Balance RA APB delta balance.

[Pushwall]

I suppose I can hotfix it by making the bridge indestructible, or removing arties/v2s from the map for the time being. All the "real" solutions to the problem would take quite a bit of time but I plan to implement a real solution eventually.

[ganein14]

One of the things that irks me quite a bit about the naval system is that the gunboat's deck gun and destroyer's missiles can damage a sub underwater. It shouldn't be able to do that, otherwise what use are the depth charges? I've also noticed that the rocket/RPG AA missile launchers can damage subs if they're in shallow enough water, but still considered submerged.

Edited January 21, 2016 by ganein14

[Pyryle]

If the bridge is indestructible, how can there be naval warfare in the bathtub lake? Then again, I barely see vessels go into the lake.

[ganein14]

If the bridge is indestructible, how can there be naval warfare in the bathtub lake? Then again, I barely see vessels go into the lake.

I've gone in there as a Missile sub along with one or two others, but I've never been able to do anything due to the arties/turrets/rocket soldiers/etc. without taking serious damage, or even losing the sub before I could get much done.

[Pushwall]

One of the things that irks me quite a bit about the naval system is that the gunboat's deck gun and destroyer's missiles can damage a sub underwater. It shouldn't be able to do that, otherwise what use are the depth charges? I've also noticed that the rocket/RPG AA missile launchers can damage subs if they're in shallow enough water, but still considered submerged.

 

You've noticed wrong then. Destroyers and AA launchers do not hurt submerged subs.

[Scale_DeepSub]
Explosive=0
AntiAircraft=0

If you don't see a blue tint then you're not submerged. There may also be like a split second of lag between the tint and the armour updating, idk. But it's there.

 

Gunboat's deck gun does a minor amount of damage to submerged subs to prevent them from just going "lol nope" and submerging before the last hit and making the gunboat waste a minute or so trying to chase them down with depth charges. The LAW does this for the same reason plus not forcing the player to buy a gunboat (which they may not even be able to do!) for the express purpose of finishing the sub off. But the gunboat's deck gun can't aim down very far anyway; a really submerged sub (as opposed to one just edging the line between submerged and surfaced) can't actually be hit by it.

[ChopBam]

 

Is that the one that was on the 0.9935 server a few years ago and was so large that you just get completely lost?

Perhaps, although people getting lost on this map was likely due to the lack of background landmarks, and dense fog. A background landmark has been added that ties into the map plot, and fog will be a little bit less dense.

 

You can take advantage of the base radar markers now.

 

Can't you just fix that by making the bridge indestructible?

Artilleries still annihilate anything that tries to cross the bridge, so making it indestructible won't really solve that...

[SarahNautili]

I will say that the destroyer's depth charge feels... functionally useless. Since it requires the destroyer to 1) catch up to the sub while 2) turning its ass to the sub and then 3) hit a very hard to see, moving target with very hard to aim weapons

 

in which time the sub will murder death kill the destroyer.

[ganein14]

 

One of the things that irks me quite a bit about the naval system is that the gunboat's deck gun and destroyer's missiles can damage a sub underwater. It shouldn't be able to do that, otherwise what use are the depth charges? I've also noticed that the rocket/RPG AA missile launchers can damage subs if they're in shallow enough water, but still considered submerged.

 

You've noticed wrong then. Destroyers and AA launchers do not hurt submerged subs.

[Scale_DeepSub]
Explosive=0
AntiAircraft=0

If you don't see a blue tint then you're not submerged. There may also be like a split second of lag between the tint and the armour updating, idk. But it's there.

 

Gunboat's deck gun does a minor amount of damage to submerged subs to prevent them from just going "lol nope" and submerging before the last hit and making the gunboat waste a minute or so trying to chase them down with depth charges. The LAW does this for the same reason plus not forcing the player to buy a gunboat (which they may not even be able to do!) for the express purpose of finishing the sub off. But the gunboat's deck gun can't aim down very far anyway; a really submerged sub (as opposed to one just edging the line between submerged and surfaced) can't actually be hit by it.

 

I think it should be changed so that the deck gun does no damage to submerged subs, because on under, or any naval map really, a sub can still be pounded to death by them if they linger in the area for a little bit or get overwhelmed before they even have a chance to act. To encourage the use of the depth charges, why not add a proximity detection to it moments after its launched and make the subs slower when they're underwater? That way it can still damage subs and the botes can over run and destroy them if they dive too deep.

Edited January 21, 2016 by ganein14

[Pushwall]

why not add a proximity detection to it moments after its launched and make the subs slower when they're underwater?

 

There already is "proximity detection" 17.5m around the depth charge and it's going up to 25m next patch.

We can't change vehicle movement speeds on the fly in this engine, outside of completely freezing them in place.

I will say that the destroyer's depth charge feels... functionally useless. Since it requires the destroyer to 1) catch up to the sub while 2) turning its ass to the sub and then 3) hit a very hard to see, moving target with very hard to aim weapons

 

in which time the sub will murder death kill the destroyer.

