mobile flak.... we need it!!!

Correct. Which is equally in favour of the tank hunting gunship unit that has immunity to tank battle groups, unless said tank battle group has some anti-air too.


Edit: stuffed the quoting up. Sorry guys.

I don't know what version of supcom have you played, but t2 flak eats t2-t3 gunships in FA(F). Really, about 10-15 mobile t2 flak cannons and your gunship fleet literally disappears, no matter how many gunships you have. They are also really powerful against ASF blobs if you have alot of them.

I haven't dealt with any FA(F) builds at all. My Experience stems from Playing everything SupCom Prior to FA(F), and back then Flak was useless against T3 Air units, the Fighters/Bombers couldn't be hit at all due to thier altitude and speed, Gunships had so much HP that they could dismantle you AA far faster then you could dismantle thuer Gunships.

Mike

I always use fighters just to note

Then have the flak AoE damage drop off sharply, fine with me. Have it do more damage to a single target then a spinner, and add a paltry amount of AoE, and slow it's firing rate somewhat. I'm fine with all that, air should have a chance of success. But ground should also have a chance, without requiring it's own blob of air. I think allowing unit compositions that can combat most, if not all other unit types is more interesting and less binary than "they have air, I must go air as well or die".

And besides, for all the additional AA you build, that comes out of your resources and is only effective against aircraft, obviously. The more air security you want, the more expensive and less ground firepower your army will have, which is a good tradeoff I think.

Not getting it, huh? On a list of "good ways to kill bombers" flak ranks a 2 out of 10. Which according to this arbitrary chart isn't good:

Code:

10- Beautiful. Simply a masterpiece.
9 - Excellent. Very good sir.
8 - Pretty good, definitely does the right thing.
7 - It's okay, gets the job done.
6 - Not so great, might need some fixes down the line.
5 - Not a good idea, going to cause some issues that are hard to work with.
4 - Bad idea, has issues that can not be fixed.
3 - No. It's a really bad idea. Major game bending issues.
2 - Excuse me WTF are you doing?
1 - Who let you in here?
0 - GET OUT.

And yet for some reason, flak ranks a 6-7 out of 10 as a gunship killer. Now why is that? What is so different between bombers and gunships that a flak weapon is workable against one threat, yet it triggers the terrorist watch list against the other? (Hint: maybe bombers are different from gunships somehow, and the flak response works well one way but not the other?)

I'm not sure I understand the point you're trying to make here. I thought before you were basically saying "flak way OP, so leave it out" but here you seem to be saying "flak sucks against bombers, middling against gunships".

I'm also talking about a flak unit, which is still non-existent and may have different stats compared to the existing flak turret you're talking about. Flak basically tears apart everything from what I have seen, especially bombers since they stack (or at least used to). Gunships are also very vulnerable because when targetable they will hover within range and get hit repeatedly, whereas unaffected bombers will move in and out of range.

I still think adding mobile flak would create a simpler way to add depth to the system, while remaining fair as long as it's balanced properly. Seeing as this is still a beta, that's eminently possible, so I still don't see a convincing argument not to put it in.