Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: DarkyPwnz 8 Apr 2014, 12:53

Heavy AA is here to stay obviously, but what I would like to talk about it is how they changed the game.

In vZH and Shockwave, fixed-wing air units have one purpose: Take out important targets by immediately responding where it is needed.

For example: When you destroy the 4 Battlemasters in a battlegroup made of 4 Battlemasters, 2 Troop Crawlers and 2 Gatling Tanks, the group gets much more managable.

Or when you destroy a War Factory, your advancing forces won't have to deal with reinforcements. Or later on, you destroy artillery so that your tank blob doesn't get killed by AoE.

Stuff like that, basically, if you need something on the map done right away, you used fixed wing aircraft.

And this is where the dilemma begins.

See, air units take out priority targets, but what happens when we add heavy AA to the equation? When in sufficient numbers, heavy AA units, invalidate fixed wing aircraft completely, meaning they need to be taken out first so that you can use your aircraft to take out priority targets. Well how will you achieve that? For that you need tanks, the very same units whose effectiveness was supposed to be achieved via air support. You need ground units to destroy heavy AA but you need air support to effectively destroy artillery without suffering more losses than you otherwise would have. Of course, this cycle is not absolute, and formations can be successful without air support, but then where does that place air support?

Something that used to be a good force multiplier (and still is early in the game) without being mandatory is hardly viable when heavy AA is there to ground them until ground forces destroy them. Once you do, it is very likely that the enemy still has some left in their base guarding it, and if not, chances are the game is already over at that point anyway. Of course, this doesn't make Raptors and others useless, far from it, but it does limit their usage considerably, when they were balanced in the vanilla game. And since aircraft didn't really get a power upgrade compared to vanilla (except perhaps the Frogfoot, which is now removed), it would appear that fixed-wing aircraft are indirectly nerfed in the redesigned RotR.

But this doesn't mean that heavy AA is overpowered. Why not? Well it brings us to the second half of the problem. Rotor-wing aircraft, henceforth called helicopters, can be amassed and they provide great fire support, better than fixed-wing aircraft even if their response time isn't as much. Since they are well equipped and capable of neutralizing AA quickly when used in numbers, helicopters in vanilla Zero Hour are close to being overpowered, as they marry the mobility of an aircraft with the endurance (not as in damage endurance but as in how they don't have to return to base for anything for repairs) of a vehicle packed with heavy weapons with no counter-spam AA unit available. Simply put, there is no counterpart to artillery when it comes to anti air, which enables spam tactics in vanilla and forces players to spam their own anti-air unit, which aren't effective against what are also often used later on in games: tanks.

And the helicopters in RotR are upgraded compared to their vanilla counterparts. They are also more numerous and arguably more effective in general. The Comanche was buffed considerably, the Russian helicopters are already good and the revealed abilities are nothing short of amazing (Thermobaric Rockets and Active Protection System) which give further utility to helicopters.

This means that helicopters, which were already good if not a bit too good were balanced adequately with the introduction of heavy AA but even more supportive tools for them to help them be used as force multipliers. They are in a fine place in RotR, as once the AA is down, they improve your ground forces' efficiency drastically even when not spammed. Which is how helicopters are meant to be, at least in my opinion. However, the fixed-wing aircraft , which were all balanced except perhaps for the disputed Aurora, are indirectly nerfed by something seemingly intended to balance helicopters, limiting their effectiveness considerably and making them not cost effective once multiple heavy AA units are out on the field. As a player, I don't see any reason to use Raptors once Grumbles are up as that money is better spent on Comanches which are even more powerful or other ground units to get rid of the heavy AA. The fast response ability is göne later in the game.

Now this is my theory pertaining to heavy AA and how they affect the gameplay and it could be right or wrong if there is something I missed. Since it assumes that heavy AA is being amassed, it is obviously concering early game, where fixed wing aircraft are still very much viable. This is also about 1.802 and what has been revealed about 1.85, so it may be invalid for 2.0. Share your opinion below.

Posted by: __CrUsHeR 8 Apr 2014, 13:20

The ROTR seeks to correct the "flaws" of VGenerals and ZH related to tactics and strategies, in this sense you may notice that the heavy-AA "fix" the problems related to a USA player with 10 Airfields and no Warfactory for example. In ROTR thanks to the new heavy anti-aerial all players and factions are forced to produce aerial and ground units to combine efforts to achieve victory.

