This goes for all flying maps

[MrSeriousOak]

Maps such as Walls and Lakeside barely EVER see meds or light tanks (I rarely see a med popped out, but light tanks I never see). Is there a way to add more purpose to them on flying maps?

[epicelite]

The problem with Orca/Apache, which I have been complaining about since forever, is they are good for literally everything. A jack-of-all-trades vehicle that also goes really fast so you can run away and repair easily as soon as you take significant damage. You can run away from a ground vehicle fight, repair, and be back before the ground vehicle has had time to retreat. People enjoy the instant gratification of being able to buy one and get right to wherever the action is quickly.

What are the downsides to such an amazing piece of equipment? Its got kinda low health, but you're pretty fast and extremely maneuverable so not much of a problem.

If I were in charge the first thing I would do to them is remove the passenger seat, but I don't see that doing very much overall. Maybe people would buy Chinooks a little more, but nobody going to not buy their Orca/Apache just because they're going to be slightly less helpful to the team. Lets be honest, that's low on their list of priorities.

Perhaps something along the lines of a 10-15 second warmup before aircraft can take off would be enough to discourage the lone-wolf "jump out and repair myself real quick" types?

[Xtractor]

good points: Though of this also yesterday when working on my map.

Would be nice if I could limit the numbers of flying units like to 3 only

to avoid base sweep by air and balance more to other ground units

[MrSeriousOak]

Perhaps something along the lines of a 10-15 second warmup before aircraft can take off would be enough to discourage the lone-wolf "jump out and repair myself real quick" types?

That could work, or we could make air vehicles more of an anti infantry vehicle? Reduce the damage on heavy armor by 25% and replace rockets with auto cannons (I don't know how that would work but it's an idea)?Limiting the number of air vehicles would also be a good idea.

[Ryz]

Stank / MRLS vaporizes an orca / apache, not to mention the mammoth and some special units like LCG.

IF you do a rush with meds / lights only on for example lakeside and it gets spotted while the enemy has apache / orcas's than you are in trouble. On the other hand, if you have 2 mrls they shoot down the apache very easily.

And what about the snipers? They can also kill off apache at a huge distance, but same goes for the mrls. To me it feels very balanced, but what I miss is the fact that vehicles on Lakeside can only get like a meter above the trees!

[DoctorB0NG]

As soon as the new launcher is out, I plan to remove flying vehicles from lakeside.

[Ryz]

As soon as the new launcher is out, I plan to remove flying vehicles from lakeside.

Or make a Lakeside flying and non-flying?

[DoctorB0NG]

If non-flying lakeside plays well, I likely won't keep the flying version.

[MrSeriousOak]

Stank / MRLS vaporizes an orca / apache, not to mention the mammoth and some special units like LCG.

IF you do a rush with meds / lights only on for example lakeside and it gets spotted while the enemy has apache / orcas's than you are in trouble. On the other hand, if you have 2 mrls they shoot down the apache very easily.

And what about the snipers? They can also kill off apache at a huge distance, but same goes for the mrls. To me it feels very balanced, but what I miss is the fact that vehicles on Lakeside can only get like a meter above the trees!

The Orca and Apache are perfectly balanced, I just want to give more purpose to tanks rather than just have a VTOL battle with some anti-air units supporting their team. Also APC's are air unit's worst nightmare. APC's are basically mobile AA batteries from tib wars

[LavaDr4gon]

Also APC's are air unit's worst nightmare. APC's are basically mobile AA batteries from tib wars

Or maybe APC's are like GDI APC's from Tib wars.

[Profane Pagan]

I just want to give more purpose to tanks rather than just have a VTOL battle with some anti-air units supporting their team.

Would be great to implement different thickness of armor on different sides. Also, the tanks could shoot two types of rounds: Sabot and HE shells. The former against armoured targets, the latter against infantry.

