Buff Stinger/Spinner HP.

Stingers/spinners. You only build them if T2 air is an eminent threat. Why? Because they contribute almost nothing to ground battles. With the same amount of/less HP than their anti ground counterpart, you're almost always better off making ground units when T2 air isn't going to hurt you. Making them anti-ground requires them to either be nigh useless against everything (Alpha) or makes them be used to kill everything (OTA). Neither is ideal. There is a way, however, to make them somewhat useful in ground battles without compromising their role: Increasing their HP. If they can be used as meat shields, units will stay alive longer and as a result live to kill more units. I propose the following changes:

Spinner:
Cost: 150->120
HP: 80->300
DPS: 50 -> 80

Stinger:
HP: 80 -> 160

Thoughts?

I don't think they need an HP buff, but a range buff. Right now they're easily destroyed because bombers drop their bombs before they are destroyed.

The Spinner looks like a truck with rockets straped on, tripling the HP would be weird. They just need more range like Brian said.

They move 5 fewer meters/second than stingers, cost 60 more metal, and are identical in every other stat. They need some sort of advantage.

I think stingers are alright as they are, but spinners suck compared to them. I think spinners should have slightly more HP, to make them a bit more survivable compared to stingers against t1 bombers and gunships, and they could have slightly longer range to make them better at defending groups of tanks (which have more spread out formations than bots so this makes sense).

I'm confused. Do you want AA to attack ground units as well as air units? I would like that to become true as well. Requires some extensive rebalancing of air HP and Anti-air DPS though.

Spinners are already pretty good against gunships and bombers. In my experience most bombers get killed before they can drop their bombs against groups of Spinners while gunships can't really focus fire on the Spinners when they are mixed with other units.

He wants spinners to get an HP and range buff to make them on par with stingers.

Yeah two stingers will prevent a drop on a fabber if they are in the right position. The balance seems perfect for the early game really. Considering that is the only time you should be building t1 bombers.

Edit: forgot to mention that the veh aa could be a little cheaper. But the way things are now all 3 factories are viable to begin with which is hood for the game.

This.
3 fabbers building something and a stinger between them? Whatever, bomb them all.
3 fabbers and a stinger nearby? Whatever, bomb the stinger, then flip a second run and bomb the fabbers.
1 stinger = 1 plane, no, wait, let me correct that - 1 stinger < 1 plane. They do need a buff and I'd say a range buff would be in place.

Now take the cost in time into account.

Bumblebees 20 seconds to build.
anti air units take 7 and 10 seconds to build.
The spinner needs a buff. That is indisputable. Its worse in many ways to stingers.

Now its very obvious that 1 stinger = half a plane, because 7 seconds is approximately half of 20, and 90 metal is half of 180.

If you only have 1 stinger, you've spent half as many resources as your opponent.

So yes. 1 stinger loses. Because comparing 1 stinger to 1 bomber is not a fair comparison.

I have found in games against the AI, that AA when grouped is fairly efficient.

Hmm. Maybe we're just using them wrong?

I was playing a 2v2 the other day and my opponents had a group of stingers, slammers, and sniper bots running around causing havoc. The bombers and gunships kept on getting shot down and none of our ground forces could catch up to them. We won the match right before they were about to get destroyed by a laser defense tower and some walls.

Clumped up, they are good.

But I have never bought into the cost efficiency arguments, they usually never happen.

It's not cost efficiency, it always happens, and it's not reason in favour of an idea, it's a fact.

When 1 bomber runs into 1 stinger, you can replace that stinger half as fast as the bomber can be replaced.

So if the bomber and the stinger killed each other equally, the stingers are replaced more quickly. It's in favour of the player with the stingers. It allows you to build a stinger and another unit, or 2 spinners.

If you have two stingers, the bomber dies, 1 stinger dies, both players replace the stinger and the bomber.

You now have 3 stingers, and your opponent now has 1 bomber.

1 stinger dies, 1 bomber dies -> 4 stingers, 1 bomber.

Next cycle, 5 stingers, 1 bomber.

You have to compare the same cost in units. Stingers cost half as much as a bomber. So 1 stinger vs 1 bomber is an unfair comparison to be making, because practically that combination would never exist. It's always 1 stinger and 1 (other unit). And yes, if the stinger dies instead of the other unit because the units are spaced out of AOE, the player with the stinger still ends up ahead because they don't have to replace the units they didn't lose.