On the efficiency of aircraft depends on how you micro-manage. I do not like to see the USA getting the aircraft buffs to the point of returning to what it was the King Raptor - something ridiculously overpowered.

Posted by: Serialkillerwhale 8 Apr 2014, 13:24

There's jump jet infantry, which are immune to tier 2 AA, maybe there's more units of that type?

Posted by: Overlord_Cane 8 Apr 2014, 13:24

Well, I usually take down heavy AA with artillery.

At least when it isn't pussying out behind the enemy defenses.

Posted by: X1Destroy 8 Apr 2014, 13:27

A Raptor can take out a Grumble before dying.

Nighthawk will not reveal itself except when near stealth detectors in 1.85, isn't it?


PS: Quite unrelated but while ROTR fixed that LOL USA don't need WF, just spam King Raptors and Pathfinders and you won blah blah, the buffed helicopters also made basic infantry units become less important as well, since they are too strong and AA infantry deal piss poor damage against them.
Also, while the notes said that light AA vehicles are supposed to be effective against helicopters, in reality it is quite different. Heavy AA is much better and helicopters can kill light AA for breakfast.

Posted by: DarkyPwnz 8 Apr 2014, 13:59

Which is what I said in the original post, it indeed fixed a flaw. However I don't think that the King Raptor is overpowered, and it probably wouldn't be in RotR environment, it is still in the wrong direction however. It's not so much as power as it is about how much they can do in one run. That's why I'm looking forward to the upcoming Sokol, as it is supposed to fire missiles slowly so that it can destroy multiple vehicles in one run. That's the thing that helicopters can achieve with minimal downsides compared to fixed-wing aircraft, with heavy AA, fixed-wing aircraft lose their getaway advantage.




Yes, and it is still suiciding a unit. Also won't happen with multiple Grumbles. And it's still not just Grumbles, there are four other very powerful anti air units in the game, all of which stack better than the Grumble (which is better as an individual because of the overkill), so this isn't exactly about just the Grumble.

I've found Igla Troopers to be satisfactory, more so since they ignore countermeasures. And yes, that's a problem that has persisted since ZH, the only way it is balanced is that a Comanche costs 1500 while a T0 AA costs anywhere between 700 and 1000. Once money isn't much of an object however, they are easy to overwhelm, more so thanks to ZH Rocket Pods which allow quick destruction of hordes.

Posted by: __CrUsHeR 8 Apr 2014, 14:09

I also prefer the helicopter in comparison with the aircraft, however a group of aircraft does a great job - fast and practice - against "heavy" targets as a Shenlong, Overlord, Sentinel, etc.. in situations which you could not finish the job with helicopters only.

Posted by: DarkyPwnz 8 Apr 2014, 14:11

Except it takes 3 Raptors to destroy an Overlord which isn't exactly practical.

Posted by: __CrUsHeR 8 Apr 2014, 14:24

Yes, with Raptors 3 you eliminate the most powerful tank of China in a few seconds with the loss of a single Raptor for Heavy-AA, and if they were helicopters, many lose? Destroy the target?

Posted by: DarkyPwnz 8 Apr 2014, 14:28

I think you're underestimating Comanches, a quick missile dump is enough. Besides, Twin Fang should kill two raptors at least, IIRC it three-shots Raptors if not two. And even then, it's only one situation, which won't happen if there are two Twin Fangs.

To be honest, I don't want to defend a side here, I just posted my theory about the balance between the two kinds of aircraft and how heavy AA shifted it. Going by overly specific scenarios will only derail the thread in my opinion.

Posted by: __CrUsHeR 8 Apr 2014, 14:39

Okay, the question is that previously people would like to see more helicopters in action - I was one of the enthusiasts - and also wanted the fighters lessened its efficiency - particularly the USA fighters - for the land battles had greater relevance - forget the damn MVEES - and the solution was this: most powerful helicopters, fighters being combated with Heavy-AA to avoid an uncontrolled aerial spam. Seems logical to me but I respect your point of view.

Posted by: X1Destroy 8 Apr 2014, 14:40

Nope, only Flak Hunters ignore countermeasures. I tested it.

BTW, if you ask me, I only use Raptors to destroy early game stuffs like MBTs since they will certainly die after taking hit from a single Raptor.

