Cybrans considered better on expansive maps
Lately, a new consensus seems to be emerging that the Cybrans are the best faction to play on close-quarters expansive maps, even better than Aeon. This realization was only made widespread recently after the removal of all water maps from ranked rotation, which finally allowed non-Aeon factions to get a fair shake in ranked play.
An expansive map is a wide open, unconstricted map with very few choke points, if any. The close-quarters stipulation is necessary because, on larger maps, T1 units don’t really come into play that much. Open Palms and Arctic Refuge are great examples of expansive maps. Winters Duel, by contrast, is the antithetical expansive map. The theory is that Cybrans are better on expansive maps because mantises are faster, more maneuverable harassers. A Cybran player can expand and secure more of the map more quickly with mantis hordes, while bringing in more resources from all of those mass deposits. The mantises are better at harassing enemy engineers and mass extractors, and then, towards the end, they are all consolidated into a large army to strike the final blow.
So, what do you guys think? Interested in playing as Cybran now? Unconquerable chose Cybran on Open Palms against Aeon in the SupCom-Live exhibition match three weeks ago and won, so I don’t think that this is too out there. I would encourage everyone to try playing Cybran once in awhile. Yeah, their mantises don’t hover, but on expansive non-water maps, you might like their capabilities better.
April 27th, 2007 at 1:30 pm
I’ve always played Cybran. They’re even better on such maps when you throw in the T1 AA that the Cybran have. Air and ground superiority, unless a Cybran player without radar goes up against an Aeon player who uses scouts well.
The Hyper Viper
April 27th, 2007 at 2:52 pm
Its been a well known fact among the “elite” that Cybran are better on many maps (just about as many maps in the old ranked rotation as Aeon actually) but due to the whole “zomg water maps = gg aeon” propaganda everyone has been ignoring the Cybran advantages.
I’ve played Cybran for most of the time I’ve played ranked games, though I’ve played more ranked games as Aeon.
This whole balance outcry is completely out of proportion now, though the UEF is really in need of a buff.
April 27th, 2007 at 2:53 pm
err… Its always been a well known fact* >.>
Needs more edit button!
April 27th, 2007 at 4:21 pm
I find even on winters duel Cybrans artillery is very very good for killing the other factions artillery… For killing there point defence not so much. And I have also always played Cybran.
April 27th, 2007 at 4:42 pm
Wuped: Not if the other faction has any shields (which they should already have if anyone has artillery, because shields are much cheaper). Cybran artillery is useless for trying to crack shields unless you have it in ridiculous numbers, a situation not likely to occur on Winters Duel.
April 27th, 2007 at 7:48 pm
yes, yes! everyone switch to cybran, i destroy them at an 80% success rate and rising! muahahaha
April 27th, 2007 at 8:34 pm
Cyde I ment tech 1 mobile artillery…. I love there splash.
April 27th, 2007 at 11:14 pm
Wuped: Cybran tech 1 artillery is actually the worst of the bunch. Its reload time is just way too long. It’s basically useless against moving enemies.
April 27th, 2007 at 11:47 pm
“Wuped: Cybran tech 1 artillery is actually the worst of the bunch. Its reload time is just way too long. It’s basically useless against moving enemies.”
One word: Stun. Never assume Cyde, :)
April 28th, 2007 at 12:16 am
And also it’s splash is godlike… It kills groups of lobos like they don’t exist.
April 28th, 2007 at 12:29 am
Cybran artillery has stun, huh? I guess I vaguely remember hearing that; I’ve never had a chance to test it out, though.
April 28th, 2007 at 1:46 am
Yes it does, it only affects t1 and t2 but it owns t2 tanks.
April 28th, 2007 at 2:06 am
On Winter’s Lobos are good for taking out PD, but they absolutely suck against units. Medusas rape units, and in particular they rape all other T1 arty straight up. They 1 hit auroras, and excel in the kind of stand-off tactics that most people use on winters. Everybody’s seen those Unconq replays where he pretty much builds all T1 mobile arty playing Aeon. Well as Cybran this tactic works even better, because Medusas are faster than Fervors, have enough splash to actually hit a moving target, and can fire while retreating (Fervor has only 45 degree yaw which really hurts it). Lobos don’t work against units at all, because they have too little splash and fire only once every 10 seconds.
Also, Medusas can easily be micro’d to take out PD without sustaining any losses. Just force fire right in front of the PD and the splash and randomness of the fire means that you’ll still hit. 10 Medusas take out PD very quickly this way, and other ground units can immediately advance after the first hit since the PD will be stunned anyway.
At T2 Medusas get even better, if anything, the only problem being that people don’t stay at T2 long enough for this effect to be realized. Deceivers allow them to fight T2 PD very effectively, and the stun effect is much more effective against T2 mobile units because every stun neutralizes a much more powerful unit. Siege bots spoil the fun, however…
April 28th, 2007 at 3:07 am
I’ve always played Cybran anyway, and it’s good to know that cybran have at least some advantages.
Obviously stats don’t tell the whole story, but if you look at just the stats, Cybran seem to screwed in every category.
