Rework Melee to Air Combat

    This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

    • A_Talking_Crab wrote:

      Teutonian wrote:

      There is one good thing though. I will say that the units that are SPECIALIZED to be anti air suck at it (ie mobile aa) and their stats need to be improved (maybe to like 6/6 attack/defense like you suggested),
      mobile is bad yes, but just use sam
      I will switch to sams ~day 10, but this suggestion is primarily focused on the early game, when resources are tight and you must be selective with what you research/produce
      "El experto en todos fue una vez un bêginara"

      "You didn't see me sneak under the door" :evil: :evil:

    • Flat Stanley wrote:

      resources are tight and you must be selective with what you research/produce
      This is, or at least should be, true for the entire game.

      My principal problem with your suggestion (as well as the plenty of other similar ones propped up recently)
      is that it aims to weaken this fundamental aspect of the game. You are asking for the resource tightness to be eased, in a peculiar way, just so that your favorite kind of unit would work better.
      Commander Zozo001 :thumbsup:
      humble player

    • Honestly I've never really faced the problem of opponents using gunships. I haven't run into (and if I did it's very rare) and rarely do this since I usually just straight go for strikers if i'm focusing on it. And if It did happen I'd just get as much asf as i could muster at that point and fight with what I had.

      No matter how much asf you have they're still superior against heli in every way meaning if you're active enough you can deal with your enemy's heli's rather quickly and if you're not try to get as much air defense as you can and defend your airspace. Not a lot but it makes a difference by doing (insert damage rate here) tp heli's

      Final thoughts:

      I don't feel it's necessary to rework Melee to Air Combat for a few reasons (note: some reasons may have been said before)

      - Realistically infantry going to be feeling a bit dead when those heli's come around and this game is supposed to be rather realistic

      - Also just a comment, I believe the damage ratio and HP Buff have been that way for a long long time. Please correct me if im wrong

      - I highly doubt this happens often to most people unless they're going against an fairly experienced player and even then that player has a ton of other choices than going heli's and if they do focus on heli's early on its still easy to counter with any solid number of asf (number depends on opponent heli's).


      So yeah, those are just my thoughts and views on this. No hate to anyone, just wanted to put my thoughts out there :D

      Have a great one everyone :thumbup:

    • Just saying, ASF is super easy to get.
      Like what else would you get that would make ASF impossible to spam…MBTs? SFs?
      if it is strike fighters than fine, but you’re SF combined with ASF (being lower) would still prove you’re strategy to be not as stable as you may have hoped
      Quantity +quality > quality but low numbers.
      GHs are tanky units, and they are cheaper which allows them to get better ASF than you if you use SFs. Difference is the moment they run out of ASF, they can’t kill your plane anymore.

      I generally play GH strat. And depending on your strat getting MAA or SAMs pretty early on may be bad or good.
      Watch melliodas if you want some tips on playing, though I never, never get MaA in early game.

    • I don’t get what it is, maybe I build/produce slightly differently than you guys, that I just don’t have the necessary resources to invest in strikers in the early game (lvl 3-4 research) I usually prioritize my whole naval branch, along with mech inf, and then get to strikers around day 10. So when someone is using mass helo gunships on me you can see why that can be a problem. But like I said earlier 90% of time that doesn’t happen, but when it does it’s just annoying that they can destroy your troops so easy.
      "El experto en todos fue una vez un bêginara"

      "You didn't see me sneak under the door" :evil: :evil:

    • Flat Stanley wrote:

      I don’t get what it is, maybe I build/produce slightly differently than you guys, that I just don’t have the necessary resources to invest in strikers in the early game (lvl 3-4 research) I usually prioritize my whole naval branch, along with mech inf, and then get to strikers around day 10. So when someone is using mass helo gunships on me you can see why that can be a problem. But like I said earlier 90% of time that doesn’t happen, but when it does it’s just annoying that they can destroy your troops so easy.
      Why do you get mechanized infantry at all, with their heavy cost? I would just get strike fighters and obliterate everything in my path before sending in my weaker infantry.
      I am Aeneas, duty-bound and known above high air of heaven by my fame, carrying with me in my ships our gods of hearth and home, saved from the foe. I look for Italy to be my fatherland, and my descent is from all-highest Jove.

    • Aeneas of Troy wrote:

      Flat Stanley wrote:

      I don’t get what it is, maybe I build/produce slightly differently than you guys, that I just don’t have the necessary resources to invest in strikers in the early game (lvl 3-4 research) I usually prioritize my whole naval branch, along with mech inf, and then get to strikers around day 10. So when someone is using mass helo gunships on me you can see why that can be a problem. But like I said earlier 90% of time that doesn’t happen, but when it does it’s just annoying that they can destroy your troops so easy.
      Why do you get mechanized infantry at all, with their heavy cost? I would just get strike fighters and obliterate everything in my path before sending in my weaker infantry.
      I feel mech inf is the best overall melee unit as it has great offensive stats coupled with excellent speed and terrain buffs, to me it’s worth the extra resource. That’s really the only melee unit I regularly produce though

      Like I said earlier after day 10 or so my Air Force is good enough to the point where all my stacks can have aerial defense. From there I am close to unstoppable.
      "El experto en todos fue una vez un bêginara"

      "You didn't see me sneak under the door" :evil: :evil:

    • Flat Stanley wrote:

      Aeneas of Troy wrote:

      Why do you get mechanized infantry at all, with their heavy cost? I would just get strike fighters and obliterate everything in my path before sending in my weaker infantry.
      . . .
      Like I said earlier after day 10 or so my Air Force is good enough to the point where all my stacks can have aerial defense. From there I am close to unstoppable.
      This sentence from you (Flat) is very telling. You are still looking through what I would say is the wrong end of the telescope.

