BUMBLEBEE RUSH TOO POWERFUL(=ﾟωﾟ)ﾉ

\(^-^)It is very hard now to fight against early air rush, because there are not enough anti-air units and anti-air turrets are not powerful. in fact, 40 bumblebees can kill your commander very fast. I think we need more stronger anti-air defence structures. Air rush is the strongest rush now. ( ´ ▽ ` )ﾉ

Well fighters aren't too bad at AA.

And scouting out a bomber rush can let you know about a impending attack, letting you spread out your AA.

The thing is that bomber rush is more powerful then tank rush. Air units can come from any direction and they are very fast.(￣^￣)

Well bombers do counter tanks, so I don't know what to say to that.

༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ Bring back the AA bot! ༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ

I don't know. I haven't done enough testing to see if that is necessary, but from what I've seen, the AA bot being gone has really helped gameplay. MORE TESTING REQUIRED.

Wait, you rush?
Why don't you just, you know.....
harass?

Rushing is a commonplace RTS term that is confusing nowadays in PA - Rushing tanks is totally different than zerging in SC2, because you burn yourself out in PA really fast.

At least, from what I've seen and heard. I'm probably wrong here.

Regardless, I've always liked T1 air, and now I have a reason to use them for things besides pecking at engineers behind enemy lines.

Also, T1 AA turrets needs a range buff, desperately. It needs to be massive, like the radius of a scout or something. And maybe a lower damage. That way it actually can hurt aircraft instead of just slowing them down a teensy bit.

As someone who studies, reads, writes, and speaks Japanese to a decent decree (not fluent) I cringed when I read this. That being said, I agree with @igncom1 just scout and counter with fighters/land aa. in FFAs you just have to prepare for it regardless. if you counter it successfully you will have the upper hand.

Bomber rush is really strong because fighter hp is now twice as high. This has two problems

a) Buffer against air aa
You can buffer against other enemy fighters pretty easily. Or rather, the power of x metal of fighters to prevent a snipe from x metal of bumblebee + small number of fighters, is much smaller than previous builds. This has got to do with high fighter hp, low rof, combined with high bomber speed.

b) Buffer against land aa
Fighters do 50 dmg, land aa does 25 dmg. Doubling fighter hp to 100 for a 2 shot from other fighters has the unintended consequence of causing them to be able to tank 4 aa missiles. A crazy buffer against land aa.

You need to overcompensate in metal to counter his bumblebee spam because of his option of local superiority, which leaves you with less land to land metal than him in the land army. I don't find this very balanced.

They messed with air, but not land AA. Typical thing Uber does. It'll get fixed.

in Galactic War all I have been doing is three mex two energy one air factory and continuous build bomber set to patrol planet while assisting with commander. The enemy commander that builds NO AA counter ends up being unable to fight back against even TEN bombers. Its shots always miss. When the commander DOES start building fighters to counter, I add a fighter to the queue and it sorts itself out.

The way I see it. AA Turrets need a massive range increase due to air being able to quickly duck in and our of range.

AA bot should really come back. Bots, useless until t2 Bots where they become somewhat worth it but. you still have to focus on slow AA tanks or fast jets that die before your bots are anywhere near the targets

there used to be AA bot.

I think that the removal of the T1AA bot should have been accompanied by the arrival of the T2 AA Bot. That would have made more sense.

Still waiting for Scathis to weigh in with a explanation behind his reasoning for removing the T1 AA Bot......

Didn't he say something about it being redundant? Since there's already T1 vehicle AA?

It's not redundant during Galactic War. Far too often I'm stuck with turret AA and Anchors as my only AA options.

Redundancy is an excuse, not a reason. I'd like to know exactly why it was hurting gameplay.

Redundancy in units depreciates the unit it overlaps with, and in the case of whole factories allowing duplicate roles to exist depreciates at least on of the factories. If the devs felt Bot first starts were overused it makes sense to make bots less desirable at T1 to encourage playing with other starting factories.

It's also possible the devs envision bots as having only supporting role in the future, again, in this context it makes sense because you're using the removal of redundancy to increase the value of the remaining AA unit and shift front line units out of the bot factories.

I agree with making bot starts more even with vehicle and air starts, but making vehicle starts appear mandatory by buffing T1 bombers and completely removing the AA capability from the bot factory is a little harsh.

It really depends on what the goal is. What if bots are simply not intended to be a valid first choice? The attitude might be "that's what vehicles are for" and bots are intended as supporting roles only to give us special units while not filling out our combat roster.

A reason to build both factories is a lot better than having everything duplicated across both.

That way of thinking should be restricted to games with multiple races. Otherwise, the game quickly becomes one dimensional (everyone uses tanks, or everyone uses bombers and fighters early game to spam and raid). The devs (ESPECIALLY YOU @metabolical) have spoken at length about alternative strats to the primary meta. Most of the time, they are wrong, because they haven't balanced the game right. I'm still trying to find the niche for bots in this patch. So far, only T2 bots makes any sense (and to be honest, you have to have a nice size T2 bot blob with t1 protection up before the enemy T2 vehicle fac to have a chance against vanguards).