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. 3
  4. 4
  5. 5
  6. 6
  7. ...
  8. 7
DA Cleric wrote:
Sarano696 wrote:
evils wrote:
I see you changed your title...

...good...good...let the hate flow through you..
Since no one is allowed to have an opinion that's correct except when the pros tell us, thought I'd update it
While I don't really like being talked down to and can understand your disappointment in some of the responses, and don't really agree with everything said on both sides of this thread... this topic is going off the rails and is devolving into something rather silly. While I don't whole-heartedly agree AA is in a good spot, I do appreciate the elaboration the other side has put forth and has given some food for thought. Some of the stances taken are rather childish on the side of the argument I am on. I hope at this point this thread gets locked. Pity. It started as a good conversation about air but has morphed into something rather pathetic. I still don't think AA is in the greatest spot and should be a little more functional, but I will take into consideration the points others have made.
Hey, I'm mad too. I was really curious as to what people had to say. But I just can't take anymore hate messages or condescending comments thrown at me. It sucks that many of the high level players have such scorn or arrogance. I really would like to be a better player, but I've gotten actual advice from one or two players max. The rest I just get told I'm bad.
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.
Well seeing as you make supplies faster than Power I don’t really see your point. Making an army that doesn’t cost power has a lot ornate benefits. For example, with your extra power you can go tech 3 faster, and get more upgrades than your opponents. All of these upgrades give you a natural advantage over your opponents because you will without a doubt get leader points faster than them.

So let’s see, we have one player that has a 1 leader point advantage, tech 3, an army that can attack any units, in some cases is anti air, can melt bases, and is overall more mobile.

Then we have the other player who has 1 less leader point, an army that is pretty slow, can only attack one unit, and in some cases can be easily countered by a well placed leader power or passive.

AA in my opinion needs a slight buff if the cost is to remain the same.
nuchey wrote:
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.
Well seeing as you make supplies faster than Power I don’t really see your point. Making an army that doesn’t cost power has a lot ornate benefits. For example, with your extra power you can go tech 3 faster, and get more upgrades than your opponents. All of these upgrades give you a natural advantage over your opponents because you will without a doubt get leader points faster than them.

So let’s see, we have one player that has a 1 leader point advantage, tech 3, an army that can attack any units, in some cases is anti air, can melt bases, and is overall more mobile.

Then we have the other player who has 1 less leader point, an army that is pretty slow, can only attack one unit, and in some cases can be easily countered by a well placed leader power or passive.

AA in my opinion needs a slight buff if the cost is to remain the same.
Save your breath, the hive mind has reached a verdict. It cannot be questioned or challenged
Sarano696 wrote:
DA Cleric wrote:
Sarano696 wrote:
evils wrote:
I see you changed your title...

...good...good...let the hate flow through you..
Since no one is allowed to have an opinion that's correct except when the pros tell us, thought I'd update it
While I don't really like being talked down to and can understand your disappointment in some of the responses, and don't really agree with everything said on both sides of this thread... this topic is going off the rails and is devolving into something rather silly. While I don't whole-heartedly agree AA is in a good spot, I do appreciate the elaboration the other side has put forth and has given some food for thought. Some of the stances taken are rather childish on the side of the argument I am on. I hope at this point this thread gets locked. Pity. It started as a good conversation about air but has morphed into something rather pathetic. I still don't think AA is in the greatest spot and should be a little more functional, but I will take into consideration the points others have made.
Hey, I'm mad too. I was really curious as to what people had to say. But I just can't take anymore hate messages or condescending comments thrown at me. It sucks that many of the high level players have such scorn or arrogance. I really would like to be a better player, but I've gotten actual advice from one or two players max. The rest I just get told I'm bad.
I understand the frustration, just try to keep it civil and be above the name calling and trolling. Otherwise, your valid points tend to get cast aside. I think AA needs work... you have some points I am in agreement on, but some of the counter-points are constructive and are something I plan on keeping in mind. I have not played a ton lately and air is not my main source of frustration, but being a Cutter main, I find my wolverines get squished a lot... but I do need to get better playing with them. Anyway, my only advice here is to try some things out and be open minded. I am more concerned about the Goo and Pavium's burnout into thick hide marauders and his base eraser power. I have a difficult time with the two new leaders, so that is what I am focusing on getting better at right now. I do find wolverines rather underwhelming and definitely think they need some kind of work, but what that work is, I have yet to figure out completely.
DA Cleric wrote:
Sarano696 wrote:
DA Cleric wrote:
Sarano696 wrote:
evils wrote:
I see you changed your title...

