Skip to main content

Forums / Games / Halo Wars Series

Why do AA units suck so much? (Air not OP)

OP Sarano696

  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. ...
  8. 7
Sarano696 wrote:
the other counters are fine
He knows. He is talking about another air specifically
No he isn't . He was talking about the other counters being also bad
Dude, reread it. He is saying how other counter units can do more than just counter. Anti air does only that. Counter air.
That was my second guess but he was saying in parenthesis that the other counters were pretty bad too
That wasn't the main purpose of this post. However, his comment needs further context before we can get into a proper debate over counter unit effectiveness. However, I agree with his sentimentality about anti air
Cyclopses and hunters don't do much damage to infantry. However, they do decent damage structures and can at least pull their weight against infantry. I never hated having to build anti-vehicle, but I hate building AA. It's weak, does no damage to non-air, and the air blob I built the damn things for gets away half the time because AA is too slow or too weak to chase.
Very true. Personally I don't have much issues with other counter units, except for the scenario of anti vehicle vs grizzlies.

Air needs a buff, not in it's damage, but how it interacts with air units
What do you mean by "how it interacts?"
A)economy. By making the direct counter to air cost so much energy, it allows the opponent to easily texh and build a mass air army. And don't tell me to scout. It doesn't change that fact that 90 percent of every match I encounter air only enemies. It's all people want to do due to how cheap it is to go mass air compared to other units.

B) focus firing. Anti air shouldn't really focus fire, that's typically what causes air to win.
You do know that banshees cost way more then wolverines or reavers right. Which makes banshees easy to counter
Sarano696 wrote:
Sarano696 wrote:
Build a mixed army comp, don't double down on pure anti air and you will be fine. A lot of banished players still run locusts and reavers just fine without much issue. On the other side of the coin, unsc usually comps cyclops, snipers, tanks, nightingales with a few wolves.
Then you'll lose twice as hard, because mass air swarms shred everything. The only way to beat them is with mass counters, since leader powers don't touch air 9 times out of ten. If you run 4 reavers and anything other than more reavers or your own mass air ball, you will lose the fight against a full air army.
If someone goes mass air, you don't need to mass AA yourself 40 pop should be fine and not a unit more. That means build at most 10 wolfs and 8 reavers at any time. The other 80 can go to core infantry and building killers. Just remember to keep your AA alive.
That's impossible. AA have such low health that any leader power wipes them out or red bars them. In the meantime, air can pick off bases or trash your freshly red bar'd AA with ease
You're not wrong here, but the only solution is to have mostly core units with just a few counters. So, if they're only going air, an army of core infantry with a couple wolves/reavers should do OK. The exception would be against Deci, because if he gets full air pop it can easily be gg.
It's just dumb. Counters couldn't be made of paper and glue like they are. They're super expensive, why should they suck so much? They don't have to be amazing, but they should at least be more durable than they currently are.
This post has been edited by a moderator. Please do not bump.
*Original post. Click at your own discretion.
Spoiler:
Show
I JG Fox I wrote:
Sarano696 wrote:
the other counters are fine
He knows. He is talking about another air specifically
No he isn't . He was talking about the other counters being also bad
Dude, reread it. He is saying how other counter units can do more than just counter. Anti air does only that. Counter air.
That was my second guess but he was saying in parenthesis that the other counters were pretty bad too
That wasn't the main purpose of this post. However, his comment needs further context before we can get into a proper debate over counter unit effectiveness. However, I agree with his sentimentality about anti air
Cyclopses and hunters don't do much damage to infantry. However, they do decent damage structures and can at least pull their weight against infantry. I never hated having to build anti-vehicle, but I hate building AA. It's weak, does no damage to non-air, and the air blob I built the damn things for gets away half the time because AA is too slow or too weak to chase.
Very true. Personally I don't have much issues with other counter units, except for the scenario of anti vehicle vs grizzlies.

