USA Patriot Battery is rarely used

[ImTimK]

• Power output is very low vs vehicles (vs infantry it performs surprisingly well though, when actively repaired).
• Requires power unlike the Firebase (relatively power hungry aswell).
• As or more expensive than the superior competitors like the Laser Patriot.

Proposal 1

Reduce build cost.

Proposal 2

Remove line of sight requirement for assisting Patriots.

Proposal 3

Make Patriot hit moving infantry properly.

Proposal 4

Add secondary damage in small radius to allow damage moving infantry a bit.

Proposal 5

Reduce power requirement.

Proposal 6

Increase range/damage/rof parameters to compete better with EMP/LaserPat.

Proposal 7

Reduce EXP reward for killing the Vanilla Patriot, since it's easier to take down than EMP/Laser Pats.

[ImTimK]

My proposal would be to make it cheaper.

USA doesn't need better defensive capabilities, therefore I think the performance shouldn't be touched. Now $800 would reflect it's performance better while not changing the meta, the Firebase would still be the better choice.

[ReLaX82]

Agree on that FBs are much better and also require no power.

To even it out across all other pats I recommend to make it cheaper.

[ZekeDlyoung]

As I mentioned here: https://github.com/TheSuperHackers/GeneralsGamePatch/issues/27#issuecomment-1212734344

The Patriot can become much stronger if it didn't need line of sight thus allowing them to properly support each other more often in more varied formations.

Example: https://www.moddb.com/mods/generation-x/images/patriot-assisted-targeting-fx#imagebox https://www.moddb.com/mods/generation-x/images/new-patriots-ingame#imagebox

Another thing I did for my mod is make Patriots able to hit moving infantry, this made it waste less time chasing after running Redguards and spend more time actually attacking the vehicles that could actually kill it.

The Patriot's design implies that it is meant to be used in groups, imo if we are to buff the Patriot it should be with this design in mind

[xezon]

3 Proposals added to opening post. I hope I got it right, as this line of sight change is not entirely clear to me. Does it mean it can shoot through big buildings always? Or only when assisted?

[commy2]

Can Fire Base shoot over structures? If Fire Base can't, I don't see why Patriot would.

[ZekeDlyoung]

I'm pretty sure the Firebase can fire over buildings. And yes the change would make it shoot through buildings always, not just when assisting (patriots already fire in an arc anyway)

[Jundiyy]

In ZH, Firebases do not shoot over buildings.

[ZekeDlyoung]

In ZH, Firebases do not shoot over buildings.

Should they? 🙃

[xezon]

I think it would be odd if defenses from behind big structures like Command Centers would hit enemy targets through it.

[penfriendz]

Really don't want firebases to shoot over buildings. Going up against turtling USAs with firebases is annoying enough without having rows of firebases firing over each other.

[ZekeDlyoung]

They won't shoot through it, they'll shoot over it 😛

That said, does the Patriot and Firebase even have enough range to hit targets on the other side of a CC?

[commy2]

bunker noob

[ZekeDlyoung]

If you guys don't like the idea, then so be it. Just go with the initial proposal then, and I'll just leave this topic

[commy2]

Sorry, it was a joke.

[xezon]

I would like to see some corner stats of Patriot compared to other base defenses to see why it is inferior. I think we are lacking data to make a better decision. Perhaps it just deals too little damage or consumes too much power.

[ZekeDlyoung]

In my opinion the Patriot already deals a fair amount of damage. Its biggest weakness is its inability to deal with infantry effectively. Yes it can be argued that it is OP to have a single defense that can deal with all kinds of targets with barely any micro, however I just find it a bit unfair that the other 2 factions have defences that can effectively deal with infantry (Gatts and Tunnels) while US players are forced to either support their Patriots with Rangers or Humvees or start with Firebases (which also requires some micro to garrison Rangers).