...good...good...let the hate flow through you..
Since no one is allowed to have an opinion that's correct except when the pros tell us, thought I'd update it
While I don't really like being talked down to and can understand your disappointment in some of the responses, and don't really agree with everything said on both sides of this thread... this topic is going off the rails and is devolving into something rather silly. While I don't whole-heartedly agree AA is in a good spot, I do appreciate the elaboration the other side has put forth and has given some food for thought. Some of the stances taken are rather childish on the side of the argument I am on. I hope at this point this thread gets locked. Pity. It started as a good conversation about air but has morphed into something rather pathetic. I still don't think AA is in the greatest spot and should be a little more functional, but I will take into consideration the points others have made.
Hey, I'm mad too. I was really curious as to what people had to say. But I just can't take anymore hate messages or condescending comments thrown at me. It sucks that many of the high level players have such scorn or arrogance. I really would like to be a better player, but I've gotten actual advice from one or two players max. The rest I just get told I'm bad.
I understand the frustration, just try to keep it civil and be above the name calling and trolling. Otherwise, your valid points tend to get cast aside. I think AA needs work... you have some points I am in agreement on, but some of the counter-points are constructive and are something I plan on keeping in mind. I have not played a ton lately and air is not my main source of frustration, but being a Cutter main, I find my wolverines get squished a lot... but I do need to get better playing with them. Anyway, my only advice here is to try some things out and be open minded. I am more concerned about the Goo and Pavium's burnout into thick hide marauders and his base eraser power. I have a difficult time with the two new leaders, so that is what I am focusing on getting better at right now. I do find wolverines rather underwhelming and definitely think they need some kind of work, but what that work is, I have yet to figure out completely.
I'm just close to giving up on this game. I can't stand the sneering remarks or condescending posts coupled with the game being plagued by lazy balancing every patch. And what constructive posts are you referring to? Ive only seen people say air is fine, I'm bad, and the absurd notion that mass air is somehow more expensive than anti-air.
nuchey wrote:
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.
Well seeing as you make supplies faster than Power I don’t really see your point. Making an army that doesn’t cost power has a lot ornate benefits. For example, with your extra power you can go tech 3 faster, and get more upgrades than your opponents. All of these upgrades give you a natural advantage over your opponents because you will without a doubt get leader points faster than them.

So let’s see, we have one player that has a 1 leader point advantage, tech 3, an army that can attack any units, in some cases is anti air, can melt bases, and is overall more mobile.

Then we have the other player who has 1 less leader point, an army that is pretty slow, can only attack one unit, and in some cases can be easily countered by a well placed leader power or passive.

AA in my opinion needs a slight buff if the cost is to remain the same.
Dude. What part of "AA costs almost 8000 less supplies" aren't you understanding??? Do realize how much you could build with that supply? That's 3 more generators, 2 expansions, funds for replacing my army when they die, etc. Air is such a massive supply commitment that it kills you trying to double pump. If you quick tech into double pumping air it holds you back from expanding for a while or from buying more than 2 generators. You'll be behind in the early game which is when that leader point difference makes the biggest difference. While you're double pumping from one base I can have an army of Marines pushing your base or contesting nodes, all while building generators and expansions on my side. You mention getting air upgrades faster, but how do you get them early while trying to double pump? If you reduce to a single pump while upgrading in the other, you drastically reduce your air unit output because they take forever to reach critical mass.

Look, I understand the impression that the energy cost of AA sets you back. But if you honestly believe that then it's because you don't have a firm grasp on the economics of the game. If I'm going vehicles then only a third of my units need to be wolves. That's not that much power for someone with 4 or 5 generators, which is what I'll be able to afford by not going Banshees.
nuchey wrote:
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.
Well seeing as you make supplies faster than Power I don’t really see your point. Making an army that doesn’t cost power has a lot ornate benefits. For example, with your extra power you can go tech 3 faster, and get more upgrades than your opponents. All of these upgrades give you a natural advantage over your opponents because you will without a doubt get leader points faster than them.

So let’s see, we have one player that has a 1 leader point advantage, tech 3, an army that can attack any units, in some cases is anti air, can melt bases, and is overall more mobile.

