Aircrafts useless, AA overeffective

In this thread you can discuss any thoughts you have about balance within the game. Does a particular unit need a specification changed? Is a stealth plane not stealthy enough? Do "Belli Bar" levels need to be changed? Let us know and discuss it all here.

Moderators: Legend, Balthagor, Moderators

Message
Author
magogian
Lieutenant
Posts: 50
Joined: Jun 03 2005

#31 Post by magogian » Jun 08 2005

M1911 wrote: Although I'd like to see them as a separate missile type so my primary fighters could carry them, ARMs are modeled in the game. If you check out the stats on the EF-4G Wild Weasel (a dedicated anti-AA aircraft) it has a soft and hard attack range of 78km (more than double the range of most fighters). I imagine that this is due to the Shrike and HARM missiles it can carry. I've got a few under construction now to see how effective they are at picking off AA units along the border. (On a sidenote, shouldn't this use the same unit model as the F-4E, instead of an A-6 Intruder?)
I didn't notice that before about the ranges of the Wild Weasel. I gotta check that out. Good eye.

User avatar
Balthagor
Supreme Ruler
Posts: 19961
Joined: Jun 04 2002
Human: Yes
Location: BattleGoat Studios

#32 Post by Balthagor » Jun 08 2005

The picture was changed since that was thought to keep the visual to match its purpose, but at this point I don't think I agree with that decision anymore. I'll try and remember to change it back...
Chris Latour
BattleGoat Studios
chris@battlegoat.com

User avatar
Sebastiaan
Colonel
Posts: 376
Joined: Aug 29 2005
Location: the Netherlands

#33 Post by Sebastiaan » Sep 02 2005

Balthagor wrote:The picture was changed since that was thought to keep the visual to match its purpose, but at this point I don't think I agree with that decision anymore. I'll try and remember to change it back...
I think the helicomper versus lang rang AAmissle inbalance issue can be fixed by lowering the maximum range of the low air attack

User avatar
Balthagor
Supreme Ruler
Posts: 19961
Joined: Jun 04 2002
Human: Yes
Location: BattleGoat Studios

#34 Post by Balthagor » Sep 02 2005

Sebastiaan wrote:...by lowering the maximum range of the low air attack
Of which? The Helicopter or the AA unit? And there is only one value for air attack range. If we lower the air attack range of the AA unit, that will affect its attacks against all types of air units and those ranges have been researched extensivly.
Chris Latour
BattleGoat Studios
chris@battlegoat.com

User avatar
Sebastiaan
Colonel
Posts: 376
Joined: Aug 29 2005
Location: the Netherlands

#35 Post by Sebastiaan » Sep 02 2005

Balthagor wrote:
Sebastiaan wrote:...by lowering the maximum range of the low air attack
Of which? The Helicopter or the AA unit? And there is only one value for air attack range. If we lower the air attack range of the AA unit, that will affect its attacks against all types of air units and those ranges have been researched extensivly.
Damn, I didn't knew that. I though the AA low height attack value was a seperate value from the AA medium and high altitude attack value.

Now that I'm thinking about it, so is Soft attack range and Hard attack range. The engine seems to only have diffferent range values for submerged, surface and air targets. This raises the question: Why didn't the designers add different ranges for every seperate target type. It could make the game strategical more realistic.

For example a long range AA missle fregate could be more realisticly moddeled. AA missle systems are most effective again target at medium height. That's because low altitute targets will try to fly below radar and in order to hit a high altitude target, the missle needs more energy to reach that altitude and therefore lose effective maximum range. For example a AA missle system could hit a low altitude target at 60 km, a medium altitude at 120 km and a high altitude target at 80 km.

User avatar
Balthagor
Supreme Ruler
Posts: 19961
Joined: Jun 04 2002
Human: Yes
Location: BattleGoat Studios

#36 Post by Balthagor » Sep 02 2005

Sebastiaan wrote:...Why didn't the designers add different ranges for every seperate target type. It could make the game strategical more realistic.
Oh ya, because the 93 bits of data for each unit wasn't enough already! :P

There is a point past which realism kills the fun. Having to track that many attack ranges would be awkward and if you're going that far, you'd also want to track ammo used for each type of attack separately. It's a never-ending process.