Balance is an equilibrium position.

But that isn't a realistic scenario, as players are not deliberately running their bombers into AA.

Realistically, most of the cost efficiency arguments don't mace sense because of a huge numbers of factor and army placement, strategy, micro, accuracy.....and the list goes on.

They don't work to me, as it might be a fact that one unit is more efficient then another, in a sterile environment of perfect shots, no acceleration into combat but a pure match fight.

But that isn't what happens when you play, you don't fight with maths, although it can help, you take what you have and make it better by your command, making it do more then the price tag suggested it was capable of, and make sure your opponent can't do the same.

In a one on one, 2 bombers might kill a single AA, but not every time, not considering the realistic effects of a game where you are never truly in position, and you are juggling the positioning on the map, your economy, you overall strategy and command of hundreds to thousands of units.

In a perfect environment, sure, but that won't happen past a cheeky rush at the 5 min mark.

If you can make your units do that, then awesome, but most people can't, sometimes that bomber will miss, sometimes that stinger will too.

Math in this instance isn't as reliable in the game being plaid.

So, I am sorry.....but I don't buy the math is fact argument.

I don't do pure maths. Pure maths is dumb and worthless to me.. The only reason I don't prove this with videos is because the AI is not obliging with unit make up.

I don't take into account sterile environments. I have units accelerating into combat etc.

If you read up the thread you see I responded to someone who said that their bombers are killed by stingers 1:1.

Stingers cost 90. Bombers cost 180. It is impossible to argue that that favours bombers. Cost and time is a factor, whether you like it or not.

There is no argument here. If you use a 32000 nuke to destroy a single anti nuke you lost the exchange. That is undeniable fact. Same applies for stingers vs bombers. Stingers do not need a buff, the relationship is already heavily in favour of stingers, and if all the AA is killed by bombers you just need to build more, end of discussion.

Yes, you do want to send your bombers on milk runs all the time. But that is not realistic gameplay either. And thr top players do not do that.

Well I pretty much agree with igncom1 here.
When you compare bombers and AA you shouldn't just compare how the units trade with each other for cost. It is much more like comparing immobile defenses versus mobile units.
Bombers are faster and can strike anywhere where there are no AA so in order for mobile AA to prevent bomber harassment you need to be able to buy enough AA to cover your expansion and base. Of course the balance might favor fighters to be the actual bomber-harass counter while ground AA is more suited for other purposes.
Another important comparison is how well a combo of bombers and other units do against for example Doxes and Stingers.
Arguably a good balance should force a player not just to depend on ground AA to cover their forces from air threats but also fighters.
Like say that I am making Doxes. By also using bombers I can force you to bring AA with your Doxes as well. I can now chose to engage enemy groups of Doxes that are without AA while I use superior Dox numbers to kill off your Doxes that have AA mixed in. That could force you to make fighters to counter the bombers while your AA gives your fighters a safe heaven against my fighters.

I don't think buffing HP would be the best fix to this problem. I personally don't like the way the missile mechanics work for them. A longer range would only allow anti air to completely nullify bombing runs with no causalities to the ground team.

My comments are based on an initial complaint that bombers and anti air trade for each other one for one. I do think that is a good balance. They are both countering each other. The bomber is countering non antiair, because no sane person would want to bomb antiair. The antiair counters fighters


My fundamental point is that antiair is cheaper than bombers, so you are never comparing bombers to antiair bu themselves. Because that match up simply should not happen. Like you said, the antiair can't be everywhere.


I think the cost argument is very valid for comparisons. Air tends to be more fragile. And if you are comparing 100,000 worth of bombers to 50,000 worth of AA, and you end up with a near tie, then there are still 50,000 worth of Dox that will flow into your base and wreck havoc.

I think bombers are working as intended and AA is working as intended. It's a pretty good ratio in favour of AA, it's still worth building other things, you have some metal to spend on fighters to defend against a wider area without your opponent having metal to spare on fighters, and the bombers are still worth building.

Maybe introducing T2 stuff into the mix breaks things somewhat, but thats current implementation of T2 for you.

Twice as fast.