Air needs a buff, not in it's damage, but how it interacts with air units
What do you mean by "how it interacts?"
A)economy. By making the direct counter to air cost so much energy, it allows the opponent to easily texh and build a mass air army. And don't tell me to scout. It doesn't change that fact that 90 percent of every match I encounter air only enemies. It's all people want to do due to how cheap it is to go mass air compared to other units.

B) focus firing. Anti air shouldn't really focus fire, that's typically what causes air to win.
You do know that banshees cost way more then wolverines or reavers right. Which makes banshees easy to counter
You do realize that AA costs energy, where as core air don't. Easy to counter if you choose to build a bunch of anti air, but that doesn't change the issue at all.

And before you continue arguing that they are expensive, you're likely going to be hurt more economically by pumping out anti air compared to air.
Sarano696 wrote:
As an onyx/champ player and a season 3 and 4 air spammer, let me put a few things out there. Some of you all prob know all of this already, for the rest of you:
1) 5-7 min into the game you see double air pad? Think about how to slow down the spam. By then your opponent is only going to have a few banshees, try to kill a few early to make him spend even more money on replacing those. When I used to spam air, if I lost my first 5-8 banshees early, getting air 3 took almost 5 min longer.
2) get to tech 2 and build AA and gauss warthogs "speedy unit to counter with"
3) Never just park your AA/warthogs or reavers/marauders under a banshee/hornet cloud, you have to make the air chase you, kinda like a dog on a leash. Stay on the edges of the air cloud, this way all of your AA will shoot at the air and only a few of the hornets/banshees will shoot at your AA army bc of their lack of visual range.
4) It is so important to out produce someone that is spamming. You can't let them build extra bases and take all the power nodes. Since they probably went for a quick tech 2 and made air, that means they didn't take the time to take nodes.
5) anti air turrets and the upgrade in the war council for your base defense and turrets is a must. Don't leave your bases until you get this upgraded at last once.
6) Counter! Whenever you do kill some air, take advantage and try to take supply pads out, base expansions, mini bases, suffocate your opponent. I promise they will eventually run out of supplies and their hornet/banshee spam will slow down.
7) all that being said, decimus's banshees are a pain in the -Yoink- to go against. His passive leaders make his air spam far more difficult to kill. Tip 3) is so important when you face decimus to keep moving at all times "dog on a leash" bc if you park your army underneath his air cloud, every one of your units will get vortexed and siphoned to smitherines.

Good luck banshee hunting
I appreciate the advice, but most of this just doesn't seem feasible or hasn't worked when I've tried. No matter what I do, my opponent has never been stupid enough to chase the counters. He just flies away to destroy another base of mine while I waddle after him with reavers or while my wolves get shredded by literally anything not on wings. One well placed power will red bar an AA group. Not fo mention my opponent, even if I do shut off his air spam early, loses nothing but a few supplies while I'm out a ton of power and only slightly less supply.
If you are playing as banished I'd try getting to tech 2 making two vehicle pads and a few locusts/reavers or marauders. 3-4 reavers is all you need vs 6-10 lvl 1 banshees. After killing a few banshees move forward to take out their expansion base while you make a second base. This all takes place 6-10 min into the game. I can't stress how important it is to keep your opponent from building a second base especially if they want to spam units. Stay aggressive sarano, good luck!
Thank you, I'll try my best. This still seems like a lot of hoops to counter such an easy and simple strategy
All the correct answers have been provided in this post by MAXIMUS8390
https://www.halowaypoint.com/en-us/forums/38bd6e2ebbb14e5b9b359bb029588800/topics/why-do-aa-units-suck-so-much/022749b7-b31c-4c20-9c3f-2a41c5775acf/posts?page=2#post21

