Balance of flack, and should it change

Well that is not the point of teching up any more, the point is to unlock more options and strategys, but not full on better replacements.

I must have missed the memo then lol.

The only thing from T1 I EVER take into T2 is mobile AA. That's it. Everything else is literally obsolete.

And that is a problem, you just invalidate half the game when you do that.

Maybe, but that could just be what Uber is aiming for. As for the thread though, this is about T2 Flak rendering T2 bombers obsolete, but also about the fact T2 bombers need a counter because they have a series of issues with them.

I am not convinced that flak is the best way of administering that balance, but rather its a problem with the bombers themselves.

Whereas I am of the mind that Flak as a defence is a perfect way of dealing with Mid to late game bomber spam, the problem is just that it's less of a flak defence and more of a explosive sniper cannon.

Id vote for you.

No it's not, and you've just explained why:

There is only one way for a ground defense to kill bombers before they drop, and that's to be a better bomber than the bomber. A defense that can not handle taking the bomber's first strike HAS to instagib the enemy or it will not defend.

I'm not quite sure what you're trying say. Are you telling me that the current implementation of T2 AA is balanced?

I'm saying if you think it is balanced, it is time to see a doctor.

I never said that though. Read the thread:

I'm saying that the idea of a Flak based defence is brilliant, but it's current implementation needs serious work...

i get the feeling that bobucles's entire argument is that the bomber -must- be able to land its first strike when facing static defenses, or else the AA is OP

.....despite the obvious that the entire point of AA (and fighters, respectively) is to prevent that from happening.

and while there's no way in hell a few regular AA towers can stop a mass of bombers, the T2 AA (Flak cannon)

can instagib anything within its blast radius if there's a pair of them.

on the other hand, that is precicely why it functions the way it does, alebeit very crudely. because people would make so many T2 bombers, that literally -nothing- could stop their advance in time (seriously, NOTHING). **** was gonna get blown up, period.


so now ( ignoring all other factors) we arrive at the classic case of:

Unstoppable Force (T2 Bomber swarm) vs. Immovable Object (T2 Flak Cannon with AoE)

if you nerf one, the other becomes overpowered.

i will leave the rest of you to iterate on this.

Anybody tried the T1 bomber on early bots?

Its surprisingly effective and well balanced considering the need for multiple runs to clear them, giving the AA a chance to fight back.

Id like T2 bombers to be like that, possibly with buildings instead.

You could split T2 bomber's role in two and give half of it to gunships.

Nerf ground unit damage the bomber through bomb flight time/number/blast radius and steer it to be more effective versus static emplacements where the bombs will certainly hit. While the gunship's maneuverability and rapid fire would be much better suited to attacking moving ground units. Flak can be toned down versus bombers accordingly.

With a less powerful general bomber and a few more ground unit options for AA, the T2 bomber fares worse against unit AA, but better against flak and missiles. The gunships would fare better against unit AA but worse against static flak and turrets. The T1 bomber retains both roles though at its T1 power level and doesn't make it entirely useless.

Additionally this gives more incentive to build more ground based AA units and makes the air game more diverse than just spamming bombers and try to screen with fighters. Flak then doesn't completely nullify all air since a defensive player only building static AA is susceptible to attacks by bombers, including the flak towers. On the flip side a player who only builds unit AA will have more trouble if you send gunships their way. If you can read your opponent you can prepare accordingly whether you are attacking or defending. To properly defend or attack requires a mix of both.

This is pretty much it. Don't agree on the flak to hit different units better or worse however giving gunships a use whilst cutting t2 bombers aoe is all that is needed.

As I have mentioned before the flak works fine but is too cheap so easy to spam around key building. Which makes it op. If it was more expensive it would be harder to surround all your key areas with flak. And the attacker could then find a good line to kill the structure and be punished for not scouting or flying over flak.

If you want to take out bombers before they reach their target then you put your AA wayyyyy on the outskirts of your base or you use the intended, mobile counter of fighters.

But if it's T2 bombers, it better be T2 fighters or you are essentially screwed.

Of course, like having ants try defend against levellers. Enough will work but Better to use t2.

Look. If the game can't COPE with the idea of a powerful first strike unit, get rid of it! It's really that simple.

Anyone with half a brain can realize that bombers utilize a very explicit set of strengths and weaknesses which are best dealt with in a certain way. If it seems like the flak weapon has to resort to excessively inflated stats just to deal with this threat, that's because it's the WRONG tool for the job. It was never remotely the correct solution in any way, which is why it struggles to succeed despite being 10 times stronger than everything else in the game. It should then be no surprise that flak will NEVER create good gameplay, because it can not deal with how a bomber works.

The right tool gets the job done without straight up cheating. Stop shoving square pegs into triangle holes.

It's not the games fault you don't place the flak in the correct place.