Pearmet
|
  |
| Joined: 06 Feb 2015 |
| Total Posts: 12 |
|
|
| 10 Oct 2016 07:29 PM |
I feel like the Stealth Bomber is a little overpowered. In one of my recent games, I used 4 stealth bombers and took out all the enemies' power plants/nuclear plants like it was nothing. The only thing enemy could do was build turrets (mostly anti-air turrets) to at least try to defend their PP, instead they just wasted their money because it was easy to redirect my stealth bombers to attack the turrets while the they were building. Even if my enemy tried to send out their own troops to assault my stealth bombers, my troops would've been able to escape freely because of their speed. This is why I think that the Stealth Bomber is a little overpowered.
I've developed a couple of suggestions that would help players counter this. Here they are:
1) Stealth bombers deal 50% less damage to buildings. That way, players would have enough time to defend their PP.
2) Players would be able to add extension(s) to their PP's. They can buy a turret that's attached to the PP at a without taking a building slot. For example, if we buy a turret to defend our PP, our building limit would be 1/25 to 2/25 (Hopefully that clarifies what I'm trying to convey). In this suggestion, if extensions were allowed, players would be able to add many (1-3?) turrets to defend their PP without taking building slots.
Now I know that there are ways to defend your PP's from stealth bombers without these suggestions. You can always have tanks/planes (maybe even turrets/forts) patrol certain PP's which prevents the stealth bombers to properly destroy your PP's.
I know that these suggestions would put me at a disadvantage, because this was a strategy that I used (3-5 stealth bombers destroying PP's in minutes in early/mid game). But this strategy is very boring and doesn't give any excitement, it just makes the players ragequit after finding out that their income is literally 20 or 25 per minute (maybe more). That's what happened in my recent game, and it felt nasty. I felt so bad for them, even though I came out victorious. (By the way it was a 3v3 game)
Thank you for taking your time to read this! Please leave your opinions if you have any! I would love to hear them! |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 10 Oct 2016 07:31 PM |
I agree please nerf stealth bombers or revise the way they can be used. They seriously are OP and hard to defend against unless you want to waste troops defending certain landmarks/money sources
|
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 10 Oct 2016 07:40 PM |
Generally; by the time it takes someone to get stealth bombers up and running; you should have enough things to deal with them.
Even if someone were to rush stealth bombers; they'd be crippling their economy if they went and spent it all on an airfield and a ton of research centres.
No need for a nerf given that they have paper thin armor and a few well placed shots are able to down them.
As for your opponent fleeing with them; simply give chase with space fighters. They are practically if not the exact same speed; but one has the range advantage.
|
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Wowgnomes
|
  |
| Joined: 27 Sep 2009 |
| Total Posts: 26255 |
|
|
| 10 Oct 2016 07:42 PM |
Stealth bombers are a money sink, by reducing their value even further players would develop actual strong armies.
|
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 10 Oct 2016 08:05 PM |
| I agree With OurDearLady, It has wood for armor & range is pretty bad. | No need to nerf here ._. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 10 Oct 2016 08:05 PM |
The entirety of this suggestion is horrible.
1. Having the stealth bomber deal less damage would simply make it obsolete. It is basically a significantly weaker space fighter in terms of HP and range. It requires to hover nearly above an enemy in order to fire. Giving it less damage simply makes it not worth the effort of getting.
2. Attaching turrets onto the pp/np gets rid of the strategy of attempting to out range the turret when attacking from the opposite side without the turret.
Basically; you want to nerf a unit out of existence along with introducing new aspect to the game that destroys the "microing" strategy and in return; encourages turret spamming.
Also; you clearly haven't accounted a certain mechanic in the game. If you truly knew what you were talking about; you'd be well aware of it. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 10 Oct 2016 08:20 PM |
| You have to defend your plants. Stealth Bombers are very expensive. If you send two over to an unprotected plant, well you're just going to lose that plant. You can't expect to have a power plant for 40 minutes and not have it get attacked eventually. I think it's fair if you put down 350 on fragile units that are only good against unguarded buildings. If I allow turrets on power plants it'll just make people use planes instead. 4 light planes will make quick work of a power plant with a turret on it, and those units will be more flexible for other battles anyway. I designed Stealth Bombers to have one specific strength and be only for people with lots of money to spend, just like Space Fighters. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
STDR1178
|
  |
| Joined: 04 Jun 2012 |
| Total Posts: 91 |
|
|
| 10 Oct 2016 08:25 PM |
I've never been attacked by stealth bombers in TC3, so I'm not sure how effective my solution is. If I were to be attacked, my first action would be to defend my PP via AA turrets. Yes, you said you could destroy these with your bombers, but the turrets are more to keep the bombers away than it is to destroy them. I just move my army around, attacking whatever they have, after.
Never actually put this plan into action, though. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Pearmet
|
  |
| Joined: 06 Feb 2015 |
| Total Posts: 12 |
|
|
| 10 Oct 2016 10:10 PM |
@OurDearLadyMaria, I agree with you. The main problem in this suggestion was that I was looking at my own perspective, and not the general perspective. Of course this idea was going to be trash, because I was playing against trash. I haven't been into a good game in years (excuse #1). In most games, the players I go against don't have a good mindset. When something wrong happens, they do whatever they can to defend, instead of looking for a good solution (excuse #2). But that's the reason why my suggestion was horrible. (I look pathetic for using bad players as an excuse, but I really don't care, because I'm already pathetic myself)
Yes, I agree with some of the replies. When you invest a lot of money into stealth bombers, other players would have developed strong armies by then. I didn't look into that factor and I should feel ashamed.
@BrokenBone, "If I allow turrets on power plants it'll just make people use planes instead." By the time the planes get to the power plant, the enemy would have much more time to get their army to defend their plants. From my perspective, players wouldn't be able to defend their plants by the time stealth bombers reach it first. Now if the enemy knew that you were gonna send out stealth bombers beforehand, then players would have time to defend it. But from my point of view, enemies couldn't defend their power plants by the time my stealth bombers reached them. They would put anti turrets, but I could easily redirect my stealth bombers to attack the turret while constructing. The enemy wasn't smart enough to put anti turrets on other pp's, or he just gave up, who knows.
The reason I made these suggestions was because the games were getting boring. I'm talking about how people ragequit after I destroy a power plant or two. I felt like things could be spiced up with these suggestions, but that's only my opinion.
But oh well thanks for the opinions, I've learned a thing or two from this. I kinda wish I played against good players so things would be more fun (excuse #3). Thanks again! |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|