Then we have the other player who has 1 less leader point, an army that is pretty slow, can only attack one unit, and in some cases can be easily countered by a well placed leader power or passive.

AA in my opinion needs a slight buff if the cost is to remain the same.
Dude. What part of "AA costs almost 8000 less supplies" aren't you understanding??? Do realize how much you could build with that supply? That's 3 more generators, 2 expansions, funds for replacing my army when they die, etc. Air is such a massive supply commitment that it kills you trying to double pump. If you quick tech into double pumping air it holds you back from expanding for a while or from buying more than 2 generators. You'll be behind in the early game which is when that leader point difference makes the biggest difference. While you're double pumping from one base I can have an army of Marines pushing your base or contesting nodes, all while building generators and expansions on my side. You mention getting air upgrades faster, but how do you get them early while trying to double pump? If you reduce to a single pump while upgrading in the other, you drastically reduce your air unit output because they take forever to reach critical mass.

Look, I understand the impression that the energy cost of AA sets you back. But if you honestly believe that then it's because you don't have a firm grasp on the economics of the game. If I'm going vehicles then only a third of my units need to be wolves. That's not that much power for someone with 4 or 5 generators, which is what I'll be able to afford by not going Banshees.
Why are you so convinced someone going air can't get a second base? A second base costs a measly 500 supplies and 200 power. With all the extra power I have from going Air I no doubt will be able to upgrade my bases and all my supply pads/generators. The only air upgrades that really take that long is Air Upgrade 3; speaking of upgrades how are you gonna upgrade your vehicles when you have no power? Lol It's such a joke. And yes while you may have a good number of marines pushing around the map taking nodes and attacking bases, who is to say my teammates won't be contesting you while I mass Air?

I have already suggested ways to help AA in another post.
1.) Give the wolverines a Y ability that gives them a short speed boost. This will help close the gap between Air mobility and AA mobility. I can't tell you how many times my teammate's bases have been attacked and I couldn't get there in time (When I leave from second or even main base). In HW1 we had the pelican transports to help close the gap, but only a few UNSC leaders have that ability so I think this new Y ability would really help. Extending the Reavers Y Ability jump range would also be a good idea.

2.) Take away the natural "Focus Fire" of AA which results in the "overkill". It is ridiculous that AA will naturally focus fire; and it's not just for the first barrage of shots. If you watch your AA you can notice this.

3.) Give wolverines a bit more health and Reavers more shields. One of the perks of going Air is that you can make healers from the same building as you're making your army. If I'm going AA I have to make a whole other building just to make healers. Because of this, Air is naturally more efficient than AA because they have healers to keep them alive while AA generally doesn't unless it's late game. To compensate this I suggest give both Reavers and Wolvs a bit more health.

So there you go, you can fix AA without even touching their DPS.
nuchey wrote:
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.
Well seeing as you make supplies faster than Power I don’t really see your point. Making an army that doesn’t cost power has a lot ornate benefits. For example, with your extra power you can go tech 3 faster, and get more upgrades than your opponents. All of these upgrades give you a natural advantage over your opponents because you will without a doubt get leader points faster than them.

So let’s see, we have one player that has a 1 leader point advantage, tech 3, an army that can attack any units, in some cases is anti air, can melt bases, and is overall more mobile.

Then we have the other player who has 1 less leader point, an army that is pretty slow, can only attack one unit, and in some cases can be easily countered by a well placed leader power or passive.

AA in my opinion needs a slight buff if the cost is to remain the same.
Dude. What part of "AA costs almost 8000 less supplies" aren't you understanding??? Do realize how much you could build with that supply? That's 3 more generators, 2 expansions, funds for replacing my army when they die, etc. Air is such a massive supply commitment that it kills you trying to double pump. If you quick tech into double pumping air it holds you back from expanding for a while or from buying more than 2 generators. You'll be behind in the early game which is when that leader point difference makes the biggest difference. While you're double pumping from one base I can have an army of Marines pushing your base or contesting nodes, all while building generators and expansions on my side. You mention getting air upgrades faster, but how do you get them early while trying to double pump? If you reduce to a single pump while upgrading in the other, you drastically reduce your air unit output because they take forever to reach critical mass.

