Please don't suggest weakening defenses in favor of that boring bomber-spam... yes the Vasari defense is good against bombers, and that's what such a defense is supposed to do. You can always bring in a couple of long-range torpedo cruisers to take care of the hangars. It's really the other races that have underpowerd defenses against bombers imo.

(never mind)

@SinKillr:

Thanks for the feedback; I'll add your suggestions to the OP.

On the subject of fighters: I'm of the opinion that units that need to be micro'd in order to do the job they are explicitly meant to do is a problem and deserves a fix.

If bombers are the primary problem with phase missiles, then shouldn't changing the bomber's weapon from phase missiles to plasma wave cannons neatly solve the problem with phase missiles, with no nerfs to phase missiles required and perhaps a bombers to bring their DPS up to par with other bomber weapons that must deal with shield mitigation?

With regard to your comments about my Alt+Attack and Alt+Ability suggestions: Sins is a game of convenience. Every single ability can be autocast for a reason -- there is an extent to which the game can have so much stuff going on in it that the devs don't expect any player to be able to keep up, therefore allowing players with greater multitasking capability to stand out in their ability to NOT let auto-attack handle things.

If anything, allowing players to alt-attack units would further distinguish the sheep from the goats, so to speak.

An easy example: fighters vs. fighters.

My opponent selects all his fighters and alt-attacks my fighters; his fighters automatically receive orders to attack one squadron at a time.

By comparison, I clone my fighters: tell all of them to attack one squadron, then deselect one squadron; tell all of them to attack the next squadron, then deselect one squadron, until all squadrons have been deselected. I then win the engagement.

@GeoManNL:

The problem is not defenses; the problem is, Phasic Trap is incredibly powerful compared to the hangar defense upgrades of other factions. In order to be comparable, you'd need to buff TEC hangar flak cannons to one-hit-kill squadrons, and you'd need to buff Advent structure shields to completely ignore bomber attacks.

It is the discrepancy that is the problem, not the function.

GeomanNL,

From the examples you just posted, I'm inclined to think that you are a player who likes to be able to turtle. That's perfectly fine, but it tends to yield very passive games: players establish choke points, build up defenses, and then mass units for overwhelming force. Such games are effectively decided at the very beginning, but take hours and hours to resolve.

Sins, in its current incarnation, works. Nor perfectly, but it works. All it needs are a few tweaks here and there to make other playstyles viable.

Incidentally, static defenses aren't viable in ANY RTS game. Starcraft, Supreme Commander 2, Sins, it doesn't matter. Patton said (and I paraphrase) that fixed fortifications are a monument to human stupidity because anything made by man can be destroyed by man.

In every RTS game I've ever played or watched, static defenses represent money that could have been spent on weaker mobile units.

Likewise: shield mitigation is a response to the fact that Sins has a very high unit cap. Without shield mitigation, ships would be vaporized so quickly that using abilities would be impossible. Shield mitigation likewise represents a variation on the slower combat present in Warcraft III on which Sins of a Solar Empire builds. Combat in Warcraft III was considerably slower than Starcraft, primarily to permit players the opportunity to micromanage individual units -- which was very difficult in Starcraft because of the tendency of units to explode instantaneously during pitched battles. But Sins (which is essentially Warcraft III in space -- armor class, armor function, weapon damage, capital ship abilities and leveling are almost identical, conceptually, to Warcraft III) takes place on a much more massive scale; there are often far more sources of incoming damage in Sins than there ever were in Warcraft III. Hence, shield mitigation.

Incidentally, if you'd like a faction that can turtle, see the Advent. They get extra tactical slots and their structures get shield mitigation. Also, their culture spread rates (particularly Advent Loyalists, who can triple their culture spread compared to Advent Rebels by turning planets into culture generators and by researching additional culture spread rate) allow them to dislodge opponents easily, without leaving their base -- and the deliverance engine, combined with Eyes of the Converted, allows them to SCOUT wherever they wish.

