I mainly play Aeon and build spreadsheets to analyse the fairness across units/factions. My opinions are only that, opinions, yet I shall when relevant or possible attempt to corroborate them with facts or figures. Now for my thoughts about your post @FunkOff . By the way, thank you for numbering your points.

1. Aurora dying to air is a weakness but their counteracting strength is their hover. This principle also holds true for Zthuee's as they hover and die to bombers in one shot. In regards to the Aurora speed, being slow is necessary otherwise (assuming perfect micro and unit control) the Aurora will kill all T1 + ACU without ever taking damage. I said all T1 full knowing T1 mobile artillery outranges the Aurora. Typically by microing forwards and backwards at the edge of the T1 mobile artillery range you can avoid their shots. I however understand as players performing that level of micro is hard and we often lose many Aurora to a few T1 mobile artillery. Each T1 mobile artillery has at minimum 45 damage per shot (Zthuee). Zthuee fires 5 shots. 3 hits will reduce Aurora to 135 hp. 4 shots will kill the Aurora with 40 overkill. Increasing Aurora HP by 15 will not solve the "problem". Medusa does 200 damage per shot. Aurora HP would need to be >200 to survive. I am mostly sure this level of HP increase is imbalanced.
2. Fervor is great at killing point defence or other structures and terrible against units. This is by design. Aeon are the best at doing one job, but try and make their units do anything other than that one job and they become the worst. Fervor has 22.4 more damage per second than the next most damaging T1 mobile artillery and this reflects the Aeon design philosophy nicely.
3. The Beacon frigate. I'm still analysing that unit so I'll forgo commenting on it except to say it has a very complex role in the Aeon navy as it is distinctly different from the other faction's frigates.
4. The shard. Currently has 45 muzzle velocity, the same as the Thistle and 15 greater than frigate anti air. Thinking simply, the shard is an overpriced water travelling Thistle that moves quicker. Both the Thistle and Shard are inferior (vastly) to air interceptors. If required I can post statistical proof later. If you want air cover, build interceptors as the other T1 alternatives can't compete. However if you are desperate you can build ground or naval anti air. Next is where it gets complicated. Assuming you are still reading at this point you may notice several things. Down the bottom is an example naval fleet consisting of 5 Beacon Class frigates, 2 Shards and 6 Thunderhead class frigates. The Aeon fleet is almost equal to the UEF fleet but has 1870 less HP but 5 anti-torpedo launchers. Is this balanced? Is having one less frigate worth 5 anti-torpedoes? You decide. Is the Shard balanced as part of navy? Yes. Is it useful? No. Should it hit more often? Yes because there are less of them compared to frigates and quality is required to counteract quantity.
5. Shimmer stun time is a point of potential imbalance. I shall now point out a myriad of different factors to consider when deciding if the Shimmer is indeed imbalanced. Shimmer stuns for 2 seconds. Medusa stuns for 3.5 seconds. These values were measured in-game not taken from the unit database. With stun duration, we have to factor in stun frequency and stun area. Medusa has 2 radius while Shimmer has 4. Medusa hits target every 6 seconds while Shimmer without micro (meaning without hover bomb) hits every 10 seconds. The Shimmer in the unit data has a fire cycle of 5 seconds but a flight path of 10 seconds, resulting in a 10 second fire cycle. Compounding this data the Medusa stuns for 1.75x longer, fires 1.67x faster and hits 0.25x more area (<-simple geometry). Assuming simple multiplication can deduce effectiveness, the Medusa is 0.73x more effective than the Shimmer at stunning if units can't die. But units die, thus reducing their effectiveness. HP per mass the Medusa is 2x more efficient, has 0.683x more HP and T1 interceptors deal 1.8x the damage of T1 tanks for 0.935x the mass cost on average. Additionally the Medusa costs 0.34x more mass and 0.0735x more energy. To calculate an adjusted effectiveness rating the standard effectiveness should be multiplied by survivability (HP ratio) and divided by cost (using mass ratio for simplicity's sake). This yields the formula: 1.75 x 1.67 x 0.25 x 0.683 / 0.34 = 1.467. At this point I expect the reader is drowning in values and simple calculations if they are still reading at all! To summarise, the Medusa is 1.467 times stronger at stunning stuff than the Shimmer. Perhaps the balance team could consider increasing the 2 second Shimmer stun too 2 x 1.467. Or 2.5 seconds!