Look, I understand the impression that the energy cost of AA sets you back. But if you honestly believe that then it's because you don't have a firm grasp on the economics of the game. If I'm going vehicles then only a third of my units need to be wolves. That's not that much power for someone with 4 or 5 generators, which is what I'll be able to afford by not going Banshees.
Sorry, but the power cost of AA DOES set you back. If someone focuses on mass core air, they have all their power to invest into upgrades and teching up. Whereas the person facing them has to spend power on units that are only useful against air, and nothing else. So the air user has an advantage in tech AND army flexibility.

Why none of you understand that is beyond me...
nuchey wrote:
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.
Sorry, but the power cost of AA DOES set you back. If someone focuses on mass core air, they have all their power to invest into upgrades and teching up. Whereas the person facing them has to spend power on units that are only useful against air, and nothing else. So the air user has an advantage in tech AND army flexibility.

Why none of you understand that is beyond me...
You're falling into the same trap that Nuchy fell into by thinking AA sets you back in power. It doesn't. Yes, it costs power but it is also cheap enough to grant you a 4th or 5th generator. If someone is quick teching into air it is very difficult to get a 3rd generator up. If we both lose our armies in a fight with leader powers, I will be in a much better position to rebuild then he is. 12,000 supply is much harder to rebuild then the 1900 power for a 40 pop wolves army. Remember, you don't need full pop wolves to beat air.
nuchey wrote:
nuchey wrote:
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.
I have already suggested ways to help AA in another post.
1.) Give the wolverines a Y ability that gives them a short speed boost. This will help close the gap between Air mobility and AA mobility. I can't tell you how many times my teammate's bases have been attacked and I couldn't get there in time (When I leave from second or even main base). In HW1 we had the pelican transports to help close the gap, but only a few UNSC leaders have that ability so I think this new Y ability would really help. Extending the Reavers Y Ability jump range would also be a good idea.

2.) Take away the natural "Focus Fire" of AA which results in the "overkill". It is ridiculous that AA will naturally focus fire; and it's not just for the first barrage of shots. If you watch your AA you can notice this.

3.) Give wolverines a bit more health and Reavers more shields. One of the perks of going Air is that you can make healers from the same building as you're making your army. If I'm going AA I have to make a whole other building just to make healers. Because of this, Air is naturally more efficient than AA because they have healers to keep them alive while AA generally doesn't unless it's late game. To compensate this I suggest give both Reavers and Wolvs a bit more health.

So there you go, you can fix AA without even touching their DPS.
We've already proven that the only "issue" AA has is mobility, of which your first point would help.

Your second two points are unnecessary, the unit interaction is fine right now.
nuchey wrote:
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.
Sorry, but the power cost of AA DOES set you back. If someone focuses on mass core air, they have all their power to invest into upgrades and teching up. Whereas the person facing them has to spend power on units that are only useful against air, and nothing else. So the air user has an advantage in tech AND army flexibility.

Why none of you understand that is beyond me...
Upgraded core infantry beats air.
Core infantry is much cheaper and easier to mass and upgrade than air.
Can we at least agree on that?
nuchey wrote:
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.
Sorry, but the power cost of AA DOES set you back. If someone focuses on mass core air, they have all their power to invest into upgrades and teching up. Whereas the person facing them has to spend power on units that are only useful against air, and nothing else. So the air user has an advantage in tech AND army flexibility.

Why none of you understand that is beyond me...
Upgraded core infantry beats air.
Core infantry is much cheaper and easier to mass and upgrade than air.
Can we at least agree on that?
But how are you gonna get that upgrade when you have no power lol. And yes I'll agree that core infantry is good against Air but they are obviously not as mobile.
nuchey wrote:
nuchey wrote:
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.
I have already suggested ways to help AA in another post.
1.) Give the wolverines a Y ability that gives them a short speed boost. This will help close the gap between Air mobility and AA mobility. I can't tell you how many times my teammate's bases have been attacked and I couldn't get there in time (When I leave from second or even main base). In HW1 we had the pelican transports to help close the gap, but only a few UNSC leaders have that ability so I think this new Y ability would really help. Extending the Reavers Y Ability jump range would also be a good idea.

2.) Take away the natural "Focus Fire" of AA which results in the "overkill". It is ridiculous that AA will naturally focus fire; and it's not just for the first barrage of shots. If you watch your AA you can notice this.