[TK0104]

@DoctorB0NG I think LakeSide is good as flying map. Only there are some spots to fix and then it's good

[rocky44r]

i like the variety flying maps give ^^ and you still see lots of other infantry / vehicles on those maps... just med and ltank are a little useless against air units... but you still see ftank or med rushes supported by air vehicles ^^ and thats ok... you have 1-2 air support to defend against incoming air units and the other ones go tanks for max damage ^^

[boxes]

Lakeside is a dreadful flying map. Helis can fly from one base to another while sustaining minimal damage. Ground vehicles can't intercept a Heli rush because of the way the map is designed, so as seen in the pugs the only vehicles that matter are Orcas, Apaches, and trannys. Go for any ground vehicle rush and your base gets slaughtered by helis when you leave.

[Quinc3y]

As soon as the new launcher is out, I plan to remove flying vehicles from lakeside.

Please no, I think this is a terrible idea. This will give a huge advantage to GDI, because MRLS and meds pwn on this open map while arties and flame tanks are nearly useless. Also Lakeside is one of the few maps where team rushes still make a lot of sense and often take place even on public games. Let's keep it this way instead of making Lakeside another boring map with only one vehicle entrance where sneaking is the only way to win...

@topic

I think orcas and apaches are balanced. They are difficult to play with (because of their low health and how they are usually exposed) and only good players can utilize them fully. Removing the passenger seat might be a good idea though. I don't agree with OP - meds and light tanks are not the best counter to orcas/apaches, but that doesn't mean people don't buy them (I see a lot on Walls or Whiteout). There is plenty of counter to air units in game.

Lakeside is a dreadful flying map. Helis can fly from one base to another while sustaining minimal damage. Ground vehicles can't intercept a Heli rush because of the way the map is designed, so as seen in the pugs the only vehicles that matter are Orcas, Apaches, and trannys. Go for any ground vehicle rush and your base gets slaughtered by helis when you leave.

True, but I don't see how this makes the map 'dreadful'? Lakeside is special and let's keep it this way instead of turning it into another boring map like I described above... also it's not like orca/apache rushes are unstoppable. They are powerful, but there is plenty ways of stopping them.

[Canucck]

stuff

Aren't you the guy that just spams for orca/apache rushes all game instead of doing literally anything else?

Removing helis will make the map kind of decent, or at least a lot better than it is now, but the double silos (that are in terrible positions) will still keep the map pretty bad

[RoundShades]

I would be more in favor of more/better positions for SAM sites in Lakeside. One watching the ref cliff entrance, one watching the forest entrance, and the remaining ones remaining where they are. More air-specific defenses. Maybe even make those suckers respawn on a long delay like Whiteout manned defenses.

stuff

Aren't you the guy that just spams for orca/apache rushes all game instead of doing literally anything else?

Removing helis will make the map kind of decent, or at least a lot better than it is now, but the double silos (that are in terrible positions) will still keep the map pretty bad

Before you consider removing air vehicles from the few maps with them, remember that discussion was serious at one time about condensing all infantry into just 6 classes or so, because some were useless and others were overused. Perhaps simplifying the game down to 3 vehicles for both factions is the answer, or perhaps we can just balance the health, damage, and damage-percents, to the existing vehicles.

[Xtractor]

Limiting the map to 3 flying units each side and the rest ground units and you have a new gameplay flavour

[boxes]

Lakeside is a dreadful flying map. Helis can fly from one base to another while sustaining minimal damage. Ground vehicles can't intercept a Heli rush because of the way the map is designed, so as seen in the pugs the only vehicles that matter are Orcas, Apaches, and trannys. Go for any ground vehicle rush and your base gets slaughtered by helis when you leave.

True, but I don't see how this makes the map 'dreadful'? Lakeside is special and let's keep it this way instead of turning it into another boring map like I described above... also it's not like orca/apache rushes are unstoppable. They are powerful, but there is plenty ways of stopping them.