Players usually encounter infantry at the start, and vehicles later as such I find it weird that the US has a starting perimeter defense that's weak against infantry the very thing you'll probably encounter at the start.

This weakness also leaks into the later stages of the game, where your opponent can use infantry to distract your Patriots to protect their vehicles, especially since baiting one Patriot will most likely bait all the other Patriots nearby as well (even though the other Patriot probably won't be able to actually shoot since their sight will be blocked).

Much like the Nuke Cannon, it just seems to me that the Patriot has a lot going against it

[Stubbjax]

It's comparison time!

	Patriot	Firebase
Build cost	1000	1000
Build time	25	25
Power consumption	3	0
Attack range	0 - 225	50 - 275
Attack duration	4 x 0.25s	0
Reload time	2s	2s
Damage	4 x 30	75
Damage radius	5	10
Garrison ports	0	4
Stealth detection	200	N/A
Can target air	Yes	No
Vision	360	360
Experience yield	200	200
Health	1000	1000
Turret rotation rate	180	60
Death behaviour	+3 rangers	N/A
Armour	BaseDefenseArmor	FireBaseArmor

The Patriot effectively does 120 damage per 3s (attack duration + reload time), whereas the Firebase does 75 damage per 2s. This translates to DPS values of 40 for the Patriot and 37.5 for the Firebase, which is a negligible difference (though it can make the difference between an extra shot). The higher damage and longer delay between shots make the Patriot more susceptible to overkill.

It should also be noted that the Patriot's air and assist weapons deal 4 x 25 (100) damage, whereas the ground-based weapon deals 4 x 30 (120) damage. Air and assist attack ranges are 350 and 450, respectively.

And here are the (surprisingly negligible, and a little bizarre) armour differences:

	BaseDefenseArmor	FireBaseArmor
GATTLING	25%	30%
POISON	1%	0%
JET_MISSILES	25%	40%

It seems as though the most important factors are the Firebase's longer range (allows it to get more damage in earlier which ultimately leads to receiving less damage) and lack of power requirement. Stealth detection is fairly redundant as USA has ample scouting capabilities. Anti-air is not really that useful against anything - it might annoy a Helix or some Comanches on a good day, or take out a Mig if Humvees / Avengers / MDs aren't already on the job. Otherwise, most of the other differences are roughly equal / negligible.

An important question to consider: Is the Firebase too good, or is the Patriot too bad? Perhaps it's a combination of both.

[xezon]

Radius	Area
50	7854
225	159043
275	237583

Object	MinRange	Max Range	Area coverage	Extra area reach
Patriot	0	225	159043
Firebase	50	275	229729	+ 44%

[ImTimK]

Whatever we do:

1. The EMP and vPat need equal treatment.
2. EMP needs NO buffs. It's already very strong and not SWG's weak point, in fact the EMP already makes up for some weaknesses.

Instead of changing core aspects in controversial ways, I would suggest at making it slightly better at what it already does, or simply make it cheaper.

[xezon]

Power Outage is one of the major weakpoints. GLA Tunnels and Stinger cannot go offline. Neither can China Bunker. Therefore USA Firebase is a strong pick, as it bears no risk of being shutdown in the wrong moment of time (ignoring USA Microwave).

[Stubbjax]

Whatever we do:

1. The EMP and vPat need equal treatment.

2. EMP needs NO buffs.

I initially thought adhering to both of these points would not leave many options, but I can see a few notable differences when comparing the two.

	Standard Patriot	EMP Patriot
Build cost	1000	900
Attack range	225	275
Attack duration	4 x 0.25s	4 x 0.1s
Reload time	2s	2s
Damage	4 x 30	4 x 15
Air damage	4 x 20	4 x 30
Air range	350	400

Standard Patriot DPS is 40, while EMP Patriot DPS is 25 (for ground-based attacks).

