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. 5
  4. 6
  5. ...
  6. 7
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.
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.
What do you mean no power? If we're both at tech 2 then we've spent an equal amount of power. Then you save for tech 3 or get Air lvl 1&2, both of which cost less than combat tech Marines. And let's not forget I started building a VERY CHEAP Marine army in tech 1, way before you got your air pads up.
If you go marines against an air army your team will lose. Marines are slow af, they cost a lot of power to get to be AA, and they are easy targets for leader powers. Not to mention they can be easily countered, whereas with AA like wolvs or reavs they are hardly as effective against Air. Can we at least agree on that? That when it comes to counters, AA is the least effective at killing the unit it's designed to counter.
are you kidding? AA is the best counter compared to cyclopes and murauders being garbage. All im saying is AA is so strong that it might be OP if you compared them to other counters just like suicide grunts take only 6-8 Suicide Grunts to wipe out a army while AA is nearly the same against air. Suicide Grunts if anything need nerf while AA is very effective but not too strong either.
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.
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.
What do you mean no power? If we're both at tech 2 then we've spent an equal amount of power. Then you save for tech 3 or get Air lvl 1&2, both of which cost less than combat tech Marines. And let's not forget I started building a VERY CHEAP Marine army in tech 1, way before you got your air pads up.
If you go marines against an air army your team will lose. Marines are slow af, they cost a lot of power to get to be AA, and they are easy targets for leader powers. Not to mention they can be easily countered, whereas with AA like wolvs or reavs they are hardly as effective against Air. Can we at least agree on that? That when it comes to counters, AA is the least effective at killing the unit it's designed to counter.
are you kidding? AA is the best counter compared to cyclopes and murauders being garbage. All im saying is AA is so strong that it might be OP if you compared them to other counters just like suicide grunts take only 6-8 Suicide Grunts to wipe out a army while AA is nearly the same against air. Suicide Grunts if anything need nerf while AA is very effective but not too strong either.
Just to jump in. Marines Are in fact Amazing at killing air and yes they are slow without Cutter but they dominate so well they can be split making it available to cover more ground. In a 1v1 this is acceptable in 2v2 only certain maps and 3v3 none. The bigger the map the more speed is needed. However I would never say it is OP just in a good spot Marines are super strong vs air but mainly because they are slow thats how they make up for it. As for the cost of Marines 50/0 per pop the power isn't bad for one time use and Nightingale Marines can take on most ground army's as well.
Sarano696 wrote:
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).
The argument is that tech two is 1000 power, CT marines are a 900 power investment, combined with AA units for 190 power a pop USB outrageous to counter a strategy that costs 1000-1500. This isn't factoring in map control, secondaries which is difficult when countering air, as your opponent will just destroy whatever base your AA isn't at.
Big initial power cost but Marines are not bad mid game with nightingales and the banshees are x2 the cost of every marine so it's still way cheaper to mix in core infantry. You can split Infantry I doubt you can kill a base with Marines hot on your heels at all times.
Sarano696 wrote:
Man this post blew up, who would've thought if you created another post discussing something that already had tons of post to it's name and have a different opinion than the majority then boom. Popularity.

In all seriousness though this topic has been discussed to death and my answer hasn't really changed at all. Wolverines are good against air and so are reavers. Though there have been intentional draw backs to building these types of units. With the help of turrets and other units you only need a few wolverines/reavers in your army to be effective at killing an air army. But if you build too many than the enemy can switch up their army making a portion of your army useless. They are also very pricey punishing those who mass produce them. In short the AA in this game does it's job and does it well. It doesn't need any tweaks and neither does air. I would say that if they do for some reason buff AA I ask for a very small reduction to power, maybe 30 power reduction. Enough to make a difference. But that's just my thought on it so take it as you will.

Also I wanted to fit this in here somewhere but I couldn't really find a place for it since it stands out so much so here's the hashtag section of the post(Because why not?)

#AABeCrayCray
#GooGone
It really doesn't though. AA I see expensive, slow, and the entire firing system is just dumb. Wolverines I would say are fine, but reavers are just so ineffective due to their speed, cost, and overkill. This combined with grunts being very bad against... well, everything, leaves the bansihed at a major sore spot.
I just gave you a detailed description on why Reavers are way better then banshees. Where are you getting grunts suck from? Banished is still better then UNSC right now.
nuchey wrote:
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.
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.
What do you mean no power? If we're both at tech 2 then we've spent an equal amount of power. Then you save for tech 3 or get Air lvl 1&2, both of which cost less than combat tech Marines. And let's not forget I started building a VERY CHEAP Marine army in tech 1, way before you got your air pads up.
If you go marines against an air army your team will lose. Marines are slow af, they cost a lot of power to get to be AA, and they are easy targets for leader powers. Not to mention they can be easily countered, whereas with AA like wolvs or reavs they are hardly as effective against Air. Can we at least agree on that? That when it comes to counters, AA is the least effective at killing the unit it's designed to counter.
1. You don't explain for marines lose to air. They soft counter air and beat them with no effort at all.

