I have seen a post where paople have been disussing about the power of the vanguard, and how to defeat it without usin the same vehicle. I´ve got a few ideas how to make it defeatable, and how to maybe use ''weaker'' units to take them down. Here are the stat change i would like it to have: HP: 5000(Same, like the idea of them being ''Shields'') Damage: 1000 per shot, 2 APS (2000 DPS, halved from the current 4000 DPS, to make it not tear down other buildings too quickly, to make walls a little bit more effective, and to make battles between Vanguards themself more lasting, allowing supporting fire to be more effective) Otherwise same speed, range and visibility. Stats for a new/changed bot: AT bot: A new bot with high damage weaponry (500 DPS avarage) but low APS(0.2-0.1) wich means about 5000 Dmg per shot(500 DPS, 0.1 APS) to 2500 Dmg per shot(500 DPS, 0.2 APS) with medium-long range. The Bluehawk could possibly be a bot to change to the above stats, since we already have the sheller as artillery aswell, not much need for two artillery units. I ain´t got any ideas for how to make it non-op against T1 units, unless there would be a less powerful of the model above, or simply lowering the health of the vanguard to 4000HP-3000HP. EDIT, forgot to add Vanguard HP.
You can kinda do whatever you want with Vanguards as long as the metal cost adequately reflects what sort of performance you're getting relative to other units. You could have the Vanguard in game as is, and cost 10 times more, and no one would use them, they'd be garbage, too expensive for the performance you get out of em. If vanguards are too powerful, then bumping up their price means that there are less of them relative to other units, and they are less cost effective. The other alternative is to keep the price the same, but lower their capabilities to be more in line with that cost. Personally, i don't mind Vanguards being these absolute beast units, as long as their metal cost is able to limit their numbers. that way, they will remain these slow, lumbering, scary units, but they will be much less common relative to other units. The other option I'd be ok with is making them even slower than they are now, like, so gosh darn slow. But then that would basically min max them into only being useful as a base siege unit, and mostly useless in army, on army encounters, kinda like how infernos are at present.
Increasing the cost would do both as units/buildings don't have a set time to build but rather a fixed metal cost and factories/fabbers put out a set amount of metal/second in order to build it.
increasing their cost (unless you go nuts with it) won't stop someone from trying to rush one out at 8-9 minutes to wipe out your base. It really only takes one vanguard in your base to destroy you.
To be honest, if 1 Vanguard cost as much as previously considered, then it'd be such a waste of metal unsupported, the number of ants you could build to kite it to death would be huge, and as long as you have radar up, which everyone should have, you'll see it coming a mile away, even if they tried to air drop, transports are made of paper, you really let a transport get all the way in?
Then don't let it get into your base ... Bombers good unit, Tanks good unit, radar good unit, Slammer good unit. Vanguard isn't op, it's just super volatile, which is causing people to think it's op. The volatility is a legitimate issue though - one of the dangers of implementing high alpha damage units.
Dude..... Bombers are crap versus vanguards. Have you tried it? Because all you need is T1 AA mixed in with the vannys and fighter cover to stop it. Tanks? I'll have as many as you do in the spot I'm attacking. Radar? How do you know it's a vanguard without direct vision? Slammers are t2, and you need quite a few of them to stop vanguards. And you have to beat your enemy to T2, which is quite difficult without focusing on it at the cost of T1 units, which you desperately need to defend expansions and take map control.
Well, as the system is right now, i believe that factories only may spend a certain amount of metal/second, so a higher cost would actually increase the building time.
-Bombers are great. Unless you don't have air control, then bombers arn't very good at anything in particular, not just vanguards. And even then, you could still bomber snipe the shellers before roflstomping the vanguards with t1 tanks. -Vanguards arn't free. And neither is the t2 factory or economy to support it. Your opponent will not have as many tanks as you. If you have less metal spending and less mex, then why would you be blaming the loss on vanguards when you're clearly being outplayed macro wise. -You don't need to know it's a vanguard. radar is to make sure you're always in position to deal with incoming threats whatever they are from any direction. Losing to that ninja vanguard that snuck up behind your base and destroyed half your buildings is not 'imba'. If you see land forces on radar coming to attack you, and you do nothing about it, or neglect to scout it with a hummingbird, well then you deserve to lose advantage. - You don't need to beat your opponent to t2 to counter it. Vanguards are slow, slammers are fast .
if vanguards were 2 or 3x the cost they are now, that would relegate them into a planet breaker, when you are turtling a planet/moon, and so is the enemy. use your planets worth of advanced eco to make about 50 vanguard asters pairs, drop them on the planet, and pray that at least half make it. good stopgap before the unit cannon.
Shellers offer more immediate results and are better for fending off the T1 armies that may be on your doorstep. Vanguards are offensive units; shellers offensive/defensive.
It was a rhetorical question . It comes down to this. Unit a is preferred over Unit b, both cost the same, but unit b is viewed as imba while unit a is not? Like i said before, vanguards have many counters. Hell even boombots are great against them with some 'dirty micro'. They are not imba, only very volatile in that they punish you tremendously more than most other units for failing to counter. This is more a design problem to take up than a balance one.
Shellers are just as bad as Vanguards. This game isn't about micro. If you can micro your way out of a mid-late game situation, something is seriously wrong. Shellers are just....overpowered. They are somewhat balanced by their fragility, but because they invalidate laser towers and pelters, they are quite powerful. Vanguards do not have many counters, Elodea. Not in the instances where they are WAY overpowered: air drops into the enemy base, within a minute of getting T2 up, and fighting commanders. In the open field with infinite space? Yep. Kite all day. If 20 vanguards started plowing towards your base, you wouldn't be able to retreat fast enough. The main issue is how cost-effective they are - I've used one vanguard to kill over 15k worth of metal in seconds. That makes the other 10 or so completely worth the investment.