Lowest dps most expensive t1 mobile arty, lowest dps least accurate t2 static artillery, nearly worthless shields, arguably the worst and most expensive t3 siege bots, etc.
I’ll agree that UEF could use a buff even though I never play them; their Lobos are godly at killing pd, but their tanks cannot stand up to a group of mantids. And their tech 2 pd is next to useless if the attacking units aren’t standing still.
amanasleep: Wow, I didn’t even think of using medusa’s superior AOE to take out pd with no risk. That’s absolutely awesome. Maybe I should start building some of those…
April 28th, 2007 at 3:19 am
Medusas absolutely rock, trust me. Try building all medusas, particularly against Aeon. It’s murder for sure. Keep in mind that if for any reason your opponent doesn’t have radar coverage then they are totally screwed, as even a few Medusas will kill them before they even know they are there.
April 28th, 2007 at 3:37 am
No competent Aeon player will ever go anywhere without radar. Ever.
I haven’t played Cybran since the demo and I’m afraid to switch just because I’m comfortable with the Aeon units. The Mantis’s short range and low damage per shot kind of scares me, but then again, they are more maneuverable and healtheir so maybe I should give them a shot. Problem is I’m not much of a stealth guy because I’m impatient and cursed with tunnel vision. I like spamming while sitting under the protection of meaty shields and I like the potential troubles provided by mobile shields. Maybe one day I’ll switch but for now I’ll just stick to Aeon.
April 28th, 2007 at 9:27 am
Jotto: In what way would you buff UEF to make them equal to the other factions? Or, why are they worse than the others? I’m really just curious, I’m more of a casual player with not that much experience, esp. in ranked games.
April 28th, 2007 at 1:10 pm
T2A`: I know radar is absolutely essential, and I usually use T1 radar on smaller maps. I’m just wondering what a good ratio of scouts to tanks is. I usually go around 1:4. That way I’m sure to have radar on-the-go. I’m wondering if other people use higher or lower ratios?
April 28th, 2007 at 1:57 pm
My repeat queue on land factories is usually 1 scout, 3 Aurora, 3 Fervor, 1 Aurora, so 1:7. When my spam is working well and I end up with tons of scouts built or with stationary radar coverage over an area of importance I often switch the queue to 1 Aurora, 1 Fervor on at least some of them. I dunno if that’s good, but that’s what I do.
April 28th, 2007 at 5:42 pm
Oh, whoops, I obviously left out an important part. Most of my factories are on a 2:1 Aurora:Fervor ratio, and then the last factory or two are on the 4:1 Aurora:Scout ratio. you really build Aurorae and Fervors in a 1:1 ratio? Wow. That’s a lot of artillery. It doesn’t do too well against enemy forces of equal numbers though. Better against bases, of course.
April 29th, 2007 at 4:11 am
The most important difference between the mantis and aura turns out to be health. The two units have the same dps which means the mantis is going to last longer. The aura is actually faster and technically more manuverable than the mantis. However, the aura has an insignificant turret yaw where the mantis can shoot in a full circle. This is significant because it prevents an aura from kiting a mantis and ensures that in any case where an aura is shooting at a mantis, the mantis will be able to close the distance between the two units, allowing the mantis to take advantage of its superrior health.
Also one thing I’ve noticed informally is that a stationary mantis is actually more effective against other units and small buildings (i.e. PDs) than a moving one. If I have a small number of mantises up against a small number of other units (especially other mantises) I stand mine still and they usually win. It’s possible that I’m wrong but it seems to me that many people assume that a moving units is better than a stationary one. Does anyone else have any observations on the significance of the randomness factor for moving mantises?
Regarding scouts: I know that radar isn’t as crucial to cybran as it is to Aeon in terms of unit functionality; however, I usually build scouts and offensive units in a ratio of 1:10. Also, in my usual conservative build, between 1/3 and 1/2 of my T1 offensive units are artillary (depending on map). I almost never do more than 1/2 arty and only do less than 1/3 when I’m using a strategy that involves offensive PDs.
[It's late on a Saturday night.. sorry for the incoherancies that are probably in this post.]
April 29th, 2007 at 11:31 am
Lefeu: Yes, you’re definitely right about the firing inaccuracy while moving (and I’m kind of surprised you noticed it on your own; I only figured it out upon reading it in the units database). Mantises have a 1.5 firing inaccuracy while moving, which normally wouldn’t be a huge deal at the short ranges they deal with, but since their weapons are lasers with no splash damage whatsoever, it does mean that a good proportion of their shots simply won’t do anything. When they’re stationary, though, they don’t have a firing inaccuracy. Hence using attack-move with mantises to harass engineers, mass extractors, etc., is probably the best move.
April 29th, 2007 at 1:16 pm
Mantis, like all T1 Heavy units, has a splash of 1. The significant point of comparison between Mantis and Aurora is not health, but range. The Aurora has a range of 26, which is 50% longer than a Mantis. This means that a Mantis closing on an Aurora will take (at least) 80 damage before it even starts firing. Because of the inaccuracy the Mantis has while moving, they cannot properly close and micro to make Aurora shots miss, as they do significantly less damage that way.
