Gehenna's Missile Range

[Azehn]

In my opinion the Gehenna's firing range is to short at the moment. It seems to me, that firing range of the Katyusha has been increased like +50%. That should also be done with the Gehenna!

[ProudTurtler]

Actually, there is something else regarding the Gehenna;

Its attack animation is still very slow (the launch platform takes a lot of time to be raised into its final stage). The missile itself often misses a moving target because of that, and I'd suggest to fix this issue mainly because of how slow the actual firing rate is.

[Azehn]

...Actually the Gehenna is about worthless agaisnt moving targets. ...That should also be buffed.

[VV3iRD0]

Why? Isn't the Gehenna's role is artillery?
I bet that the slow firing rate was done on purpose - to make it only useful against moving targets.
Though, I agree, I would like it better if the Gehenna needed to be deployed and then have nice+ firing rate because I really hate that 1 missile per year  .

[Azehn]

The problem is not only the firing rate, but also the range. The Gehennas have to drive too close toward the enemy's base, to hit the buildings. The Katyusha has a bigger firing range.

[VV3iRD0]

The problem is not only the firing rate, but also the range. The Gehennas have to drive too close toward the enemy's base, to hit the buildings. The Katyusha has a bigger firing range.

For smurf's sake, I hope that this isn't true.
The Gehenna's range should be far greater.

[ProudTurtler]

Gehenna's range isn't supposed to be that great anyway, because it is designated to be used in conjuncton with an AWACS. 'Air Trophy' upgrade, however good it may be is still not a viable option in a game. Both IDF airships are still too subtle, even after the upgrade.

IDF doesn't have such a frightening airforce, mainly because it doesn't have any air unit which can soak up damage. The fact remains that Arks are bad at low numbers even with proper micromanagement.

Back on topic, I think that the developing team should put more emphasis on the AWACS+Gehenna (or Skycrane+Gehenna) configuration rather than making it a traditonal artillery.

[Valdez]

...Actually the Gehenna is about worthless agaisnt moving targets. ...That should also be buffed.

I'm pretty sure that's justified considering that in the event that it does hit, the target unit(s) are instantly killed.

Besides it has always been more of a anti-structure kind of artillery. I find Arks with rocket drones are better against vehicles at long range.

[Azehn]

The problem is, that when you want to use Gehennas against enemy buildings, you also need AWACS to get a longer range. The second point ist, that you need a big number of Gehennas to be usefull - or instead you need to activate DM.
...These are a lot of factors which pretty much decrease the usability and value of the Gehenna. It is much easier to build some Arks, Tanks or Gideons than to use Gehennas.

[Valdez]

I dunno... for me usually the main reason I go for arks instead is they don't need a huge-ass nuke reactor as a prerequisite.

I use Gehennas rarely but when I do use them I don't find myself really needing a huge amount. The only real hassle is the micro involved to not overkill  a target by launching all missiles at it.

[ProudTurtler]

Personally, I find the Gideon much more combat effective than the frail yet expensive Ark, especially when it comes to money/efficiency. Also, take into consideration that the Gideon is quite low in the tech-tree as opposed to the Ark.

However, both Gehenna and Ark seem like a swell counter for turting, mainly because of their high range and damage output.

[Valdez]

The Gideon is good but it can't outrange AA. I use arks if the enemy is packing stuff like Tunguskas and I still want to be able to hit them from the air.

[ProudTurtler]

That's what the smoke is for.