Make t3 navy more exciting!?!
-
The proper solution would be to create an intel entity which drops from the aircraft, every few seconds, and if it lands in water, becomes a short term sonar buoy. The code for that too, is already in the game - it's used in the Aeon Eye of Rhianne, which creates a vision entity. This would be an adaptation of that.
That might actually work okay. Can such a temporary entity be targetted by subs/ships?
And what about stealth? Should there be stealth subs which only show up in vision radius or is that too insidious? Would they be visible to scout planes anyway due to vision + radar?
Perhaps a better alternative:
- all water-based sonar are actually short-range omni + long range sonar
- all subs (even all underwater units?) automatically stealth when not moving
- (maybe) no underwater vision; enemy units are only visible as sonar icons: this could make nuke subs a key part of T3 navy
-
How it should be:
T1 Frigates - Fast, surface only, radar, sonar, pwned by T2 destro
T1 Subs - Fast, stealthed
T2 Destro - Slower, surface fire dogsbody, wins surface vs all, dies to T1 subs, has flares and weak torps against T2 subhunters
T2 Subhunters - Long range, high alpha, beat T1 subs, lose to T2 destro, lose badly to T1 frigate, very low HP so lose to destro.
T3 BS - Bombardment, loses to most, needs escort. Think of as T3 Mobile Arty on land
T3 Subs - nuke station, super-long-range defensible bombardment, needs escort. Think of as T2 MMLEverything else can be fit in as unique units or variations on these themes, such as the BC being a bigger destroyer.
All frigate? Pwned by destro. All destro? Pwned by T1 sub. All T1 sub? Pwned by subhunters. All subhunters? Pwned by destro. Destro + subhunters? Frigates + subs, depending on mix (Frigates go in and kill hunters, die, but subs then kill destro. Countless variations need testing, but it's better than where we are right now.
-
The fact that battleships can kill submarines with the main guns means that this part of the game is BROKEN, and need to be fixed, as some modders through the time done.
This undersea layer, in Supreme Commander FA(F), was to create another dimension of the game, with its own particular characteristics, such as units, weapons capable of being used in this, and unique means of detection, as reproducing the reality and the future sci-fi. For decades Ive studied naval wargames, and also Im author in naval hitory. I agreed very much with Sprouto..... that wrote:
"Safety from surface guns is the entire reason for submarines. That's why torpedoes were developed. The idea that you can sink submarines, under the water, with any kind of surface gun is bizarre, and makes the entire class pointless. If you support that kind of thinking, simply removed the subs from the game - and just have 'water' units - and go the final yard towards simplicity. "
But the things, IHMO are worse than that about the Navy stuff:
1 - Lazzy things along that one,for the naval forces, that, as also exist in acceleration coeficient, for example, that not exist. Au contraire of the Supreme Commander vanilla, all the ships have an "instantaneous speed", and also, the programmer in charge of navy, in SCFA dont realise the right concept of TurnRadius and
TurnRate, making the movement of ships VERY strange.4th Dimension Mod, years ago tried to improve this in the acceleration part.2 - Otherwise solutions like sonobuoys launched from the planes, can utilize the same approach of the tactical missiles with cameras, with a extended time.
3 - Also, IMHO, the submarines MUST TO BE Stealth to sonar if immobile, being detected only when in movement OR firing torpedoes/missiles, as usual in modern warfare.
-
@icedreamer said in Make t3 navy more exciting!?!:
All destro? Pwned by T1 sub. All T1 sub? Pwned by subhunters. All subhunters? Pwned by destro
You are aware only one of the three subhunters are actually surface vessels, right? Seraphim doesnt even have one.
Your misinformed idea of game balance will result in just spamming T1 subs literally all game. You're not making a T2 sub that can somehow defeat infinite amounts of T1 subs, and then lose in a torpedo battle against a Destro, who cannot out-torp T1 subs to begin with. This is completely asinine. It's not better than "where "we" are right now." Destros are needed to beat out T1 subs to bring the game back to the water's surface. When they fail to do that (seraphim destroyers getting crushed by T2 subs) the fun is killed out of the game.
blackjaguar said in Make t3 navy more exciting!?!:
For decades Ive studied naval wargames, and also Im author in naval hitory
Please study what makes a game fun next.
I'll say the same thing I say every time this topic comes up. Stop attempting to fix "problems" for the sake of fixing them. Consider what actually comes from making the changes you want. Submarines are entirely boring units, they have no real solid mechanics associated with them - no skillshots, no micro beasting, no physics, no dodging projectiles. You move them into range and they shoot autohit bullets until they die. It's not fun.
By "fixing the problem of submarines being bad" you introduce more time spent with a boring game mechanic. The point of this thread if to make navy more exciting and you would be doing the opposite of that by making submarines more viable.
Supcom is a rushed and patchwork game, with many strange desicions made under crunch that probably should never have been there at all. The best points of the game should be emphasised and the poor choices should not.