6. Transports are a factional thing that are designed to give the faction uniqueness and compensate for general imbalance due to factional gimmicks.
7. The Aeon T3 bomber is imbalanced (weak). Here are the facts explaining why. Currently the ratio between damage and payload radius is: Damage = 4500-(Radius*250). I shall assume this ratio has been tested to be “balanced”. Each T3 bomber follows this rule except Aeon, why? Subsequent question. Why are the AA ‘goodies’ on the UEF T3 bomber stronger than the Cybran T3 bomber? If the answer is because Cybran has stealth, why don’t Aeon or Seraphim have AA? What ‘buff’ counteracts this imbalance? Next topic. Each T3 bomber has a different set of stats which makes them more or less suited to fulfilling a particular role. First a table indicating the relationship between Mass Extractors and T3 bombers. Next the radius for each bomber. Cybran=7, UEF=6, Seraphim=5, Aeon=4. The Aeon bomber is just as good at killing Mass Extractors as the Seraphim Bomber yet has 1 less radius. Imbalance. You may say “the Aeon bomber has more damage to compensate for this” and this is wrong. The Aeon bomber only has 200 not 250 extra damage over the Seraphim bomber and doesn’t follow the “balanced” ratio! Imbalance. Solution is to add 50 damage to the Aeon Bomber. Just do it.
   Now onto the goodies (T3 bomber anti-air). Seraphim and Aeon don’t have goodies like UEF (their anti-air) or Cybran (anti-air + Stealth). Aeon is the closest to Cybran with only 100 more hp. Does having 100 more HP justify no anti-air or Stealth? No. People may say “but Aeon deals a whopping 700 more damage” but they also forgot that it has 3 less radius. Remember we are assuming the ratio for radius too damage is correct, so clearly the Aeon bomber is underpowered (provided the ratio is balanced). Now for Seraphim. They have 200 more HP than Cybran and 100 less than UEF and STILL don’t have anti-air! How can you justify giving the UEF T3 bomber AA and not the Seraphim bomber! UEF favouritism I see… However if the Aeon T3 bomber was to get tracking on their bomb, I would expect the bomber price to increase drastically, or the tracking to be negligible/non-existent.
8. Ah, the Aeon T2 Shield Generator. I'll start by putting forth the premise that the most efficient/best shield will have the best shield density per mass ratio. To save my readers brain cells I'll just tell you what these ratios are, but you can work them out yourself. Side note: Shields are a factional distinction, just like building HP. I've also included the HP of the Shield structure into my calculations as technically it counts as damage absorption, which is the purpose of a shield. Best T2: Cybran > Aeon > UEF > Seraphim.
   Best T3: Aeon > Cybran > UEF > Seraphim.
   Additional side note: UEF T3 Shield Generator recharge time is faster than everything except Cybran ED1: T2 Shield Generator. Also the Seraphim have the largest+strongest shield, but least efficient.
9. Galactic Colossus. A reasonable unit with a software error in it's tractor claws. The Galactic Colossus tractor arm in-game only activates once per 12ish seconds when tested (GC idle against Percival’s moving towards it). In the unit data (https://github.com/FAForever/fa/blob/develop/units/UAL0401/UAL0401_unit.bp), each of the two claws is supposed to have a fire rate of 0.15shots/second which is about 6.6 seconds per activation per claw. Why the major discrepancy between what actually happens and what is supposed to happen? Conclusion, a software error. Can this please be fixed to make the Galactic Colossus more consistent?

