Inadequate anti-naval defenses
One thing that has struck me after watching many replays on naval maps is that Supreme Commander lacks any good shore and naval defenses. Supreme Commander has good defensive buildings against land targets and even better defensive buildings against air targets, but there’s simply nothing there to ward off naval units. Cruisers, destroyers, and battleships all have weapons ranges exceeding those of the tech 2 point defense turrets. The only defensive buildings that can even hit naval units at the range they can begin bombarding you are tech 2 artillery, tech 3 artillery, and tactical missiles. We’ll examine them in turn.
The problem with tech 2 artillery is that it is simply too inaccurate and doesn’t do enough damage. Most of the shots (especially off a Cybran artillery) will miss, and even the ones that do hit won’t do much damage against the colossal hit point figures of naval ships. And the naval cannons are much, much more accurate. For instance, the Aeon tech 3 battleship has the exact same range as the Aeon tech 2 artillery, but the battleship’s firing inaccuracy is 0.3 while the artillery’s is 1.5. One wonders why the artillery can’t be as accurate as the ship-based weapons. They don’t even have to account for wave motion. But I digress. Since warships have more accurate weapons and more hit points, they’re pretty much guaranteed to win against tech 2 artillery. And need I mention that destroyers actually cost less than artillery, while also getting the advantage of movement? Ouch.
Tech 3 artillery suffers from many of the same inaccuracy problems. And it is just so damn expensive. For the cost of one tech 3 artillery, I can build seven battleships. There’s no way in hell a single tech 3 artillery is even going to be able to pick off one battleship before it arrives and starts heavy bombardment, let alone six more. Tech 3 artillery doesn’t even show up in most naval battles because it is so expensive, whereas destroyers and battleships most certainly do. So it’s not a reliable defense.
The only other alternative is tactical missiles. Unfortunately, some naval units have tactical missile defense. Even if tactical missiles do hit, they don’t do much damage, especially against battleships. And tactical missiles are a pain to micromanage because they must be fired manually. Perhaps the biggest flaw, though, is that tactical missiles can only be fired at a static point in the game world, so if your target is moving, as ships often are, you’re very unlikely to hit them.
Simply put, there are no effective base defenses against naval units. You can build lots of shield generators to protect your base, but that won’t actually kill the attacking ships, merely stave off the damage they can do for a little while. To really defend a base against naval bombardment, you need to take out the attackers with your own warships, submarines, planes, or, if it really gets bad, nuclear missiles. Strategic bombers (or at least the Aeon ones with their homing bombs, anyway) are very effective against naval ships, but only if the enemy doesn’t have fighters, cruisers, or surfaced Atlantises. If they can control the airspace above their bombarding units, you’re pretty much hosed.
My solution to this problem would be to make tech 2 artillery better. It already has enough range, so it should theoretically be able to fend off naval units. It just needs more accuracy. The battleship can fire a projectile at 2.5km with 0.3 accuracy, and it is an unstable firing platform; surely land-based artillery should be able to do at least as well? Or perhaps Gas Powered Games could deliver to us some kind of auto-firing tactical/cruise missile launcher; you know, kind of like the anti-ship ground-based defenses used in real life. And there’s always the possibility of some kind of anti-projectile active defensive system, kind of like the Buzzkill, but it would shoot down incoming shells instead than tactical missiles. Such a weapon already exists in real life, of course.
So here are some good ideas that would make land-based naval defense a more possible proposition. If Gas Powered Games can’t deliver, hopefully some third party mod-makers will. I’m just wondering why this is totally lacking from the game. Some kind of oversight in play-testing? Or is naval superiority really just supposed to equal winning?
April 11th, 2007 at 8:58 pm
I absolutely hate playing naval maps for this reason. If you don’t get ahead on Roanake Abyss(sp?) early on you’re utterly screwed. Thank goodness there aren’t any more water maps in the 1vs1 ladder. At least with land maps if you screw up your start you could always potentially rush up to tier 3 bots and recover.
April 11th, 2007 at 9:34 pm
Think about how expensive and how long it takes to build naval units. GPG probably thought it was the same as nukes; if you let your opponent get one online, you probably deserve to lose anyway. You’re better off going air on a naval map; torpedo bombers will easily take care of frigates and subs, and then they can take out the naval factories.
