POLL: Balancing Air - Continued!

Flow fields deal with pathing from Point A to Point B - That's not the problem here. Flocking behaviour allows you to separate aircraft (which was already an easy problem to solve), but doesn't provide a solution to the bomber attack run issue.
Also, ground units are allowed to stop and maneuver around each other. Aircraft can't do that in mid-air without all becoming gunships.

"in such a way" ... isn't a way. It's not a simple problem that can be waved away by saying it will just happen - I'm asking how there would be no concentration at the target. I picked examples in the pictures where some typical responses like "fly together, form a line then go" just don't work, as they would result in silly or unexpected behaviour. Plus some of my dot point outline easy ways of exploiting the system that need to be accounted for too. I'm trying to make you see just how complex a proposal this is, and that it's not at all straightforward, or possibly even feasible.

That's easy to abuse. Just build cheap scout aircraft and use them as kamikazi units against enemy aircraft.

Ok, a lot of cases there so lets see how I go... (warning long post)
The trick with no stacking is not that units cannot clip through each other at all but it helps prevent the current bombing runs in PA (see below - the top right is 19 bombers stacked on-top of each other)



Now I know I am no expert in computer game logic so I went to look at the past games, try to work out what they did (not saying this is exactly what we should do). While they are by no means the same (SC2 with its everything has anti-air and FA with its SAM sites) it provides a good starting point. So I went and ground fired there bombers for a bit...


Raven is right here, in that planes clip through each other for the bombing runs. However this is very different to the stacking we currently have (side by side below with lines showing the exit runs)


So as the bombing runs themselves are not the problem I looked at general formations and spacing.
In PA formations and landing give very very tight groups where the planes stack in high numbers, giving very high alpha strike where anti air cannot reliably hit a single target (reducing losses to bombers)

To compare this to FA formations and plane landing, which are spread out possibly even further then needed (even after given a group move command)


This is the stacking I at least am talking about, clipping and units crossing over I don't mind, but in general flight they should be more spread out. This increases the time required to deal damage and increase single bomber exposure to anti air.

Is this the final solution? of course not, air will still require balancing like everything else but it will help reduce the current air power present in the game.

I think you are making a base assumption that all bombers must be able to hit the target. When this is not necessarily true. This is a basic limitation imposed by space, just like a giant blob of tanks are not necessarily able to hit their target all at once. In this case flying in a line, and simply dropping bombs close by when you can't hit your intended target, or in fact picking a different target just like a tank would when it can't hit its primary target, is a solution.

The whole point of air collision is to avoid the silly situation of 1000 bombers all able to hit their target at the same time. So no, bombers should not be able to always hit their target. Fighters have longer range weapons so overlap is less of a problem.

If I recall correctly the line formation thing was even used in TA which had far more primitive pathing. And as a 2D game it essentially had vertical stacking as an effect for "free".

Thank you for this post, it brings up good considerations for the practicality of non-stacking Bomber runs. I'll be as thorough as possible in my response, as there are certainly different unit behaviors which need to arise from not being able to occupy the same space.

First off, there's the problem you point to of Aircraft all moving like Gunships. I'm not convinced this would be the case, as one formation could fly over or under another without stopping or slowing.

Secondly, if Airspace is limited and two people fly two enormous swarms of Aircraft at each other, why shouldn't there be collisions? Hell, I collide in War Thunder and Battlefield 4 all the time, and there are vastly fewer planes in the sky. Obviously Aircraft should do their best to avoid each other - however allowing Aircraft to collide would put a cap on how many Aircraft could be crammed into one atmosphere - in the same way that you can't build more Land units once you have filled every available inch of land.
The prospect of spammed scouts being used as kamikaze units is interesting. It would be up to UBER whether they thought this a acceptable tactic. If not, scouts could fly at a higher altitude above the normal range of other aircraft.

Now, on to Bombing Runs
We first need to make a distinction between the two different types of attack we have for Bombers:

1. Single Targets
2. Area Commands

1. Single Targets:
If a Bomber cannot hit its target because there is something in the way (such as another Bomber), it should drop its bomb as close as possible, or if possible, wait for a gap in which it can drop its bomb. Obviously 'As close as possible' would need to be limited to a certain range - perhaps that Bomber's AOE.

For single targets, Bombers would only form a line if they were all coming from a remote location towards a single distant target. They would not all hover behind each other in this line, waiting to move - they would only join the attack-run once they could progress at speed towards the target. They would continue doing whatever they were doing before the order, before peeling off onto the attack run. The line would form as each Bomber peeled off towards its target and was able to do so without slowing or stopping.