The heavier stuffs are often accompanied by tons of mini craps thạt can render your airstrike useless or make them a suicidal force.

Overlords with Gattling Cannons eat everything, from jets to helicopters. Avengers, Paladins, Sentinels ignore missiles and much more.

Posted by: __CrUsHeR 8 Apr 2014, 14:51

In ZH you could only use your Raptors to counteract China spams at the end of the game, something that displeased me. In ROTR you can not do this already that their aerial capabilities are limited - Heavy-AA - the only thing effective against hordes are the Gen.Powers.

Posted by: Serialkillerwhale 8 Apr 2014, 15:01

Air power should trump Hording units, I think heavy AA is fine, it just needs to be alot less mobile and alot more expensive.

Posted by: Neo3602 8 Apr 2014, 16:02

Something that is good for distracting Heavy AA, though it requires good timing, is using GP to distract Heavy AA. Though the GP plane will generally go down pretty quickly you still get a precious few seconds where the AA is shooting at something else and you can use that window of time to take out some targets(preferably the heavy AA units them selves) and have a pretty good chance of getting back alive.

Posted by: Umpfelgrumpf 8 Apr 2014, 17:15

I think that fixed wing air is even too strong.
Take the raptor or interceptor mig for example. Even when they get killed while accomplishing their mission, they can take out targets with one hit that are far beyond their price range.
Also it´s super hard to kill raptors with tier 0 AA. I would rather nerf fixed wing aircraft.
2 Interceptor Migs for 2000 can take out a Pandora. 1 Interceptor Mig for 1000 can take out a harrier, or a tiger for 1500. There is actually no reason to build tigers or harriers then, when you can only use them safely behind your many AA units. And even if you have enough AA to defeat fixed wing air units before they are able to shoot their load, they may still be invisble like the nighthawk.
Which forces you to build a few sensor arrays, which can again be taken out by air units with only one attack.

Basically Fixed Wing fighter jets counter everything except for Tier 2 AA, defense positions, or big groups of Tier 0 AA.
They can of course still be killed while on the airport, which is their only weakness.
But raptors in the earlygame are just extremely strong, being able to oneshot supplytrucks, dozers and tanks.
And in between the time, where the enemy does have jets and you don´t have Tier 2 AA yet, you´re going to have a bad time, no map control and if the enemy micros good a lost game.

But with scouting you may be able to counter even the early airfield + raptors, so it´s still all about the players skill, even when some strategies require way less "experience and training" then others.

Im talking about PvP here

Posted by: The General 8 Apr 2014, 17:28

I usualy keep my AA behind defenses, so the aircraft is dettected and the rocket lunched even before it gets closer to it's firing range. I also often destroy most of the units and defenses with artilery and aircraft before i move in with shitloads of troops.

Posted by: XAttus 8 Apr 2014, 18:14

Like Jonas said, it's perfectly fine in my opinion as well. Jets have to be kept at bay to prevent them from sniping valuable units that take more time and money to replace than a Mig or a Raptor.

I also have a feeling that this thread will end exactly the same way as your "I demand cruise missiles because that's the only logic thing and I'm damn right about that" thread.


Edit: Oh and Darky, I'm sorry if you feel like I'm being rude to you, but you are pushing these suggestions way too far and then getting butthurt when others don't agree with you. Don't forget that people who produce all this new content (A.K.A Developers) will always be above you when it comes to decisions and they have the full right to say anything between "No it's crap" and "yes it's a good idea and we'll add it". You have to accept this and move on instead of arrogantly trying to prove your point.

Posted by: DarkyPwnz 8 Apr 2014, 18:29

You brought that here, and while I would like to say how you're wrong with that "I demand cruise missiles..." sentence (because I explained why that wasn't even a suggestion thread), I don't want to derail the thread.

Once again, you got the point wrong, and once again this thread still isn't a suggestion thread, it is a discussion thread. You're trying to start a flame war and I don't want that. Please stop responding to my threads, as your posts only help to annoy me. You berate me all the time as if I were your child and I don't want to put up with it.

Posted by: Karpath 8 Apr 2014, 18:59

Which would be a possible factor why China is OP as of now.

Posted by: DarkyPwnz 8 Apr 2014, 19:01

Interesting point of view, but this discussion is mostly about later in the game when heavy AA is available. So kind of outside the point of discussion, but I can see how good Raptors and Interceptor MiGs are before you can get units that can make short work of them.

