Peregrines and Hummingbirds

Hello everyone,
Today I am here to discuss, the difference and balancing changes of theses jets. First and foremost rename the hummingbird to peregrine and vice versa. This is because I think the t2 air fighter should be a helicopter, and the t1 fighter exactly how it is now. The t2 helicopter would have much longer range (2.5 times a t1 fighter) . It would be very slow moving (1/4 a gunships speed) and slow firing but hard hitting with aoe. It would be great for countering patrolling mass fighters, but would be horrible for regular air support or emergency response because of its show rate of fire and horrible speed. Discuss?

You're in luck! There's a Sub-forum dedicated to things like this!

Balance Discussion Sub-Forum

Lol, *facepalms with the force of a thousand immortals*, extremely sorry never took noticethat we had that because of the occasional balance posts here. Well never let it happen again. =/

Now that's an interesting idea.

I kinda like it. It'd be difficult to balance because such a unit could be pretty game breaking in large groups. But doable.

I mainly like the idea of the (current) Hummingbird being the king of the skies.

Ah but, fighters that were slightly microed could probably easily dodge the slow anti air missiles launched by the heli. It would take take some work to balance however, but one done I think it could add a really nice dimension to air instead of just spam more peregrines than them

Now that, I don't like.

I don't like mechanics that specifically give benefit to micro.

Yes, micro will always be an element. But we can still have mechanics that are macro oriented.

If it's set up so it encourages micro, then we run into ASF battles from SupCom. Whoever clicks the fastest while controlling a group of units, wins. And I don't like that.

The game is supposed to be about who out strategizes their opponent, not who out clicks their opponent.

The peregrines previously had an issue where you should simply never build them because hummingbirds were better for cost. They were the only advanced unit that was actually worse than the equivalent cost in basic, because the extra range meant nothing unless you microed them precisely.

Personally I think they could fire a swarm of missiles at once, with a cool down time until the next swarm can be launched.

I sort of agree with your idea.

t1 fighters could get pecked off by t2 fighters from the t2 fighter's own base, but t1 fighters can also swarm on t2 fighters and the t2 fighters can't defend themselves alone.

Better than the t2 fighters killing 10 times it's own weight in t1 fighters in any situation ever.

It would be nice for t1 fighters to kill an absurd cost of t2 fighters, and t2 fighters still being good enough to build.

Besides being mostly an idea I have already suggested, the details with changing names and making t2 a helicopter with slower speed, I say this is the best idea suggested so far.

t1 fighter = cheap, fast, rapid fire, medium-low range, one target at a time.

t2 fighter = expensive, slow, single fire and very slow reload, long range (almost gil-e), one target at a time but with aoe

t1 fighter use = build hundreds and swarm around, if you see a t2 fighter then swarm t1 fighters on it for kills

t2 fighter use = fly over top of friendly flak or stingers, peck at enemy fighters from safe range, reduce number of enemy fighters and enemy fighter stockpile and patrol endlessly.

I am not saying heavy micro or anything. I am talking about the sort of micro we have with bots right now. They can easily kill things without micro but if you just need the extra edge they are microable and receive a small bonus. This is what I meant with the t1 jet swarming you can just stomp all over them if you have enough. However you it is also possible to micro them to suffer less losses which may be helpful. I know people hate micro in this game and it is very much a game about macro but I think that eventhough macro is quite nice and works great in a huge scale RTS I would also love the option to micro units just to be slightly more efficient or come out win in a very very close battle. Why not help out both parties as it is possible, I think the dox is a perfect example of that.

I 100% agree with this. I just love the diversity as of right now the Pergerine is just a humming bird that shoots 5x the missiles that do much more damage, have AOE, can take a bunch more hits and looks cooler when landed on the ground with the winds folded up.

For the sake of development resources, they COULD keep their current model, as long as they were slow and had a slow rate of fire and a longer ranged missile. The little hummingbirds can still swarm them and kill them, cool looking model or not. TBH, the peregrine model does look convincingly slow.

It makes sense though, that a helicopter could hover though. If they had a model sitting around for it somewhere.

I guess my only problem with the above proposal is it will simply turn the t2 fighter into the equivalent of the anchor in the current build...

I dont think so, anchors fire ridiculously fast and constant weapons with health which is why I think avengers cant really do much to them. If the t2 fighters fired slowly, and moved really slowly and had 1 t1 fighter could take out 1 t2 fighter I dont think that problem would plague the air layer since t1 fighters would remain the king of the skys.

Yeah, the t2 fighter would kill 1 t1 fighter without a fighting chance, but 3 fighters go after a t2 fighter and the t2 fighter can neither run away nor shoot more than 1 without the other 2 swiftly swooping in and tearing up the t2 fighter.

Anchors, they need work in a similar way. They are ridiculous. They need to kill 2 avengers on approach, the 3rd one should start attacking it by time shot at, and the 5th one should probably kill it. Right now, the health makes sure it is never killed by avengers, and the range and damage and rate of fire makes sure avengers rarely make it to an anchor even if 10 strong.

Well at least the anchor is satellite like, unlike the air 2.0 orbital fighter!

instead of proposing to change the anchor, can we please change the orbital fighter?

Even if it becomes more like a space shuttle or something, but please no more space planes.

Id bring the t2 fighter damage down to slightly better than the hummingbird and give it the ability to travel between planets and fight in both layers (orbital and air).

You could use them to gain control of an area to lay down a teleporter.

Then id get rid of the orbital fighter.

I think Uber just needs to rip the guts out of orbital and start again. There isn't anything in there that screams "satellite".


Read up on the new Civilisation game - satellites give economic, military or espionage bonus, but their orbit degrades over time, plus they can be shot down by other players.

That already sounds a lot more like the way orbital should be in PA. Yet in PA, we basically just have spaceships, the way things are currently going.

Yes but then it would make the t1 fighter practically useless. If the t2 fighter does even slightly more damage plus gets the huge advantage of the planet travel. Unless the cost was really upped so t1 fighters were still possible to use later in the game. But then again on a single planet system the t1 fighters would be much more effective. If one fighter is made better in practically everyday with no real down falls except for price than in the end one of the fighters is always going to come out on top in alot of scenarios.

Moved

I hate to say this but t2 has to be better than t1, if not then you have 2evenly matched fighters which makes one or the other obsolete besides design of unit.

T2 is suppose to be "specialized" so change the damage to be the same as a hummingbird and allow it to travel both layers. Air is brokin badly...