They are unstoppable, on this map in particular. They completely stomp any ground vehicle rush when on defense, they are easily spammable because of the silos, and wipe out infantry rushes with no effort. You can't use vehicles other than your own helis to chip down a rush before it's already in your base. If all pilots and passengers are Techs, that makes matters even worse b/c only one can eat 3 mines (the whole door) giving the 10 other techs an open door to run in and remote. The amount of people required to effectively counter a full-out heli rush is pretty much everybody on a 20 man team, and by the time you dealt with one rush, another one is already getting set up.

is a perfect example of what I mean. GDI has ground vehicles wandering around in the field, and when they see the apaches coming they can't do anything but watch because of how the field is designed. When they lost the WF and killed all the apaches, their counter APC rush gets wiped out by.....apaches.

It's lame because a smart team has no reason to purchase anything but air vehicles. They are hands down the best at both defense and rushing.

[voltex]

I agree that orcas/apache's are pretty op on lakeside, not so much on the other maps but instead of removing them completely why not limit the amount a team can have like Kenz did on beachhead, each team can only have 3 orcas/apache's, you still have your flying units just not enough to do a rush and they will have to be used more strategically.

[Henk]

They have extremely good maneuverability and 1 extra dimension to move in, which makes it difficult to fight them.

On some maps it's worse than others. Easiest is to limit the amount, or to not have them in that map, but it would be a shame if they would be removed from every map.

Edited May 14, 2016 by Guest

[Quinc3y]

Aren't you the guy that just spams for orca/apache rushes all game instead of doing literally anything else?

lol for real?

@Jeff

If you know that an orca/apache rush is preparing, you can prepare for it and stop it. Flying units are loud and the bases on Lakseide are open, so it should be easy to see a rush preparing. If you can spot it 30 seconds before the rush leaves, you will have time to return to base and to put a hotwire/tech in every building and spam APCs/1k infantry/orcas/apaches to defend from such rush.

In the game you linked to, GDI doesn't see the apache rush before it leaves the Nod base. As a result, they get caught mid-field and iirc WF had no repairs until it was already down to half health. That was the mistake they made.

And yes, on Lakeside all you have to do as a team is spam orcas and apaches - but I don't see the problem with it and don't find it boring. Even if both teams prepare orca/apache rushes and there's the waiting game, you can make your rush more effective by combining it with a nuke/decoy chinook or whatever... there's plenty of tricks, some tested at PUGs. Both teams can do it, the map is balanced in this sense. And it is unique.

Limiting aircraft on Lakeside would not be as devastating for Nod as completely removing it, but it would still help GDI. And, once again, as the bases have only one vehicle entrance and as the vehicle area is clearly advantageous to GDI, Lakeside would turn into another boring map like Under or XMountain...

[Fujiwara Chika]

In my opinion, if there were just one or two more anti-air structures in ACTUALLY GOOD positions or maybe some of those respawning quad turrets from Whiteout, which would allow players to have more of an active role in the defense of their base, then I don't really see too much of a problem with aerial vehicles being overpowered on this map. The added defenses would lead to air raids being less effective, driving people to use more ground vehicles and planned infantry assaults.

[Crowsy]

Sounds good to limit the air vehicles or to banish them at all. Maybe make 2 versions of Lakeside just for the sake of making both sides happy? I can see the non air vehicles map working in a PUG but in Pub where not all people care for teamwork (atleast not at the level of teamplay that you find on the PUG games) it won't work so well.

If you limit the aircraft numbers to around 3..it would be interesting because 3 aircraft wont be able to rush something alone but they will still be able to do other "tactics" like sneaking a hotie on the refinery backdoor or on the river , scouting , fast transport to silos etc.

If you remove the aircrafts totally that would also be fun. There would be plenty of tanks fight and infantry rushes would become stronger just from the fact that you wont have 150150105 aircrafts being able to return to base in less than 10 seconds and rain fire on the infantry. You will also be able to siege a base quite good if you get @ their Silo, but in same time you can stop a siege easily aswell.

