GLA Antivehicle Concerns, Needs to be mentioned, I feel. Options

[Casojin]

I do like Juzhiz taunt. Still, most ZH generals' taunts sound like they're maniacs commanding armies.

[Shiro]

Because they fight maniacs playing the game
On a more serious note, some of the Generals, like Townes, Kwai, Tao, and also others, like Dr Thrax or Kassad, ARE maniacly. To a lesser degree this includes everyone else.

[Jaimas]

There's still a secondary point that has yet to be addressed:

GLA Heavy Artillery Sucks.

In every situation, it is nowhere near as cost-effective as that of other factions, and does not even reach the level of cost-effectiveness of GLA Light Artillery vehicles.
Ignoring for a moment the fact that an Avenger can hold off as many as four SCUDs if they aren't firing at pretty much the same time (I've labbed it), GLA Heavy Artillery vehicles have projectiles that can be shot down by enemy defensive structures, are fragile (Barely above a rocket buggy), cost a lot (seriously), take up a general's promotion point (WTF), and to put it succintly, are gigantic wastes of time and money at best.

They need some kind of enhancement, or there will remain zero point to producing them over GLA Light Artillery, barring the exceptionally rare circumstance of absolutely needing something they can do (ranged area-of-effect poison vs. Infantry China, for example) - and even then, they'll take a general's point that could be better spent elsewhere.

This is inefficient and mechanically dumb.

[Chyros]

There's still a secondary point that has yet to be addressed:

GLA Heavy Artillery Sucks.

In every situation, it is nowhere near as cost-effective as that of other factions, and does not even reach the level of cost-effectiveness of GLA Light Artillery vehicles.
Ignoring for a moment the fact that an Avenger can hold off as many as four SCUDs if they aren't firing at pretty much the same time (I've labbed it), GLA Heavy Artillery vehicles have projectiles that can be shot down by enemy defensive structures, are fragile (Barely above a rocket buggy), cost a lot (seriously), take up a general's promotion point (WTF), and to put it succintly, are gigantic wastes of time and money at best.

They need some kind of enhancement, or there will remain zero point to producing them over GLA Light Artillery, barring the exceptionally rare circumstance of absolutely needing something they can do (ranged area-of-effect poison vs. Infantry China, for example) - and even then, they'll take a general's point that could be better spent elsewhere.

This is inefficient and mechanically dumb.

I agree completely that they are insufficient. This probably stems from the designer point-of-view that all GLA technology needs to be inferior and highly counterable, much like in ZH. Since these units aren't particularly spammable though, I agree they could use a buff. For example, I myself would make the missiles much harder or even impossible to take down but that's not very likely to happen. I know of at least one that's getting a buff, though.

[Destiny]

I agree completely that they are insufficient. This probably stems from the designer point-of-view that all GLA technology needs to be inferior and highly counterable, much like in ZH. Since these units aren't particularly spammable though, I agree they could use a buff. For example, I myself would make the missiles much harder or even impossible to take down but that's not very likely to happen. I know of at least one that's getting a buff, though.

Well if those big missile ones took two PDL shots to kill, perhaps it'll be better. However avid a USAF singleplayer I am that uses Avengers a lot, it's nice to lose a few units every once in a while. get a challenge from even the AI.

[Shock]

Some artillery pieces have problems with speed, notably the TOPOL M and the Scud launcher. Speed is the main factor in this, not damage, aside from the underpowered TOPOL perhaps.

[Jaimas]

Some artillery pieces have problems with speed, notably the TOPOL M and the Scud launcher. Speed is the main factor in this, not damage, aside from the underpowered TOPOL perhaps.

It's not speed. Speed wouldn't be an issue at all given that these units in general already do OMGWTFLOL damage to what they can hit (which considering that they are mainly used against Infantry Blobs and Buildings, is generally all right). They could do with a missile speed boost, to be sure, but there are 3 far bigger issues with these units:

* PDLs negate them pretty much entirely (I have several times seen a single Avenger PEWPEW down targetted missiles from 3 un-upgraded FROGs, and I know this because I have done this repeatedly to screen buildings from attack in Kassad's level in General's Challenge Mode)
* They die to just about everything, including rebels, light artillery, fast-attack vehicles, aircraft, and possibly dirty looks.
* THEY COST A GENERAL'S POINT.

There is, as of currently, zero reason to build them - at ALL - unless you're playing against Infantry China (in which case best of luck). If you're fighting the US (and god help you if you're staring down Laser US or Vanilla US), these units are - against all odds - even MORE useless, since you have PDL-equipped Drones and Paladins, ergo making it so these units can accomplish all of jack.



If the missiles were not instantly PEWPEW'D by PDLs, and these things had even negligably better durability (to make up for the fact that they're slow as hell), they'd be worth the general's point. Currently, they aren't, and this needs to be fixed - or these units will languish in the un-used bin.

I'd rather have Berserk MRLSes than these. At least the Berserk has the exploitable Propaganda Zone thingurie.

This post has been edited by Jaimas: 7 Nov 2009, 11:52

[JJ]

IMO, the ability to shoot down ballistic missiles should be removed, whether it's by PDL or defences, but still ECM'able. At the very least it needs a health boost.

