Torp bombers are too strong vs subs

Equilibrium navy balance sucks ass and just turned the game into no brain sub wars which is literally the only possible thing worse than no brain frig wars

What games are people citing that torps are OP? All 10x10 water maps are won by Cybran frigs. Half the 20x20 water maps are won by them. The other half are senton/metir/lena river style where you will be sam creeping/making hover flak/cruisers/shields. It isn't a simple question of "oh just look at the mass in torps vs navy" unless you're looking strictly at 4v4s or whatever because the mass investment in torp production to match navy investment if you decide to not have much of any navy is huge. And it isn't like ints don't exist and can be made for less equivalent infrastructure buildup.

I was intrigued to read about Equilibrium's approach - and it rings true with what we do in LOUD as well. The upshot of it is simple - the surface fight - and the sub fight - become two entirely different theatres - making the composition and application of naval power much more interesting and diverse. Especially with respect to the application of torps vs. torp defense, and the proper application of the depth charge (which is something that is really muddled in the base game).

I’d rather see Subs get a dramatic DPS Boost more than anything. But a different topic and honestly there is topic worth having. /shrug

It's not the issue that torp bombers are too strong against subs. The issue is that subs are generally too weak.

T1 subs are complete rubbish. I wonder if someone could take pure stats on how much frigates are being build in every naval maps compere to subs. Most likely t1 subs wouldnt even be built in most situations on all naval maps regardless of their size and player count.

They have no role in this game. They lose to every unit with torps except what? Wagner? T3 sonar?

EQ fixed that years ago. FAF didnt even bother to make it less worse. Because the point you start looking at naval balance and adjust t1 subs you will realise t2/t3 phase is way too unbalanced with different unit rosters for each faction (the way torp defence works is also a factor). I highly doubt someone in FAF team would do something this big.

...or if someone would just copy-paste EQ in FAF.

I see 10x more t1 subs than labs. Are labs worse than subs?

T1 subs have two roles:

1. Killing underwater mexes
2. As a gamble against early navy production (outcome depends on presence of a torpedo launcher and whether the opponent has floating engies).

So I don't see much need for a change here?

T2 subs don't get built much because of torps. Making them harder to target might help?

What if frigates have bigger hit boxes below water so that torps are more likely to hit the frigs, thus shielding subs?

Cruisers vs torps is kind of problematic, because torps are almost the only option if you lose navy and are close to the shore. Navy is just a little bit too strong vs land in my opinion.

@thewheelie

Labs get made all the time?

@zeldafanboy

Subs get made all the time?

T1 subs are absolute useless garbage and whoever cares about them being built in 1/10 games is just being a clown. 2 Torp bombers clean 10 subs in like a minute.

Torp isn’t crazy strong imo, maybe it needs some tweaks so navy doesn’t go

Lose navy = spam torps

Game should have at least another choice to deal with the issue / make navy less weak to air player puking 50-100 torps in a couple of minutes

How about tuning torpedo defence to be useful vs torp bombers?

I just did a little testing (replay). The UEF 'Stork' drop torpedoes that activate sub torp defences (usually only 1/2 torps hit). All other torp bombers bypass these (anti-torps don't even fire).

Further testing shows that 5 Storks reliably kills 1 Seraphim cruiser, but is less reliable vs 1 cruiser + subs. The subs sometimes block some torps from hitting the cruiser, sometimes don't (surprisingly the Aeon T2 subs appeared worse than Sera T1 subs).

All T2 subs and both Seraphim subs have torp defences. This allows the Sera T1 sub to sometimes survive the first pass from a Stork (400 HP, torp does 375 damage × 2).

What if this were adjusted and torp-bombers changed to behave like the UEF Stork (2 × real torpedoes) and sub anti-torps were re-balanced to more reliably counter the first torpedo? This improves subs vs torps and subs+cruisers vs torps, but not too much, and probably doesn't affect much else. (Maybe destro anti-torps should be tweaked to not block dropped torps, don't know.)

How about making torpedo bombers only hit 50% of time vs subs? Is this scriptable?

A torpedo bomber adjustment and a rework of underwater gameplay of navy is planned but will require time and a lot of testing.

@nooby UEF and Cybran torp bombers drop their torps directly into the target. The time gap between torp entering the water and torp reaching its target is too small. Torp defence wouldnt have time to work regardless of faction.

If that is the "solution" to addressed problem, than UEF and Cybran torp bombers would have to drop bombs some time before their targets and that way is much worse when the target is close to some land areas.

Other case is torp defence: UEF and cybran torp defence would be much better at absorbing damage than aeon/sera. Torp defence is waaaay too different among the factions and that thing never took a good look in FAF.

Isn't Tito bombers dropping depth chargers?

What if subs were stealthed if not moving or firing?

In general torps feel a bit too strong to me. Cruisers die too fast to them imho.

I am a 1600 Setons player and Torp bombers seem pretty balanced to me. One potential nerf to Torp bombers is to increase the value of their mass reclaim. As it stands, when a torp bomber dies above water, its mass reclaim is reduced compared to when it dies above land. If we removed this difference then Torp bombers would be a more significant mass donation when used.

All air-to-ground units are inherently mass donations. By definition, when the air-to-ground unit dies it is above hostile ground forces which could reclaim its wreck. The key downside to torp bombers is that you have to push with navy or hover to get the reclaim from the fight. Otherwise, they are just as much a mass donation as gunships or bombers.

@accidental_aeon said in Torp bombers are too strong vs subs:

I am a 1600 Setons player and Torp bombers seem pretty balanced to me. One potential nerf to Torp bombers is to increase the value of their mass reclaim. As it stands, when a torp bomber dies above water, its mass reclaim is reduced compared to when it dies above land. If we removed this difference then Torp bombers would be a more significant mass donation when used.

All air-to-ground units are inherently mass donations. By definition, when the air-to-ground unit dies it is above hostile ground forces which could reclaim its wreck. The key downside to torp bombers is that you have to push with navy or hover to get the reclaim from the fight. Otherwise, they are just as much a mass donation as gunships or bombers.

Due to its very long distance between navy spawns and the complete lack of anything raidable by navy, setons is not a map where the torp vs early game navy (think subs, frigs, a few destros) dynamic exists.