Addressing the issue of naval imbalance
Something is off with the naval balance in Supreme Commander, as I’m sure everyone who’s ever played a naval map is aware. Submarines are just too powerful. On a per-mass basis, they are by far the most effective unit at taking control of the high seas. Until sea control is established, experienced players usually don’t build any other type of naval unit (with the exception of free-for-alls or excessively large maps). And then, once your submarines have destroyed all of your opponent’s naval factories and stand by in blockade, ready to deliver slippery torpedo death to anything that steps foot into the water, you build destroyers, and begin the crushing naval bombardment. The game usually ends shortly thereafter.
Supreme Commander suffers from two distinct balancing issues in this regard. One, submarines are too effective at establishing sea control, to the point of excluding the production of other naval units until sea control is established. Destroyers, with their powerful cannons and anti-sub torpedoes, would theoretically be good for establishing sea control, but against an opponent who is just using submarines, the surface weapon is useless, and submarines are a much cheaper way to get torpedoes knifing through the water. Naval balance needs to be re-jiggered somewhat so that other naval units are more viable. I’d really like to see frigates getting more play, for instance.
The second issue is that once you’ve lost control of the sea, it’s damn near impossible to regain it. Your only realistic option is to use torpedo bombers, which are moderately effective against submarines (which can’t shoot back), but rather ineffective against most other ships. Even worse, torpedo bombers just aren’t very powerful, and are easily countered with interceptors. All someone has to do to maintain control of the sea is put some submarines in the water and then get some cheap interceptors. It takes a much smaller investment of mass over time to build the interceptors than the torpedo bombers that they counter.
Here’s one potential solution. I saw an idea for a land-based torpedo launcher somewhere in the official forum (sorry, I don’t remember who came up with the idea). It would be built like a T2 point defense tower, only it would use rockets to fire torpedoes into the water, at which point they’d splash down, eject the rocket booster, and begin homing in on their target. Note that one of the faction’s destroyers uses a unit animation that suggests this exact firing system, though with a shorter range (maybe it’s Aeon?). Build a good number of these shore-based torpedo launchers and you’d be able to keep away harassing submarines from your shore long enough to build water-based torpedo launchers, and then shipyards, in an effort to regain sea control.
The neatest ramification of this new unit is that it would require the use of a mixed force to maintain sea control. Submarines aren’t just enough; they’d just get taken out by the shore launchers. So you’d also need frigates (and later on, destroyers and battleships) to keep your submarines safe by destroying the shore launchers. So that’s one crack at fixing naval balance: you have any others? Or is naval balance fine the way it is now?
June 18th, 2007 at 11:24 pm
I do like the idea of the shore launched torps. In fact, we have systems similar to that today (although they are mounted on ships).
Another idea might be for something similar to a the PT boats of WW2. Fast, very lightly armed, but with torps. One shot from pretty much anything would take them out, but they could be made pretty quickly and attempt to swarm. To limit these from simply becoming the new subs, perhaps they could be anti-sub specific? Say as a complement to the frigates sonar system? I dunno, maybe its not such a good idea. What does everyone else think?
June 18th, 2007 at 11:39 pm
How bout an hovering anti sub unit? It would hover above water and drop depth charges or torpedos or whatever, and best of all it can be built at a land factory. Subs will be helpless against it but any other boat could easily take it out. Combined with shore launchers, it could make for more dynamic sea battles.
June 19th, 2007 at 12:19 am
TA did pretty well with t1 subs that don’t track but have high damage, and the t2 sub that tracks and does high damage to t1 subs but weak damage to everything else.
June 19th, 2007 at 1:40 am
Subs should be T2 and more powerful/expensive. To compensate there should be a new T1 unit, the PT boat, as described by Aaron. There should also be T1/T2 naval troop transports, that are unarmed but can carry a lot of units. Like T1 would carry up to 20 T1’s and T2 would carry up to 40. That would provide the T2 subs with a new target.
June 19th, 2007 at 2:24 am
They also need to make Torpedo Bombers cheaper/faster to produce, currently gunships make better anti-naval units (a least agaisnt surface craft.
