Fallout Studios Forums

I was thinking about how the Air Superiority fighters ranked, and it occurred to me that it was such:

1. Apollo
2. Mecha Tengu
3. MiG

The Apollo being at the top, is reasonable, since they rely on Air power a lot (ignore lore). The thing I don't get is, why is the MiG, which is more expensive than a Mecha Tengu (MiG's cost $1200 due to $1000 cost of Air Field, on a true cost basis), and limited to 4 per Air field, weaker than something which costs $800, is mass producible, and can attack Land, Air AND Sea. Sure, they don't have that recall speed boost ability, but speed doesn't really matter in the case of air superiority in RTS, especially if they only are fast when running back home: there are no obstacles to block them, and they can't attack land.

I suggest giving the MiG a speed increase, and a range increase, such that they are able to hit Mecha Tengu's out of the Tengu's range. It this affects Apollos, then the Apollo bullet range can be increased as well. Besides, they could do with it: they're bullet animation is rather awkward.

MiGs have splash damage.

^ You're not making a point

Remember that in Shock Therapy the fighters use a dogfighting system, in which the MiG's homing missiles come into play. Though air-to-air battles tend to take longer, the MiG, both due to the missiles and splash damage, is at an advantage against Apollo's.

As for Destiny's comment: The splash damage of the MiG's is very useful against Mecha Tengu's as they are usually close together. Players need a lot of micro to save the tengu's from the splash (or, switch them to ground mode, but then you lose the dogfight straight away).

Hmm... The dog fight schematic will cause some balancing issues when it comes to air superiority destroying air units (especially GIGA!!). I think there is a need to keep the time variable needed for air superiority to destroy other air units the same. Maybe apollos should have swivel guns, in addition to the MiG's homing missiles. Tengu's can be kept as they are.

vader333, on 18 Nov 2010, 14:47, said:

Yes, I found that out the hard way: Have a few MiG's "intercept" the AI's fighters, and then let Bullfrogs shred the hostile planes. You might lose a MiG or 2 to the splash damage though...

I was having some really complex ideas of Aerial Combat after attending an aeronautics course at school: Have three 'layers' represent three different heights. Lowest is called H3, second, H2, and Top most H1. H1 and H2 would be used by fighters in dog fights (climbing, tailing, barrel-rolling), H1 by bombers to remain undetected and invulnerable to anti air, and H3 would be for Burst Drones, Rocket Angels and the not truly aerial units. H1 and H2 would be reachable by Reaper Rockets, Multigunner IFV, and other non anti air specialty units.

Just a thought ^^. Not likely to be realised (I've never ever seen a game focus on dog fights as much as Microsoft Flight Simulator. Anyone play it?)

vader333, on 18 Nov 2010, 9:13, said:

.................... Oh my. That would be a nightmare to code......

NRedAlert, on 18 Nov 2010, 12:50, said:

It wouldn't be hard at all, just locomotors with certain heights and an ATTACKING status locomotor with a different height.

I personally don't like the idea too much, but it's possible to do.

R3ven, on 19 Nov 2010, 7:58, said:

Not like? Why?

Because it is totally unnecessary imo.

Quite. Just like how concrete was never necessary for human housing at the start. But it is now. It's whether you make it interesting enough for it to be developed into a necessity. Necessities for fun and convenience exist, although they are contradictory: fun and convenience are not necessary for survival.

realism? in my CnC?

I also think its redundant.

V.Metalic, on 19 Nov 2010, 5:04, said:

It truly is. It also opens up realms of new balance.

R3ven, on 19 Nov 2010, 22:05, said:

And vader is the one who calls for balancing Irony, isnt it?

dots... I was merely suggesting for air craft to be made able to be micromanaged. As it is now, fire power is the only quantity that is needed to determine the outcome of a dog fight. There isn't any 'agility' variable; once the enemy is behind you, he gets a few free shots and you're necessarily dead unless you make a home run; there isn't a way for a human player to truly affect aerial combat the way one can affect ground combat (reverse move, high ground advantage, MCV blocking MCV, etc.).

Sure, I've been calling for lots of balance, and sure, this would open an entirely new dimension of balancing, but just because it'll take more effort to cook at home, doesn't mean you should eat out all the time!

It seems that we prefer dont even start cooking. Because it will be to much balancing, would be not easy to make (I dont know, RA3 code says me as much as goat understands a carrot). Also it is hard to make is as you suggested, because airships cant easily fly into the height where strategic bombers are flying, gunships should fly there, but cant hit a thing from there, aircrafts could fight in all heights... In this way it will take a lot of additional work, so it dont looks strange.

I rest my suggestion's case.

Edit: V.Metallic's response above does not debunk the validity of my analogy. But who cares? =P
Edited by vader333, 30 December 2010 - 08:33.

With 1.01c, the MiG has become considerably more powerful, but the Apollos seems rather Weak now, since the Dog fight schematic allows it only so many shots every time.

I suggest allowing the Apollo to attack within a range of angles (this is consistent with Red Alert 3 lore, I checked the concept art: the gun is nose mounted) and increasing their damage per second.

Also, for an aircraft, I feel the MiG is too slow. I suggest increasing their speeds to just slightly lower than the Apollo: They look lighter, and speed only really matters when the MiG is chasing the Apollo.

For your scrutiny.