 

The destroyer used to be able to rotate its depth charge ramp in testing. This turned out to make it even more useless because this engine does not handle vehicles with multiple turrets well - you had to look down to make the turret face left, and look up to make it face right. Since you have to look down to even see subs anyway it meant the ramp would always be facing left when you were actually trying to use it. At the very least, it's still a deterrent that means subs can't just go straight underneath a destroyer because of the threat of being instagibbed by a depth charge in the process, they have to circle around it where they will likely run into an escorting gunboat.

[SarahNautili]

Fair enough. Although I won't lie, I miss the old system where they just chunked their depth charges from the same launcher as the missiles.

 

To be fair, though, at least part of that comes from most of my game experience so far being in games with less than 10 people, where getting any kind of escort (besides the voices in my head ) was a fantasy, and I can understand how putting it back that way would be likely to make destroyers *too* powerful

 

 

On a semi-related note, can we get the ability to sell subs? Even with the fact that selling a sub would just mean a quick death, there's been plenty of times I'd rather lost the infantry (who I was expecting to lose anyway from the moment I bought the sub) and gotten the sale money back, than literally have no option but to jump out and lose the sub and my infantry anyway for fear of leaving a sub lying 'round for the Allies to steal.

 

 

EDIT: also it's a huge bummer about being unable to change vehicle handling on the fly - that's one thing I woulda suggested as a possible way to make depth charges less useless.

Edited January 21, 2016 by SarahNautili

[Pushwall]

Yeah, destroyers are kinda meant to be worse than gunboats at the whole depth charging thing. They and missile subs are meant to be anti-base/anti-air artillery that can't fight naval units effectively, and gunboats/submarines are meant to counter those, intercept LSTs, harass the enemy naval yard to prevent anything from coming out in the first place, or protect your destroyers/missubs from enemy gunboats/attack subs. Destroyers being able to launch depth charges out of the missile turret would make gunboats mostly redundant even if gunboats could do it too.

[danpaul88]

Yeah, destroyers are kinda meant to be worse than gunboats at the whole depth charging thing. They and missile subs are meant to be anti-base/anti-air artillery that can't fight naval units effectively,

Which is amusing when you consider that;

 

destroyer

dɪˈstrɔɪə/Submit

noun

1.

a small, fast warship, especially one equipped for a defensive role against submarines and aircraft.

[Raap]

 

Yeah, destroyers are kinda meant to be worse than gunboats at the whole depth charging thing. They and missile subs are meant to be anti-base/anti-air artillery that can't fight naval units effectively,

Which is amusing when you consider that;

 

destroyer

dɪˈstrɔɪə/Submit

noun

1.

a small, fast warship, especially one equipped for a defensive role against submarines and aircraft.

 

 

It does the latter quite well, though Hind weapon damage generally eats away at Destroyers (just about anything will since it is impossible to miss the ship).

 

I kind of like the current naval dynamic, it adds value to air power... In fact, I don't think naval on its own without air power can be balanced right now without completely dumbing down the gameplay. I do like the fact that landing depth charges takes some player skill, and the reward is there; Nearly instantly kill any submarine.

 

The problem in my opinion simply lies in too excessive 'drifting' caused by the poor ability to turn while moving of Allied ships (I lost ships due to not being able to come back out of a map border zone a few times already), as well as submarines going backwards too fast which makes them able to outrun Allied ships while still facing and firing at them.

Edited January 21, 2016 by Raap

[Pushwall]

 

Yeah, destroyers are kinda meant to be worse than gunboats at the whole depth charging thing. They and missile subs are meant to be anti-base/anti-air artillery that can't fight naval units effectively,

Which is amusing when you consider that;

 

destroyer

dɪˈstrɔɪə/Submit

noun

1.

a small, fast warship, especially one equipped for a defensive role against submarines and aircraft.

 

 

It's basically performing the Cruiser's role in the Cruiser's absence, minus the whole "insane DPS and can sit outside of rocket soldier/V2 range" thing.

[SarahNautili]

The problem in my opinion simply lies in too excessive 'drifting' caused by the poor ability to turn while moving of Allied ships (I lost ships due to not being able to come back out of a map border zone a few times already), as well as submarines going backwards too fast which makes them able to outrun Allied ships while still facing and firing at them.

 

Yeah, this is the big issue. Gunboats can barely keep up with a sub, for gods sake, which makes the whole depth charge thing useless for them too. And the allied ships just feel... crappy. The handling sucks, they feel like they're sliding on ice, not water, there's no acceleration. In short they're painful and unfun to captain.

[Pushwall]

 

'drifting' poor ability to turn

crappy handling sucks sliding on ice no acceleration painful and unfun to captain.

 

Yeah I've heard this like a dozen times now. They will handle better in the next patch.

 

as well as submarines going backwards too fast which makes them able to outrun Allied ships while still facing and firing at them.