3.) Give wolverines a bit more health and Reavers more shields. One of the perks of going Air is that you can make healers from the same building as you're making your army. If I'm going AA I have to make a whole other building just to make healers. Because of this, Air is naturally more efficient than AA because they have healers to keep them alive while AA generally doesn't unless it's late game. To compensate this I suggest give both Reavers and Wolvs a bit more health.

So there you go, you can fix AA without even touching their DPS.
We've already proven that the only "issue" AA has is mobility, of which your first point would help.

Your second two points are unnecessary, the unit interaction is fine right now.
Yay some common ground! What about my point about the healers being much more easily accessible for Air users though?
nuchey wrote:
nuchey wrote:
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.
Sorry, but the power cost of AA DOES set you back. If someone focuses on mass core air, they have all their power to invest into upgrades and teching up. Whereas the person facing them has to spend power on units that are only useful against air, and nothing else. So the air user has an advantage in tech AND army flexibility.

Why none of you understand that is beyond me...
Upgraded core infantry beats air.
Core infantry is much cheaper and easier to mass and upgrade than air.
Can we at least agree on that?
But how are you gonna get that upgrade when you have no power lol. And yes I'll agree that core infantry is good against Air but they are obviously not as mobile.
Wait what?
Why wouldn't you have any power?
nuchey wrote:
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.
Sorry, but the power cost of AA DOES set you back. If someone focuses on mass core air, they have all their power to invest into upgrades and teching up. Whereas the person facing them has to spend power on units that are only useful against air, and nothing else. So the air user has an advantage in tech AND army flexibility.

Why none of you understand that is beyond me...
You're falling into the same trap that Nuchy fell into by thinking AA sets you back in power. It doesn't. Yes, it costs power but it is also cheap enough to grant you a 4th or 5th generator. If someone is quick teching into air it is very difficult to get a 3rd generator up. If we both lose our armies in a fight with leader powers, I will be in a much better position to rebuild then he is. 12,000 supply is much harder to rebuild then the 1900 power for a 40 pop wolves army. Remember, you don't need full pop wolves to beat air.
Try seeing this through a mid-game scenario. It's a lot harder to expand and upgrade when you repeatedly drop 190-225 power on AA and you're confined to one base because that's all you can effectively guard when the very agile air mass evades your anti-air. If you lost the early game in anyway, it's devastating. Which really sucks as mass air players usually have a rush as part of their playstyle.
nuchey wrote:
nuchey wrote:
nuchey wrote:
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.
I have already suggested ways to help AA in another post.
1.) Give the wolverines a Y ability that gives them a short speed boost. This will help close the gap between Air mobility and AA mobility. I can't tell you how many times my teammate's bases have been attacked and I couldn't get there in time (When I leave from second or even main base). In HW1 we had the pelican transports to help close the gap, but only a few UNSC leaders have that ability so I think this new Y ability would really help. Extending the Reavers Y Ability jump range would also be a good idea.

2.) Take away the natural "Focus Fire" of AA which results in the "overkill". It is ridiculous that AA will naturally focus fire; and it's not just for the first barrage of shots. If you watch your AA you can notice this.

3.) Give wolverines a bit more health and Reavers more shields. One of the perks of going Air is that you can make healers from the same building as you're making your army. If I'm going AA I have to make a whole other building just to make healers. Because of this, Air is naturally more efficient than AA because they have healers to keep them alive while AA generally doesn't unless it's late game. To compensate this I suggest give both Reavers and Wolvs a bit more health.

So there you go, you can fix AA without even touching their DPS.
We've already proven that the only "issue" AA has is mobility, of which your first point would help.

Your second two points are unnecessary, the unit interaction is fine right now.
Yay some common ground! What about my point about the healers being much more easily accessible for Air users though?
I find it hard to believe that someone wouldn't have at least one air building to provide heals in 1s.

But if we're talking about a unit to unit interaction, you can focus healers first. Or if you're UNSC you can just have combat tech Marines for support
nuchey wrote:
nuchey wrote:
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.
Sorry, but the power cost of AA DOES set you back. If someone focuses on mass core air, they have all their power to invest into upgrades and teching up. Whereas the person facing them has to spend power on units that are only useful against air, and nothing else. So the air user has an advantage in tech AND army flexibility.