Showcase the Problem, Part D. biass and Dragun101 created a thread on how to make a sim mod to showcase your solution in a real game.
https://forum.faforever.com/topic/739/guide-creating-a-basic-balance-mod-with-a-merge-blueprint

That mod idea about not having move commands get converted into a patrol, can that be made please! I'd 100% use that mod always.

Long way back to opening post. Glad to see you are championing FAF in a positive way. It is good to see someone address the toxicity issue as it has gotten rather bad because of some bad apples (I won't name names).
One of my FAF friends got traumatized from 1v1 toxicity so I had to make a mod to destroy chat so he could feel comfortable playing again. This is just in game and not on the message boards.
This forum post left a bad taste in my mouth yet I hope for a positive outcome.
Disclaimers: 1. I just want my friend to feel comfortable playing socially again. 2. I don't care about politics.

@FunkOff I systematically disagree with almost every single point you made in your original post.

1. T1 UEF tank. Highest HP, lowest DPS, slightly below average speed, highest cost, 1 rank vet adds extra acu shot to kill, etc... Lots of differences between the T1 tanks. However when used the sum total of their differences balance out resulting in no faction having a distinct advantage. E.g. yes the striker may be very very very slightly inferior to other t1 tanks, but UEF T1 factory has 500+ more hp for no additional cost making t1 arty take longer to kill it. Little things like this make the T1 phase balanced.
2. T1 UEF bomber has a different play style to a basic bomber (like the Sinnve). Just use it in a way that capitalises on it's AOE plus high damage. If units dodge it reliably, rejoice because you know the enemy is burning APM which you aren't.
3. T2 UEF static arty is the second cheapest, not most expensive. T2 UEF PD is most expensive but the best all rounder, with highest HP, second lowest DPS, tied best AOE, good high fire arc and quick fire cycle. This makes it the best all rounder T2 PD in the game. If you desire a more specialised PD, play another faction. Aeon for alpha damage + slow fire cycle, cybran for cheap fast lazers and seraphim for... honestly not sure.
4. Rhino never kill mongoose if mongoose are microed. They have too much range and speed. Pillars cost 68% of the mass of a Rhino so they obviously lose 1v1. FtXCommando also illustrated what advantages Pillars have over Rhino.
5. Janus may not be fantastic at sniping eco structures like other factions fighter/bombers but that doesn't mean they suck. Like the UEF T1 bomber it is about using them for the right job. E.g. Abuse their AOE and high DPS to swathe large chunks out of your opponents land army for instance.
6. T3 UEF land is almost a timebomb and possibly the strongest lategame. Percival is borderline OP and a fantastic unit! Titans are shielded raid lords of destruction. T3 UEF air is the same as all the others. T3 air (excluding Shocker) is about as perfectly balanced as possible.
7. Sure the T1 UEF frigate might not be the best (like cybran) but it has jamming. T2 UEF destroyer might not be the best (like aeon) but you have the shield boat. T3 UEF navy more than makes up for any inefficiency in the earlier stages and is very powerful.

At the end of the day, it really comes down to how you use the pieces of the UEF army. Each unit can be viewed as a tool designed for a specific job. Use it for the wrong job and it's effectiveness drops.

To all those like myself who thought the Aeon sacrifice system deposited 100% of the units mass into the build project, prepare to have your preconceptions shattered.
Here are the results of my meticulous sandbox testing. What you do with this knowledge is up to you.

General disclaimer. All test were conducted 2 or more times. Most only two times.

Tests using unupgraded SACUs (except for sacrifice). Note: Mass of sacrifice upgrade (150 mass) not included in calculations. Also HP values rounded down to the nearest hundred.
GC (27500 mass): 90000/99999 HP for 27300 mass of SACU (#14)
Paragon (250200 mass): 2100/5000 HP for 251550 mass of SACU (#129)
CZAR (45000 mass): 30700/40000 HP for 44850 mass of SACU (#23)
Tempest (22000 mass): 46200/60000 HP for 21450 mass of SACU (#11)
Salvation (202500 mass): 4700/10000 HP for 202800 mass of SACU (#104)

Tests for RAS SACUs (not preset) with sacrifice. Note: Mass of sacrifice upgrade (150 mass) not included in calculations. Also HP values rounded down to the nearest hundred.
GC (27500 mass): 25500/99999 HP for 25800 mass of SACU (#4)
Paragon (250200 mass): 600/5000 HP for 251550 mass of SACU (#39)
CZAR (45000 mass): 9300/40000 HP for 45150 mass of SACU (#7)
Tempest (22000 mass): 12500/60000 HP for 19350 mass of SACU (#3)
Salvation (202500 mass): 1400/10000 HP for 206400 mass of SACU (#32)