      Troy recommended that you stop primarily fighting with melee troops. You replied that you use Air units to escort your ground [melee] stacks.

      Your reply was written as though you generally agree with Troy, but in fact you are 99% ignoring his advice and staying stuck in the I'm-going-to-put-ground-melee-units-on-my-frount-lines-no-matter-what-advice-I-get rut.

      Troy's advice is spot-on for the vast majority of public games, if your goal is winning by wiping out enemies as fast as possible.

      The post was edited 1 time, last by KFGauss ().

    • Zozo001 wrote:

      japan samurai wrote:

      I generally play GH strat.
      Personally I've never considered using GHs as a strategy. It depends on assuming your opponents are dumb, IMHO.But whatever suits your style, I guess...
      Excuse me? Opponents are dumb? What makes you say that. You think thet I’ll just get GH? Is that it?!? Come on everyone needs ASF, I shouldn’t need to say GH ASF strat just like SF ASF strat no?

    • Flat Stanley wrote:

      I don’t get what it is, maybe I build/produce slightly differently than you guys, that I just don’t have the necessary resources to invest in strikers in the early game (lvl 3-4 research) I usually prioritize my whole naval branch, along with mech inf, and then get to strikers around day 10. So when someone is using mass helo gunships on me you can see why that can be a problem. But like I said earlier 90% of time that doesn’t happen, but when it does it’s just annoying that they can destroy your troops so easy.
      hmmm…If i do SF strat, i get them by day 3, my first SF of course is then. After that it will be me spamming them for a couple more days before moving on to building another Airbase to have a second platform to make ASF and SF.
      Depending in you’re country, focusing on navy can be dumb or smart.

      As for getting Mech inf, in games like flashpoint that is generally fine, but don’t spend everything on them. Pretty useless. With your definition of just getting your first SF by day 10, my strat on SFs gets me at least 4-7 of them by then. (2stacks, where ASF is mixed in)
      Melee is something i would avoid. If I need anything to counter early game rushes, Just getting inf, NG, inf officer and your airforce strat should solve the problem.

    • japan samurai wrote:

      Come on everyone needs ASF
      I fully agree. Yet, many players do not get them (in fact even some regulars here claimed that few do).
      I thought you meant by "GH strat" to rely primarily on them (why call it "strat", otherwise?).
      That can only work if the opponents do not have ASF, which is what I was referring to with my remark on their dumbness.
      Commander Zozo001 :thumbsup:
      humble player

    • japan samurai wrote:

      Zozo001 wrote:

      japan samurai wrote:

      I generally play GH strat.
      Personally I've never considered using GHs as a strategy. It depends on assuming your opponents are dumb, IMHO.But whatever suits your style, I guess...
      Excuse me? Opponents are dumb? What makes you say that. You think thet I’ll just get GH? Is that it?!? Come on everyone needs ASF, I shouldn’t need to say GH ASF strat just like SF ASF strat no?
      Yes - Strategy descriptions do need to be more complete if you want to communicate clearly here.

      There are too many differing opinions, habits, game scenarios, player-goals, and public/alliance possibilities for readers to be able to figure out what's in your head.

      In this case, if you've been paying any attention at all (in public WW3 games for one example) you should have noticed that MANY players DON'T build ASF, or maybe build just one or two.

      So, please don't bark at other people just because they couldn't read your mind, or because you think they should obviously put you in the better-player-because-I-automatically-build-ASFs category. For the latter part of that sentence, it's not obvious you (or I or most people) belong in that category.

      The post was edited 2 times, last by KFGauss ().

    • japan samurai wrote:

      Well I didn’t expect to need to be that specific around people who frequent the forums. If not I would have to list out everything I do in my Strategy…that would take forever and would be very long.
      OK - I was obviously wrong - The results speak for themselves, and your approach is working just fine.

      Improving your communication isn't necessary because a smart guy like you is already an excellent communicator who is never misunderstood - so long as his audience remembers to fill in any blanks with whatever a good player would do (even if the audience is supposed to be learning from him what a good player would do).

      That's why it's OK to blame the audience for any misunderstanding. They shouldn't expect you to do their job for them.

    • Was I blaming them? I was just saying whether I needed to explain everything to someone. I call it the GH strat because it is the heli strat. If not what do you call it? Why not tell me then. Its just like when you use SFs, you call it the SF strat.
      isn’t that why we have short forms for? Just like how everyone knows SF = strike fighters and so on. Maybe its because I use discord too much and Am used to just saying heli /SF strat. :?:

      And if you can’t tell what I do in a strategy than don’t go about blabbering how people only use it to fight dumb opponents.

      The post was edited 1 time, last by japan samurai ().

    • japan samurai wrote:

      . . .


      And if you can’t tell what I do in a strategy than don’t go about blabbering how people only use it to fight dumb opponents.
      Not sure what you're complaining about.

      Didn't I write that I agree that your communication style is working well, especially in paragraphs like the one I've quoted here, where you certainly aren't blaming readers for failing to fill in the blanks in something you wrote?

      PS: Phrases like "___ strat" don't have universally accepted definitions - Your information ecosystem isn't the only one that exists.

    • KFGauss wrote:

      japan samurai wrote:

      . . .


      And if you can’t tell what I do in a strategy than don’t go about blabbering how people only use it to fight dumb opponents.
      Not sure what you're complaining about.
      Didn't I write that I agree that your communication style is working well, especially in paragraphs like the one I've quoted here, where you certainly aren't blaming readers for failing to fill in the blanks in something you wrote?

      PS: Phrases like "___ strat" don't have universally accepted definitions - Your information ecosystem isn't the only one that exists.
      im not too old to understand sacrasm.