If it doesn't work for you, it's a good idea to look at your fundamentals (spending, build order, basic micro, scouting, map vision, map control, map awareness), seeing as the higher level players don't struggle with air.
Sarano696 wrote:
Sarano696 wrote:
Sarano696 wrote:
...
I don't appreciate the implication. Still, I think you're wrong. Anti-vehicle is pretty good against structures, to the point where I never hate having to make them. But AA? Oh my god dude, it's so bad. Tanks at least I can use leader powers on, but since air is so fast, it can doge powers and outrun its counters 90% of the time.
Anti-Vehicles currently do close to the same Dps as AA against Buildings, this has been tested already.
Also core infantry can actually do more base damage then Anti-Vehicles.
Its almost useless to build Anti-Vehicles against anything thats not core vehicles because tanks beat them.
(not that matters because tanks suck in general)
The same goes for AA its useless outside of beating air.

This isnt a debate, its a fact.
At this point im just teachings you the game.
You're using the color wheel to determine a units effectiveness...(Facepalm)
The units color wheel do not update after nerfs/buffs nor is it really accurate representation of what the real effectiveness of a unit is, its borderline useless.

"Why does AA suck so bad for being so expensive?"

It doesn't suck, it is not expensive.
All the correct answers have been provided in this post by MAXIMUS8390
https://www.halowaypoint.com/en-us/forums/38bd6e2ebbb14e5b9b359bb029588800/topics/why-do-aa-units-suck-so-much/022749b7-b31c-4c20-9c3f-2a41c5775acf/posts?page=2#post21

If it doesn't work for you, it's a good idea to look at your fundamentals (spending, build order, basic micro, scouting, map vision, map control, map awareness), seeing as the higher level players don't struggle with air.
I'm in Onyx, I'm not an idiot. While Maximus was very helpful, a lot of the pros are either mass air spammers themselves or hardcore rushers to the point where air is irrelevant. And a lot of them don't even play past placement matches, since the CSR climb is damn near impossible and placement is near hereditary
Sarano696 wrote:
All the correct answers have been provided in this post by MAXIMUS8390
https://www.halowaypoint.com/en-us/forums/38bd6e2ebbb14e5b9b359bb029588800/topics/why-do-aa-units-suck-so-much/022749b7-b31c-4c20-9c3f-2a41c5775acf/posts?page=2#post21

If it doesn't work for you, it's a good idea to look at your fundamentals (spending, build order, basic micro, scouting, map vision, map control, map awareness), seeing as the higher level players don't struggle with air.
I'm in Onyx, I'm not an idiot. While Maximus was very helpful, a lot of the pros are either mass air spammers themselves or hardcore rushers to the point where air is irrelevant. And a lot of them don't even play past placement matches, since the CSR climb is damn near impossible and placement is near hereditary
Are you playing team games by chance? This is just not true in 1v1. The increased map sizes in team games do give air an inherent advantage, but co-ordinating with your team is essential in order to make sure that the overall army composition across the team is good vs that of the opposing team.
Sarano696 wrote:
Sarano696 wrote:
Sarano696 wrote:
...
I don't appreciate the implication. Still, I think you're wrong. Anti-vehicle is pretty good against structures, to the point where I never hate having to make them. But AA? Oh my god dude, it's so bad. Tanks at least I can use leader powers on, but since air is so fast, it can doge powers and outrun its counters 90% of the time.
Anti-Vehicles currently do close to the same Dps as AA against Buildings, this has been tested already.
Also core infantry can actually do more base damage then Anti-Vehicles.
Its almost useless to build Anti-Vehicles against anything thats not core vehicles because tanks beat them.
(not that matters because tanks suck in general)
The same goes for AA its useless outside of beating air.

This isnt a debate, its a fact.
At this point im just teachings you the game.
Thanks, jerk. I'm starting to see why so many people quit this game. Hunters do way more damage to buildings than AA. Not debateable. Fact. Anti-vehicle is yellow against structures, AA is red. Not mention it's usually cheaper.