Nod won't be so underpowered either. The bases themselves are on top of the hills which makes it easy for arties to defend without fully exposing themselves...not to mention flamers that can literally hide at the end of the strip and burn to ashes any tank that made it to the top after the artie's rain of fire. Same thing goes for GDI...you can literaly rain fire with meds from the top of the hill where the gdi base is on the atacking Nod forces. You will be able to siege and counter the enemy sieges effectively.

If you are afraid that GDI will overpower Nod's vehicles....then I rise you the question " Who forces Nod to play only with vehicles? " You saw what you can do with a handfull of LCG on maps that are supposed to be GDI sided - see the last Under pug where Yosh's team kept GDI inside their base for the most of the time with LCG spam.

All in all ...limiting aircrafts on lakeside or allowing no aircrafts at all sounds good, but for the sake of PuB games where people might choose Lakeside just to fly orcas/apaches I suggest making 2 versions of the same map : 1 flying and 1 non-flying.

Edited May 14, 2016 by Guest

[MrSeriousOak]

In my opinion, if there were just one or two more anti-air structures in ACTUALLY GOOD positions or maybe some of those respawning quad turrets from Whiteout, which would allow players to have more of an active role in the defense of their base, then I don't really see too much of a problem with aerial vehicles being overpowered on this map. The added defenses would lead to air raids being less effective, driving people to use more ground vehicles and planned infantry assaults.

That is what I am trying to get here. I want to see flying maps a bit more similar to whiteout, not just orca/apache spam the entire game with the occasional sneaky tech/hottie.

Also APC's are air unit's worst nightmare. APC's are basically mobile AA batteries from tib wars

Or maybe APC's are like GDI APC's from Tib wars.

I forgot that GDI actually had an APC on that game lol.

[Lostalot]

APC's are air unit's worst nightmare. APC's are basically mobile AA batteries from tib wars

MRLS trump APCS, APCS are good up close but the MRLS can wreck them before they even get within range.

[Madkill40]

As soon as the new launcher is out, I plan to remove flying vehicles from lakeside.

It'd be nice to keep the trans helicopters

[Profane Pagan]

I think map designers would need a flying unit provider 'Helipad' building which they can choose to implement or not. Like there are maps with Obelisk/AGT without Powerplant, I can imagine enabled aerial units with and without a Helipad. But if the designer erects such building on the level, he or she would grant the possibility of the deletion of flying units when the Helipad gets blown up. I could even imagine this add-on building on some occasions placed on the top of a WF, with less health than the parent building. Designers would have endless possibilities. With the loss of Helipad you'd still have vehicular ground combat.

Therefore Helipad would be solely a requirement to build aircrafts in WF/Airstrip. No refuelling, refilling facilities, which we have got used to at Tiberian Dawn (maybe it could repair slowly the aircrafts, but no faster that an engineer would do. And only one at the same time). But as I said, designers could choose not to use this on maps, in order to provide a much closer feeling to classical Renegade.

Such ideas of bringing this building to life have been already discussed on this Forum. There is a model already made by Kenz. Regarding the nerfing of flying units, I am just saying one shouldn't cut content from the game rather than enhancing it.

OR: Let the Tiberium Silos grant acces to aerial technology. We still have this EVA message: "New technologies are available." Still I think a Helipad would be better idea.

Edited May 16, 2016 by Guest

[MrSeriousOak]

I was thinking of suggesting a helipad building to be implemented, but I figured it would be far too much work for something that is very easily fixed by carrying out another solution. Even though the Helipad idea is very good (the one above) it is kind of overkill.

[SvN91]

As soon as the new launcher is out, I plan to remove flying vehicles from lakeside.

Finally. Lakeside is a perfect big tank map.

[voltex]

Kenz's Beachhead has a helipad which is enabled with the capture of the silo which I think is a good idea, makes the silo more useful again.