At least Paladins can't zap them right now.

[Shiro]

I would give them an armor boost against laser weapons too and a big one at that. Seeing how difficult it is for a Sentinel Cannon of Leang to take down a Topol-M missile and then how easy it is for an Avenger (or any anti-big-missile system of the US) I do not think that is really fair. It would be ok to still be able to shoot them down, however it should take alot more effort. That is, of course, only my opinion. Also, the Katyusha is in my opinion a better armoured rocket buggy needing a Gen Point with bad targeting. It would be helpful if it would have the ability which several Deathstrike's vehicles have - different firing speeds, and rockets which withstand a bit more than less than a PDL shot. That is again, of course, only my opinion.
Edit: ridiculous spelling error.

This post has been edited by KamuiK: 7 Nov 2009, 13:25

[Frostyarmy]

i perfer to think that tihs is absouluty fine tbh i had no problem taking down 5 avengers before as i had a more then a equal number of Topels / Scrouges / scud Launchers / katashyas , also normally i get maruders as Salvage gen with the upgrade and they can do a very sneaky take down as well , 2 battle buses loaded with Rocket troopers Being Any gla but salvage is deadly to especially with a sneaked in jarmen kell in 1 , gla has far to many counters to the avenger or ecm , i see no issue.

[JJ]

Problem is this little disadvantage makes Rocket Buggys much, much better than the heavy artilleries. Pretty obvious as to why there.

Also IMO, defences shouldn't be able to be able to negate its counter, the artillery, especially since it only involves a certain group of artillery (which fires ballistic missiles). If it can do that to all artilleries, then maybe, but now, hell no.

The Katyusha needs to be better though, not sure how. However IIRC this has been resolved in the devs.

[Shiro]

That is good to read the Katyusha has been changed. Also as I know my favorite Deathstrike unit, the Basilisk, has been placed Rank 1, that opens a new tactic path for the early/mid and midgame. Also yes, it might not be fair for a defense on mid-range to negate its actual counter unit, the artillery, so I agree. Well, you and the other devs certainly know what has to be done, so I let myself be surprised. Yet, would it be so bad for the Katyusha, being a Deathstrike unit, having different firing speeds? Just wondering

[JJ]

I guess unleashing all its rocket in like one second would be fun, but that's not up to me. :3

[Alias]

To be honest I don't think it'll make much of a difference. It's always going to be inferior to the Latrun due to the fact it can't fire on the move.

[JJ]

Wouldn't a barrage mode decrease the time it needs to be stationary so that it becomes overally more mobile?

[Chyros]

Problem is this little disadvantage makes Rocket Buggys much, much better than the heavy artilleries. Pretty obvious as to why there.

Exactly. Rocket Buggies are much more flexible imo anyway, and they cost less and don't require a gen's point.

Also IMO, defences shouldn't be able to be able to negate its counter, the artillery, especially since it only involves a certain group of artillery (which fires ballistic missiles). If it can do that to all artilleries, then maybe, but now, hell no.

Again, exactly. I never understood how the logic of "defences-counter-artillery" could be justified. Well, perhaps on the Sentinel, but even then it's currently too easy for that one.

The Katyusha needs to be better though, not sure how. However IIRC this has been resolved in the devs.

IMO it is now definitely resolved .

[-Xv-]

I still don't understand the problem here... Tunnel popping scuds is one of the best defenses out there, no matter how many avengers the enemy has. You made them any better, it would be horribly overpowered. IMO anyways. I have never, EVER had a problem countering an attack force that has avengers with sufficient number of scuds, (given the size and cost of enemy group compared to what I spent on my Scuds, its usually a lot less for me. Also, the number of scuds usually don't exceed 5 or 6, no matter how big the enemy army, since the avengers have to be spread out somewhat) and after the 1st salvo which should already have destroyed at least 1 avenger if not more, its all the easier to kill the rest off. The way I see it, you are simply not using them correctly.

They are especially deadly vs China, since ECMs don't negate the damage, just spread it out, which is actually far worse then if it didn't. Just think about it.

For attacking and harassing - Buggies for sure.
For defensive purposes - Scuds, all the way.

I had a replay up on the FS forums, idk if any1 has it still. It was me + ghost (vGLA + Salvage) vs uh.. Nem + some1. (Leang + Tank) on Tournament island. The buggies took care of Leangs forces, and the tunnel popping Scuds took care of Kwais Forces. In 1 instance, a single salvo from the scuds destroyed 5-6 emperors.




Hmm, found the replay on my PC. Not the best example, but I can't think of another replay off the top of my head, I'm sure there is plenty.

http://www.mediafire.com/?32hod3iowdm

[Shiro]

Advanced artillery is for attacking, not defending. And apart from that, any player who allows Tunnels being build next to his base deserves the loose.

[Shock]

It's not speed. Speed wouldn't be an issue at all given that these units in general already do OMGWTFLOL damage to what they can hit (which considering that they are mainly used against Infantry Blobs and Buildings, is generally all right).