June 19th, 2007 at 2:49 am
Shoreside torpedo launchers are a good idea, but it’s easier to rebalance T1 subs themselves. If it’s damage-to-mass ratio is too high, then it should be decreased, either by lowerin the torpedo damage or increasing the production price.
June 19th, 2007 at 3:27 am
I think subs should be nerfed, but that’s only half of what’s needed. A T1 torpedo capable craft should be introduced, maybe, or something else. Making subs deadlier, but much more expensive, would be a nice idea, too.
In TA, if you dropped a nuke on a small pack of 3 or 4 T1 subs, you were making a profit, metal/damage wise.
June 19th, 2007 at 3:45 am
I know I played one game (not sure which patch, but it definitely wasn’t the current version) where my Cybran destroyers attacked subs with their main cannon, at least while on land. That’s obviously not an effective counter, but still an interesting idea. I wonder if it still works.
June 19th, 2007 at 4:04 am
Maybe the amphibious tanks could be tweaked to be an effective counter to subs. More powerful, but slower.
The UEF amphibious tank could drop torpedoes or it could be allowed to dive to attack subs (required to it cannot use it’s surface weapon at the same time as the torps.
June 19th, 2007 at 5:18 am
There’s another balancing or perhaps I’m just a noob. One of my opponents likes to build hordes of UEF gunships and like to rush my base. I’ve tried to counter this tactic by building hordes of Cybran T3 AA and ground based T2 AA units. But he always seems o get the edge, I’m wondering if the new AA code to prioritize bombers haven’t broken something. I use to be able to repel these. Anyone else seen something similar?
June 19th, 2007 at 5:20 am
From the different ways of rebalancing the subs mentioned here, I like the idea of tweaking the amphibious tanks most. It would give them more relevance than they currently have and support gameplay with mixed unit types.
June 19th, 2007 at 7:31 am
destroyers which are supposed to be anti sub should pwn 20 or so subs, and perhaps have a slight cannon nerf to compensate. frigates should also carry at least a depth charge or two, as the current subs make building em hard to justify since they die so quick
and speaking of naval balance, how about the complete lack of a naval transport!. TA had transports that could hold a tonne of units, and had enough hp to get where they needed to go, unlike the gimpy air transports sup comm is stuck with
June 19th, 2007 at 8:11 am
FIRST it was my idea for a ground based torp launcher
ITS been something ive said since the start of the game because a torp bombardment has allways been a quick answer to keep the other players out of the water!!!
Finaly amphibious tanks are too slow to build AND UEF doesnt have a (working) anti torp weapon! (much like our AA) not to mention that the tanks have so little HP that if the subs came to surface the tanks would be killed with the subs PD
SO the only answer i see and have ever seen is a arty/torp defense weapon that has a range of about 80-100 so it can out range a destroyer but can still be taken out by a battleship or overwhelmed by multi forces…
June 19th, 2007 at 8:32 am
The only faction who can stop this happening is the Aeon (Lol, the Aeon are the ones, again!), their engineers hover so you just need to get a group of t2 engineers to build a t2 pd on the land, then go into the water and speed build a couple of t1 torpedo launchers. then buld your factory and have the engineers assist it until you have enough subs of your own out
June 19th, 2007 at 9:13 am
So far I like the idea of shifting sub technology to tier 2 naval factories the best (and perhaps increasing their cost a bit), and adding a lightweight PT boat unit to fill out the T1 tree. Add a shore-based depth charge launcher, and you’ve got a lot of options.
June 19th, 2007 at 1:21 pm
After all this discussion, I think I’m with Gryphyn. Shift subs up to T2, and maybe tweak the cost/other stats a bit. Put in a very cheap, very low HP PT boat that has a fairly short range (think less than the range of frigate), low damage torps so they have to come all the way in.
Also I like the idea of a naval transport that can hold alot of units. That way if you have controls of the seas, but not the air except under the cover of your navy, you can still transport units over to assault the enemy.
