Shouldn't T1 Torpedo Launchers have some advantage over T2?
-
Maybe t2 torp launchers could use a bit of love, but i think they are generally in a pretty good state right now. The reason why t2 feels so underwhelming is because it only increases the range from 50 to 60. Issue is you cant make it higher than 60 or it'll start outranging uef and sera destros.
That being said, for roughly x2 mass cost you get x2 dmg and x4 hp and with the added range it means its quite more efficient. However because of torp launchers mostly being used in defensive situations the 33% longer buildtime is often a reason to spam t1 torps instead. But when you are in a prolonged defensive naval battle u can see t2 torps be pretty decent. Ive seen quite the number of aggressive t2 navy leading to t2 torps with 3k to 10k mass killed.
Yes, overall torp launchers are pretty weak, but imo this is way healthier for gameplay than how pds are right now.
-
@thewheelie what’s wrong with outranging uef destroyers? They have the cruiser for longer range so it would be a similar relationship to PD where t2 PD outranges pillar but is outranged by MML
-
because the last thing uef destro needs is another thing it loses to
-
You know you can build TMD on water right
-
@zeldafanboy You know you can build TMD on land right
-
@maudlin27 but on land you have arty
-
@nex Not sure if you mean T2 fixed arti, or T1/T3 mobile arti. The lack of a T2 arti equivalent on naval is even more reason for T2 torps to get a boost since it removes an option for counterplay by the defender if the attacker gets a unit that outranges the T2 torp launcher. Battleships perform a better 'firebase breaking' role than T3 mobile arti (as if the enemy gets enough T2 arti then even with mobile shields and larger numbers the T3 mobile arti will generally die before they can crack the firebase) so again even more of a reason for a T2 torp boost. The only thing against is that the attacking naval player doesnt have is a T1 arti equivalent, but then we're talking about not being able to easily beat a fixed in place T2 unit with mobile T1 units so it's less of a consideration.
Currently on land you have far more strategic options, variety and interesting gameplay with defences. See an area you want to fortify? You could build T1 PD but enemy can counter with T1 arti. Then you could get T2 PD to outrange the arti and t2 main tanks, but they could get MMLs. Then you could get TMD to defend against the MMLs (or even T2 arti although it's not a cost efficient counter). If the enemy switches to T3 mobile arti or sniper bots then you could get T2 arti.
Meanwhile your opponent in addition to those options for outranging the T2 PD could just ignore/go around the firebase.
On navy, the T2 torps are even easier to go around on a typical pond because terrain obstructions are rarer. On narrower 'streams' then a naval torpedo launcher firebase is potentially vulnerable to land attack (given torp launchers can't attack land). The value of holding a specific naval area is also (outside of chokepoints) less due with underwater mexes being rarer than on land.
Meanwhile from a very basic balance/strategy game perspective, you're sacrificing the ability to move a unit at all, so there should be sufficient compensation. Even with a small range boost every faction has an answer to T2 torp launchers at the tech2 level that is either similar to MML's answer to T2 PD on land, or even better, and unlike land the naval player doesnt have a T2 arti option (the best it could hope for is T2 arti on the land near to the torpedo launcher but the range of it will be so reduced and is crushed by battleships anyway). As such even if you want to fortify a naval area, you're better to focus on mobile naval units to do it giving less variety in games and in tactical challenges.
-
@maudlin27 said in Shouldn't T1 Torpedo Launchers have some advantage over T2?:
Battleships perform a better 'firebase breaking' role than T3 mobile arti
But from a cost perspective T3 mobile arty is more comparable to a destro than a battleship and getting the t2 naval factory is also more expensive than getting a t2 engie to build a torp launcher, so the balance is quite different in building vs naval as opposed to building vs land. So by making the torp outrange the destro, thus making cruisers required (which would also lead to 2 of the 4 factions being hardcountered by tmd and then they need battleships) will give you a much larger timeframe where your defense is impenetrable compared to a t2 pd. In a land scenario the attacker could also make t2 static arty to counter the pd even earlier, but in navy that's not possible for the attacker. Only the defender can place an arty as he is defending his coast (mostly). But arty sucks against mobile units so it's almost never worth it.
@maudlin27 said in Shouldn't T1 Torpedo Launchers have some advantage over T2?:
On navy, the T2 torps are even easier to go around on a typical pond because terrain obstructions are rarer.