As for the Harrier part, I have to disagree, they don't necessarily make anything useless as there is reloading and travel involved. Unlike the Harrier and Tiger, Interceptor MiG cannot linger and keep on destroying Harriers. So I think destroying a Harrier in one run is perfectly justified.

Posted by: X1Destroy 8 Apr 2014, 19:01

Well, the issues with Nuke Hans killing everything is still there.........

Posted by: Kalga 8 Apr 2014, 19:05

I don't even bother with Tier 2 AA (then again, I only play against AIs) because most of them have to be deployed to fire, I just spam cheap stuff and take the losses. Then again, I'm a pretty crappy gamer.

Posted by: X1Destroy 8 Apr 2014, 19:08

I don't think that it's even possible to win against the AI without heavy AA......................

Posted by: Kalga 8 Apr 2014, 19:16

At no point did I say I ever won a game...

Posted by: DarkyPwnz 8 Apr 2014, 19:21

Then you aren't exactly the target audience now are you.

Posted by: Alguien 8 Apr 2014, 19:35

AI isnt exactly the best base to use for balance since it doesnt care about money or loses
through it does love to use helicopters more than aircraft and it makes them look like they can counter everything

Posted by: TheSneakyGLA 8 Apr 2014, 21:28

You dont see the whole picture because you havent played the game yet.

1st - Heavy AAs were "nerfed" - You may have seen in the 1st stream where I was playing against Knjaz that when his Hind got close enough to my Ural truck, it stopped firing.

There were dead angles coded into every heavy AA.

What that implies is that if you want to defend against air attacks you either need a tier 2 AA network or lesser AA spread around your base.



If you apply this to fighting USA, you have to have atleast 2 heavy AAs and a stealth detector to defend against nighthawks in 1.85.

Raptors obviously arent ground attackers, so I wouldnt use them against AA or anything that can fire back at them anyway.




P.S.: With introduction of Hunter-Killers the USA has an airforce or a form of quick, powerful harrasment from very early game.

Posted by: Knjaz. 9 Apr 2014, 6:07

In addition to what Ulater said. Sry, didn't read the whole thread, just no time for that atm.


In 185 USA, Russia, China got means to combat enemy AA. To the point where you need T2 AA to stay alive.
GLA doesn't need it that much, and ECA has howitzers/claymores to fulfill the airforce role.


As for 1802, China has the best AA suppression capabilities (which were somewhat nerfed, somewhat buffed in 185), followed by USA. Russia has none, but with Frogfoots it'd be too much.

Posted by: Genmotty 9 Apr 2014, 11:55

My RTS opinion on this is that;


"Both Airplane units and T2 AA units, on average, have high alpha attack values. This means that, on average, the unit that fires first, beats the other unit.

More specifically, T2 AA units, on average, are cheaper than Airplane units. At least when considering factions individually. This leads to the conclusion that T2 AA units are are more efficient unit to use to deny airspace control to your opponent. Hence when considering base defence, the T2 AA unit, is the most efficient option.

Generically, T2 AA units are cheap enough to spam in the mid-late, and late game. This gives a window of opportunity for airplane units to be effective, typically this can be around 5mins in to 12-15mins in, whenever your opponent is able to start inflicting the aircraft losses that result in them being able to provide 'air lock down' for their base.

Compounding issues tend to be that T2 AA have large zones of threat compared to map size. Note that on larger maps, T2 AA has far less of an effect compared to smaller maps.

Additionally, most form of helicopter can tank T2 AA damage and are not as vulnerable as they should be to T1 AA units, in my opinion, when spammed in helicopter attack groups. This leads to a reliance on using T2 AA units to effectively defend against helicopter units, rather than T1 AA units, and because helicopters tend to have greater utility, leads to more T2 AA units being produced than might be otherwise.


While I would not wish to see a 'hard cap' on the number of T2 AA units that you might be able to deploy, larger maps might be one solution to addressing the effectiveness of 'air lock downs' as might giving T1 AA units a little range boost over helicopters to allow staggering of T1 AA units in echelon.

