Why no Advanced AA?

just strolling in, giving my mustard to the discussion.
i had an idea about some differentiation between F&F missile AA turrets and AA gun emplacement.
how about a basic AA gun turret (com buildable, not able to shoot land), a basic AT laser turret (the new one perhaps ?),
advanced (t1 fabber built) aa missile (imagine single shot missile turret instead of a missile battery) turret. and a t2 swarm missile multi launch platform (overkill controlled maybe ?)
and how about a t2 gun platform ... like 3 aa guns in a triangle shape... imagine ww2 flak towers in germany, without the flak part... i saw that people dont like that.

one question i want to ask is why there is only a single type of AT turret... laser... how about some basic LLT, a t1 fabber gun turret with splash and a t2 fabber heavy hitting E-Cannon type weapon platform, ... like the brimstone from Supcom FA mod 4th dimension...

There is a T1 static artillery station that has some splash, and should be somewhat effective at the role.

And as of the current patch we have 2 T1 lasers, a one barrelled one and a double barrelled one. Seemly the newer single barrelled one covers the role of taking on smaller and faster opponents where the double one can deal with all kinds of heavy tanks.

Much like the LLT and GAAT/Sentinal from TA is many regards.

Hopefully we will get an energy cost to fire to help balance the more powerful double and triple barrelled turrets.

Of course he didn't type it. He implied it within the specific context of what he quoted and then exactly what he replied with in sequence. The context of his post challenged something completely different from what the content did. I replied to the context as well as the content. I realize now that my original reply is probably bizarre because I replied to a context which existed that apparently wasn't intended to. English follows suit whether you see it or not. I see all context literally, and react to it just as I would the content it's created from. It's like trying to read sarcasm in plain text without the help of stressing words in any way.

Honestly, I really don't care either way by now. I didn't change the subject, nor am I arguing in circles. The subject never changed. Not once. I've always been on the same thing since my first post. Everything I've stated is a direct reply to sentences I was given. It's ok, though. Go ahead and think you've won and that I'm some stupid ignorant child or something. Wouldn't be the first time, and won't be the last. In fact, you win. I'm some stupid ignorant child or something. Happened.

On topic, What I always found weird was that the AA missile packs that the units and buildings have.. hold several individual rocket chambers yet only shoots one at a time. I don't know if that's the final pass on the AA, but either it should look different and shoot one rocket, or have several chambers and shoot several rockets, albeit weaker. I don't mind either way, but having it like it is now is just strange. Maybe the current visualization of AA could be your multi-missile units/buildings. Personally, I'd rather have some type of direct fire as well as missile-type AA, but more missile-based AA is still welcome.

Another thing I found strange was the way laser defense turrets have all barrels retain the exact same firing sequence, but only one actually fires. Both of the basic and all three of the advanced defense turret barrels have the exact same kickback from the firing sequence, but only one actually emits a laser. I'm sure this is just unfinished visuals of the buildings themselves, and will be finalized in some way down the line.

I never noticed that before. It would look better if the AA fired multiple missiles at once.

You may want to fix your post of quotes. You're quoting two people incorrectly. xD

It's not something you notice offhand, but I spent a lot of time actually enjoying the game in every possible form, (instead of only playing dot wars like some of the others on the forum), so I notice stuff like this really quickly.

Thanks for that heads up! I'm used to having syntax highlighting whenever I'm editing code so those extra tags slipped by me. I play whenever I get the time too, but I'm a programmer, not a designer, so I just don't think of stuff like that.

firing 10 missiles that do 10% the damage each would be infinitely cooler...but it might kill FPS during a huge air raid, or simply just make visibility of the field worse.

I have to admit comparing this to TA or even Supcom feel a little naked ( granted its still in dev ) T2 flaks in TA never routed out air assault completely but it did force an air assault to be more elaborate, as for the SAMs in supcom I do not think they where too strong it did its job against gunships but not against T3 bombers. Besides gunship where made to engage tanks not static defenses XD. To me planes should be easy to shoot down but they should hit hard, that alone should be enough to encourage air strikes.

I agree. Currently it takes a massive amount of AA towers, patrolling fighters and constant rebuilding to hold off large T2 bomber strikes.

The flak in TA were exceptional versus gunships, and anything flying slowly overhead. construction aircraft, bombers that were turning, fighters that parked in the worst space possible, whatever. If it was a gunship assault, a couple flak cannons would tear them a new one before they got a handful of shots out.

They weren't designed to take out anything flying fast, and they aren't supposed to. that's what the missile towers were for. The towers were extremely cheap, built really fast, had pretty nice range, and their life was trash. It really was a perfect fit. If you had a lot, you'd wreck air, but it had just as much chance of wrecking them. Gunships and bombers ate the missile towers like candy, as did the flak cannons the opposite.

I'm actually glad both of them had reverse roles. Gunships were really evil in packs, but even a single flak could down dozens of gunships singlehandedly. They didn't even have hands, either, so that's even more impressive. Immobile flak was also very expensive to invest in too. Air and ground both had direct counters in every way. The missile towers could have been a bit stronger against the quicker aircraft, but otherwise it was fair enough.


Even if we don't get any type of flak, the idea behind the fairness that TA had is something PA needs to center on. I realize Uber isn't focused on balance right now, but just knowing if they're going to implement PA's style of everything shoots at everything is really going to help shape what kind of advanced AA the game should have.