From this comparison, several changes seem viable:

1. Reducing the price from $1000 to $900
2. Increasing damage against aircraft, e.g. from 4 x 20 to 4 x 30 or even 4 x 40
3. Increasing attack range from 225 to 275
4. Increasing air attack range from 350 to 400

As EMP Patriots are already $900, reducing the price of the standard Patriot by $100 satisfies both points. Boosting the Patriot's air-based damage would also work, as differences with the EMP Patriot are relatively meaningless due to the EMP's ability to instantly kill aircraft. EMP Patriots also have greater attack ranges than the standard Patriot, so that can be changed too.

Damage output can also be increased if the delay between shots was matched as well. Doing this would increase the standard Patriot's DPS from 40 to 50.

[xezon]

Funny they bothered buffing the Air Damage, when it is one hit kill anyway ^_^

[ImTimK]

Here is the power requirement/investment cost (assuming standard BO early game, dual Sup + WF):	Pat quantity ($1000)	Reactor quantity ($800)	Cold Fusion ($500)	Total Investment (minus first reactor)	versus FB investment ($1000)
1	1	1	$1500	$1000
2	1	1	$2500	$2000
3	2	1	$4300	$3000
4	2	1	$5300	$4000
5	2	2	$6800	$5000

[Stubbjax]

Oh yeah, Air Force would have to upgrade their reactor if they were to employ a Patriot with dual Airfields and both vUSA and Air Force would have to do so if they were to build a Strategy Centre (assuming one supply).

[ImTimK]

Proposal 5: Reduce Patriot power requirement from 3 to 2 power units.

Pat quantity ($1000)	Reactor quantity ($800)	Cold Fusion ($500)	Total Investment (minus first reactor)	versus FB investment ($1000)
1	1	0	$1000	$1000
2	1	1	$2500	$2000
3	1	1	$3500	$3000
4	2	1	$5300	$4000
5	2	1	$6300	$5000

Proposal 5 + Proposal 1 (price reduction to $800):

Pat quantity ($800)	Reactor quantity ($800)	Cold Fusion ($500)	Total Investment (minus first reactor)	versus FB investment ($1000)
1	1	0	$800	$1000
2	1	1	$2100	$2000
3	1	1	$2900	$3000
4	2	1	$4500	$4000
5	2	1	$5300	$5000

[Stubbjax]

You're kinda breaking your first rule there. 🧐

I considered a power requirement reduction but the introduced inconsistency bothered me, as I presumed it likely would for others. It also takes away a bit of the punch of SWG's Advanced Control Rods upgrade (it's less of a bonus if other factions have lower power requirements).

Additionally, a $100 price reduction is likely more preferable because1) it creates a new consistency between standard and EMP Patriots and 2) would be much less obvious than a $200 reduction, which would be clearly cheaper than the much more commonly built EMP Patriot (where a lot of players likely get the false impression that the standard Patriot shares the same price).

[xezon]

100 cost decrease looks indeed like safe step to take. It does not have to be the only step taken.

[ImTimK]

You're kinda breaking your first rule there. 🧐

I guess kinda yea.

I considered a power requirement reduction but the introduced inconsistency bothered me, as I presumed it likely would for others. It also takes away a bit of the punch of SWG's Advanced Control Rods upgrade (it's less of a bonus if other factions have lower power requirements).

This is a valid point.

Additionally, a $100 price reduction is likely more preferable because1) it creates a new consistency between standard and EMP Patriots and 2) would be much less obvious than a $200 reduction, which would be clearly cheaper than the much more commonly built EMP Patriot (where a lot of players likely get the false impression that the standard Patriot shares the same price).

$900 is definitely the safe choice, there's literally nothing against this price reduction. Why should it cost more while being inferior to EMP/LaserPat right?

My price suggestion is more based on the performance value (+ pure investment cost vs FB), if we were to change nothing about performance that is.

[ImTimK]

Another proposal would be reducing XP for killing the vPat, since it's weaker than Laser/EMP Pats.