IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Heavy AA Discussion - And theory
Darky
post 8 Apr 2014, 12:53
Post #1



Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 791
Joined: 15 January 2013
Member No.: 9643



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.



Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
__CrUsHeR
post 8 Apr 2014, 13:20
Post #2



Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 2642
Joined: 18 April 2012
From: Southern Brazil.
Member No.: 9084
"No. Not even in the face of Armageddon. Never compromise."



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.


--------------------

You already imagined how would be SAP in the ROTR's universe? Check out this fan-fiction: South American Pact Introduction
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Serialkillerwhal...
post 8 Apr 2014, 13:24
Post #3


Orcinius Genocidalus
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 2428
Joined: 11 July 2012
From: North Vancouver
Member No.: 9223
No, you move.



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


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Overlord_Cane
post 8 Apr 2014, 13:24
Post #4


Your cane overlord
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 126
Joined: 1 March 2014
From: Sweden
Member No.: 10322



Well, I usually take down heavy AA with artillery.

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


--------------------

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
X1Destroy
post 8 Apr 2014, 13:27
Post #5


Guardsman
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 2077
Joined: 22 October 2012
From: Terra
Member No.: 9379
Armageddon is here..............



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.

This post has been edited by X1Destroy: 8 Apr 2014, 13:36


--------------------
We Die Standing.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Darky
post 8 Apr 2014, 13:59
Post #6



Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 791
Joined: 15 January 2013
Member No.: 9643



QUOTE (__CrUsHeR @ 8 Apr 2014, 14:20) *
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.


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.


QUOTE (X1Destroy @ 8 Apr 2014, 14:27) *
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.


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.

This post has been edited by DarkyPwnz: 8 Apr 2014, 14:01
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
__CrUsHeR
post 8 Apr 2014, 14:09
Post #7



Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 2642
Joined: 18 April 2012
From: Southern Brazil.
Member No.: 9084
"No. Not even in the face of Armageddon. Never compromise."



QUOTE (DarkyPwnz @ 8 Apr 2014, 9:59) *
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.

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.


--------------------

You already imagined how would be SAP in the ROTR's universe? Check out this fan-fiction: South American Pact Introduction
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Darky
post 8 Apr 2014, 14:11
Post #8



Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 791
Joined: 15 January 2013
Member No.: 9643



QUOTE (__CrUsHeR @ 8 Apr 2014, 15:09) *
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.


Except it takes 3 Raptors to destroy an Overlord which isn't exactly practical.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
__CrUsHeR
post 8 Apr 2014, 14:24
Post #9



Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 2642
Joined: 18 April 2012
From: Southern Brazil.
Member No.: 9084
"No. Not even in the face of Armageddon. Never compromise."



QUOTE (DarkyPwnz @ 8 Apr 2014, 10:11) *
Except it takes 3 Raptors to destroy an Overlord which isn't exactly practical.

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?


--------------------

You already imagined how would be SAP in the ROTR's universe? Check out this fan-fiction: South American Pact Introduction
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Darky
post 8 Apr 2014, 14:28
Post #10



Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 791
Joined: 15 January 2013
Member No.: 9643



QUOTE (__CrUsHeR @ 8 Apr 2014, 15:24) *
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?


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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
__CrUsHeR
post 8 Apr 2014, 14:39
Post #11



Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 2642
Joined: 18 April 2012
From: Southern Brazil.
Member No.: 9084
"No. Not even in the face of Armageddon. Never compromise."



QUOTE (DarkyPwnz @ 8 Apr 2014, 10:28) *
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.

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.


--------------------

You already imagined how would be SAP in the ROTR's universe? Check out this fan-fiction: South American Pact Introduction
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
X1Destroy
post 8 Apr 2014, 14:40
Post #12


Guardsman
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 2077
Joined: 22 October 2012
From: Terra
Member No.: 9379
Armageddon is here..............



QUOTE
I've found Igla Troopers to be satisfactory, more so since they ignore countermeasures.


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.


--------------------
We Die Standing.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
__CrUsHeR
post 8 Apr 2014, 14:51
Post #13



Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 2642
Joined: 18 April 2012
From: Southern Brazil.
Member No.: 9084
"No. Not even in the face of Armageddon. Never compromise."



QUOTE (X1Destroy @ 8 Apr 2014, 10:40) *
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.

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.


--------------------

You already imagined how would be SAP in the ROTR's universe? Check out this fan-fiction: South American Pact Introduction
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Serialkillerwhal...
post 8 Apr 2014, 15:01
Post #14


Orcinius Genocidalus
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 2428
Joined: 11 July 2012
From: North Vancouver
Member No.: 9223
No, you move.