 

I'm still not seeing a physics value relating specifically to backwards movement on VTOLs. Vertical acceleration, horizontal acceleration, other ones that affect all movement like mass/aerodrag, and that's it. Pretty sure if such a thing existed, people would have used it to make hacky "fixed wing" aircraft that can't move backwards, no?

[Isaac The Madd]

Um, I have been blown to pieces at the bottom of a lake several times by RPGs.

[Raap]

 

 

'drifting' poor ability to turn

crappy handling sucks sliding on ice no acceleration painful and unfun to captain.

 

Yeah I've heard this like a dozen times now. They will handle better in the next patch.

 

as well as submarines going backwards too fast which makes them able to outrun Allied ships while still facing and firing at them.

 

I'm still not seeing a physics value relating specifically to backwards movement on VTOLs. Vertical acceleration, horizontal acceleration, other ones that affect all movement like mass/aerodrag, and that's it. Pretty sure if such a thing existed, people would have used it to make hacky "fixed wing" aircraft that can't move backwards, no?

 

 

It doesn't exist for VTOL, when I mentioned it I was confused with a different implementation for "aircraft".

[ganein14]

Um, I have been blown to pieces at the bottom of a lake several times by RPGs.

^ I honestly think depth charges should be the only things that hurt submerged subs.

[moonsense715]

 

Um, I have been blown to pieces at the bottom of a lake several times by RPGs.

^ I honestly think depth charges should be the only things that hurt submerged subs.

 

That would be very soviet biased. Ships cannot hide anywhere and still get hit by rockets too.

And manuvering gunboats/destroyers to evade torpedoes is a very tough ask in itself already, let alone going closer to submarines with depth charges as the only option to do any damage... no plz D:

More rocket resistance would be ok when submerged but not invulnerable please!

[Pushwall]

Um, I have been blown to pieces at the bottom of a lake several times by RPGs.

 

What weapon did it say you were killed by though? The M72 LAW/RPG-7 and Redeye/Strela are very different weapons, and I have doubts you were killed by "RPGs" because that would involve Allies stealing a sub, which I don't think is a very common occurrence right now.

[Pushwall]

I'm of the opinion that helicopters would go a long way to solving the arty problem. Only problem is, the bases are already tight as it is.

 

Not to mention the map's border geometry was not designed with aircraft in mind. The flight ceiling would have to be like 25m just to avoid having to put invisible walls around the edge of the map or expand the out-of-bounds terrain drastically. And we already know how people feel about Pacific Threat's flight ceiling which is currently 50% higher than that!

[ganein14]

I'd really love to see Under being the first map to have a war factory, barracks, heli/refill pads, naval yard/sub pen and missile silo. Though I'd be all for the expanded map boundries if it would allow for helicopters and more room for ships/subs to play it.

[GeneralCamo]

Under

helipads

Please no. Hourglass proved that close-quarter renegade style maps do not benefit from helicopters.

[Pushwall]

This was all in reference to Coastal Influence though...

 

Also good luck making Under playable with a missile silo. Even if the tunnels were given no-beacon zones, you'd still be able to hit the enemy base with flares placed in the back of your own base.

[Isaac The Madd]

 

Um, I have been blown to pieces at the bottom of a lake several times by RPGs.

 

What weapon did it say you were killed by though? The M72 LAW/RPG-7 and Redeye/Strela are very different weapons, and I have doubts you were killed by "RPGs" because that would involve Allies stealing a sub, which I don't think is a very common occurrence right now.

 

I meant LAW on Coastal Influence, also turrets can shoot to the bottom of the "fish bowl".

[Pushwall]

LAW hurting submerged subs is intended because they have a short range that subs can easily stay out of, especially missile subs.

 

Can't stop turrets from shooting underwater without introducing a whole host of other problems related to things shooting through water, such as infantry being undetectable by defenses if they're standing in shallow water, and missile sub missiles doing loop-de-loops instead of going for what you're aiming at.

[ganein14]

missile sub missiles doing loop-de-loops instead of going for what you're aiming at.

Yeah...this has happened in the earlier versions and was annoying as fuck to deal with...Especially if you were one missile away from dealing the fatal blow, only for it to go full retard (no offense to those that are) and an engi zapped it for health at that time.

[harvester]

My feedback:

1. Maybe I'm just a bad Captain but the Allied Navy handling is terrible. I wasn't aware of any border warnings at RA_PacificThreat and my vessel self-destruct for deserting the battlefield eventhough I was trying my hardest to turn back when I got the 10 second warning. At least make it easier to rotate so depth charges have more chance or at least make Submarine Kapitans more afraid when closing in an Allied vessel.

 

2. Missile Silo at RA_Under is a no. Same reason why MAD Tanks are not allowed there: Hitting the enemy base from your own. I don't mind helipads, it doesn't even bother me at all at RA_Hourglass but I'm fine with or without them.

 

3. I can't deploy the RadarJammer. The Q button works for MAD Tanks but not Radar Jammers. My MAD hotkey is Q(default) in the Extended Options.

[Pushwall]

Have you looked to see what the Deploy hotkey is?