April 11th, 2007 at 9:51 pm
Betting off going air on a naval map? Hah! You obviously haven’t played on real naval maps, or against good players. Go download some free-for-all replays on Roanoke Abyss. Aircraft can’t even secure the sea for you against cruisers and Atlantises, let alone crack a tough base. Naval bombardment will crack a fortified base. An air assault won’t.
April 11th, 2007 at 10:15 pm
“Some kind of oversight in play-testing? Or is naval superiority really just supposed to equal winning?”
Perhaps… “Did THQ push the game out the door way too soon and force GPG to leave out a lot of the stuff they wanted and not get in enough testing to make sure things were balanced?” I would vote for this option if it were a poll. There’s no way they really intended for, say, T2 land to be so worthless compared to just getting a factory or two to pump out siege bots. A game like this is a bitch and a half to test and balance; if you change one thing on one unit you could potentially disrupt the balance of the entire game. A lack of play-testing is probably the cause of all the game’s problems, but I don’t think it was on purpose that extensive such testing didn’t take place.
I agree with the main point though. There really should be an effective way to fight ships from land. Perhaps getting rid of all the big ships’ TML defense could help a lot, but you’re right that microing those things is a pain if you have to constantly fire them, and if they were actually effective, you’d have many of them to micro at once. The fact that defensive torpedo launchers are out-ranged even by T2 destroyers is pretty silly too. On land and in the air, T2 PD (in theory) and AA are good at taking out T2 units, whereas T2 torpedo launchers can’t kill anything but T1 subs.
April 11th, 2007 at 11:06 pm
I have found that torpedo bombers are fairly effective as well. They can bring down an Atlantis with ease, provided the Atlantis is not packing superiority fighters. I have been known to win on Roanake Abyss with concentrating on air more so than sea, to defend my base, until I can pump out experimentals. That being said, I don’t play ranked games and so have only competed against relative noobs and mid level players.
Also, it’s not like anyone is at a disadvantage, because everyone is in the same boat, with the lack of sea defenses. So I guess the game on maps like these, at higher level play, is to pump out the sea units as fast as possible. But then again, if someone concentrating on that, another person could come in with the faster built air units and dominate.
Now I am confused.
Also as a side note, who dictates what the correct term for the plural of a unit is? I have noticed you have referred to the multiple of a colossus as colossi, but what makes multiple Atlantis, Atlantises? Is there a rule, or is it just what sounds right. Please educate me.
April 11th, 2007 at 11:15 pm
Just as the best way to counter T1 air is with interceptors (and/or sky slammers), the best way to counter a navy is with subs. I like to think this was intended because it justifies the existance of air-to-air and navy-to-navy units.
But regardless, if you’re worried about your opponent’s navy just build a naval factory and loop-build subs. In maps like Roanoke I build subs by default; in maps like Saltrock Colony, I only build them if I see that my opponent has a naval factory.
I went through a phase where I fought some hour+ Roanoke matches where I sort of turtled and I have never seen a situation where a navy could not be taken out by an equal or lesser economic investment in subs.
This post could probably be written better but I’m done procrastinating and I’m not going to proofread it ;p Point of the post is: subs are the answer.
April 11th, 2007 at 11:25 pm
@Rhysin: I guess you’re not a native English speaker? Anyway, there are no standard pluralization rules in English. It all depends on the root and etymology of the word, really. Many nouns are capitalized by adding an s, but of course, there are many, many exceptions, such as Colossi, which you pointed out.
April 11th, 2007 at 11:58 pm
Great article. I’m in no way a fan of Naval battles, but when I’m forced to play Navy to Navy, I cringe at the fact Torpedo Launchers are so easy to take down, especially by Gunships allowing you’re enemy to run down your naval forces / base.
April 12th, 2007 at 12:17 am
Torpedo defenses basically only work against submarines. Use them for keeping your sea factories safe. Especially use them to keep submarines from taking out your submerged commander. That’s about it. They certainly don’t fend off any of the surface warships, except for maybe frigates.
April 12th, 2007 at 12:26 am
My English teacher tought me if the word ends in an s that plural should be like Colossi. But then again I never really liked him.