Tests for RAS preset SACUs with sacrifice. Note: Mass of sacrifice upgrade (150 mass) not included in calculations. Also HP values rounded down to the nearest hundred.
GC (27500 mass): 84400/99999 HP & 99999/99999 HP for 25800 mass & 32250 mass of SACUs respectively (#4 & #5)
Paragon (250200 mass): 2700/5000 HP for 251550 mass of SACU (#39)
CZAR (45000 mass): 36100/40000 HP for 45150 mass of SACU (#7)
Tempest (22000 mass): 47500/60000 HP & 60000/60000 HP for 19350 mass & 25800 mass of SACUs respectively (#3 & #4)
Salvation (202500 mass): 6200/10000 HP for 206400 mass of SACU (#32)

Tests using T3 engineers as sacrifices. Note: HP values rounded down to the nearest hundred.
GC (27500 mass): 24200/99999 HP for 27768 mass of T3 engineers (#89)
Paragon (250200 mass): 500/5000 HP for 250224 mass of T3 engineers (#802) = 202680 mass worth of reclaim from wrecks alone.
CZAR (45000 mass): 7400/40000 HP for 45240 mass of T3 engineers (#145)
Tempest (22000 mass): 11300/60000 HP for 22152 mass of T3 engineers (#71)
Salvation (202500 mass): /10000 HP for *** mass of T3 engineers (#) <- Test not conducted. Got bored.

My general conclusion. NEVER use the sacrifice system unless you literally have no other choice. Its better to ctrl+k and reclaim the wrecks.
Have fun out there.

• The visual aspects make the ability more intuitive. The aspect where the stun times are shorter at the edge will mean higher tech units (with have longer range on average) become more effective against chrono, while low tech units will be completely shut down. Chrono mostly (in my experience) isn't gotten at T1, or T3 so I suspect this change will weaken chrono.
• Perhaps have stun time remain 2.5 seconds but only get's triggered "on contact" with the "chrono wave"?

@FtXCommando I thought Percival's were rather strong, and hard to lose the game with?
@Emperor_Penguin Your idea is honestly quite appealing, but consuming the full value of the unit would be OP like @RandomWheelchair said. A compromise of getting only a % of the wreck mass may compensate for the GC being (as I understand it) more expensive compared to the Ythotha and performing worse.
It would be nice if that idea was seriously considered, instead of being dismissed completely out of hand.

I build spreadsheets to analyse the fairness across units/factions. My opinions are only that, opinions, yet I shall when relevant or possible attempt to corroborate them with facts or figures.

Shimmer stun time is a point of potential imbalance. I shall now point out a myriad of different factors to consider when deciding if the Shimmer is indeed imbalanced using the Medusa as the ‘baseline’ for a balanced unit. Shimmer stuns for 2 seconds. Medusa stuns for 3.5 seconds. These values were measured in-game not taken from the unit database. With stun duration, we have to factor in stun frequency and stun area. Medusa has 2 radius while Shimmer has 4. Medusa hits target every 6 seconds while Shimmer without micro (meaning without hover bomb) hits every 10 seconds. The Shimmer in the unit data has a fire cycle of 5 seconds but a flight path of 10 seconds, resulting in a 10 second fire cycle. Compounding this data the Medusa stuns for 1.75x longer, fires 1.67x faster and hits 0.25x more area (<-simple geometry). Assuming simple multiplication can deduce effectiveness, the Medusa is 0.73x more effective than the Shimmer at stunning if units can't die. But units die, thus reducing their effectiveness. HP per mass the Medusa is 2x more efficient, has 0.683x more HP and T1 interceptors deal 1.8x the damage of T1 tanks for 0.935x the mass cost on average. Additionally the Medusa costs 0.34x more mass and 0.0735x more energy. To summarise, the Medusa is more “tanky” for a reduced cost. To calculate an adjusted effectiveness rating the standard effectiveness should be multiplied by survivability (HP ratio) and divided by cost (using mass ratio for simplicity's sake). This yields the formula: 1.75 x 1.67 x 0.25 x 0.683 / 0.34 = 1.467. At this point I expect the reader is drowning in values and simple calculations if they are still reading at all! To summarise, the Medusa is 1.467 times stronger at stunning stuff than the Shimmer. Perhaps the balance team could consider increasing the 2 second Shimmer stun too 2 x 1.467. Or 3 seconds! However, in patch 3704 Chrono Dampener stun duration was decreased from 3.5 seconds to 2.5 seconds because the longer stun duration caused units to lose their move orders. In order to not lose move orders, I suggest the Shimmer stun time be increased from 2 seconds to 2.5 seconds (not 3 seconds) to preserve move orders of affected units.

