Fighters, interceptors, and the balance of air superiority
Cross-posted to Supreme Commander Live.
With the release of the latest hotfix patch we’ve seen the last change in a sweeping balance adjustment to air combat that has fallen beneath most people’s radar. But before I look at the ramifications of it in depth, let’s look at the balance of the air superiority fighters from before this latest patch.
The Cybran air superiority fighter Gemini fires lots of little missiles. The problem is that the missiles have very low DPS (damage per second) and don’t travel quickly enough to reach interceptors or fighters at full flying speed if they are fired from any distance. Against the experimental air units (CZAR and Soul Ripper), the Gemini is fairly worthless, as it just can’t do enough damage. The UEF air superiority fighter Wasp is, frankly, bugged. One of its guns fires at 1.07 km/s, which is fast enough to reliably hit other air units, but its other gun is identical in all respects except that its projectiles only travel at 684 m/s, which makes it nearly worthless for taking down fast-moving air units like interceptors or other air superiority fighters. Thus the Wasp’s effective DPS is only about half of what it appears to be.
That isn’t even the biggest issue with the Wasp, though. The Wasp’s damage radius is set to 1 (or 19.5 m). A damage radius of 0 would mean that the shot does immediate damage only to the unit that it hits, which doesn’t have splash damage capability, but at least it hits. However, a damage radius of 1 is actually kind of bugged, because between the time that the shot hits and the time the damage is calculated, the target plane has usually moved more than 19.5 m away. Thus Wasps will appear to be hitting enemy air units, but in reality, they aren’t doing any damage. So Wasps can’t hit interceptors or other air superiority units traveling at full speed; they can really only hit them during the acceleration phase after launching or during tight turns. Combine this flaw with the bugged muzzle velocity on one of the guns and the Wasp is an ineffective unit indeed.
Up until the v3254 patch, the Aurora air superiority fighter Corona was the only decent air superiority fighter. It had a nice DPS and a damage radius of 0, meaning it only damaged one unit at a time, but at least it hit and did damage reliably. It was the only air superiority fighter really suited to taking down flying experimental units. Everyone expected the latest patch to balance and fix the other air superiority fighters around it. But instead, the latest patch changed the damage radius of the Corona to 1, just like the Wasp, so now it suffers from the same problems of hitting fast-moving air units that the Wasp does. GPG’s balance changes to the air superiority fighters have revealed an overall change in conception of how air combat balance is supposed to work.
Air superiority fighters are no longer the main workhorse of late-game air battles. They have been balanced specifically to function as T1 air-killers, and little more. As you know, T1 interceptors, bombers, and scouts all have very few hit points (none more than 20). Thus, even with their low DPS, air superiority fighters are still good at taking out T1 air units. But T2, and especially T3, air units simply have too many hit points for air superiority fighters to be able to take them out in any decent amount of time. Yes, that means that air superiority fighters are even bad at taking down each other.
So what takes out T2 and T3 bombers and gunships? The answer may surprise you: interceptors! That’s right, on a per-mass basis, interceptors are way more efficient at taking out other air units than air superiority fighters are. So interceptors will end up being the mainstay of your air force, with a smattering of air superiority fighters thrown in to handle enemy interceptors and air superiority fighters. This is not the air balance that many players were expecting, judging by the many large threads on the topic on the official forum.
I personally am kind of disappointed about these changes. I don’t think air superiority fighters are really living up to the role that their name suggests they fill. Air superiority isn’t just about taking out enemy fighters, it’s about controlling the airspace. Taking out enemy fighters is fairly worthless if you can’t also quickly take down the bombers harassing your forces in the field. Unfortunately, there’s no real way to fulfill that role now using air units other than huge masses of interceptors. Ground-based SAM missile launchers (with the exception of the UEF Flayer, which is just bad) are now much, much more powerful against air units than anything airborne. The ability to defend your base against attack from the air using your own air units has been significantly diminished; it’s now really all about T2 flak cannon and T3 SAM missile launchers.
