Astraeus/Transport HP carrying Commanders Vs. Air

What is counter intuitive is that one of the strongest units in the game can be destroyed with one shot.

Yeah, it's balanced when you shoot the transport down, not when a T1 fighter one shot kills your commander because a short fall kills him instantly.

Then protect the transport. Scout the route. It's almost like different units are interacting to create gameplay.

Short fall? Don't aircraft fly higher than mountains in this game? But frankly, who gives a ****? It's a balance issue.

That doesn't address the issue.

That has nothing to do with my point, as you are defecting the issue.

A carried unit should insta die if the transport is hit, that has always been bad gameplay from games, they should die if they are left to fall or drown in a environment they are not suited to survive from, but to insta die from the destroyed transport, not even to fall just to magically disappear or randomly explode is really really stupid.

And WE GIVE A DAMN, that is why we are on these forums, to just up and claim that no one cares shows me that you don't care and shouldn't even be in the discussion if you don't.

Not even bmb just claims people don't care and that they shouldn't discuss things, sure people disagree with the guy but we defiantly won't stifle his ability to try.

Don't be the person who is like that.

I was taking off in an Astraeus early game. I had an AA tower. You're correct it''s a balance issue - Transports and the Astraeus need more HP. But your Commander should still be able to survive a fall in my opinion.

Hopefully Bombers won't be stacking to such a degree. Land units' total damage is mitigated by the fact that they can't occupy the same space.
I think some units being able to survive the fall would be a fairer way of representing their strength, rather than having airborne tanks.

Oh good God. You brought up fall distances, and I'm calling it stupid. No one should give a damn about fall distance because this is a game not a simulation, if you care about that then we're never even going to be able to discuss it because your mindset is so far outside what I understand...

You haven't explained why it's bad gameplay, you just keep saying it is.

This is a projectile physics based game, everything simulation matters because that is the point, you cannot ignore it or just say that because you don't understand it that we shouldn't consider it.

If this is too complicated for you to understand, then I don't even know what game you have been playing.

And it is bad gameplay because a fighter craft, designed to kill aircraft, can kill a land unit, in a single shot that doesn't have enough damage to kill it.

And yet it does, because destroyed transports cause their cargo to instantly die, instead of letting the simulation decide how much damage would be done.

I have explained this twice now, so no more saying that I haven't explained it to you.

None of that has anything to do with falling. We simulate small elements, like orbits and projectiles... so now we must model everything? Such as Commanders falling through ice due to poor weight distribution? The astraeus being unable to escape gravity due to lack of propulsion?

Or did you mean only where you want it?

Guess what, gameplay wins out over simulation. You must provide gameplay reasons, not "I like simulation" bollocks.

Why is that bad? It's a risk of attaching your high health unit to a low health but more mobile one.

I HAVE, the gameplay reason is not have a 80 damage http://www.nanodesu.info/pa-db/61250/unit/fighter.html, destroy a 20 HP http://www.nanodesu.info/pa-db/61250/unit/transport.html and then instantly kill a 12500 hp commander http://www.nanodesu.info/pa-db/61250/unit/raptor_base.html for no good reason, as you have provided none.

This isn't to do with simulating everything, this is to do with not having a instantaneous lose situation because you killed one of my unit's that isn't a commander.

And id love to have the other simulation things you suggested, unless you thought you had trumped me by suggesting things that I am guessing you would also not want.

It's bad because killing a transport should not kill it's cargo, the resulting fall could and should, but no the death of the transport.

Pretty sure if your transport blows up and your commander plows into the ground at terminal velocity, its safe to say he is pretty much fucked.

So adding fall damage just seems very.... pointless. It would just replace what we already have. The problem is probably the popcorny air combat, and low transport health.

I don't see a problem with transport cargo dying immediately... again, want it to be safe, don't transport it, and have it slog its way to wherever. Commanders shouldn't get special treatment... that would just make them ideal units to pair with the transport for an assault.

If you mean the orbital transport, then I agree.

But the air transports, no way do they carry things high enough for units to get to there terminal speeds.

But another point that you have reminded me of, is that we really should see it happen to both put the wreckage on the ground, and to visually show the player what happened.

Again, killing the commanders from the fall is fine from orbit, but you NEED to show it to the player so they can understand why he died, instead of the commander vanishing or exploding in the air (Or space) for no good reason.

Frankly, the debate over what units should survive the fall is interesting and could go on, but igncom1 hits the nail on the head when he points out the 20 HP Transport being transposed for the 12500 HP Commander's.
The Commander is a Commander. He's a tough bastard and should survive a fall from anything short of Orbit - re-entry would cause him to burn up.

Quitch argues that the HP exchange is fair due to the increased manoeuvrability. If so, why are other Air units so durable (ignoring Flak, which is artificial)?

sypheara places the blame on 'popcorny air combat', which I suppose means that he believes Air to be too weak? Short of making Transports incredibly strong, or linking them inexplicably to the relative strength of their cargo, falling from carriers seems to be the solution to me.
Fall damage would be based upon several factors:

• What the unit lands on.
• How high the transport was when it was destroyed. If it's very nearly landed and gets shot down, units should have a higher chance of surviving.
• The strength/weight of the unit falling.

Against air units they're not. It's all one shot kills (a Peregrine can take out five units with a single burst). Ground AA sucks balls, but that's a balance issue that needs resolving.

I don't really like the idea of units falling from transporters and surviving. It means that if you try and drop 50 beef tanks into an enemy base covered with flak and fighters, then despite their best efforts to prevent it, they will still have to deal with tens of annoyed, scatterd tanks in and around their base. And yes, it also still means comm drops are annoying,

Most units shouldn't survive the fall, and the commanders should be damaged, possibly rather heavily by doing so.

It would need to be balanced based on altitude/unit type. Broadly speaking, T1 should die, T2 should survive the fall but be practically dead. Commanders should take a heavy hit but not be close to death.

This sounds alright.

>this game is not a simulation

TA is moreso a simulation than any other strategy game, that's part of the beauty. Its mechanics are not arbitrary, but simply natural consequences of the elements of the simulation.

And most of its problems are from things that aren't simulated properly. See: this thread.