However, if they were already surrounding the target, Bombers would circle it at multiple altitudes, attacking any other targets that became available, and take turns to swoop in and bomb the primary target.

Coupled with this is the use of formations. You might be able to choose whether bombers grouped in a phalanx of 3 or more Bombers (though this could be automatic based upon target size), thus ensuring that more bombs could be dropped on, or very close to, the target. This would work better with larger targets like buildings, but would ensure that even if a target moved, you would have a higher chance of hitting it.

For various speeds of Bombers, whichever was able to make the attack first would do so. If I have a Dox blob and a Leveller blob, and I tell them to attack the same target from the same distance, I should know which will reach there first - they should not attack in the order I tell them to attack, but attack based upon whether they can first. Said Dox blob might obstruct Leveller blob in attacking first, but we would think nothing of it. So too with Bombers.

If different selections were given an order to attack the same thing, they would attempt to drop bombs as close as possible, or continue doing what they were doing before if they could not get close enough. If they miscalculated or something got in the way - like an enemy or friendly Air unit, they would not be able to drop their bombs through it (though they might not be so worried about dropping their bombs on enemy Aircraft; something for UBER to decide).

New Bombers joining an attack would be aware of other Aircraft as obstacles to avoid. They might not join the queue - again either dropping bombs as close as possible or circling the target until an opportunity arose in which they could swoop in.

Bombers auto-attacking on patrol would circle a target too. If the target was a large blob of units, they would form into larger formations.

If Bombers can attack the ground near the target, they should do so - but not if the path between their bombs and the ground is obstructed. Avoiding another line of Bombers would not be so difficult, unless the sky were packed with Aircraft, in which case collisions or grounding would occur; they would just pull up or down to another altitude.

I don't understand why every single bomber NEEDS to hit the same target. They are powerful enough to pretty much take anything out with just 4 or 5 so if they get into a grid pattern that is 4 or 5 deep, then they could cover a very wide area of damage.
Bombers never ALL go after one target, they just fly over areas with stuff that should be bombed and let it all loose.

IMO adv. bombers should follow area commands where they just carpet bomb as they fly within the defined area. Basic bombers, however, should definitely be able to hit specific targets. They should not stack though, and should fly in single-file if they are given a single-target order.

If this were to happen, adv. bombers should have a longer bomb drop time but drop a lot fewer bombs. They should be good against groups of units and buildings, not individual buildings. If they drop their payload over 2 seconds instead of a half-second would make it less effective against single targets than the basic bomber.

Sigh. I deleted the second half of my post because copy/paste didn't work due to images in it - I went over 10,000 Characters lol. Anyway, I'll rewrite it:

2. Area Commands
Broadly speaking, behaviour would be a scaled-up version of attacking a single target, with bomber formations carpet bombing an entire area. Area Commands should be the primary use of bombers - they should be able to kill high-value single targets with several passes, but a formation of bombers should do general damage over a large area to an army or base. Those that could not attack would circle. Those that collided with enemy Aircraft would collide and explode, ensuring that Air didn't ever become an utter wall of Aircraft between the Ground and the Player - as often happens when one attempts to orchestrate a ground battle with Fighter blobs raging overhead.

Formations would be a V, 3-11 Bombers wide depending on the circumference of the Area Command zone, that carpeted an entire area. These formations would break off into the circling group (which lets remember can stack due to difference of altitude, but cannot stack their attacks) and reform in order to attack new targets.

Here are your scenarios with no-stacking mechanics:

I apologise if some of these are messy.
Key is remembering that Bombers can stack by altitude whilst not attacking, and that they will only commence an attack once they can do so without slowing (based upon what your other Aircraft are doing). The only time Air can't overlap is when it needs a clear path between the bomb being dropped and the ground.
If an enemy Aircraft obstructs a bombing run, the Bomber should try to avoid it - but if the two clip wings, they should collide in a glorious ball of flaming wreckage and death.

Circling around a single target, the Bombers would identify secondary targets whilst waiting for the primary one (E.G. the Commander) to become available for a run. This would work in a similar way to a patrol picking targets, except all the while to hit the the main designated target.

With area commands, larger V formations would form and carpet bomb everything in that area. Formation size would be determined by the circumference the Area Attack Command designated.

With single targets, formations would be limited by the AOE of the bombers and the size of the target. For example, a V of five bombers might all be able to just about hit a building, while a V of only 3 would be able to hit a single unit like a Commander.