Light Carriers originally had only one squadron (two for Advent) and had a huge recharge rate for destroyed bombers. Players complained and we now have the current style of light carriers. Can't blame the devs for that one 100%.

In regards to the Phase Missiles,

I would agree with the idea that Phase Missiles are the problem at all, just that the bombers that presently deploy them are.

There are no problems with the Phase Missiles on capital ships, starbases, turrets and Assailants. Just those on bombers. While all bombers are capable of alpha-striking capital ships, Vasari need a lot less, especially against Advent ships, and tend to obliterate them while their shields are still very high.

If those were changed to wave cannons and kept at their present DPS (17.1, vs Advent ~17.5 and TEC 16.5 per squad) I think they would be balanced relative to the other factions.

Once that's done I don't think there need to be any phase missile blocking technologies. Vasari can still utilize their missiles effectively, but Assailants will be their primary platform.

As it stands, fighters and flak cannot stop a bomber horde and the only defenses against it for TEC and Advent are Flak Burst and Telekinetic Push respectively - the former of which does not actually prevent the attack, eats antimatter, and needs 3 blasts at max level to kill Vasari bombers, the latter of which is deployed from the most frail-hulled capital ship in the game, and both of which have short range and require some very intense micro to use effectively.

Assailants on the other hand are vulnerable - they get torn up by fighters (with basic manual targeting), taken out by corvettes, hit by starbases, hammered by AoEs, etc. And every loss is real, not just a short setback until a free replacement is built (as with bombers). They would be glass cannons, still very dangerous to enemy capital ships, but less trivial to use. Meanwhile the power of Vasari bombers would still be formidable, almost equal with Advent bombers, but they would have to go through shields and mitigation like everyone else.

Heck Vasari bombers even LOOK like they're armed with wave cannons; their front parts are a little reminiscent of the Enforcer's big damn frontal wave projector.

--

Now in regard to just the general issue of bombers being very powerful, there are a lot of potential solutions. Fighters could be buffed. Flak could be buffed somehow. Anti-strikecraft capital abilities could be buffed somehow. I think flak oughta be a bigger counter to them, either slowing/stunning them, doing AoE damage, or something. Because improved fighters still mean that carriers are a disproportionately large part of fleet compositions; they are the main counters to themselves.

--

Also, I would agree with just plain stat buffs or supply/cost reduction on the Skirmisher. It's pretty meh at the moment. It could do with a buff that makes it equivalent in net efficacy with the Cobalt perhaps, with both still being slightly inferior to the Disciple.

Just a random idea: the phase lane thingy could be made less overpowered (while still somewhat useful) by not allowing capital ships or Titans in them. They can then still be used for resupply of a fleet (which is very useful in itself), but they're then not as effective for assaulting and conquering planets behind enemy lines.

A few things.

In order to increase the effectiveness of defenses perhaps they should be allowed to be built further out of the gravity well (ie right on top of where the enemy will phase jump in). This would force players to fight through at least some of the defenses. Making the phase lane angle smaller might also help with defenses as you would have to jump closer to the phase lane line, thus limiting a fleet's ability to jump in on one side of the gravity well.

I think anti-fight frigates should deal area effect damage to strikecraft (much like WWII flak guns would). This could affect corvettes as well but I think anti-fighter frigates currently deal with corvettes quite well. I'd like to see the Kol's flakburst ability have it's antimatter cost lowered too as this would help, especially the lower level Kols.

Another thing I'd like to see is Subversion affect the planet's population. I'm not sure if I'd like to see the population growth rate stopped or damaged. Perhaps have it apply a 0.15 penalty to population growth rate, this would cause a population loss on non social planets but not on social specialized planets. Planetary upgrade rates could also be slowed (I don't believe they currently are). Either way, something to make this ability more worthwhile is needed and the icon does show Vasari ninjas, which I assume would be capable of killing a few civilians.

True words!

Yes, the domination of bombers is a general problem that does nullify several parts of the counter system.

Heavy cruisers? Inferior in all important ways

Build a starbase? Dont bother, it will die to bomber spam

Build Torpedo Cruisers? Dont bother, bombers are better and are usefull against more things than just structures.