June 19th, 2007 at 3:08 pm
A simple idea for balancing subs would be to add a single torpedo to frigates. then they have half of the torpedo damage that a sub does (don’t they fire two at a time?), but they are still no more powerful against T2-T3 naval units, which will hit them far before they get into torpedo range.
to be effective the torpedo turret would need to have long enough range to extend past the naval factory, which probably means it would be able to hit destroyers and cruisers, which then alters the T2 naval balance.
If the frigate is given a little torpedo action, then there is no need to create an entirely new unit, which has to be balanced as well.
June 19th, 2007 at 3:12 pm
I like the ideas of a long-range (longer than or equal to destroyer range), land-based torp launcher, amphibious tanks that are actually useful, and, perhaps, moving subs to T2. Buffed torp bombers would also be nice because, again, they are currently as useless as amphibious tanks. Aside from interceptors, subs are the only T1 unit that is spammed continuously throughout the entire game.
June 19th, 2007 at 3:34 pm
This does pretty much prove the old point of naval strategy. ‘There are only two kinds of boats; submarines and targets.’ :P
Maybe a hovering cheap flimsy unit firing powerful torpedos could work. A submarine would have to surface to attack it, it would inflict a lot of damage on submarines, but be fairly ineffective against anything with a decent surface weapon.
I also think torpedo bombers should be improved. One of my favourite units in Total Annihilation was the torpedo fighter/bomber. It could attack air (and surface) units, as well as dropping torpedos.
June 19th, 2007 at 3:46 pm
There is a very good point being made about the relative uselessness of torpedo bombers. They should probably be faster, cost quite a bit less in order to make them worth building. Otherwise they just fall to interceptor swarms or just simply enough ships with anti-air (think lots of frigates).
June 19th, 2007 at 4:26 pm
Regarding TheTomato’s comments, a hovering anti-sub unit is . . . a helicopter. Helicopters could have a sonar range to locate subs and then drop depth charges. When not fishing for subs, they could transport units and be used for ground attack.
June 19th, 2007 at 4:54 pm
@Blackeneth
you mean kind of like a T1 light Gunship that can drop torps or depth charges (are those possible in SupCom?)
June 19th, 2007 at 5:07 pm
CZARs have depth charges, so it’s possible. And the gunship would have to be T1, otherwise it’s just a torp bomber that doesn’t have to make bombing runs.
June 19th, 2007 at 5:46 pm
Here are my thoughts:
Nerf subs some way, either:
1. a bit more expensive, unguided torpedos, weaker
2. a bit more expensive, guided but super weak torpedos.
Then, fix L2 anti-sub by:
Adding the anti-sub stationary shore defense
Which ever L2 ship gets the torpedos, jack the damage on those
Add a L2 Sub. :P Specifically designed to take out any L1 navy, and do medium-low damage to L2+
Also:
Make a cheap L1 torpedo bomber, maybe inbetween interceptor and bomber costs, and a nice torpedo. 10 of them would be able to take out the strongest L1 navy in a few seconds. Very weak though.
L2 Torpedo bomber should also drop costs, a swarm of 3-5 should be able to take out any L1 navy fairly easy, and large swarms of 20+ are good against L2+ navies. Maybe even a super weak (1/2 L1 AA) onboard AA to fend off the interceptors…a little.
Torpedo bombers should be cheap, weak, but strong against naval forces.
That’s what I’m thinking…
June 19th, 2007 at 7:48 pm
[quote] Make a cheap L1 torpedo bomber, maybe inbetween interceptor and bomber costs, and a nice torpedo.
I think this combined with shore defense would solve the majority of the problem. Adding a single torp to the frigate wouldn’t hurt.
June 19th, 2007 at 8:13 pm
I came up with the idea for Shore based Torpedo launchers.
Want me to dig up my anicent thread? :D
June 19th, 2007 at 8:14 pm
Shoreside torpedo launchers are a good idea, but it’s easier to rebalance T1 subs themselves.
Rebalancing the T1 subs themselves is an easy way out. Shoreside torpedo launchers adds more depth to the game. =P
June 20th, 2007 at 12:44 am
I agree that nerfing subs directly via the amount of damage they do would be the most simple and easy to implement solution. However imho: It would not make much sense because subs are supposed to be pure anti-naval weapons, and nerfing them would give sea battles more of a meatgrinder “my 50 ships beats your 40 ships” aspect. More strategy is required if a unit is very powerful at what it was meant to do (subs killing ships) but very vulnerable to some kind of counter.