Why none of you understand that is beyond me...
Upgraded core infantry beats air.
Core infantry is much cheaper and easier to mass and upgrade than air.
Can we at least agree on that?
But how are you gonna get that upgrade when you have no power lol. And yes I'll agree that core infantry is good against Air but they are obviously not as mobile.
Wait what?
Why wouldn't you have any power?
Loss of map control + AA
This post has been edited by a moderator. Please do not bump.
*Original post. Click at your own discretion.
Spoiler:
Show
Sarano696 wrote:
nuchey wrote:
nuchey wrote:
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.
Sorry, but the power cost of AA DOES set you back. If someone focuses on mass core air, they have all their power to invest into upgrades and teching up. Whereas the person facing them has to spend power on units that are only useful against air, and nothing else. So the air user has an advantage in tech AND army flexibility.

Why none of you understand that is beyond me...
Upgraded core infantry beats air.
Core infantry is much cheaper and easier to mass and upgrade than air.
Can we at least agree on that?
But how are you gonna get that upgrade when you have no power lol. And yes I'll agree that core infantry is good against Air but they are obviously not as mobile.
Wait what?
Why wouldn't you have any power?
Loss of map control + AA
No. I'm saying get upgraded core infantry mostly, instead of AA.
Because the argument is that it's easier to spam units that cost only supply (banshees/hornets) than AA, because it costs power.

So, go core infantry (less supply than air and a faster build time).
nuchey wrote:
nuchey wrote:
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.
If I'm going vehicles then only a third of my units need to be wolves.
Why are you so convinced someone going air can't get a second base? A second base costs a measly 500 supplies and 200 power. With all the extra power I have from going Air I no doubt will be able to upgrade my bases and all my supply pads/generators. The only air upgrades that really take that long is Air Upgrade 3; speaking of upgrades how are you gonna upgrade your vehicles when you have no power? Lol It's such a joke. And yes while you may have a good number of marines pushing around the map taking nodes and attacking bases, who is to say my teammates won't be contesting you while I mass Air?

I have already suggested ways to help AA in another post.
1.) Give the wolverines a Y ability that gives them a short speed boost. This will help close the gap between Air mobility and AA mobility. I can't tell you how many times my teammate's bases have been attacked and I couldn't get there in time (When I leave from second or even main base). In HW1 we had the pelican transports to help close the gap, but only a few UNSC leaders have that ability so I think this new Y ability would really help. Extending the Reavers Y Ability jump range would also be a good idea.

2.) Take away the natural "Focus Fire" of AA which results in the "overkill". It is ridiculous that AA will naturally focus fire; and it's not just for the first barrage of shots. If you watch your AA you can notice this.

3.) Give wolverines a bit more health and Reavers more shields. One of the perks of going Air is that you can make healers from the same building as you're making your army. If I'm going AA I have to make a whole other building just to make healers. Because of this, Air is naturally more efficient than AA because they have healers to keep them alive while AA generally doesn't unless it's late game. To compensate this I suggest give both Reavers and Wolvs a bit more health.

So there you go, you can fix AA without even touching their DPS.
I say it from experience. 4 supplies/1 gen makes it really hard to double pump air while also expanding. Forget about getting a 3rd gen fairly early. Just think about it, waiting to get enough power from 2 gens to get tech 3 AND upgrade an expansion AND upgrade supply pads AND get air level 3 AND get armory upgrades is just incredibly inefficient.

Going AA all I gotta do is build 8 wolves and I'm done with power units. Hogs and wolves are much cheaper than Banshees, letting me afford those 4 and 5th generators that will help me with all the research. You would need two really good teammates to hold off 3 people with good armies until you get critical mass air. In an equally skilled matchup the mass air guy would lose. As for your suggestions:

1) Wolverines are already faster than hornets. 20SP vs 18SP (speed attribute). Yes, hornets have terrain advantage to kite wolves, BUT THAT'S THE POINT OF BEING AIR. They are already incredibly fragile, taking away what helps them survive would ruin air entirely. Banshees have 20.5SP so they're slightly faster than wolves but they still can't just zoom away when caught.

2) Yes, they need to fix their focus fire. Literally everyone agrees with this and it's been posted many times. Cool.

3) Nuchy, did you watch the video I posted? Even when using Vortex on the vehicles the Banshees got shredded. All Banshees died while only 3 hogs and a wolverine went down. Cost to replace: (7800 blue) vs (900 blue/190 yellow). AA doesn't need anything to help them in a fight. More health/shields would utterly break them.
  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 3
  4. 4
  5. 5
  6. 6
  7. ...
  8. 7