The Aeon T3 bomber is imbalanced (weak). Here are the facts explaining why. Currently the ratio between damage and payload radius is: Damage = 4500-(Radius*250). I shall assume this ratio has been tested to be “balanced”. Each T3 bomber follows this rule except Aeon, why? Subsequent question. Why are the AA ‘goodies’ on the UEF T3 bomber stronger than the Cybran T3 bomber? If the answer is because Cybran has stealth, why don’t Aeon or Seraphim have AA? What ‘buff’ counteracts this imbalance? Next topic. Each T3 bomber has a different set of stats which makes them more or less suited to fulfilling a particular role. First a table indicating the relationship between Mass Extractors and T3 Bomber bombs required to destroy said T3 Mass Extractor.

Faction	                UEF	Cybran	Aeon	Seraphim
UEF T3 Bomber	        3	2	3	3
Cybran T3 Bomber	4	3	3	3
Aeon T3 Bomber	        3	2	2	3
Seraphim T3 Bomber	3	2	2	3

Next the radius for each bomber. Cybran=7, UEF=6, Seraphim=5, Aeon=4.
From the table we can see that the Aeon T3 Bomber is just as good at killing Mass Extractors as the Seraphim Bomber yet has 1 less radius. Imbalance. You may say “the Aeon bomber has more damage to compensate for this” and this is wrong. The Aeon bomber only has 200 not 250 extra damage over the Seraphim bomber and doesn’t follow the “balanced” ratio! Imbalance. Solution is to add 50 damage to the Aeon Bomber. Just do it.
Now onto the goodies (T3 bomber anti-air). Seraphim and Aeon don’t have goodies like UEF (their anti-air) or Cybran (anti-air + Stealth). Aeon is the closest to Cybran with only 100 more hp. Does having 100 more HP justify no anti-air or Stealth? No. People may say “but Aeon deals a whopping 700 more damage” but they also forgot that it has 3 less radius. Remember we are assuming the ratio for radius too damage is correct, so clearly the Aeon bomber is underpowered (provided the ratio is balanced). Now for Seraphim. They have 200 more HP than Cybran and 100 less than UEF and STILL don’t have anti-air! How can you justify giving the UEF T3 bomber AA and not the Seraphim bomber! UEF favouritism I see… It was suggested in this forum post (https://forum.faforever.com/topic/49/all-the-reasons-aeon-sucks-t1-worst-of-all) to offset the damage and lack of ‘goodies’ imbalance by giving the Aeon T3 Bomber’s bomb target tracking. However if the Aeon T3 Bomber was to get tracking on their bomb, I would expect the bomber price to increase drastically, or the tracking to be negligible/non-existent. That said, this would provide more factional uniqueness, compensate for reduced (imbalanced) bomb damage and offset the lack of goodies.

Galactic Colossus. A reasonable unit with a suspected software error in its tractor claws. The Galactic Colossus tractor arm in-game only activates once per 12ish seconds when tested (GC idle against Percival’s moving towards it). In the unit data (https://github.com/FAForever/fa/blob/develop/units/UAL0401/UAL0401_unit.bp), each of the two claws is supposed to have a fire rate of 0.15shots/second which is about 6.6 seconds per activation per claw. Why the major discrepancy between what actually happens and what is supposed to happen? Conclusion, a software error. Can this please be fixed to make the Galactic Colossus more consistent?
If this is in fact, not a software error, please consider halving the activation time for the claws as the Galactic Colossus is more costly compared to the Ythotha (by 1000 more mass) and is less effective against large T3 unit groups because the Galactic Colossus has no AOE damage. If you are curious about this ‘fact’ I suggest you make a ‘test’ game and throw 30 T3 units (direct fire of same unit) at a Galactic Colossus, then repeat for the Ythotha. The Ythotha will have destroyed more T3 units than the Galactic Colossus.