Either way, 'air lock downs' are currently a valid tactic, and air control appears to be subordinate to a proper air defence. i.e. AA beats Air, like Artillery beats Base Defences, Tanks beat AA units yadda yadda”

Posted by: Lobo Solitario 9 Apr 2014, 12:29

I don't agree. Heavy AA serves a dual purpose - it tackles blobs of aircraft, which had no counter before, and stopping jets (especially US ones) from having free reign over pretty much the whole map outside of the enemy base. They don't render aircraft useless, they just make them have to fight for territory like other units. Ideally this second role would be carried out by other aircraft, but this isn't feasible in Sage for a number of reasons.

While it's a nice feeling to be able to dominate the whole map unchallenged with your airforce, and force your enemy to respond to air attacks the moment they leave the safety of their base, it's hardly balanced. The GLA for instance, need to invest many times more time and resources to be able to create a similar situation through the use of tunnel networks and stealthed defences, and can be rolled back by an offensive at any time. No faction should be able to dominate a tactical space practically uncontested.



While this holds true for base defence, it's also necessary to take into account mobility and tactical costs when balancing T2 AA and aircraft. Although the T2 AA might be cheaper, if it is destroyed while enforcing a no-fly zone outside of the base, a new one will have to travel to replace it, taking time. During this window of opportunity, enemy aircraft can inflict additional damage on unprotected units which can result in losses much higher than the difference in cost from any aircraft lost taking out the AA. If this is not the case, it's likely that the opponent has invested too much in AA and will therefore be weak to a ground assault.

Posted by: Serialkillerwhale 9 Apr 2014, 13:36

You counter blobs of jets by using an artillery strike, a-10 strike or whatever else you happen to have, on the airfields, each one has 4 jets in it so destroying one airfield costs alot to replace, in comparison.

Heavy AA as It is now, allows anyone to set up a Heavy AA and boom, they're completely safe and it costs far too much to break the AA cover, especially with mutliple heavy AA.

Given the ammount of space, time, and resources needed to truely focus on air power instead of the 2 or 3 war factories needed to mass tanks, I'd say it's far inferior.

Posted by: DarkyPwnz 9 Apr 2014, 13:56

Mostly agreed, but to be the devil's advocate, you don't have to put all four aircraft in the same airfield. Personally I never have more than two aircraft on the same airfield unless the map is too small to have a second airfield. That, combined with efficient management of your aircraft and making them stay grounded only when they are reloading means your enemy doesn't have all that great of a chance of destroying your aircraft along with your airfield. If by some luck they do, they still used a valuable GP to kill 2 aircraft and the 1000 airfield, so it's not that big of a loss.

That said, if that happens midgame, then it is probably going to cost you the game.

Posted by: Genmotty 10 Apr 2014, 12:46

Which I did ;



Note that I was discussing a different conclusion with regards to cost/benefit analysis.

Posted by: Re_Simeone 10 Apr 2014, 17:29

I think that Lobo summed it up perfectly well.It was annoying back then when I was playing ZH and my friend would spam
choppers and causing me nightmares,adding heavy AA causes players to think twice where are they sending their aircraft,
and I am perfectly fine with that.

Posted by: Knossos 11 Apr 2014, 3:35

I don't care much about this T2 AA-Fixed wing plane drama, but here's my stand.

There's the OPness factor in the current game since the game isn't friggin' balanced yet. Calm yo t*ts and wait for 2.0, then we'll see about this problem again.

Aside from that, if somebody's getting butthurt over t2 AA, you're not using arty properly. Unless you're USA, whose arty sucks balls against almost every kind of AA in the game.

Posted by: Knjaz. 11 Apr 2014, 11:09

The only faction in game that will be supposed/allowed to win battles by air-superiority only is USA AF Gen. And that's 2.0

Also, the difference between various T2 AA units is huge. Like, really.


The main role of airforce, as it is right now, is to strike vital enemy units (or unit formations, for AoE bombers like Hellfires and Frogfoots), to provide an advantage to your own ground force, or backdoor strike, or something else. In lategame, with T2AA spam, few suicidal Hellfires that killed several Grads, and prevented them from pwning your ground force, done their job well.

Posted by: teslashark 12 Apr 2014, 7:53

Quoting Eoin Colfer (because you deserve it): And another thing...
Heavy AAs reduce the need to build dogfighter planes by 50%.

Posted by: Overlord_Cane 12 Apr 2014, 11:06

I disagree. They make very quick work of enemy armour.