a single scout plane is enough to counter the whole move and so it makes it really satisfying when someone can go unmolested long enough to pull it off. the doomsday message in the chat is just icing on the cake
High arcing artillery shots should lose very little energy due to the trajectory. The primary advantage is that it can shoot over hills, the primary disadvantage is that the projectile takes a long time to reach the target (allowing things to move out of the way).
Is this some kinda minmax strategy or something? With how powerful air can be in this game I'd have thought people would be paranoid about AA especially without an air commander
This is what's called being a "permissive defender." A wall of stealth fighters and/or flak would stop the Nostradamus Manoeuvre in its tracks. I'd like to see more support players that spend the whole midgame building grids of flak batteries next to all their allies' bases.
Support players are best players. Share the resources. Build the anti-nuke. The plasma shields. The flak. The radar and the jammers. Do all the things.
@@andrewgreeb916idk man, towards the end you could see just 2 flak turrets kept 8+ abductors at bay. I'm sure a determined AA fortification would make it extremely difficult to break through But hey, these guys won't even build scouts to see the enemy with 8 afus and 4 t2 air labs, so why would they do that? :p
@@HonshuHigamoriyeah and the rest of the entire pack was stunned lol. The stunned pack was drawing the first few shots allowing the aa separated from the pack to pick off already damaged transports. The first wave is the easiest to deflect, because the second will be more concerted on your location meaning more emp beamers to stunlock your aa pack. All you'd need is to send in your own air wall first and the enemies air wall is easily distracted. We see it time and time again function extremely well for bombing runs. No reason it wouldn't also work for the Nostradamus Maneuver lol.
Artillery is a bit weird in BAR. The only units that actually opperate like true artillery are the T1 vehicle arty, and the Tremor. Just about everything else fires more like a field gun on a very low and straight arc. As for the physics of how it works in reality, the optimum angle that any balisitc projectile can fire at, to achieve the maxium possible range, is 45 degrees. Anything above or below that will have reduced range. A round fired at 55 degrees will land in the same spot as one fired at 35 degrees (although higher arcs have more time to be disrupted by wind speed). The game artificially limits the range of units will fire at to just ignore this, since otherwise units like a Mauser could probably fire half way across the map if they actually fired at more optimal angles, based on the speed of their projectile.
@@KraziEyevin Ok, there's the T1 and T2 static plasma arty also. Can you name any others I've forgotten tho? I guess maybe the hound, but it's range is short enough that calling it artillery is a bit of a stretch. It's incredibly rare to see any of the artillery that can fire high arc in BAR, actually be used that way, since the range of BAR's artillery is generally very low, with rather modest AoE. Eg, the difference between a T2 tank and T2 artillery, is only double the range, and has less AoE than the tank. They behave a lot more like non-armorued tank destroyers.
@@UnknownSquid ok, what do you mean by "true artillery?" Because field guns are generally considered artillery, as are some kinds of rockets and even small mortars or grenade projectors. Just because it's small or has a low arc doesn't mean it's not artillery...
Watching Nostradamus is like watching an ex-Korean Brood War pro lost and confused in a game he thinks is Brood War and just absolutely plastering people. Those early game comm drops were like reaver drops, just beautiful!
Artillery generally want to achieve max distance. Firing at an elevated angle is better for this, than firing horizontally, due to gravity pulling the projectile down at a constant rate. If you fire horizontal, you get max horizontal projectile speed but minimum flight time. It travels fast toward the target but only for the fraction of a second it takes to fall to the ground. If you fire vertical, you get max flight time but minimum horizontal speed (0). It travels no horizontal distance but stays in the air a long time, since that's where all the energy was directed. The optimal, for max distance, is to do some of each; traveling at a moderate horizontal speed, over a moderate flight time. If you were asking about maximizing the impact, then horizontal is probably best, since an arcing shot may reach terminal velocity (as the projectile's downward speed is increased by gravity, air resistance also increases, and eventually the two are equal, resulting in a maximum downward speed).
"Ogerklinge" is German and means "Ogre Blade". 😅 It's pronounced like "to _cling_ to sth." with an _eh_ sound at the end. Balalaika is a music instrument.
Time to try this absolutely stupid strategy against my friends. I'm gonna play the prowler theme on full blast in VC right as I pull it off and watch them never play this game with me ever again 💀
Alternative to Nostradamus maneuver could be a rolling wall: produce a bunch of beamers, put them on the field, produce more, place them in front of previous beams, produce more, put those in front of frontline, and start transporting each backline of beamers into the frontline until you're essentially crushing your opponents. Just my 2 cents.
Could work on a small scale, but is much easier to stop. Would give the enemy ample time to set up AA, and Beamers are no use against any kind of artillery, even T1, and get rolled over by a more concentrated force of T2 such as Bulls or Tigers. The thing that makes this so deadly is the surprise element.
I think I read the turrets in high aim mode do the same damage, fire less frequently, bigger splash radius (Ill add also look cooler) Of course I could be completely wrong oooh that was dirty, love it
an object travelling the longer path will always lose more energy to air resistance. However, in the very extreme case, you can shoot a projectile up so high that air resistance is significantly lower, or even into space. Then it would fall back down anywhere at terminal velocity. That is how ICBMS work.
