any case, that's a topic for another thread, since this thread is about the AACraft.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jun 25, 2007 5:53 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 22, 2006 11:36 pm
Posts: 3547
An AACraft really is redundant.

You simply must not have been placing your carriers/missiles/cruisers/AAs/fighters correctly, or you were trying to use hovercrafts in a way they weren't supposed to be.

Anti-Aircraft units already have to all compete with each other to receive even the tiniest bit of use. They don't need MORE competition.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jun 25, 2007 6:12 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2006 2:34 pm
Posts: 3761
Location: Tennessee
but we're talking about a group of redundant units in the first place

you can make the same argument against BCrafts too

You must not be using your tanks/md tanks/neotanks/destroyers/bombers correctly or using tanks in a way they weren't supposed to be used.

I mean, do we really need another tank? There are so many tanks already. They don't need any more competition.

see?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jun 25, 2007 6:14 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 22, 2006 11:36 pm
Posts: 3547
the difference is the b-craft is already in and I don't want to let any more shit in

at the time the b-craft was voted in, nothing short of a miracle was going to keep it out with the momentum it had

for crying out loud, the fucking SPYPLANE got in


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jun 25, 2007 6:35 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2007 10:10 pm
Posts: 55
A definite yes, because of the lack of true land-based defense against air units (AA/missiles don't do the trick). However, you should increase its firepower (to OHKO bombers/not hidden stealths/fighters) and make it 12G, like the other crafts.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jun 25, 2007 6:39 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 25, 2007 1:07 am
Posts: 1723
Location: England
Sven wrote:
the fucking SPYPLANE got in


That is true and it was completely useless.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jun 25, 2007 7:19 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2006 2:24 am
Posts: 2427
Location: Georgia Tech
Dan wrote:
Sven wrote:
the fucking SPYPLANE got in


That is true and it was completely useless.


I imagine that the primary use will be Predeployed maps, however.

_________________
That is not dead which can eternal lie
And with strange aeons even death may die.
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jun 25, 2007 7:21 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 01, 2007 3:14 am
Posts: 2228
Location: DE
So, basically, when the player doesn't have a choice?

_________________
urusan wrote:
Do what Fugue said


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jun 25, 2007 8:47 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2006 4:26 am
Posts: 1895
Location: Hurricane Bait... Er.. Florida
Ok, I would like to seriously propose a revote on the spyplane.

Also, Uru.. It sounds to me like the problem here is with the goddamned Zepplins, not hovers.

_________________
Image
Sven wrote:
God I love you uber.

You're either completely oblivious, or the greatest actor in the world.

For the sake of my sanity I'm hoping the second.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jun 25, 2007 1:59 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 07, 2007 12:42 am
Posts: 623
Location: WV
Kanzer wrote:
There are a great amount of tanks for direct attack in land and subs/destroyers for direct attack in sea so Battlecrafts should be as well unnecessary this way. Same for artillerycraft.


But here's the difference: the land battle units do varying amounds of damage to eachother. That's why there are so many different roles to fill.

The main concept of the hovercraft is, if I'm right, to do great amounts of damage with first strike, yet take great amounts of damage if struck. Also, high mobility and access to areas is a great strength.

But AA units, roughly 90% of the time, can do mass amounts of damage to air units with a first strike, but may take a great amount of damage if struck first. An AA can do 60%-70% to a bomber on a first strike. The bomber will do 70%-80% to the AA on first strike. Missles and Carriers are capable of OHKO just about any aircraft, yet will take great amounts of damage if struck.

Basically all AA units follow the Great Attack/Bad Defense rule. The land-AAs perform OHKOs, the sea-AAs perform OHKOs. There's no middle ground. Making it have a weak AA attack doesn't fit the description of the traditional BCraft/ACraft role, and there's no improving a OHKO. We have OHKOs on land and at sea, we don't need a unit that will do both.