So my question for you guys is, do you agree with the way that air superiority fighters are currently balanced against other air units? If not, what should be changed to make things better?
June 8th, 2007 at 4:28 pm
Well, I can understand the basis for having a unit that excels at hunting only fighters, even if GPG didn’t intend for it to be that way. I would like to see something better than the crap that is T1 interceptors, though.
June 8th, 2007 at 4:40 pm
I wouldn’t have as much as a problem with this if the UEF had at least one good AA unit. T3 SAMs, Intercepters, they all suck. UEF can’t stop a powerful air attack.
June 8th, 2007 at 4:50 pm
Yeah, it’s too bad about those UEF T3 SAMs. Their missiles don’t even travel as fast as interceptors or air superiority fighters (which is so unrealistic it’s comical), making them rather worthless for taking them out. Also, the missiles have the bad habit of approaching an enemy plane, over-shooting, and then turning around and tailing it. As a result, you end up with missiles that only end up taking out bombers after the first bombing run.
Ironically, UEF’s best AA comes in the form of their T3 strategic bomber, which has an anti-air weapon on it with a whopping 133.33 DPS. Ambassadors will easily beat any air superiority fighter in 1-to-1 combat. However, keep in mind that Ambassadors are very expensive, and are very vulnerable to enemy air units. The Broadsword, with its 28 DPS anti-air weapon, is also pretty decent.
June 8th, 2007 at 5:27 pm
“So my question for you guys is, do you agree with the way that air superiority fighters are currently balanced against other air units? If not, what should be changed to make things better?”
Hell no. They obviously need to fix all the T3 fighters so they’re all not broken. They are pointless to build now, because with the mass you use to build one ineffective fighter you can get nine interceptors that aren’t broken.
June 8th, 2007 at 5:28 pm
u know what i really want to see?? t2 mass fabs. oh yeah, i said it!
June 8th, 2007 at 5:29 pm
“SAM syndrome” is one of the most common complaints among my friends that play SupCom. It refers both to their single-target-overkill (15 SAM launchers firing three volleys at an interceptor) and the need for tail-aspect to be of any use.
June 8th, 2007 at 5:30 pm
How does the UEF T3 gunship’s air-air weaponry compare?
June 8th, 2007 at 5:44 pm
@Baddox: “The Broadsword, with its 28 DPS anti-air weapon, is also pretty decent.”
Keep in mind that the UEF Gunships are bad for commander assasinations though. If you micro a comander, 95 percent of the shots will miss…
June 8th, 2007 at 7:29 pm
landed ambassadors make one helluva flak cannon. Ive seen them decimate enemy plane swarms.
June 8th, 2007 at 9:37 pm
Why would landing them help? They’re still air targets as far as targeting is concerned.
June 8th, 2007 at 10:48 pm
I don’t see how turning the ASF into a t3 interceptor would improve the game. As it stands, the ASF is complementary to the interceptor; not a replacement. I see that as a good thing.
June 9th, 2007 at 12:17 am
Will: Are you sure? I thought interceptors didn’t shoot at other planes that were on the ground?
June 9th, 2007 at 2:20 am
I’m pretty sure interceptors don’t touch planes on the ground…
June 9th, 2007 at 3:46 am
No, they do. I just checked in sandbox mode. I spawned an AI interceptor, then one of my own. Mine did an attack run on the AI’s before the AI’s took off. Did about 80% damage.
Or they can. It’s pretty hard to test if they’ll do it automatically when I’ve only got an AI to poke at.
June 9th, 2007 at 9:08 am
What’s in a name?
Air superiority fighter is just a name nothing more, it doubles a little bit as a description but mostly it’s just part of their name and a way to name a unit type.
Even then does air superiorty would mean giving you controll of the air. Don’t they do that if they can kill interceptors and other ASF’s or tank some damage for friendly ints as they take down enemy ASF’s?
Or do you all really want just a mindless, Queue and spam 100’s of ASF’s to get total aircontroll?