It would accelerate down yes, proportionately to how you sent it up but the mode is mainly for going over obstacles, also isnt the payload explosive and not just impact? So the speed wouldnt be as important for damage as delivery.
No. Depends on the round. The most deadly artillery will not hit the ground but explode above to have shrapnel an Overpressure get the best effect Mortars usualy explode on hit.
You would also have to ignore all the losses of firing the weapon (friction, heat, indirect dispersion, etc.) and any explosive at the end. Of course, ignoring all of that would make the model useless. Since his question is about how the angle of fire affects the impact or range (not clear which he means), air resistance is quite important, as is the balance of horizontal speed vs hang-time. Putting some of the energy toward increasing each of these results in greater range than putting it all into horizontal, though I would guess the opposite would be true for impact, as the arcing shot may reach terminal velocity.
@@BrightWorksTV at the time back then there were a couple of other RTS out there Dune, Red Alert, Starcraft and the fantasy variant from the same studio, Age of Empire and such like, but in terms of unit scale even back then Total Anilation just took the lead as it had no unit limits ^^. I had been playing spring engine mods since 2010ish but stopped then as i was going hard on Mount and Blade. Currently i am looking into maybe spending a bit more time with bar though. Great vid, keep em coming
A balalaika is a Russion stringed instrument - whether or not this player is named after it (and just spelled differently who knows) - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balalaika
D-gun really should somehow scale with current energy (smth like use half energy - do dmg equal to energy used). Destroying entire armies using 500-1500 energy is way too op.
@@jamesmcghie9628 Not sure which game you're playing, but those were a special armored transport with cloaking, and T2 I'll mention that came in by the dozens. A single T1 AA bot wouldn't have done a thing because I know for a fact that a single T2 AA bot wouldn't do much either.
@@kanseidorifto2430 the above discussion about the balance of d-guns was NOT referring to the end of the game. they were actually talking about 4:20 when a commander used, you know, a d-gun to destroy a few bases.
The Com Transport play is the only one that I think is kind of cringe to do in what was definitely a "noob" lobby. If it was a higher TS lobby I wouldn't care but doing that in a beginner's lobby is kind of weak imo.
@@kanseidorifto2430 There are many units with the sole purpose of being anti static defense. I actually think this would open the meta up a bit if your commander wasnt an all purpose god. But I see your side as well, both have their place. I would like to see what this kind of change could do
@@pluckey0826 That's an interesting idea too. I'm curious though if that would incentivize more people using the commander for teching up though. Either way I guess there'd be logically some complaints to be considered, but I wouldn't mind trying it out. Honestly I wish some units specifically had their main function as an Anti D-Gun unit, might make for some unique experiences with "command hunting squads"
@@kanseidorifto2430 Only reason I think it is a necessary change is that that early in a game nobody has a ball of units at their base that can take out a commander. There is very little counterplay when you can just airdrop your commander on the outskirts of a base and then remove it from the map. Time will tell. I see that strat more and more and soon itll be in every game and require either a meta shift or a balance update.
8:35 no they are not doing great. Blue player obliterated both economy and production of everyone in front of them and they did not even attempted to poke the frontline and try to push through with 5 surviving pawns/grunts while sitting on 20+ of units. Way to passive. I watch a lot of replays myself and I can see this pattern of behaviour way to often. People are scared to do anything and that turns a 15-20 min win into 50+ min T3 spam with the result of the battle being detemined by 1 or 2 eco players who knows how to start producing after 40 minutes of scaling up.
@@hamsandwich184 I am pointing out wrong interpretation of the situation. New players watch this stuff and take notes. If they learn to play wrong it kinda stays for long. Not pointing out mistakes and not owning them (that is why I watch most of my own replays) is what keeps people on the low level. You jumping into conclusions and changing the subject from the game everyone can see on the screen to questioning if I even play the game is really deep, mature and objective mate.
@@KraziEyevin If referring to the commander at the beginning, it's lame because it overly influences the game. The counter to this loses to most normal strategies. It's an early game strat that is therefore difficult to scout, and is basically impossible to recover from after it's executed. To put it another way, it's a coin toss. The game is fun when it actually plays out, and the comm/transport strat denies that, and therefore denies fun. When considering the health of any strategy, consider what the game would be like if it became common. Everyone would have to defend against a comm in their base at the beginning of the game, which would significantly delay pushing out onto the map. And even then, a comm can destroy early defenses easily, and explodes like a nuke when it dies. So if your opponent does this, you basically lose, unless you also do it. It's the type of strat that basically subsumes all others, and therefore becomes the game. So the question is, is transporting your comm into your opponent's base more fun than all other strategies? If so, then it's fine. If not, it makes the entire game less fun.
@@crutherfordmusicwell said. I also think it cheapens the game, relatively easy to execute, difficult to defend, hard to scout. It is the 150 mineral pool zergling rush of sc1.