_________________
Jesus Christ was a secret agent from the future! Double O Savior!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jun 26, 2007 11:09 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2007 10:10 pm
Posts: 55
Zi Freak wrote:
Kanzer wrote:
There are a great amount of tanks for direct attack in land and subs/destroyers for direct attack in sea so Battlecrafts should be as well unnecessary this way. Same for artillerycraft.


But here's the difference: the land battle units do varying amounds of damage to eachother. That's why there are so many different roles to fill.

The main concept of the hovercraft is, if I'm right, to do great amounts of damage with first strike, yet take great amounts of damage if struck. Also, high mobility and access to areas is a great strength.

But AA units, roughly 90% of the time, can do mass amounts of damage to air units with a first strike, but may take a great amount of damage if struck first. An AA can do 60%-70% to a bomber on a first strike. The bomber will do 70%-80% to the AA on first strike. Missles and Carriers are capable of OHKO just about any aircraft, yet will take great amounts of damage if struck.

Basically all AA units follow the Great Attack/Bad Defense rule. The land-AAs perform OHKOs, the sea-AAs perform OHKOs. There's no middle ground. Making it have a weak AA attack doesn't fit the description of the traditional BCraft/ACraft role, and there's no improving a OHKO. We have OHKOs on land and at sea, we don't need a unit that will do both.

Yes we do. What if a crippled air unit escapes to the sea? That's right, you can finish it off with this thing.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jun 26, 2007 11:16 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 01, 2007 7:02 am
Posts: 3376
Location: España
Or with carriers, cruisers, missiles, planes and such.

_________________
Image
Stealth CO Norvell // Freelancer Army Sprites // Tech Section - CO Project


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jun 26, 2007 11:19 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2006 4:26 am
Posts: 1895
Location: Hurricane Bait... Er.. Florida
Or, you know, it's a 1 HP air unit that's utterly useless to your opponent, and don't worry about it. >_>

_________________
Image
Sven wrote:
God I love you uber.

You're either completely oblivious, or the greatest actor in the world.

For the sake of my sanity I'm hoping the second.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jun 26, 2007 11:22 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2007 10:10 pm
Posts: 55
Kanzer wrote:
Or with carriers, cruisers, missiles, planes and such.

They cost too much. Besides, you will have this one deployed already. Why waste more money?

legoman727 wrote:
Or, you know, it's a 1 HP air unit that's utterly useless to your opponent, and don't worry about it. >_>

You're gonna have to finish your opponent off eventually...

Besides, it's gonna have more like 3 HP. And if it's a bomber/fighter, it can still do damage (or repair and come back).

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jun 27, 2007 6:43 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 07, 2007 12:42 am
Posts: 623
Location: WV
If you want to exert the effort of chasing down a 1 or 3 HP unit across the sea, there are several units already capable of doing so. Cruisers. Carriers. Missles. Fighters. Stealths. Zeppelins. We don't need to create a new unit specifically to hunt down 1 HP aircraft. That would be very silly.

_________________
Jesus Christ was a secret agent from the future! Double O Savior!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jun 27, 2007 10:01 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 31, 2006 9:01 am
Posts: 1191
Location: Burning stuff on your lawn
The opponet would probably use the unit for a meatshield and you wouldn't have to hunt it down. It wouldn't catch up to it anyway. Either that or they'd take it back, heal it, and send it back like 8 turns later. By then you'd have units to deal with it.

_________________
sup


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jun 27, 2007 11:44 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jun 27, 2006 10:06 am
Posts: 3061
If you have a weakened unit, you do either of three things with it:

1. If it can't run away, use it as a meatshield.
2. Make it run away even though it can't outrun whatever is going to chase in the hope that you can divert some of your enemy's forces to killing it.
3. Outrun the suckers.

_________________
Image
<morner> Q: What is the physicist's definition of a vector space?
<morner> A: A set V such that for any x in V, x has a little arrow drawn over it.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jun 29, 2007 3:42 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2006 3:38 am
Posts: 524
Location: South of LA, California, USA
An AAcraft is like a light fighter, but crappier. I would only use these if the price was way cheaper, and even then this unit isn't the largest priority.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Dec 11, 2007 8:02 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2007 6:06 pm
Posts: 816
Location: New York
Rise back from the dead!

