An Attempt on Balance

Threads like these aren't useless, especially as you haven't gone to the degree of giving exact values. I was just referring to when these changes should be actually implemented by uber, and to make you aware that these value will need to be tweaked as more units are released

It all is a matter of opinion, and what the robots of the future deem useful for planetary domination.

I would probably like a bomber that can attack large parts of the earth instead of the current Strike bomber that is good for single target elimination.

Your stealth fighter is really just a more evil version of the T2 bomber that exists already. I'd rather that T2 bomber go back down to T1 while the more devastating carpet bomber sits at T2. And the carpet bomber can be balanced to where its only good for structures or has a horrible turning radius. And is super vulnerable without a fighter escort. While the T1 bomber is expendable and can take out targets as need be.

Gun ships don't have to be good harass everything all things. They can be specialized Anti air Air craft that hover in one spot over an army. Or they can be the Apache style that runs in and does a crap ton of damage and then runs away. Again, units don't need to be one size fits all. and Gunships are no different.

T1 just needs to be basic and T2 is advanced. Just think of it in these terms...

I have an enemy Mass Extractor and a ground turret to destroy.
A Bomber can be used to kill it.. thats perfectly equal killing power
A carpet bomber can be used to kill it.. Thats over kill in power and half or more of the bombs will miss. Might be advanced.

Got an enemy base over there with no defenses
A tank would suffice Thats perfectly equal killing power
A leveler would decimate the entire base a little fast .. thats over kill.. It can either be nerfed or its role changed so that it levels buildings faster or allows for ants to move in farther to deal their damage.

Point is. Don't narrow your thoughts in thinking that a role is "filled" and can't be expanded on. just have fun and put whatever.

I'll reiterate my first post though, you can add whatever new unit here into the new units thread.. no harm in that.

Ok, you're right that there are more options than one as to make the T2 fighter different. But it's actually hard to decide between them. And it's not my job to do that. I'll keep the unit suggestions more flexible then.

Edit: Done.

I agree with cwarner that is is too early for this type of post however, if the few units we have now arnt balanced so good it doesnt lead to much hope.

I would do the following:

Dox's vision radius to be increased to 120. So they can avoid tanks if looked after properly and not lose so much to PDs. They still get raped by ants in 1v1 but have a use again.

AA veh and bots should have higher dps, enough to kill t1 air units with 3 shots. They should also be able to attack land.

Sheller speed should be increased to 7. 5 is just way too slow.

Hummingbirds should have lower dps. Should take 2 shots to kill a bomber, not 1. Either/ or their rate of fire should be halved. Once you opponent build a hummingbird there is no point building t1 bombers.

Hornets area of effect should be halved . I would like to see t2 bombers taking out nukes/ adv power / and factories. Not just be used for deathballs and commander sniping. This leads me onto my next point.

Structures have way too much dps. I'm comparing this with air, not the land values whose dps is way too high .

I for one appreciate someone chewing the game mildly. Their current main post is fairly soft balance.

I disagree with it in many areas, but they were thoughtful ideas. I mean, everyone has different opinions to balance.

I too though think levelers should be regular health of ant, only 60% the speed, and double-barrel. Basically, ants cover the field, and escort them to break open the frontline base defenses. Also, levelers being used amongst ant armies instead of by themselves.

Slammer would be interesting, having dox speed and tank health with fair damage, you would not necessarily need to macro as simply flanking on two sides and walking sideways against the enemy makes them effective. Requires scouting, but not micro necessarily. I currently use them pretty effectively now against levelers, after scouting levelers approaching my turrets I send my slammer/dox out along their sides and around their back, the entire time barely in range so they shoot as they circle around and then they get shot from turrets in front and bots in back. If they send their army in by 2 waves the bots get cleaned up because they are caught up front, but that is fine design.

I wouldn't mind if bots had low damage long range artillery that was "straightfire" instead of "arch", just so they can peck at things harassment style, while vehicles kept their mobile high-arc cannons with possibly longer range and damage.