Won’t the same people complaining about ASF’s killing everything airborn complain about ASF’s actually doing just that?
June 9th, 2007 at 9:09 am
*error correction*
Won’t the same people complaining about ASF’s not killing everything airborn complain about ASF’s actually doing just that?
June 9th, 2007 at 10:14 am
Will: You’re not performing the correct test, your interceptor is killing their interceptor on the ground because the enemy interceptor tries to launch as soon as it sees yours. Give the AI a plane that will stay on the ground when your interceptor comes near it and you’ll see you won’t be able to hit it.
June 9th, 2007 at 10:50 am
@sub >Keep in mind that the UEF Gunships are bad for commander assasinations though. If you micro a comander, 95 percent of the shots will miss…
This might be true for those of you above the 500 (ranking) point. I have yet to lose a game when I get 4 or more UEF T3 Gunships (Broadswords). Maybe they were all bad at ACU micro (I know I can’t do it, at least not and build anything else to help out). But you can take those 4 Broads into a pretty good AA defense and still clean an ACUs clock if he isn’t doing much. Take him down 1/2 before he knows what’s hit him.
@Cyde: POST IDEA: A good post on “micro-” maybe? Being ‘old’ I hate micro. I loved StarCraft and WC2. Disliked WC3. I don’t do mini-micro. But more than that, I’m not sure I even 100% understand ACU micro, or unit micro and how it helps. Maybe a replay where you and Grok or someone ’script’ some events to show us? I’m guessing it’s not much more than just a zoomed-in change of direction to take advantage of stuff like turn radius or turret radius.
June 9th, 2007 at 11:16 am
Falcon: Here’s the thing though, I really don’t do micro either, so I wouldn’t be very good at writing about it. We need to find someone who is good at it, so they can either write it up themselves, or teach it to me.
June 9th, 2007 at 12:11 pm
No, my interceptor was firing shots before it took off, and by a significant enough amount of time before the AI’s took off that I don’t think it was just in its taking-off sequence or something.
Anyway, I tried your idea with the bomber, and my interceptor does 16 damage on the first pass every time. The bomber never takes off.
As for Broadswords, I’ve seen them just plain fail to lead. ACUs must do something strange with their walk, I think, ’cause it’s fairly common for things at any range to not hit, even when walking in a straight line.
June 9th, 2007 at 1:10 pm
If you really think about the name, the Air Superiority Fighter, then it should be able to take down anything in the air reliably, and reasonably quick. For example if you look at the F-22 Raptor (modern day tech). Its primarily an air superiority fighter. That means (generally speaking), any kind of fighter, bomber, helo, blimp, whatever if its in the air. Even cruise missiles (although in SupCom tac missles are just too small and fast to be targeted like that).
So, my point actually is that the ASF should be a faster, tougher, more dps version of the T1 interceptor. Cost alot more, sure, but be able to take on anything that flies.
Now what would be really cool is if we had Interceptors and ASF’s that could be set to anti-air only, or strafe only. Strafe being swoop down to attack ground targets. I’d _think_ that’d make them vulnerable to ground fire from normal weapons the way things are now if its basically a hemispherical range around the units. Course, they probably wouldn’t get hit, but when they do they’d take alot more damage since those weapons are meant to damage more heavily armored ground units. Since the ground units are more heavily armored, they will take less damage from fighter’s. What do y’all think about this idea?
June 9th, 2007 at 2:11 pm
In my opinion, air superiority fighters SHOULD be pretty similar in role to interceptors. They should be almost as effective against each other as interceptors are against interceptors. They should also be pretty darn effective against T3 bombers, though perhaps not quite as effective as interceptors vs. T1 bombers. I also think they should own T2 aircraft with little trouble, since every other T3 unit in the game will easily best a T2 unit of the same role.
June 9th, 2007 at 3:29 pm
If the “air superiority fighter” isn’t superior in the air, then shouldn’t it be called something else? Something like…special niche fighter?
