How t1 armies are still useful currently even in light of turrets.

So basically, you don't make complicated ideas until you follow the thought process of simple solutions and expand upon them first.

So basically, if you make a complicated idea, it had better have a reason based off a simple solution and how it improves upon what the simple solution fails in.

Otherwise, why exactly is a complicated solution better than a simple one, besides being complicated?

Well while a buff/nerf to one unit or building might be warrented.

There are may factors that also require change to effectively deal with the problem. We need to treat all of a causes, and not just cut at the weeds till we don't notice or care about them.

This conveniently forgets the fact that your opponent spent far less build power and metal than you since he only needed a few turrets and walls to hold your entire T1 army at bay. This means by the time your 5 sniper bots come in and break that outer perimeter, he responds with a massive T2 death ball, totally invalidating your idea of a follow-up t1 army. If at this time you've got a few t2 and a bunch of t1, and they've got some turrets and a load of t2, you lose.

I think we've established t1 armies vs turrets is unfavourable. Ways t1 armies are still useful:

• Stingers, pretty much the only viable mobile AA apart from air itself (which is harder to micro combined with an assaulting ground force, and I'm lazy)
• Small dox squads for raiding loosely defended (if at all) backend mex
• Skitters, mixed in with T2 they improve the FOV which boosts the effectiveness of the T2. Plus I just like them on their own early on for scouting, possibly harass
• Combat fabs: 1/3 of the health and build power of T2 combat fabs, but you can build three of them for the same cost. Aside from being unable to build teleporters (and being transported), T1 combat fabs are actually better as they can be multiple places at once, and redundancy is good

all points agreed.

I am just stating, when you build units instead of turrets, even if not a whole heap, and t2, then the enemy turrets become wasted metal since they cannot kill. Then, at least you have those scattered walking health bars if nothing else.

turrets need a Nerf. But, they still need efficiency as they pay the ultimate price in speed, they have 0 speed. Endorsing they should be weaker per cost to units is an inarguement, as is that you can build them as fast because you can't, as is that turrets can't move or in most cases deploy within enemy pelters or enemy perimeter with established scouting (I try to turret up to their side early before they have very aware scouting)

I think increasing the strength of T1 is also a good option. Doxes should be about 2-3 times as strong for cost while Ants/UTC-8 should be about 3-5 times as strong for cost.
http://people.dsv.su.se/~akbj7812/pa-db/table/everything.html

The game shouldn't force a tech rush strategy just because someone is building turrets... it stops T1 currently being viable by itself even before ether player has T2...

right. Honestly, they could be more of an investment. Actually, here is exactly what I like:

walls: cost between a single and double turret
single: cost little more, have as much hp as wall, really low damage though, only kills few units and over time, just for sponging and thinning herds.
double: cost little more, no change which technically means more fraile but more damage
triple: cost little more, has wall health with current damage.

in case one was wondering, little more means whatever makes it an investment. T3 should probably cost an adv. Pp, t2 should cost a pelter, wall and t1 should cost a regular power plant, and theoretically a good exchange rate is a turret taking on 1.6x the cost per unit, the turret with a wall taking 3x the cost per unit but the wall costing as well as each additional wall (also 4-5 walls becomes uneconomical). Also, I don't care for direct upgrades, don't care which but one turret should have killpower for frailty while the most adv turret can be an uneconomic solution for access to both in one

A lone Laser Defense Turret can kill more than 20 Doxes. That is more than 5 times the cost of the turret.

A single? That doesn't sound right to me, I'm sure 20 Dox overwhelm a single laser.

If anything, the turret should only be killing up to 3 times it's cost in the units they are supposed to counter.

(Double)Laser Defense Turret yeah. I tested it. You can test it yourself if you want.

No if it's a double that sounds about right, I thought you meant a single.

we do all agree this is abit much for one double turret at its current cost to take out right? also does anyone know how many tanks it takes to take out a double turret?

~25 dox or ~18 tanks will kill a single double laser turret with about 4-5 survivors in a perfect scenario. (A more perfect scenario might be using pelicans to drop units straight on top of it, in which case you could probably use a few as 10 tanks.)

Put the turret behind a few buildings (or walls) though and it tips dramatically in the turret's favor.

Balancing it from this, then in my opinion either the turret needs less health as to die to 12 tanks, or cost as much as a pelter which isn't so bad in my opinion.

Again, a nerfed single, a more expensive double and triple.

Well, actually that sounds about right. Lower rate of fire slightly more on single? I mean, i think if it scores 2-3 tank kills it pays for itself, right? Alternatively, if a wall is produced it still sponges greatly while gaining kills slowly yet surely, it technically gives it a flavor over double laser with wall.

Id say more shoot more, as a good anti-raiding turret will be dealing with fast but relatively weak targets.

High damage infrequent shots doesn't really suit it well.

But I could be wrong

walls.