The Novax. Currently it costs exactly half as much as a Duke, has more than half the DPS of the Duke, is 100% accurate, has omni and radar while having unlimited range (via moving). The only reason not to build 2 Novax instead of 1 Duke is the area effect of the Duke. Please apply a very minor increase to the mass cost of the Novax to offset the additional benefits.
Talking about intel and balance Seraphim is lacking. Aeon has the Eye of Rhianne, Cybran has the Soothsayer and UEF have the Novax (despite this being way more expansive). What can the balance team do to balance this? Yes, the Iaselen T3 Spy Plane has Sonar unlike the other Spy Planes, but this is to offset the lack of a T3 Sonar Platform.

Now onto the Percival. Its shots are almost impossible to dodge with T3 land units. Factor in the alpha damage (1450) + greatest range (34) every unit which attempts to tango with the Percival has their actual maximum HP reduced by 1450. This range, plus their high HP, plus high alpha makes them nearly impossible to counter with land units. This statement assumes equal mass investment into both armies and only into direct fire land units, not indirect fire. I can already sense people saying something like “just don’t fight them and attack elsewhere”. Such a statement is true yet also implies two things. One, that Percivals are unbeatable. Two, the non-Percival player is playing on a countdown to win before the UEF player reaches a critical mass of Percival’s. A suggestion to allow counter play by land units would be to reduce the Percival’s speed to ~1.8. This will mitigate the Percival’s range advantage, emphasise the “attack elsewhere” point and make ‘poke’ from Percival’s more easily punished. Movement across the battlefield for Percival’s will admittedly be affected, yet UEF possess the only T3 transport. Perhaps the speed reduction of the Percival will encourage the Continental to be used once again. A less favourable suggestion would be to further reduce the Percival’s muzzle velocity however this forces the opposing player to burn more APM in fights to dodge shots, resulting in a subtle advantage to UEF players.
Fun fact, the average range of the Harbinger, Titan, Loyalist, Percival, Brick and Othuum is 26.125 when including all their land-to-land weapons. The Percival has ~8 extra range on average at the T3 phase. Perhaps this is one reason why Snipers and T3 Mobile Artillery were the main T3 land army composition a few patches ago??

I am exceptionally curious to hear feedback from the balance team and the community.

The Aeon T2 PD, Oblivion has a glorious animation and splash. Every time it fires I watch it arc, hit or miss something, and feel good inside when a nearby unit near the primary target gets taken out! With such glorious AOE I laugh evilly every time someone shift-g's near the Oblivion.

However it seems like at the fringes of the water balloon splash, some units sometimes emerge unscathed. This is mildly frustrating. Despite this minor emotional affliction I take solace seeing the Triad, with its pathetic little shells miss so ofte... It hit. How did it hit that? The shot didn't even come close to connecting! Rage ensues.

It was probably a fluke. Already expecting to be disproven, I pop onto github and quickly compare the AOE's of the Oblivion and Triad. I'm shocked by what I find.
Disillusioned and disheartened I write, "Please change the animation for the Oblivion to better match its radius." Such disappointment cannot be allowed to be perpetuated!

UEF bubble shield refresh rate doubled. Regen rate increased by 50%. Called small buff.

@ftxcommando
It is a shame that I try and post constructive advice and you shitpost in response. I sincerely hope you meant it as a joke and that your humour needs work.
Let us take the time to work on it right now, Mr. UEF boy

For instance,
@ftxcommando said in Aeon Gun ACU:

you are not providing an answer to why exactly Aeon needs a strictly superior gun

You are not providing an answer to why exactly UEF needs strictly superior HP.
Same format, equally pointed and just as unamusing and asinine.

