Skip to main content

Forums / Games / Halo Wars Series

[Locked] Appeal to 343, Dont Buff Anti Air

OP THEWALL766

  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 12
Because for what ever reason my last video evidence did nothing to change the fact that many of you still think Air is too strong, I am going to try and post these small collections of tests showing the interactions of Air and AA units. My goal is not to change your mind, I genuinely don't care what you think. I'm just hoping that someone from the balance team can read these posts and decide that AA units are fine exactly where they are.

Test 1
20 Hornets vs 8 Wolves 9 Mechs
20 Hornets vs 16 Hogs and 8 Wolves

Baseline 80 pop v 80 Pop. The AA wins crushingly here. In both cases the Air tried to focus fire the AA which might seem like a good idea on the surface, however, when trying to focus fire, the Air units will try and bunch up which both increases the effectiveness of the splash of the AA and increases the chance of taking a 6 o'clock leader power right in the jaw

Cost of each army
Air --> 6500 supply
Vehicle --> 4350 supply, 1520 power, 5870 total (mech)
Vehicle --> 5200 supply, 1520 power, 6720 total (hog)

The vehicle army is significantly easier to fund since you are getting income from two different currencies.
"But Wall, I cant tech up if I'm using my power on wolverines"
While this is true, if your opponent committed to full banshees, you wont need to tech up because he will have lost his full army and you will still be at either 9 mantis or 14 wolverines to start attacking his base with some wolverines left over if he tries any more of that air nonsense

Test 2
25 Hornets vs 8 Wolves and 9 Mechs
25 Hornets vs 16 Hogs and 9 Wolves

100 pop air vs 80 pop Vehicle

While it is not a "crushing defeat" here, the vehicles still win, rather easily. The mechs still have 5 mantis while the warthogs have 11 warthogs. Still enough to harass a base with wolverines left over to kill any air units that might be newly build.

Cost of each army
Air --> 8125 supply, 750 power (reinforcements)
Vehicle --> 4350 supply, 1520 power, 5870 total (mech)
Vehicle --> 5200 supply, 1520 power, 6720 total (hog)

Test 3
20 Wingman Hornets vs 8 Wolves and 9 Mechs
30 Hornets vs 16 Hogs and 8 Wolverines

I'm sorry if you let your opponent get to tech 3 and max out his army, or get a t3 upgrade and 80 pop air, while you stay at t2 unupgraded everything, you got outplayed and there is no balance patch should be able to fix that.

Note: The Wingman Upgrade makes a HUGE difference in combat power

Cost of each army
Air --> 9750 supply, 3500 power (reinforcements, reinforcements, T3), 13250 total
Air -->6500 supply, 2250 power (t3, wingman), 8750 total
Vehicle --> 4350 supply, 1520 power, 5870 total (mech)
Vehicle --> 5200 supply, 1520 power, 6720 total (hog)

Bonus Test

Manatee and I were trying to discard our left over units so veterancy wouldn't skew test results. We wanted to see what would happen when a full air army attacked a base with 4 AA turrets and 4 wolves left behind on defense. All 25 of the wingman hornets died in the engagement while the base only lost 2 turrets and 1 wolverine.

Disclaimer: This test will be repeated with the Air being split around the base and the base without any Base Fortifications for the sake of consistency with the rest of testing.

All we wanted to do was to show you that it is infact possible to play defense against air units if you split your units, don't double tap the right bumper, and keep control of your units.

4 AA Turrets and 4 Wolves vs 25 Wingman Hornets

Plans for Next test.

Reavers & locust v Hornets
Banished and UNSC Base Arrangements with AA for defense against Air