Seriously though, what is the point of a T3 jet that isn’t really good at much? Any military force expects its enemy to attack with:
a) bombers
b) gunships
c) large, flying experimental units
is going to create a unit to counter and defend against the enemy units, BEFORE they arrive at their target. Nobody would be satisfied with “we’ll just try and build a whole lot of SAM sites, and hope they come from that direction.” It is silly to have an air superiority fighter that isn’t very good at attacking objects in the air. It is more expensive than the T1 interceptors because it is supposed to be more powerful and more useful than a T1 interceptor. Perhaps the T3 fighter’s enhanced speed and manuverability should be offset by increased fuel needs, limiting the range of the “air superiority” bubble and helping to balance the unit’s power? However the unit is balanced, it needs to be *superior* in the air.
June 9th, 2007 at 3:57 pm
I just want to confirm that I have seen T1 intys attack grounded aircraft mulitple times, so it can definititely happen. In my most recent game, my opponent landed his swarm of T2 gunships when my interceptors showed up. I proceeded to strafe his gunships on the ground until most were dead, by which time he finally realized that they were still being attacked.
June 9th, 2007 at 4:18 pm
Aaron, I have to disagree with you. I like SupCom’s dedicated fighter units. One of the large problems with TA was how absurdly effective the stealth fighter rush was. ASF’s don’t get taken down fast enough by AA, so they shouldn’t be able to hit ground units. Besides, everything *else* can hit ground units.
June 9th, 2007 at 5:39 pm
@Will
I was just a thought. Something that could be cool if implemented properly, or wasn’t going to break things.
June 9th, 2007 at 10:36 pm
I agree with T2A, Baddox, and Aaron.
I for one find the idea of an air superiority fighter that does not help in gaining air superiority absurd. What are they there for then? Target practice?
As was said before, anything T3 should be able to easily take down a T2 or 1 equivalent.
Someone said making the T3 fighters stronger would promote mindless spamming of them. Isn’t that whats happening with T1 fighters now though, if they are superior? Shouldn’t players have to work a little bit for the privilage of being able to free up their concentration by just spamming a unit? I think so.
June 10th, 2007 at 12:15 am
I don’t see any reason, nor have I heard anyone give a reason, as to why air superiority fighters *should* be nerfed. For what good reason would you make them such a waste of resources?
Is there any reason to build a single ASF instead of the 9 interceptors someone said you can get for the same cost?
The only reason I can think of for ASF impotence is that GPG can’t or couldn’t fix all ASFs in a timely manner, so they’re going to castrate the only one that works and pretend that’s what they wanted all along.
How the heck am I supposed to kill a soul ripper or a czar before it gets to my base? I either have to build a ridiculously large flock of interceptors, or try to lure the experimental into a paddock full of T3 SAMs. Otherwise I’d better hope my base’s air defences are adequate.
I’m hoping GPG will recognize the problem and rectify it, sooner rather than later.
June 10th, 2007 at 8:35 am
I still don’t see a problem.
Yesterday i ran several testruns with ASF’s vs interceptors and mixes of ASF’s and interceptors seemed to be more effecient then single brand. So ASF’s do create air superiority by supporting interceptors.
Once you take down someone’s AA fighters you have air superiority. Simple as that. Anything that then venture’s over unprotected AA space is a sheep lead to slaughter. Oke a Soul Ripper won’t be slaugthered to fast but isn’t it allowed to survive a bit since it did cost a woohping 20k mass.
Also don’t assume you know what the Dev’s intended. I for one found that out in the previous testing patch round (in wich air was not included cause it would delay the patch to much.)
>>Maxlevel3K
No players should never or very rarely be rewarded for single spamming 1 unit. Thats why the interceptor best vs everything but ASF’s (per mass invested offcourse) and the ASF’s being best vs each other and interceptors would work best.
