T2 bomber change..........

Indeed. And they form death balls since these friggin gunships have NO collision / pushing enabled.

T2 bomber is just a superior gunship. Nothing else. I haven't seen a single player who would have gone for "real" gunship blob. All of the went for T2 bomber blob instead, just because it is superior in terms of range, speed and survivability.

And the high "single damage target" doesn't matter either when deployed in blobs.

It's exactly the same unit. Except that one of them is superior in all terms as soon as you deploy a handful.

You say that like it hasn't been made abundantly clear by Uber that such an "upgrade" is entirely intentional.

More metal = More power. Simple.

My CnC Mod had gunships and a long range tactical missile version. To keep it balanced there the long range option had an atrocious reload time and small clip. Yes, on a single attack run it had higher survivability and more damage than the lightweight unit, but it spent most of it's time back home reloading while the light gunship could move between several smaller targets with ease before returning home. This helped establish distinct roles for both units.

The end result was that the best attack was a mix of the two. Let the long range gunship break the defenses and pop the AA tanks, while the light gunships followed up right behind them to clear the area.

There are ways to make the T2 Bomber (Support Gunship is more accurate) distinct from the standard gunship without letting their combat roles overlap.

I personally believe no air should be able to out range AA cannons, it essentially makes them useless.

It only helps add to the orbital dominance movement mid game.

I really don't see the problem.

I personally support the shift into orbital mid game. While I feel orbital still needs refining in the UI and unit rosters as a game mechanic I fully support it.

Air units that out range ground based AA also encourage the use of interceptors, not just orbital. It also supports new roles for long range slow firing AA being a separate role from hard hitting short range AA. Different weapons for different jobs.

That's true, it does keep interceptors viable.

this is starting to revolve so ill say this "you cant shoot down tank shots" the only thing that blocks a tanks cannon is wreckage and walls. its weapon has no counter.

And I wish that were true for more units.

But as it stands, counter a units weapon doesn't counter the unit.

It's a matter of interpretation. While I agree with the basic idea, when taken to extremes countering the weapon can be a very effective counter to the unit.

If you have completely removed the utility of a unit by negating it's weapon with 100% efficiency you have countered the unit too.... for example, if Anti-Nukes were as cheap as dox and could be built quickly at T1 they would depreciate Nukes so much that they would be effectively countered, even without destroying the structure.

Another extreme case would be if walls have infinite health they counter tanks and dox.

As we have discussed before, that isn't in my interpretation.

But yeah, I defiantly feel like the current T2 bomber can be made into a building sniper, rather then a anti-unit bomber.

I'm approaching it on the angle of "counter" is not the same as "destroy" to "counter" something you simply need to deprive it of value.

I'm 100% OK with the chance to the T2 bomber, but I would rather it be a new unit. I would like to see the T2 bomber return as an area saturation bomber, and make the T1 bomber an anti-tank strike plane.

so there you are have your commander in a heavy defended Turret base then a missile flys and destroys an AA turret then T2 flak then the rest of your turrets you look and its a T2 bomber! then Gunships fly in and kill your commander (this is just a example )

And that's good.

Just like with land siege, no static defences should be suffered to win.

I really want every unit to be different and feel unique. I don't mind if units share the same "Role" as long as the go about it differently. Also I prefer if not every unit that fills a role does it as well as others. The hope is to have at the end units that have character and purpose through out the whole match, and that if employed correctly will gain you some kind of advantage.

While the model in this case certainly looks silly, Uber did get the two bombers to be functionally very different. So for me I'm happy with the change knowing its still a WIP.

You have a different definition of "role" than I do then. To me, HOW a unit goes about something is very tied into WHAT it does, to the point that I don't think you can have 2 units that do significantly different things for the same purpose, not without some hand-waving that shouldn't be happening in PA.

Mike

Ok so what I meant was lets say the "Role" is AA. The way that one unit does AA is with a massive twin barrel machine gun that shoots really fast. Another unit does it by shooting scores of missiles. etc. Those two units would fill the same role of AA but they would be doing it differently. That's better than two AA units that both just shoot missiles. It gives the units some character and uniqueness.

Shooting at a unit level isn't the same a role.

Artillery, tanks, nukes, SXX lasers can all shoot at the same level, but their role is vastly different.

I suppose its all a mater of definition. I'd call what you are talking about "Types". But I suppose that is what Mike was talking about. I was just trying to explain what I meant. Not start a definition side track. But I'm open to correction on terms.

But that's not nearly in-depth enough to see WHY they're different, I mean, in a fundamental level saying "One shoots lots of Bullets and the other shoots lots of missiles" isn't really all that different. You need to explain WHY things are different and not just make a pair of very open-ended comments and not explaining further.

Here is a good example of a more in-depth explanation, and this to give more info on the general thought process.

Mike