While the attack range is one value for each, the damage values are not. This is why AA units that are intended for mid/high air have a lower close air attack range. By decreasing the attack value it makes it less effective at those ranges.
Chris Latour
BattleGoat Studios
chris@battlegoat.com

User avatar
Sebastiaan
Colonel
Posts: 376
Joined: Aug 29 2005
Location: the Netherlands

#37 Post by Sebastiaan » Sep 02 2005

Balthagor wrote:
Sebastiaan wrote: While the attack range is one value for each, the damage values are not. This is why AA units that are intended for mid/high air have a lower close air attack range. By decreasing the attack value it makes it less effective at those ranges.
In that case I suggest lowering the attack value of medium/high air AA by a few procent. This my also improve gameply because currenty High altitude AA is too effectve compared to low altitude AA. Currently I always shooce High altide AA above low altitude AA because they are far more effective when used in numbers

User avatar
Balthagor
Supreme Ruler
Posts: 19961
Joined: Jun 04 2002
Human: Yes
Location: BattleGoat Studios

#38 Post by Balthagor » Sep 02 2005

Sebastiaan wrote:In that case I suggest lowering the attack value of medium/high air AA by a few procent...
On which units do you think the close air should be reduced? Need to be precise here, there are over 2000 units...
Chris Latour
BattleGoat Studios
chris@battlegoat.com

User avatar
Sebastiaan
Colonel
Posts: 376
Joined: Aug 29 2005
Location: the Netherlands

#39 Post by Sebastiaan » Sep 03 2005

Balthagor wrote:
Sebastiaan wrote:In that case I suggest lowering the attack value of medium/high air AA by a few procent...
On which units do you think the close air should be reduced? Need to be precise here, there are over 2000 units...
Well, mainly the lower tech medium/high altitude AA. I really hate losing high tech aircraft/helicopters versus early tech medium/high altitude AA. These missile system were quite crude and are easily mislead by counter measures.

I therefore would lower their attack strength based on the following crude formula:

%reduction = (100 - #techlevel) - 2

User avatar
Sebastiaan
Colonel
Posts: 376
Joined: Aug 29 2005
Location: the Netherlands

#40 Post by Sebastiaan » Sep 03 2005

Question:

Does ground defence bonus apply to helicopter, if not, I think it should be applied to helicopters to some extent (+/- 50 from normal) because helicopter will try to hug the contures of the ground to remain undetected. Since the ground surface roughness, often has a direct correlation with the ground defence bonus. It would therefore make sense to apply the surface defence bonus to a helicopter travelling through a hex with surface defence bonus. This would make helicopter more effective in hilly terrain where the can sneak up on the enemy using the terrain and get away with it.

User avatar
Balthagor
Supreme Ruler
Posts: 19961
Joined: Jun 04 2002
Human: Yes
Location: BattleGoat Studios

#41 Post by Balthagor » Sep 03 2005

An interesting idea, I'll have to ask George if there is any effect, but I suspect currently there is not...
Chris Latour
BattleGoat Studios
chris@battlegoat.com

User avatar
George Geczy
General
Posts: 2607
Joined: Jun 04 2002
Location: BattleGoat Studios
Contact:

#42 Post by George Geczy » Sep 03 2005

Well, we sortof do this - helicopters will benefit from the lower visibility offered by some terrain types, such as dense forest and urban... however, once spotted, they do not gain a defensive benefit based on terrain.

-- George.

User avatar
Sebastiaan
Colonel
Posts: 376
Joined: Aug 29 2005
Location: the Netherlands

#43 Post by Sebastiaan » Sep 07 2005

George Geczy wrote:Well, we sortof do this - helicopters will benefit from the lower visibility offered by some terrain types, such as dense forest and urban... however, once spotted, they do not gain a defensive benefit based on terrain..
Well, if that is the case, than it is hardly noticable. Meabee it is an idea to improve overall stealth to make it function more properly

User avatar
Balthagor
Supreme Ruler
Posts: 19961
Joined: Jun 04 2002
Human: Yes
Location: BattleGoat Studios

#44 Post by Balthagor » Sep 07 2005

Not completly sure what you're suggesting here... increasing helicopter stealth values?
Chris Latour
BattleGoat Studios
chris@battlegoat.com

User avatar
Sebastiaan
Colonel
Posts: 376
Joined: Aug 29 2005
Location: the Netherlands

#45 Post by Sebastiaan » Sep 07 2005

Balthagor wrote:Not completly sure what you're suggesting here... increasing helicopter stealth values?

Not ony helicopter but from all units. That way it should be easer for any unit to make incursion into enemy teriroy with becomming detected. But beside stealth level, we defenetly need a reduced effect of a territory cevilian detection ability. Also Since the cevilian detection ability seems to be determined by loyatly and number of inhabitants, it migh be a stregical idea to make them visable with a filter. Allowing the commader to plan a route through enemy territory without becoming detected.

Post Reply

Return to “Balance”