Catapult/Holkins Range

I think the range is al-right.
But the Catapults need to not be Heatseeking (i.e. they need to be capable of missing) because that ruins play on small planets, and means fast-moving units have no advantage.

I don't agree with the slammer part of your post, because the catapult performs crazy overkill on slammers and a group of slammers will have far more units to kill.

As for the vanguard aspect, vanguards could do with 40% less HP in my opinion.

Oh, and one thing I find weird is that the firing rate for the catapult is listed as 1 shot/s on PADB and PAmatches, when the real firing rate is obviously once every ten seconds. 1 shot per second would definitely be overpowered though.

It fires once every ten seconds. The tracking is not a problem against fast units, because it deals 3000 damage to a single unit every 10 seconds.

This should be an indication that many 'good players' aren't always playing the same game as the rest of us.
1v1 Matches are just as extreme as 10p ffas on <400.
They're the other extreme, and in the high-end lead to a lot of micro which is no more about what PA's macro goal is about than the 10p Boxing matches which a lot of people enjoy because of the ground-focussed combat this mode forces in a game currently dominated by Nukes on planets of a larger scale.
Using a single bomber to take out engineers, using Snipers and Vanguard drops, caring about the cost of a handful of units... it's just not the scale I signed up for.
How often are planets smashed in a 1v1?
How often does somebody make a few dozen factories and churn out armies?

Catapults having homing ruins play on small worlds.
A few catapults = no hostile teleporters.
On a world with an enemy Commander? You win.
A possible solution:
They should be accurate enough to hit slow moving big ships (like Battleships and Missile Ships), Mobile Artillery and buildings, but not fast moving Commanders and armies.

What do you think?

They should still be able to avoid being hit. That's part of the point of them being fast. I do think missiles should be fairly accurate - more so than Artillery.
Also 3000 unavoidable damage to Commanders over a minute will end the game.

Problem is, the commander isn't really fast. You can't make it too bad to hit a commander but good enough to hit other slow beefy units. In terms of DPS, it's already rather ineffective at its role and may even warrant a buff in my opinion.
Like I said, I strongly suspect the real problem here is with intel and not the catapult itself. A stealth system could fix commander sniping with it entirely (and would fix most other sniping tactics as well).

I still think it should miss faster units sometimes.
A solution for the speed issue could be Anti-Missile Defences mounted on the Commander.

I agree we need more intel options.
Depends what Tier the stealth was on.
Two Tiers might be cool to get in stealth as an early option - Tier 1 for Radar blocking, and Tier 2 for Direct LOS blocking, requiring a Scout to reveal it.

I think stationary radar stealth as a T1 option and mobile stealth at T2 is a reasonable way to go.
I might make a post with some ideas about this eventually, but I'm not one to make tons of threads, so it may be a while before I have a well thought out suggestion fleshed out.

For sure. T2 Unit specialisation! Might be cool to hide a base visually though.

Why do we need homing? I think it might be worth considering predicting. We can't know exactly where an enemy unit will be after the missile is launched, so let's make it so micro is an effective counter to the catapult.

Also, what's so wrong with having the catapult and holkins do the same thing? The ant and the dox do.

I'm sorry but I don't want to have to micro...

And I don't want two units fulfilling the exact same role either
Though within their own unit types I kind of agree. The Dox is to Bots what the Ant is to Tanks.
But compared alongside, the Dox needs to be fast, cheap and low damage and the Ant relatively hard-hitting and high-HPed for a T1 unit.
Both need a HP buff though.

Not really, and even then I'd like to see some more specialization than what we have currently (although I still think we need some kind of direct fire bot in T1).

in addition the new balancing with t2 being much more expensive will change that even more in favour for t1 units to be a counter to stationary weaponry.

Me too I mean I'd like having a grenadier and even a missile bot but come on. They're infantry!

No they don't? The dox fires low damage plasma bolt things once every second but has 2 weapons, the dox is for fast travel and flanking; it's also the micro machine. The tank however is slow and cumbersome with more health, it fires once every second (I believe maybe two seconds?) And only has one turret, it also has a slow turret turn rate. It's meant for direct fire, rushing straight into something and is vulnerable when things run behind them. (Or at least this should be the point of the two...)

Didn't they get a nerf?
Played today and my holkins could barely hit the other region of my enemy's base and we were not that far apart and catapults have even less range.

The catapult is effective against commanders and other high value targets like a nuke but needs micro to set the right target. I never had much issues with them really except when trying to invade a enemy planet and the catapults keep killing the portal on a tiny planet

In Supcom eatch race has its own solution: Aeon confused the missile its targeting, Cybran had a laser to shoot misssiles and the UEF shoot it out the sky with bullets.
A bit of a mini nuke/antinuke game

Exactly, catapults were nerfed; nobody even uses them so I'm not sure what all the fuss is about. Now, back in Alpha they were really OP! But they've lost it all now. By the way to whoever suggested they use energy to build the missile, they already do. They take 2000 energy I believe and it takes 10 seconds to make one missile!

Agree? I don't deal in opinions!
A catapult needs two shots to kill a Vanguard, with which it could kill two Slammers. A vanguard costs 675, two slammers cost 720. Thus, a catapult is more efficient at killing slammers than vanguards. It's somewhat of a hollow victory since it assumes the slammers are just sitting there waiting to be killed... Then again, I do that all the time.

I suggested they cost metal, as well as get a wide variety of buffs and nerfs. I said that because they mimmic artillery already, yet they look like they could mimmic nukes instead, which gives them a tier of use (there are already 2 artillery, it makes 3 artillery, and there is only 1 missile launcher, the nuke)

Technically, it makes thinning units only doable in bursts if it was changed into a missile launcher instead of artillery, and it makes it cost more but it also can be used for specific type snipes better.

That's a shame, because the max speed of a slammer is 12, compared to a vanguard's max speed of 7. While your analysis makes sense for units fresh out of their factories, the real value of a slammer in your enemies' base is a lot lower than that of a vanguard in the same position. Not only that, but the vanguards take over 70% longer to reach a base, which means 70% more shots from the catapult in the meantime, which suggests it is far more effective against vanguards than slammers.

Your analysis is overly simplistic. If you want to deal with absolutes, you'd better be ready to do a whole lot more math than that.