What if? Experimentals end ASFs
-
If you and your opponent started out equally matched in the scenario (with, say, 80 ASF), you now have 70 immediately available while they have 60. Can a delta of 10 make a difference in that scenario?
-
It won’t be equal because you made air to ground to threaten anything so you’re down not only the extra asf in the first attack but whatever mass expended upon the threat. For air player to care that’s probably like 2 t3 gunships or 3k mass. Since you’re doing this double attack gimmick you need at least 4 so that’s 6k mass meaning you’re 17 asf behind already. You lose another 10, that’s 27 lost. Enemy lost 20. Enemy also is closer to reinforcement range and 20 asf only require like 2 rotations on 2 air stages to refuel. At best you kill like 3 t2 mexes somewhere and now you lose the rest of your air and game is over. But you did some minor damage that didnt actually impact the game compared to the now undisputed air dominance enemy has and can repay the attack tenfold.
In a real game you were better off baiting the enemy with your 4 t3 gunships to then get a good turn on them and ideally have the gunships tank a decent portion of the initial asf dps. Now you could overcome the asf disadvantage.
-
Don't attack with 10 the second time, attack with 70.
-
You still got less asf bro. Beyond all of this, it basically makes zero sense for fuel to be a problem for 1 side and not the other side. For you to do this weird double attack you had to send your asf flying across the map beforehand and now need them flying and wasting fuel as they spend time in the middle of nowhere. Beyond the fact you coulda just had your air completely crushed as it's split for no reason and the enemy had any remote capacity for scouting, odds are you got more fuel on your 20 asf you sent to kill the first 10 than enemy does on their other group.
-
@ftxcommando said in What if? Experimentals end ASFs:
odds are you got more fuel on your 20 asf you sent to kill the first 10 than enemy does on their other group
Do they have zero fuel (with no ability to maneuver) or not? There's a schrodinger's cat situation here where planes have either enough fuel or zero fuel, depending on the scenario you've made up/modified and what supports the point you're trying to make.
-
At t1/t2
I'm in favor of anything that increases the relevancy of t1/t2 air in the later game, including increasing their fuel.
It only benefits defense in the sense that now there's a limited time that the attackers can maintain their air screen to an extent, and if too many asf need to refuel they can't really attack.
I think there's value here. Let me be clear that I'm not in favor of any kind of fuel reduction that limits the ability to perform a one way mission (or even a couple of one way missions in a row)*.
*This, like everything else, is open to debate.
Your description of the intense back and forth really resonates with me, and I agree it's a core part of what makes the game good. What I'm seeing is that, if the "beat frequency" of that back and forth is 10s or so, more relevant fuel times (in the multiple of minutes--say less than 7) fit around those decisions instead of interfering with them. You know you've got so many minutes to seal the deal with your navy and still have air support. You've got so much time to maneuver your ASF before you send in bombers. Getting that wrong is a misplay, but it's a misplay that can happen every 6-10 minutes instead of every 30s.
Because land and naval units are slow there's a positional element to having them ready. Aircraft, ASF especially, are so fast that positional elements fade away next to the arithmetic (see Ftx's hymns on the snowballing effect). You'd need to slow ASF down to introduce a similar dynamic (thumbs down from me) but you can add a readiness element in the time domain by making refueling more common (it's all about time, anyway, for land units and naval units). Then it's not a question of having them in the right place, but not having them need to go back to the wrong place.
The endless polygon of patrolling aircraft is boring, and it looks like shit (you know it, I know it, everybody knows it). I'm not sure that what I'm recommending would actually rectify that, but it'd be a step away from the status quo of putting aircraft in one pattern and forgetting about them until you need them for something.
Re: Navy, let's not forget about the carriers. I'd say anything that increases the relevancy of carriers as support ships is a positive.
-
So what I'm hearing is to allow Novax to target Air Units?
~ Stryker
-
@comradestryker I could not find any other flying UEF experimental.
-
@melanol said in What if? Experimentals end ASFs:
@comradestryker I could not find any other flying UEF experimental.
In all seriousness, why can't it do this already?
It flies above air units, so it should be able to target them.
It can target landed air units, navy units, hover units, and more, yet, not a flying unit?
Weird.Though, being honest, it wouldn't do much.
Most T3 units are tanky enough to withstand a volley.
And even if they didn't, with the DPS of a sat, enemy units can fly past its target range with minimal damage.I guess I answered my own question here, haha.
Best case I can see is a sat tickling away at a Czar, Bug, or Ahwassa whilst it flies around the map.
But to answer your question, I'm not sure I imagine a use for how a sat would be anywhere near effective for targetting air units.
~ Stryker
-
@ftxcommando said in What if? Experimentals end ASFs:
No, you don't understand what I said. I said that you can't defensively support your attacks because you need to proactively send 10 asf to deal with the inevitable 5 asf response. But now the enemy knows you send 10 because anybody competent at this game knows what radar or spy planes are so they will send 15. As the numbers get higher the risk gets more extreme for air loss so you might as well as just send everything you have as a defensive force instead.
it reverts to all or nothing in combination with the snowball nature of combat. Fuel changes nothing about the nature of that
Were you just jerking me around through this whole subtopic?
-
Sending small handfuls of air is what I brought up before with sending 5 asf to deal with air to ground. That quote was also in the context of sending all your air to kill 1 strat bomber or 5 torps and therefore creating your own lose condition due to taking a bad turn.
This is also why it’s common for an air player to gift a handful of asf to other players so they can respond to more inconsequential raids.
-
Can you send 5 ASF, or does it converge to sending everything because those 5 will get killed? You'll forgive me for noticing that your logic tends to jump around as long as it allows you to call someone else's intelligence into question..!
-
The logic has stayed consistent since my first response. You’ll forgive me for not bothering with your posts anymore.
-
It would be my pleasure to do so.
-
I think that fuel is a mechanic that the game should put more light on. Not only does the speed of the aircraft come into play when responding to a threat, but its ability to sustain a pattern for long periods could shift balance and play. It may be worth it to bomb enemy air fields if fuel had a bigger impact.
-
Fuel really only comes into question with T1 air units.
After that, it is rare to see any air unit with low fuel.For example, ASF have around 18 minutes of fuel.
Perhaps refueling should only be possible with refueling stations rather than a passive ability they regenerate over time?Then airfields would be a little more useful and a slightly higher priority or a strategic target attack.
~ Stryker
-
Airfields were originally a t2 unit and changed to t1 because of fuel
Put it back to t2 and get rid of fuel
-
No, it got changed to t1 for the sake of ease of use. Getting t2 engies to make air staging was annoying, especially since the building costs nearly nothing compared to other t2 structures in the first place.
-
Ease of use was a no use
-
It was a viable tool ever since it got changed to not cost mass to repair air units, really.