On Sun, 12 Jan 2003 18:37:20 -0800, "Shonner" <shonner@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> How were they unbalanced in OTA?
Presumably you're requesting elaboration specifically of the
Rapier/Brawler reference I offered by way of example?
Like most of us who have played the game since day one of its release,
you'll remember the incredible combination *mobility*, *overwhelming
firepower* and *versatility* *massed* gunships offered in ver 1.x
without an effective deterrent prior to the availability of the
Flakker, particularly against fixed positions. Whilst Brawler packs
posed a similar threat, they weren't as fast or deadly in terms of
firepower as the Rapier and were less often the choice of the Arm
player due to Arm's alternative ground based units offering greater
ease and cost of production combined with adequate speed and hitting
power right from ver 1.x's outset.
Saliently and speaking as a Core player at the time, IME&O the
introduction of the Flakker markedly affected the Core player's game
much more so than the later introduced Cobra did the Arm player, in
particular the strategic game of the Core "eagle". *At the time*, the
Rapier was the *singular* Core weapon which not only offered direct
superiority compared with its Arm equivalent, but offered in
*combination* three essential factors other Core weapons lacked in OAT
ver 1.x. ie: high mobility & speed, versatility, and critically *in
combination with those factors* a low production (metal)
cost...essential in opening game on other than metal maps.
Most importantly, although the passage of time has long since dimmed
the significance of the disparity, you'll recall that Core's Cobra
wasn't downloadable for some months after the introduction into
service of Arm's Flakker, an interim during which Arm had a tremendous
defensive advantage against any eagle player, notably emasculating
Core's singularly outstanding *versatile* unit.
The availability of the Flakker, Cobra and other units included in
TACC made available since the games initial, and further with the
release and availability of the 3.1 patch (plus the downloadable six
units unincluded in either the patch or TACC) address this and several
other inequality issues, although they do introduce several of their
own.
Sadly, many bugs (eg: Adv. Const K-Bot guarding/order bug as a
singular example) and units introduced without an effective "paper,
rock, scissors" counter-alternative being properly thought out thus
allowed a marked strategic disadvantage of the sides (eg: Necro vs
FARK in terms of guarding and affect on production rate) to develop
affecting the game's overall strategic balance which wasn't ever
addressed. OTA patched to v3.1c.
Such issues are probably not of the paramount importance to the casual
or novitiate player unaware of them, but to the experienced capable
player aware of every inequality & bug, they are critical levers.
There are many times I'd like to play Core, but simply can't without
being placed at a huge strategic and tactical disadvantage which
equates to a player handicap because of the essential imbalance of
those production-bugged weapon-unit-forces based issues.
As such these issues present a forced and discernibly different set of
"which side to play" criteria versus choosing which side to play from
a strategic perspective based upon terrain or resource availability
just as the overall game strategy and choice of tactical unit
particularly in opening game may be varied due to factors of map size
et al.
I have a feeling you'll probably disagree with me on many if not all
of these issues. Nevertheless we both share in common a longstanding
play history and love for the game, warts 'n all.
cheers
Iguana Bwana
|