After some more playing, where incomes were not high enough to produce Cruisers, and the landscape made AA's slightly prohibitive in terms of movement, I think an AACraft would be viable in those situations as a cheap air counter against air units that hide in the water, and when your land units cannot easily access them, and when building a cruiser is too cost prohibitive(If you make a cruiser, that's 18,000 not spent on the land warfare, a good chunk of reinforcements that will never be used).

I would totally use an AACraft since it can access the water and protect against pesky fighters, while also not being useless once the enemy stops using air units(While a cruiser can only combat boats and ships, an AACraft can easily come back onto land to help). Hovercrafts are supposed to be the versatile units, right? Give it 6 movement though(making it the fastest hover), and make it cost 10,000 like the other hovers. Probably should give it BCraft armor to make that extra 2,000 worth it. Then it can even participate in a few land fights and finish off tanks without as much worry of a counter-attack like a normal AA.

But mostly, an AACraft can defend against air units that hide in the water, access areas difficult to get to with an AA or missiles, and isn't as cost prohibitive as a cruiser, where you can still buy reinforcements for the land while buying an AACraft(Which can also be used for the land).

Plus, it can be deployed from ports. And if the port isn't near a base or an airport, and you got air units around your port, an AAcraft is a lot cheaper and more expendable than a Cruiser. And if the air units move onto land, you don't need to buy another AA then while your cruiser rots in the water; the AAcraft can chase.

Just putting my 2 cents in with the AAcraft, since I've been in a few too many situations when I wanted to deploy something like it from my port to help when a cruiser would be silly.

_________________
I spit out random words and phrases that may make absolutely no sense. Live with it.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Dec 11, 2007 10:31 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 22, 2006 11:25 pm
Posts: 3903
Location: United Kingdom
Hmm, it's funny, because I was playing a game the other day where I thought the exact opposite. I thought about how if I could build AAcrafts that they would just make every other AAir units entirely redundant.

I still don't see the necessity in your argument. By pesky air units, I'm assuming you mean anything bigger than a Bcopter. In that case, you can afford a cruiser as every other air unit is over 18000G. Or, you could just leave it. If it's hanging around over the water, then it's not being very useful is it, so why waste time trying to get rid of it? Cruisers aren't the only answer, you can build a fighter of your own to combat it, and AAirs do the job just fine working as a deterant. Missiles do as well. Although they seem to cost 12000G again for some reason...

With your suggestion it's competing directly with the AAir on land, and putting the cruiser out of one of its main jobs at sea. It moves just as far as them, and hits for just as hard, but has a superior movement type to a cruiser, and a movement type on par with the AAir.

What you also have to consider is that the navy and land battle are entirely seperate, there's little to no overlap there. The hovercrafts have been balanced within both realms, higher damage vs vehicles, lower damage vs navals. This is because of the difference within each, the navy is expensive and the land front is cheap, hovercrafts are inbetween. If having a hovercraft combat against air units, that means that when on water they'd have to deal low damage to air units as to not make the cruiser redundant, but have higher firepower on land. This contradicts each other because it's making a land - naval overlap where one doesn't exist, making it impossible to balance.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Dec 11, 2007 2:03 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2006 2:34 pm
Posts: 3761
Location: Tennessee
They don't make normal AAs obsolete because they're more expensive and have a worse movement type on land (those pesky forests are always getting in the way)

They're a lot cheaper and less effective than cruisers, and completely ineffective against submarines and other ships

They can move easily between land and sea, unlike any other Anti-Air unit. This allows for fast response times when water and land are both involved

They also can be built on land, but go out to sea to engage air units using seas with no ports as temporary cover

At least, for my version of the AACraft

Also, air battles are where land and naval battles overlap


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Dec 11, 2007 2:09 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 01, 2007 3:14 am
Posts: 2228
Location: DE
At that point, why not just build your own air unit to fight with?