-
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
-
thewheelie said in Make t3 navy more exciting!?!:
Hoverbombing bombers is more unrealistic than groundfiring subs
- take A10 Thunderbolt flying at 160m/s
- drop first bomb
- Fire cannon for a full 66 seconds
- force of the cannon stalls out the plane and blows a hole deep enough to bury this thread in a nearby mountain
- drop second bomb at stall speed, almost straight down
- stop firing the cannon and return to level flight so that your plane doesn't become the third bomb
- ???
- hoverbombing achieved
-
@biass Shame that you stopped firing, USAF would have offered you a job for the 3 bomb version
Anyway...
- So, we render subs immune to ground fire yes?
- If it turns out problematic, fix in next patch
-
Where do you even get the idea from that current T3 navy stage sub meta is significantly shaped by groundfire?
Clearly the main "problem"/factor of sub balance are torpedo bombers (which can suicide mass efficiently into subs). Removing groundfire on subs will not impact this at all, what it will do though is making air dominace even more impactful on 20x20 navy maps.
Considering subs are even faster than even frigs losing air would mean your could get your anti subs ships/subs immediatly torped after an airloss and your navy run down.
Also did you consider any gamemodes that are not setons and decent execution from both sides (shif g in subs and keep them in a blob or just a clicking battleships to provide easy groundfire targets is not good execution)?Forumpros doing balance https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4wTcguJZh3A .
When a canis player remembers to build more than 3 units https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7hjp8xJHuyA . -
I thought this thread was about battleship health
-
@auricocorico groundfiring subs is the biggest navy has apparently. I get that subs don't really have a role atm. At least on setons. But battleships groundfiring is not the issue. I totally agree with turin here.
It annoys me though that the only efficient counter to harms is groundfiring it.
Torpedobombers can not kill it mass efficiently if you have well placed sams behind it that are out of range of battleships which don't push into harms range. Pretty sure every sub/destro gets absoluetly melted by harms as well.Groundfiring harms is just another navy apm drain that gives huge benefits and isn't fun at all. And depending on the faction it can take ages to kill them.
I would prefer if they weren't groundfireable but had less hp so that suiciding torps into them would result in a 1:1 kill loss ratio.
-
@biass said in Make t3 navy more exciting!?!:
Fire cannon for a full 66 seconds
It only has ammunition for about 20s of fire though 4Head
-
equip extended mag
-
Back on topic, have you taken a look at other games with navy? In BAR for example navy seems a lot more interesting and subs can actually be useful, but they also don't piss their pants when adjusting balance and actually try out stuff.
-
@turinturambar said in Make t3 navy more exciting!?!:
Where do you even get the idea from that current T3 navy stage sub meta is significantly shaped by groundfire?
@harzer99
Well I never said it was the biggest issue, just a problem. I'm sick of this misinterpretation that simply talking about an obvious problem implies it is the biggest problem.
It doesn't have to "significantly shape the meta" to be a broken game mechanic. We don't ban building factories underneath a transport dropping units because it often has a huge game deciding effect so often that it shapes the meta, it's because the game mechanic is broken.
Have you considered that maybe people are talking about it quite a lot because it is so many people find it problematic, regardless of how much of an overall impact it has on the game?And: if people think groundfiring subs has such a tiny impact on the game anyway, then you should have no problem whatsoever with removing the mechanic from the game.
-
RE hoverbombing:
Well the USA has had the Harrier since the 1980s(?), so it's not inconceivable for a super futuristic bomber to be extremely maneuverable and able to quickly stop, and actually hover. -
i was adressing valki with my post
(the guy who posted directly above me) -
@corvathranoob said in Make t3 navy more exciting!?!:
And: if people think groundfiring subs has such a tiny impact on the game anyway, then you should have no problem whatsoever with removing the mechanic from the game.
also did you miss the part where I explained why it would change current balance in towards the worse?
-
Yeah, Valki said groundfiring subs is part of the meta. You incorrectly read that as "significantly shaping" the meta. Things can also be a small part of the meta. And the point here is that they are a small part, because subs suck, because groundfire exists.
I saw your argument, and I don't think it would make game balance worse. You're saying, we make a change that BUFFS subs, but they are still vulnerable to torps, so air and torps become more important because that will now be the way you have to counter them. Well, that's the point. Removing groundfire still only makes subs more viable, because you CURRENTLY can torp them just as easily. It doesn't sound like you think removing groundfire would make subs OP, just that this would only help make subs slightly more viable. Well, slightly more viable is better than zero more viable, when they are already significantly underpowered...and giving a small buff to an underpowered unit will improve balance rather than make it worse.
-
@turinturambar it helps to @[username] to make clear who you reply to.
No matter how big or small the problem, everyone agrees sub ground-fire is silly.
If subs are rendered immune to ground-fire, then this could massively alter the meta, even if it is in a desirable way. Making more changes at the same time only complicates things. So in patch N you make subs immune to ground-fire, in patch N+1 you revisit naval to see how things are and what now needs fixing.
-
how did you get to litterally everyone?