So Torp bombers should be buffed, and a shore based torpedo launchers would be a good idea also. And if there is a way to make them less vulnerable to intys but more vulnerable to ships with AA, that would further promote having a mixed naval force.
June 20th, 2007 at 1:53 pm
Another aspect to submarines that is not currently modeled into the game is that they need to surface from time to time to freshen their air, etc. Put a fuel capacity on the subs that forces them to surface from time to time, thus making them more vulnerable during their recharge time. Now, logistically, it becomes more difficult to control the seas via sub spamming, because at some point they may need to withdraw from battle/patrol to a (preferrably more safe) location where they can surface and recharge.
This kinda follows my idea of using fuel logistics to balance a more powerful (aka fixed) ASF (earlier post), adding another dimension rather than just damage and mass. The idea is that some units are just more powerful on a mass to mass basis…but as in real life there is always a trade off.
To reduce micro management, you’d need the ability to set a “safe surface” point for your subs that they would attempt to return to when they hit say 10% of their fuel. Perhaps with a naval buoy unit you could set up multiple ones. Of course, a buoy would tell your enemies where you were headed, if they found it. On the other hand, if you could set the buoy to decoy mode, they might be looking in the wrong place…
I still mantain that subs should be shifted to T2. Tub technology always comes before Sub technology.
June 20th, 2007 at 7:09 pm
all these ideas are good…hmm a land based torp launcher sounds good and making subs T2 sounds very good hmm…i think thats the most feasable (not sure if i spelt that rite) adding a T1 PT boat and making subs T2 oh yes..
June 21st, 2007 at 10:59 am
Wouldn’t a land-based torpedo launcher still need a sonar unit in the water to detect the submarines for it to shoot at?
Gryphyn, diesel-electric submarines need to surface to run their engines and recharge their batteries, but nuclear submarines can stay submerged for much longer periods of time. Not sure what type of technology Supreme Commander submarines would be powered by, but probably not diesel-electric.
June 21st, 2007 at 1:45 pm
to Roberto: Thanks…I was thinking that it probably didn’t hold true with todays nuclear technology anymore, but wasn’t 100% sure. In the space-age tech that SupCom has, the subs probably wouldn’t need to surface at all…we need to come up with a reason. :)
June 21st, 2007 at 3:07 pm
There’s an easy reason for subs to surface. Just reduce the sub’s speed underwater to 3 and increase it’s speed when surfaced to 5 or so. This is both realistic (even for future tech) and improves gameplay by providing a strong motivation to have your subs surfaced.
June 21st, 2007 at 5:24 pm
Good idea. Me like.
June 23rd, 2007 at 12:47 pm
@amanasleep: Nowadays submarines are WAY faster underwater than surfaced…also, (nuclear) subs usually do not surface for weeks/months at a time, as they are supposed to keep hidden…
June 24th, 2007 at 12:12 pm
@Johnny Cage: I wasn’t making the suggestion for realism, considering that subs in SupCom travel at ~180 knots(!)
However, keeping with SC’s WW2 unit balance precepts, reducing the underwater speed and increasing the surface speed of subs would add a lot to gameplay.
The T3 Strategic Missile Sub could be exempt from this consideration.
July 3rd, 2007 at 11:57 pm
Personally, PT boats and Subs to T2 sounds really nice to me. The idea of a shore-based launcher doesn’t sit well with me, probably because we already have water torpedo systems. You are, in essence, creating a whole new building just to deal with one unit we have already established to need a rebalance.
Also, torp bombers reeeally need a buff. Give it to em :) And from the moment I saw torp bombers, I always wanted a T3 Heavy Torpedo Bomber that dropped them into the water, THEN they activate the propulsion and travel to their target. The plane can go faster because accuracy isn’t an issue, helping them to avoid AA, and even if they die, the torps still reach their target. Plus, as you said, a unit already uses the animation, it isnt much harder to put the air-to-water torps on the bottom of a plane