I look forward to an educated and civil discourse in the comments to follow.
4 AA Turrets and 4 Wolves vs 25 Wingman Hornets is the one that really got me. I literally used that as an example of how bad air would become after the proposed patch. I had no idea that it was already like that. It is insane that 4 turrets, 4 units, and only fortifications level 1 is enough to stop a 100 pop upgraded air army. Wow.
"4 AA Turrets and 4 Wolves vs 25 Wingman Hornets" is the one that really got me. I literally used that as an example of how bad air would become after the proposed patch. I had no idea that it was already like that. It is insane that 4 turrets, 4 units, and only fortifications level 1 is enough to stop a 100 pop upgraded air army. Wow.
In Manatees defense, I told him to follow the wolves around the base and they were able to kite the entire time. More testing would need to be done with the air army being split in have and each circling the base in a different direction. I'm also not sure weather the air should take out the turrets first or the wolves but with how horrifically one sided the battle was, I don't expect much to make a difference.
Honestly I think it's in a good place and they don't need to buff air. Anti-vehicle could use a slight buff in my opinion and Jackrabbits but otherwise it all feels good.
If 343 absolutely has to buff something, I'd say buff the health slightly to the AA due to their high sensitivity to AV and LP. AV will still be able to take them out with ease and LP won't have to completely destroy the AA it hit. A slight buff to the AV damage and slight buff in health for AA would be perfect.
THEWALL766 wrote:
"4 AA Turrets and 4 Wolves vs 25 Wingman Hornets" is the one that really got me. I literally used that as an example of how bad air would become after the proposed patch. I had no idea that it was already like that. It is insane that 4 turrets, 4 units, and only fortifications level 1 is enough to stop a 100 pop upgraded air army. Wow.
In Manatees defense, I told him to follow the wolves around the base and they were able to kite the entire time. More testing would need to be done with the air army being split in have and each circling the base in a different direction. I'm also not sure weather the air should take out the turrets first or the wolves but with how horrifically one sided the battle was, I don't expect much to make a difference.
The engagement was short enough that I'm not sure it would have made a huge difference if the hornets had been split. The engagement may have gone in the hornet's favor, however I think that a majority of them would have still been killed. I'd be curious to see if banshees would fare any better as they are faster than hornets and wolves.
Thank you for this, really informative. Any chance of one with vulture spam just out of interest.
So, let me see if I get it, you posted a video where the Wingman Hornets stamp and it's the player's fault, nothing wrong with air. Is not like you can ensure your T3 spam by having seige turrets or a competent ally keeping the enemy away.

Seeing the videos, I do agree that T2 air is bad, but an upgrade shouldn't be able to reverse things on Hornets favour, so yeah, maybe AA would not need a buff, as long as Wingman is kicked to the same spot that Plasma Torpedo was.
THEWALL766 wrote:
"4 AA Turrets and 4 Wolves vs 25 Wingman Hornets" is the one that really got me. I literally used that as an example of how bad air would become after the proposed patch. I had no idea that it was already like that. It is insane that 4 turrets, 4 units, and only fortifications level 1 is enough to stop a 100 pop upgraded air army. Wow.
In Manatees defense, I told him to follow the wolves around the base and they were able to kite the entire time. More testing would need to be done with the air army being split in have and each circling the base in a different direction. I'm also not sure weather the air should take out the turrets first or the wolves but with how horrifically one sided the battle was, I don't expect much to make a difference.
Generally I think aa should be buffed as planned.

The problem with 4AA and 4wolveribes versus full air is that it’s rarely a direct combat in 3v3. Any good 3v3/2v2 team would have anti-anti air (cyclops, hunters, marauders, hogs, tanks etc) to take out the wolverines/turrets/reaver that are countering the air.
If 343 absolutely has to buff something, I'd say buff the health slightly to the AA due to their high sensitivity to AV and LP. AV will still be able to take them out with ease and LP won't have to completely destroy the AA it hit. A slight buff to the AV damage and slight buff in health for AA would be perfect.
Agreed with this although I agree with the aa buff planned too
BUT the wall i cant get good so im going to beg for nerfs so i dont have to try to play the game

tired of the people making threads about air being so called op

thx again for bring up evidence but im sure there still going to be more obnoxious people disagreeing with u for attention

you the man WALL
THEWALL766 wrote:
"4 AA Turrets and 4 Wolves vs 25 Wingman Hornets" is the one that really got me. I literally used that as an example of how bad air would become after the proposed patch. I had no idea that it was already like that. It is insane that 4 turrets, 4 units, and only fortifications level 1 is enough to stop a 100 pop upgraded air army. Wow.
In Manatees defense, I told him to follow the wolves around the base and they were able to kite the entire time. More testing would need to be done with the air army being split in have and each circling the base in a different direction. I'm also not sure weather the air should take out the turrets first or the wolves but with how horrifically one sided the battle was, I don't expect much to make a difference.
Generally I think aa should be buffed as planned.

