In Current State: PA Should be Called "Build Hornets or Lose"

The fact that you have to practically micro them. I sent 4 hornets against the unprotected power gens of my enemy - zero kills. I did manage to hit a factory in a second attempt, but it seems like the bomber delaying land armies tactics are simply gone, the bomber harass is gone and the bomber assassination is also gone

And yeah. You're probably better off building air fabbers now and reclaiming targets, rather than building Bumblebees.

I think they need to work on the bomb drops so they're like TA where the target was the middle of the run rather than the beginning.

Except... that's not what I said.

I only assumed this was what they were going to do. ATM I just thought the carpet bombing didn't get it's desired target leading for it.

I'm guessing it will be to, but until it's confirmed by Uber I prefer to operate under the assumption that it won't.

The best thing about air fabbers is they can build anywhere. When the ability to build on plateaus gets put back in they will gain some real value.

Looking forward to stuff like this. Especially if building a defensive structure on a plateau gives the defensive tower a range bonus. That'll be awesome.

If you were both using Air and you beat him down. Your tactics were superior to his. Good job on the win!

In early Alpha I setup in a "U" shaped plateau region and built AA turrets on all of the surrounding plateaus. I was eventually overrun but the kill ratio of my turrets was easily 10 to 1. Also, in the games current state terrain does not block projectiles like it did in early Alpha. Catapult missiles would collide with terrain instead of fly over it. This forced you to use artillery to reach targets behind features. That also needs to be back in.

Not necessarily. It just means you built more fighters than your opponent.

That is poor gameplay when wins are purely determined by "I built 1 more fighter than you did."

I disagree. That is about allocating resources in a way that will grant you the win.

It means whoever builds only bombers and fighters wins.

That is not balanced gameplay.

There needs to be multiple options.

They key is, there needs to be defenses other than "build one more than your opponent."

If PA is just "build just one more than your opponent" then it will fail as a RTS.

You are right, proper allocation of resources is important to winning. But when there is a certain tactic, like building more fighters and bombers than your oponent, that is a guaranteed win – then the game is a failure.

The key to a balanced game, particularly with RTS, is to have gameplay options and multiple strategies. If the game stays as is (which it won't), then PA really truely will be "Build more fighters than your opponent and you win."

Please try to explain to me how having the game balance in such a way as that a guaranteed win comes from fighter bomber spam and there's no way to counter it other than "build 1 more fighter than your opponent."

The game needs to be adjusted. New units and structures are key to correcting this imbalance.

I agree, there are very few defenses against a dedicated air war. There are also very few defenses against an artillery creep, or a total spam of ground units with mixed anti air units. Or a nuke rush.

My point is not that there are aspects of the game that seem OP. My point is that there are several overall strategy options.

Also, you may not have noticed but in the last patch the bombers effectiveness was greatly reduced. Their attacks no longer track the target and they actually seem to miss far more than they land a projectile.

Uber is addressing these imbalances as much as they can, while considering the state of the game. It has been said on several occasions that most balancing is going to be null and void as the unit roster expands. The current state of the game is in constant flux.

The one unit type I really would have liked to hear something about is an ECM(Electronic Counter Measures) unit. Something that can jam or scramble radar. I see this type of unit to be essential when it comes to developing the overall appeal of the game.

what we could do is:
see how Strats are countered in FAF...
Implement this as a Temporary fix

That doesn't apply to this situation.

I've been using hornets since the beginning when they were like paper planes, heck, 1 t1 AA could take out 4 of them and only one bomb would go off, and the damage was pitiful as it had no AOE. cluster them and it was impossible to get in without an insane amount of T2 bombers.

When air finally got a boost, I felt vindicated and found combat easier as I complement bots and air for ground strikes and air strikes to take out the main bot shredders along with the occasional nuke and line bombing power fields. Prior I had to send an insane amount of bombers just to get an arty, or some defense towers down in a reasonable amount of time when my army arrived. Normally I'd be harassing them with ground units, only getting air in late-mid game when I had the mass ball to do it. With the current air strength, I could actually send out a small squadron for quick strikes on a defense tower protected mex, and have it taken down in a reasonable amount of time. This made the bumble-bee somewhat useful.

I think the best 'nerf' is simply reload time as bombers are strike units against slow moving targets. If damage is nerfed any further we enter the paper plane early days, except the bombs are paper. In my opinion, air is the counter to tanks where tanks counter bots in terms of unit-on-unit combat. Cost wise, air units should cost more in terms of energy or metal.

In my opinion, I think the power is fine for T2 (t1 is actually pretty pathetic in comparison) It's just they're strike units, and strike units should be harder to spam. If you let your enemy amass that many planes, you deserve to get bombed to heck. Same with letting them amass their tank or bot balls. Combat in the third dimension (air) is fluid and fast, I think putting up an /impenetrable/ air wall is a mistake. For me, air is the main way to get rid of Holkins or other anti-land structures for my main army. It's a swiss knife to cut out long range structures so land arty can take out laser towers etc.. so you don't just end up sending 'more land units' to crush against the wall. Given an increased cost, I think a reasonable air raid against a well turtled base without fighters should at least have it's prime target destroyed, not become a carpet cleaner like it is now due to the ammo issue.

One scenario is to damage a turret outpost enough for a land army to move in, so it's not simply a matter of 'sending enough units' in that you can tactically take it over with a good unit balance air/land/sea.

Also recall unit formations are not in yet, and a spread out formation is difficult for bombers to use their AOE.

Well right now the game has switched to build hornets and lose, you simply don't see them anymore. Quite the change

It's pretty sad..

It seems like the issue is the lack of a proper splash damage model. Bombers should do a lot of damage to single target', but the actual splash damage should be fairly terrible against units. Same kind of story for arty

No, they are still strong. When something gets a significant nerf it will feel underpowered and useless for a while. You just need time to reset your expectations.

Not too sure what your definition of 'strong' is, but its not the same as mine. When 40 of them, with no air/ground resistance cant kill a moving commander its a pretty sorry state of affairs. Why would an advanced robotic bomber not be able to lead its target .