A more humorous iteration would be,
You are not providing an answer to why UEF need the thickest of bois. It is because everyone knows UEF boys are the thickest!

Some tips for those struggling with land ranged units.

• Use air. E.g. bombers or transport drop. Personal favourite is com drop.
• Flank. Leave nowhere for ranged units to kite back towards.
• Deny intel. No intel = no range. Most players (including pros) only make minimal intel. One T1 bomber or LAB is always worth sacrificing to kill radar.
• Attack in multiple places simultaneously. Ranged units are often slow. Exploit this.
• Flow like water. If you can't break a position, ignore it and focus your efforts into the path of least resistance.
• Tech up to widen your tactical options.
• Eco UP. Fortify a little (e.g. walls) to buy time and develop your eco for a later game overwhelm strategy. More stuff beats less stuff.
• Pick your battles. If you've tried something and it didn't work, trying again often won't get you a better result.
• Stop playing on 1 to 2 lane maps or turtle maps.

If none of these are viable for you, get good by acknowledging your mistakes and improving.

Perhaps those asking for gun nerf should play on maps larger than 5km?

It takes about 1 second for a commander at full speed to walk that distance. Less if both are moving towards each other.
Very strong upgrade. All it takes is 1 second where your attention is diverted and it no longer matters.

@comradestryker said in Aeon Gun ACU:

If anything, it's the UEF that should have the range over all other ACUs - and I'm not trying to be biased here.
The point of UEF is to have Alpha damage and Range with their units, no?
For example, the Percy, and the Summit.
Why shouldn't the UEF ACU be any different? It already deals 200 damage per shot.
It probably wouldn't be that difficult to dodge either, considering it would only have half of the firerate as all other ACUs do.
Sniper UEF ACU woudn't be anywhere near as powerfull as an Aeon Sniper ACU.
Well... minus the nano, but it's a crappy version of the nano, anyway.
It wouldn't take much to overwhelm.

Cracked. UEF sniper com with nano. Perfectly balanced; what could go wrong?

@rezy-noob said in Aeon Gun ACU:

don't really see a problem with their guncom besides having a beyond broken chrono, shield is nice to be offensive and works great if you want to be volatile on the ground, kiting isn't too bad and it comes with a huge tax in a form of apm, mid and late game also comes down to gc being ignored for no reason whatsoever for 1 year by now.
can't see aeon guncom broken late game as well and i'd call it pretty garbage considering that:
1)uef has BaD bIlly NuKe that will surely not whipe a 10k investment randomly
2)sera has a small 50k hp buff and pretty good double gun to play vs land and some exps
3)cyb is just garbage but still gets access to cloak+lazer that can be brutal
aeon has +4 range, cool. (no chrono involved or banned from lobbies)
anything smaller than 3v3 can probably be facing the unstoppable aeon gun com but it's more of a powerspike that you should be at least trying to counter, it's also a combination of aeon having probably the most cost-efficient land in the meta that is also contributing to indirect guncom buff since it gives you access to cheap mobile shields

All true and everyone saying otherwise just can't handle it.

The seraphim destroyer feels weaker somehow without being changed. Not sure how that happened.

Snipers have been nerfed time and time again, yet nothing ever changes because they are an essential matchup unit against T3.5 units (Brick/Percival). Yet snowballing (the claimed problem) isn't the issue. Accuracy while moving is.
Revert the change of firing randomness while moving from 0.5 to 0.8 so sniper death balls can no longer kite as effectively and reduce sniper costs by 80 mass to revert the latest patch change (but keep the energy cost increase to keep preventing rushes).

Air Scouts having jamming has reduced the effectiveness of air denial against UEF air while leaving other factions in a comparatively weaker position. So many jamming signatures can really become a potent phantom HP pool for flying above SAMS.

Agreed (with above post). Additionally having visually striking differences between a support and HQ factory help gameplay. Making the differences too minor (or non-existent) has already been showcased with ACU's and SACU's.

The mat black on the redesigned support factory pillars which support the fins over the build area looks wrong. At least add the lighting effects of white dots from the original model to break up the ugly texture.

@ctrl-k thank you!