#61

While I would agree with your first point AOHNH, the second I’m not so sure. I can understand from a competitive perspective that the BCs aren’t equal, Homeworld 2 is all about asymmetric warfare. The Hiigaran BC is superior simply because it can shoot from multiple directions and is impossible to flank. The Vaygr BC however has better range, speed, burst(which are really all you want from a weapons platform). So when it comes down to frontal BC vs BC it’s obvious the Vaygr BC comes out on top.
If the Vaygr BC is out microing you, you should be bombing subsystems and/or attacking from the side and/or massing undersized attackers and/or not allowing the situation.

The problem here: These tactics are not even remotely effective against a BC in the first place, a supported BC being even less viable to damage. This means that BC vs BC dueling is the only important factor in fleet combat and it’s the primary reason that the BC is so out of place in Homeworld. It breaks the basic rules of all Homeworld ships, in that it has no effective counter. The only real counter is another BC (impossible to field as a defense if you are late because the BC destroys capitals VERY quickly and that is why multiplayer folds immediately when the side with the BC has any advantage) and therefore the end game is simply BC vs BC, when in reality the BC balance should not be affecting things so severely in the first place.

I would like to see BCs placed in a stricter role with much less potential against frigates and slightly less potential against destroyers, with more restrictions on mobility and firing arcs, with weaker subsystems to mixed forces.

Now maybe you don’t agree with this and just want the Vaygr BC fixed, well there is one flimsy fix for this situation and it’s done by requiring BCs to turn like a carrier does. Immediately the Vaygr BC is unable to perform micro (I don’t know about you guys but I much prefer Homeworld to be strategy and not Actions-Per-Minute), while still able to flee / engage the Hiigaran BC at its own leisure. Let the destroyers have combat mobility and not the battlecruiser; the BC has every advantage over a destroyer/frigate currently. Just slowing the reversing movement for BCs might work too.
It does however change the way fleet engagements works, no longer will you be able to withdraw with a BC unless you’re prepared to expose the rear of the ship. The Hiigaran BC would have then have firing retreat advantage, the Vaygr attacking advantage.
This may not be the most elegant solution but even if you restored the Hiigaran BC’s movement from HW2, the Vaygr will still win every time in a frontal assault due to the burst nature of the trinity cannon.

So in closing, is BC vs BC really the biggest issue for end-game balance? Personally I think it isn’t (though remains one), the larger issue for me is how BCs mesh with the balance of the whole fleet. Would changing things back to how they worked in HW2 really even fix the problem? Hiigara is already played roughly 2:1 compared to Vaygr as it is. One could argue it is the fault of opposing players for letting a Vaygr build a BC in the first place and is just a part of asymmetric warfare. If you are striving for balance, it can’t be done just by altering the BC stats identically, the BCs here simply have far too much strategical and combat value over anything else.

I’ve been watching the tournaments hosted by Kruxxen and I can safely say it is awful when a BC comes out because the same thing happens nearly every time after that point.

#62

[quote=“Magitex, post:61, topic:154724, full:true”]
there is one flimsy fix for this situation and it’s done by requiring BCs to turn like a carrier does.[/quote]

I think what you really meant to say here is “brilliant.” Forcing the ship to turn instead of allowing it to maneuver while keeping its heading fixes pretty much everything and even adds a bit of tactical depth to using battlecruisers, forcing you to consider your current position and angle of attack before engaging an enemy fleet. I agree with most of everything else you said as well and will probably edit this post later to address more of your well stated points, but for now it’s late and I’m tired.

I’ve always thought battlecruisers were too powerful for their own good. They melt destroyers by the handful and frigates by the dozen and are just too tough for corvettes and bombers alone in most scenarios. A unit with only one solid counter that happens to be itself is… well… boring. And now that I say it like that, it also sounds inherently unbalanced.

#63

In my opinion the issue is negligible. Hw2 races were always asymmetric. Vaygr can be easily ganked from frigates cause it needs to turn itself therefore when seeing enemy bc hiig would need to think more about countering it with frigs and other ships while in the other example it is easier to tackle hiig bc with your own. It is just a theoretical case which almost never takes place.