Personally I think that fighers should STOP bombers dead in space at a ratio of 2v3.... so if you have 20 fighter wings and your enemy has 30 bomber wings, the fighers should obliberate the bombers without those doing any major damage.

That would make it important to have fighter superiority before using bombers in reasonable capacity. As fighers however suck against most things, that would allow heavy cruisers and other underused ships a place in game again.

Actually the Vasari Bombers do have similar DPS to other bombers already, even without phase missile shield piercing being active.

Actually shield mitigation is a unique idea that allows for some cool faction diversity.

Its effects are huge..... Try out Shield Bestowal on the Advent Hangar Platform.... 750 shield sound pathetic...... but it does give the platfrom and adjacent buildings shield mitigations, basically quadrupling its durability.

Personally I think that Sins did a pretty good job at balancing offense vs defense. The problem here is that the best offensive faction Vasari happens to have the best defense (against human players) too.

That makes them so extremely powerful. You cannot attack a Vasari... because he will rip your fleet apart. You cannot defend against a Vasari because his fleet is superior to you.

It should be noted that the last weapon upgrade of both TEC and Advent Starbase does reach the torpedo cruisers, doing enough damage to grind them down over time. The Vasari one does not but then it can move...

Starbases are very very powerful..... until somebody fields bombers.

Try to take down a well supported starbase with your fleet (without bombers)..... and watch it die arround you.

Torpedo cruisers were supposed to be the counter to starbases, but as bombers are even better and are not helpless against anything else like the Torpedo cruisers, they reign supreme.

Torpedo cruisers are designed to crush a starbase, but by building them, your enemy does waste valuable fleet supply for them, so his fleet will be significantly weaker.

Nobody wants a game where people just hide inside their fortress and never ever leave it.

Many RTS games however nerf defenses to hard, making them worthless.

Which in turn does make the game active... but boring.

"FIRST ONE to build 100 ships WINS."

I have 90 ships, you have 100 ships. I lose, you win.

That is not Real Time Strategy, that is "Who does click faster".

Having reasonable defenses in a RTS game, leads to better tactics instead of mindless spam of the best unit available. 

Giving the defending party the possibiliy of an advantage, drastically improves tactics used.

It is called Real Time STRATEGY, so overall you should win by using superior strategy and not just because you have 10 % more APM.

I disagree, the larger the gravity well is, the less effective they become.

That is the reason why large planets are much worse chokepoints than small Asteroids....

All ships in Sins are very durable, you have to stay a while close to defenses for them to do some serious damage.

A starbase directly at the jump in point of a hostile fleet wont do much, assuming the enemy fleet flies away immediatly.

against humans it's not a good idea to drain your economy that much, you rarely go above 1000 fleet supply (although depending on situation, what number of ships your opponent has, etc), many times you don't even use the 4th fleet upgrade at all, and you can guess 120 fleet supply from 600 or 700 is a great weakness, much better to have bombers.

The target is 1v1 balancing.... simple said.... any race and any faction should have halfway comparable changes of victory against any race and any faction. Under the assumption of 2 human players that make full use of their entire capabilities. TEC Vs Advent is at that stage imho.

I agree. Illuminators can become very powerful for Advent Loyalist even in late game. With all AL upgrades you can reach a listed damage of arround 28 or so. Combine this with the devastating Unity Mass Ability and you can see sweat even on the face of an fully upgraded Orky.

I could imagine that this is because of Detonate Antimatter. That makes having a Radiance pretty much a necessity, even if besides this it is not much more useful than the - underpowered Kol.

What exactly would you suggest?

Is it better that way?

I think you should balance the game for large maps, because that's what people like most (whether it's human vs humans, humans vs AI, or FFA, people like medium to large maps and at least 4 players). There are not many people playing 1v1 games on small maps. Even single player games, I think people like to play against 3 AI's, or do FFA's with 3 other AI's or more. Anyway that's my 2 cts, I think larger battles are more enjoyable than 1v1.