Torp bombers are too strong vs subs

1

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.)

0

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

0
This post is deleted!
3

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

1

@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.

0

Isn't Tito bombers dropping depth chargers?

1

What if subs were stealthed if not moving or firing?

0

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

Check out my maps here:

Madness 1 - 10

https://forum.faforever.com/topic/480/h-master-s-maps

0

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.

0

@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.