April 12th, 2007 at 12:42 am
@ Cyde: But that’s what i mean, Torpedo Defenses are nearly useless because aerial attacks.
April 12th, 2007 at 1:20 am
I have not seen this, but I will guess that artillary fire rounds at a much higher angle than do naval units. Could that account for the inaccuracy?
I’m not aware of the exact number, but weren’t there a substantial number of beta testers? Moreover, weren’t the Cybran overpowered and the Aeon weak in the beta, which was changed in the retail?
Finally, I don’t believe there should be a single shore defense unit that can take on an a large ship such as a battleship. This allows/forces sweet, true naval battles that are lacking (?) in other games. A ship is, after all, a ship, which has many embedded artillary pieces and other weapons. Fixed defenses, like the torpedo launcher, should be slightly underpowered when compared to equal or better mobile units, thereby favoring a mobile doctrine. Making artillary more accurate or mobile missles guided, while appealing and being grounded in reality, would only create balancing problems on land.
That being said, I have barely played the game, so this thinking may change. I do envision epic naval battles, which hopefully can be more prevelant and popular with a greater variety of water maps.
April 12th, 2007 at 3:08 am
well id like to see some sort of arty torp launcher… that has a ‘active’ range (ie stuff it can hit with a shell) and then a pasive range further then that where it can launch a torp into the air have a splash and then ’swim’ towards its target….
problems… it should have a chance of exploding on inpact with the water….
also the targeting system might loose its target after it hits the water and just do a close hit… rather then a direct hit…
finaly i think torps if their primary target is taken out they should shoot off in whatever direction they are going and either explode or pick a random target (friend or fow)
April 12th, 2007 at 4:50 am
I just find the torpedo bombers relatively poor. They cost quite a bit and don’t build that quickly. Then there’s the fact by lv2 stage the enemy is going to have a huge swarm of interceptors so they’ll only get a couple of passes to do some serious damage.
It’s just the same situation as the t1 air if you’re Aeon or UEF. If you’ve lost your interceptors and he gets some around your base that’s the end of your air capability. If an enemy builds a load of subs and gets them in the water around your base, that’s the end of your water capability.
April 12th, 2007 at 8:23 am
The lack of ground units that can fend off naval units helps provide a use for naval units.
This is why you have torpedo bombers, strategic bombers, submarines, torpedo launchers, sonar, etc.
If everything had an over-adequate ground unit counter, ground forces would be too powerful and naval forces would become worthless except for limited battle with other ships. How dumb and boring that would make naval maps!
April 12th, 2007 at 8:36 am
Btw I’m not saying that it’s perfectly balanced right now, just that there must be some benefit to shore shelling or else the larger surface ships become pointless.
Also: “@Rhysin: I guess you’re not a native English speaker?” It’s not really a non-English speaker problem as many native English speakers do not understand proper pluralization rules for English words of Latin origin, so your ‘guess’ about him is rather curious. There are standard pluralization rules in English (adding ’s’ and ‘es’ and when each is appropriate), but when the root word is taken from another language, consistency in pluralization definitely breaks down. But believe it or not, even the plural of virus (a word of Latin root origin) does not pluralize to viri or virii in Englsih – it actually pluralizes to “viruses”.
c.f. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plural_of_virus
April 12th, 2007 at 10:27 am
In my opinion, the big issue is not that there is no land static defense from battleships and such, but that the T2 Torpedo Launcher turret is useless. Put it on the sea floor or submerged and give it a longer range and the problem is gone. If battleships can’t effectively take out the defenses alone they’ll be used more cautiously as is appropriate for their huge cost. Right now people just throw battle ships right at an enemy, knowing that it’ll be safe from pretty much anything as long as it has AA support.
April 12th, 2007 at 10:56 am
Submerged torpedo defenses would make a big difference, or even if the torpedoes were rocket boosted and had a larger range (but also had a minimum range).
April 12th, 2007 at 11:07 am
The thing IMO that imbalances naval between the factions(im aware im going a bit off topic) is that the Aeon strat bomber is so good at killing naval units and the other factions strat bombers are so poor.