Onto what matters. Instead just shouting about how people are wrong and how omnipotent you are, how about some actual commentary on the OP? Why does AA suck so bad for being so expensive?
You're using the color wheel to determine a units effectiveness...(Facepalm)
The units color wheel do not update after nerfs/buffs nor is it really accurate representation of what the real effectiveness of a unit is, its borderline useless.

"Why does AA suck so bad for being so expensive?"

It doesn't suck, it is not expensive.
190-225 power + supply cost isn't expensive? They have lots of health? They don't tickle anything other than air? Yeah, real unbiased opinion here. They suck, it's not debateable. And I'm usung the colors as a reference, I've seen hunters do decent base damage post-nerf, they're not great, but they're okay.

AA is terrible. You're crippling your Econ and pop with useless units that are easily killed and out maneuvered by the units they "counter".
Sarano696 wrote:
Sarano696 wrote:
Sarano696 wrote:
Sarano696 wrote:
...
I don't appreciate the implication. Still, I think you're wrong. Anti-vehicle is pretty good against structures, to the point where I never hate having to make them. But AA? Oh my god dude, it's so bad. Tanks at least I can use leader powers on, but since air is so fast, it can doge powers and outrun its counters 90% of the time.
Anti-Vehicles currently do close to the same Dps as AA against Buildings, this has been tested already.
Also core infantry can actually do more base damage then Anti-Vehicles.
Its almost useless to build Anti-Vehicles against anything thats not core vehicles because tanks beat them.
(not that matters because tanks suck in general)
The same goes for AA its useless outside of beating air.

This isnt a debate, its a fact.
At this point im just teachings you the game.
Thanks, jerk. I'm starting to see why so many people quit this game. Hunters do way more damage to buildings than AA. Not debateable. Fact. Anti-vehicle is yellow against structures, AA is red. Not mention it's usually cheaper.

Onto what matters. Instead just shouting about how people are wrong and how omnipotent you are, how about some actual commentary on the OP? Why does AA suck so bad for being so expensive?
You're using the color wheel to determine a units effectiveness...(Facepalm)
The units color wheel do not update after nerfs/buffs nor is it really accurate representation of what the real effectiveness of a unit is, its borderline useless.

"Why does AA suck so bad for being so expensive?"

It doesn't suck, it is not expensive.
190-225 power + supply cost isn't expensive? They have lots of health? They don't tickle anything other than air? Yeah, real unbiased opinion here. They suck, it's not debateable. And I'm usung the colors as a reference, I've seen hunters do decent base damage post-nerf, they're not great, but they're okay.

AA is terrible. You're crippling your Econ and pop with useless units that are easily killed and out maneuvered by the units they "counter".
Here is some useful information
Banshee HP 4800 SP 20.5 BT 15
Hornet HP 5500 SP 18 BT 20
Wolverine HP 6500 SP 20 BT 15
Reaver HP 4625/2500 SP 16 BT 20

From these stats you can see wolverines
Beat banshee and hornets easy
Reavers also beat Banshees but they cannot
Kite/Chase as easy as wolverines but are much harder to take down with
LeaderPowers/Direct Fights.

You say im biased yet here you are preaching about how AA is bad no matter how much advise you given or shown how bad Air is...
I give up, its like talking to a brickwall.
Who knows how i got camp Rank1 with UNSC
I Must've been Air spamming Noobs with hornets, cus you know Hornets are Op Op..👌
AA is broken because 343 wanted to streamline the gameplay to be more noob friendly. Massing air is easy to do because it would be too hard for 343 to actually require skill in their RTS game. People who say AA are fine are mistaken. Air units cost no power and are green against Buildings, vehicles, infantry, and in the case of banshees even green against other Air. AA on the other hand expensive, slow, and aren't even that good at countering Air units.

