Proposition, remove SACU upgrades entirely, instead have a selection of uniquely balanced units for different intended roles.
The main reasoning for doing so is simple, it would significantly boost freedom to tweak and balance each type of SACU. For example, instead of having to give every SACU the same base movement speed and the same upgrade giving the same regen boost, one could easily choose rambos to move slower but have even higher regen, support units to move faster but have slightly lower regen, or any veriation their of.
As a secondary benfit, it also streamlines and standardizes the process of picking and building units, making it fit the already well established methodology used in all other factories.
Besides, there is never any good reason to go and get, for example, a ras preset and resign all the upgrades into a rambo. Just go and build another rambo, it would be faster, cheaper and easier.
Ok thats the big thing out of the way, now for smaller balance details.
UEF engineering upgrade is largely redundant. If you need lots of build power over long range, build kennels. If you need the ability to start building t3 buildings anywhere on the map, just use a transport to move t3 engies or the SACU its self. If you do want to have the SACU to have engie drones, then at least cut it down to one upgrade teir instead of two.
I am all in favor of faction diversity, but in this exact case functionality has been sacrifeced to for the cause.
The base stats of unupgraded SACUs are absurdly high. This was fine before, but now with the intention of lowering them down to fit in with t3 land, being able to build a non experimental unit with a hp over 15k and high regen ontop is excessive. Additionally, the fact that only Aeon SACUs can be one hit killed by overcharge is a bit unfair. Lower the hitpoints of all factions unupgraded SACU to 15k or less.
Remove Aeon sacrifice upgrade and instead give it as an addition to the engie upgrade for no extra cost. Sacrifice is simply way to neiche to justify its existance as a seperate upgrade, ontop of being largely redundant (Two mutually exclusive construction upgrades, just why?)
Buff or replace seraphim SACU TML upgrade. Getting SACUs into play happens much later then getting T2 TML laucnher meaning its much eaiser to counter SACU missiles, they also cost significantly more to build and are semi redundant because you can just use the SACU to build TML laucnhers anyway. As it stands they have very little reason to use instead of other options.
I prepose a few possible changes:
Massively boost the range of the SACU TML so that it substantually out ranges T2 TML.
Buff stats of the TML projectile to differenciate from the t2 version (More missile hp, faster travel speed, larger AoE, EMP effect, stuff like that)
Replace the ability to build TMLs with a MML weapon, kind of like a land equivilent of the seraphim crusier.
Although you are right that the numbers dont line up, there is a significant detial you have missed, spesifically the fact that UEF nano regen ocupies the same slot as the engineering upgrades while the seraphim one doesnt. That is part of its 'cost' that you have to later replace it.
The perpose of the UEF nano is to be an early game boost to combat effectiveness, at the expense of being unviable in the late game, because of this it is cheap and does not allow the constructuon of t2 buildings.
The seraphim nano is the exact oposite, its intended as a more late game boost to surviveability without sacrificeing early game capacity.
Atlantis, a shallow (pun not intended) attempt at faction diversity. Of could have just been given a t3 carrier like everyone else but instead they got a t4 just to be different. But then it would be too different, so instead they got a t3.5
That roughly sums up the whole problem, the Atlantis doesn't know what it wants to be, a t3 aircraft carrier or a t4 submarine, so it tries and fails to be both at once.
It's not a good carrier because its mass cost per BP is over twice as much as other carriers, in fact it's literally cheaper to build a t3 air HQ from scratch if you want t3 air units.
It's not a good submarine because its massive size, slow speed and relatively low hp make it a pitifully easy target to destroy.
The only thing going for it are its relatively cheep cost for a t4 unit, and its decently powerful weapons.
Essentially it is a glass cannon, a quick to build but short term boost to firepower. A gimped monkey lord.
There are a few options on how to rectify this:
Take a heavier focus on the submarine aspect, make it a little smaller, boost its speed, add some anti torpedoes. Make it threatening to enemies naval units.
Take a heavier focus on its carrier aspect, give it much more build power, more powerful AA, maybe even Airstaging (if adding that to a submersible unit doesn't break everything).
Turn it into a dedicated support unit, a t4 cruiser wannabe, using its AA and torps to discourage incoming attacks to your navy while offering extensive sensor range and fighter support.
In my earlier post I suggested removing all upgrades completely, but it seems some people have interprited what I said as haveing different themed SACUs each with their own set of upgrades. For example, a 'base engineering' SACU with low hp, low damage and no combat upgrades, but is cheap, has high BP and upgrades for things like faster build speed, longer build range, RAS, extra mass/energy storage.
And I have to say, I like that idea more. A lot more.
By giving players the ability to build for example a 'base combat' SACU at the gateway that has stats compareable to t3 units but then can be upgraded furthur as needed still gives players some freedom to customize SACUs while still maintaing most of the upsides mentioned before.