#64

I’m sorry but we actually do play very often competitively, and your statement is more theoretical than all of the facts combined in this thread.

Watch what happens if frigates have to come to front instead of BC. BC missiles, DD, HMF and maybe even lasers will chew them up while BC watches them die in the back.

#65

What I’m saying is that vaygr bc is more vulnerable to frigs. Imagine 10 frigs in sphere formation attacking both bcs. You can’t tell me that in this scenario vaygr one will outperform the hiig one. Of course no player will only build frigates. The cap size is just to small. Like I said : nothing should be changed with bcs when it comes to their range speed nor agility. I would on the other hand nerf their firepower, speed of deployment. But that would be for another topic.

#66

I personally like the idea of BCs having to turn in order to move backwards. It is ridiculous that ships can move backwards at the same speed they move forward…they don’t even have an engine on the front!

2 Likes
#67

Sideways also. Why do the HW2 destroyers move backwards/sideways faster than HW1 destroyers move while burning full ahead?

#68

To add to this, the only reason this isn’t abused more in HWRM is because guard orders don’t work properly.
People try to use their range advantage and kite, but a lot of people aren’t good enough are microing and end up having supporting units scooting forward when they’re trying to only keep their BC within range sniping stuff.

Yes.

Ttat’s a good note. HW1 destroyers should maybe move faster forward/back and HW2 faster side/side.

Right now HW2 ones move 4% faster in either direction and rotate 12% faster.

#69

[quote=“dragonPSA_RHN, post:63, topic:154724, full:true”]
In my opinion the issue is negligible.[/quote]
Then you haven’t seen it used properly in games.

LoL, this is actually pretty funny…

There is FAR more theory in this thread than the actual gaming experience when it comes to “just use this and that to counter Vaygr BC”. If you view the link in my opening post, that happened in REAL game, and it continues to happen in real games all the time.

1 Like
#70

IN the 2nd last mission in HW2 you face 6 vaygr BCs and an assortment of destroyers and support craft. The first time I went up agaisnt them I killed maybe 2 of them and lost my entire fleet of BCs and destroyers and most of my frigs.

I loaded a save and tried again, this time all I did differently was ‘use bombers’ (in addition to my normal fleet in case someone wants to be pedantic)

I ended up wiping the entire fleet and only lost my frigs and I think 2 destroyers.

I’d say that ‘just use bombers’ is an extremely effective piece of advice and very, very far from theoretical.

I use the mission example because it shows the that even when greatly outnumbered and out gunned using the right tactics will make a huge difference. That should translate, albeit with reduced effectiveness because of player skills, into player vs player.

#71

I played a 4v4 a couple of days ago as Taiidan. One of my teammates and I assaulted the closest enemy’s shipyard. He had some strikecraft and a few frigates. My GWG killed off his fighters/corvettes (indirectly, of course) while we advanced on his shipyard. I had 3 Destroyers and my teammate had 8 torp frigates.

A Vaygr BC was waiting for us…I sent my Destroyers into a flanking move on it while my teammate flanked the other side with his frigates. He got one Trinity salvo off at the frigates…and missed!

That BC COULD NOT get a lock on for the Trinity gun. Some of its rockets blew up on itself. We killed it, losing 1-2 torpedo frigates.

Then a second Vaygrr BC came out…we did the same and all we lost was one of my Destroyers to heavy rockets. Opponent could not get off a single Trinity Gun shot.

That was gg for our opponent (my GWG screwed up his escape attempt).

The Vaygr BC is horrible at fighting anything but BCs/HCs/Capital Ships directly in front of it. 4-5 Destroyers can take it on with superior tactics (you would lose 2 of them average against an un-upgraded BC), which is reasonable…

Meanwhile, the Hiig BC will eat 4-5 Destroyers. Can’t flank that beast!

My point is Hiig BC > Vaygr BC…no need to further gimp the Vaygr BC!

1 Like
#72

Your game was simply over when that BC had no support to kill DD or frigates and that person wasn’t even aiming at DD in the first place. You can at least kill 2 incoming DD without getting hurt much.

Just because someone failed to micro Vay BC well (like hitting frigs first…) doesn’t mean it should be protected from changes.