2. Marines are slower than air but can be massed much quicker than air. By the time you are double pumping air I already have a full army. Instead of needing two airpads on my main after getting tech 2, I can instead get more generators and an airpad for nightingales or barracks for infantry upgrades. Combat Tech is only 900 power in marine upgrades. With my extra generator I have no problem getting that. If you can "quickly tech up with Banshees," I can tech up even quicker with marines.

3. If you are implying that AA has a hard time beating air, then NO we cannot agree on that. For the last time AA doesn't need help when fighting air. AA is incredibly effective at beating air when used correctly. Here, 16 warthogs (which lose to air) were accompanied by 8 wolves and they utterly wrecked 26 Banshees (which started off by using Vortex on the vehicles). Both armies started at 80 pop, but the vehicles ended at 67 pop while the air was completely destroyed.

4. Nuchy, you have me added on Xbox. I will gladly show you how this matchup will play out. Send me an invite whenever you can and we will go through it together. This goes for everyone else arguing against AA as well.
Sounds like we need to do some tests friend. Also it's nuchey btw. I'm not sure what that video is trying to show. The banshees attacked the minibase for several seconds before engaging the rest of the army. Vortex only does some really damage against infantry, and it's stun is literally half a second. You should have thrown some engineers in the mix since it's pretty easy to throw them into your banshee swarm. I'm also assuming that is an 80 pop vs 80 when in a really game the population advantage usual goes to the person who went Air (Because they'll have extra power)
Sorry I misspelled your name, I meant no offence.

As for Vortex, it does more than just stun. It's a debuff that leaves them at half armor for several seconds. Also, most Banshee swarms don't include engineers because they slow them down considerably. Even then, do you really think 4/5 engineers would've made a difference in that fight? And, once more, the power advantage goes to the one with more generators aka the one building AA or marines. I'll be on for the rest of tonight if you want to test it out.
He Doesn't know of the grunt spam lol. #FEARTHEGRUNTS
I JG Fox I wrote:
Sarano696 wrote:
Man this post blew up, who would've thought if you created another post discussing something that already had tons of post to it's name and have a different opinion than the majority then boom. Popularity.

In all seriousness though this topic has been discussed to death and my answer hasn't really changed at all. Wolverines are good against air and so are reavers. Though there have been intentional draw backs to building these types of units. With the help of turrets and other units you only need a few wolverines/reavers in your army to be effective at killing an air army. But if you build too many than the enemy can switch up their army making a portion of your army useless. They are also very pricey punishing those who mass produce them. In short the AA in this game does it's job and does it well. It doesn't need any tweaks and neither does air. I would say that if they do for some reason buff AA I ask for a very small reduction to power, maybe 30 power reduction. Enough to make a difference. But that's just my thought on it so take it as you will.

Also I wanted to fit this in here somewhere but I couldn't really find a place for it since it stands out so much so here's the hashtag section of the post(Because why not?)

#AABeCrayCray
#GooGone
It really doesn't though. AA I see expensive, slow, and the entire firing system is just dumb. Wolverines I would say are fine, but reavers are just so ineffective due to their speed, cost, and overkill. This combined with grunts being very bad against... well, everything, leaves the bansihed at a major sore spot.
I just gave you a detailed description on why Reavers are way better then banshees. Where are you getting grunts suck from? Banished is still better then UNSC right now.
What you aren't getting is that none of this is about the way anti air damages air. The problem with reavers isn't that they don't damage air, it's that they have no way of getting to it or keeping up with it unless the air army is dumb enough to let the reavers kill it, which no mass air player is. They fly away or around, and reavers have no method of catching up. Wolves are way better, but even they have to go around obstacles.

And I'm getting Grunts suck from objective reality. They do piddly damages against everything, even with pack brother. Banished are at a major disadvantage against mass air armies without going mass air themselves, as their AA is too slow to be effective and their core infantry isn't a reliable method to fight air, unlike marines.
Sarano696 wrote:
I JG Fox I wrote:
Sarano696 wrote:
Man this post blew up, who would've thought if you created another post discussing something that already had tons of post to it's name and have a different opinion than the majority then boom. Popularity.

In all seriousness though this topic has been discussed to death and my answer hasn't really changed at all. Wolverines are good against air and so are reavers. Though there have been intentional draw backs to building these types of units. With the help of turrets and other units you only need a few wolverines/reavers in your army to be effective at killing an air army. But if you build too many than the enemy can switch up their army making a portion of your army useless. They are also very pricey punishing those who mass produce them. In short the AA in this game does it's job and does it well. It doesn't need any tweaks and neither does air. I would say that if they do for some reason buff AA I ask for a very small reduction to power, maybe 30 power reduction. Enough to make a difference. But that's just my thought on it so take it as you will.

Also I wanted to fit this in here somewhere but I couldn't really find a place for it since it stands out so much so here's the hashtag section of the post(Because why not?)