Now ontop some other points I desire to be clarified if possible.
Seeing as all SACUs (at least currently(ignoreing the engie drones)) are land units, are there any plans on expanding their impact in air and naval play? Other than spambuilding SAMs/HARMS and reclaiming they really serve nearly no purpose for either.
What is the high end of strength to be expected for SACUs? The low end has been clearly set as to around t3 land, but how much stronger will they get after that with full upgrades, will we start see SACUs 1V1 GCs and winning? David meet Goliath.
Are gateways intended to only a lategame option, or will gateway rushing become a viable strategy to deplay? For example, suppose a player went T1 and T2 land but skipped T3 and went right to building combat and combat-support SACUs to use as the heavy land units.
Adding a toggle, or other method of controling, the death storm is in its self not a bad idea, in fact its something I am favor of happening. The storm always has been a secndary feature to the Ythotha so a minor buff to it wouldnt be a big change.
However, I must say the reasoning provided in this thread for adding such a feature is... lacking. I do not want to be rude in any way, its just a simple fact there is no situation in a normal game (well, unless someone was hardcore goofing aorund) where you would actually end up fighting off 10 EXPs at once, the mass investment and time investment in such a thing is absurd, and more importatntly, is mass and time that could have been spent on much better alternatives such as game enders, arty, nukes, telesnipes, strat bombers ect. Speaking of nukes, from scratch you could build two nuke silos and load them both for a total mass cost of less than two GCs but with enough firepower to one shot a group of twenty GCs.
Now to talk about the elephant in the room, as I said just before, that is in a normal game. But if your playing a game that has heavy unit restrictions and/or encourages concentraited t4 spam, then yes you could end up in this situation, I would know, I have actually been in that same situation. Its not fun knowing that any atempt to attack the enemy will end up in your semy self destructing. But as much as it sucks, its nearly impossable to properly balance that kind of game anyway, not without causeing damage to the balance of other game modes.
I use the ahwassa quite often (relativly speaking) and often to great effect. I find that although its a little frustraiting how poorly it does against shields, the main limiting factor is how easy it dies to even moderage amounts of AA.
This kinda tells you of its intended role, its not a base destroyer. It wont work against areas with lots of shields amd SAMs. But everywhere else? a single bomb drop is enough to shut down almost any army.
I agree that naval nukes do need a revamp, but I dont fully agree with your methodology for achiving this. Reducing sub and nuke costs will more lead to naval nukes being regarded more as disposeable junk to throw at an enemy similar to t2 torps then actually making them offer a unique purpose.
Also, the ability to build cheap nukes would probibly be overpowered as it would allow players to drain enemies SMD stockpile at a reduced cost, and allow players to not really be conerned if a nuke sent into an enemy army/navy would be a net positive mass trade becaise it always would be.
What I would say is a better way to go about things is to move in the opposite direction, make nukesubs a heavy investment but one that can pay of greatly if done with stealth.
Buff nuke subs BT 1080 -> 3000 so they have exactally twice the BP of a normal nuke launcher, to offset difficulty in assisting.
Buff nuke damage from 3000/22000 -> 3250/25000 so that 2 nukes is always enough to kill an unvetted battleship, except for a tempest which would be left on less than 4000 hp. The 250 extra damage on the outer ring is so that it still one hits aeon crusiers to match up with other faction cruisers.
Remove the TML weapon entirely. The idea is stealth, if you want to tml bombard something you dont spend 9k mass on nuke subs when you have crusiers and torrents anyway.
Add strong anti torpedos to all the subs.
Nerf Cybran range for the nuke slighty, it already has radar stealth, it needs a little toning down to prevent getting overbuffed. Plus faction diversity yo.
Im not going to bother going into the details of the sera battleship at this time, that things nuke is such a hot mess I could spent ages talking about it.
Quick and dirty solution that I think will (somewhat) satisfy both people for and against groundfiring subs.
Submerged units revive 50% less (or whatever percent you want) damage from all attacks except torpedos and depth charges.
Bam. Groudfiring subs is still advantageous, but not to the point of rendering them obsolete. Bonus points for making tempest submerge not useless.
Its not a perfect solution, HARMS would need to be nerfed a little to stop it getting overbuffed, and sera t3 subs would still get one shot by tempests and summits (assumeing 50% resistance). But it should work.
@TheWheelie said in Aeon Shield Animation:
Would it be possible to speed up yolo nuke loading animation as well?
Would it be possible to speed up yolo nuke loading animation as well?
This please. I have seen yolos bug out from finishing building but not finish reloading the missile too many times.
Just make it that any unit that has not been damaged in the last 60 seconds gets trippled passive regen rate
Another dumb idea, seeing as curently SACU balance is been looked into, just remove the ability to upgrade them entirely and have a set of indevidual units the gateway can build. No longer would the devs need to balance mixing and matcing upgrades.