_________________
urusan wrote:
Do what Fugue said


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Dec 11, 2007 2:12 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2006 2:34 pm
Posts: 3761
Location: Tennessee
because a B-Copter can't attack planes (or zeppelins) and a fighter is 20k

so basically the same reason you build normal anti-airs, excellent cost/damage ratio

also, you may be disadvantaged and not have an airport, either due to the map or your airport being near the front lines and getting captured


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Dec 11, 2007 9:58 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 01, 2007 7:02 am
Posts: 3376
Location: España
Missiles.

_________________
Image
Stealth CO Norvell // Freelancer Army Sprites // Tech Section - CO Project


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Dec 12, 2007 1:26 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 07, 2007 1:01 pm
Posts: 1290
Location: Back at college. ^_^
I say just let B-Copters attack Zepplins and be done with it. <_<

Hovers are so disliked now that I don't see how any more of them can succeed.

_________________
Image
I'm not going to confront anybody. I was raised right--I talk about people behind their backs. It's called "manners." ~ Kathy Griffin
According to Kosheh, life is just another MMO.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Dec 12, 2007 1:27 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2007 6:06 pm
Posts: 816
Location: New York
If I could deploy missiles from ports, then sure.

But I can't deploy 12k missiles from a port. Only 30k Carriers. =( Or 18k Cruisers. And then they're water locked if that air unit decides "Oh, I think I'll go pester his ground force now that he wasted money on a navy, kekeke."

Mostly, it's wanting the ability to deploy a cost-effective AA-type unit from the port, I think, since then that gives more options for what units to use. Ports are contested just as badly as other properties, but ports can only deploy so many unit types, and even then, most of them are costly and can't fight against air. An AAcraft would be deployable from a port and help greatly on that front against the early non-copter air unit that is lurking around said port.

It wouldn't make AA's obsolete because AA's are cheaper, and move a lot easier on land(Hover + Forest = lol). An AAcraft would compliment the AA, rather than replace the AA, imo.

Mainly, it's the whole "Deploy from port" ability that hovers have, that would make it useful.

_________________
I spit out random words and phrases that may make absolutely no sense. Live with it.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Dec 12, 2007 1:51 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 01, 2007 7:02 am
Posts: 3376
Location: España
Look, if the enemy can deploy air units, and you're playing a balanced map, you'll also be able to deploy air units at the same level. If you don't, why the fuck am I gonna build anti aerial units from a port if I have bases and the battle is mainly fought on land. If I want to counter enemy copters, I'll use AAs, Missiles, or my own Bcopter.

If the battle has ports, it's provided that you'll have enough income to use them. And again, if the enemy is deploying air units, it mean there are airports, then you have enough funds to deploy both Cruisers, Bcopters and Fighters, or whatever the hell you want. If you use Zepps as the main reason because Bcopters can't hit them, I'll remind you that Zepp spam doesn't pay, a single Zeppelin does minor damage and two of them are more expensive than a Fighter, wich can shoot both of them down in no time.

The efectiveness of those AAcrafts is fucking situational.

- If enemy air units are attacking my ground force, I'll use AAs.
- If enemy air units flee to sea, ffs waste of funds, let them be I'll crush his ground force more easily.
- If enemy is hiding on mountains, they cannot attack.
- If enemy Zeppelins are hining on mountains, I'll shoot them down with my Missiles, a Zepp of my own or a Fighter. Also Stealths, wich actually are cheaper than Fighters and can target all units.

And the fighter will probably prevent the enemy from deploying expensive air units, too.

_________________
Image
Stealth CO Norvell // Freelancer Army Sprites // Tech Section - CO Project


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Dec 12, 2007 4:03 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 02, 2007 12:13 am
Posts: 74
Location: YES!
Hovers are nothing but trouble anyways. Their skills of being able to navigate off and on land are limited to shoals, to block them off is to not let it come back. You'd be better off with the AA Guns, Fighters and so on.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Dec 23, 2007 9:43 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 08, 2007 6:19 am
Posts: 1363
Lol we already have an anti-aircraft unit


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 40 posts ] 

All times are UTC + 9:30 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Blue Moon by Trent © 2007
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group