#AABeCrayCray
#GooGone
What you aren't getting is that none of this is about the way anti air damages air. The problem with reavers isn't that they don't damage air, it's that they have no way of getting to it or keeping up with it unless the air army is dumb enough to let the reavers kill it, which no mass air player is. They fly away or around, and reavers have no method of catching up. Wolves are way better, but even they have to go around obstacles.

And I'm getting Grunts suck from objective reality. They do piddly damages against everything, even with pack brother. Banished are at a major disadvantage against mass air armies without going mass air themselves, as their AA is too slow to be effective and their core infantry isn't a reliable method to fight air, unlike marines.
If the whole argument that we're going in circles about is to admit that AA is slower than air, then we can probably just all agree on that.
AA is slower than Air, and air is good at harassing bases on large maps.

The solution to this problem is coordinating with your teammates and building enough of the appropriate counters.
I JG Fox I wrote:
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.
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.
What do you mean no power? If we're both at tech 2 then we've spent an equal amount of power. Then you save for tech 3 or get Air lvl 1&2, both of which cost less than combat tech Marines. And let's not forget I started building a VERY CHEAP Marine army in tech 1, way before you got your air pads up.
If you go marines against an air army your team will lose. Marines are slow af, they cost a lot of power to get to be AA, and they are easy targets for leader powers. Not to mention they can be easily countered, whereas with AA like wolvs or reavs they are hardly as effective against Air. Can we at least agree on that? That when it comes to counters, AA is the least effective at killing the unit it's designed to counter.
are you kidding? AA is the best counter compared to cyclopes and murauders being garbage. All im saying is AA is so strong that it might be OP if you compared them to other counters just like suicide grunts take only 6-8 Suicide Grunts to wipe out a army while AA is nearly the same against air. Suicide Grunts if anything need nerf while AA is very effective but not too strong either.
Just to jump in. Marines Are in fact Amazing at killing air and yes they are slow without Cutter but they dominate so well they can be split making it available to cover more ground. In a 1v1 this is acceptable in 2v2 only certain maps and 3v3 none. The bigger the map the more speed is needed. However I would never say it is OP just in a good spot Marines are super strong vs air but mainly because they are slow thats how they make up for it. As for the cost of Marines 50/0 per pop the power isn't bad for one time use and Nightingale Marines can take on most ground army's as well.
Most definitely agree Cutter Marines make some great AA but don't underestimated grunts, especially Ship and arby Grunts fir thier increased speed and Yaps Heavy Grunts for their cheap raw firepower to air.
Sarano696 wrote:
I JG Fox I wrote:
Sarano696 wrote:
Man this post blew up, who would've thought if you created another post discussing something that already had tons of post to it's name and have a different opinion than the majority then boom. Popularity.

In all seriousness though this topic has been discussed to death and my answer hasn't really changed at all. Wolverines are good against air and so are reavers. Though there have been intentional draw backs to building these types of units. With the help of turrets and other units you only need a few wolverines/reavers in your army to be effective at killing an air army. But if you build too many than the enemy can switch up their army making a portion of your army useless. They are also very pricey punishing those who mass produce them. In short the AA in this game does it's job and does it well. It doesn't need any tweaks and neither does air. I would say that if they do for some reason buff AA I ask for a very small reduction to power, maybe 30 power reduction. Enough to make a difference. But that's just my thought on it so take it as you will.

Also I wanted to fit this in here somewhere but I couldn't really find a place for it since it stands out so much so here's the hashtag section of the post(Because why not?)

#AABeCrayCray
#GooGone
What you aren't getting is that none of this is about the way anti air damages air. The problem with reavers isn't that they don't damage air, it's that they have no way of getting to it or keeping up with it unless the air army is dumb enough to let the reavers kill it, which no mass air player is. They fly away or around, and reavers have no method of catching up. Wolves are way better, but even they have to go around obstacles.

And I'm getting Grunts suck from objective reality. They do piddly damages against everything, even with pack brother. Banished are at a major disadvantage against mass air armies without going mass air themselves, as their AA is too slow to be effective and their core infantry isn't a reliable method to fight air, unlike marines.
If the whole argument that we're going in circles about is to admit that AA is slower than air, then we can probably just all agree on that.
AA is slower than Air, and air is good at harassing bases on large maps.

The solution to this problem is coordinating with your teammates and building enough of the appropriate counters.
Ill just say yes because I've lost interest
This post has been edited by a moderator. Please do not bump.
*Original post. Click at your own discretion.
Spoiler:
Show
Sarano696 wrote:
This post has been edited by a moderator. Please do not bump.*Original post. Click at your own discretion.
Spoiler:
Show
They are both infantry and both Core Units so they are comparable. The only difference is Heavy Grunts are better AA in a direct fight than regular Grunts squads while Grunts have greater mobility with less firepower but only a fool thinks they are no comparisons between the each. Just because Goliaths are bigger and harder to kill does not mean they are not rush building killers Just like Jump Brutes or because Banshees act as AA, they are not air like Hornets. I will agree they are less effective than Marines but if you build 40pop AA and rest Grunts, you still should not have a problem with full air.
  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 5
  4. 6
  5. ...
  6. 7