Not to mention there are so many leader powers in this game that if you have something like hunters brand or a passive like boundless siphon it pretty much negates AA on its own. AA is a joke of a counter. People also like to point out that it's balanced for 1v1. Okay cool? Even if that's true there are other game modes like 2v2 and 3v3 sooooooooooo

Noobs.
I JG Fox I wrote:
Sarano696 wrote:
the other counters are fine
He knows. He is talking about another air specifically
No he isn't . He was talking about the other counters being also bad
Dude, reread it. He is saying how other counter units can do more than just counter. Anti air does only that. Counter air.
That was my second guess but he was saying in parenthesis that the other counters were pretty bad too
That wasn't the main purpose of this post. However, his comment needs further context before we can get into a proper debate over counter unit effectiveness. However, I agree with his sentimentality about anti air
Cyclopses and hunters don't do much damage to infantry. However, they do decent damage structures and can at least pull their weight against infantry. I never hated having to build anti-vehicle, but I hate building AA. It's weak, does no damage to non-air, and the air blob I built the damn things for gets away half the time because AA is too slow or too weak to chase.
Very true. Personally I don't have much issues with other counter units, except for the scenario of anti vehicle vs grizzlies.

Air needs a buff, not in it's damage, but how it interacts with air units
What do you mean by "how it interacts?"
A)economy. By making the direct counter to air cost so much energy, it allows the opponent to easily texh and build a mass air army. And don't tell me to scout. It doesn't change that fact that 90 percent of every match I encounter air only enemies. It's all people want to do due to how cheap it is to go mass air compared to other units.

B) focus firing. Anti air shouldn't really focus fire, that's typically what causes air to win.
You do know that banshees cost way more then wolverines or reavers right. Which makes banshees easy to counter
Wrong. Banshees don't cost power. More power equals more leader points. More leader points equals more reavers/wolverines go boom boom. I hope I could simplify that enough for you.
Healers should have been the airbases base unit Imo. they could switch that and then Banshees and Hornets would have cost power and wouldn't have been as easy to spam.
Sarano696 wrote:
Please help me with this. Why are these units so bad? Even other counter units (which are pretty bad anyways, but that's another post) posses more utility and durability than anti-air. These units are expensive as hell, no health/pitiful shield, and do virtually no damage against ground units. Even hunters/clopses can serve as shock troopers and decent building damage, but anti-air really feels like shooting yourself in the foot just to counter a dumb blob of cheap spam who's speed forces you to either leave them to go kill one of your bases or have your anti-air chase them to the death (which will most likely be the deaths of the anti-air units since they get shredded by anything at all that doesn't fly). I get that mass-air isn't a massive issue anymore, at least in singles, but this still feels like a problem.
I really didn't want to get involved in the 300th rendition of this post.
1. In reality AA is not more expensive then air. If you're building AA you have the supply to build 4 gens. Your argument that AA is to expensive is just wrong. You have to balance your eco.
2. There is a triangle for hw2. Infantry beats air, air beats vehicle and vehicles beat Infantry (Core units) you can easily have 5-6 grunts/Marines and 2-3 wolves/reavers by 6 min. Core Infantry does beat air. This is vital! You have to build core infantry.
3. Passives do push air over the edge (Decimus) I may be wrong here but I believe that the active siphon is to strong when put on banshees. Otherwise the passives aren't to bad.
4. You gotta be aggressive when you see air pads. Air is so so weak from 5-10 min. If you have your core infantry and AA you should easily beat the air.
5. I don't know what your talking about when you say leader powers can't hit air. Hunters Brand? Emp Mac?

I took the time to type this out to try and help. Try being on both sides. Try to mass air and see how weak it is early on. It's a steep learning curve but you'll get it.
nuchey wrote:
AA is broken because 343 wanted to streamline the gameplay to be more noob friendly. Massing air is easy to do because it would be too hard for 343 to actually require skill in their RTS game. People who say AA are fine are mistaken. Air units cost no power and are green against Buildings, vehicles, infantry, and in the case of banshees even green against other Air. AA on the other hand expensive, slow, and aren't even that good at countering Air units.