The problem with 4AA and 4wolveribes versus full air is that it’s rarely a direct combat in 3v3. Any good 3v3/2v2 team would have anti-anti air (cyclops, hunters, marauders, hogs, tanks etc) to take out the wolverines/turrets/reaver that are countering the air.
You're bringing in external factors that go outside the scope of this test. These tests were to test the interaction of AA and air.

If we're bringing in extra armies, it's just as possible for one's allies to have anti-infantry/anti-vehicle units to take on all the units you just mentioned. That's just simple strategy, my dude.

You're trying to discredit these tests by suggesting the opposition (the ones with the air) would have auxiliary units, without including the back up that the AA would have. That's not a fair comparison.

Leave AA alone.

There are only two cases where air is even remotely a problem.

1. Full pop Deci Banshees. They simply require too much AA to counter. It's possible, but it takes a looooot of AA.

2. Sentinels. Everyone sleeps on these but they're nuts when fully upgraded. Not to mention, when backed by Siege Turrets, they're even more annoying. Their Y ability is also very strong against AA. Nonetheless, still beatable, though.
evils wrote:
THEWALL766 wrote:
"4 AA Turrets and 4 Wolves vs 25 Wingman Hornets" is the one that really got me. I literally used that as an example of how bad air would become after the proposed patch. I had no idea that it was already like that. It is insane that 4 turrets, 4 units, and only fortifications level 1 is enough to stop a 100 pop upgraded air army. Wow.
In Manatees defense, I told him to follow the wolves around the base and they were able to kite the entire time. More testing would need to be done with the air army being split in have and each circling the base in a different direction. I'm also not sure weather the air should take out the turrets first or the wolves but with how horrifically one sided the battle was, I don't expect much to make a difference.
Generally I think aa should be buffed as planned.

The problem with 4AA and 4wolveribes versus full air is that it’s rarely a direct combat in 3v3. Any good 3v3/2v2 team would have anti-anti air (cyclops, hunters, marauders, hogs, tanks etc) to take out the wolverines/turrets/reaver that are countering the air.
You're bringing in external factors that go outside the scope of this test. These tests were to test the interaction of AA and air.

If we're bringing in extra armies, it's just as possible for one's allies to have anti-infantry/anti-vehicle units to take on all the units you just mentioned. That's just simple strategy, my dude.

You're trying to discredit these tests by suggesting the opposition (the ones with the air) would have auxiliary units, without including the back up that the AA would have. That's not a fair comparison.

Leave AA alone.

There are only two cases where air is even remotely a problem.

1. Full pop Deci Banshees. They simply require too much AA to counter. It's possible, but it takes a looooot of AA.

2. Sentinels. Everyone sleeps on these but they're nuts when fully upgraded. Not to mention, when backed by Siege Turrets, they're even more annoying. Their Y ability is also very strong against AA. Nonetheless, still beatable, though.
Even though they're rather support, I think Ravens and Phantoms can give good aid to an air army.
I've avoided putting in my 2 cents when it comes to the air debacle. Here's why I think AA should NOT be buffed:

1. The damage and AOE of anti air is hardly the problem. I may be projecting a little here but I'll share that, from my experience, air only becomes an issue on maps where air has a noticeable terrain advantage. Namely Sentry and Badlands. If I want to be lazy (which is more than I'm willing to admit), I'll just mash "All units" when moving my army for a push. My AA goes with me, leaving my/my allies base defenseless. The solution in this case is for players to utilize the new micro commands. Now some people who agree with the AA buff might not experience the same issue, but I'm willing to bet that a lot of people don't like air because of its speed and objective control, not their ability to fight direct engagements.

2. This overkill of a buff is going to absolutely eliminate airs usefulness in the mid game. Let's say I'm playing 2s and I'm Deci. I open warlord, grunts, engineers. Once I'm tech 2, I already have my apex built so I can make a very smooth and quick transition into building damage with banshees. My opponents will also generally have a raid camp out to build suis, flamers, or snipers to counter my T1 build. They now have no hard counter to banshees aside from their slow infantry.

