Vanguard Balance Suggestion: Make them the Vehicle Bomb Bot

Umm not for me there isn't! Only Game/Duration/BuildVersion. I tend to have PA Stats turned off while doing silly testing and AI games :/

By the way you're welcome for me basically derailing your thread At least I posted cool pictures.

I would pay good money for a 40k mod, which would then immediately be given a C&D by GW for making profit off their IP, but I digress.

Need 40k Mod pls Community.

lol. No worries. It was just a passing idea I had, and not an overly serious one.

I'm really enjoying this discussion and further illustration of the issues with the Vanguards.

As for the replays... I guess they redesigned the replays section. It looks pretty, but those IDs are really important. :-/

With orbiting space ships releasing thunderhawk gunships and firing drop pods down to the surface.
10/10 Would sell kidneys for.

Anything can be situationaly op when you have map sizes that small though. When you have no room to kite, and a planet surface angle so large that it hampers tank range. Especially now with commander air blanket. High game to game volatility due to unsystematic factors doesn't equal overall imbalance imo.

They can also be op when your opponent is bad and doesn't know how scout, spam tanks, or spam grenadiers.

This vanguard rush is the dumbest thing ever. Once scouted with your first skitter, all you have to do is spam tanks and grenadiers. You could even go orbital and reclaim his commander, that's how bad this 'op' rush is.

That's the root cause for the balancing problems with the Vanguard.

Individual units being ridiculously stupid. Yes, most units would be capable of kiting a Vanguard or Inferno. And most units are also capable of taking out defenses / hard counters / threats when played smart.

But the units aren't smart. They won't kite. They won't prioritize targets in any smart order. They won't even switch targets on their own.

So every unit which needs to be microed, becomes an inferior bad unit unless it's a certain game ender which justifies the attention requirements.

No matter what Ubers "balancing tests" show when putting them up against each other on a 1-by-1 metal base. Because Uber employees mostly only test in isolated environments with full attention dedicated to micromanaging a SMALL group of units only.

Have a mix of inferno and tank. If you don't want to 'micro' alot, get your unit ratios right - you're not restricted to building only tank, or only inferno. Same goes for t2. As for this leading to everyone going only inferno? no. Mix of ranged tank dps + inferno hp is more efficient for simple a move resolving. Now the pure inferno player will have to micro.

I personally don't have much sympathy for this arguement when players actively choose to build too many tanks instead of infernos, and then complain that they need to micro too much against infernos.

Sure you can mix Infernos and tanks when on the offense. Why shouldn't you? The unit AI behaves quite well when going on the offense versus stationary targets. Almost regardless of the unit composition you chose.

But it fails miserably as soon as something is moving.
Target selection gets stuck on (originally low priority) high durability eco buildings, it never considers kiting which makes melee range units superior, and also does a few other rather stupid things.

This one is a really good one i agree with. If i recall correctly, I think it got bugged up in the patch they increased building hp by 3 times? Or some time around there.

No, it was always like this. You just didn't notice with the original paper units.

Do you have the debugger set up? model.gameList() on Replay screen.

It's also visible onscreen in PTE, but I find it a lot easier to copy from the debugger.

Thanks!

I think this is the random string of characters Brian was looking for: 10084472781231167106

*Takes plate of cookies away from Brian and gives it to Elodea.* I wouldn't say it's the dumbest thing ever, but it's certainly beatable by making er... units with guns. Which is what most PA players do. I'd still like to see some energy usage from the Vanguards to slow down the rush on tiiiny planets though.

"If you don't want to 'micro' alot" I made you this picture:

And work like a WW1 Tank, w/ the turret locked to the front...

Like I said in the Reddit thread a few hours ago, I always thought it was dumb that the Commander and Vangaurd both equip the UC, but the Commander's UC does 700 DPS with an added 10000 energy cost, while the Vangaurd's UC does 4000 DPS without the energy cost.
Three things might help regarding this:
-1) Nerf the Vangaurd to have the commander's UC without the energy cost (not my choice)
-2) Buff the commander's UC to Vangaurd levels
If you buff the Commander's UC to Vangaurd levels, the commander would at least have some way to defend itself if Vangaurds get in range (might also cause increased com rushing tactics)
-3) Increased energy costs for Vangaurds
This sorta depends on if we're still heading towards unit fire rates depending on available resources. If that's still a thing, then Vangaurds requiring 10000 energy per shot might lower someone's willingness to hoard them.

I'm personally in favor of combining 2 and 3, but I'm not a balance guy, so what do I know amirite?

I agree with Elodea, and i think Captain Conundrum could have done a lot of things better it was far from a good game. He basicly let him get away with that T2rush.

A mixed unit composition doesn't matter when Vanguards can one shot everything. Infernos are actually a waste of metal against Vanguards.

You are right, Captain Conundrum could have done quite a few things better. But so could have the other guy. He could have gotten out T2 faster. (Burntcustard has demonstrated that it's possible to get T2 up within 2:55.) And the other guy didn't even mix in Shellers with his army.

Still doesn't change the fact that T2 units absolutely curb stomp T1 units, which is a major fundamental flaw in game balance in my opinion.

just my 2 cents....
i yet have to play the realm balancemod which i rather intent to do post 1.0
however i do agree that the vanguard should just have a mashinegun or short range laser to keep its meatshield role were the inferno is the close range aoe damager ... i dont realy know if changeing it into a massive mobile bomb would be all that good ... it could still be op if the unit is a garanteed explosion even on destruction ...
speaking of the realmmod and changes torwards vanilla i rather like to have the hornet kept its tacmissile because imo that makes it a better antistructurespecialist instead of an upgrated generalist bomber ....

The flying catapult Hornet is just simply a really bad idea.

"I know, everyone complains about catapults and holkins. So let's nerf both of them so they're useless. Then, let's introduce a unit that's like the catapult! It can fly around and destroy an entire base from outside the enemy's defensive line!"

A flying catapult is simply a bad idea.

If you want dedicated an anti structure aircraft, use the Gunship. It's ideal for that.

ehh, the current catapult plane has short range, and a long reload time, so I really really like it.

The gunship just, doesn't do that much damage in a single shot.

Now if the rocket bomber hand long range, is agree that it's a bad idea.

But it's short range makes retaliating against them very easy.

Have you played RCBM? The RCBM gunship has a massive burst fire with the ammo system. A clump of them can wreck a target, particularly buildings, in nothing flat. They can then continue destroying other stuff at a reduced rate of fire, or they can fall back and reload.

They are excellent hit and run units and ideal for destroying buildings.

Right now the Hornet can outrange any defensive line. And if I have more Hummingbirds than you, there is nothing you can do.