Not to mention there are so many leader powers in this game that if you have something like hunters brand or a passive like boundless siphon it pretty much negates AA on its own. AA is a joke of a counter. People also like to point out that it's balanced for 1v1. Okay cool? Even if that's true there are other game modes like 2v2 and 3v3 sooooooooooo

Noobs.
This is hardly the case. Even in 2s or 3s air spam is perfectly counterable if you communicate with your team mates.

The only "noob" friendly part of AA is it shows who's a noob by who can't use AA with their army to counter air.
Sarano696 wrote:
All the correct answers have been provided in this post by MAXIMUS8390
https://www.halowaypoint.com/en-us/forums/38bd6e2ebbb14e5b9b359bb029588800/topics/why-do-aa-units-suck-so-much/022749b7-b31c-4c20-9c3f-2a41c5775acf/posts?page=2#post21

If it doesn't work for you, it's a good idea to look at your fundamentals (spending, build order, basic micro, scouting, map vision, map control, map awareness), seeing as the higher level players don't struggle with air.
I'm in Onyx, I'm not an idiot. While Maximus was very helpful, a lot of the pros are either mass air spammers themselves or hardcore rushers to the point where air is irrelevant. And a lot of them don't even play past placement matches, since the CSR climb is damn near impossible and placement is near hereditary
Pros are air spammers? I suggest you look at Yoda's stream before you make a statement like that.
nuchey wrote:
I JG Fox I wrote:
Sarano696 wrote:
the other counters are fine
He knows. He is talking about another air specifically
No he isn't . He was talking about the other counters being also bad
Dude, reread it. He is saying how other counter units can do more than just counter. Anti air does only that. Counter air.
That was my second guess but he was saying in parenthesis that the other counters were pretty bad too
That wasn't the main purpose of this post. However, his comment needs further context before we can get into a proper debate over counter unit effectiveness. However, I agree with his sentimentality about anti air
Cyclopses and hunters don't do much damage to infantry. However, they do decent damage structures and can at least pull their weight against infantry. I never hated having to build anti-vehicle, but I hate building AA. It's weak, does no damage to non-air, and the air blob I built the damn things for gets away half the time because AA is too slow or too weak to chase.
Very true. Personally I don't have much issues with other counter units, except for the scenario of anti vehicle vs grizzlies.

Air needs a buff, not in it's damage, but how it interacts with air units
What do you mean by "how it interacts?"
A)economy. By making the direct counter to air cost so much energy, it allows the opponent to easily texh and build a mass air army. And don't tell me to scout. It doesn't change that fact that 90 percent of every match I encounter air only enemies. It's all people want to do due to how cheap it is to go mass air compared to other units.

B) focus firing. Anti air shouldn't really focus fire, that's typically what causes air to win.
You do know that banshees cost way more then wolverines or reavers right. Which makes banshees easy to counter
Wrong. Banshees don't cost power. More power equals more leader points. More leader points equals more reavers/wolverines go boom boom. I hope I could simplify that enough for you.
No, you're wrong. Going air is so much more expensive. Let's break it down:

120 pop Banshees: 300 x 40 = 12,000 blue
120 pop hornets: 325 x 30 = 9,750 blue
120 pop wolves: 150 x 30 = 4,500 blue. 190 x 30 = 5,700 yellow
120 pop Reavers: 175 x 24 = 4,200 blue. 225 x 24 = 5,400 yellow

^this isn't even taking into account that you don't need 120 pop AA to beat 120 pop air. Banshees are prohibitively expensive. You can build up multiple bases with that price difference. Building energy intensive units leads to more supply for more extractors. It lets you expand more, which by the way is what actually gives you more leader points. Going straight Banshees/hornets sets you back a lot. Going wolves/Reavers, or even better Marines/grunts is cost effective.

