Make t3 navy more exciting!?!

0

@thewheelie said in Make t3 navy more exciting!?!:

Hoverbombing bombers is more unrealistic than groundfiring subs and instead of 1 in every 200 games it happens 1 in every 2 games. Waiting for the HOVERBOMBING IS BROKEN AND UNREALISTIC thread, thanks

Out of fuel planes hovering slowly instead of crashing to the ground is more unrealistic than groundfiring subs, and it happens in every game where someone (cough Tagada) uses select all fighters every time there is a single bomber somewhere. Waiting for the OUT OF FUEL PLANES SHOULD INSTANTLY CRASH thread, thanks

0

I'm just sitting here in the "I think the navy side of the game is probably the best balanced segment of the game" audience shocked that people are talking about it needing some total overhaul.

0

ftxcommando said in Make t3 navy more exciting!?!:

I'm just sitting here in the "I think the navy side of the game is probably the best balanced segment of the game" audience shocked that people are talking about it needing some total overhaul.

It might be relatively balanced, but it's boring af to watch and to play. You just spam the same unit and there's no real potential for plays.

0

? There is potential for plays, people are just boring and unwilling to take risks which often ends up with no one committing until they feel like they have over 85% chance to win the fight. So instead of playing aggressive and microing few frigates or 1-2 destros they wait until they can force engagement that will surely go their way.

Like I never felt constricted by the navy balance, if anything I felt that I can use all the tools I have no matter how stupid the idea.
It all just came to working it out instead of smashing my head into keyboard like monkey with attack move or waiting for the perfect chance to strike like 90% of players. Just be willing to duke it out like a man and your navy game won't be nearly as boring(though get ready to get smashed too if you lose all reclaim).

Hell, I loved t1 sub rush if I were to frig crush my opponent. Shit often scored me massive BP advantage, forced opponent to make their own sub/torp launcher and then after that I could go harass some mexes.

2

@femtozetta said in Make t3 navy more exciting!?!:

You just spam the same unit and there's no real potential for plays.

Imo this is completely off the mark. Unless you're playing a map like intertemporal, you certainly don't just "spam some unit". Navy is the only domain where every unit retains some role throughout the course of the game. This is not the case for land and air, where you usually have obsolete units you never need to build again when you reach a higher tier. Naval battles are super interesting because, with the possible exception of maybe the t1 sub, no unit is obsolete, and since every unit fulfills a different niche, you need to adjust your composition based on changing situations. The possible addition of hover makes naval naval compositions and battles even more interesting. Naval battles are exciting and don't need to be reworked, especially in the way suggested so far in this thread.

Also, I really don't understand this argument for buffing t2/t3 navy just because t1 navy is more cost efficient if you just look at raw hp/dps to mass stats. I will point out, for the people advancing this argument, that t1 direct fire land has much higher dps per mass than t2 and t3 land, and inties have higher hp per mass than asf. Naive stat comparisons like this, with all context removed, just don't work, so it would be real nice if people stopped doing them.

0

Its a piece of trivia Arch, last time I did the math actually the “same” decrease in efficiency across all 3 Terrain type.

0

They might not become obsolete with higher tech, but you only have 3 main units overall at T3: frigate, destro, battleship. I don't think it's interesting when those 3 units are 95% of what is built (well I guess that includes cruisers too, but they are not for fighting navy). No subs feel relevant because torp bombers crush them so easily and cost effectively.
I haven't really seen it being different in high level play (on Seton's mostly).
I'l pay some more attention to it though, since I don't really have any specific data or examples on it, so maybe I'm wrong.

0
This post is deleted!
0

Aside from main navy units of frig destro bs

Uef has neptunes shieldboats coopers
Cybran has stealth boat t2 sub
Aeon has t2 shield t2 sub tempest
Sera has t3 shield

And thats not counting situational units like atlantis, t3 sub, missile cruiser

Meanwhile air balance

Asf

Now compare which list is bigger

1

So Farms is saying air is boring because it has few units? Sure, more faction diversity might be interesting... well, Aeon already has swifties, mercies and restorers.

Back to navy, bias said:

Submarines are entirely boring units, they have no real solid mechanics associated with them

So make them interesting. Add a "stealth" button like the Selen and let them lurk, maybe, then try luring your opponent's ships to your subs.

But it's kind of hard to make "hide and seek" tactics work given the pace of the game, plus the way target locks work through the fog of war.