1 Like
#73

Wooops, forgot to mention that the SY was behind those large asteroid clumps in Scattered map. So, the BC had a hard time maneuvering (after being built) in order to get its Trinity Gun on target.

Of course, the Hiig BC would have had pathing problems as well BUT would have been able to still target our ships just fine! Again, Hiig BC > Vaygr BC!

#74

I couldn’t agree with you more! On the other hand there is a difference. Hideki, if you have 2vs2 and 1 side would go for bc + support and another just support plus support and the bc race is vaygr then the first time is at a disadvantage when it comes to microing a Vay BC. Until the bc guy will throw out a BC the support would be overwhelming.

And to all people who are crying over vaygr’s bc superiority. Or chose vaygr or rush with hiig or hw1 race. There are far more pressing concerns than debating on speed and range of hw2’s bcs and this is just a trifle.

#75

Hideki!

I just played a game with you and your buddies. You kept telling me to show you how bad Vaygr BCs are at targeting with their Trinity Guns. In fact, you made fun of me for not showing you how bad Vagyr BCs are at targeting.

…EXCEPT YOUR TEAM WERE ALL HIIGARANS! In fact, you just proved what I was saying all along --> Hiig BCs > Vagyr BCs!

#76

Erm… for one, I had to make fighters and vettes first and I was making BC too but you were all dead when my BC was built and for two, our team was 1 Hig and 2 Vaygrs…

Can really show you than playing random roles.

#77

Ah, right. You guys only fielded Hiig BCs against us…I should have just written that instead!

Anyway, as I’ve written earlier, my comments about the Trinity Gun being (fairly) easy to evade still stands. The Hiig BC is superior to the Vaygr BC in most ways.

As far as our game went, notice that I prefer the forward start position. I find when playing with random strangers, too many guys ‘rage quit’ when torp rushed. At least I know when I’m in the forward position, I’m not going to quit and leave my team hanging. You guys did bloody me up a bit at the start = good job!

Good win though! You guys had great teamwork!

#78

I always thought the longer range on the Trinity cannon was to counteract the fact that it’s a turretless weapon. Taking out the engines is much more crippling to the VBC than the HBC.

Would the engine module health be increased at all to help out?

#79

[quote=“paradoxnrt, post:71, topic:154724, full:true”]
I played a 4v4 a couple of days ago as Taiidan. One of my teammates and I assaulted the closest enemy’s shipyard. He had some strikecraft and a few frigates. My GWG killed off his fighters/corvettes (indirectly, of course) while we advanced on his shipyard. I had 3 Destroyers and my teammate had 8 torp frigates.

A Vaygr BC was waiting for us…I sent my Destroyers into a flanking move on it while my teammate flanked the other side with his frigates. He got one Trinity salvo off at the frigates…and missed!

That BC COULD NOT get a lock on for the Trinity gun. Some of its rockets blew up on itself. We killed it, losing 1-2 torpedo frigates.

Then a second Vaygrr BC came out…we did the same and all we lost was one of my Destroyers to heavy rockets. Opponent could not get off a single Trinity Gun shot.

That was gg for our opponent (my GWG screwed up his escape attempt).

The Vaygr BC is horrible at fighting anything but BCs/HCs/Capital Ships directly in front of it. 4-5 Destroyers can take it on with superior tactics (you would lose 2 of them average against an un-upgraded BC), which is reasonable…

Meanwhile, the Hiig BC will eat 4-5 Destroyers. Can’t flank that beast![/quote]
LoL, then why are you even posting?

We’re requesting a range reduction to Vaygr trinity cannon. You’re killinig Vaygr BC left and right without any issues, so this change won’t affect you at all!

I’m going to stop responding to the senseless “i play random players who barely finished campaign mode and kill their vaygr bc all the time” statements. It has nothing to do with the topic.

1 Like
#80

These ARE the more pressing concerns, as they’re being exploited all the time and are completely breaking the game play.

I have said it before and I’ll say it again - HWR is built on the HW2 engine. Make sure HW2 races are balanced FIRST, then balance HW1 races against both of them. Making changes to all the races at the same time often leads to running in circles, chasing that desired balance point.

4 Likes