Now, if the devs are thinking about lowering AA's energy cost to help push them out early, sure, I'd be okay with that. Maybe even get AA to stop focus firing. Other than that I honestly don't think they need any work. Their damage vs air is already giving air a really hard time. Passives like Deci's should be looked at, but air units themselves should be left alone.
nuchey wrote:
I JG Fox I wrote:
Sarano696 wrote:
the other counters are fine
He knows. He is talking about another air specifically
No he isn't . He was talking about the other counters being also bad
Dude, reread it. He is saying how other counter units can do more than just counter. Anti air does only that. Counter air.
That was my second guess but he was saying in parenthesis that the other counters were pretty bad too
That wasn't the main purpose of this post. However, his comment needs further context before we can get into a proper debate over counter unit effectiveness. However, I agree with his sentimentality about anti air
Cyclopses and hunters don't do much damage to infantry. However, they do decent damage structures and can at least pull their weight against infantry. I never hated having to build anti-vehicle, but I hate building AA. It's weak, does no damage to non-air, and the air blob I built the damn things for gets away half the time because AA is too slow or too weak to chase.
Very true. Personally I don't have much issues with other counter units, except for the scenario of anti vehicle vs grizzlies.

Air needs a buff, not in it's damage, but how it interacts with air units
What do you mean by "how it interacts?"
A)economy. By making the direct counter to air cost so much energy, it allows the opponent to easily texh and build a mass air army. And don't tell me to scout. It doesn't change that fact that 90 percent of every match I encounter air only enemies. It's all people want to do due to how cheap it is to go mass air compared to other units.

B) focus firing. Anti air shouldn't really focus fire, that's typically what causes air to win.
You do know that banshees cost way more then wolverines or reavers right. Which makes banshees easy to counter
Wrong. Banshees don't cost power. More power equals more leader points. More leader points equals more reavers/wolverines go boom boom. I hope I could simplify that enough for you.
No, you're wrong. Going air is so much more expensive. Let's break it down:

120 pop Banshees: 300 x 40 = 12,000 blue
120 pop hornets: 325 x 30 = 9,750 blue
120 pop wolves: 150 x 30 = 4,500 blue. 190 x 30 = 5,700 yellow
120 pop Reavers: 175 x 24 = 4,200 blue. 225 x 24 = 5,400 yellow

^this isn't even taking into account that you don't need 120 pop AA to beat 120 pop air. Banshees are prohibitively expensive. You can build up multiple bases with that price difference. Building energy intensive units leads to more supply for more extractors. It lets you expand more, which by the way is what actually gives you more leader points. Going straight Banshees/hornets sets you back a lot. Going wolves/Reavers, or even better Marines/grunts is cost effective.

Now, if the devs are thinking about lowering AA's energy cost to help push them out early, sure, I'd be okay with that. Maybe even get AA to stop focus firing. Other than that I honestly don't think they need any work. Their damage vs air is already giving air a really hard time. Passives like Deci's should be looked at, but air units themselves should be left alone.
Thanks for the math. Few gamers would ever take the time to figure the cost for other players to see this through. I also wholeheartedly that air is not OP, maybe with a few passives but never by itself. I can build 40pop in reavers and destroy air faster than anyone can disable the shield at max pop, which mean it can't no longer be cracked by core air. The only downside to AA is the power can be very costly early game but if you can kite air units, max pop can quickly be reduced to nothing and discover you are at economic advantage as 12k is not cheap even late game and even 9k hornets are easily made paper Mache by a little core infantry and AA.
I just don't see the whole air massing thing as that much of an issue, and I play in a lot of diamond-onyx games in 2v2, 3v3 respectively. Parry with some anti air and push forward. If its an issue of versatility, and their ability to be spammed continuously than that's more of a problem to be addressed by hunkering down your at your base to wait out an outlying attack (AA Turrets and some AA counters, use discretion as to their positioning depending on whats happening on the map). Following that point, then move in to destroy their undefended bases in asymmetric attacks while they build up again. Even if its a core unit spam, a lot of player run into supply issues late game especially if you knock them down to 1 base.
  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. ...
  8. 7