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


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Neo3602
post 8 Apr 2014, 16:02
Post #15


Secure, Contain, Protect
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 467
Joined: 23 June 2013
From: USA
Member No.: 9992



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.


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Umpfelgrumpf
post 8 Apr 2014, 17:15
Post #16



Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 233
Joined: 29 September 2013
Member No.: 10149



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 smile.gif


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The General
post 8 Apr 2014, 17:28
Post #17


Head of the Federal Council of Byzantine
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 1038
Joined: 12 June 2013
From: Byzantine Federation
Member No.: 9974



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.


--------------------
"Nations whose nationalism is destroyed are subject to ruin."
Colonel Muhammar Gaddafi (RIP).
"You will not mind, gentlemen, that i am firstly a Russian and my closest interests are those of Russia, but I can assure you that interests of Serbia and those of the Serbian people are immediately after them."
Nicholas II of Russia.
"Either you repeat the same conventional doctrines everybody is saying, or else you say something true, and it will sound like it's from Neptune."
Noam Chomsky.


_____________________________
(Main) Balkan Federation fanfiction - Expect a new edit by 31st of April 2020. That includes fixing all the missing images.
Operation "Removal" fanfiction - last edited 01.07.2015.( episode #4 part 2 added-fanfiction complete )


Russia: The Evil Empire.
Do not watch RT !
Noam Chomsky on the Genocide in Kosovo.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
XAttus
post 8 Apr 2014, 18:14
Post #18


Arena maker
Group Icon

Group: Tester
Posts: 803
Joined: 24 November 2013
From: In front of da screen
Member No.: 10203



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.



This post has been edited by XAttus: 8 Apr 2014, 18:21


--------------------
XAttus
-game anyone?

The Hunter
- Nobody wants to play bombtruck simulator with you
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Darky
post 8 Apr 2014, 18:29
Post #19



Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 791
Joined: 15 January 2013
Member No.: 9643



QUOTE (XAttus @ 8 Apr 2014, 19:14) *
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.


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.

This post has been edited by DarkyPwnz: 8 Apr 2014, 18:32
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
HMS Warspite
post 8 Apr 2014, 18:59
Post #20


Queen Elizabeth-class Battleship
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 320
Joined: 26 March 2013
From: With Kongou
Member No.: 9874
Hello, Admire-ral!



QUOTE (Serialkillerwhale @ 8 Apr 2014, 16:01) *
Air power should trump Hording units, I think heavy AA is fine, it just needs to be alot less mobile and alot more expensive.


Which would be a possible factor why China is OP as of now. 8chi.png
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Darky
post 8 Apr 2014, 19:01
Post #21



Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 791
Joined: 15 January 2013
Member No.: 9643



QUOTE (Umpfelgrumpf @ 8 Apr 2014, 18:15) *
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 smile.gif


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.

This post has been edited by DarkyPwnz: 8 Apr 2014, 19:03
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
X1Destroy
post 8 Apr 2014, 19:01
Post #22


Guardsman
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 2077
Joined: 22 October 2012
From: Terra
Member No.: 9379
Armageddon is here..............



QUOTE (Karpath @ 8 Apr 2014, 18:59) *
Which would be a possible factor why China is OP as of now. 8chi.png


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


--------------------
We Die Standing.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Kalga
post 8 Apr 2014, 19:05
Post #23


Writer do his best now and BSing...
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 536
Joined: 10 February 2013
From: Somewhere in America (currently, not always that way)
Member No.: 9758
Yes I like Touhou... and the problem is?



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.


--------------------
... wait, oh s--t! I've been surrounded by raging modders!

The forum is ripe with the stench of gamers!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
X1Destroy
post 8 Apr 2014, 19:08
Post #24


Guardsman
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 2077
Joined: 22 October 2012
From: Terra
Member No.: 9379
Armageddon is here..............



QUOTE (Kalga @ 8 Apr 2014, 20:05) *
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.


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


--------------------
We Die Standing.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Kalga
post 8 Apr 2014, 19:16
Post #25


Writer do his best now and BSing...
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 536
Joined: 10 February 2013
From: Somewhere in America (currently, not always that way)
Member No.: 9758
Yes I like Touhou... and the problem is?



QUOTE (X1Destroy @ 8 Apr 2014, 14:08) *
I don't think that it's even possible to win against the AI without heavy AA......................


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


--------------------
... wait, oh s--t! I've been surrounded by raging modders!

The forum is ripe with the stench of gamers!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V   1 2 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 28 March 2024 - 22:54