>>RobertoBuckgnini
A Czar: can be easily killed using T2 mobile AA if you do it right and 2 T3 AA’s are enough to kill czar’s. Just don’t build em next to eachother make the beast run a bit. Again dont forget the freaking disc costs 18k mass. T3 AA costs 1400 peace.
A Soul Ripper: Doesn’t have those great AA flaks that the czar has so just slowly kill it. They aren’t bloody roadrunners zipping across the map.
June 10th, 2007 at 2:51 pm
What the devs intend is actually irrelevant if they mislabel a unit. The intent is given by the unit’s label, in this case “air superiority fighter”. If it’s not behaving like its label, it either needs to be relabeled something else or configured so that it fills the role its label denotes.
June 11th, 2007 at 5:37 am
“>>Maxlevel3K
No players should never or very rarely be rewarded for single spamming 1 unit.” SABs? rofl.
June 11th, 2007 at 2:36 pm
[...] thoughts about the strength and weakness of the different air units for each faction, at http://www.supcomtalk.com. How strong and valuable is the air superiority fighter versus the interceptor… read [...]
June 11th, 2007 at 3:27 pm
yacoub:http://forums.gaspowered.com/viewtopic.php?t=12758&start=0&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=
June 12th, 2007 at 4:16 pm
has any body come across the (super scout) problem where the tec1 scout takes out the commander and ends a game really fast
June 12th, 2007 at 6:11 pm
I still feel as though the Air Superiority Fighter should be powerful enough to defend against just about anything entering into it’s space. The question is, how to balance the unit so it fits within the underlying foundation of SupCom, that of strategy playing a key role in the game?
An end game where the player with the most ASFs maintains complete control over everything in the air is not a fun/good thing to have in the game. For this reason, I feel it is also a bad idea for ASFs to be able to strike at units on the ground. In my mind, within the “reality” of the world of SupCom, the ASF has been designed to fulfill a specific need: something that kills things in the air better than any other unit. It is designed to be superior in the air, at the cost of several other factors.
Requirement 1: It must be faster, and more manuverable than other standard aircraft. Cost: Efficiency. Going faster and using highpowered manuvering jets means using much more fuel, which means the ASF should have a reduced range when compared to other, slower units.
Req. 2: It must be better at killing things in the air than any other unit. Cost: The ASF should have absolutely no ability to deal with units on the ground. By design, a faster, more manuverable jet will be unable to bear the load of heavier ground capable weapontry. Strengthening the airframe adds weight, defeating Req. #1. There are other units specifically designed for ground attack.
In the end, if the ASF follows the rules above, what you have is an aircraft that is very capable of providing air superiority within a limited sphere. The costs of operation will be quite high due to the need for close refuling depots. Expanding the sphere of influence will be a strategic issue, for you must have a resupply pad, as well as the capability of defending it. Large mobile units with refuling pad capabilities (land or sea) could be very imortant.
The limited ASF range allows the ASF to be a powerful unit, without overpowering it. T1 Interceptors still have their place because they are cheap, capable (though not superior), and have a longer range (and are therefore much cheaper to operate over longer distances) than ASFs. Interceptors are the jets that roam the large open spaces, and when they find an enemy air force on its way in, they call the ASFs. Bombers and gunships are still the ground attack workhorses. Everybody is happy.
What does everyone think?
June 12th, 2007 at 6:12 pm
Rabies: Is that a real exploit? Or is it some bugged mod you downloaded or something?
June 13th, 2007 at 2:52 am
@rabies: Don’t use the mod that comes with SupCom. It mods the T1 scout into a super scout.
June 13th, 2007 at 5:12 am
Honestly, did anyone ever crash and burn all because of a flock of dastardly Coronas and their ability to actually perform as intended - as Air Superiority Fighters?
I am yet to see anyone make a rational argument as to *why* ASFs should be made to suck.
I see no evidence of effective ASFs unbalancing or ruining the game in any way shape or form.
Why not just downgrade Siege Assault Bots to have low-DPS tech 1 vehicle weapons while you’re at it?