With the planned buff, mid game air becomes even more of a risk than it already is. These units are supposed to be glass cannons. But now they are becoming even flimsier without anything to compensate. This nerf was done to combat late game air swarms, I can see that. But for players who understood that mid game air could really benefit and tip the scales in marauder mirror matches, they now don't have that option now that one reaver will do hefty damage to a group of 3 or so banshees with one salvo. Maybe more. Not to mention the all-important engineers which made banished units actually able to take a leader power hits without falling dead immediately.

3. Leader powers already did the job fine. Archer missiles, glassing beam, enduring salvo, scatter bomb, emp MAC, regular MAC, cryo/shatter, all obliterate air. Air units, especially banshees, simply don't have the durability to withstand well-placed nukes.

These 3 reasons alone, observed from my vast amount of experience and games at the highest level of play, is enough to convince me that the AA buff is going to do more harm than good. It's going to funnel people into foundry/raid camp combos, which will lead to linear, slow moving armies.

I say all of this as someone who has no bias in the matter. I don't have a particular preference for air or ground comps. I have the most fun and find mixed forces, if used correctly, the most effective. But core air units will not be able to handle this at all.

Vultures and Blisterbacks will be fine, however, as their large unit size may be enough to offset the AoE change. But Blisterbacks in direct confrontations are.... uh, bad.

Just my few cents on the matter.
Appreciate your efforts and tests, but I still think air (especially Decimus Banshees upgraded) vs wolverines are problematic in games when leader powers are involved. This debate has gone on for a long time, but the fact that it has been such a point of contention, I personally believe, shows that there is something wrong with the mechanic. Maybe I am jaded against Decimus Banshees because that is the air I see most, but I think adding an AoE will help against clumps of banshees or hornets before they can flee. The hit and run nature of air is what gets it, as they can widdle away at your forces with minimal losses, while the anti-air can't diminish the air numbers in a significant manner. Sure, air can't take down a base very quickly, but air sure can dominate the field and suffocate you, especially when used with leader powers. Anyway, I know many disagree, but I wanted to respond to this plea since I am in favor of the adjustment. Not everyone on this forum is against the anti-air 'buff'.
DA Cleric wrote:
Appreciate your efforts and tests, but I still think air (especially Decimus Banshees upgraded) vs wolverines are problematic in games when leader powers are involved. This debate has gone on for a long time, but the fact that it has been such a point of contention, I personally believe, shows that there is something wrong with the mechanic. Maybe I am jaded against Decimus Banshees because that is the air I see most, but I think adding an AoE will help against clumps of banshees or hornets before they can flee. The hit and run nature of air is what gets it, as they can widdle away at your forces with minimal losses, while the anti-air can't diminish the air numbers in a significant manner. Sure, air can't take down a base very quickly, but air sure can dominate the field and suffocate you, especially when used with leader powers. Anyway, I know many disagree, but I wanted to respond to this plea since I am in favor of the adjustment. Not everyone on this forum is against the anti-air 'buff'.
You reference Decimus Banshees, which most agree are a little OP. Wouldn't that mean the problem is with Decimus and his passives rather than air and AA?

So, let me see if I get it, you posted a video where the Wingman Hornets stamp and it's the player's fault, nothing wrong with air. Is not like you can ensure your T3 spam by having seige turrets or a competent ally keeping the enemy away.

Seeing the videos, I do agree that T2 air is bad, but an upgrade shouldn't be able to reverse things on Hornets favour, so yeah, maybe AA would not need a buff, as long as Wingman is kicked to the same spot that Plasma Torpedo was.
Getting to T3 by one teammate holding off a minimum of two enemies is highly unlikely. If you have a teammate that can do that you don't even need a T3 army. Additionally Siege Turrets are really strong but are also super expensive. I don't see how you can boom to T3 while also spamming Siege Turrets
DA Cleric wrote:
Appreciate your efforts and tests, but I still think air (especially Decimus Banshees upgraded) vs wolverines are problematic in games when leader powers are involved. This debate has gone on for a long time, but the fact that it has been such a point of contention, I personally believe, shows that there is something wrong with the mechanic. Maybe I am jaded against Decimus Banshees because that is the air I see most, but I think adding an AoE will help against clumps of banshees or hornets before they can flee. The hit and run nature of air is what gets it, as they can widdle away at your forces with minimal losses, while the anti-air can't diminish the air numbers in a significant manner. Sure, air can't take down a base very quickly, but air sure can dominate the field and suffocate you, especially when used with leader powers. Anyway, I know many disagree, but I wanted to respond to this plea since I am in favor of the adjustment. Not everyone on this forum is against the anti-air 'buff'.
No one is arguing that Decimus Banshees aren't over powered or broken. They are. Full pop Deci Banshees will almost certainly need to be nerfed. However, that has nothing to do with the units themselves and entirely to do with Decimus' passives.