April 12th, 2007 at 1:17 pm
I do agree with the torpedo launchers, and I can see what you’re saying about air on naval maps. In the games I played on RA, I did build naval units. A combination is, of course, the best.
April 12th, 2007 at 1:26 pm
I don’t get it. The best defense against naval bombardment is naval units. If you are sitting in your island base expecting to fight off ships you are foolish. Battleships can easily be killed by subs and Destroyers for the same cost (indeed, much less). They are terrible in Naval battles. Tac missiles are weak against them, but destroyers and subs own them easily.
IMO the SC naval game is the most balanced part of the game right now. It forces a combined arms approach, and there are many competing strategies. Torp launchers are really good. They are there to fight subs, and they do that great. If you have destroyers and subs off your coast protected by torp launchers and your opponent comes in with equal mass of battleships and subs, guess who wins? Torp launchers should always have AA guns near them to fight aircraft. If an opponent wants to protect his Destroyers from Tac missiles he has to bring along Cruisers.
Aircraft are great on island maps, too, but they need support from ships, Cruisers, Aircraft Carriers, and Destroyers in particular, to take out enemy cruisers and aircraft, which allows torp bombers to kill subs and destroyers, and Strat bombers to get where they are going without harrassment.
April 12th, 2007 at 1:33 pm
I like that idea Jotto. Perhaps a T3 Torpedo launcher that is submerged, has long range, but has a minimum range as well, and make the T2 torp launcher submerged as well.
April 12th, 2007 at 1:49 pm
The only unbalanced thing about SC Naval right now is Aeon land units. Auroras + floating scouts and engineers rule too hard on water maps, and Aeon ships get reinforced by hovering Aeon T2 mobile AA and mobile shields. Fix that and a few other things, like Salems going on land when they aen’t supposed to and UEF Ghetto Gunships not working, and Naval would be about perfect. Maybe I would give Wagners and Riptides a slight buff, too, depending on how the other changes shake out.
April 12th, 2007 at 3:39 pm
Another thing I’d like to see fixed with the naval units in SupCom is for the aircraft carrier to actually function as an automatic air refueling pad. The pads that you lay down in bases are excellent. The carriers are annoying, requiring micromanaging putting your planes in to be refueled. You could just leave your planes in the carrier the whole time, but that’s taking a huge, unnecessary risk. Carriers really don’t have many hit points and you don’t want to lose all of your planes in one go.
April 12th, 2007 at 4:41 pm
There should be a toggle for Aircraft Carriers. Either air staging mode or storage mode. Either that or carriers default to air staging and every aircraft and carrier has a special land/launch button for when you want the aircraft to stay in the carrier.
April 12th, 2007 at 5:04 pm
By the way, I actually looked it up in an etymological dictionary. Atlantis is a Greek word, and thus should use Greek pluralization rules, which would make the plural of Atlantis Atlantides. I did not know that one.
April 12th, 2007 at 9:46 pm
I agree with Cyde’s article about anti-Naval defenses.
Here’s a game I played on Saltrock (thread at GameReplays) that demonstrates how you can win if you go Naval, even against an opponent with a superior eco. He just can’t defend against the destroyers. Granted, I almost lost it to SAB assaults, but if I would have scouted better, I would have won even sooner.
I agree with t2 torpedo launchers being submerged, I’d like to see sub nets, just like there are land walls. Additionally, someone needs a real T2 sub, preferrably not Aeon.
The Hyper Viper
April 20th, 2007 at 5:33 pm
Just some points.
1. Naval superiority is really unbeateble. There is no way to do it in the game. Have anyone ever seen what cruisers do even with strategic bombers. They are cheaper, btw. As already said, naval PDs are useless now beacause of naval units’ range. Even battleships which have power of experimentals and even superior range are relatively very cheap.
2. Naval bombardement is the end. Battleships simply too accurate and do too much damage to defend with shields.
3. One will never stand with battleship. Or he must be noob. This is balance thing. TMLs are useless.
Solution.
1. Make t2 PDs range the same as t2 ships’.
2. Make battleships absolutely totally ultimately inaccurate. Even less accurate, than t2 artillery. They have the range, this is enough. This will do naval battles more interesting.
3. MB make naval t2 PDs submeged.