Air is weird. I think t1 bombers are fairly manageable possibly too much, and t2 bombers are unhandleable at all. Closing the gap makes no difference in use between them, leaving it makes one weak and the other a complete upgrade. Generally, they need to come up with new mechanics. Maybe make the t1 bomber slightly more health and can circle around in place shooting units, while making the t2 bomber slightly less health and make them have to do "wide passes" so their shots do more damage in one run but less damage over time.

Naval is pretty solid IMO, they are like the mobile artillery and better than most against air and solid territory defense, but they are bad against static artillery.

Naval units are kinda easy meat for their cost.

Id like a HP buff preferably....along with submersible subs.

That's strange, because I thought that the T1 bomber is really useless, while the T2 bomber is op.
I mean just having an aoe radius damage effect is a big advantage in itself. It might be that the targetting AI doesn't work perfectly, yet. But that doesn't have anything to do with balance. And ships could need a bit more hp imo (especially the Bluebottle).

But the idea of burst vs sustained damage is a nice one. It could maybe even be used to balance the T1 vs the T2 fighter.

Edit: Updated air and the Leviathan.

That's what I mean. t1 bombers are fragile and nonlethal. t2 bombers are assanine large health and lethality. 10 t2 bombers can mop up a medium establishment all while dealing with spinners and rocket turrets.

i started reading the post then stopped bothering when i hit the 'hornet: same as now'

Reasons? I am curious.

It's true that the Hornet is very strong atm. But that may change with the inclusion of T2 anti-air structures.
Also I suggested to buff T1 air to compensate for not nerfing the Hornet. I think that it is reasonable to have a bomber in T2 that has aoe damage. Maybe it needs a little damage/health nerf though.

I edited the OP.

And please, don't just stop reading and think you know everything about the thread already.
The purpose of it originally was to collect balance ideas from people like you.

lol its not a 'stopped reading because i know everything' but a 'stopped reading because op seems to know nothing'. The hornet needs an AOE or damage nerf or all land units need a HP buff. Its not about putting the bumblebee in line with it.

If you read this very page then we wouldn't have this discussion. I already talked with Trophy about T2 bombers, just forgot to edit the Hornet. And the Bumblebee still stays a single target bomber, while the Hornet is an aoe bomber.

Updated the original post.
It's basically version 1.0 now.

I don't think that this is a good statement to make. If nothing needs micro to be efficient then there'd be no point in giving your troops any orders. What you're saying is that ants for example should be as effective if you send them into a bulk of stationary defenses as they are if you send them against undefended power plants.

To be honest, I personally think all units should be stronger / or damage reduced across the board. This is from the perspective that I prefer the OTA / Spring slightly slower pace to that of Sup Com. At the moment all units appear to explode at the hint of incoming fire, whereas I think even lighter units should take a bit of punishment to take down.

That aside, I don't really get the problems people have with air at the moment. Yes T2 bombers are strong but fighter cover takes them down easily (for people being owned by the AI using bombers, make 1 air lab, queue up a few hundred fighters and set a patrol route around your base, you will have no further problems!). The main issue here is there isn't a t2 aa unit as was mentioned in the OP.

What I would like to see changed with air (and I think this is something Uber are planning, can't remember where I saw it now though...) is to bring back 'carpet bombers' like in TA and Sup Com. I'm guessing these might be separated by tier so that the t1 bomber is a single target air to ground missile type attack, while t2 has a large area 'bombs' type attack that is less accurate but devastating against large structures of 'blobs' of units.

It will be interesting to see what happens when the new units are added as at the moment the roster is quite limited.

What I would like to see different in air, is anything different than air taking air down. Fighters are still air. So you are saying that air isn't strong because air is good against air...

I think t2 bombers being hard but possible to shoot down would be nice. I also would like ALL duplicate combat units being different from their t1 unit in burst damage, so make t2 bomber drop steady dps and have health, while t1 bomber has higher single-drop damage but unable to steadily drop damage.