April 29th, 2007 at 2:16 pm
Yeah, the last game I played on Open Palms, I specifically noticed two Aurora going up against two Mantises on the middle platform. When the dust cleared I still had an Aurora left. I didn’t micro them either since I was busy building mexes and such.
Cyde, the 1:1 mix of Fervor/Aurora seems to work pretty well on maps with rugged terrain and chokepoints, and then there’s the fact that Fervors just build faster, allowing you to mass the same amount of units quicker than all Aurora or a 2:1 ratio. Also, let’s not forget that at the level I play at, people don’t micro their units much, so the Fervor does a good job at taking stuff out and supporting the Aurora. Their 2-second fire rate seems to make them much more usable against units than the other factions’ artillery.
April 29th, 2007 at 2:57 pm
Amanasleep: While the aura does have just over 50% greater range than the mantis, the mantis has over 85% more health than the aura. After taking two shots from an aura, a mantis will still have almost 30% more health than the aura. Once the mantis stops moving, it fires just as accurately and with the same dps as the aura and will kill it.
Also I did some trigonometry and at the aura’s maximum range it’s only necessary to change the approach vector of the mantis by 7 degrees as the aura fires to completely avoid the shot. When the aura fires a second time, this increases to about 7.5 degrees (these calculations assume a circular mantis geometry which is a slight approximation).
April 29th, 2007 at 4:37 pm
So I was playing around as Cybran today and was reminded of something that bothers me about them: shields. Why does the Cerberus get neemed by allied shields? Why does the Zapper TMD hit your own shields half the time? Is there something I’m missing, or are those just accepted bugs?
April 29th, 2007 at 5:45 pm
Lefeu: 1 on 1 you are correct, but in practice with >10 units on each side, the range advantage of the Aurora means that several Mantises are dead before they even get to fire a single shot. This is deadly for the Mantises, as they simply do not have the firepower to overcome 20% more Auroras, even if they do have more HP. They also suffer from having their first few shots be at lower accuracy until they stop moving. And this is assuming that you correctly micro them to achieve this effect. Meanwhile the Aeon commander can move his Auroras into the field and they take care of themselves with minimal micro (and Aurora micro is superior at high levels anyway–ever seen the Aurora powerslide? Auroras can move in one direction at full speed and fire in another, even backwards. Since they are also the fastest unit by a good margin the opponent cannot get into range if they chase them). Mantises can only beat Auroras if they have superior numbers, which is difficult to do since they cost 10% more. If you want to kill Auroras build Medusas or Hunters.
April 29th, 2007 at 6:49 pm
Personally, the only time I have a homogenous group of mantises is early on when I’m harassing engineers and mexes so I have very little experience with large groups of mantises vs. auras. I was just looking through some of my replays and I can’t find any that come down to the mantis vs. aura match-up.
Conceptually, it would make a big difference if there were enough auras to be able to actually kill mantises and eliminate guns before they were in range. Especially if only a few mantises came into range of several auras at a time (this happens a lot on ‘constrictive maps’ and less on ‘wide open’ maps). However, if both groups are swarming or both groups are in formation this effect is pretty negligible. In the former case, the groups behave more like a series of 1 vs. 1 match-ups and in the latter case, the extra shots on the dead mantises means some mantises will be coming in with full health (but they still will have fewer guns).
Regarding microing, a simple technique I often use, especially with homogeneous mantis groups, is to hold down shift and target enemies in series. The faster muzzle velocity and faster firing rate of the mantis means it has a slight edge when it comes to avoiding overkill. The movement randomness factor can come into play for a few shots on each target here.
I’ve never seen an aura ‘power slide’ backwards. This doesn’t mean it can’t happen but I’ve never seen it make a decisive difference.
My observations aren’t scientific at all; just what seems to make the biggest difference when I play. I guess the moral here is to vary your force composition no matter what your faction is.
April 30th, 2007 at 12:52 am
I can’t really argue with your logic or experience here. Both seem reasonable to me. However, in my experience (and IMO) Auroras should always be in formation against other T1 non-artillery ground units when advancing. This allows them to concentrate a volley of fire on the enemy before retreating out of range. I always use a 2 move micro with Auroras: I queue formation move into range, then a regular move out of range. If the enemy units give chase, they will be chewed up trying to catch up with the Auroras (BTW, this is the perfect demonstration of Auroras firing forward while moving backwards). If they don’t chase, then I just did free damage. I can now reform my line and charge again. It is an incredibly effective tactic.
OTOH, if a group of Mantises are allowed to overtake an Aurora formation and penetrate their lines, they will get chewed up for sure. But in practice I find that without flanking (which implies superior numbers) Mantises rarely are able to overtake groups of properly managed Auroras, with predictable results.
April 30th, 2007 at 5:04 pm
I’ve had good success with Mantises vs. Auroras. If you can come at the Auroras from the side and get into the middle of their ranks, you easily destroy an equal number of Auroras with few loses. The effectiveness of this tactic has amazed me at times.
April 30th, 2007 at 5:42 pm
If you can do that, great. The whole point of Auroras is keeping the enemy units at a distance. Whether the opponent does this or not is up to the player.