I hope that goes some way to answering your questions.
Stacking by altitude would be necessary to avoid collisions and prevent the space between Ground and the Player becoming a blinding sheet of Aircraft.
Collisions would prevent every square inch of atmospheric space being filled by Aircraft, thus keeping games from becoming about "Who can spam more Fighters/Bombers?!" and rewarding adaptive strategies which combine Air, Land and/or Naval. Collisions would also reduce lag by keeping numbers down, and would look sexy as hell.

Neat, but what about ammo? If we ever get bombers with especially limited ammo (recharge rates are very high right now), I would likely want all my bombs dropped on a single priority target. Maybe a 'priority target' firing mode would fix that, though I'm loath to suggest that?

I was under the impression ammo would recharge or cost energy, rather than need replacing elsewhere?
If you're circling/roaming then that means there are already plenty of Bombers attacking the target; you're going to have time to use a bomb on a secondary target and recharge.
If there aren't many bombers attacking the target, then you'll be able to drop your bomb straight away, and so the won't need to worry about wasting ammo on secondary targets whilst circling.

TL;DR: Bombers should only be attacking secondary targets when the primary one is covered.

Yes, it costs energy, but the RATE it replenishes could be made very slow. Right now it's very fast. If it only recharged 1 bomb every 10 seconds, both your proposed behavior and the current behavior would result in a lot of bombs NOT going on the priority target.

Primary targets are very easy to handle. You pick a number of bombers and click the target.

The hard part is having bombers spread out and work a large number of targets. Their handling is too awkward for the orders to be given by hand.

The issues with air seem to me to be:

1. Bombers counter mobile ground units
2. The only counter to bombers attacking mobile ground units is fighters
3. This leads to games being dominated by air because it is its own counter
4. T2 air completely invalidates T1 air

So the ways to resolve this seem to me to be:

1. Change bombers to use a single slow bomb (without AoE) rather than a chain. This would move them to strategic bombing of stationary targets, like artillery, nukes and anti-nukes.
2. Now fighters become interceptors and a better way of dealing with them but not the only way. They can now go and do what they're probably supposed to do, which is spank gunships.
3. By stopping bombers invalidating the entire ground game you are no longer forced to go air.
4. Mobile AA still needs to be far more powerful, and include mobile flak, to allow a player who has lost the air war to still be able to survive the (I'm sure soon to be buffed) gunships.

I'm not sure how you deal with T1 vs. T2 air. I guess you make T2 bombers high damage single shot and T1 bombers low damage single shot with rapid reload, so the T1 bombers are for raiding outlying MEXs and T2 are for priority targets.

Having all bombers have no AoE feels wrong flavor and AWESOME-wise. I mean, bombs explode. That's kind of their whole thing.

Unfortunately with AoE you can't stop them hitting mobile units. You'd just target the first unit in a blob to hit the middle of it and vaporise everything.

The best defense against a bomber is to not be the target of a bomber. Stealth and cloak are king in this department. Wide spread formations also excel by mitigating splash damage.

Pop up weapons are another option that was abandoned from TA for some reason. When the weapon is inactive it receives a large damage mitigation which excels against alpha strike damage (guess what bombers use?). After taking damage the weapon deploys, now at an advantage because the bomber wasted its main attack. Even if the weapon is destroyed, it stole the attention of extra bombers that were not killing everything else on the ground.

Since bombers store energy, an EMP type weapon can attack its energy storage directly and render their weapon inoperable. This could be done by directly removing energy, or by eliminating its ability to regenerate. The latter option can be expanded to be an anti-fabber type of weapon as well. Without a connection to the resource grid, the fabber would be utterly helpless. Either way you are disabling the bomber without resorting to an infinite kill gun.

See what I'm doing? I'm coming up with TRAITS that work great against bombers. It's not all a numbers game. Sometimes you have to get smart for a counter to perform its task without breaking the game.

Why would you change half a dozen units to counter an OP unit (potentially introducing new issues), instead of just changing the OP unit?

Who says that killing bombers is their only function? Not everything in an RTS has to solve a single problem. Instead of having a single unit with a single job of killing bombers, now you have a lot of units that can mitigate, avoid, or neutralize bombers while performing more than a single function.

What happens when a lot of units (and their accompanying strategies) also happen to be effective against bombers? Suddenly, bombers aren't so OP anymore. Ta daaa.

No one said that.

Stacking remains an issue since the introduction of Gunships. It'd be good to hear what Uber think of not having Air Stacking, as it was by far the most popular option in the poll.