I don't think so, because in navy you don't make torp launchers out in the open since you have less space you actually need to defend, so you can make your defense there instead of somewhere in between. (Unless it's a very water heavy map)
I think torp launcher are more intended as an anti sub turret, but subs are quite rare and you get sub defense for free on your destros (unless your UEF ofc), so the launchers don't see much use.
So i think making torp launchers outrange destros would not only throw off the faction balance but also lead to longer stalemates than a t2 pd does.
-
@nex said in Shouldn't T1 Torpedo Launchers have some advantage over T2?:
@maudlin27 said in Shouldn't T1 Torpedo Launchers have some advantage over T2?:
Battleships perform a better 'firebase breaking' role than T3 mobile arti
But from a cost perspective T3 mobile arty is more comparable to a destro than a battleship and getting the t2 naval factory is also more expensive than getting a t2 engie to build a torp launcher, so the balance is quite different
TMD+pd firebase is beat by t3 mobile arty. Getting t3 land hq and spamming out t3 mobile arty is comparable to getting t2 navy hq and spamming out destros. The latter (with the ability to submerge and so on) would require factions like UEF to make a 10k investment in tech followed by a 10k investment in a unit, just to beat like 3k mass in torps. This is only like 15% more ridiculous than the shitshow that is current UEF navy balance.
Requiring battleship spam to deal with t2 torp launchers is like having a land PD that is only possible to counter with fatboy spam.
-
@nex T3 mobile arty is in no way comparable to a destroyer in terms of its role and functionality though.
T3 mobile arty won't help you win land/map control. They're weak units that are easily killed if tanks get near them (which they can do fairly easily) - even T1 tanks can take them out.Destroyers on the other hand benefit from being strong in multiple roles. They can outrange land based PD and almost all mobile land units for a bombardment role, have torpedoes to efficiently deal with subs (UEF the only one that's inefficient), and their main cannon helps win naval control.
I'd also question the relevance of how expensive a T2 naval factory is since it's something you'd be getting if seeking naval control for destroyers, while if torpedo launchers were buffed to have a similar relationship as exists for T1 and T2 PD (T1 being poor range high dps, T2 being longer range worse dps) then the opponent getting T2 torpedo launchers (instead of T1 torp launchers) would make it easier for you to overwhelm with a T1 naval force rather than harder.
Giving +10 range to T2 torpedo launcher would mean 2 seconds extra firing against a destroyer (who move at a speed of 5), a less than 10% boost (it'd take 24s for 2 torpedo launchers to kill a destroyer ignoring that the destroyer would kill one of them before that time is up and ignoring the effect of torpedo defence). This to a unit that is currently virtually unusable due to how bad it is, and whose disadvantages would still massively outweigh the benefit.
An alternative could be making subs viable by somehow not making it mass efficient to suicide torpedo bombers into them (thus giving torpedo launchers a role as an anti-sub unit - a role that is virtually non-existent at present), but that'd be much harder to get right.
-
@maudlin27 said in Shouldn't T1 Torpedo Launchers have some advantage over T2?:
then the opponent getting T2 torpedo launchers (instead of T1 torp launchers) would make it easier for you to overwhelm with a T1 naval force rather than harder.
Frigates already have an incredibly easy time overrunning destroyers lol.
-
@maudlin27 said in Shouldn't T1 Torpedo Launchers have some advantage over T2?:
T3 mobile arty is in no way comparable to a destroyer in terms of its role and functionality though.
I think they are quite comparable, as a destro also needs support frigates or it will just be overrun. So the destros role is breaking the stalemate between two frigate forces, as you are able to attack from farther away. They also deal with subs, but they are kind irrelevant. If they were good torp launchers would also be more useful.
So making the pd outrange the unit, that's supposed to break the stalemate, will create boring situations where people just stare at each other.@maudlin27 said in Shouldn't T1 Torpedo Launchers have some advantage over T2?:
Giving +10 range to T2 torpedo launcher would mean 2 seconds extra firing against a destroyer (who move at a speed of 5), a less than 10% boost
Assuming the destro rushes head on at the torp launcher, which would be suicide if your opponent has frigs nearby. So you are forced to stay out of range, and nobody can shoot. Or you would need an overwhelming force to break the position.