Hi all, I noticed when looking at the unit white sheet screens that the naval options for AA were a missile launcher and a bigger missile launcher. Is this the case for ground based defensive structures as well? In SupCom/FA I feel the flak cannon offered a valuable area denial tool that provided splash damage as well as a high RoF allowing for effective early and mid game protection from everything but T3 and experimental air units. Since we will not be dealing with such experimental units or T3 air a flak anti air option would make a viable defensive structure that could provide much needed early game protection and lasting protection and denial of the air space above bases. All in all flak or no flak. and yes i did a search first since that seems to be the nazi thing to post as a response to any new topic
The thread did state that the assets shown are test assets, and the idea that any design is final or Locked in at this stage is a bit silly. If all the things talked about when concerning tech levels and such pan out, we'll prolly end up seeing 2-3 times as many units at least for each theater than what was shown. Mike
Heh yeah I realize a lot is up in the air/ in the works. I was posting with the hope a dev would casually wander into my topic and say,"WHY of course we just did not draw it YET."
Well you don't get better AA then missiles....well until lasers. But yeah, WW1/2 AA types are no longer relevant on the modern battlefield.
Never said we couldn't do some fancy stuff. But what would be wrong with only missile AA? We could get some Macross Missile Massacre going on over players bases!
Believe me I'm as much of a fan(if not more so) for a Good MMM(Seriously, you should check out my Basilisk, I designed it's Missile weapons to create a pretty good facsimile) but to just say that all AA weapons should be missiles is booooooooooooring. Look at my Fusillade, why exclude something like that from having AA weapons? Sure, Missile based AA should play a role, but missiles all follow some basic mechanics, using Projectiles helps spice things up. Mike
Well now what about the various gatling style anti missile and short range anti air systems in place on many modern US destroyers and aircraft carriers as well as the ground based CIWS system. These weapons utilized electronically or fuse times shells that burst in a fragmentation explosions to defeat missiles and aircraft. So really we do still utilize flak cannons and it could be argued that this is the most effective form of anti air and anti missile in a real world situation As for in game variety is the spice of life as mike/knight said. Lets face it flak is fun! Who can argue with a cloud of steel (or whatever metal they choose in the future) fragments. Relevant and ehmm... Awesome is always a good combination
My current line of thinking about AA is to have long-distance, high-lethality SAM weapons as an expensive, wide-area depth of field primary AA defense. They kill in one successful hit, and have fantastic range, but a very low rate of fire. SAM's give you area denial range against sorties, and help thin the ranks of incoming large air forces as they fly through your airspace. However their actual efficiency in terms of effective damage is for cost is low. However SAM's can easily kill enemy planes well before they do any damage to you. They should be used in conjunction with cheap, short range, high damage and high rate of fire projectile flak weapons capable of bringing down many clustered planes. Rapid fire and with splash to deal with clustered birds. These AAA ("triple-A" or "anti-aircraft artillery") guns would go near infrastructure or other targets to act as a serious loitering deterrent, capable of dealing extremely severe damage very quickly. Flak acts as "hard" AA to the SAM's long-range soft AA. It won't stop the enemy from dropping bombs on your buildings, but it will cost them planes to do so. Thirdly, a generic missile launcher like a Defender from TA, capable of attacking air and ground targets at decent range. Cheap, with low damage. Meant to be used in large numbers spread across a wide area for a versatile defensive screen. Not very lethal against anything, but gives a versatile defensive presence for little cost. A deep enough screen can even cut down a significant number of planes flying over it. And lastly, laser defense. I am thinking along the lines of the Zero-K Phalanx. Laser AA is akin to a more expensive flak, but does not splash. However it also intercepts missiles, giving it a function apart from dedicated anti-air. I think having a dedicated tactical missile defense structure is a mistake- it should serve an additional purpose, and anti-air seems a logical one. Laser defense is inferior to flak in terms of AA cost efficiency, but also acts as a shield against missiles and such. As with the other types, available in both mobile and static variants. As an aside, Vulcan type weapons should be classified separately. Brand them with their own name, such as "Autocannon" or something, as a rapid-fire projectile weapon that can attack both air and ground. Serious anti-air should be dedicated AA and be extremely good at its job. Generalist fighters that can attack air should win against air, but not by more than 2:1 cost efficiency, whereas dedicated AA might get 5:1, even 10:1 or better.
Practically everything. There would only be one unit type that can engage air, which is extremely bad. Technically, a laser can fire at ANYTHING. Only LoS and accuracy matters. Placing arbitrary target restrictions is not effective when a weapon looks like it should work anywhere. So nah, laser defenses are not good for ordnance defense because it's not clear that they should only work as ordnance defense. It also makes a problem over projectile HP, as compared to air HP, as compared to ground HP, I.E. an increasing design nightmare as lasers get overloaded with potential targets. It is more obvious that they would be shooting any ground and air target in its range with reckless disregard, and any bombs they end up shooting is merely due to targeting a bomber's center of mass. Simple, easy to grasp, and it does the job. I'm a bigger fan of fighting physics with physics. It deals with the problem directly at hand. A gravity gun clearly only works on tiny things and would not have the power to move heavy, high mass objects. It deflects damage while clearly dealing none, thus solving the problem of what its targets should be. Any lethal damage a gravity gun deals is justified in that it doesn't kill anything, it just "puts them in a position to die real easy". It's not my fault that you nosed down and flew directly at the ground, flew into your own bomb, or jumped directly into a turret defense line. You should just be more aware of local gravity anomalies. :lol:
