It is indeed the only AA that dies to all bombers (except Aeon) in one pass. And seeing your entire army, including AA, dying in one bomber suicide raid is quite demoralizing sometimes ^^
A little +10 HP to bring it to 260HP and resist the sera bomber (and help a little against UEF and cybran) would be good quality of life improvement.

I thought about that too, but it would either make it too powerful against bases and stuff or kind of mess up with its behavior if it was firing tac missiles. Although depending on how powerful the rocket is it could make a difference without being too op, I guess

I think that's a good idea to give it +50. It's the kind of subtul buff where you can clearly see the consequences ( the ability to 2-hit sera pgen and mexes). It's clear, and doesn't break much balance imo, mostly cause few people will actually make use of that in games (air players in teamgames, high rated player with good knowledge of the game).

Now, does it NEED a buff right now ? I don't know. Yes the unit feels weaker than other bombers, but Aeon is generally considered to have too many good things going for them atm, so idk if the balance team would be able to justify another aeon buff.

Besides, I have the feeling that the value of 3450 damage was exactly set to avoid the Shocker to 2 hit seraphim T3 Mex and Power. I guess that's part of "seraphim have tanky buildings" in general.

@Deribus said in missiles subject to TMD should ignore shields:

Moved to Balance Discussion

@Valki if you believe TMLs/MMLs are underpowered, provide a replay as an example

I do not believe they are underpowered, and this was a suggestion to significantly change a game dynamic, not a balance discussion. If anything, this suggestion if adopted would un-balance the game and require balancing to fix later on.

I think we would get a faster and more dynamic game when TML/MML ignore shields.

I agree with thomas. It completely brakes early game balance and engi hp is not a sacrifice, as the engi does anyway from a single bomb or two acu shots. The increase in bp is just straight OP: get pd up super fast, get expansion facs up fast, get air fac up fast for earlier first Bomber, sounds ludacrious. If you want to fiddle with engis, make them able to merge once a T2 hq is unlocked; merge into higher tier so called support engineer: who doesnt have higher tech blueprints but less pathing cancer.

Good points on speed balance, Tagada + Ftx

I use it in serious games ... HP boost

Lol. In general one doesn't build such upgrades to counter an ML, but I guess it can work.

@IceDreamer I agree with literally everything you said except the damage multipliers. Damage numbers should remain flat otherwise the game will become a rock paper scissors matchup.
A range change to T3 arty would be nice. The values IceDreamer suggested sound reasonable but might make the Fatboy a little too strong. Perhaps a marginal (e.g. 0.1 or less) speed decrease on Fatboy to balance out the +10 range increase to maintain the Fatboy VS Direct Fire experimental matchup.
The point about accepting some factions are unbeatable in certain areas in certain stages of the game is true yet people often forget that.
I would like to add a few other suggestions to make Cybran suffer less without actually addressing the problem.

Build T2 arty and/or t2 shields to fight off or protect your army, reclaiming useless/out-of-position structures as you go. Use terrain to shield units. It will protect your T3 arty while allowing your direct fire units to get in close. (This assumes you are playing on a decent map.) Accept you are screwed and build static defences and a Megalith while you lament your bad gameplay for allowing a critical mass of snipers. Wait for April fools day so you can build Salem's out of your T3 land factory. Build the Soul Ripper and after it is instantly killed by ASF use it's crash damage to kill the snipers.

Joking aside, I'd suggest building one T2 shield behind terrain and lobbing arty shells over onto the snipers. If the map does not allow for that you had better accept Cybran can't win that fight and invest in T3 air while building a few static defences to hold the snipers at bay.

@Freedom_ All that proves is that your opponent was incapable of bombing you with the 6k mass advantage, and that they'd rather run random t2 units into your com on a mass feeding frenzy.

For reference 6k mass in bombers will get you 16k dmg each pass.

@FunkOff That was me. Code still exists, and it was put forward as a balance patch, but was rejected by whoever was BC at the time. Which sucked, because it made so much sense for the unit and made it much more fun to use.

@JusticeForMantis You can get T2 engies from an air or naval factory, or you can upgrade your ACU to make T2.

There is literally no need for hover unit for Cybran. Not with the busted AF t1 navy they have. And I don't wanna see Trident nerfs just so people can get their hover added or w/e.

I have done some tests, Cybran frigate spam will always defeat Aeon spam, for reasons:
1.7 Aeon frigates cost 2050 mass versus 8 Cybran frigates 2000 mass.
2. During the approach, 50% of the guns at Aeon does not fire. In a defensive situation, when they start firing earlier and after the first volley they deploy the ship in order to fire from their two guns, they are still much inferior in general dps, a slight advantage in range does not help them.
3. Aeon frigates have less hp.

If you add an equal number of submarines for both sides to the battle, the Aeon submarines will win the underwater battle thanks to the torpedo protection of the Aeon frigates and will be able to drive away the enemy frigates.

In addition, the Aeon frigates do not have AA, which to a certain extent forces them to build special anti-aircraft ships, spending additional mass, but I have never seen anyone build them.

Since in equal economic conditions (Aeon versus Cybran) it is almost impossible to win the t1 war on water, the general conclusion makes sense to build only t1 submarines so as not to lose on t1, but how events will develop when switching to t2 without the support of frigates, I'm not sure.

Aurora and Fervor seem to be in balance.

One day i asked turbo: when do you think is a good timing for t2 or t3 tech switch in terms of mass income. He said: err I dunno I just see how the game is going and decide. (How much pressure by opponent, air navy, reclaim control bla bler blur)
Now I personally feel the same about balance. The game is so complex that you cant come up with a framework that accurately explains perfect balance and how one change shifts other areas. For that to work the framework would need to he so complex it becomes unuseable or is impossible to conceive.
I think the best way to conduct balance is an informed discussion by people adept at the game with a good feeling for the game, which is obviously highest correlated with ladder rating. I think the top players have a pretty good Feeling for how reasonable changes are and what the current problems are. A balanced discussion by multiple people should cancel out individual preferences or favouritism of play styles and units.

So instead of such framework i think what would help balance the most is to cut unskilled individuals from the discussion.

I.e. make balance invite only forum.

@Mach This doesnt work. The Atlantis is enormous and cannot go deep in water that is shallow. Although this solution works when water is deep enough, most maps simply dont have water that deep.