With speed, I cover two aspects; movement speed and setup time. In both areas a GLA grandmomma would outperform them. Without tunnels, there is no rational way of moving these across the battlefield, and they are very ineffective against enemy units due to the setup time + flight time of the missile. The TOPOL M may have the longest setup time of all artillery pieces. By the time the missile is vertical, the targeted enemy has left the map.

* PDLs negate them pretty much entirely (I have several times seen a single Avenger PEWPEW down targetted missiles from 3 un-upgraded FROGs, and I know this because I have done this repeatedly to screen buildings from attack in Kassad's level in General's Challenge Mode)

This is a problem, but iirc, ballistics vs pdls are supposed to be configured in a 1 vs 2 way (meaning you need two pdls for one ballistic missile. The avenger has two so if the frogs were firing in succession of each other then YES it can negate them, but not if they fire at the same time.)

* They die to just about everything, including rebels, light artillery, fast-attack vehicles, aircraft, and possibly dirty looks.

That is a general artillery weakness and applies to almost all of them, and it's not supposed to change, or tunnelpopping artillery would be exploitable

* THEY COST A GENERAL'S POINT.

General's point units have always been an issue, but the question is whether the unit is worth a point in the different armies. You can't say much about this in general.

[Jaimas]

A major consequence is that GLA Heavy Artillery simply isn't effective enough for cost. It's invariably slow-moving, fragile as hell, vulnerable in-close, the missiles can be ridiculously easily avoided by some units, and topping it all off, the missiles can be shot down by most conventional base-defenses. Tomahawks are cheaper, faster, aim quicker, are more durable (thanks to drones), have network targetting, and access to Advanced Training as part of the bargain. Nuke Cannons aren't winning any prizes for being fast, but the sheer amount of firepower they have (plus the fact that you can't shoot the goddamned shells down makes them a bit more desirable.

I've been playing Shockwave a damned long time. GLA Heavy Artillery, as it stands, is nowhere near as useful as their lights, and will remain perpetually unused unless this is fixed somehow. I'm psyched that the Katyusha's being fixed, but we still have about 4 other heavy Artillery units that need to be rescued from the pit of suckage.

Criminy, I'd rather have the Berserk MRLS than the TOPOL or SCUD. They're that bad.

[Shock]

Heavy artillery isn't supposed to be the GLA's virtue, either. Of course it isn't as good as the technologically advanced tomahawk or the powerful nuke cannon, but when you need heavy artillery bombardment, it will do its job.

You forget one major asset here. Tunnels! Tunnels make that you can transport these big guns everywhere on the map, an advantage so large it more than makes up for the weaknesses of the weapons.

Start using tunnels more and then come back to me about how you prefer Berserkers over Scuds.

[Jaimas]

Heavy artillery isn't supposed to be the GLA's virtue, either. Of course it isn't as good as the technologically advanced tomahawk or the powerful nuke cannon, but when you need heavy artillery bombardment, it will do its job.

You forget one major asset here. Tunnels! Tunnels make that you can transport these big guns everywhere on the map, an advantage so large it more than makes up for the weaknesses of the weapons.

Start using tunnels more and then come back to me about how you prefer Berserkers over Scuds.

I disagree wholeheartedly - and for more than a few reasons. First of all, no, I'm not going to accept it being an inefficient pile because it's "not as advanced" as an argument. One need look no further than say, the SA-6, Quad Cannon, or Marauder to pick up that the best vehicles around aren't necessarily the most advanced.

Ignoring, for a moment, that the viewpoint that they're allowed to be inefficient as all hell and that's that is remarkably defeatist, given that Shockwave's express purpose is to increase the viable options in the game, the simple fact of the matter remains that they are inefficient to the point of borderline unusable. And FYI? GLA Light Artillery Does Tunnel-Ducking Better - Buggies are quicker to ready, quicker to pop out, quicker to shoot, and have the Buggies can actually get the hell out of dodge (by hopping back into the tunnel) if things go sour, and more to the point, a cluster of buggies costs less. Latruns are even better at this. Conversely, the GLA heavy artillery units, while powerful damage-wise, can be enfuriatinglyhard to position, is a big, fragile unit, is slow as hell, and in most cases isnt getting away, even with a Tunnel Network, if things get bad.

No amount of apologizing for the shortcomings of GLA heavy artillery is going to make them anywhere near as good as their Lights, a problem even developers have acknowledged. Something needs to be done about these.

In conclusion: Hell to the yeah, I'd take the Berserk over the SCUD or TOPOL.

[Frostyarmy]

A Scud or a Topel + Tunnels > That retarded Berserk
You have no idea how to use GLA so stop Blaming game elements on your lack of skill.
GLA tutorial videos

Was that so hard?

GLAs Artillery is the best in game , and the gla tunnel system makes them greater.

IF you knew how to play them correctly you would agree , yet you don't , so you disagree.

This post has been edited by Zhao: 4 Jan 2010, 4:54

[Shiro]

I disagree as well, Zhao, as anyone who is stupid enough to let the enemy build tunnels near the own base DESERVES defeat.

[JJ]

Uhh, it's not as hard as you think for an enemy GLA tunnel to be near you.