As far as this argument is concerned, vanilla air units are 100% not broken or OP. Multiple tests have confirmed that. If you think otherwise, I would like evidence to be submitted for everyone to review. Show us proof that air is OP.
4 AA Turrets and 4 Wolves vs 25 Wingman Hornets is the one that really got me. I literally used that as an example of how bad air would become after the proposed patch. I had no idea that it was already like that. It is insane that 4 turrets, 4 units, and only fortifications level 1 is enough to stop a 100 pop upgraded air army. Wow.
Very true as UNSC have beastly AA turrets and Banished AA turrets only thing worth building as AV and AI are garbage. I got to say AA is already in a good spot.
So, let me see if I get it, you posted a video where the Wingman Hornets stamp and it's the player's fault, nothing wrong with air. Is not like you can ensure your T3 spam by having seige turrets or a competent ally keeping the enemy away.

Seeing the videos, I do agree that T2 air is bad, but an upgrade shouldn't be able to reverse things on Hornets favour, so yeah, maybe AA would not need a buff, as long as Wingman is kicked to the same spot that Plasma Torpedo was.
What video were you watching???? The wingman hornets didn't stomp. Only 3 were barely alive which is close enough that micro and leader powers would sway the outcome either way. I'd almost call it a draw if it wasn't for the fact that the wingman hornets cost 2150 more supply and 730 more power! That would allow for reinforcements 1 and 4 more mechs. In a real game those funds would've gone towards more generators or an extra base or both, building up the supporting economy which would've led to more upgrades, quicker. The mechs clearly had that.
DA Cleric wrote:
Appreciate your efforts and tests, but I still think air (especially Decimus Banshees upgraded) vs wolverines are problematic in games when leader powers are involved. This debate has gone on for a long time, but the fact that it has been such a point of contention, I personally believe, shows that there is something wrong with the mechanic. Maybe I am jaded against Decimus Banshees because that is the air I see most, but I think adding an AoE will help against clumps of banshees or hornets before they can flee. The hit and run nature of air is what gets it, as they can widdle away at your forces with minimal losses, while the anti-air can't diminish the air numbers in a significant manner. Sure, air can't take down a base very quickly, but air sure can dominate the field and suffocate you, especially when used with leader powers. Anyway, I know many disagree, but I wanted to respond to this plea since I am in favor of the adjustment. Not everyone on this forum is against the anti-air 'buff'.
You reference Decimus Banshees, which most agree are a little OP. Wouldn't that mean the problem is with Decimus and his passives rather than air and AA?

So, let me see if I get it, you posted a video where the Wingman Hornets stamp and it's the player's fault, nothing wrong with air. Is not like you can ensure your T3 spam by having seige turrets or a competent ally keeping the enemy away.

Seeing the videos, I do agree that T2 air is bad, but an upgrade shouldn't be able to reverse things on Hornets favour, so yeah, maybe AA would not need a buff, as long as Wingman is kicked to the same spot that Plasma Torpedo was.
Getting to T3 by one teammate holding off a minimum of two enemies is highly unlikely. If you have a teammate that can do that you don't even need a T3 army. Additionally Siege Turrets are really strong but are also super expensive. I don't see how you can boom to T3 while also spamming Siege Turrets
Breezy, I know you (and others) think AA is fine, I do not. Maybe I am not as good as you guys, or have as much time to play as you guys, but I have always felt the interaction was not fine. There is definitely a problem with Decimus Banshees, no doubt, so we are in agreement there. I still am of the opinion that if not looking at it in a vacuum, that there is a problem with AA in how games play out, at least to me and my friends. Maybe, I don't have the best handle on it at the moment, in light of the Voridus, Pavium, and most definitely Colony problems, that I don't even see widespread air usage, but I still believe there are problems. Not saying air is OP, but to me and my friends, AA doesn't work like it should.
  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 12